Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AOL Lays Off 50 Netscape Coders

Posted by timothy on from the but-mozilla-is-resilient dept.

xcable points out a CNET story which begins "America Online on Tuesday said it has laid off 50 employees involved in Web browser development at its Netscape subsidiary amid a reorganization of its Mozilla open-source browser team," and offers a reminder that "AOL recently made a deal with Microsoft to use IE in future AOL releases." This adds a bit more detail to yesterday's (updated) story about the establishment of the Mozilla foundation.

56 of 713 comments (clear)

  1. If... by Soukyan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If Mozilla surpasses IE in the next couple years, do you think AOL will try to bail on Microsoft? This could get interesting. The litigation is over for now so the browser wars must begin again... as if they ever ended.

    1. Re:If... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I actually agree with The Registers analysis. When Netscape and AOL needed a great browser to battle with Microsoft, the Mozilla developers gave them an entire "application framework" that they didn't need, and a bug tracking system that could simply have been done with a commercial offering or even a few PHP scripts & a MySQL database. Mozilla developers were trying to be a "platform" instead of a damn browser; if they had worked on the portable Gecko completely and forgotten (Or at the very least, pushed right back) things like XUL and skined interfaces, they could have written a handful of application shells for their supported platforms and dropped in an excelent browser engine. They could have done it, from scratch, in two years. Instead we got Mozilla, the framework no one wants. Gecko is great and if it had been earlier, could have held Microsoft in check.

      JZW was right, in a way. Starting from scratch is not always the best thing to do. With Gecko, they were probably right to do it. Did they need to throw away their existing Netscape applications & write XUL though? Did they really need to re-write Netscape Mail? Probably not.

    2. Re:If... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd write a small layer that sits atop standard platform controls, and then write the platform specific code below that for each platform (Which is what, four? Windows, Mac, GTK+, Motif). Only if you really really have to do you roll your own non-standard control. I may be triping, but it seems that other browsers engines have managed this amazing feat without building an entire cross platform application framework from the ground up.

      Besides which, Gecko + the old Netscape codebase applications could have been running without XUL, as a proper browser, head to head against Internet Explorer, even if that meant that horror-of-horors the engine did not have full support for CSS2 stylable form controls.

    3. Re:If... by Gerv · · Score: 3, Interesting

      but it seems that other browsers engines have managed this amazing feat without building an entire cross platform application framework from the ground up.

      Don't be fooled. I'm pretty sure the form controls in IE are not native Windows form controls. And check Dave Hyatt's blog for details of the contortions he's had to go through to get even some of this stuff working with the Aqua widget set.

      Besides which, Gecko + the old Netscape codebase applications

      Have you seen the old codebase? I'm told that getting Gecko into it just wasn't possible. It was too much of a mess.

      Gerv
      (gerv@mozilla.org)

    4. Re:If... by keith73 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It could happen. As Peter-Paul Koch theorized in this article (slashdot thread).
      MS may lose ground in the browser market because they have frozen IE at version 6 SP1. The next version, 7 will only be available on the next Windows OS. With that a few years away, then the adoption of the new OS and browser taking another few years, the other browsers out there, Mozilla and Opera mainly, will make gains in the market because of standards, constant updates and new features being added, support for new technologies that may emerge in the next few years, etc.
      In other words, IE will become the rabbit, taking a siesta under a tree while a bunch of turtles slowly creep by.

      You can't simply dismiss the possibility with a wave of the hand.

      - keith

      --
      -- Does anybody know where the 'any' key is on the keyboard?
    5. Re:If... by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You don't have to build a monolithic do-it-all middleware language parser in order to support stylable front-ends. What you DO need, and which Mozilla totally lacks, is a well-defined and specced down API.
      The "pile some more pasta on the heap and hook up to whatever ends are sticking out" isn't a good programming design. Even if it covers a 5 lb XUL meatball.

      I don't mean to troll here, but there ARE different methods of approaching projects, and I don't think the model of Mozilla is as good as, say, the Linux kernel model. Not because of lack of control, but because of a lack of a predefined API. Sure, XUL has it's own API, but it's more volatile than liquid nitrogen, and all the inconsistencies and lack of enforced limits make up a HUGE portion of the bugzilla bugs, causing delays and a product that's less than it could have been.

      Personally, I'd like to see NO middleware layer, but a well-defined API that anyone can use, but so well defined that it can't be ABused, letting people write the frontend in anything they like from Motif/C to Tcl/Tk. Don't abstract the engine by layers of self-glorifying pork, but define the interfaces narrowly and specificly.

      Finally, I'm sorry to see the job cuts, but as a business decision, I can fully understand why AOL decided on this. Much as I love Mozilla and Netscape, taking 7 years to produce something that's only marginally better, and only capturing a couple of percent of market share -- it's not really a project that's done well, and the same amount of money might buy other improvements for AOL.

