Slashdot Mirror
MozillaZine Editorial On Netscape Criticism
RAD Kade 1 writes "An editorial on mozillazine.org is criticizing recent criticism against Netscape. Netscape stories will also no longer be posted on mozillazine.org, only Mozilla-related items."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Our site is down, because our host's network has been overrun. Hopefully it will be back up later today. --chris http://www.mozillazine.org/
An intermediate release should have supported the existing standards that NS4 tried to support before tackling anything more difficult
Had they tried to make a standards-compliant release before devoting their effort to Mozilla, we'd still be at least a year away from seeing a stable, fully functional release of Mozilla. Mozilla was originally based on the Netscape 4 code-base, but that was scrapped after about a year when they decided that it was just too unwieldy to work with. Then they started from scratch to build what we know as Mozilla today.
They shouldn't have tried to implement new standards until they had released a browser that didn't butcher the existing ones.
What new standards? They've been getting the support for the oldest standards down first and then moving forward from there. Yes, they've been adding features and stuff as well, but when you've got a lot of developers working for free, and the rest working to produce something that consumers will want to use, you pretty much have to add the features. They could crank out a browser that adheres to standards, but doesn't have many features, and then nobody would want to use it, so it wouldn't really be helping anyone. Better to just let them get the final product out when it's finished. Maybe it will serve as an incentive for Microsoft to finally start adhering to standards as well.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
That is my point - the first release after opening the source should have been to simply let web developers write standards-compliant code without hobbling their code and writing convoluted workarounds for Netscape.
That's what they were planning as I understand it. The problem was that the existing code sucked and was proving to be unworkable, so they scrapped it and started over. Maybe they could have kept at it until they got it to at least the point where IE is (which still isn't very good), but the end product would still be crap due to the fact that the codebase sucked. Look how often Netscape crashes. I am glad they decided to start over and do it right.
Microsoft have released three revisions of Internet Explorer since Mozilla was opened, and each one of them supported HTML, CSS and DOM better than Netscape.
And yet no version of IE really supports the standards completely, and the Windows version doesn't even come within sight of full support.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
eh?
The same people who are saying that Netscape 6 shouldn't be released because it isn't standards compliant are the same people who just recently said that Netscape should've released an interim browser between 4.7x and 6.x that at least implemented some standards.
What's increasingly becoming important, though, is that the people doing this criticism are not programmers. They are web developers. mozillaZine's stance is largely taken because the people doing the majority of the flaming are not people actively involved in bettering the project. They're like Monday morning quarterbacks.
FWIW, I've been using the Mozilla nightly builds for at least 6 months and they've been, for the most part, rock-solid. Yes, every once in a while something crops up stylesheets or the DOM (there's a particularly annoying bug right now where DOM form objects contain element entries from other DOM form objects), but for the most part, the code is solid, and some of the improvements (like incrememtal table display) are beautiful to use.
If you do get it running, visit one or two simple websites and check the memory/CPU utilization in the Task Monitor. Be careful not to misinterpret the numbers.
This is the most bloated software I have ever seen... and it doesn't appear to be leaking. This triples Lotus Notes R5 with the Client and Designer running!!!
The Virtual Memory utilization creeps up to 100MB, and judging by the sluggish performance of my machine, and how long it takes to bring up the process when it has been idle for a few hours, I have no reason to believe that these numbers are not a close reflection of the truth. Right now, with six windows open, and my mail open with over 20 MB of mail, Netscape 4.7 shows less than 14MB in use.
I can't even read newsgroups in mozilla, the video refresh on a P-Pro 200 w. 128MB of RAM is unbearable. It is as sluggish as 256 colours on an unaccelerated ISA video card.
I keep hoping this all gets cleared up before release, but there is no indication of it. While it appears to be a very slick product, and in many areas there are definately speed improvements, I cannot burden my machine with that bloated code.
I just launched m17 on my K6-2 500 w. 96M of RAM and it took 26 seconds. I hit the about button and over 16MB were being consumed. I've seen little difference between memory utilization of M17 and Beta3
The worst part used to be that it offers no new features. Now the worst part is that it offers no new features, is bloated, all the while adding more complexity to web development.
Every bit of FUD I have read has confirmed what I have personally witnessed.
(I'll go to Karma hell for this.)
