At 19:36 11/01/2001 -0500, Braden McDaniel wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John Bandhauer"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The short answer is that I don't think it is valid to assume that you
> > can do such leveraging. Mozilla has a limited set of interfaces that are
> > (or will be) frozen. It is not intended to support being loaded and run
> > by other processes. Netscape is not shipping a system library here - it
> > is shipping a browser. Mozilla is not (at this point) claiming that the
> > binaries shipped by vendors can be used as system libraries.
>
>What mozilla.org might "claim" in this regard is moot. Netscape might not
>be shipping system libraries, but Mozilla is or will be shipping as a
>fixture on several Linux (and BSD?) distributions. It's a system
>library whether Netscape likes it or not.
>
>This is quite an opportunity. It's a select few projects that see that
>level of ubiquity. And yet mozilla.org seems indifferent, if not
>altogether dismissive of this situation.
>
>I don't get it... I thought Netscape *wanted* help developing this
>stuff? Isn't it obvious? Help make the libraries *accessible* as system
>libraries, and you get more users of the code, and thus more developers.
I think its more just a case of reality checks. There seems to be a huge
reluctance in freezing interfaces and APIs and that may be understandable
given the way the goalposts change on those that might otherwise freeze
them.
Simon
><sigh>
>
>Braden, confused and frustrated
===============================================
The more exotic the Project name the more ordinary the Product
S.P.L.
