Chief Lizard Wrangler axed

Kalak writes: "MozillaQuest is reporting that Mitchell Baker was laid off by Netscape back on August 23. True to form, there are also discussions on this on bug #96747." She spoke at OSCON and I was pretty impressed. She seemed legitimately committed to the mozilla project being a successful open source project. Not sure how this bodes for Moz itself, but it sure is unfortunate.

Comments

Hey, she can still work on it

[jmu1]

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.

Please don't link to bugzilla from the front page!

[ardran]

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 are unfortunate, but normal business

[fetta]

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.

Re:Layoffs are unfortunate, but normal business

[The Cat]

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?)

MozillaQuest?

[basilfawlty]

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.

no good for slashdot

[ahmetaa]

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??

MozillaQuest for eradication...

[linuxwolf]

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.

Re:Accurate information here

[tim_maroney]

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:Please don't link to bugzilla from the front pa

[GoNINzo]

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.

Re:AOL Deathblow?

[4of12]

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.

Inaccurate information there

[jesup]

"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.