Chief Lizard Wrangler axed

1st post by kurt555gs · 2001-09-05 04:12 · Score: 0, Offtopic

the newer mozilla is good , but using it underneath with Konqueror2 is GREAT

--
* Carthago Delenda Est *

Accurate information here by Satai · 2001-09-05 04:13 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Re:Accurate information here by mark_lybarger · 2001-09-05 04:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

somehow the MozillaQuestQuest link doesn't render at _ALL_ using IE 5.5. i then opened it in mozilla, and it displays just fine... hummm..
wonder why that is :)
Re:Accurate information here by Gerv · 2001-09-05 04:26 · Score: 3, Informative

This is intentional. It's a joke. :-) The page is served as text/xml - its correct MIME type - and only Mozilla understands it correctly.

Gerv
Re:Accurate information here by Zigg · 2001-09-05 04:27 · Score: 2

No kidding. It amazes me that there are still people who read MozillaQuest for reasons other than a good laugh.

Of course, given /.'s record on accuracy in reporting, MozillaQuest is a good fit...
Re:Accurate information here by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 04:31 · Score: 1, Informative

Actually, IE renders the page as it renders most xml documents: an expandable, hierarchical representation of the data. You can expand or collapse data to see more or less information about the data.
Re:Accurate information here by DrXym · 2001-09-05 04:58 · Score: 2

MozillaQuest has to be the most misinformed Mozilla related (and Linux in general) site I've ever read.

Mike Angelo (who writes all the articles ) doesn't appear to know or understand what's going on in the project at all well.

One recent gem was where he accused Netscape of stealing Mozilla code for Netscape 6.1 and the coincidental release of Mozilla 0.9.2.1! What a dolt!
Re:Accurate information here by tim_maroney · 2001-09-05 05:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

For all the flaming of MozillaQuest by the Mozilla faithful, I have yet to see the flamers document a single objective inaccuracy. Most of the responses consist of personal attacks devoid of content. In this case, we have to look at the fact that MozillaQuest broke the layoff story -- accurately -- while the advocacy site, MozillaZine, was still in denial about the prospect of the AOL layoffs hitting the project.

As far as I can tell, MozillaQuest's only crime is in pointing out facts about the late, buggy, and ugly Mozilla project that its small remaining core of advocates would rather see suppressed.

Tim
Re:Accurate information here by pohl · 2001-09-05 05:32 · Score: 1

MozillaQuestQuest.com is a riot. Thanks for the pointer!

--
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Re:Accurate information here by ywwg · 2001-09-05 05:36 · Score: 1

why not look at the several threads on mozillazine.org which document the distortions of fact and pure speculation on the part of mozilla quest? Various errors include misinterpretation of bug statistics, misconstruing the meaning of projected release dates, and a uniformly unequivically negative opinion of everything mozilla. Mozilla Quest has a bad reputation because its view is extremely contrary to the opinions and experiences of users and programmers of mozilla. While it could be that MQ is right and everyone else is wrong, most people have concluded that MQ is not a valid source for mozilla information.

Again, please refer to mozillazine archives for in depth discussion.
Re:Accurate information here by ajs · 2001-09-05 05:47 · Score: 4, Informative

Contradiction coming... wait for it...
For all the flaming of MozillaQuest by the [...] late, buggy, and ugly Mozilla project [and] its small remaining core of advocates [...]
[snipped from the beginning and end of the post to show the contrast in tone]
This is called flaming. MozillaQuest is factually inaccurate from time to time (though, so is the rest of the tech media). The problem isn't that. The problem is that MozillaQuest reports only part of the story. This story, for example, never reported that, while she was being laid off, she was also going to continue working on the project.

So called "delays" are often clarifications in the time-line (where no dates were previously available). This may or may not be an inaccuracy, depending on how you look at it, but is clearly a misrepresentation of the state of Mozilla development.

Mozilla is, for the record, the browser/mail agent that I've been using as my sole browser for the last six months. So far, I've had less crashes than IE, and far fewer bug-related complaints than with NS4. And yet, according to MozillaQuest, Mozilla is still too buggy for anyone to use....
Re:Accurate information here by tim_maroney · 2001-09-05 05:48 · Score: 2

why not look at the several threads on mozillazine.org which document the distortions of fact and pure speculation on the part of mozilla quest? Various errors include misinterpretation of bug statistics,

I've read all of them carefully. So far, not one has documented an objective error. The responses are always along the lines of, "so what that we didn't fix a lot of the bugs for this milestone that were marked to be fixed? What does that matter? The project is still getting better, isn't it? How can he say it's buggy? Mike Angelo is such an idiot!"

misconstruing the meaning of projected release dates,

Very similar issue. He points out that a new milestone means a slip in the 1.0 release date, and the responses all say "so what that 1.0 will be a few months later? We're not a commercial project! We don't have a schedule! Who cares when we ship? Mike Angelo is such an idiot!" Again, no factual errors in his analysis are demonstrated. He's reporting things that are true, but taboo on the advocacy site.

and a uniformly unequivically negative opinion of everything mozilla.

Yes, but I was asking for examples of objective factual errors on the site. You don't like his opinions, fine, but that doesn't make him an unreliable source. He broke this story. People at MozillaZine knew about the story for a week and a half and tried to keep it secret. Who's the better news source on this story? MozillaQuest 1, MozillaZine 0. Sorry, but it's a fact.

Tim
Re:Accurate information here by MindStalker · 2001-09-05 05:51 · Score: 2

The best example, is his repeaded statement that Netscape denied it used mozilla for Netscape 6.1. All Netscape said was that it would not confirm or deny rumors inregards to the exact version branching inwhich Netscape 6.1 came from. You can read this in his "Netscape denies is uses Mozilla Code for Netscape 6.1 Browser" article. This is in info box on the right hand side, apart from the actual story.
Re:Accurate information here by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 05:56 · Score: 0

Why not look at the several threads on mozillazine.org which document the distortions of fact and pure speculation

Why not look at the several threads on mozillazine.org that are themselves distortions of fact and pure speculation.

There's lots of people there that live in a fantasyland where mozilla.org is not related to AOL and mozilla isn't late.

MozillaQuest sucks (ye gods, just look at the HTML!), but half of mozillazine crowd's problem with the site is that it's a mozilla-oriented site that isn't fully dedicated to shiny happy advocacy activities.
Re:Accurate information here by Gerv · 2001-09-05 05:57 · Score: 2

so what that we didn't fix a lot of the bugs for this milestone that were marked to be fixed?

This is part of the normal bug triaging process. Mangelo seems to find it very strange that we should prioritise bugs and decide which ones to fix now and which ones can wait.

a new milestone means a slip in the 1.0 release date,

This is another thing he keeps saying which is not true. It does not mean a slip in the release date, because we have no release date. New milestones get added to Bugzilla and the roadmap whenever we run out of the ones we've got. This action does not say anything about any dates.

People at MozillaZine knew about the story for a week and a half and tried to keep it secret.

They didn't try and keep it secret. It's not a secret - Mitchell's post to the public newsgroups shows that.

If you want a classic example of how mangelo writes untruths, how about "Netscape denies Netscape 6.1 is based on Mozilla source code"?

Gerv
Re:Accurate information here by Tridus · 2001-09-05 05:57 · Score: 2

Actually it works in Opera too. :)

--
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Re:Accurate information here by Jburkholder · 2001-09-05 05:57 · Score: 1

oh man...
"The next factual article, eagerly awaited by MozillaQuest's three remaining alleged readers, is set for the year 2005. This may be too late to save the slowly dying Magazine-Suite. "
oh, i gotta go lie down now...
Re:Accurate information here by NutscrapeSucks · 2001-09-05 06:00 · Score: 1

Why is it 'correct' for a browser to take a text/xml stream and render it as HTML? If the intent is to transmit HTML to a browser, it would seem that MIME type is fairly misleading.

I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's a rather undefined situation and no better or worse that IE's approach of slapping the default XSLT sheet on it and displaying it.

--
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Re:Accurate information here by Gerv · 2001-09-05 06:12 · Score: 2

It's not HTML, it's XHTML, which is an XML dialect, and so a text/xml MIME type is quite appropriate.

The reason the browser should know it's XHTML is that it has the XHTML namespace attached to the root element (html). Therefore, it should render it as XHTML, with the styles proposed both in the Link: header and also in the link tag in the body.

That's how I understand it, anyway. See here for the lowdown.

