Slashdot Mirror

On May 28, Univention GmbH obtained a preliminary injunction from the Bremen, Germany, Regional Court. The order prohibits SCO-Caldera from circulating.

Further, the Bremen Court Order provides for a fine of up to 250,000 Euros (around $250,000 U.S.) or jail time for every violation of the Court Order.

First read this: OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint. Whether or not you like esr, Eric has the facts straight. SCaldera has made many outright lies in their 'complaint' against IBM.

MozillaQuest has been covering this from the very beginning. The timeline you request can be easily determined from their articles.

Heres a link to an article written in May 2000, by the old SCO company and in it they say ...

SCO is expected to announce 32- and 64-bit versions of Linux for Intel-based servers, which will be available in the fourth quarter of this year. In early 2001, SCO plans to deliver a 32-bit Internet Infrastructure Edition that will come bundled with a Web server and other IP applications. The company is also working on a 64-bit edition for service providers, including ISPs and application service providers, which will feature special billing and management tools.

The company is also expected to explore the following areas:

* Building the Linux clustering capacity to be in line with SCO's NonStop Clusters technology, which scales to 12 or more boxes with advanced reliability for data and applications. Current Linux clustering technology is generally limited to two or four nodes.

* Beefing up Linux's symmetric multiprocessing capabilities. Currently the number of CPUs per Linux server is usually limited to eight; UnixWare can run on servers with up to 32 CPUs.

* Managing multiple Linux servers as well as applications from a single console as if they were a single system.

* Improving security and the ability of Linux to handle applications such as e-mail, including instant messaging.

* Adding online support services and documentation.

Crucial to the company's success will be ensuring that it rapidly offers adequate device drivers and APIs to let independent software vendors port existing SCO Unix applications to SCO's Linux, says David Boyes of Dimension Enterprise, a data center design and testing firm in Herndon, Va. His company runs a variety of Linux applications, mostly using TurboLinux.

Hmmm... What are Calderas claims again? Check that name :).

Ok, if SCO were hacking Linux at this point why didn't they raise the flag then? They were working on Linux, they had both sets of sources, Calderas claim is that the code is from the Early 80's and relates to NUMA? I doubt it, Ok, x86 SMP, err I doubt that too, What does that leave on a (x86) processor from the early 80's? This time period was right in the middle of 2.4 development.

And lastly back to an old quote ...

MozillaQuest Magazine: When Darl said "substantial System V code showing up in Linux", did he mean the Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux operating system, a Linux distribution(s), or Linux applications? If it is in the kernel, which kernel version(s)?

Chris Sontag: We're not talking about the Linux kernel that Linus and others have helped develop. We're talking about what's on the periphery of the Linux kernel. (Emphasis added.)

Talk about Bullshit.

IBM Patches for NUMA - http://www-124.ibm.com/linux/patches/?project_id=5 6

Read-Copy Update - http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rcupdate.html "Read-Copy Update was originally designed for DYNIX/ptx, a UNIX operating system from Sequent Computer Systems Inc., now a part of IBM."

IBM's original RCU Patch - http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rcu/patches/rcl ock-2.4.1-01.patch

Other kernel patches from IBM - http://www-124.ibm.com/linux/patches/?project_id=5 2

If there is any SCO code that IBM submitted to the Linux kernel, then it should be in those patches. That's if the statements by the analyst is true that SCO is claiming their code is specifically in the NUMA and RCU sections of the kernel.

There is an interesting quote in this interview from MozillaQuest Magazine back in March. http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-07_Story 02.html

Oh, and something SCO/Caldera seems to have missed totally is who the contributing IBM people actually are; most (all?) of them are the people from the NUMA-Q section, which is a very recent purchase on IBM's part. No SCO code involved there, afaict.

I just found this link on OSNews.com here.