      As I see it now, 1.4 might be the last major release -- the firebird/mozilla integration will undoubtably take place, but with 50 developers and monetary support gone, I doubt it will be to its full potential, and only be a footnote in the history of browsers. But I may be wrong. I hope I am wrong.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art

    6. Re:If... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      b) Write five or more separate user interfaces, and have to keep them all up to date and in sync?

      I choose B.

      Why? Because it took you guys 5+ years to implement basic features like a customizable toolbar. It took 3 years before you got all 9000 platform-specific key commands and behavors sorted out. It even took a couple years before the fuckin Mac Menu Bar was in the right place. All of that crap is done - a solved problem. No need to do it again.

      Meanwhile, I hire one MFC guy and he's hacked together Netscape's UI in about a week. Add a GTK guy and a Mac guy, and I'm set. OS/2, BeOS, etc can fuck themselves.

      Maybe you did need your own widgets for web form controls, but there's a big difference between that and an entire application framework that supports a big app like Netscape. The amount of time it took proves it.

    7. Re:If... by halo8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      your a fool

      your a fool to belive that M$ is just sitting back and waiting 2-3 years to release IE 7, right now they have an update ready to go for IE 6.5, and should some "new technologies" come out before the next OS, rest assured that M$ will release a patch with most of the other stuff they were plannig on releasing anywayse.

      this is a simple tactic to lull other development teams in a sence of security. please next time think before you post

      --
      The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
    8. Re:If... by reallocate · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Possible, but very unlikely. Any goodies that an alternative browser might offer can be adopted by Microsoft. If it is a goodie that won't work on Windows, why would they care?

      Microsoft is moving on from peddling IE as a separate application because people take browsing capability for granted. Unless they're ideologically driven, they will need a strong incentive to take the risk of installing a separate program just to do something they can already do.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    9. Re:If... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      One coward to another...

      Now write a mail UI, then a chat UI then an editor UI. With just 4 projects on 5 platforms you now have 20 front ends. One more preference added in the right place and all 20 front ends need to be updated. Now go look at mozdev.org, figure there are perhaps 50 active projects each requiring changes to the UI. So how many programmers do you need now?

      The world thanks you for not being involving with Mozilla development, we'd still be waiting while you tweaked the toolbars in the 2500 different front ends that your programmers had generated.

      Of course your ass would have been canned a long time ago and your ex-colleagues, if they were any good, would be busy writing a cross platform UI that leveraged the existing layout, rendering and style engine that you needed for HTML anyway.

    10. Re:If... by miguelitof · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That's why I clicked "Yes" when it asked "Do you want to make Firebird your default browser?" Really wasn't all that hard and the application did the prompting.

      -sam, posting from IE because he's at work.

      First of all, let me say that I love Mozilla. Mozilla Firebird is my default browser at home, on my laptop, on my wife's PC and on my work desktop.

      However, your signature shows the exact problem, and the reason why IE will (unfortunately) continue to hold onto the browser market. You use IE at work because that is what is installed (and I am guessing you cannot download a different browser). For Joe Consumer, IE is what is installed on their computer, and Joe doesn't know that he can download a different browser. He'll continue using IE, because he doesn't know any better.

      M$'s move to tie IE to Windows may have been a questionable marketing move, but having an IE icon on every Windows desktop was brilliant. People are lazy and unmotivated to download something if they have another program that works "just as well."

      It does not matter how easy getting and installing Mozilla is for users. Most users still will not, they'll still just use what is installed on their computer.

      What the Mozilla Foundation needs to do is get deals with computer manufacturers to pre-install Mozilla, and put an icon for the big lizard on the desktop. However, that'd cost millions, millions that the Foundation does not have.

      --
      --- Biffster.org
      "Bite my shiny metal ass."
    11. Re:If... by salesgeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I find it interesting that things "have" to work like another, older thing. When people start to think this way, they leave room for another new idea to dispace the old.

      It wasn't so long ago that the web replaced several technologies that did many of the same things: BBSes, Gopher and HyperCard type development environments. People will drop the web in a heartbeat if something better and different comes along. The trillion dollar question is when will it, and what will it be?

      Stop trying to copy something that's already been done and find a better way to do it.

      --
      -- $G
    12. Re:If... by CharterTerminal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      90% of the people in the world that use a web browser only use it because that's what browser was there for them to use.

      An excellent point, and one that tends to get overlooked. Not only do most people use IE because it's already there; believe it or not, most people use IE because they don't even realize that they have other options. Don't get me wrong - I've done more than my fair share of Mozilla advocacy. Or rather, "attempted to do." This is how it usually goes down:

      Them: "Hey, what's that? That's not Internet Explorer."