Gerv
Re:Accurate information here by lithis · 2001-09-05 06:21 · Score: 1

it's correct because the page is xhtml, not html. observe the tag; that's xml syntax.
Re:Accurate information here by NutscrapeSucks · 2001-09-05 06:23 · Score: 1

Well, here's what the W3C says:

5.1 Internet Media Type
As of the publication of this recommendation, the general recommended MIME labeling for XML-based applications has yet to be resolved.

However, XHTML Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix C, "HTML Compatibility Guidelines" may be labeled with the Internet Media Type "text/html", as they are compatible with most HTML browsers. This document makes no recommendation about MIME labeling of other XHTML documents.

Which implies that a text/html type would be more appropriate in this situation.

Although, I agree that there's something fishy about IE. Considering that it parses all sorts of strange MIME types (including text/plain) as HTML if the file starts with <HTML>, it ought to handle this, even if it can't groak the namespace.

--
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Re:Accurate information here by Gerv · 2001-09-05 06:39 · Score: 2

That was in 1999. Things have moved on since then :-)

As I understand it, the general recommendation is to use the +xml suffix when creating new MIME types - e.g. application/xhtml+xml (which, I believe, is currently going through the approval process as a MIME type). But it's also fine to send any sort of XML to a browser and expect it to style it using the style sheet you provide.
Gerv
Re:Accurate information here by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 07:49 · Score: 0

IE version 6.0 renders the page just fine. IE 5.5 is out-of date. Upgrade for free from the MS web site.
Re:Accurate information here by RacerX69 · 2001-09-05 08:43 · Score: 1

The problem with IE is that it doesn't support XML with CSS styles. It only accepts XSL which isn't yet a Candidate Recommendation. (It is finally a Proposed Recommendation as of August 28, though. Shouldn't be too long before it is CR.)

If IE recognized the CSS Link, it would render it correctly, too. Instead it chooses it's default tree render of XML which IMHO is pretty ugly & rather useless unless you are viewing raw data.
Re:Accurate information here by Che+Guevarra · 2001-09-05 08:44 · Score: 1

It does not mean a slip in the release date, because we have no release date.

Yeah, we noticed.
Re:Accurate information here by blowdart · 2001-09-05 10:00 · Score: 2

Actually it's not either.

If it was XML it should have a

So it's invalid in both :)
Re:Accurate information here by blowdart · 2001-09-05 10:04 · Score: 2

Actually it's not either.

If it was XML it should have a

<?XML tag

If it was XHTML it should have a doctype

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transiti onal.dtd">

So it's invalid in both :)

(Damnit this anti-flooding stuff is annoying)
Re:Accurate information here by Bedouin+X · 2001-09-05 13:49 · Score: 1

Ummmm not really. You can read the text but you can't see the styling. In Mozilla the site looks just like the MozillaQuest site, but much cleaner. The MQQ designer did a lot of the wacky stuff that MAngelo does with good ol' (X)HTML and CSS.

--
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...

Where is she going? by crow · 2001-09-05 04:14 · Score: 2

Is there any information on where she is going? In a perfect world, one of the Linux companies would hire her to keep working on Mozilla.

Re:Where is she going? by sparcv9 · 2001-09-05 04:26 · Score: 4, Redundant

According to her reply to the Bugzilla post, she will continue to work on the Mozilla project, just not under the employ of Netscape.

--

This is not a Fugazi .sig
Re:Where is she going? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 04:32 · Score: 0

In a perfect world, one of the Linux companies would hire her to keep working on Mozilla.

Ahh, but in the real world, none of the Linux companies can afford to do any more hiring. Notice that VA Linux stock hit yet another all-time low today, its stock falling below $1.25?
Re:Where is she going? by xcomputer_man · 2001-09-05 05:43 · Score: 1

"We sent an e-mail inquiry to AOL-Time-Warner's Netscape division spokesperson, Catherine Corre about the lay-offs..."
Oh no, the big media dinosaur ate the puny mozilla lizard!

Applying the laws of discrete mathematics, this would imply that the story is redundant and mozilla was never really free software after all...

--
Am I a hipster-doofus?
Re:Where is she going? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 08:52 · Score: 0

Explain to me why in an economic downturn with thousands of people being laid and corporations struggling to make a profit, there should be any surprise whatsoever that pie-in-the-sky BS projects like this get the axe?

Hey, she can still work on it by jmu1 · 2001-09-05 04:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is OpenSource. She can still work on it just without pay, and on her own time. This is not good, most certainly, but hey, at least she isn't stricken from contributing.

Re:Hey, she can still work on it by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 04:41 · Score: 0

She will be.

Please see : http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&fra me=right&th=9b6182c6b6719425&seekm=3B8D621F.303090 3%40badubadu.com#s
Re:Hey, she can still work on it by Alien54 · 2001-09-05 04:50 · Score: 2

This is OpenSource. She can still work on it just without pay, and on her own time. This is not good, most certainly, but hey, at least she isn't stricken from contributing.
Which is one of the obvious strengths of the open source system. Although It sort of depends on what her severance package was, etc....
You can spend an awful lot of time working on a project, and find that it drained time away from you looking for a job.
- - -
Radio Free Nation
an alternate news site using Slash Code
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"

--
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Re:Hey, she can still work on it by GdoL · 2001-09-05 05:20 · Score: 1

She was been paid, it wasn't a free project for her.

She probably will try to find out someone who will pay the same for the same work. She didn't worked for free.

She worked on a free project but not for free.

--

------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------

MozillaQuest not to be trusted by asa · 2001-09-05 04:26 · Score: 5, Informative

In general it is good practice to avoid reading this website if you're interested in accurate reporting about Mozilla or mozilla.org (probably anyhing else for that matter). With articles like "Netscape Denies It Uses Mozilla Code in Netscape 6.1" you have to wonder...

Anyway, if you want real information about what's going on why not ask the folks actually involved. Mitchell Baker (still chief lizard wrangler) had this to say in the mozilla news groups.

Please don't link to bugzilla from the front page! by ardran · 2001-09-05 04:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

CmdrTaco et al,

Please don't link directly to a bugzilla bug ever again, at least not from the front page. The system is under constant use by bug reporters, triagers, and developers, who are all working hard to make the 0.9.4 milestone happen as fast as possible. /.'ing the server only serves to disrupt development. In the future, please think about the people who are relying on a particular server before targetting it for destruction. Thanks.

Layoffs! by Johnny+Starrock · 2001-09-05 04:28 · Score: 1

That explains why we haven't seen 0.9.4 yet...

--

end communication

It seems to be slashdotted so... by KingAdrock · 2001-09-05 04:32 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Bug #96747

This is not your typical Mozilla bug. It can not be found in any single release, yet when mass numbers of Mozilla users all go to Bugzilla server simotaniously, the bugzilla server seems to take a shit!

I wonder why???

Layoffs are unfortunate, but normal business by fetta · 2001-09-05 04:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

So far there doesn't seem to be too much Netscape bashing going on here, which is a good thing. Layoffs are part of the normal business cycle. It's part of the price we pay for the great job motility we've enjoyed in the tech industry in recent years.

The nice thing about an open source project, however, is that someone can move between companies and still contribute. They can even take a break from a project and then come back.

--
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**

Re:Layoffs are unfortunate, but normal business by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 04:34 · Score: 0

Another fun thing is that, since they're expected to work for free, they and their families can starve, or perhaps beg for change on the street during the day after a long night of coding.
Re:Layoffs are unfortunate, but normal business by The+Cat · 2001-09-05 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, the great job mobility which translates to "start over every six months."

I'll vote for a different business cycle. Tough to qualify for a mortgage (HA! right...) when you're between jobs three months out of every nine.

It's also mind-bogglingly expensive for companies to replace their staff every 18 months.

(Notice how everything is measured in months now? Remember long-term planning? Or is that part of the old economy?)
Re:Layoffs are unfortunate, but normal business by fatboy · 2001-09-05 07:04 · Score: 1

I'll vote for a different business cycle. Tough to qualify for a mortgage (HA! right...) when you're between jobs three months out of every nine.

How about not borrowing money to purchase a house, car or pizza. You don't know what real freedom is until you are debt free.

--
--fatboy

Don't Look At Bugzilla! by Gerv · 2001-09-05 04:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

Please don't slashdot our Bugzilla server! Please! We need it, and currently it's dying.

Gerv

Re:Don't Look At Bugzilla! by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 04:54 · Score: 0

Sounds like a personal problem
Re:Don't Look At Bugzilla! by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 05:27 · Score: 0

Then maybe you should get rid of idiotic personal messages?