"In today's discussion SCO's Chris Sontag, for the first time as far as we know, publicly identifies and clarifies to some extent whether the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux operating system, Linux distributions, and/or Linux applications are involved in the alleged IBM misconduct -- and to some extent which Linux distribution providers are involved and how they are involved." From the article.

Now today they are saying the kernel has copyrighted code.

Anyone else want a clear explanation on what changed?

That's 2 month old FUD here is something more current.
Senior Vice President Chris Sontag told MozillaQuest Magazine
"We're not talking about the Linux kernel that Linus and others have helped develop. We're talking about what's on the periphery of the Linux kernel"

Speaking sides both mouth out of.

"In an e-mail discussion that took place 24 and 25 April, SCO-Caldera Senior Vice President Chris Sontag told MozillaQuest Magazine that there is SCO-owned code in Red Hat and SuSE Linux distributions. He also told MozillaQuest Magazine that the tainted code is not in the Linux kernel that Linus [Torvalds] and others have helped develop. We're talking about what's on the periphery of the Linux kernel.

SCO-Caldera v IBM: Linus Torvalds Comments on SCO-Caldera's Linux-Related Allegations

Nearly One-Half of SCO-Caldera Income from IP Licensing and Enforcement

By Mike Angelo -- 10 March 2003 (C)

For more than a month now, SCO-Caldera has been doing some intellectual property (IP) saber-rattling and market posturing regarding its UNIX source code ownership and Linux. On 6 March 2003, SCO-Caldera stopped its saber-rattling and pulled the sword out of its sheath when it filed a legal action against IBM regarding claims involving the UNIX and Linux operating systems.

Of the 136-paragraph Complaint filed by Caldera Systems, Inc., d/b/a The SCO Group, six are particularly significant regarding the Linux kernel, and the GNU/Linux operating system, and Linux distributions.

Paragraphs 74 and 82 through 86 of SCO-Caldera's Complaint belittle and insult Linux developers, the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux, Linux distribution providers -- in essence the entire GNU/Linux and free software community.

In an e-mail discussion, we asked Linus Torvalds to comment on the Linux-related allegations SCO-Caldera makes in its Complaint against IBM. Here is Linus Torvalds' uncensored commentary.

Linus Torvalds: Ho humm..

I'm not all that excited about commenting a lot on lawsuits, since quite frankly I want to have as little as humanly possible to do with such things. At the same time I obviously do find the SCO one a bit interesting, since it's the first lawsuit ever I know of that actually involves Linux, even if Linux itself seems pretty peripheral.

Just as well, that "peripheral" thing ;)

MozillaQuest Magazine: SCO-Caldera says in paragraph "82" that "it would be difficult or impossible for the Linux development community to create a grade of Linux adequate for enterprise use." (Without the aid of the alleged actionable conduct of IBM) Is that true?

Linus Torvalds: I don't think IBM would have started using Linux if it was true. I think IBM got serious about Linux because it noticed that it _was_ "adequate for enterprise use" from a technical perspective, but lacked a lot of things IBM could bring to the table (marketing, of course, but even more than just marketing, just the presence of IBM made Linux be taken much more seriously).

So I think IBM's involvement has been very important, but while IBM has fine engineers, the most important part by _far_ has been the "mindshare" part of it.

But what does "adequate for enterprise use" really mean? The marketing and mindshare certainly _matter_ a lot for pretty much all enterprise customers. So in _that_ sense maybe SCO is right, even though I don't think that is really what SCO _meant_.

MozillaQuest Magazine: It sounds as though this lawsuit is not a suit alleging copyright infringement, patent infringement, or trademark infringement (the standard three prongs of the intellectual property complex). Rather, it appears the Caldera v IBM action is more in the nature of a contract or tort action.

Linus Torvalds: Yeah, I don't personally think they have any IP rights on Linux, and I agree, it looks more like a suit over the contract rather than over Linux itself.