      Me: "Nope, it's a different browser, called Mozilla. It blocks popup ads, and see how clever the tabs are? I can have several different websites open at once, but my taskbar isn't all cluttered."

      (Long silence.)

      Them: "More than one website open at once?"

      Me: "Right. Like say I opened one website, and I read half of it, and I wanted to come back later, but in the meantime I decided to go to another website. See?" [clicks tabs to demonstrate]

      Them: "I never do that."

      Me: "You've never opened more than one website at a time?"

      Them: "No."

      Me: "Oh. Well... then... err... but surely you'd rather use a browser that blocks pop-up ads, right?"

      Them: "Pop-ups are kind of annoying, but I don't like to download software and install it and stuff. I'd rather just live with the pop-ups."

      Me: "Okay. Um. Well. As long as you're happy, I guess that's the important thing." [weeps quietly]

      (I'm not kidding. I've had this exact same conversation with three different people in the last two weeks alone. Except for the weeping. I was kidding about the weeping.)

  2. Whaaa???? by Bob+Abooey · · Score: 5, Interesting
    They laid off 50 workers and the article claims that to be less than 10% of the Netscape workforce?????

    What the hell are all those guys doing there?

    --

    All the best,
    --Bob

    1. Re:Whaaa???? by pmz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There will not be any more Netscape releases.

      Me thinks Sun should pick up Mozilla as a Sun ONE Browser product or something, so they have a product to bundle with Solaris 10 and Mad Hatter. Solaris 9 got Netscape 6 and Netscape 7, Solaris 8 had Netscape 4.7x, so they will need to have something to give customers as a standard component with the next release.

      However, I wonder how many software engineers Sun has left to spare? The number of Sun-branded packages going in their Orion bundling is breath taking at first glance. Sun must be a much bigger company than I thought.

      --
      Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
  3. Maybe this shouldn't be a suprise.... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As long as Steve Case was there, AOL was never going to cozy up to MS. Now that he's gone, you'll probably see a lot more of this now that AOL has to run themselves as a profit making concern.

  4. They've sort of laid off Mozilla as well... by jkrise · · Score: 4, Interesting

    $2 mn. for 10 coders for the Mozilla project isn't much, after you consider other expenses. I think AOL is acting as I'd predicted some time back - quick death for Netscape, slow poison to Mozilla, and surrender to the IE devil...

    But then, to expect better from a company that settled a lawsuit with MS (for the latter's guilty conduct, mind you) is a bit too far.

    -

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:They've sort of laid off Mozilla as well... by jkrise · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wait a minute, there are 10 coders working on Mozilla and 450 (down 10% from 500) working on Netscape

      Therein lies the tragedy - AOL has already made up it's mind to kill Netscape - why not disband the entire team?

      Why have 45 Netscape developers for 1 Mozilla developer, when Mozilla users are more than 100 per Netscape user?

      It's pretty clear AOL is just caving to the MS arm-twisting; doing that to Netscape, the one good American software that really scared the shit out of MS is - well, unpardonable. It's the exact opposite of freedom, and standing up to be counted.

      Long Live Netscape!
      -

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    2. Re:They've sort of laid off Mozilla as well... by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, $50K is great if you're living in your parents' basement and they're buying your hardware. God forbid that a development team should have a workplace or pay for their own dev kit or anything.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  5. Very sad by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1, Interesting

    MS were found guilty of sharp practice in bundling IE with Windows, but they won the war anyway. How does anyone (except MS and AOL) benefit from this? If the judges had had the guts to make MS strip IE out of Windows we could actually have a level playing field. After all, browsers don't take all that long to download, even on a modem. But then we always knew AOL were evil, didn't we?

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    1. Re:Very sad by RevMike · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Not a correct analogy...

      Microsoft doesn't need to provide you with competing browsers. They should not prohibit system builders like Dell or Gateway from doing so, however.

      Imagine that many drug companies manufactured a similar allergy medicine. One of them also makes a heart medicine that dominates it's market. Then that drug maker goes to all the pharmacies and says "You can't sell my heart medicine unless you only sell my allergy medicine." The pharmacies know that the heart medicine is vital to many of their clients and that if they don't have that heart medicine, the clients will go elsewhere. They cave. The other drug companies lose access to the market for their allergy medications, and the consumers lose choice.

      Microsoft doesn't need to provide support for competing products, but they shouldn't user their position as the dominant desktop OS provider (heart medicine manufacturer) to prevent system builders (pharmacies) from also providing browsers (allergy medicines) from other firms.

    2. Re:Very sad by Trelane · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Thats like saying instead of buying a car with gas already in the tank, you could instead buy an empty car, push it down the road 50 miles to the nearest gas station, OR walk 50 miles to the gas station and lug a can of gas back with you OR wait for someone to drive down the road so you can siphon some gas from them.


