Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Moves Into 2002? Maybe.
alanjstr writes "MozillaQuest reports that Mozilla 1.0 has been pushed back into 2002 (from Oct 2001) in its latest schedule update. Since the end of 2000, the rate of new bugs being submitted has doubled (according to the pretty graph)." However, the Mozilla guys, whom our own HeUnique talked to have said that they are still on target, and that the 2002 story is not true. So - you be the judge on this one. Or not. Whatever.
The rate increase in bug reporting is possibly due to wider use; as each build got better and better, more and more people tried it and found more and more things (little things) wrong.
In which case, that just means that Mozilla is getting more and more refined. I think this correlates with most people's experiences with Mozilla from build to build.
Just a thought.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
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.
What is the obsession with reaching version 1.0? It's not a finished product until then? Then tell me why I have been using it for everything that several finished products can do. It won't have bugs by the time it reaches 1.0? I cant understand that either. It's not everyone will stop working on it when it reaches 1.0, so that means version 1.0 is just another version in the middle of hundreds of others.
What is really important is that the browser keeps getting better, and it is. With each release they fix tons of bugs. That isn't going to change when it reaches 1.0. I don't care if it never reaches 1.0 as long as it keeps getting better. They could call the next release 1.0 and everyone would be excited, but it wouldn't really mean anything. Just like the actual 1.0 release won't.
Mozilla 0.93 is great as it is - why about worry when 1.0 is coming out?
.93 what so ever on Redhat 7.1. Nevermind, guys - keep on moving forward, at the pace you need. I'm certainly impressed, as well as extremely grateful, so far.
I have absolutely no problems with
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Lets be frank - its not like rushing to a 1.0 release now is going to reclaim substantial market share from IE - the browser wars, at least on Windows, is basically over. We've waited years for Mozilla to get done - they ar emaking great progress in 2001, so lets just call 1.0 when the time is right.
Bottom line: Take anything the Mozilla Quest site says with a HUGE grain of salt.
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
Okay, I give in.... who is this guy? MozillaQuest sounds very important and it certainly had me going for a couple of minutes, but then look at the front page.... over 20 articles, and all written by Mr. Angelo.
Trying to be self important but having nobody to listen to you. The site looks quite sad, to be honest.
Some of the bugs present on bugzilla are actually enchancement suggestions. So don't be fooled by the raw number on the list. How many of them are critical bugs? How many are just "this feature should be included" or "the menu item should belong to another place"?
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!
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I just want to make sure it is very clear to slashdot readers that MozillaQuest is in no way connected with or affiliated with mozilla.org. Do not be confused by the name or the 'borrowed' mozilla graphics (mostly gone now I believe). MozillaQuest is a series of articles written by Mike Angelo who has no connection to mozilla.org or any 'inside information' about the goings on of the Mozilla project. mozilla.org has in the past made attempts to correct the misinformation that is published at this site but the requests went pretty much unanswered and so we've turned to simply ignoring the site. It is a shame that slashdot, a place that many in the open source community turn for information, continues to point its readers at this kind of sensationalism.
--Asa
(my opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer or mozilla.org)
"Occam's Razor says that you're wrong, and that Mozilla is getting buggier...."
even assuming the reports of the rate of rise of bug reports is increasing, and further assuming the rate of rise is as steep as indicated, ol' Billy of Ock wouldn't necessarily agree with you, try some other possible explanations....
1. the code portions showing the increase are relatively new and have not had the equivalent amount of debug time that the more mature sections of the code have been given
2. the coders producing the buggier code are new to the project and are still learning how to implement and design their particular sections, even highly experienced coders/designers have a rise their error rate when changing to an unfamilar design, this is usu short-term and correctable w/o a ton of effort
3. the bugs located could be on the "other" side of the code, say the JVM or the security sandbox or OS threading model or ??????
...and let's not forget that even M$ has acknowledged that W2K has shipped with nearly 70,000 ***KNOWN*** bugs....
the Mozilla Quest article does not classify the bugs by type or location, how many "app killers" are there? how many "OS killers"? versus how many are UI related where a drop down box doesn't autoscroll or automatically alphabetize?????
the entire MozillaQuest article reeked of hostility towards the current Mozilla development structure...