I don't think they are going to win it (very very weak arguments, since at least from a technical perspective I don't think the IBM involvement has been that significant, and SCO was losing out _long_ before IBM started pushing Linux). However, my personal (maybe overly cynical) suspicion is that even _they_ don't think they'll win the suit, and it may be nothing more than a way to force IBM back into license discussions over UNIX itself.

So I think that 100-day license revocation thing may actually be the most important part of the whole suit, and that the rest might be just the excuse. If I was SCO and looking at IBM, I'd have long since noticed that IBM has been talking about Linux taking over more and more of their current AIX usage, to potentially eventually replace it altogether.

So SCO sees IBM largely going away as a licensee in a few years - and while I certainly don't have any knowledge of how much that means for SCO, I would not be surprised if IBM licenses are quite a noticeable part of SCOs receivables.

And what would you do? You want to get IBM back to the discussion table over licensing _before_ IBM starts to consider the UNIX licenses for AIX to be no longer worth it. I think IBM has announced they'll drop AIX eventually, but I do _not_ think that IBM is willing to drop it within three months. They tend to pride themselves on supporting their existing customers.

MozillaQuest Magazine: What sort of impact do you believe this sort of lawsuit filed by SCO-Caldera has on the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux, UNIX, and the Linux and free-software communities?

Linus Torvalds: None, really. The people I work with couldn't care less.

The thrust of paragraphs 74 and 82 to 84 of SCO-Caldera's Complaint against IBM is that without the aid of the alleged actionable conduct of IBM, GNU/Linux would not be an enterprise/server grade operating system. Although in paragraph 84 of its Complaint, SCO-Caldera does not directly say it, when taken in context of the entire Complaint, SCO-Caldera is alleging that it is the alleged actionable conduct of IBM that provides items (1) through (5) set forth in paragraphs 84 to the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux, and Linux distributions.

84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.

MozillaQuest Magazine: Did the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux developers and groups lack the technological capability of producing an enterprise level Linux without being bailed-out by IBM as SCO-Caldera claims?

Linus Torvalds: "Bailed-out by IBM"? Hardly. Oh, IBM has certainly been very helpful, and I like the IBM engineers I work with, but Linux was running on 16-cpu Sun sparc computers long before IBM really got into it.

In paragraph 85 of its Complaint against IBM, SCO-Caldera alleges that the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux are limited to handling a maximum of four CPUs.

85. For example, Linux is currently capable of coordinating the simultaneous performance of 4 computer processors. UNIX, on the other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can successfully link up to 32 processors for simultaneous operation. This difference in memory management performance is very significant to enterprise customers who need extremely high computing capabilities for complex tasks. The ability to accomplish this task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive equipment for design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a wealth of experience in UNIX methods and concepts.

MozillaQuest Magazine: Is this true? I thought the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux can handle 32 CPUs?

Linus Torvalds: We still claim 4-8 CPU scalability. Yeah, it sure works on bigger machines, but they are just so uncommon as to not be a big issue yet, and most of peoples' resources are certainly spent on the mass market (well, UP is the _real_ mass market, but most of the kernel people tend to be fascinated by SMP issues, so we tend to target slightly higher ;)

Normally, we end our articles with a summary and/or conclusion. We do not do so with this article. That's because we want you to have the benefits of Linus Torvalds' comments about the SCO-Caldera v IBM lawsuit without any spin from us. You are getting this just the way Linus said it and in context. Moreover, Linus Torvalds' comments are concise, well-expressed, and to the point. The only material in this article is Linus' comments with just enough background added by us to put the comments in perspective and context with the allegations of SCO-Caldera's Complaint. Thus, Linus Torvalds' comments need no interpretation or spin from us.

SCO-Caldera v IBM: Linus Torvalds Comments on SCO-Caldera's Linux-Related Allegations

Nearly One-Half of SCO-Caldera Income from IP Licensing and Enforcement

By Mike Angelo -- 10 March 2003 (C)

For more than a month now, SCO-Caldera has been doing some intellectual property (IP) saber-rattling and market posturing regarding its UNIX source code ownership and Linux. On 6 March 2003, SCO-Caldera stopped its saber-rattling and pulled the sword out of its sheath when it filed a legal action against IBM regarding claims involving the UNIX and Linux operating systems.