      No, you completely misunderstood what I was saying.

      Point is, the OS, as viewed by the end user, would include a browser. Someone in the supply chain would include one, however no browser would be forced to be on everyone's desks.

      Within your (popular) car-analogy framework, we have:
      Today's Situation
      You buy your car from a Honda dealership, a Toyota dealership, a Ford dealership, or a used car dealership down the street. From whomever you purchase a car, the situation's the same. Because Exxon made the engine, it requires Exxon gas. Helpfully, they've included Exxon gas with your car. You can use other gas, but Exxon recommends their own gas (and requires you use it at least a little, because of how they designed the engine; heck, you've heard a silly rumor that Exxon engines sometimes turn on the engine warning light if they detect the wrong (i.e. non-Exxon) type wheel, carbuerator, distributor cap, etc., especially the once-popular but now rare DR-DOS wheel, and you've wondered once or twice in your daydreams if this couldn't have also led to some of the problems you experienced with your Exxon engine when you've used non-Exxon gas), so 95% of the car drivers out there buy only Exxon gas. Coincidentally, since the market on gas has collapsed (due to Exxon's monopoly position and abuse thereof? But you're Joe User and don't notice or care about such things), most gas stations only sell Exxon gas. They will serve you Exxon gas, and a few will let you tank up with other types of gas, but the vast majority of users drive their Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen, Volvo, or whatever still using their Exxon engine with the Exxon gas, and blissfully visiting Exxon-only stations.
      Oh, yeah. You've vaguely heard somewhere (being Joe User, not the Greenpeace type) that Exxon's not the happy-friendly company they portray themselves to be, but rather reportedly had a bad spill up somewhere in the North, and have been rather rude to Shell and BP recently, the only (minor) competition left to them. You've also heard some rumours (you're still a little more informed than most of the Joe Users out there in some aspects) vague rumblings about problems with Exxon engines and about the number of odd things (insects?) that turn up in the Exxon gas. But, all this didn't make it into the mainstream media, since Exxon also owns a large portion of some major news sites, and since everyone knows and uses Exxon, and they seem such a nice company....
      The Proposed Situation:
      We still assume that all car manufacturers ship with Exxon engines. However, in this situation, Exxon actually is the happy, friendly company they portray themselves to be. The car dealers or their suppliers are allowed to ship whatever gas they want to in the cars they sell. Exxon might (or might not) require a little Exxon gas now and again, but the other gas is of higher quality and has more features (cleans various things, helps prevent those annoying attackers from effectively using sugar in your gas tank, etc.), so many dealerships and people ship the gas they like to use. Of course, you're free at some dealerships to come with your own gas, or to select from a (sometimes wide!) variety of gas. And the dealerships sometimes also get a kickback from the gas vendors, for giving people a chance to try their gas.

      And that's the way I see it.

      --

      --
      Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
  6. AOL != Netscape anymore by mblase · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looks like AOL is trying to untie itself from Netscape and Mozilla as much as possible. By establishing and funding the Foundation, they continue to make the browser possible without tying themselves to it. The seeming hypocrisy of AOL using the IE browser (so they can stay on the Windows desktop) while developing Mozilla is now resolved.

    Saddening, but understandable from a business perspective. Hopefully every one of those coders will be rehired by the Foundation so they can continue to do what they do best, with or without AOL's direct support.

  7. More bad news... by rekkanoryo · · Score: 3, Interesting
    for Netscape faithfuls like me. Oh well, at least with the Mozilla project being split, I might be able to get a fairly lightweight mail app that I can tolerate (I already use Opera for browsing and keep Netscape 7.1 around just for mail).

    I bet Microsoft's happy to see another competitor dying, though.

  8. I have to ask... by allism · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And this really isn't meant to be a troll, I just wanna know...

    Does anyone here actually use Netscape as their default browser?

    If you do, why? Is it solely for political/moral/whatever reasons, or does it offer some technical feature that you have not found in another browser?

    How many people here have Netscape as a browser on their computer NOT as a primary browser, and why did you install it? WHy is it not the primary browser?

    --
    Denver Isuzu Suzuki
    1. Re:I have to ask... by luugi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And this really isn't meant to be a troll, I just wanna know...

      Does anyone here actually use Netscape as their default browser?

      If you do, why? Is it solely for political/moral/whatever reasons, or does it offer some technical feature that you have not found in another browser?

      How many people here have Netscape as a browser on their computer NOT as a primary browser, and why did you install it? WHy is it not the primary browser?

      I use it as my primary browser mostly because of Tab browsing. It's a real time saver when you get use to it.

      --
      Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought.
  9. so, does this mean no AOL for Mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    since there is no more IE for Mac being made.