I'd say web developers (like myself) have a better perspective on what's what than the programmers of the mozilla project. We're the ones whose jobs depend on this stuff working right - and we'll be stuck with having to code to that platform for _YEARS_ to come. Any flaws in the platform are ours to deal with for a very long time, as opposed to the programmers who can simply upgrade their browser whenever they want. Web developers have to code to every piece of junk put out by the 'big two' (MS & Netscape) for the past 2 years, so we're understandably more concerned than most about standards-compliance and common-sense layout.
Its true that Mozilla contains dubious features for ticklist-compatibility with NS4.0 and IE4+. Thats inevitable. Anyone who's ever worked for a software product company will know that releasing version n+1 with less features than version n is suicide, even if the features were stupid in the first place. Perhaps more effort should have gone into differentating Mozilla from Communicator, so that Mozilla could just have been a good browser, but that might have raised other problems.
Skinning however is not such a dubious feature. Its a side effect of a brave attempt to do something which is very hard: create a cross-platform framework for user interfaces. The old Netscape front ends (one per platform) were an immense obstacle to development. They proliferated, and they tended to accumulate features that should have been elsewhere (URL completion in the Windows version). Netscape felt they were committed to supporting the Unix versions as a differentiator fromm MS, and yet could not justify the development resources to support something used by only a few percent of their users. *Thats* why NS4.0 on X is so crash-prone and slow: the FE code is buggy as hell, and pulls a lot of nasty X tricks.
Mozilla does its UI using its rendering engine precisely in order to get away from this problem. A side effect is that you can write pretty chrome, but that was not the purpose. You may feel the decision was wrong, and Galeon et al would seem to show that you might be right, but its an utterly different issue from sidebars and "What's related?".
Is there a moderately objective site that explains what browsers are and aren't compliant with what? I've read all the assertions here that Mozilla is "the most standards compliant". I've read that IE 5 on the Mac is the most compliant. iCab and Konqueror are touted as compliant. I'd be interested in seeing a thorough review.
I don't think it specifically covers IE 5 on Mac or Konquereror, but I've always found Rich in Style to be a great resource for testing compliance and documenting the state of browsers.
Well here's mine. I've been using Mozilla nightly builds as my main browser for close to a month. It renders sites beautifully. Way better than the old Netscape 4.
Also people should notice that Mozilla/Netscape 6 can be patched later. So it's really not a big deal if the first one is not perfect. Rendering all those standards and doing it right is not easy but Mozilla does it nicely already.
I think they do have a point. Like several people pointed out on Mozillazine, Mr. Flanagan is complaining that the the most standard-compliant browser is not compliant enough. Someone even called this Bugzilla abuse as nobody gets to see Microsoft's uncensored bug database.
Mozilla is a big project and it's pretty useless for outsiders to decide what should be fixed next. There's a lot of bugs to fix and features to create and only those programmers know what to do next.
I also think that Mozillazine is right in distancing themselves from Netscape 6. Mozilla is another project and the decision makers are not same. Netscape 6 will be released sooner while Mozilla will continue to evolve until it's rock solid.
While I'm writing this I'd like to bring up an alarming thing about Mozilla. After testing a lot of nighly builds, I have to say that the Linux builds are not nearly as far as Win32 builds. I'd love to see more contribution to the Linux development. If you don't have the skills and time to hack code, download nighly builds, report bugs and confirm old ones. It does help creating Mozilla the best browser there is. Complaining and jokes about Mozilla being dead won't.
I get mozillazine.org unknown host. anyone have a mirror?
As soon as Netscape 6 is released, a huge number of pending bug fixes and new features that are currently waiting to be checked into the Mozilla trunk will be checked in. (This is already happening actually.) Let them stabilise for about a month, and then Netscape management --- if they want to --- can cut another branch and release Netscape 6.1 after another month or two of QA.
So Netscape could, if they want to, release a much improved 6.1 within three months of NS 6.0. Of course, I have no idea what their actual plans are.
While the person you are replying to didn't make this point, here is the one being overlooked...
The people bitching about NS6 not being standards compliant right now are the same exact people who said about a month ago "Dangit, hurry up and release the thing and fix the bugs later."
too many times /. posts one viewpoint and then fails to post an article pointing to a formal response from the person or group as a reaction to the flood of /.'ers. I think the mozillazine editorial should get screen time just as much as the original web standards article did.