Of the 136-paragraph Complaint filed by Caldera Systems, Inc., d/b/a The SCO Group, six are particularly significant regarding the Linux kernel, and the GNU/Linux operating system, and Linux distributions.

Paragraphs 74 and 82 through 86 of SCO-Caldera's Complaint belittle and insult Linux developers, the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux, Linux distribution providers -- in essence the entire GNU/Linux and free software community.

In an e-mail discussion, we asked Linus Torvalds to comment on the Linux-related allegations SCO-Caldera makes in its Complaint against IBM. Here is Linus Torvalds' uncensored commentary.

Linus Torvalds: Ho humm..

I'm not all that excited about commenting a lot on lawsuits, since quite frankly I want to have as little as humanly possible to do with such things. At the same time I obviously do find the SCO one a bit interesting, since it's the first lawsuit ever I know of that actually involves Linux, even if Linux itself seems pretty peripheral.

Just as well, that "peripheral" thing ;)

MozillaQuest Magazine: SCO-Caldera says in paragraph "82" that "it would be difficult or impossible for the Linux development community to create a grade of Linux adequate for enterprise use." (Without the aid of the alleged actionable conduct of IBM) Is that true?

Linus Torvalds: I don't think IBM would have started using Linux if it was true. I think IBM got serious about Linux because it noticed that it _was_ "adequate for enterprise use" from a technical perspective, but lacked a lot of things IBM could bring to the table (marketing, of course, but even more than just marketing, just the presence of IBM made Linux be taken much more seriously).

So I think IBM's involvement has been very important, but while IBM has fine engineers, the most important part by _far_ has been the "mindshare" part of it.

But what does "adequate for enterprise use" really mean? The marketing and mindshare certainly _matter_ a lot for pretty much all enterprise customers. So in _that_ sense maybe SCO is right, even though I don't think that is really what SCO _meant_.

MozillaQuest Magazine: It sounds as though this lawsuit is not a suit alleging copyright infringement, patent infringement, or trademark infringement (the standard three prongs of the intellectual property complex). Rather, it appears the Caldera v IBM action is more in the nature of a contract or tort action.

Linus Torvalds: Yeah, I don't personally think they have any IP rights on Linux, and I agree, it looks more like a suit over the contract rather than over Linux itself.

I don't think they are going to win it (very very weak arguments, since at least from a technical perspective I don't think the IBM involvement has been that significant, and SCO was losing out _long_ before IBM started pushing Linux). However, my personal (maybe overly cynical) suspicion is that even _they_ don't think they'll win the suit, and it may be nothing more than a way to force IBM back into license discussions over UNIX itself.

So I think that 100-day license revocation thing may actually be the most important part of the whole suit, and that the rest might be just the excuse. If I was SCO and looking at IBM, I'd have long since noticed that IBM has been talking about Linux taking over more and more of their current AIX usage, to potentially eventually replace it altogether.

So SCO sees IBM largely going away as a licensee in a few years - and while I certainly don't have any knowledge of how much that means for SCO, I would not be surprised if IBM licenses are quite a noticeable part of SCOs receivables.

And what would you do? You want to get IBM back to the discussion table over licensing _before_ IBM starts to consider the UNIX licenses for AIX to be no longer worth it. I think IBM has announced they'll drop AIX eventually, but I do _not_ think that IBM is willing to drop it within three months. They tend to pride themselves on supporting their existing customers.

MozillaQuest Magazine: What sort of impact do you believe this sort of lawsuit filed by SCO-Caldera has on the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux, UNIX, and the Linux and free-software communities?

Linus Torvalds: None, really. The people I work with couldn't care less.