How this bodes for the Mozilla project by hillct · 2001-09-05 04:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

This question was raised in the posting, but it begs a deeper question. Are OSS Projects dependant on their founder?. The imediate reaction is no, expecially in this case where she was not the founder. The closes to a single indevidual founder we could get for Mozilla would be Jamie Zawinski and the project continued on without him, but how many OSS projects are organized as a cult on personality? Is this a failing of social order of OSS, or is it just a failing of leadership and administration?

Large scale projects like Mozilla, and Apache could probably withstand a complete changing of the guard, but how many smaller prjects could handle such a change and still continue to produce quality software?

Does anyone have a mechanism to quantify the critical mass of an OSS project?

--CTH

--

--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line

Re:How this bodes for the Mozilla project by dhamsaic · 2001-09-05 04:39 · Score: 2

GAIM had a changing of the guard a while ago and was picked up by another. Development still continues on GAIM. It's not a large project by any means, and it doesn't have a great number of developers. But it has survived a switch of maintainers.

I don't know that there's any machanism to qualify the critical mass of an OSS project... I guess it would just be "how many people are using it?" and "if it went away, how would this affect the computing world?"

--
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
Re:How this bodes for the Mozilla project by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 04:44 · Score: 0

On, the contrary, I think many projects would do better without their original leader. Look at how quickly gcc evolved once Stallman stopped running the show. I also think Linus is the main impediment to linux kernel improvements at this point. He is a great guy, but having all patches go through a single person is just not a good idea.
Re:How this bodes for the Mozilla project by jmauro · 2001-09-05 04:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

The only really big project that seems to be driven by a cult of personality is the linux kernel. (and even then their is a lot of overlap between others who are "in charge". Xfree, Apache, etc hae teams, but not one all important person in charge. As such they've gone through a number of changes of personelle without much problem at all.
Re:How this bodes for the Mozilla project by gorilla · 2001-09-05 05:10 · Score: 2

but how many OSS projects are organized as a cult on personality? Is this a failing of social order of OSS, or is it just a failing of leadership and administration?
I'd argue the opposite. Successful projects, both open source and commerical, tend to be organized by a single person, or a very small team, with a definate goal. You can have hundreds of players as long as they all know who the leader is. If you have a very large committee running things, then the project will become bogged down with disputes over ownership, direction, and responsibilities. If you don't have a definate goal, then you'll end up deciding to re-invent wheels which are perfectly round, because they're not the right shade of blue.
Re:How this bodes for the Mozilla project by flacco · 2001-09-05 09:02 · Score: 1

Large scale projects like Mozilla, and Apache could probably withstand a complete changing of the guard, but how many smaller prjects could handle such a change and still continue to produce quality software?

Well, if open source users weren't such cheap fukken bastards and ponied up a little cash, programmers could actually be hired to do some work.

Something has got to give. A funding model that does not equate to having to sell software for the price of the CD + $.01 is going to have to come from somewhere if we ever expect open source to survive, much less thrive.

Look in news://gnu.misc.discuss for a thread entitled:

Opinions please: "community-funding" of open source software

...or search usenet for it.

--
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.

Not Netscape - AOL by dhamsaic · 2001-09-05 04:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

Am I the only one that thinks it's worth mentioning that there is no Netscape any more? There's only the Netscape Division of America Online. AOL laid her off. Not Netscape.

I'm starting to sound like JWZ...

--
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.

Re:Not Netscape - AOL by GdoL · 2001-09-05 05:27 · Score: 1

And Mozilla is only a tiny little project on a BIG BIG Corporation. It was only little figures, $, for them.

--

------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
Re:Not Netscape - AOL by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 07:24 · Score: 0

And AOL didn't buy Netscape for the browser, they bought it for the eyeballs (portal) netscape had.

Please stop clicking that bug link! by asa · 2001-09-05 04:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

There are people trying to get work done in Bugzilla and you're making that very difficult. Thanks.

--Asa

Re:Please stop clicking that bug link! by Water+Paradox · 2001-09-05 05:10 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Some of us click it twice when we see things like this. Bugzilla people, take a break. Step outside and smell the air, look into the sun, pick a flower.

Telling people to stop clicking on a slashdot link is like asking a hurricane to please come back next week.

Deal with it with grace.

Is Slashdotting a force of nature?

-Water Paradox

--
information is immaterial
Re:Please stop clicking that bug link! by zangdesign · 2001-09-05 05:14 · Score: 1

Either that, or block the domain at the router.

That would be my suggestion.

--
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.

MozillaQuest? by basilfawlty · 2001-09-05 04:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why does /. continue to propagate the anti-Mozilla rants from Michael Angelo? He is not even close to a viable source of information on Mozilla. See bug 97146, as well as previous /. posts that say just what I said.

Please, please. Don't feed the trolls.

--
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who know binary, and those who do not.

Re:MozillaQuest? by HiThere · 2001-09-05 08:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Yet another argument infavor of using a referer to suppress /. at bugzilla. Please stop doing this. It's quite inconsiderate, after there have already been requests to avoid slashdotting that particular server.

Development servers are typically sized for the load that they will normally receive. They aren't expected to have to stand up to the kind of pounding that a high traffic server would have. It is not kind to abuse them in this way.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:MozillaQuest? by susano_otter · 2001-09-05 10:34 · Score: 1

Congratulations. You've put your dev server on the Internet, freely available to the ENTIRE WORLD. Next thing you know, you might put some data on that server that the ENTIRE WORLD might be interested in. If you don't watch out, guess who's gonna come to your server to look at that data? Wheee!

--
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Re:MozillaQuest? by bad-badtz-maru · 2001-09-05 11:46 · Score: 1

Probably wasn't too bright to use your development bugzilla server as a message forum. Someone made a cutesy-ass entry in bugzilla that has nothing to do with any sort of bug and now people are going there to check it out. Does this surprise you?

maru
www.mp3.com/pixal

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by anshil · 2001-09-05 04:38 · Score: 1

>>>Slashot<<<
The ultimative cyber-war weapon of the future.

Do we require in futurue also the personal apporoval of the president for a /.-effect attack? :o)

--

--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.

godd*mit! by Ryandav · 2001-09-05 04:41 · Score: 2, Redundant

GET THAT LINK TO BUGZILLA OUT OF THE STORY, EDITORS!

There's nothing relevant or terribly useful at all at the link, and SomeOfUsAreTryingToWORK!

(calming down a little)

Revise the story, please!!!!!!

--
Check my Go-related blog for beginners: DGD

Some more info by CondeZer0 · 2001-09-05 04:44 · Score: 3, Informative

Some karma whoring..

From an Asa article at mozillazine.org: " Mitchell Baker's post on her current situation involving Netscape and mozilla.org"

To all the mozilla people: continue the great work, all you rock!

Best regards

Uriel

--
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson

Re:Some more info by CondeZer0 · 2001-09-05 05:05 · Score: 1

Well looks like Asa posted this before me... *sigh* Well, he deserve the karma, and his post is really informative, not like mine :) /me thinks of poor Asa's wife... Asa, don't work so much! Take care Uriel

--
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
Re:Some more info by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 06:08 · Score: 0

Shame on you for thinking that Asa wouldn't pimp himself on slashdot and that you had to do it for him. You are hearby demoted to Junior Asa Fanboy Second Class.

AOL Deathblow? by idonotexist · 2001-09-05 04:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

Please excuse my thoughts of a potential conspiracy theory here. Given the significance of AOL (Netscape) developers to the Mozilla project and the lay off of a (significant?) number of employees, including lead developers, to Mozilla, it seems to me AOL is attempting to kill Mozilla. Why else would AOL make such a move? I mean, what other result would come from this by not continuing support of Mozilla? (eh, 'mozilla is available for download' is not significant support imo).

The motive? Who knows. Recently, though, AOL and Microsoft were engaged in intense negotiations regarding the inclusion of AOL in Windows XP.

--
"There ought to be limits to freedom"

Re:AOL Deathblow? by Lumpy · 2001-09-05 04:50 · Score: 2

you cant kill mozilla.
it exists as a open source project now, and even if they said, "Our servers and sourcecode... mine mine ! you all go away (which is exactly how software companies act... like 3 year olds fighting over a ball)" it is still out there, many many still have the sourcecode, and it will continue.

AOL cannot stop it, netscape cant stop it.

It's a moot point and will only speed it up if they try to stop it.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:AOL Deathblow? by TheTomcat · 2001-09-05 05:39 · Score: 1

I think this might be a more logical explanation..

