Tim McNerney wrote:
> The difference being they've had a dozen usable releases in that time
> frame. Mozilla has had 0. Even .9.2 still corrupts my email on a regular
> basis.
A dozen? English lookup, dozen=12. baker's dozen=13. Assume lesser.
Ok, so one might argue ie5.5 was usable #1
one might argue 5.0 was usable #2
one might argue 4.0 was usable #3
it's a stretch to argue 3.0 was usable #4
there were no other usable releases. Count releases: 4.
4<< 12.
> Do you work in the software industry?
He does, he does not forge his email address and he is recognized @ w3.
> I don't mean this to be insulting,
really?
> but I really can't understand some of your comments unless I assume that
> you've never done any coding.
Very few people start from scratch. Ian is in the process of rewriting a few projects
from scratch. (at least one could be considered done coding although it still receives
addon contributions)
> By your arguement, to rewrite Excel from scratch would take 20 years,
Hrm... time to rewrite Excel.. 8 years. time to rewrite Excel's Quirks? 12 years.
seems pretty reasonable to me given StarOffice/OpenOffice, QuatroPro, and KOffice
attempts.
> Windows would take 25 years,
wine's probably ~5 years old, and probably less than 1/5 done, although in some
instances it is usable, so this is also a good estimation.
> X Windows would take about 18 years.
*shrug* i'd prefer to start from scratch and go in some other direction:
photon, rdp (see also citrix metaframe?), vnc, berlin (see also bonn?), plan9.
> The idea about starting a product from scratch is that hopefully,
> you've learned something.
really?
> If you are ever working in the industry and recommend a rewrite from
> scratch for a product that has been around for a while and estimate
> that it will take as long as it took to get to that point originally,
hrm. You obviously aren't aware of the history of mozilla. I don't see why you're
bothering to post here.
> you will be unemployed before you get a chance to unroll your roadmap.
This last bit is funny since he drew the most recent roadmap pictures.
> There is very little chance that
> Mozilla 1.0 will be the best browser in the world.
why? can't we decide to release mozilla1.0 when it is the best browser in the world?
we could wait until browsers are no longer used so mozilla is the only browser... this
thread is about deciding when to release 1.0 (and why and maybe how)
> The best I think you can reasonably hope for
> will be the most standards compliant browser.
that's what Ian wants (well I guess he wants Standards complaint, not just less
incompliant than the competition).
> There is a lot more to a browser than that, though.
> IE is a solid, stable, easy to use product
*shrug*
> that is not terribly standards compliant.
We know.
> Even if it were the best, the best doesn't always win.
yep.
> In fact, it is rarely the main factor in a products success.
I think microsoft is the main factor in a 4.0 product's success. Good thing we're only
trying for 1.0.
> the most important factor in a browsers success at this point is
> whether it will display the pages out there the way the author intended.
hrm, that's kind of what standards are about.. making it easy for authors to get the
results they want.
> And authors could care less about w3org at this point,
*sigh* why do people unfamiliar w/ mozilla.org bother posting to mozilla planning
threads? (or news.mozilla.org/*.mozilla.* newsgroups in general...)
<snip/>
