Slashdot Mirror


Life After Netscape For Mozilla Developers

An anonymous reader submits "MozillaZine has an article up on life after Netscape for Mozilla developers formerly employed there. Several developers are now employed by the non-profit Mozilla Foundation in full or part-time positions, others have been hired by IBM and Daniel Glazman was contracted by Lindows to write web publishing application Nvu. Another group of developers have joined together to form Mozilla Consulting to work on customized Mozilla enhancements. The amount of interest by non-Netscape companies in Mozilla is surely a positive sign for the future of the project."

254 comments

  1. Do something else by jabbadabbadoo · · Score: 0, Troll

    There's no life after death.

  2. Article summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Netscape paid Mozilla developers
    2. AOL/Netscape pulls out of Mozilla program
    3. Mozilla developers get rehired by different companies

    Seriously, there's very little "life after Netscape" in the article aside from "X works for Y now".

    1. Re:Article summary by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Of course... people don't ie when they get fired...

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    2. Re:Article summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This really is a nothing article.

      People get laid off/fired/downsized/removed from employment all the time.

      Most of them go get new jobs.

      Big deal.

    3. Re:Article summary by Snard · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course... people don't ie when they get fired...
      Former Netscape developers probably IE as little as possible :-)

      (Yeah, I know it was a typo, couldn't resist)

      --
      - Mike
    4. Re:Article summary by Maxhrk · · Score: 0

      funny, i think where you can keep innovating in OSS model, no wonder mozilla can't die that way... 1. Netscape paid mozilla developers, they innovating, 2. AOL/Netscape pulls out of Mozilla program, they still innovating. 3. Mozilla lay off, they still innovating. 4. QUickly get rehired by different companies, they do STILL INNOVATING! Hell, You notices there right? OSS will never die. it sooo die hard! Just 2 cent. >:)

    5. Re:Article summary by grouse · · Score: 1

      What, you expected the editors to RTFA? Haven't been here long, have you?

    6. Re:Article summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. Other companies outsource Mozilla developers' jobs to India

    7. Re:Article summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There's a subtle omission in your third step:

      1. Netscape paid Mozilla developers
      2. AOL/Netscape pulls out of Mozilla program
      3. Mozilla developers get rehired by different companies to continue working on Mozilla
    8. Re:Article summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Netscape paid Mozilla developers
      2. AOL/Netscape pulls out of Mozilla program
      3. Mozilla developers get rehired by different companies

      4. Profit!

  3. probably the coolest life after netscape by cnb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    JWZ

    Bio: I used to be a hacker. Now I run a nightclub.

    1. Re:probably the coolest life after netscape by LooseChanj · · Score: 0

      He is house music's own sysadmin.

      --
      Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
    2. Re:probably the coolest life after netscape by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      I just want to let you know that I really enjoyed the music that you streamed several years ago while you were doing renovations or whatever.

      The word spread all the way to a local music board for the Lexington, Ky scene where I picked it up.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    3. Re:probably the coolest life after netscape by t0ny · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Seeing as how poorly written Netscape was, its probably for the best that he got out of programming for a living.

      Netscape was the whole reason I, personally, switched to using IE. Having the application crash every five to ten minutes and wipe out every browser window wasnt a particularly pleasant experience. Fortunately, their was freedom of choice, and I was able to switch to IE 3.02

      Ive been a happy IE user ever since (well, we'll forgive IE 4)

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    4. Re:probably the coolest life after netscape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      and as one of his employees at said nightclub, i can safely say "run a nightclub" is NOT what he does.

      Wander around looking slightly sulky?
      Check.

      Make sure the web cams are working?
      Check.

      Do anything else?
      Hell if i know. But hey, it helps pay the bills.

    5. Re:probably the coolest life after netscape by iluvtrolls · · Score: 1
      What! You love Internet Explorer?!?! This is a troll! Mod this guy down! Waaaay doooown!

      But wait, I love trolls... Oh well. Cool.

    6. Re:probably the coolest life after netscape by armb · · Score: 1

      Of course it's a troll. Not was switching to Netscape because IE was unstable crap just as common as switching the other way back when IE3 was around, he obviously hasn't read what jmz wrote about Netscape's code and why he got out.

      --
      rant
    7. Re:probably the coolest life after netscape by t0ny · · Score: 1
      I admit I didnt read the article, but I dont need to. And I really havent spoken to a single person who switched AWAY from IE3.02, and I work with very vocal geeks, every day, since '95, so I would have remembered an anomoly like that one.