Not that I don't appreciate a good conspiracy theory (-:
Re:AOL Deathblow? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 06:01 · Score: 0

No, if AOL were trying to kill Mozilla it would have sacked everyone @ mozilla.org.

As it was they only sacked one and this has been perceived internally as one of those stupid undoable things that happens when a corporation demands managers to reduce their headcount by some arbitrary amount. I have no idea why she was chosen but it could have been for any number of reasons.

But given the fact that AOL didn't can the whole project when it had the power to do so should speak of their confidence in it. AOL is in the content delivery business and they know that having an open standards browser is the best way to ensure their content gets to everyone, not just those running Microsoft Windows and IE.
Re:AOL Deathblow? by gordo_lk · 2001-09-05 06:23 · Score: 1

I'm wondering how much of this is in relation to AOL/Netscape's partnership with sun IPlanet which will close in a few months. From what I understand, at the end of their contract IPlanet will become part of Sun. This includes the Netscape servers (web, ldap, etc). Unfortunately I can not find a press release related to this, only the customer update email.
Re:AOL Deathblow? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 07:29 · Score: 0

Why would Sun want netscape server? IIS kicks it's ass, and apache (available for solaris) is almost as good.
Hell, when I worked for JavaSoft, we had a hombrewed web server (written in java, of course :) that was 98% enterprise class. I don't know what happened to it, but I don't think it ever saw the light of day :/
Re:AOL Deathblow? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 07:38 · Score: 0

They probably could care less about Netscape's web server. They want the application server.
Re:AOL Deathblow? by 4of12 · 2001-09-05 07:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
No, no, no.

The conspiracy theory is about half right.

AOL wants to keep Mozilla waiting in the wings as a potential threatening poker chip in its negotiations with MS about desktop icon placement, default MSN services, whether AOL will pursue the legal complaints that Netscape originally filed, etc.

These negotiations pivot about various points, such as whether AOL will use IE or Netscape, whose streaming media format they will support, etc. As such, the poker chips in this game can be quite important and valuable because the game is for such very high stakes.

The Netscape/Mozilla browser represents a bugaboo to MS for two reasons.
1. As a ghost of a vanquished enemy that could be brought back to life to challenge IE if suddenly AOL were to release tens of millions of CDs with a working Mozilla on it.
2. The same ghost carries with it the wounds it suffered during the famous Air Supply Cutoff that the Dept of Justice is so intent upon examining. Rather than have AOL with a well funded legal department display the corpse for all to see, it is better to lay flowers on that grave and not upset the status quo.
The upshot is that Mozilla is an excellent poker chip where it stands now, getting preened but not quite ready for prime time. It serves AOL's purpose well in keeping the beast of Redmond at bay.

If the Mozilla poker chip were actually played, either releasing it for general widespread use or using its legal status to beat up MS in the courts, then a lot of blood and fur would fly. Not a business decision that they want or need right now.

Kind of like the book and movie Shogun, if you recall the end, where Lord Toranaga keeps Anjin-san building dangerous ships to keep his adversaries at bay, but secretly Lord Toranaga burns the ships when they are in danger of becoming a full fledged reality.
--
"Provided by the management for your protection."

MozillaQuest by hwaara · 2001-09-05 04:44 · Score: 1

Oh god, when will people learn; MozillaQuest is not a reliable source for Mozilla development information!

I'm so tired of this. All the major geek news sites like this one keeps posting new references to this very misinforming site.

Please boycott it. I know I will.

--
-Håkan

Re:MozillaQuest by sulli · 2001-09-05 05:25 · Score: 1

"People" already know - but submitters are slow. (And editors don't fix what they clearly should nix.)

--

sulli
RTFJ.

Thanks for keeping us from working. by fabiang · 2001-09-05 04:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Just wanted to say thanks for keeping us from working with our main tool, Bugzilla. I hope we don't have to suffer this again in the future.

-Fabian.

Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 04:47 · Score: 0

A person laid off from a dying company? You'd think this would be happening in more companies! Oh wait...it is. Thanks George.

Let's get on to real news instead of who lost their job.

So? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 04:48 · Score: 0

Who cares? Really, Konqueror is a much better product.

Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 04:59 · Score: 0

>Who cares? Really, Konqueror [konqueror.org] is a much better product.

Haha, very funny. Konqueror is based on Gecko, the mozilla rendering engine, so any delays there will also apply to konqueror
Re:So? by jonathan_ingram · 2001-09-05 05:34 · Score: 1

Konqueror is based on Gecko
No it isn't. Konqueror is no relation to Gecko.

--
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 06:01 · Score: 0

Konqueror is based on Gecko

What colour is the sky on your planet again?

The Answer, from a trusted source by wiredog · 2001-09-05 04:49 · Score: 2

What if they were run over by a bus?

Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted

--

Best Slashdot Co

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 04:49 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Seriously. God damn, you'd think at least one person at /. would have a little common sense.

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by Reality+Master+101 · 2001-09-05 04:49 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Or maybe you give Bugzilla users an alternate forum rather putting that crap in the bug database?

Cure the disease, rather than bitch about the symptoms.

--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.

The fallout begins???? by cascadefx · 2001-09-05 04:51 · Score: 1

I wondered if something like this wouldn't be far behind the announcement that Netscape isn't "doing" browsers anymore. A lot of speculation about future fallout was bandied about in this Slashdot discussion. It seems like the chips are beginning to fall. I guess we'll see where they all land.

I can see the new MozillaQuest headlines now by chabotc · 2001-09-05 04:51 · Score: 5, Funny

"Mozilla milestone 0.9.4 delayed again: due to a large conspiricy, the slashdot community decided to kill of mozilla's bugzilla server, completely stoping all work on the branch".

In related news, from the bugzilla 2.5.1 Changelog:
* Added a slashdot effect filter, if HTTP_REFER = '*slashdot.org', show a 404 page.

Re:I can see the new MozillaQuest headlines now by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 05:13 · Score: 0

In other related news, someone got off their ass and wrote a better bugzilla server...
Re:I can see the new MozillaQuest headlines now by Water+Paradox · 2001-09-05 05:15 · Score: 1

Finally, a little clarity on the subject.

"It seems that three hours later, the slashdotting was over, and all the people who were frustrated went back to their lives of frustration with no audience."

Gadzooks, you make it sound like a slashdotting is comparable to a rolling blackout. Get over it. Life is too short to complain about things which are over in a few hours.

--
information is immaterial
Re:I can see the new MozillaQuest headlines now by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 05:53 · Score: 0

Here's an idea: if you want news sites to stop linking into bugzilla, stop putting news in the bugzilla database
Re:I can see the new MozillaQuest headlines now by startled · 2001-09-05 06:52 · Score: 2

"Life is too short to complain about things which are over in a few hours."

You mean things like a joke in a /. story?
Re:I can see the new MozillaQuest headlines now by Doc+Hopper · 2001-09-05 07:33 · Score: 2

Don't laugh. That's exactly the solution we're considering in #mozwebtools right now!
I'm personally a fan of using some sort of caching algorithm, but how to do that without fubaring security on Bugzilla is still in questions.
I'm just the documenter for the project, though. I can count the number of lines of source code I've contributed to Bugzilla on the fingers of both hands.

--
Matthew P. Barnson
I learn what I think when I read what I write
Re:I can see the new MozillaQuest headlines now by HiThere · 2001-09-05 07:53 · Score: 2

Ok. That's another argument in favor of the /. referer solution.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by Doktor+Memory · 2001-09-05 04:52 · Score: 2, Flamebait

In the future, please think about the people who are relying on a particular server before targetting it for destruction.

Oh, they do think about it, trust me. In case you haven't noticed from the self-satisfied braying around here every time it happens (which is about five to ten times a day), "slashdotting" serves as a handy penis substitute for the hordes of socially malformed idiots that this place calls its audience...and its "editors."

--

News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by dinotrac · 2001-09-05 04:56 · Score: 1

> Seriously. God damn, you'd think at least one person at /. would have a little common sense.

New hire, I presume?

Oh no, they /.-ed bugzilla! by iamr00t · 2001-09-05 04:57 · Score: 1

Had to go to /. to figure that out, can't get there since 12AM.

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by Water+Paradox · 2001-09-05 04:59 · Score: 1

Cmdr Taco et al.

Life is bigger than a day. Link to whomever you please.

-Water Paradox

--
information is immaterial

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by MicroBerto · 2001-09-05 04:59 · Score: 1

I e-mailed malda for ya, i figure that if 1000 emails didn't help, my 1001st one will!

