Peter Fjelsten wrote:
> There is a lot controversy about this at the Opera newsgroups
> <news://news.opera.com/>.
Guessed so :).
> The bottom line is that there are no privacy issues (O has coded the
> whole stuff themselves - <http://www.opera.com/privacy/adinfo.html>).
But you have to trust them that they stand to their word and don't find
exploitable holes in their own promises. (I didn't read about it yet.)
There is an inherent conflict of interest. How that conflict is resolved
depends on the honesty of the people running the company.
> Maybe it was a way for you to generate revenue?
I don't want to open that can of worms. Maybe as last option.
I'll first ask for donations from users. If that works depends on you
all :).
> Does Mozilla.org prohibit ads?
Not at all, as you can see with Netscape 6 :).
> As an Opera user, many sites won't let you in due to the User Agent
> string.
IMO, they are not worth visiting. Luckily, Beonex has no such problems
(compatible, eh same :), layout engine).
(Unless some really dump webmamster looks for "Netscape", not "Mozilla"
or "Gecko".)
> - More privacy options
Explain.
(Bear in mind: For actual implementation, we need a sponsor.)
> - (though this is not a preferences thing) better keyboard shortcuts.
> I ususally browse with one hand on the mouse, so going back in Beonex
> is either moving the mouse the long way up to the back button or
> using CTRL+arrows. In Opera it's Z for back and X for forward (you
> can keep your hand on the mouse).
Configureable keybindings might come later. For now, search for "Mozilla
Accessablity" or similar on the web.
> Maybe rearrange the site into 2 parts:
> - the product (with features/download/mailing list/...)
www.beonex.com
> - development/project (how it is funded/how it's tied to Mozilla/the
> whole GPL thing/...)
www.beonex.org
:) (OK, the distinction is not that clear yet, but hopefully, it will be
in the future.)
> What I miss is a bit more detailed information on how Beonex is
> different from NS6.
As I already mentioned shortly, I am not allowed to do a "Beonex vs.
Netscape 6 shoot-out".
There is a "special features" page (linked at the main Comm. page),
which is about as far as I can go. (But I am not a laywer.)
> That would be me! :)
>
>> - Rational (no excited marketing fluff)
>
> But, in a way, using marketing-like language (lexicography) will
> probably help people understanding better as this is what they are
> used to.
Maybe I should just refer to <http://www.netscape.com/browsers/6>? ;-P
(BTW: I do.) No seriously, I don't like this superlative language
marketeers usually use. This is a "no crap area" :). OK, obviously, it's
hard for me to stay serious on this topic.
It should really be possible to effectifely transform information to
users without using superlatives etc. exessively, not?
> I have _absolutely_ no time (I'm at university/exams),
That's OK.
> but I'll see if I can think og a good site structure.
Well, wording would be more important for now, I guess. I think, I could
improve the structure myself.
>> don't want to maintain a host of redirections like Netscape and
>> others do.
>
> Understandable - those sites are humongous!
It's not just that. It's also that they are not made future-compatible.
Example: <ftp://ftp.netscape.com/pub/n6pr3/>.
>> Also, we still need to offer enough information for "geeks" (which
>> are part of our userbase).
>
> IMHO, that would be best presented under the development section.
geeks != developers
(oh, != means "not identical")
There are many people which spend a lot of time on computers and know
well what HTML, JS and SSL are, but have never written a single line of
compiled code.
> If you main source of revenue is corporate support (or you hope it to
> be), then that part of things needs played up, or...?
How should I do so? I inserted shamelessly links to commercial support
everywhere already.
>>> All in all, if I could just get Beonex to work with my bank
>>> <www.danskenetbank.dk> that is Java based, NS 4.08 is out the
>>> window. I like it!
>>
>> Just install PSM (see install page).
>
> Nope! Did that.
Oh, then I'd need more info. Open a new thread.