The thrust of paragraphs 74 and 82 to 84 of SCO-Caldera's Complaint against IBM is that without the aid of the alleged actionable conduct of IBM, GNU/Linux would not be an enterprise/server grade operating system. Although in paragraph 84 of its Complaint, SCO-Caldera does not directly say it, when taken in context of the entire Complaint, SCO-Caldera is alleging that it is the alleged actionable conduct of IBM that provides items (1) through (5) set forth in paragraphs 84 to the Linux kernel, GNU/Linux, and Linux distributions.

84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.

MozillaQuest Magazine: Did the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux developers and groups lack the technological capability of producing an enterprise level Linux without being bailed-out by IBM as SCO-Caldera claims?

Linus Torvalds: "Bailed-out by IBM"? Hardly. Oh, IBM has certainly been very helpful, and I like the IBM engineers I work with, but Linux was running on 16-cpu Sun sparc computers long before IBM really got into it.

In paragraph 85 of its Complaint against IBM, SCO-Caldera alleges that the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux are limited to handling a maximum of four CPUs.

85. For example, Linux is currently capable of coordinating the simultaneous performance of 4 computer processors. UNIX, on the other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can successfully link up to 32 processors for simultaneous operation. This difference in memory management performance is very significant to enterprise customers who need extremely high computing capabilities for complex tasks. The ability to accomplish this task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive equipment for design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a wealth of experience in UNIX methods and concepts.

MozillaQuest Magazine: Is this true? I thought the Linux kernel and GNU/Linux can handle 32 CPUs?

Linus Torvalds: We still claim 4-8 CPU scalability. Yeah, it sure works on bigger machines, but they are just so uncommon as to not be a big issue yet, and most of peoples' resources are certainly spent on the mass market (well, UP is the _real_ mass market, but most of the kernel people tend to be fascinated by SMP issues, so we tend to target slightly higher ;)

Normally, we end our articles with a summary and/or conclusion. We do not do so with this article. That's because we want you to have the benefits of Linus Torvalds' comments about the SCO-Caldera v IBM lawsuit without any spin from us. You are getting this just the way Linus said it and in context. Moreover, Linus Torvalds' comments are concise, well-expressed, and to the point. The only material in this article is Linus' comments with just enough background added by us to put the comments in perspective and context with the allegations of SCO-Caldera's Complaint. Thus, Linus Torvalds' comments need no interpretation or spin from us.

If you are permitted please write how this was initiated. I think the community is trying to access the impact of this lawsuit and even anecdotal evidence is of interest. Here is Linus' take.

see this mozillaquest article

"During a LinuxWorld Expo discussion, SCO-Caldera's Blake Stowell told MozillaQuest Magazine that he was not aware of any current Linux distributions that contain the SCO-Caldera IP libraries."

also:


Are Linux or C++ on SCO-Caldera's IP Hit List?
SCO-Caldera & the GNU/Linux Community: Part 2, Under the Iceberg's Tip

see this mozillaquest article

"During a LinuxWorld Expo discussion, SCO-Caldera's Blake Stowell told MozillaQuest Magazine that he was not aware of any current Linux distributions that contain the SCO-Caldera IP libraries."

also:


Are Linux or C++ on SCO-Caldera's IP Hit List?
SCO-Caldera & the GNU/Linux Community: Part 2, Under the Iceberg's Tip

It is a toss up between him and MozillaQuest for who can spout the biggest load of bullshit about the browser. Personally I wonder what the hell Mozilla or Netscape did to these guys in the first place that they've carried such a chip on their shoulder about the project ever since.

From their "about" page:

> This Web site is best viewed using Netscape Communicator version 4

I, for one, find it amazing that someone thinks /anything/ looks best when viewed in NS4. Let alone a news site that implies its own expertise on the subject of web browsers.