...as someone who is NOT a daily Linux user, and who doesn't use any Mozilla on ANY platform i found the tone of the article very opinionated and hostile...it sounded more political than analytical and seemed to have an agenda greater than informing the Mozilla faithful....
maybe justified, maybe not, i don't know...but there's way insufficient info in that article to conclude "...Mozilla is getting buggier"...
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
For all those who keep saying "Who cares when 1.0 is coming out when 0.93 is out now", and you are somewhat right, don't forget that RedHat has said (and I believe other distros will follow suit) that when mozilla reaches 1.0, it will stop carrying the horrid Netscape 4.7x altogether, in the distro, and focus on Mozilla as the default browser. This support alone will help Mozilla greatly.
You may fix the worst bugs, but as time goes on more and more bugs are found, and eventually bugs pretty much crop up as you fix them.
The thing is, although bugs are constantly appearing, the frequency of the average bug decreases. You start getting bugs that happen only once every thousand user-years. Try as you might, you can't squash them all.
There is some hope, in that you can use some fundamentally better method of software engineering and things get suddenly better. The bugs still approach a constant level, but it is a smaller level. Back when IBM studied this, it was still common to write operating systems in assembly code. Using a high-level language is so much easier to debug that you can achieve better bug rates.
But at the same time, we have much greater ambitions for our software. Mozilla 1.0 will have far more features than Microsoft Word 1.0 did.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Please, someone tell those that are responsible for posting these to never ever again post any information found on MozillaQuest. Please don't even bother visiting the site so that he gets hits. This guy sensationalises information and just plain makes stuff up. MozillaQuestQuest.com is a good place to point out his contradictions and such.
My question is how can we delegitimize this guy so the real media doesn't take his lies and run?
The other alternative browsers (Konqueror, Opera, etc.) are really making progress. Opera is VERY usable on both Win32 and Linux.
I've never had the problem of it using 70% of the CPU. I get the normal spikes I'd get with any other program, but no steady use over 5% from Mozilla, even with 7-8 windows open. The only web-page that hasn't worked correctly for me is the MSNBC front page, but all the news article pages on it work fine. I haven't had any problems with any other webpages with 0.9.2. Flash works fine, I can even get the embedded video working good, and Java of course works good. This is a fine browser as is as far as I can tell. I'd love to see more innovation in the interface, but since Microsoft isn't really innovating in that area (*cough*no competition*cough*cough*), why complain?
I don't use newsgroups, but I have been using the Mozilla e-mail program as my primary e-mail proggie at home, and it's been doing a decent job. The interface stinks, and it's rather inflexible in folder creation, but I haven't lost any e-mail, and it doesn't crash on me.
Go Lakers!
The quality of code in a project can be measured by the number of bug reports...
Well, thats complete bullshit unless the project you are comparing it to are exactly the same. You cant compare mozilla to any other web browser with bug reports like that unless they have all the same features. Even then, it is still not a good idea to use this as a benchmark.
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Then why are you here in the first place?
War is necrophilia.
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.
One simple rule for its versus it's
That's a feature. If you had managed to send an e-mail to Mike Angelo and gotten a reply, your inbox might have had a stupidity overload and caused all the other messages you would ever recieve to spontaneously turn into badly-formatted sources of misinformation with ugly and irrelevant blue buttons on the side.
Now aren't you glad Mozilla sacrificed its own process to protect you from this horrible fate?
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
cowabunga dude
keep up the good work
i spelt ninja wrong, it is me with the credibility issue
...who else here thinks the only reason there is a Mozilla project is that Netscape said to themselves: "well, this code is just too fucked up, lets give it away"?
--
#nohup cat
Point here is that 1.0 has meaning to me, should it be fairly robust I will encourage my friends to use it and install it on a bunch of machines that I don't update with every release.
What if Mozilla 0.9.8 is "fairly robust"? Will you not encourage others to use it because it is not called 1.0? What if the plans for 0.9.9 and 1.0 do not include any improvements in the "robust"ness of the app? Is is useful to hold off recommending it until the magic number 1.0 happens? What if we had never moved from the Mx Milestone naming scheme? We'd be at about Milestone M26 now. Would you wait until it hit M30 or M50 or maybe M100 before encouraging others to use it?