      IMO, IE 3.02 was one of the best browsers made. In fact, its still pretty fast (if you ever do a new install of Win95 OSR2 you will see it [I think...]), but unfortunately it doesnt support NAT or firewalls too well, so doesnt always work in a modern environment. Its too bad they decided to bloat IE 4 so much; they also continued a lot of things from that afterward, like keeping everything in the My Documents folder for each profile, nesting TEMP directories in fifty different places, etc, which are highly annoying. Its a good idea for security reasons, but it tends to mess things up if you dont want it to work that way (like if one computer will be used by multiple people, or only one person, etc). Of course, it can easily be changed by editting the registry, but its still a pain in the arse.

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

  4. Re:Promises promises by Matt+-+Duke+'05 · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Do any of you people actually read the articles here? This post is lifted directly from the discussion forum in the linked article.

    --
    -Matt
    Duke '05
  5. No. 1 in a series.... by Ratface · · Score: 3, Funny

    Coming soon...

    Life after Worldcom
    Life after Boo.com
    Life after SCO ... etc - ad nauseum.

    Given that ever single developer I know has changed job at least once in the last 3 years this is one nepotistic story!

    --

    A little planning goes a long way...
    1. Re:No. 1 in a series.... by acroyear · · Score: 1

      Well, the difference is that "Life after Worldcom" and "Life after SCO" may (if we're blessed with poetic justice) include an OZ-like documentary of life in prison...

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
  6. a lot will depend on results by Fux+the+Penguin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it is good that these people have jobs and can continue to work on Mozilla I think it is a little early to claim that industrial support is well under way. It is certainly very positive that some companies are willing to put their money where their mouth is but I think a lot will depend on the return of this current investment. If nvu doesn't materialize or if other key mozilla components do not deliver on their promises (e.g. calendar is so far mostly vapor ware in terms of interoperability), I think mozilla adoption by industry will not become much better.

    Certainly there are some great opportunities: - There is an enormous trend in the public sector (especially outside the US) to adopt open source. Mozilla is part of this trend for non MS platforms. - Internet explorer does not seem to have evolved in the past few years and is unlikely to do so in the coming few years: market share can be gained. - Apple seems to be moving away from MS products, this will stimulate adoption of alternative browsers by both users and developers. Alternative heere does not necessarily mean Mozilla but other than IE.

    1. Re:a lot will depend on results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is certainly very positive that some companies are willing to put their money where their mouth is but I think a lot will depend on the return of this current investment.

      Hear, hear! All I have to say is CueCat!

    2. Re:a lot will depend on results by sphealey · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I think there is a lot of food for thought in your post. The other issue that bothers me is this: millions of people have posted to various on-line forums over the last 4 years about how much they love Netscape/Mozilla and how much they dislike Internet Explorer. Ok, if there are 1,000,000 people with this level of concern, and they each sent 50 USD to the Mozilla Foundation (not a lot of money for someone in the Western world; just 25 cups of Starbucks coffee), then the Moz Foundation would have 50,000,000 USD available to support development. That would be enough to keep a good team running for 5-10 years.

      So - how is Mozilla Foundation's fundraising going? What is their endowment status at the moment?

      sPh

    3. Re:a lot will depend on results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, if there are 1,000,000 people with this level of concern, and they each sent 50 USD to the Mozilla Foundation (not a lot of money for someone in the Western world; just 25 cups of Starbucks coffee), then the Moz Foundation would have 50,000,000 USD available to support development. That would be enough to keep a good team running for 5-10 years.

      That's the problem with OSS. Nobody wants to pay for anything.

    4. Re:a lot will depend on results by Ronin_Bic · · Score: 1

      You must not know your starbucks to USD conversions it is about 10 cups of coffee

    5. Re:a lot will depend on results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "not a lot of money for someone in the Western world"

      Funny, everyone says that about everything. "Oh, you can afford it". Well, thanks to insane levels of taxation and a hundred thousand greedy fucking morons like you thinking that we won't miss $50 for their pet project, no, we can't. It's like you asshats think we've all got cash just squirting out of every major orifice like green diarrhea.

      At some point a line has to be drawn.

    6. Re:a lot will depend on results by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      50,000,000 USD available to support development. That would be enough to keep a good team running for 5-10 years.

      if they are that mismanaged as to need from 10 to 5 million dollars a year for operating capital then they are horribly doomed.