  10. Re:Huh? by Isofarro · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I thought AOL was going to be using Netscape as their browser, the whole point in buying them?
    Probably just to get the rights to sue Microsoft for monopoly practises. Now the court case has been settled (much in Microsoft's favour) there's no need to hold on to an ex-$4.2 billion dollar company.
  11. AOL & MS? by iCoach · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Ok, maybe I am paranoid, but I have been called worse.

    Looking at the deal with IE and AOL, plus the (somewhat) recent announcement that MS is no longer releasing stand alone versions of IE, could this be a movement towards a buy-out/merger/axis of evil with the ailing AOL?

    My thought is that if Microsoft is no longer releasing stand-alone versions of IE, then they are going to have to tie AOL pretty close to MS in order for IE to work. And since it won't stand-alone, forget AOL/IE on Mac.

    I realize that Time-Warner just merged with AOL, however - it hasn't led to much, and TW might be looking to dump AOL's like the cancerous growth it is. However, AOL would give MS a huge subscriber base for their upcoming products, and perhaps give them just the opportunity to finally cram .NET down everone's throat, by integrating it into AOL's interface.

    -Coach

    --
    "Never upset a goalie, getting hit with a blocker is an unpleasent experience - facemask or not." -Me
  12. Can AOL users finally get better software? by philipsblows · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm guessing there are some legal strings attached, but I wonder whether a fully AOL-capable version of Mozilla, distrbuted almost like the original AOL virus itself (in this case, I would, for example, bring over an install CD to help my AOL-using parents to move beyond IE... even better if they could get around AOL 7.0 or whatever they're using). Yes, they can use whatever browser they want, but how about an email client that works?

    Is there a legal barrier in place to prevent this, especially from former (and whoafully under appreciated) employees ? Since AOL never followed through while they were there, I think the only real justice at this point would be to let loose better, cross-platform software for the AOL userbase out there. Who knows, maybe some linux users will make the switch to AOL...

    As an aside, a few troll comments here and there have suggested that now IE can be the one true client to create web content for... I give such commentary little credence, but is the SCO action on IBM (et al.) and the AOL action on Mozilla just bad timing, or is the fact that Microsoft money flows to both make any more interesting their coincidence?

    Just a thought. Posted using Moz 1.4, by the way.

  13. Competition good for jobs by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There the proof then, competition is good for jobs because more people work on competing products.

    50 Netscape codes go, but no more people are needed to work on IE.

    So if you want more jobs, make sure there's more competition, not more retrictive copyright laws.
    Simple.

  14. Is this really a surprise by falcon5768 · · Score: 1, Interesting
    I mean honestly, was there really a point of keeping open Mozilla AND Netscape? Mozilla being opens source was the way to go, and dumping Netscape was not that bad of an idea.

    NOW AOL using Microsuck Exploder in future releases, thats a travisty. Did AOL really have that much to fear from Microsoft. If they had used netscape, none of their users would have known, and better, everyone on the net would have worked to provide FOR aol and netscape, and dumped MS's needlessly propitory gabage

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  15. No AOL for Apple, No AOL for Linux by RichMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What sort of buisness decision is this that effectively cuts off their potential customer base? Tiing themselves to IE basically limits their customer base to bleeding edge windows systems. That old IE/media player/chat client just won't like that old hardware.

  16. IE by loconet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So AOL promised MS to use IE in their next versions (is this only for AOL windows?). How does the future plan of IE not being stand-alone affect this AOL using IE issue? Will MS release a special "IE for AOL" version? Will AOL not include a browser and just use IE APIs straight from Windows? What about non Windows users? Macs?

    --
    [alk]
  17. Netscape Probably Hurt AOL Sales by reallocate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    too bad, but not unexpected. Remember, AOL's purpose in life is to make money, not promote alternatives to Microsoft.

    Tieing yourself to a browser more than 9 of 10 people don't want to use seems like a good way to cut sales, not increase them.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  18. AOL's folley by drgroove · · Score: 4, Interesting

    50 developers is 10% of the Netscape work force... however, AOL's 'official' position is that they're still supporting the browser & the web portal.

    aol official position

    AOL is making a *huge* mistake by not using the Gecko engine as the core of their browser/ISP product. Right now they're using Gecko as the core in their Compuserve and Mac AOL product, but still using IE in the Windows product. Seems like they could streamline their internal coding operations by standardizing on one code base, which would ultimately save them more money than letting developers go.

    Also, by using the Gecko engine in the product, they could in theory start offering AOL on Linux-based PC's; while that might sound like an unprofitable venture at first, I can't imagine all of those people purchasing Lindows-based PC's at Walmart not wanting AOL as their ISP ... and Walmart sure is selling a whole lotta Lindows PC these days.