Of course, they are not going to fix 1500 bugs by v1.0
Actually, we average about 1500 bugs fixed every Milestone (about every 5 to 6 weeks). So I sure hope we can fix at least that many in the Milestones we have between now and 1.0.
BTW, I appreciate the sentiment of your comments. Don't take my nits as anything but nits and my questions as genuine curiosity.
--Asa
I am not going to put down or put on a pedestal any of the other available browsers. I use them all, on numerous platforms, both open and closed. Konqueror is great for quick and dirty net searches. Opera is great on low-end boxen. Explorer is well...explorer...*sigh*. Mozilla is quick, stable and does everything I want to do online. This is just my opinion.
From the pace of development, Mozilla is doing fairly well. If you're a programmer, you should realize the scope of what they are doing over at Mozilla. As for Slashdot, why exactly would you guys post an article so blatantly and obviously mis-informed?? Generally I look to /. to give up interesting news, somewhat outside the normal of FUD and goofie marketing/media coverage we see everywhere on the net.
Could someone from /. explain the motivation for posting the story in the first place? Not that an article which is critical of Mozilla or any open source should not be posted. In fact, critical articles are fine. So long as they are informed and well written which this one obviously is not.
Just a note to Asa - your posts are very obviously showing a note of tension. Don't worry about it, you guys are doing a helluva job and from one (semi) sane coder to another I'd just like you guys at Mozilla to know that your broswer is sweet. They'll always bitch abut something *shrug*
While Mozilla has been under development:
Business plans have been written, VC found, businesses opened, millions made and millions lost.
We have sent probes to Mars, only to be shot down by the Martians.
Hundreds of species have gone extinct. Most of which were yet to be discovered.
People have met, married, and divorced.
I went from a shell account to SDSL. Of course, I still use the shell account.
There was peace in the Middle East. Sort of. I think.
The Olympics. More than once.
A president got blown by an intern, and we've stopped talking about it on a daily basis.
Another intern has disappeared, and we might have stopped talking of her by the time we reach 1.0.
So is it just me, or does this project seem like it is taking an insane amount of time to complete??
As a FreeBSD and NT user who designs web pages, layout and font sizes really matter to me. Although I mainly use Konqueror under FreeBSD, it has far more to do with the simpler interface than it's rendering engine. To date, I haven't see any other browser display layout, fonts, and deal with Javascript better than Mozilla.
With that being said, it's still quite apparent that Mozilla is an 800lbs. gorilla when it comes to memory and CPU usage. It has gotten a LOT better in the last few builds. If these kinds of optimization issues were worked out by the next release, I would happily convert myself and others that rely on my judgement on over to Mozilla.
Thing is, even as I type this on ye olde Netscape 4.78 after browsing around to several web pages, NT is reporting about 17M of memory allocated. Just to start Mozilla is 22M, and I haven't gone anywhere yet. To further illustrate the point, I went and opened up the newsgroup readers in each, subscribed to a group, and then pulled in all the headers of that group. NS 4.7 comes in at around 18M after this operation. Mozilla at 40.5M. Not going to bother listing numbers off of FreeBSD as I'm still running 0.9.3 on there.
Personally, it's just frustrating as heck to watch. There we have this Gecko engine was does a truly beautiful job of properly rendering a web page regardless of the platform. Exactly what a browser should do! Wrapped around this is a monster of a UI that even to this day still feels like I'm trying to interact with some bad Java applet. Oh sure it is pretty, but the reaction time even on a 1.2Ghz machine is noticeable.
Looking back, I'm finding myself in total agreement with critics I disagreed with before over one point. XUL. The Mozilla folks repeatedly told us all how much longer it would take to develop this project if they stuck with native OS widgets. I just have to wonder how much time has been wasted while the resources of the Mozilla project could have had Win32, Mac, Qt, GTK versions out the door by now? Certainly projects like Galeon have shown this could have been done.