This editorial does make some good or at least interesting comments and made me re-think my knee-jerk reaction to the first article posted here.
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
An editorial on mozillazine.org is criticizing recent criticism against Netscape
I hate meta-criticism. Dammit, That was meta-meta-criticism. AGHHH.
It's not even about bad press, it's about the years that web develoeprs will have to put up with the bugs while waiting for 7.0, which will probably be, given Netscape's track record, no better.
But in the case of Netscape 6 the problems with CSS and DOM support are more in the area of bugs rather than deviations from standards (like in older versions of Netscape).
So they're just bugs, not deviations from standards... By this logic, you feel that they should ship it anyway?
"Hey, they're just bugs, ship it anyway.
What I'm complaining about is having to find workarounds for things that are supposed to work but don't. Label the issues whatever you want to, I'd just rather they shipped a more complete product, since they obviously have the option to do so.
Some of these bugs aren't minor, they're fairly serious "you can't use the DOM properly on a table" types of problems, and things which used to work in 4.x and don't anymore. In its current state, all Netscape 6 will do is create another browser to code for, with another set of quirks and bugs.
There is some help if you don't use the DOM, since things like HTML 4 and CSS seem to be working pretty well.
But I guess the problem is that the Netscape people want to release no matter what, and you almost have to beat on them with a book to get them to include fixes. Anybody remember a few weeks ago when we had the bug that was causing large grey lines in everything? They had to be browbeaten to include a fix for that.
That reminds me of Microsoft, who suffers severe criticism for doing it. So why should Netscape get special treatment?
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
I've been debating whether or not to post. :)
I will, with this disclaimer. I work for Netscape, but not in product development.
It's true that standards in PR3 are broken - CSS doesn't display correctly, or at all, for example. However, I believe this is temporary, and that standards compliance is a big issue with Netscape in general. Evidence of that is here, although it may seem like propaganda-speak.
I've also had the privilege of trying out some of the internal nightly builds, and they have come a long way. There's still a ways to go, but keep in mind, Netscape 6 is still in the pre-release stage. Out of respect for my employer, I'm trying not to divulge too much information, so please understand why this post is a little detail-thin.
"During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I was riding the pogostick."
A good traveller has no fixed plans and is not intent on arriving.
There are a lot of really cool things you can do with Mozilla and ForumZilla is just the begining.
Tony
If you read a little deeper you'll see that he replies to a reply to his posting. He plans on posting "news" on Netscape, but not "reviews, criticism" and other info (sorry, I'm not digging up the link or quoting it verbatim for you). Personally, I imagine he's just frustrated from the flamage coming from both directions (pro- and anti- NS) and from those inside and outside the Mozilla community and is trying to distance what he puts his effort into, the Open Source project Mozilla, from the corporate entity Netscape.
Do yourselves a favour and try the NS 6.0 or Mozilla out for yourselves. It is very standards compliant, fast, open source and cross platform. If you don't like it then delete it. Unlike IE 5.5, Mozilla can be downloaded and installed in an hour without the need to reboot or replace half of your system DLLs to do it.
And forget about IE 6.0 for a while. It's at least six months or more away from release.
These people who scream that Netscape isn't bug-free, then wail that it's taking too long to finish make me think of the old joke about the crotchety old woman in a deli: "Such horrible food...and in such small portions!"
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
I think that delaying Netscape a week or two to fix some bugs is really important. The delay would be a much lower price then bad press. The Guys who just say "Hey, why care about Netscape, we have Mozilla", just aren't right: Microsoft will start bitching and say: "Look at Netscape 6: It was released with a lot of known bugs, and that's the way it is with all Open-Source Software!". Managers will believe that, they don't know the difference between Netscape and Mozilla. And the whole community pays the price.
What do you do when you see an endangered animal eating an endangered plant?
Just because the release of 6 has some bugs doesnt mean they shouldnt release it. Get it out there, let the bugs be identified, let users evalutate it, Im sure they will release fixes and patches to all these bugs later. I think some of these netscape critics havent worked in a tense business situation before. Deadlines are important and hell they have to make some money to compete against the monster macrohard.
But it's a tough pill for a traditional software organizaton to swallow. The Netscape PDT probably understands the pressure from marketing and management to get the product out, better than they understand the pressure from programmers to get the product right. They are comfortable letting another little bug slip through (it can be patched later, right?), but the deadline is a big bad monster that cannot be allowed any slack.