  19. Re:fuckin whatever by Lysol · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Honestly tho, who fucking cares!? I mean, I'm sorry to those that lost their jobs, definitely - this is not directed at them. But as far as the AOL shitbag goes, you had to see this stuff coming from a mile away. They are not even remotely the same AOL that Case or jwz worked for. They are one of the largest media companies in the world!

    All these biz guys understand the M$ biz guys. They're all about numbers and not innovation, so the bloodletting is beginning; nothing anyone can do about it.

    Now, that said, Mozilla is the key here. I don't think it will die in the forseeable future. Combined with Linux gaining more and more ground, there must exist a free, open browser. Sure, Konqueror will hang around, but Mozilla will still have a larger user base. And companies that depend on that, like Redhat, IBM, Sun (once they ditch Netscape 4), and others, they will put development efforts into it. And if the Moz Foundation gets really strapped for cash, then just move it to SourceForge or Savannah.

    Point is is that there is no use thinking or worrying about AOL or Netscape anymore. They've been goners for some time. Mozilla is the focus and given the 'freeness' of the code, it will continue to live on regardless of cut funding and developers. Granted, it might slow, but no worse than IE.

    I for one am sorry my fellow coders are out of a job, but I have all the faith in the world for Moz cuz I think it's a great browser. I mean, c'mon, if the C=64 (long live the C=64!) can still live after all these years, why not Moz?

  20. Re:Netscape? by GeckoFood · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With Netscape circling the drain for so long, it was just a matter of time. Netscape was too far gone to be salvageable anyway. Mozilla has been a much better browser, almost from go, than Netscape ever was, which is a little surprising since they were based on the same code base.

    On a related topic, I have fiddled with Mozilla and Opera and compared them, and I think it's safe to say that Opera's claim of being the fastest browser out there is incorrect.

    Now that AOL has made a deal with the devil, Netscape's demise went from anticipated to guaranteed. I hate to see Netscape go, as it was a viable alternative at one time and some people out there still prefer it.

    --
    Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
  21. This isn't entirely bad... by drunk_as_in_beer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...this is just AOL cutting the Mozilla project loose. Yeah, $2 million contribution to the Mozilla Foundation isn't much, but I expect many other companies to contribute. No worries here. In fact, it seems appropriate that the Mozilla project is disconnected from AOL.

    --
    --Drunk as in Beer
  22. other markets by sdibb · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I wonder, how is this going to affect AOL's other markets now?

    With Netscape, they had AIM support built right-in. All MSIE has is a little taskbar button for Messenger (I dunno if they have one for AIM, too). I'm pretty sure it won't be as easy to create a Netscape profile using your AIM login at the same time though.

    And what about Real Player? IE integrates pretty well with Media Player. Actually, if Real Player up and died, it would be no big loss, but I wonder how AOL is still gonna push that stuff, if they don't push Netscape anymore that comes with it all.

    Well, not like they were really pushing Netscape anyway. They just made it the default browser, and I'm sure the average AOLer didn't notice anyway. Without Netscape though, I imagine that the other two might have a harder time standing on their own.

    I just hope WinAmp doesn't get the axe, too.

  23. Sigh by 4of12 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So Microsoft has more than enough cash on hand to buy out AOL/TW.

    If the marketplace were completely free and unfettered, you'd think that Microsoft would, rather than pour money down the hole that has been MSN, simply buy out AOL with its 30 million subscribers.

    But Microsoft won't do this because they know they can't; that the DoJ would immediately ask questions about unfair market consolidation were such a buyout offer made.

    So instead MSFT pours money into MSN and leverages its dominant products of Windows, Office and Explorer to subsidize MSN.

    As AOL dies slowly over a few years, this will be viewed as "OK", the marketplace in action, and no inconvenient questions will be raised except by AOL management and stockholders.

    Since MS can rely upon a steady revenue stream from Windows and Office to subsidize its efforts into taking over new markets they enjoy an advantage that AOL and other competitors simply don't have.

    People buy Windows and Office like they're a standard, a necessity, that's no more avoidable than paying gasoline taxes.

    Yes, Microsoft has the enviable position of just collecting taxes - like a government. And competing against the government is a no-win situation.

    It is a foregone conclusion that AOL will lose. They will wither to nothing, or simply to a marginally-sized pet, like Apple, who would have died long ago if Microsoft had decided to not release Office for Mac.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "So instead MSFT pours money into MSN and leverages its dominant products of Windows, Office and Explorer to subsidize MSN. As AOL dies slowly over a few years, this will be viewed as "OK", the marketplace in action."

      This is why Ximian and Sun are going for the jugular.

  24. Not sure what's going on... by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I perused the article and I'm not sure if it's Mozilla or Netscape developers... they are not the same thing, and I'm sure AOL has developers who take Mozilla and massage it into Netscape. If those are the people getting laid off then I don't feel so bad.