      50 mill should keep them operating for at LEAST 20 years. 30-50 years if the management had any brains and invested the funds correctly to also work for the company (40mill in a no risk bank CD that matures every year could keep them operating much longer... could keep them operating even longer with a savvy investor in house.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:a lot will depend on results by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and they each sent 50 USD to the Mozilla Foundation (not a lot of money for someone in the Western world; just 25 cups of Starbucks coffee)

      Or a week of groceries for a college student. Or two-three tanks for gas for a commuting worker. Or a phone bill. Or...

      You get the idea. It's not alot of money, but it's not an amount alot of those 1 mil people probably have to kick around.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    8. Re:a lot will depend on results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This comment is very insightful. Sticking that 50 mil in a CD could probably generate enough interest alone to employ a couple of developers full time indefinately.

    9. Re:a lot will depend on results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serve and return... ...Funny, everyone says that about everything. "Oh, you can afford it". Well, thanks to insane levels of taxation and a hundred thousand greedy fucking users like you thinking that I won't miss $50 for my project, no, we can't. It's like you asshats think we've all got cash just squirting out of every major orifice like green diarrhea.

    10. Re:a lot will depend on results by catbutt · · Score: 1

      Ok, if there are 1,000,000 people with this level of concern, and they each sent 50 USD to the Mozilla Foundation

      But, "rational" people wouldn't do that. If you -- individually -- send $50, how much do you think the product will be improved based on your contribution alone? Remember, you can't control how much other people send. Whether of not everyone else sends $50, it is doubtful you will get even $1 of material benefit from your $50 investment.

      People, in general, don't think collectively. (suggestion: read up on game theory)

    11. Re:a lot will depend on results by bob_jenkins · · Score: 1

      I've always thought the way to fund nonprofits is by getting rich people to leave them a pile of cash in their wills. Think of all the Xxx Memorial Buildings you've seen.

    12. Re:a lot will depend on results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was pitiful.

      Here's the cluetrain, get on it: You aren't entitled to jack shit. Stop acting like you are.

    13. Re:a lot will depend on results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe its the same three ppl posting that they love Netscape/Mozilla and hate IE millions of times.. =)

      i like Mozilla's current state, Firebird is awesome but I still prefer opera to it. Until they build in faster mouse gestures, I think it'll stay that way. I've still donated to them though. It was 50 bucks, but it wasn't nothing.

    14. Re:a lot will depend on results by pigscanfly.ca · · Score: 1

      Here here .
      I currently go to school .
      If I wanted to donate $50 I would have to without coffee for two months . Given that , I think I'd rather keep my coffee (and be able to go to my morning classes :-)

    15. Re:a lot will depend on results by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Ok, if there are 1,000,000 people with this level of concern, and they each sent 50 USD to the Mozilla Foundation [...], then the Moz Foundation would have 50,000,000 USD available to support development.

      You know what? You're right. A few years ago, I said I never donated to anything because I was broke, and that I would later on. Well, now I have a bit of money, and I've been wondering who I should donate to. I've been thinking about donating to RedHat, since I've used their distro since 8.0 (and I use Fedora now), but I already have a box of 8.0 and 9, so that's out...

      Reading your post made me realize that Mozilla is the one piece of software that I've always used and relied on, regardless of what distro I've used in the past, hell, I even used Mozilla back before I ever started using Linux.

      I'm mailing my cheque today, they've earned it.

    16. Re:a lot will depend on results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This wanker is just a troll. Check out his journal and mod the bastard down. You'll find that most if not all of his comments are actually lifted from others.

  7. Re:Promises promises by dpol · · Score: 1, Informative

    Please mod parent down. The poster simply copied Daniel Glazman's comments on mozillaZine's forum. Also, the poster quite clearly states that he has no qualms about posting other peoples' material in his journal.

    Quoting:

    "And so another glorious trolling session begins. My last account became well-known far too quickly, and the slashdot janitors killed all my karma. Kinda hard to troll at -1. So...fresh account!"
    --
    -- David Polberger Computer Science major, University of Lund, Sweden
  8. Litmus Test by IA-Outdoors · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The real test for Mozilla, to me, has been on my family. As an IT professional, as many of us are, I get roped into supporting PC's and networks (sigh) for family members. One of the first things I do is install Mozilla for them, import their IE bookmarks and set up mozilla mail to use their hosts mail accounts. I also limit JavaScript, tighten security and configure the pop-up stuff. Together with the anti-spam features now in Mozilla Mail I find my family is truly happier with Mozilla than IE. Sure, from time-to-time I get complaints that website X wouldn't work with Mozilla but for the most part they are happy. To that end, kudos to the folks at Mozilla and I'm glad the OSS community his finding good homes for the folks from Netscape.