Mozilla made a wrong turn early on (IMHO) with XUL. Perhaps projects like Galeon can be the saving grace. Problem is, those projects are out on the fringe, while IE is dead center of the web universe defining the standards across the board. Mozilla is FAR more than just a browser at this point. It's the last chance gasp at taking control of web standards and the Internet itself from Microsoft.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
You can try to make fun of him, but the fact is, Internet Explorer is by far the best browser at the moment. Mozilla/Opera/Konq/etc. all have specialities but lack in other area's. IE has it all: speed, rendering, functionality, footprint, etc.
Hate to say it but the Mozilla project has had their chance. In 2,5 year they didn't produce anything that is better than codebase they started with.
They fell in the typical 'committee' trap, where a committee decides what goes into a product. These are usually personal projects of the committee members which haven't a lot to do with the project at hand. But they put them in the project anyway. User wishes are not found interesting.
Well, we now have the result. After 2,5 of dabbling, Mozilla - overall - still hasn't risen above the Netscape 4.x level. Everything that has been improved has been compensated, unfortunately, by the bloatedness, instability, memory hunger, static look and feel, etc.
This isn't really a product for actual use by people. It's the result of committe-steered software development and in that context it's really a disgrace for the open source community. It only serves as an icon for those in the committee who saw their useless ideas get into the project.
Sorry, but 2,5 years for this? I valued my time better and moved on.
I really hope you didn't spend too much time thinking about it, because it's not interesting; your post is actually stunningly vacuous.
Anyway, if you really bothered to think about it, you'd realize that there's no reason why major OS components need to be tied to a certain OS version. I hope you don't think that you're stuck with one version of glibc depending upon the version of the Linux distribution you're using. Or that it's "BS," as you put it, that older OSes that aren't yet using IPv6 won't change their name once they do support it. Same with different versions of MDAC, MSXML, etc, being able to be used by different OSes. Please give it a little more thought next time, okay buddy?
(with apologies to the Blue Oyster Cult)
With the best of intentions and Netscape's old code
They produce a browser that tends to explode
Rendering pages in pure XML
XUL's really great, but performance is hell
Standards compliant every way they can be
But slow as a bear when compared to IE
Oh, no. We wish these bugs would go
Go go Mozilla, yeah
Oh, no. The rendering's so slow
Go go Mozilla, yeah
History explains as a matter of course
How mega codebases deter open source
Mozilla!
The problem is not 1.0, but being usable. RH is understandably vary of the browser "underdevelopment" - it, unlike Mozilla, can not say their paying customers: "OK, it would work when we are ready do make it work". It should deliver the product now. And Mozilla, while being useful browser, still has a number of problems, among which performance and memory footprint is not the least. When RH says: "when it will be 1.0" they most probably mean: "since you are good respectable guys and would not call it 1.0 until is is really good, we want to pick it up there when it's really ready for us". From this POV 1.0 is important for Mozilla team more than for RH and RH is just trusing Mozilla team to do a good 1.0.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
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.
...annoying middle mouse button behavior, annoying habit of NOT remembering what size the new windows should be, and if I touch the mouse wheel - well, I may as well go to the Moon and back and it may have scrolled the first line... =)
And yes, it has a Footprint with a capital F. (Not that Mozilla would do any better on that field...) However, Mozilla wins here - it's probably somewhat smaller to download. =)
Significantly better PNG support? Wow, CSS implementation that actually works? Less rendering bugs? Million times better bookmark manager? Search capabilities with configurable search engines? Save dialogs that work while Motif's save dialogs still don't work? And it doesn't crash every 5 minutes (I haven't yet got 0.9.3 to crash)? Themability to combat the general ugliness of Motif? Progressive rendering of pages (No freezes when some New Media Guru used tables dishonorably)?
I think it has come a long way since NS4...
I've been using Mozilla and Netscape 6.x about half the time for a few years now, and the past few months have brought dramatic speed improvements. XUL is finally fast enough to be usable on machines slower than a 1.2 GHz x86, and mail folders open quickly enough to work with.
.9.x series--and two months from the putative release of a 1.0--that proper test code would be in place for core functionality like this and that things would be in a bug fix stage, not that inbound and outbound MIME handling would still be awaiting its first real-world testing two months before 1.x and more than a year after the release of Netscape 6.0.