In the meantime, perhaps you can find a way to filter out any messages that are linked FROM slashdot.org and family. I know that there's scripts and such that can tell where you're coming from -- maybe incorporate that somehow. Beats me if it's really possible/feasible/a solution though -- just thought I'd try to help.

--
Berto

Bugzilla Mirror - Use this instead. by cetan · 2001-09-05 05:00 · Score: 3, Informative

http://www.necrosys.net/mirrors/bug_96747.html

Don't kill bugzilla.mozilla

--
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!

Since when? by why-is-it · 2001-09-05 05:00 · Score: 1

Layoffs are part of the normal business cycle.

Since when did this become true?

I can see how some economists would claim this, and some would even suggest that this is a Good Thing(tm), but call me skeptical, I don't see it.

I suppose that grossly inflated share prices compared to earnings is a normal part of the business cycle too...

--
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?

Re:Since when? by Jason+Earl · 2001-09-05 06:17 · Score: 2

What, do you want the government to set share prices?
Part of the fun of a free market economy is that there is nothing stopping idiots from spending too much money for the goods and services they receive. Yes, sometimes that means that people will foolishly invest in companies that have no chance of ever having the kinds of profits that would justify their share price, but the alternative is far worse.
Free Market ecnomics certainly has its ups and downs, but it beats central planning of the economy all hollow. And if you are careful and stay away from people promising huge riches with little work you will find that you can avoid investing in companies that have no chance of ever justifying their sky high price.
Re:Since when? by fetta · 2001-09-05 11:35 · Score: 1

>>Layoffs are part of the normal business cycle.

Since when did this become true?
I can see how some economists would claim this, and some would even suggest that this is a Good Thing(tm), but call me skeptical, I don't see it.

I am not an economist (IANAE?) but it seems pretty self-evident to me. Assuming any form of capitalistic economy, companies have to be able to expand to meet demand rises and contract when demand recedes. Good (or bad) management can change the point at which a company does these things, but the principle stays the same.

--
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by Water+Paradox · 2001-09-05 05:01 · Score: 1

Sounds like a woman writing. They just don't get it, do they, guys? :-)

--
information is immaterial

Yes, referer is what I also was thinking. by iamr00t · 2001-09-05 05:03 · Score: 1

You could show some "nice" page there though, not just 404 ;-)

Re:Yes, referer is what I also was thinking. by cruelworld · 2001-09-05 07:47 · Score: 3, Funny

just post a re-direct to goatse.cx

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by cetan · 2001-09-05 05:03 · Score: 5, Informative

I know this is redundant to a post I made below, but I put up a mirror here:

http://www.necrosys.net/mirrors/bug_96747.html

--
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by Water+Paradox · 2001-09-05 05:05 · Score: 1

Hey, dude. Blaming other people for your problems ain't gon' to solve'm any faster. Don't think you got an inside track to Slashdot editor's whims just because you workin' on Mozilla, which we're all waiting for.

So you got slashdotted. Take a break. Go for a walk, enjoy the sunlight a little.

Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

-Water Paradox

--
information is immaterial

no good for slashdot by ahmetaa · 2001-09-05 05:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Slash dot has made mistakes 1- Linking to the one of the most horrible designed web site ever (mozillaquest) 2- Not ignoring that site, although many times it was explained nicely from Mozilla workers why this site cant be the source for Mozilla project, and yet there is real info in mozillazine.org 3- Sadly, by linking to the Bugzilla directly. Today was an important day because 0.9.4 was ready to go. Now who knows when bugzilla will work again. deliberately bombing one of the gratest open source project ever. i am likely to believe slashdot likes magazine conspiracy rather than reality. PS: For God's sake who will listen Wrangler??

DeCSS code found embedded in Mozilla source code! by fobbman · 2001-09-05 05:07 · Score: 2

Gill Bates writes: "According to this bugtraq report a rogue Mozilla programmer has inserted illegal DVD descrambling code into the freely-distributable Mozilla browser source code. Is there any question now whether open-source software is dangerous to intellectual property?

That should keep those Mozilla folks busy awhile. Who needs to script up some virus to take over broadband computers to send DDOS attacks at targets when you can just link to a website in a /. submission?

Seriously, isn't it time that Slashdot start mirroring some of these web pages that they kill via the /. effect? This could have easily been saved on the /. servers and then linked to without kiling the bugtraq servers over there.

Freedom (was re: Layoffs are unfortunate, but...) by fetta · 2001-09-05 05:07 · Score: 1

Another fun thing is that, since they're expected to work for free, they and their families can starve, or perhaps beg for change on the street during the day after a long night of coding.

How does that follow? I somehow expect that someone with experience working on a high-profile project like Mozilla will have little difficulty finding a new position. Whether she chooses to continue working on Mozilla is up to her. Whether her new employer decides to pay her to work on Mozilla is up to them.

Freedom does not mean that you can expect somebody else to pay for you to work on things you find interesting. You have to be able to make a case to your employer that your work benefits the employer. Otherwise, it's just a hobby (not that there is anything wrong with hobbies).

--
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**

Umm... there are tons of ppl there. by iamr00t · 2001-09-05 05:07 · Score: 1

Including me ;-)

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by Cryptnotic · 2001-09-05 05:09 · Score: 1

CmdrTaco will link to whomever he damn well pleases. Duh.

Cryptnotic

--
My other first post is car post.

MozillaQuest for eradication... by linuxwolf · 2001-09-05 05:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Does anyone have the scoop as to why Mike Angelo hates Mozilla so much? Was a contribution burned? Did they decide to use someone else's ideas instead of his? Is he just having a permanent "that-time-of-the-month"?

I ask this because he is not forthcoming on his own information. That, and his site is very, very misleading. Do not be fooled the "we asked" or "we investigated" lines. This is the pursuit of one person.

Also, almost all of this individual's "articles" are taken from the Bugzilla entries and Mozilla mainsite postings. They have little foundation in actual fact.

Now, I myself am not involved in the day-to-day of Mozilla and Netscape, but I follow the direction of this project closely, since the technologies being developed here (mainly XUL and XPCOM) can have a dramatic effect on the future of my employers (sorry, I cannot go into much detail here). I keep updated from the mailing lists, and from MozillaZine and The lizard farm.

I very rarely ever head over to MozillaQuest. The reason: most of the "articles" are factually incorrect. take for instance the article on "Mozilla 0.9.2.1 released". If all you ever do is read MozillaQuest, you'd think there was this tremendous conspiracy going on between Mozilla and Netscape. But a quick perusal of Mozilla and/or MozillaZine shed actual light on the subject: The 0.9.2.1 release is 95-99% equivalent to Netscape 6.1, and is being provided for developers to test and debug their XUL/XPCOM/Plug-ins/skins/etc.. against for Netscape 6.1 compatibility.

MozillaQuest is fiction, with enough truth to make it sound legitimate. If you want the real scoop, head over to MozillaZine. Don't waste time at MozillaQuest.

Not AOL - AOL/TW by sulli · 2001-09-05 05:10 · Score: 2

NSCP is a pretty small division of that pretty big company...

--

sulli
RTFJ.

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by Cryptnotic · 2001-09-05 05:13 · Score: 1

The real problem is the users who blindly click on any link without regard to the possibility that they might be taking part in a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack.

Cryptnotic

--
My other first post is car post.

Other mysterious happenings... by Ami+Ganguli · 2001-09-05 05:16 · Score: 2

When Mozilla is finished with the branch it is likely that a major vendor will take over and maintain that branch working toward a commercial release.

Does anybody have any clues as to who this mysterious major vendor is? It's pretty obvious that the insiders at Mozilla.org are under NDA or something like that.

The timing of this makes me wonder if maybe Mitchell isn't going to some other Mozilla related company. Even if not, I think it's interesting that the "commercial" Mozilla community is growing beyond just AOL. It makes for a healthier project.

--
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow

Re:Other mysterious happenings... by Tim+Macinta · 2001-09-05 05:44 · Score: 2

Does anybody have any clues as to who this mysterious major vendor is?
My guess would be RedHat, although that is pure conjecture on my part. I remember somebody from RedHat stating not too long ago that they are planning of replacing Netscape with Mozilla in their Linux distribution at some point and RedHat Linux 7.2 is just around the corner. Mozilla surpasses Navigator 4.x on Linux in just about all respects at this point, so I wouldn't be surprised if RedHat made the switch now rather than waiting for Mozilla 1.0.
There are some good (and probably better informed) guesses at the Mozillazine article on the subject. So far, the other guesses are OEone and Netscape (yes, there's a good explanation for Netscape being the masked vendor even though they just released Navigator 6.1 - read the comments below the article).

