Gervase Markham wrote:
> Firstly, this automatically assumes that end-user experience is the
> defining criteria for Mozilla 1.0. This is by no means a given.
Randall Parker wrote:
> And that is just the problem with it. Look, techies designing something for
> each other are just self-indulgent. A browser of all things ought to be built
> for the masses.
To this point i introduce Beonex 1.0 which most likely will not happen until 6-12
months after mozilla1.0 is released. The premise behind Beonex's numbering scheme is
that while developers will decide to release 1.0 at time _x_ end users won't get a
good enough application until time _x_+_y_.
If we ever do this testing stuff, we should probably consider using Manticore or
NeoPlanet so that people could very easily change...
Otherwise people are likely to stick w/ whichever is open because it's open.
Gervase Markham wrote:
> Secondly, it assumes that you can find some company willing to let us use
> its employees as guinea pigs.
Companies suck. let's use internet cafe's. When we can convince mpt's employer to let
use do it, then we know we're ready for the alpha series of 1.0 (not to be confused w/
1.0, just ... alpha ...).
> Thirdly, it's extremely arbitrary, as you yourself said.
to which i add: percentages suck :-)
> What if the percentage sticks at 49%? Do we keep working for another six
> months until we persuade one more person to switch?
don't worry, the law of large numbers probably prevents this. If 5 in 10 internet
cafe users is happy using gecko instead of mshtml then we have something (* something
isn't 1.0 because i side w/ hixie on 1.0, but perhaps it's a user blessing of
approval).
> Let us do the first one week run with 0.9.2 and find out what the percentage
> I understand that we need to flag and fix usability issues, and I believe
> that they are getting flagged, at least, using mechanisms like nsCatFood.
> But I don't believe that usability studies should define the Mozilla
> release schedule.
>
> If few want to use it then why release it in the first place?
so more people could use it. lots of people rightly refuse to use alpha and beta
software.
of course lots of people rightly refuse to use crummy commercial release software
(ns6?) but then many people were willing to use crummy commercial release software
because it was better than before (win3.0, 3.1, 95).
the thing is, since mozilla isn't a commercial release and people can grab binaries
whenever, the incentive to release because then people can use is diminished. Go_fish
(new_Critera());