    Well, I feel bad for them, but I've always hated the changes AOL made to Mozilla before releasing it as Netscape - like when they removed the pop-up feature, and all the crap they include.

    I too, though, find it painful explaining Mozilla to people over and over again.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  25. Does this mean that AOL will abandon pre-XP users? by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    AOL has announced that it will use IE for the browser for seven years. Microsoft has announced that there will no longer be a standalone version of IE. So, if AOL is to still work on existing Windows boxes, then it must remain at IE6. But, it's hard to beleive that they won't want to move to the latest and greatest (tongue in cheek) IE when it ships, but that would force AOL to either maintain separate code bases or drop support for current versions of Windows. If they choose the separate code bases, then using the least common denominator approach, AOL won't be able to include future web features, because they don't exist in IE6. Dropping support for older versions of Windows, is a very calculated risk. There are two possible outcomes. Facing a forced upgrade, either AOL's would switch to a different ISP or shell out the bucks for a new version of Windows (and possibly new hardware). My bet would be to switch ISPs, but I'm sure AOL and MS are counting on people buying a new version of Windows, instead. If they are right, that's not a bad investment for MS $750M to get AOL users to all buy a copy of the next version of Windows. At 35 million AOL subscribers and a $100 upgrade cost, MS stands to gross $3.5 billion dollars. Not a bad return on investment.

  26. Re:The Register by Troed · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "You're using Outlook? That's really bad .. easy to catch viruses. You really should have a look at Opera - it's both an excellent Email-client and a very good webbrowser - better than IE for a lot of things actually"

    It works - really. (For home-users)

    --
    it's in my head
  27. yes, but it's spelled M-o-z-i-l-l-a by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone here actually use Netscape as their default browser?

    Mozilla; yes of course.

    1. Popup blocking.
    2. Block images by server (waiting for block Flash by server ...)
    3. Tabbed browsing.
    4. Bookmark groups of tabs.

    What's not to like?

    1. Re:yes, but it's spelled M-o-z-i-l-l-a by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Does anyone here actually use Netscape as their default browser?

      Count me in -- I've been faithfully using both the Netscape branded browser and the Netscape portal for the last couple of years. Mainly as a way to thank them for funding the development of the single most important application on my desktop -- to say "This strategy is sound and you have my support."

      Now that they've fired everyone, I'm not so sure about it anymore, and I may simply drop back to stock Mozilla (and choose a different home page).

      This whole ordeal has made me do some thinking, though. I've talked to some people who simply won't even look at Netscape. The lackluster Netscape 4 and the disastrous Netscape 6 stick too much in their minds, even though Netscape 7 is a world-class browser that simply wipes the floor with IE, hands down. I wonder if Netscape is a dirty word at this point in time? Perhaps Mozilla is the name to push now. Certainly with users ... but it'll be an uphill climb to get webmasters and plugin authors to change from "This supports IE and Netscape" to "This supports IE and Mozilla." Naturally, we'd all prefer "This supports web standards" but for the stupidfolk among them (i.e. most of them) it's still much better than "Windows/IE only."

      Thank you AOL for the initial $2 million in funding (but to Dick Parsons, I hope you rot in hell next to Bill Gates). Now it's time for others in the industry to both fund and push the Mozilla effort. IBM in particular ought to be assigning a boatload of developers to Mozilla, especially in the light of recent developments (such as Munich) in which they are partially responsible for the well-being of an increasing number of desktop Linux users. Without a world-class browser, the Linux desktop simply cannot exist. It's time for everyone to step up to the plate and make Mozilla not only replace Netscape as the brand everyone recognizes, but take the role of a well-liked brand. The name "Netscape" seems to be as poisonous as "WordPerfect" now.

      --
      Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  28. Re:Netscape? by GeckoFood · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Regarding to Opera... if you are comparing it to mozilla... Opera is faster, damn faster.

    My experience has actually been the opposite. I have to agree, Opera is plenty fast, but every time I have compared the two, Mozilla has left Opera behind. It very well could be a function of my Windows configuration, though, as I have done some odd things to my system. I haven't tried Opera under Linux (since early beta), so I can't compare there, but I have used Mozilla under Linux and have been most pleased.

    Regardless, Mozilla and Opera are both faster than Netscape.

    --
    Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
  29. I don't really understand the relationship, but... by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Seems to me this has nothing to do with caving to MS...if I had "45 Netscape developers for 1 Mozilla developer", and virtually all of the new features came from Mozilla, I'd figure that I'm wasting a lot of money paying all those lazy Netscape developers too.

    Then again, I don't really have an understanding of the mozilla/netscape relationship, just what I heard--mozilla started when netscape opened its code, aol gives mozilla money, aol gets all the cool stuff from mozilla and reinserts it into netscape. If it's more complicated than that and I'm missing something, please feel free to explain it to me.

