In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul Bergsagel"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Below is a link by CNET about Netscape 6:
> http://home.cnet.com/internet/0-3779-8-4574578-1.html
>
>
> The reviewers almost seem clueless of the Mozilla development.
Possible, but I wouldn't assume that...
Netscape is getting grilled for shipping a crappy product. The less
mozilla.org is connected with that in users' minds, the better. The
authors of that article may have thought they were doing the Mozilla
effort a favor by not mentioning it, and I think they probably were.
> This is
> sad as they seem to be putting the last nail in the project.
I'm sure that's not the case, but if it were then the project deserves to
die.
> I would
> encourage persons to email CNET and encourage them to have a look at the
> Mozilla browser and possibly provide a review of the Mozilla browser and
> report the progress which has been made since the Netscape release.
Um, mozilla.org *knows* its code isn't ready for end-user consumption,
and thus does not advertise it as such. It would not be helpful for CNet
or other publications to portray that situation otherwise.
--
Braden McDaniel It is hard to know if nothing is /
http://endoframe.com actually nothing
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] And thus difficult to know if a policy /
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] of doing nothing is successful
-- Radiohead