--
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Re:Other mysterious happenings... by Ami+Ganguli · 2001-09-05 06:00 · Score: 2

RedHat seems unlikely to me. I doubt they'd take a branch and try to stabilize it themselves. IMHO they would just pick a build at run with it. It's just not important enough for their business for them to bother with a separate branch.

Netscape would make a certain amount of sense, but why keep it a secret?

I could see AOL, but I don't think AOL needs to put out a release any time soon. They'd be better off just waiting for 1.0.

OEone? I don't really know much about them. Would they really be called a "major" vendor? Major contributer yes, but major vendor seems like a bit of a stretch.

Somebody like Nokia or Sony (for the PlayStation) might be a possibility. I could imagine them wanting to keep mum about their product, and they would definately count as major.

--
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow

What's next, using the National Enquirer? by Kelson · 2001-09-05 05:17 · Score: 3, Informative

Didn't you learn from the last time? Using MozillaQuest as a news source is like using the National Enquirer. If you dig deep enough you might find a kernel of truth, but most of it is sensationalist, wildly inaccurate crap. This is the site that claimed Netscape 6.1 was not based on Mozilla code, includes things like duplicates and feature requests when counting the number of "bugs," and somehow manages to skew every bit of news, whether positive or negative, to make it evidence of Mozilla's demise/irrelevance/uselessness/etc.

If you want straight-forward news (including the real story about Mitchell Baker), check out MozillaZine instead. They may not update the site as frequently, but it's generally news from people who are actually involved with the project, and it's a hell of a lot more accurate (one advantage of waiting until you have real information instead of making up your own).

Re:What's next, using the National Enquirer? by sab39 · 2001-09-05 06:53 · Score: 2

I can see the MozillaQuestQuest article now:

MozillaQuest lays off MozillaQuest's Chief Article Wrangler, Michael Angelo, And Others?

According to Bug Number 34834 in the MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite's BugQuest database, MozillaQuest's Chief Article Wrangler, "Michael Angelo has left MozillaQuest." However, he is still listed on MozillaQuest's article pages as the MozillaQuest article writer.

Here's what we think happened. It appears that Michael Angelo's position at MozillaQuest was eliminated and that he consequently was laid off on or about 4 September 2001. Although Michael served as head of the MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite he was actually employed by Matrix Wireless and was being paid by Matrix Wireless for his work at the Magazine-Suite.

The lion's share of people working on the entire MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite are employed and paid by Matrix Wireless - or at least were employed by Matrix Wireless. Matrix Wireless through its spokesman Michael Angelo has refused to disclose how many Matrix Wireless employees work on the Magazine-Suite. However it is likely that at least 100-200 positions have been eliminated at the Magazine-Suite, which would leave it with only -99 to -199 employees. So layoffs at Matrix Wireless could have a substantial impact on the MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite.

Re:DeCSS code found embedded in Mozilla source cod by sulli · 2001-09-05 05:17 · Score: 2

This comes up a lot, but I really agree. It would NOT be hard to add auto-mirror to Slash, which the user could turn off if he didn't like it (like the annoying little that comes with links now. Do it, Slash team, and we will love you forever! (Or at least bitch about it in a way that makes it clear we really love you.)

--

sulli
RTFJ.

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by Quikah · 2001-09-05 05:18 · Score: 2

Oh, you mean like the 70+ netscape.public.mozilla newsgroups available on the publically accessible news.mozilla.org server?

--
Q.

Konqueror Works Fine by quakeaddict · 2001-09-05 05:21 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I think Mozilla should be taken out back and dealt with in the most humane way as possible. Its a non starter folks.

--
I'm still working on a clever footer.

Re:Konqueror Works Fine by tk422 · 2001-09-05 06:04 · Score: 1

Why do people continue to post comments about how Konqueror rocks?

The people in the Mozilla work hard at developing Mozilla and we're glad that you like Konqueror but dont keep telling us this.

We continue to work at Mozilla to make it the best browser possible which it will be quite soon despite the naysayers out there. Konqueror is fine for what it does, a web browser but in a corporate environment or someone who does lots of crossplatform work (like myself) Mozilla is a godsend.

The Mozilla development cycle will *ALWAYS* be slower then Konqueror or any other browser. Why? because it compiles on almost every platform out there. It compiles on IRIX, SunOS/Solaris, Linux, *BSD, Windows, Mac, Mac OS X, BeOS, and many others.There is even a working port for QNX for godsakes.

For people who need a little help that means when you check code in, if has to compile properly on *every* platform in order for the development process to continue. This makes the process much slower. So Konqueror will develop faster as will most browsers but in the long run Mozilla will out pace them all.
Re:Konqueror Works Fine by coke+machine · 2001-09-05 06:36 · Score: 1

Why do so many people say that Konqueror's soooo good? I don't want to say that its developers didn't do any good work, but it isn't the best program ever! I don't really think most of the people who keep posting about Konqueror being the best/fastest/coolest browser for Linux have ever tried all the alternatives.

--
-- fsck /win
Re:Konqueror Works Fine by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 06:51 · Score: 0

konqueror rocks.. and konq/embedded runs on the qt ports to windows, macos, atheos, and beos. so fuckyatoo moz humper
Re:Konqueror Works Fine by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 06:53 · Score: 0

last time I checked, konqueror was the best/fastest/coolest browser for linux

I've tried, mozilla, ns4.7, opera, galeon, skipstone

other browsers, such as dillo, light, etc.. don't count because they suck major ass
Re:Konqueror Works Fine by flacco · 2001-09-05 09:20 · Score: 1

in a corporate environment or someone who does lots of crossplatform work (like myself) Mozilla is a godsend.

Hell yes. Mozilla is an excellent package, and being cross platform moves it into the "awesome" category.

--
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.

Re:So? -- Sorry, you are mistaken by Myrv · 2001-09-05 05:30 · Score: 1

Konqueror is based on KHTML which is completely different from Gecko. This is why Konqueror has been progressing much quicker than Mozilla since it is not limited by the Mozilla development cycle.

Bugzilla is down now? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 05:34 · Score: 0

Anyone else getting a 403 error when just trying to open http://bugzilla.mozilla.org ???

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by GoNINzo · 2001-09-05 05:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why don't you just do a apache redirect? Instead of dynamically create that page, add an apache rule to the httpd.conf to redirect the traffic to a static page, or better yet, off the site entirely using a different server. It's a quick hack to get your users back up and running.

But I think a better solution would be to create a forum for such discussions, not within the bug discussions themselves.

--
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty

is AOL that stupid? by mikeee · 2001-09-05 05:55 · Score: 2

Maybe. But if AOL thinks they can afford to let MS control internet client software, they're dumber than I think they are...

Yeah, I guess they noticed the effect already ;-) by iamr00t · 2001-09-05 05:56 · Score: 1

*sigh*

what a troll by Roadmaster · 2001-09-05 05:56 · Score: 1

Maybe you're one of those who'd like to see Mozilla "suppressed". I guess you haven't used it lately, it might be late, but I'll take a late project over one rushed out the door too soon any day.

If you don't like the way it looks, then use a different theme; if you think it's buggy, help find and squash bugs. There's just no excuse to complain with a project of this nature, other than you actually being one of those people who engage in "personal attacks devoid of content". Which doesn't seem to be the case!

As for MozillaQuest's journalistic integrity, what they initially strike me as, is one of those sites whose reporting style is aggressive and inflamatory, which is good, because it leads to heated and interesting discussion and generates more traffic for them (hate to see another .com bite the dust). I don't have a problem with that, and neither should anyone else, as long as they keep their reports accurate. Those people who prefer a more "serious" reporting style should stick to other sites like mozillazine.