I think we need to make them uncomfortable. We need to make the PDT realize that technical issues--especially standards compliance--are not pawns. Mozilla and Netscape will be the better for it.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
There isn't any reason why these goals have to remain incompatible. For OSS companies to compete with proprietary vendors they will have to come to some sort of compromise. It is amazing the problems people will put up with (daily crashes) just to get a little functionality (Windows). You can read a story a day about how some project, Open or Closed, has its deadlines moved around for one reason or another. Programmers everywhere end up shipping something that isn't as good as they would like it to be. It is just a tug of war between the people who know the code and the people who know the consumers.
Icebox
I've read all I can get my hands on, and it seems as if the only things lacking are facts. Claims abound, but I have yet to see any real-world facts. Flannigan's original article listed about a dozen bugs which he claims will end the world, and the retorts claim that nobody will ever notice them. Perhaps someone here would care to give an impartial opinion?
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
The Mozillazine rant makes no sense. David Flanagan says Netscape 6 should be as good as Mozilla's best, not compromised by marketers. Instead of realizing that Flanagan is supporting the efforts Mozilla has made, Mozillazine goes into Nixon enemies mode. And trashes the WaSP while they're at it. I intended to reply on Mozillazine, but it's down. Here's the WaSP reply to Mozillazine.
can't act. can't sing. can dance a little.
No, they're just learning from Slashdot!
sulli
RTFJ.
First, marketing. Every day they have that lousy 4.x browser, they suffer. Lots of people will upgrade to the latest released browser, but not nightly builds of Mozilla. Give them something that works, even if not perfectly, to build the brand instead of destroying it.
Second, these aren't showstopper bugs; it isn't worth delaying Netscape another year for all the minor bugs that have been discovered. It hurts me to say this, but that's life with web browsers. What is worth doing is releasing bugfixes after the product is out. Kind of like Microsoft does for Internet Explorer.
Isn't the credo for both dot com's and open source projects, "release early, release often"? Personally, I think they should have released as soon as it was better than Netscape 4.
If you are modding me down because you disagree with me, use the "Flamebait" category, not the "Troll" one.
I don't agree.
By releasing Netscape 6 with major standards non-conformance, you're adding yet another platform that content developers have to make their sites compatible with. Then, when Netscape gets around to fixing things, it will be one more (the correct one though).
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Check out this comment from LinuxToday.
2 000-11-07-007-04-OP-CY-SW-0000
Evidently Netscape 6 comes with a utility that reports every file downloaded off the internet back to Netscape.
<br>http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=
All Netscape needs is a proper advertising strategy so that everyone can be proud of using it. If version 6.0 goes ahead as planned, then they will be taking a step in the right direction.
If people would write for the least common denominator more often, instead of (a) rushing to embrace all those cool new ways of doing things or (b) writing the code two or three times, the world of computing would be a much better place.
If Netscape releases a browser that has major design flaws in relation to what it supports and how well it supports it then they might as well leave the release be.
For years now, web developers has been forced to produce sites that supports two or more flavors of browsers in order to target the majority of the likely users of their sites.
For e-commerce sites this is not really a choice. You can't say "Let's just support one browser because that's easiest", when that effectively blocks out a huge chunk of your potential customer base.
Neither is it very likely that you can opt to support full DHTML support in two or more platforms simply because you need to write each page specifically for each browser.
The third option is to go for the least common denominator and that is forgetting about all those cool new ways of doing things simply because of the pain in the ass it is to write the code two or three times.
The most likely outcome if Netscape releases a sub-standard browser is that quite a few sites will stop paying the cost to support two browsers and go for one. If Netscape hopes the sites will go for Netscape then I think they will be hugely disappointed.
IE has been out there, is working (well enough, bugs yes, but generally it works), and does not appear to be disappearing anytime soon.
I think there comes a time when enough is enough. If Netscape can't see that that time is about to be passed in the near future then I'm not too sorry if their browser simply dies.
If they release a kick-ass browser that is stable, supports the necessary standards (again, well enough), then it's a welcome addition.
If however we need to make Pre-NS6 pages, IE pages, and Post-NS6 pages, then I'm afraid that we're flogging a loosing horse.
<flame>For years now, Microsoft has been criticized for releasing software with huge amounts of bugs into the public.
I guess this makes Netscape a Microsoft wannabe </flame>