    --
    You never saw a fish on the wall with its mouth shut.
    1. Re:Litmus Test by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the site isn't conforming to the specifications that Mozilla claims to support, then yes it is fine. But more often than not Mozilla failing to work is due to some crappy server side client dection script that doesn't know what to do with Mozilla and so it just sends the equivilant of, "go away, we don't want your kind around here." My normal response is "fine, then I will take my business where I am apreciated". I got both of my banks (credit card and checking accounts) to support Mozilla by kindly asking a few times to have it added. Since many, many web developers use Mozilla because of its great standards compliance and it's lack of crashing it's often not hard if you ask the right people in the right way =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Litmus Test by mcpkaaos · · Score: 4, Funny

      I get roped into supporting PC's and networks (sigh) for family members

      I felt your pain. Then I discovered the solution, and my life has been smooth sailing ever since. Two words: restraining order. Sure, it can make family gatherings a little tense for a while, but after dad spends a few nights in the clink for one too many Windows 95 support calls, things start to settle down.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    3. Re:Litmus Test by InvisiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      More often than not, the problem is due to poor HTML. IE typically renders "what they meant" while Gecko renders "what they coded." Check out The Burning Edge to see all the bugs and fixes in the nightly builds of Firebird. Check out the FB Bugs forum at Mozillazine and see how many of the "This site doesn't work right!" posts are due to coding errors rather than bugs in the rendering engine. Thanks to IE, people have gotten used to non-standard HTML and poor coding. If you write some really bad HTML that IE happens to render properly (the way you want it to look), and Mozilla renders it exactly the way you wrote it (errors and all), the problem is still your code, not Mozilla's rendering engine. Oddly enough, if you write correct, standard code it will work on any browser (disregarding bugs in the browser, which aren't your problem).

      I too have non-technical family members using Mozilla. I actually haven't heard a single complaint from them about anything not working right with it. They love the built-in popup blocker and Bayesian spam filter as well.

    4. Re:Litmus Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been using Firebird for a few weeks now - I am still not making it my primary browser, because
      many sites still don't work well with Firebird.
      I am not talking about obscure sites with wrong
      HTML/Scripts, but mainstream sites.

      As an example look at
      Google Advanced Group Search . The Combo Box for dates doesn't open up with the mouse click - it does on IE. I have to use the keyboard to chose a date from the Combo Box on Firebird. Like this there are some irritants once in every 10 sites, which is preventing me from using Firebird.

    5. Re:Litmus Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm runing Firebird 0.7 and I see what you mean. I am able to select a date though by clicking-and-holding.

    6. Re:Litmus Test by InvisiBill · · Score: 1
      As an example look at Google Advanced Group Search. The Combo Box for dates doesn't open up with the mouse click - it does on IE. I have to use the keyboard to chose a date from the Combo Box on Firebird. Like this there are some irritants once in every 10 sites, which is preventing me from using Firebird.

      Works for me with the official November 7 nightly build. [Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6a) Gecko/20031107 Firebird/0.7+] http://s87708598.onlinehome.us/images/fb_gagsdate. jpg is a screenshot of it working. Paint Shop Pro was used to capture the cursor in the shot.

    7. Re:Litmus Test by zulux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As an IT professional, as many of us are, I get roped into supporting PC's and networks (sigh) for family members.

      Make it easy on yourself, do what I do....

      I give free Max OS X and free Linux/FreeBSD support. Everything elses is at my billable rate.

      No need to support toy operating systems - especially when you consider that Microsoft had 50 billion is cash - they should support their crap, not you.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    8. Re:Litmus Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see the problem on Firebird 0.7 on XP -- it works if you click-n-drag the pointer, but not if you just click it.

      This is NOT a script or an HTML compat issue. Looks to be simply a buggy select control in Firebird (which is a beta after all).