Mozilla 1.0 isn't a terribly meaningful concept, especially given that 0.9.3 served as the core of a genuinely commercial-quality Netscape 6.1--at least in most respects. But I do have a question for those who Mozilla or Netscape 6.x as their primary browsing and mail tool:
What's everyone doing about proper MIME support? Don't you people (and the developers!) ever send non-text e-mail attachments? Mozilla and Netscape 6 ship with virtually empty mimeTypes.rdf files and no auto-build from exisiting legacy MIME settings whether at the system level or from old Netscape 4.x configs, which means out of the box no external helper apps work--and worse, outbound email attachments other than HTML, text/plain, GIFs and JPEGs are mangled, transported as inline text. These empty MIME settings are years old.
Even more upsetting, the dialogs to edit and create mimeTypes entries from inside Mozilla/NS6 are broken: the checkbox that activates outbound MIME type declaration for a given mimetype is inactive, leaving hand-editing the poorly-documented RDF file as the only recourse. Not only that, but the Un*x Mozilla/NS6 doesn't seem to use the current environment in launching helper apps. Is it so hard or insecure or distressingly platform-specific to have the PATH environment variable--or use of "which" or "locate"--when launching helpers? Why must users manually locate the fully qualified path to their MP3 player, PDF viewer and so forth instead of simply entering, say, "acroread" or "xmms" in the dialog (or the RDF)?
Are the Netscape/Mozilla developers and those of you who claim to use Mozilla full-time passing around a hacked-up mimeTypes.rdf that isn't being shared with the public, and isn't even in an experimental branch of CVS? Or do you just never send email attachments?
And more to the point: doesn't the Netscape 6.x dev team ever send email attachments? How about the QA team? Are they all using Pine instead? And if they are, how does that jibe with the idea of eating dogfood?
Does Netscape even have a QA team?
I've thought of fleshing out mimeTypes.rdf myself, but I can't even figure out who owns it. Mail/News? Prefs? The core browser team? With the way the project owners point fingers, can I expect anyone to lay claim to it at all?
Maybe this is the problem.
Don't listen to anyone who says AOL's buyout has derailed the Mozilla project. They're clearly not taking an active role at all.
1.0 means different things in different projects, but one would expect nearly a year into the
Yeah, I bothered about two months ago for the last time (a 9.x release). It didn't change my opinion. But I bet the latest release would!!
Mozilla-like bugs such as "crashes repeatedly", "doesn't render web pages" and "none of the features seem to have been finished".
uh huh. And just how many of those do you think there really are?
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Actually the small footprint of IE is a lie. IE is actually fairly large but a lot of it's code is integrated into the OS (ever wonder why Explorer takes soo long to start up?). As far a rendering speed is concerned, current Mozillas and IE seem to be neck and neck in my experiance, although my machine is fast enough that the big bottleneck is my slow connection to the internet.
The last half of your post is just pure troll and I'm not going to bother responding to it past this point.
I read the internet for the articles.
have versions. That's so that people don't have to download and install a new version of the software every single night. That's totally unacceptable. But what is, is waiting until a good number of bugs have been squashed, then formally releasing the software as version 1.0.
As far as I'm concerned, Mozilla should have stayed with the milestone numbering system.
I HATE all the conversations about "When will it be 1.0?". The version number is an arbitrary string that has no affect on the code it is stamped on! All it does it make people complain.
Labelling something 1.0 does not remove any bugs. It does not mean that all severe bugs have been found. It does not mean that the next patch won't cause latent memory leaks or security problems or hard to reproduce crashes. In fact, it basically means nothing other than somebody decided to label it that way. If we called the damn thing 1.0 right now, the code would be exactly the same as if we called it 0.1. Arguing over version numbers is the stupidest activity programmers do. It's basically the one moronic marketing practice that hasn't been abandoned by the open source community.