Re:what a troll by DrXym · 2001-09-05 06:18 · Score: 2

There is nothing wrong with being agressive and inflamatory as long as you get your facts straight. MozillaQuest writes articles that are inaccurate or completely wrong because the guy hasn't bothered to check his facts out before venting. The most famous example was the Netscape denies using Mozilla code in Netscape 6.1 story which accused NS of stealing Mozilla code to make 6.1, failing to grasp that this is the whole point of the NS/Mozilla relationship.

and they just upgraded the server by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 05:56 · Score: 0

any /.er want to make a difference here? wait a week and then do something about it. one email may change the world; one thousand will fall on deaf ears.

damit! i can't get my morning bugzilla fix now!

remind me to post the link to my site on slashdott by sthulin · 2001-09-05 05:58 · Score: 1

remind me to post the link to my site on slashdotthe next time i want my hit counter to raise to 1,000,000

New threat to the internet by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 06:04 · Score: 5, Funny

-PAFP
September 5 2001, 4:54 AM
It has been discovered that a new and mysterious underground hacker-website called the "Slash Dot" has developed a powerful & destructive cyberweapon. Sources say that by "hyper linking" to a government or industry webserver, the Slash Dottors can destroy the victom's operations for days at a time. A recipient of a hyper link attack this Wednesday was the site called "Mozillabug", a massive technological service used by thousands of businesses to obtain free program "code". FBI spokespeople were unavailable to comment, it is believed a presumably insane collegue died of laughing upon hearing about this new internet security threat.
Industry leader Microsoft Corp [MSFT] has recomended users perchase their new Windows XP operating system in order to take advantage of their new innovation: a firewall. Firewalls are believed to protect users against all internet security threats, but Microsoft spokespeople were unable to elaborate due to lack of knowledge in the subject.
Meanwhile, reports are coming in that members of the Slash Dot called "Anonymous Cowists" are posting the phrase "Hacked By Chinese" on message boards all over the internet. British MPs have claimed in Parliament that reading those messages can cause keyboards to emit green haze.

Joe Bloggs, PAFP news.

Re:The reason by jallen02 · 2001-09-05 06:24 · Score: 1

ACs at their best :)

come on now. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 06:27 · Score: 0

Slashdot's servers can barely manage their own traffic, much less the traffic of mirroring other sites.

Re:come on now. by benb · 2001-09-05 14:08 · Score: 1

Right. Better ramdomly kill other servers than putting up with a little wait.

But...but... by grammar+fascist · 2001-09-05 06:28 · Score: 2

But if they posted links to authoritative sources, we wouldn't have anything to whine and moan about! Where would our precious karma be then?

Actually, I have my own conspiracy theory on the subject. See, Taco's run up a tremendous gambling debt, and his income from Slashdot just doesn't cover it anymore. So every chance he gets, he puts up a story with a link to MozillaQuest. Why?? Because CmdrTaco is actually Mike Angelo! He's doing it for the ad revenue!

I have proof. First, no self-respecting parents would ever name a child Michael Angelo, unless they were some terrible TMNT freaks. Second, have you EVER seen them TOGETHER?

I didn't think so.

--
I got my Linux laptop at System76.

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 06:33 · Score: 0

Like you were making any progress anyway.

I suppose now you're going to use this as the reason why you're slipping the release date another quarter.

Mozilla release date has remained the same by yerricde · 2001-09-05 06:53 · Score: 1

I suppose now you're going to use this as the reason why you're slipping the release date another quarter.

The Mozilla release date hasn't changed since M1: "1.0 will appear When It's Ready(tm)." Refusing to accept that dates can be expressed in terms of calendars other than Gregorian is an error.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:Mozilla release date has remained the same by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · 2001-09-05 08:10 · Score: 2

I wish I could use the calender that they are using myself.

"Yeah, I'll pay that bill - when I'm ready."

Uh-huh. No definite release date is a bad thing. This reduces the acceptability of open source to business.

Mozilla needs to catch up and fast. Netscape, IE, and/or Konqueror will crush them if they don't

--
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Re:Mozilla release date has remained the same by netsharc · 2001-09-05 11:53 · Score: 0

How is Netscape going to crush them when they're both the same product? Sure Netscape may have some AOL crap attached to it, but inside, it's still beautiful mozilla code running!

--
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Re:Mozilla release date has remained the same by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 14:57 · Score: 0

Mozilla is already way ahead of all three (assuming you mean NS4.x) by just about any standards except memory usage and startup time.

Re:hey by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 06:56 · Score: 0

fuck you. and suck my cocklewheezer

Re:Freedom (was re: Layoffs are unfortunate, but.. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 06:57 · Score: 0

I somehow expect that someone with experience working on a high-profile project like Mozilla will have little difficulty finding a new position.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but are you still in school? If you were out in the real world and saw what the tech job market is like, I think you'd have a much different opinion about how easy it is to get a job, especially for someone who just got shitcanned. I'd say Mitchell's only saving grace at this point is that she's a woman, so will have an easier time by companies who need to fill up their affirmative action quotas, but even that's not a sure bet.

Taco has a strategy here by PurpleBob · 2001-09-05 07:01 · Score: 2

It must be that Taco decided we already have enough news today, and didn't want another Mozilla story on top of this one - so he posted the link to Bugzilla, bringing it down and preventing 0.9.4 from being released. How deviously clever.

Either that or he's just stupid (this evidence is supported by the fact that he keeps posting links to MozillaQuest) and had no idea his idiocy would singlehandedly set back the release of 0.9.4.

--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by tempest303 · 2001-09-05 07:07 · Score: 1

"slashdotting" serves as a handy penis substitute for the hordes of socially malformed idiots that this place calls its audience

Does anyone else find this post a little ironic? (pot and kettle?)

--
The Free desktop that Just Works

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by bockman · 2001-09-05 07:08 · Score: 1

In the meantime, perhaps you can find a way to filter out any messages that are linked FROM slashdot.org and family.

Good idea! Maybe VA could sell a close-source software to protect sites from the /. effect (with the veiled threat that if they don't buy it, they _will_ be /.ed)

Seriously, they _should_ start to think to the damage they can do with these links. And I don't think this is our fault: an hyperlink exists only for a reason: to be clicked on.

--
Ciao

----

FB

Re:Freedom (was re: Layoffs are unfortunate, but.. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 07:09 · Score: 0

Before we hire you, could you explain why you don't list your last job?

I was walking on mozilla.

Sorry, your skillset doesn't match our needs, in the future....

-or-

I was a crack-cocaine junky.

how soon can you start?

It's back by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 07:15 · Score: 0

I guess they re-opened to the public again. So readers, commence your bombing!!!!

Konqueror is expen$ive on Windows by yerricde · 2001-09-05 07:25 · Score: 1

konq/embedded runs on the qt ports to windows, macos, atheos, and beos.

None of the Qt ports you mentioned are free software or even free as in beer. If I want a decent browser on Windows, my choices are IE (predominance in server logs contributes to IE-only web design techniques such as VBScript), Opera (has problems with many sites), Mozilla (a few textarea glitches), and a Konq/E based browser (requires a $1200 Qt license to compile for Windows plus $500 for VC++ because Qt for Windows doesn't support mingw gcc or cygwin gcc). I'm happy with Mozilla 0.9.3 for the time being.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:Konqueror is expen$ive on Windows by fault0 · 2001-09-05 19:52 · Score: 1

heard of qt/noncommercial for windows?

How pervasive are the layoffs? by BrerBear · 2001-09-05 07:31 · Score: 1

This is sad news, but I was waiting to hear it once it was made public that AOL was laying off workers.

As a Mozilla fan, I'm really curious how many Netscape/Mozilla contributors got the axe. Is this an isolated thing, or is the project in jeopardy? Can anyone with this info contribute it here, even anonymously?

Re:hey by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 07:35 · Score: 0

The fact remains that, as a troll (and an insult generator), you are laughably subpar. Please stop embarassing yourself with such remarkably lackluster attempts.

In fact, I hereby revoke your status as Troll for such an awful performance overall. You are now officially nothing. A Zero. Jack-Squat.

You're welcome.

Inaccurate information there by jesup · 2001-09-05 07:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

"facts"? MAngelo's "facts" are mostly misunderstandings (intentional or not) of how a development team and bug database actually work. He makes an assumption that somehow bugzilla bugs of a given severity are all objectively rated, that the bugzilla database is totally up-to-date with actual development at a given point, that all bugs in the project have been found and are in the database, how obscure the bug is, etc.

I've reported dozens of bugs in bugzilla - just because I reported them doesn't make it buggier than before I reported them, but by his measures it does, even though many of them have been fixed.

mangelo simply wants to find ways to present Mozilla in the worst light possible, and will root around until he finds "proof" of his assertion. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, after all, can be used to "prove" anything.

Does he lie? Maybeso, but probably not. He certainly does see everything through colored glasses, and either misinterprets things, or purposely misleads (take your pick). He's decided he doesn't like something about it, and he's going to do his best to make sure everyone else doesn't like it either. Obviously you decided long ago also ("late, buggy, and ugly", etc), and so anything posted by someone who says "it's getting pretty good" will be discounted as "flaming by the mozilla faithful".