    9. Re:Litmus Test by rifter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More often than not, the problem is due to poor HTML. IE typically renders "what they meant" while Gecko renders "what they coded." Check out The Burning Edge to see all the bugs and fixes in the nightly builds of Firebird. Check out the FB Bugs forum at Mozillazine and see how many of the "This site doesn't work right!" posts are due to coding errors rather than bugs in the rendering engine. Thanks to IE, people have gotten used to non-standard HTML and poor coding. If you write some really bad HTML that IE happens to render properly (the way you want it to look), and Mozilla renders it exactly the way you wrote it (errors and all), the problem is still your code, not Mozilla's rendering engine. Oddly enough, if you write correct, standard code it will work on any browser (disregarding bugs in the browser, which aren't your problem).

      You know, I agree with you. Microsoft encourages sloppy coding in every area. This is the secret to their success. It is a scourge on the IT world and we should whip those developers into shape, with whips if necessary.

      But, honestly,at the end of the day, will that MCSP/MCSE on the other end of webmaster@stupidbank.com really give a shit that his site using ASP.Net on IIS with FrontPage Extensions does not work in Mozilla because of shoddy code when it works fine and dandy in the browser 99.9999% of the world uses? No, s/he already proved s/he does not care by writing the crappy code in the first place.

      Besides, in the world of code and standards "compliant" and "crappy" are in the eye of the beholder. If there is a html spec which a site violates but which IE is able to show properly and Mozilla is not, some might say that the Mozilla people are wrong about what the specification says. This is, in fact, often Microsoft's argument. They claim their reading of a standards document whereas the OSS community tends toward another. But is this wise?

      I mean if the goal is adoption of the browser, why deliberately choose a path that means you know it won't work with the data people are actually using everyday? At minimum why not allow a broken implementation that emulates IE in certain respects? It's not like this is the first time this has happened. Lots of standard UNIX tools have historically had multiple defined behaviours including those which were considered broken by maintainers. ( I_WANT_A_BROKEN_PS anyone?)

      Also OSS is not perfect in the area of standards and good coding practices, though this is a worthy goal to which most such projects aspire. It is just as prone to the "well it compiles and runs" school of coding and unclear standards documents as anything else. So it is really hard to claim the moral high ground here IMHO.

    10. Re:Litmus Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > IE typically renders "what they meant" while Gecko renders "what they coded."

      Sort of. Mozilla went out of their way to support certain bad HTML that was supported by earlier versions of Netscape. They also adopted their "hard line" position on IE-compliant HTML back when Netscape had > 50% marketshare, not < 5% like today.

      Keep in mind that HTML was sold as the Everyman's Markup and browsers have traditionally supported tons of slop.

      If Mozilla were to support the 3 or 4 most common HTML problems, they would probably eliminate about 90% of the compatibility complaints. As of rignt now, there are big sites that don't work (such as ESPN).

    11. Re:Litmus Test by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      If the Windows customer got an 'OEM' bundle of Windows, then the computer vendor is responsible to support it, not Microsoft. A 'supported' copy of Windows costs $180-250, not the $18-30 an OEM pays for it.

      It's a similiar comparision to the difference between a Customer who buys a supported 'box' package for Red Hat Linux and one who downloads the ISO. No, the person who downloads the ISO is not entitled to 'full support' no matter how bad the Red Hat release is.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    12. Re:Litmus Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er... Windows is a "toy" operating system? I think you're confused. A toy operating system is one that people don't consider suitable for everyday use - it might be experimental, or incomplete, or unsupported, for example - but dual-boot into, or run in VMware, for other purposes - fun, geek points, hacking, whatever. BeOS, Atheos, Minix, and similar things could fairly be called toy operating systems - note how it's a descriptive term, not an insult?

      Windows is used by governments and big business the world over. It has many faults, but in most cases it is adequately scalable and robust. It is certainly not "crap", although I suppose its security could be described that way.

      I'll put it this way - I support several Windows PCs and one Macintosh. And the Mac is the one which has problems with robustness; Panther is now about as stable as Windows XP, but earlier versions of MacOS X were more on a par with Windows 98 in terms of frequency of kernel panics and the like. Note that this isn't an anti-Mac troll: note the way I'm not describing OS X as a "toy" operating system, or "crap", because it's neither. Rather like Windows.

    13. Re:Litmus Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      espn works fine in MozillaFirebird, I dont know what your issue is but its fine here.

    14. Re:Litmus Test by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Nope - it's a problem with the HTML. It happens in Opera 7.21 too...

    15. Re:Litmus Test by zulux · · Score: 1


      What maked windows a "toy" operating systems is that it's native facilities for remote support suck. You can't swap a file out if it's in use and ssh isen't even included - not that it would help too much, cmd.exe sucks.