Quote:

The points here are simple ones. The Mozilla developers are not getting bugs fixed on schedule. Bug counts are incresing. New code, such as new features and improvements, is being written to an imcreasingly buggy code base -- thus compounding the bug problems. Mozilla is a poorly managed project!

You know, this is tragic. It's one thing to spam Slashdot with the "BSD is dying" troll which is practically an in joke. But to actually go to the effort of creating an entire website, updated regularly, with this kind of rant?

Some people need to get out more.

New release? New roadmap? How soon before the clown at MozillaQuest releases an article like "Mozilla 1.2 is the buggiest release of the Browser-Suite ever, and the release of 1.0 is delayed even further?" Please don't mention Bugzilla or the article will get something about sweeping the bugs under the carpet or something =)

No. So, when IE loads, it uses 1.5MB instead of 12, including everything its pointing to.

I don't run Windows, so I don't have a first-hand way to measure it myself, but I'm positive your analysis is incorrect. This article, certainly not by a fan of Mozilla, has a screenshot of IE using 9.98MB.

And the entire thrust of the memory usage discussion is that Internet Explorer uses "system libraries"; libraries aside from the ones it opens itself and that are not counted against it. Windows Explorer displays little HTML-based summaries in the left of folder windows; Windows Help is HTML-based now. Are you seriously trying to say that Windows loads no HTML-rendering components itself?

- IE is still faster on Windows. Rendering time is about the same, but startup time and memory usage for Nutzilla is still much higher.

Nice strawman. You admit that rendering time is the same, then start complaining about the irrelevancy of startup time. This is just like Mac/PPC fanatics blithering about Photoshop start time, something that happens only once and is highly dependent on HDD speed, bus speed, system load, etc, but with the additional error that a good chunk of Internet Explorer is already loaded.

Enable Quick Start and put Mozilla in your startup. Watch your system startup time go up and your Mozilla startup time go down. Don't complain that this is "cheating"; this is what IE does.

- You are valid being contrarian about IE, there are real reasons why it sucks, non compliance, pop-ups, bad JVM, poor integrate-ability with the real JVM, bad scripting engine, prone to viruses.

I really don't understand your post. It seems you're defending IE, but in this paragraph you systematically demolish any reason I can think of for using it.

- I have found Mozilla on several occasions unable to download things because of errors in the salt.

- It should be clear to anyone that Mozilla the browser isn't Gecko. I do not think Gecko sucks. Mozilla does.

Its clear that the people at Opera know how to put things together far better than the Mozilla folk.

They are owned by AOSHIT, if that isn't a mark of inferiority, I don't know what is.

Point. But somehow Mozilla overcomes.

You're assuming that the number of bugs filed per day is nearly constant, which is not the case. As the browser gains popularity, more and more people are filing bugs. (Which are more and more duplicate or invalid bugs, mind you....)

As much as I hate to link to MQ, here is a chart from just over a year ago showing the number of bugs filed. Assuming Mangelo has enough brain cells to do a proper graph, I think you can see the trend....

This article may shed some light on the matter.

Basically, the article implies that United Linux is a marketing scam for one of the distribution midgets. Its an opinion, but it makes sense.

For a few laughs, check out MozillaQuest. Mike Angelo has an article on the 1.0 release. Now he has to branch out into articles on other things (such as Linux distros).

In this article, he complains in this article that the mozilla roadmap doesn't call for a 1.0 release.

For real news about Mozilla, of course, try another site, such as MozillaZine/

For a few laughs, check out MozillaQuest. Mike Angelo has an article on the 1.0 release. Now he has to branch out into articles on other things (such as Linux distros).

In this article, he complains in this article that the mozilla roadmap doesn't call for a 1.0 release.

For real news about Mozilla, of course, try another site, such as MozillaZine/

In one story on your web site, you gleefully report on how you mentioned Linux in front of a "Microslobs" crowd. I'm assuming that you mean "Microsoft," but have butchered the name to sound more l33t.