Unlike either you or mangelo, I actually try to make things better. And it is AMAZINGLY less buggy than the NS6.0 release, and is pretty darn solid. Perfect - hardly; and nor is IE. But it's gotten pretty darn good and stable, and keeps getting better.

Alas, dear Taco... by talks_to_birds · 2001-09-05 08:00 · Score: 1

...trolling for posts again, are we?

And now it's links to MozillaQuest.

For shame, Taco, for shame.

Or have you none?

t_t_b

--
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by singularity · 2001-09-05 08:14 · Score: 1

That could be *any* link out there, even ones not on Slashdot. Should I not load Slashdot since obviously their numbers are so high as to destroy other servers?

I clicked on the link because I am interested in the Mozialla browser and its development. I would guess that most of the Slashdot crowd clicked for the same reason.

One only needs to look at how many /. posters apparently never read the original story. It is a frequent complaint around here.

No, most people who clicked on the link did so to find out more about the story. Most of the /. crowd are not one to "blindly click." They are too lazy to do that.

As others on this story have said, there are better places to discuss the story. A publically accessable web server is always open to being linked to from anywhere.

If I were a developer, I would welcome the general public taking down my web server for a day. It means that they are interested in what I am developing.

--
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman

Copy of bugzilla 96727 from mozilla [now blocked] by philkerr · 2001-09-05 08:21 · Score: 1

Mozilla have now set-up a redirect back to /. from their bugzilla server. Here's a copy of the bug report:

On behalf of OEone Corporation, I see this as a major bug to the Mozilla open
source project.

Mitchell demonstrated a strong commitment to leading Mozilla.org to deliver a
high quality, open source, and open standards browser that was nonpartisan to
Netscape or any other single interest group. She supported the evolution of a
developer community within and without the Netscape organization.

From the perspective of a Mozilla "partner" on the outside, we valued the
continual efforts she made to connect us with other developers, business people,
and open source advocates throughout the world. She was truly a champion for
Mozilla and community by which it was built.

We are OEone are regretful that Mitchell Baker has left Netscape and
Mozilla.org. She will be missed.

------- Additional Comments From Peter Bojanic 2001-08-28 11:22 -------

Endico recommended I add a few folks to the cc list.

------- Additional Comments From Asa Dotzler 2001-09-02 20:07 -------

news://news.mozilla.org:119/3B8D621F.3030903@bad ub adu.com

------- Additional Comments From Gervase Markham 2001-09-05 09:44 -------

Changing summary from:
"Mitchell Baker is gone from mozilla.org"
to
"Mitchell Baker is gone from Netscape"
which is correct. Mitchell is not gone from mozilla.org. See the above newsgroup
post.

Gerv

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 08:25 · Score: 0

Yeah, maybe they can do like Lowtax did when /. linked to SomethingAwful. He set his server to redirect anyone with slashdot.org as the HTTP-referrer to goatse.cx! Roofle. Owned. Slahsdot.

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by Doktor+Memory · 2001-09-05 08:53 · Score: 2

Does anyone else find this post a little ironic?

Well, I would certainly hope so.

As a side note, I don't think I've ever been happier with the moderation on one of my posts here. "+4 Troll" is about exactly perfect for this one.

--

News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

Oh for Homer's sake by /dev/trash · 2001-09-05 08:56 · Score: 1

They actually created a bug for this?????

Re:Freedom (was re: Layoffs are unfortunate, but.. by fetta · 2001-09-05 09:35 · Score: 1

If you were out in the real world . . .

In the "real world" that I live in, I see a lot of people changing jobs and companies right now, but I don't see a lot of qualified technical people remaining unemployed for too long. Of course, some of them are having to settle for jobs that they don't like quite as much as their old ones, but I'm not seeing rampant unemployment out there (yet). Of course, your mileage may vary depending on where you live and your specific specialty.

--
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**

(ot) internet explorer bug by Webz · 2001-09-05 09:37 · Score: 1

i know it seems extremely out of place to post this here... but you were forewarned.

anyway, using winMe and ie6, clicking on the mozilla bug link on the front page reloads the slashdot front page with the form info tagged on to the end. has anyone else encountered this?

bug #96747 -- http://slashdot.org/?id=96747

this happens even though the link on the page points explicitly to the mozilla domain. clicking on the same link on the comments page loads the correct mozilla page

Re:(ot) internet explorer bug by philkerr · 2001-09-05 11:24 · Score: 1

Nope, it's not a bug it's a feature :) But not IE's. Mozilla prob. got pissed at the fact that their bug tracking server was ./'ed and set up a redirect to send you back to here.

The link is a valid one, but all traffic from ./ is now 'return to sender'

I've copied the contents of the bug link in my post below.

Phil

Magilla.Gorilla? by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 09:51 · Score: 0

Thrilla.Manilla.

Mitchell Baker coment by DVega · 2001-09-05 10:17 · Score: 1

You can read Mitchell Baker coment on the subject here.

--
MOD THE CHILD UP!

Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 10:35 · Score: 0

There are an awful lot of posts here from MozillaZombies towing the party line by duitifully pointing out the error of the MozillaQuest's evil ways.

Now I'm happy to grant that MozillaQuest is rather a rather ugly site, contains many poorly written articles that stretch truth (sometimes past the breaking point), and is the personal fiefdom of its sole contributor-zealot.

But... I do find the site useful, even informative. It's the place to go for quick overview of Mozilla's ever-growing bugcount and an honest assessment of its ever-slipping ship schedule. As a sysadmin for a farm of desktop Unix machines, this is the information I really care about.

Sanctioned news sites like mozillazine function more like an AOL/Netscape/Mozilla's PR department -- waaay to timid and obsessed with spin control.

Mozilla is a very strange animal. Most open source projects have a fully functional, widely deployed product and heterogenous developer community before they get even a tenth of the eyes watching them that Mozilla has. Mozilla is an anomaly: an "open source" product tied chiefly to a struggling division of a single corporate entity (previously a division of a single, struggling corporate entity), born in a blaze of glory without a product to ship. That combination seems to have engendered a "spin doctor" mentality the Mozilla news community, which often seems more more interested in defending their baby than in the practicalities of community use and development.

Re:Freedom (was re: Layoffs are unfortunate, but.. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 12:49 · Score: 0

don't confuse your shitty life with the "real world"

Go buy a real web server. I suggest code red. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 12:55 · Score: 0

'Nuff said.

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by benb · 2001-09-05 13:49 · Score: 1

> Why don't you just do a apache redirect? Instead
> of dynamically create that page, add an apache
> rule to the httpd.conf to redirect the traffic to
> a static page

That was about the first thing the admins tried. Bugzilla was still unusable. (Don't ask me why.)

Re:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa by Electrum · 2001-09-05 15:01 · Score: 1

I hope that comment is sarcastic. Do you realize how many hours in developer time can be lost by something like this?

*BSD is dying by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 15:18 · Score: 0

*BSD is dying

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered *BSD community when last month IDC confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a mere fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick nd its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyist dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For ll practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

*BS is dying

finally.. by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 16:08 · Score: 0

I am back, apparently slashcrap saw the error in their ways and re-activated my account. Now, let the trolling begin...

losers

MOM

Re:Mozilla is dying by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 16:13 · Score: 0

Mozilla is not dying!!!!! IT IS ALREADY DEAD. As a web monkey I can tell you that Netscape/Mozilla sucks BAD. All the linux/netscape/mozilla pushers like to say that it's not broken and that the browser is just trying to hold developers to a higher standard by making them write startardized code. It's balony. It never works right. IE rules. And I can use it to view any site. Mozilla just sucks. Have you ever noticed how an input field flies the the left when it gets the focus. I don't think it's supposed to do that.

losers

MOM

Stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2001-09-05 18:32 · Score: 0

You should never, ever, ever post MozillaQuestQuest shit. I cant believe that you've posted crap from this site twice in a fortnight.

MSVC is expen$ive on Windows by yerricde · 2001-09-06 16:55 · Score: 1

heard of qt/noncommercial for windows?

heard of qt for windows requires ms visual c++ and not cygwin?

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Uhh... That doesn't make sense! by CRConrad · 2001-09-10 04:02 · Score: 1

The "linuxwolf" writes:

Also, almost all of this individual's "articles" are taken from the Bugzilla entries and Mozilla mainsite postings. They have little foundation in actual fact.

Did you READ that after you wrote, but before you posted, it?!? Because what you're saying seems to be that... Bugzilla entries and Mozilla mainsite postings have little to do with actual fact!

--

Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here

213 comments