      Windows is used by governments and big business the world over.

      Sure, it's an ok desktop and can be pressed into service for small department servers - but not one of the top 500 super-computers run Windows. The state of Windows is like the state of Unix in the earily '80's - it's unteasted, full of securit-holes and flakey.

      It'll be fine in ten years - but I'm not waiting 'round.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    16. Re:Litmus Test by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      Quirks mode *does* try to copy a lot of IE and old Netscape broken behaviour.
      And they are continually discovering new things. Occasionally some of them get fixed. It just is a long hard slog, and slows things down a lot, both in development and rendering. I can't blame them for not catching them all.
      One stupid one I remember.
      <ul><li></li>li content<li></li> li content</ul>

      And someone was complaining about Mozilla rendering... Sure stuff like this can be fixed, but it results in a lot of special cases. And is the effort really worth the often minor incompatibilities?

      Also, I think you were off in your usage statistics by about 6 orders of magnitude ;)
      Usage stats seem to vary at between 1 and 15%, depending on what stats website you check. I imagine the real figure is probably a bit over 5% - not horrible, and certainly worth considering if you are a commercial site. Especially since bizaare HTML can cause problems for you yourself later in maintenance and varying IE versions.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    17. Re:Litmus Test by pmz · · Score: 3, Funny

      I got both of my banks (credit card and checking accounts) to support Mozilla by kindly asking a few times to have it added.

      How do I convince a site administrator without offending him after he says "we have to accept only Word format due to security reasons"? This is a true story, and after reading his reply, I was at a loss for words that didn't sound like a chilren's pop-up book or a mallet-to-the-head rant.

    18. Re:Litmus Test by STrinity · · Score: 1

      Thanks to IE, people have gotten used to non-standard HTML and poor coding. If you write some really bad HTML that IE happens to render properly (the way you want it to look), and Mozilla renders it exactly the way you wrote it (errors and all), the problem is still your code, not Mozilla's rendering engine. Oddly enough, if you write correct, standard code it will work on any browser (disregarding bugs in the browser, which aren't your problem)

      This is true of HTML, but when it comes to CSS, IE doesn't even bother with what the designer meant.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    19. Re:Litmus Test by STrinity · · Score: 1

      If the site isn't conforming to the specifications that Mozilla claims to support, then yes it is fine. But more often than not Mozilla failing to work is due to some crappy server side client dection script that doesn't know what to do with Mozilla and so it just sends the equivilant of, "go away, we don't want your kind around here." My normal response is "fine, then I will take my business where I am apreciated".

      Have you tried the user agent extensions at Mozdev?

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    20. Re:Litmus Test by jazzmans · · Score: 1

      The site works for my build of Firebird 0.7 just fine. I can scroll through the date combo boxes like the other boxes. debian unstable. jaz

      --
      Life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans. No-one sees motorcycles
    21. Re:Litmus Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an IT professional, I find Mozilla sux. Rather, its maintainers do. 3 bugs that annoy me have been there for years - 1 since v1.0, 2 since v1.1 - and are marked 'dont feel like fixing' despite many dupes submitted all the time.

      Sure, I still use it. I view it as the least crappy of a crappy field of browsers.

      I would expect the OSS ppl to have more pride in their work. I spend days fixing obscure bugs for my freeware that cant be repeated outside the users box.

      One of these Moz bugs required changing one windows setting (30s) and opening Moz (10s) to validate. But the maintainer instead spends a few minutes writing a comment even tho I put in a screenshot.

      The same bug, assuming Moz is OO, would require maybe 2 constants to be changed to variables. Maybe 5min for someone to locate, 1hr max to verify how to fix it, 10min to fix/compile, and I'll give you 1hr to run thru test cases.

      Nope, instead the ppl just whine about not wanting to fix boring bugs, and you-go-fix-it-yourself-its-open-source-you-leech

      Yeah, whatever. I'm not smart enough to understand your code. I know the project is too big for my little mind to comprehend. That's why YOU were assigned to be the maintainer. Because YOU had the skills to do it properly.

      If you can't, step aside and let someone else try.

    22. Re:Litmus Test by dimator · · Score: 1

      Everything elses is at my billable rate.

      You charge your family members for support? I knew times were tough, but that's pretty harsh.

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    23. Re:Litmus Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of interior pages have content under the sidebar.