At the same time, your "Community-related stuff" icon is a rip-off of the award-winning Windows Messenger icon. This sort of mock-the-hands-that-feed-you attitude is prevalent in the Linux world, where people write FUD-filled diatribes while shamelessly ripping off copyrighted look-and-feel mechanisms for their own personal benefit.

Do you feel that open source projects can survive in ways other than mimicking already-proven closed source projects?

Well, intrigued by that, I went to look at the site. I was amused to see that the very first sentence of the first article on the front page states that:

The Mozilla Organization has not yet released the Milestone 0.9.9 edition of its Mozilla browser suite.

Excellent reportage.

More info available from

Mozillaquest

Newsforge

LinuxOrbit

Actually, MozillaQuest [mozillaquest.com] has a pretty good story about Netscape 6.2. They have the good points about it and the bad points. Millennium seems to have a problem with stories and magazines that tell both sides of the story. The facts on MozillaQuest are right AFAIK.

If you actually take the time to read the MozillaQuest story you will see that it is balanced. They talk about how AOL rejected Netscape for IE. But they say how SuSE included Netscape 6.1 in SuSE 7.3. They have the good point and the bad points about QuickLaunch. They say that Netscape/Mozilla has improved lots but they also say there are more bugs in it now. I do not see anything that is "factually-impaired" as Millennium suggests.

Is Millennium denying that QuickLaunch takes up memory? Is Millennium denying that there are more bugs in Mozilla/Netscape now then there were 3 months ago when Netscape 6.1 came out? Is Millennium denying that AOL uses IE instead of its own Netscape?

Actually, MozillaQuest [mozillaquest.com] has a pretty good story about Netscape 6.2. They have the good points about it and the bad points. Millennium seems to have a problem with stories and magazines that tell both sides of the story. The facts on MozillaQuest are right AFAIK.

If you actually take the time to read the MozillaQuest story you will see that it is balanced. They talk about how AOL rejected Netscape for IE. But they say how SuSE included Netscape 6.1 in SuSE 7.3. They have the good point and the bad points about QuickLaunch. They say that Netscape/Mozilla has improved lots but they also say there are more bugs in it now. I do not see anything that is "factually-impaired" as Millennium suggests.

Is Millennium denying that QuickLaunch takes up memory? Is Millennium denying that there are more bugs in Mozilla/Netscape now then there were 3 months ago when Netscape 6.1 came out? Is Millennium denying that AOL uses IE instead of its own Netscape?

...and if you want your daily dose of factually-impaired pseudo-journalism, MozillaQuest has the usual commentary.

Mozillazine is somewhat better but is something of a house organ and doesn't tend to report the negatives.

A more neutral site is Mozillanews which seems to have reasonably accurate information but not as much of it.

There is also of course the "official" Mozilla site which does have some information as well.

There are no where near 100,000 open or active bugs in Mozilla. Mozillaquest.com has been indicating slightly more than 3,000 active bugs for the milestones leading up to Mozilla 1.0 and 1.0 itself in its daily bug counts on the front page.

The total of open bugs not including enhancement requests is only around 14,000 bugs. I do not think benb meant to imply there are 100,000 active bugs but it is important to set this straight. That 14,000 bugs count is in one of the Mozillaquest articles.

Bugzilla has some very nice reporting and statistical capabilities, which make it easy for project and company managers to easily check on the quality and progress of a project. Mozillaquest.com used the reports feature in Bugzilla to graphically show how the number of new, assigned, and reopened bugs has increased dramatically in several stories which mention Mozillas bug status. Look at the Turbo Mode & Bugs Slow Mozilla Development to Snails Pace story to see that chart.

These bug data and charts come right out of Bugzilla. I get the same results when I query Bugzilla and check them.

There are no where near 100,000 open or active bugs in Mozilla. Mozillaquest.com has been indicating slightly more than 3,000 active bugs for the milestones leading up to Mozilla 1.0 and 1.0 itself in its daily bug counts on the front page.