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  30. What about AOL OS X? (Gecko-based) by mactari · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Welp, I admit it. Looks like I was wrong. An AOL-supported Mozilla is dead.

    What does this mean for the OS X AOL client? That's the one thing (Gecko-based OS X client is already out there) that made me think AOL'd keep going. Looks like IE 7 (or whatever) is going to have some really neat stuff. Enough that the MS licensing agreement with AOL makes it a good idea for AOL to kill Gecko as a back-up engine for its software.

    Maybe the Safari embeddable engine is easy enough to use that AOL is going that way. Or maybe AOL OS X's engine will just fold up into proprietary software. The MPL allows that.

    I don't feel *that* badly. AOL, whether it meant to or not, pulled the plug, strangely enough, immediately after Moz became the best browser on the market. That's good timing from where I'm sitting -- which is in front of a monitor, posting with Mozilla/Firebird.

    --

    It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
  31. Re:As always, more proof of the old saying: by pmz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hey, even Compaq/HP does not support them anymore!

    Looking at Alpha's recent benchmark results, and the fact that its ISA is comprehensible to a human being, I find HP's split between PA-RISC, Alpha, and the almighty Itanium pretty darn confusing.

    Perhaps, once an organization spends so much money, the point of no return has been passed regardless where the road ahead leads...

    --
    Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
  32. Wow! Just like Joel Predicted! by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.joelonsoftware.com/news/20030601.html

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  33. Re:ask a stupid quesiton... by russellh · · Score: 2, Interesting
    in the time that it took to produce ONE semi-functional version of Mozilla, Opera Software, a company with not even a tenth of AOLNSCP's resources, produced multiple versions of a fully functional web browser, for all of Mozilla's major target platforms. Not only did they produce, maintain and upgrade native Windows, MacOS and Linux versions of Opera, but they increased their market share, and made money doing it

    Hmm, if I recall correctly, I had two children in the time it took Opera to release their Mac browser... If I do not recall correctly, it is due to lack of sleep or under/over caffeination.

    --
    must... stay... awake...
  34. Why AOL uses IE.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    "AOL recently made a deal with Microsoft to use IE in future AOL releases."

    As an insider, let me say that I *wish* AOL would choose Netscape 7 (or Mozilla 1.4) as their default browser. However, the reason they choose IE isn't because they're "in bed" with Microsoft - it's because the executives feel IE gives a better browser experience. The execs don't give two cents about open source - they care that users get the best web experience possible.

    And lets face it - they're probably right. IE renders broken pages better, it supports ActiveX and all the Microsoft-isms which just don't work or look right on Netscape/Mozilla. I don't particularly *like* IE, but if some moron creates a broken page with poorly formatted HTML, it's much more likely to look right in IE.

    It's all about business, and if people feel their web experience is sub-par, they'll jump ship. Period.

    1. Re:Why AOL uses IE.... by pcause · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I suspect the real reason is money and an understanding of what their real business and goals are. AOL isn't in the software business, it is in the content business. It costs a bunch of money to develop and support a browser. The articles I read said that they had 50 people working on NS. That is a cost of that is probably over $7.5 million a year.

      AOL realizes that they compete with MS as an ISP and content provider. They have given up the idea that they are going to be a desktop platform and compete with MS. It never made sense in the first place. The competition is about content and service. AOL wants to leverage MS's development expense, not duplicate it.

      MS supports the standards, does a good job rendering and, as was pointed out, handles poorly coded pages much better than NS. 97% of users are using IE. The world has changed. AOL has changed. AOL has realized it and moved on to do what it needs to to be a successful business. They don't need to be in the browser business to succeed. They don't need to fight a religious war with MS about browsers and desktops to succeed.

      This may disappoint many who are looking for a champion to fight what they perceive as MS's hegemony. If that is what you want, look to Sun or IBM, it isn't AOL any more. In reality, it never was, because AOL really never threw the effort needed to compete and to win (if that was even possible) into Netscape.

  35. Is getting paid really beneath us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Maybe it is time for us to recognize that even when we work on free software, we should insist on being paid to do so. We are all collectivly screwing ourselves. Why should aol pay for anyone to do anything if people will do it for free. Mozilla will always be there for them, and if they ever should see the need to slap some branding on it, they can.

    RMS acts like it is vulger to insist on payment for services. Perhaps RMS lives in a world where people don't have to eat or have shelter, but the rest of us do not. It is time for us to come together and insist on being paid for what we do.

    If you are not being paid a living wage for what you do, maybe you should question if what you are doing is in your self interest. Eroding the demand for programmers hurts more people than just yourself. Your gift to the world might be hurting the people who can least afford it, while propping up large corporations. Just wait till more companies realize the free ride available to them in the form of free software.