    24. Re:Litmus Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I was at a loss for words that didn't sound like a chilren's pop-up book

      That sounds like its about the right level for him.

    25. Re:Litmus Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, yeah. But wouldn't you agree that showing "what they meant" is more futuristic? Look where they're heading. We only try so hard to keep up with Microsoft.

    26. Re:Litmus Test by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      If you're dealing with such an idiot, don't bother. If you really feel pressed to talk to someone at that company, contact his boss.

      Personally, I'd avoid the headache and take my business elsewhere. If you're feeling generous, send a politely worded letter (preferably handwritten or typed) to the CEO of the company explaining why you've given up doing business with his firm. It's amazing what a little injection of reality at the right level will do sometimes. :)

  9. Re:Nothing says success like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    It's a god damn miracle you can still post at +2.
    At least this time, you didn't.

  10. I hope it does well by uradu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mozilla with XUL is indeed a nice distributed platform, a much richer way of writing "thin" clients than *HTML. You can actually write distributed apps that feel so much like a native local app that most users wouldn't even notice--except for performance, of course. A lot of porkiness and memory leakiness still needs to be removed, and some usability loose ends need to be tied up before everything is peachy. Right now (even with the latest builds I believe) keeping multiple copies of Mozilla up for days eventually eats an incredible amount of memory. Closing them brings the system down with furious swapping activity.

    1. Re:I hope it does well by 241comp · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is platform specific but I typically run my Windows box without closing my Mozilla browser (webmail page is always open) for up to a month at a time without any noticable memory problems. Then again, I do have 1GB of RAM on my box so maybe it only eats like 256MB or something?

    2. Re:I hope it does well by uradu · · Score: 1

      I do run it on Windows, and at home with 512MB it's less of a problem than at work with 256MB. Incidentally, Mozilla releases most of its memory when you minimize it. You can check that out with Task Manager. Still, it's an ungly "feature" and could do with removing.

    3. Re:I hope it does well by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Mozilla 1.4 was a memory hog... with either a memory leak, or just the tendancy to gobble up more and more the longer it was open. Since I usually only reboot my WinXP work machine about once every week or two this quickly became a PITA (and I have 512Mb).

      The answer? Switched to Firebird 0.7. It uses a heck of a lot less memory then Mozilla 1.4 and is just as stable. (I usually have 3-5 browser windows open, with 5-10 tabs in each window.)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    4. Re:I hope it does well by uradu · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was talking about Firebird, since that's the "version" of Mozilla I actually use (who wouldn't?). It's definitely more lightweight, but it still exhibited some of the same memory issues as Mozilla.

    5. Re:I hope it does well by follower-fillet · · Score: 1

      > keeping multiple copies of Mozilla up for days eventually eats an incredible amount of memory.

      In my experience keeping *one* copy of Mozilla open is enough to do that....

    6. Re:I hope it does well by the_womble · · Score: 1

      No probs with Moz, at elast running ti for a fwe hours at a time. What does cause problems (i.e. it crashes) is Galeon under KDE.

    7. Re:I hope it does well by tdye · · Score: 1

      Why in the hell would you keep 50 browser pages open at once?

    8. Re:I hope it does well by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Usually because I'm doing research on multiple topics at once...

      Window 1 is my work-related browser window and between all of the different intranet apps that I access periodically through the day, it usually has around a dozen tabs open.

      When googling for something, I start a new window and then open each result that looks interesting in a new tab. That means I don't lose my place back on the google search page. I also don't spend time waiting for any one tab to load because I'm loading them in the background while I continue browsing the results list.

      Another window is usually open to reference pages (e.g. MySQL documentation). Keep the first tab on the index/ToC and open additional tabs for every topic that I'm looking at.

      Some Web BBS software does a poor job of keeping track of which threads that you've read in a given session. Sometimes, if you take too long to work your way through a topic list in a forum, it decides that your session has timed out and tags everything as read. So, in the case where I want to read a few dozen threads, it's quicker/easier to open each thread in a new tab, and then go through the tabs once I've finished browsing the topic list.

      /. is the same way... upon browsing the home page, I might see a topic that, while interesting, I know that I'm not going to want to read until a few hours have past and there are more comments. So I dedicate a window to /., and open up articles in new tabs. Sort of a "lightweight" method of bookmarking something for a few hours. Later in the day, I'll go to the tab, refresh it and then read the responses.

      It's not hard to have 50-tabs open...

