Slashdot Mirror

Now these days you often get studies claiming that proprietary software is less buggy than free software, but it misses some very significant points, the ones we used to respond to MozillaQuest articles still apply very much to today:

• Free software projects very often have an open bug database so it's easy to see how many open bugs are in a project, most proprietary software doesn't have an open bug database so you have to trust the manufacturer and your own testing
• Not all bugs in open databases are really bugs. Some are requests for enhancement, some are duplicates and some are rants
• In some cases one persons bug may be another persons feature (e.g. if an application does something differently to the platform guidelines, some people may like this alternative behaviour, others will consider it a bug).
• The profit motive - companies have a lot to lose by letting people know about bugs, volunteer led projects tend to want people to know about bugs in the hope someone will help fix them (this is getting a bit blurred now that more and more organisations are making money off free software but the fact still is with proprietary software you can't fix the bugs so they gain nothing by telling you about them)

Yeah, but don't forget to read Google-Watch-Watch - that Daniel Brandt is, to put it politely, completely bananas. A fruit-loop. One badger short of a sett. A total lampshade.

Is this from the same people who brought us MozillaQuestQuest?

This is FUD.

(At the end it even links to http://www.mozillaquestquest.com/, which, in their own words:
After much soul searching we have decided to shut down MozillaQuestQuest. In our opinion we cannot compete with MozillaQuest's content for humour value.

Keywords: Humour value.

Havn't they established themselves as being a pseudonews source yet?

check out thye parody at mozillaquestquest.com for a little humour in that direction. I guess most people forget with time.

(read some of the past articles if you don't already know, or better yet... don't).

Yeah, this is just as good but far funnier.

IE6 SP1 finally supports XHTML sent as text/xml

Not on my Win2K-SP2 machine it don't! The example site http://www.mozillaquestquest.com/ still shows up as an XML tree view.

Good link to hixie.ch BTW - its convinced me to try and stick with HTML4 as the prefered output format in the short term!!

Slightly OT, but does anyone have a decent strategy for figuring the correct output for a given UA? Specifically, IE doesn't mention "text/html" in its Accept header.... which is a bit of a pain in the arse really. Thus, I need a default output format, and thus that needs to be "text/html" for the minute. (FYI I'm transforming raw XML data using an XSLT doc based on the Accept header).

In all the years I have used mozilla I have encountered few bugs. I am suprised there are so many.

MozillaQuest is quite interesting for humor, but the only thing better is http://www.mozillaquestquest.com (best viewed in a standards compliant browser like Mozilla). Watch as Patrick Casseau gives you all the news you need to know about MozillaQuest.

That slashdot decided to finally post something from mozillazine.org -- we're getting tired of the links from the site that this parodies!

Every time there's a story linked to MozillaQuest.com, somebody links to MozillaQuestQuest.com. So now I am. Why does Slashdot continue linking to this retard?

Mozillaquest has been the source of more disinformation and negative Mozilla and open source spin than I've read anywhere.

For some reason, Mozillazine (the real advocacy site) never gets any /. attention, but Mozillaquest's uninformed and negative stories are always referenced here.

Notice that the article itself is merely reporting rumors.

If you want real mozilla news, check out Mozillazine.

MozillaquestQuest is pretty funny though.

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

A hilarious parody of MozillaQuest can be found at http://mozillaquestquest.com/ although really, does it need a parody?

MozillaQuest is usually so creative in his reporting that he might as well not bother. His claims bear no resemblance to any reality I participate in, and there is little point in rebutting him. If we all ignore him then perhaps he will go away? We can hope so.

Bottom line:

The www.MozillaQuest.com guy is an idiot. He's poked his head up before, and if you take more than a casual look at his site it's pretty clear that he has no idea what he's talking about. Factual errors, spelling errors, bad design, bad writing style, it's all there.

The MozillaQuestQuest website linked by the previous poster is hysterical after you have explored the MozillaQuestQuest site for a bit.

The 0.9.3 Mozilla build is great. I've started to switch back from Konqueror. I'll miss the favicon's in the title bar and bookmarks, and the ability to enable cookies and JavaScript on a per-site basis. But Mozilla's JavaScript engine is better, its rendering engine is better, and its fonts seem better behaved.

So the whole debate about "1.0" does not interest me. I still want to see progress for Mozilla, but what number they slap on the release is largely irrelevant.

See www.MozillaQuestQuest.com for a parody. I assume he works for Microsoft, the poor guy.

The Mozilla crowd has learned to ignore him; Slashdot should too.

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!

Bottom line: Take anything the Mozilla Quest site says with a HUGE grain of salt.

Props to Mozillazine for the link. If you want real Mozilla news, check out the latter link. Much more informative, and the discussions are at least somewhat insightful.