The total of open bugs not including enhancement requests is only around 14,000 bugs. I do not think benb meant to imply there are 100,000 active bugs but it is important to set this straight. That 14,000 bugs count is in one of the Mozillaquest articles.

Bugzilla has some very nice reporting and statistical capabilities, which make it easy for project and company managers to easily check on the quality and progress of a project. Mozillaquest.com used the reports feature in Bugzilla to graphically show how the number of new, assigned, and reopened bugs has increased dramatically in several stories which mention Mozillas bug status. Look at the Turbo Mode & Bugs Slow Mozilla Development to Snails Pace story to see that chart.

These bug data and charts come right out of Bugzilla. I get the same results when I query Bugzilla and check them.

Mozilla in 0.9.4 turns turbo mode on automatically unless I disable it. I do not see a thread about the turbo mode.The mozillaquest.com article about 0.9.4 mentions some pros and cons of using turbo mode. The article lists grabbing resources as a con. I have to agree that turbo mode does grab resources.

Wouldn't it be better to try to make the code more efficient so that mozilla just loads faster without having to load it when you boot up? I would rather wait for mozilla to load instead of having mozilla loaded when I boot up. But it would be nicer to have mozilla load faster without loading it when I boot up.

There is too much that Windows loads when it boots up without adding even more. At least there is not a turbo for Linux.

Mozillazine has information about it here. MozillaQuest is and has been unreliable. See MozillaQuestQuest for more information.

I thought MozillaQuestQuest was funny when it first came out. Then I read this "article" at MozillaQuest and it became clear that the parody just can't be as funny as the real thing. The title is just so ludicrous to anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the Mozilla project it simply defies taking the piss out of it. And the right sidebar! I haven't laughed so hard in ages. Someone sign this guy up to write for Slashdot!

More Crash Landings:[...]

• threaded pr0n

Crash Landings:[...]

• libpr0n

Seriously, what does that mean!?

1) Whats the rush for AOL to release the new browser now that AOL is going with IE? None.

2) The release schedule in actuality has not changed. Go to mozillaquest and compare the two graphics for yourself - they only moved the 'X' further along and pushed the 1.0 grey branch down - the point releases have not been moved, hence, the production schedule remains the same.

3) I use mozilla day-in-and-day-out - i'm using it right now. It beats the sh*t out of IE. Why? Because if we have no other choice, and we all had to use IE, as soon as M$ sees no more competition, they will stop producing the crappy thing for other platforms. Oh, sorry Steve Jobs, we decided that Mac's are too difficult to support, bye. Then what would us Linux, BeOS, Sun, Amiga, HP, and others do? Stop using the web. Riiiiiiiiight. Time to swtich to Windows! What else has M$ showed over the years other than the ability to twist peoples arms and make them use Windows?

4) For the love of God, people - quit frickin' cutting our own throats. Mozilla is our ONLY major OpenSource platform for web applications. (Which, hopefully, some of you more intelligent slashdotters realise is the future of the web.) If you dont like it, download it and try it again - like now, today. If you still dont like it - SHUT UP! We could kick each other in the teeth day after day about how Redhat is more secure than LinuxPPC, or how Mandrake is better for newbies, ow what have you, but what does that accomplish? NOTHING. The best thing you could ever hopw of your competition is that they attack each other - united we stand folks, divided we fall.

Mozilla - you're soaking in it.

Oh. This really is choice. Netscape is losing the Linux desktop (there is a good article about that and why the Linux distributors are rejecting Netscape on mozillaquest.com). Now AOL is rejecting Netscape and crawling in bed with Microsoft. Greed and stupidity rule at AOL.

Oh. This really is choice. Netscape is losing the Linux desktop (there is a good article about that and why the Linux distributors are rejecting Netscape on mozillaquest.com). Now AOL is rejecting Netscape and crawling in bed with Microsoft. Greed and stupidity rule at AOL.

MyopicProwls