What exactly was wrong with taking a nightly build every 4 to 6 weeks, testing it a little more thoroughly, and giving it the next whole number? They should have kept going after M18: 0.6 = M19, 0.7 = M20, 0.8 = M21, 0.8.1 = M22, 0.9 = M23, 0.9.1 = M24, 0.9.2 = M25, 0.9.2.1 = M26, 0.9.3 = M27.
Ah. I don't recall seeing a big disclaimer saying that the site was in no way official. Actually, I followed the link to the article from NewsForge. Sorry for the confusion.
Well, now that we've spread some FUD, how about a nice official write-up of how Mozilla is progressing. Perhaps Slashdotters can submit questions, like "Why is 1.0 considered 1.0 if it will have known bugs?"
The only problems I have with it are related to printing out web pages.
It's certainly much better than the old Navigator. Can't wait for 1.0!
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Nobody said that the high number of bugs, in any way translated to high quality of code.
But there is two factors to look at.
1. The amount of serious bugs is low, this translates to a high quality product.
2. There are many people using it, many of these people are developer types, who notice even the smallest bugs, most of which are simply small things that may have been overlooked, of which in a major product, there are millions of small things. As the code gets better, more people use it, as more people use it, more bugs get reported for small insignificant things. Eventually someday all these small insignificant bugs will be fixed, then people will still be reporting bugs, because they want some feature, or wish for the browser to act a certain way and it acts a different way. So they add this feature, or the option to make it work either way by an option in the preferences menu. These new features, will have bugs, or not work in the exact way that people want them too, and these will be reported as bugs.
In no way does any of this implicate that mozilla or any other feature rich product is bad, simply that it is evolving.
Amen to that! I kept having problems with IE 5.5 and 6 in Win 98 - a page would load but the window was locked up - the progress bar got all the way across and stayed there. Bringing up the file explorer - same problem.
Eventually (after 15 or 30 seconds) the windows would unfreeze and all was fine till I loaded the next page - starts all over.
Problem? A permanently mounted disk on a server that had been shutdown. I delete the drive map and the problem goes away. I'm sorry but a mapped drive to a shutdown server should NOT cause a browser to lockup on page loads. Integration is BAD!
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
All very good reasons why Mozilla on non-Windows platforms beats Netscape on non-Windows platforms.
But the original user started by saying:
> > IE has it all: speed, rendering, functionality, footprint, etc.
You're right when you say Moz has come a long way since NS4.
But NS4 isn't the competition anymore, is it?
With respect to the Mozilla team - nobody asked for an XUL-wowzers-skinnable application platform to replace the desktop. All we wanted was a web browser. And when it took over 2.5 years for you to develop it, most of us got tired of waiting and went with IE on our Windoze boxen.
You may know this already, but Galeon has tabs too. Plus, its based on Mozilla's gecko. It has a very plain interface, but I find myself using it more and more. I switch between it and Mozilla frequently, and I only wish I could use the same history for both, so my followed links will stay the same color.
Well first off all W2K is not a community project, so people only report bugs on serious issues that hinder there ability to work, they do not report bugs requesting features, or mentioning a misspelling, as asking that something works differently. That is done by user surveys and inhouse bug testing, of which many reports like that are made, but not publically posted because they are not officially "bugs". But Mozilla really doesn't care what you call as bugs and its all lumped into one. Call it a feature, or call it a bug itself, thats just the way this specific community works.
I know what it is you moron. Here were my points which you obviously missed altogether so I'll dumb them down for ya.
1) It's not a immutable law of nature. It's just a cute saying without any basis in mathematics, statistics, or science.
2) There are no "two competing theories which make exactly the same prediction" in fact there are no predictions being made at all. The airhead who posted the original post tried to use occams razor as some sort of a proof that the the number of bugs were going up.
3)Life is complex and relying cute sayings and looking for the simplest answer is a surefire way to arrive at the wrong answer.
TO blindly state that the number of bugs are increasing because "occam's razor says so" is just stupid. Why not go do some statistical analysis. Go see how many of the bugs are dups or feature requests or occur only on exotic platforms. Why not interview some mozilla developers or project managers. Why not look at the severity of the bugs.
None not out intrepid slashdot poster. He has no time for actual thinking. Occams razor says mozilla is full of bugs and who are we to argue with the razor.
War is necrophilia.