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  11. Life after SCO by wed128 · · Score: 1

    Darl Mcbride lives alone in a studio apt in utah, wasting away dreaming of what might have been...

    1. Re:Life after SCO by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 2, Funny
      Darl Mcbride lives alone in a studio apt in utah, wasting away dreaming of what might have been...

      Hopefully that'll be the kind of "studio apt" where you get your meals delivered through a small hole in the door three times a day, and have to take a shower with your new boyfriend "Big Bubba" every morning.

      Rich.

    2. Re:Life after SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A studio-apt? Is that where Debian developers live?

      (ducks)

  12. Re:Promises promises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    An identical comment was posted on MozillaZine earlier today by "glazou" - is that you, or are you kharma-whoring?

  13. Here's the link to donate by sphealey · · Score: 4, Informative
    Should have included this link in the prior post:

    To donate to Mozilla Foundation:

    http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/donate.html

    sPh

    1. Re:Here's the link to donate by KjetilK · · Score: 1
      Paypal and checks.... I'd rather not let Paypal anywhere near my money, and checks, well, around here, they look at you like you whacked a 75-year-old, because those are the only people who are still using them...

      But then, creating a cash-flow is very, very important. The problem is, there is no feasible solution to ship relatively small amounts of money around the globe. If we can solve that problem, and make it easy to send some cash here and there, it would certainly help not only free software developers, but authors and artists as well.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    2. Re:Here's the link to donate by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      It looks like they accept credit card payments.

    3. Re:Here's the link to donate by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      I'm a poor college student and I sent $2.

      I don't feel compelled to support every free/OSS project. Just the ones I want to see continue and get better. I hope projects keep making it easy to do so, and I hope users feel compelled to pitch in. A bunch of $2 donations can go very far.

  14. Good to see software can be commercial but free by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's always promising to see a vindication of the open source model - and that is what this is.

    Companies get what they want (the ability to cut development time and costs with prewritten code they can easily adapt).

    Consumers get what they want (a web browser that works at no cost).

    Hackers get what they want (a web browser they can hack, where their efforts will be recognised not cause a lawsuit).

    Developers get what they want (income from doing something cool).

    It's a win win solution, unlike closed development models. No one looses out at all, except the companies that exist to be the middle man. But even they don't loose out, as the shareholders can take their capital and deploy it where it is more worthwhile for the economy, which is the corner stone of capitalism. No more duplicated effort, creating the same product over and over, which by definition can never meet the requirements of all interested parties. Superb!

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:Good to see software can be commercial but free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the software will never make large amounts of $$$. So if you're looking to make large amounts of $$$, the open source model is not the way to do it.

    2. Re:Good to see software can be commercial but free by NotClever · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's a win win solution, unlike closed development models. No one looses out at all, except the companies that exist to be the middle man.

      I have a bit of a problem with this line of thinking. If a person forms a company to provide software that others want to buy, what's the problem? If I make something you want, and it is worth it to you, then why would you not expect to pay?

      Now, if someone wants to compete with them by creating an open source version of the product, then more power to them, but remember, most companies actually serve a purpose (excluding a bunch of bubble companies!) I'm simply amazed at the number of people on Slashdot who think that any profit motive is 'evil'.

      --
      Hell, there are no rules here. We're trying to accomplish something. - Thomas Edison
    3. Re:Good to see software can be commercial but free by fitten · · Score: 1

      Developers get what they want (income from doing something cool).

      In the context above, I haven't seen this happen so much. What I've mostly seen is that, yes, developers get paid, but the company they work for doesn't, and eventuall goes belly-up and the developers are no longer paid until they find another job.

    4. Re:Good to see software can be commercial but free by orasio · · Score: 1

      Doesnt have anything to do with profit, the problem is that closed source is _evil_ in many ways. I am a professional developer. I work at a company that develops custom software with servlets. Out code is usually free software, although we use no dependencies that force us to do so. I am against closed source development, mostly because I find it is not ethical, in the way RMS explains it.
      My company does not use closed source, but it makes profit, because we make custom software, that was not previously available, but we dont like to hold our users hostage. We prefer to have returing customers because of the quality of our service and not our unethical marketing strategies.

    5. Re:Good to see software can be commercial but free by NotClever · · Score: 1
      Sorry about the delay in the reply.

      We're basically on the same page.

      My thing is, if you want to provide source for your product, that's fine, but why should you stipulate (as per GPL) that anyone can then give it away? I'm happy to include the source with my products, but not to allow people to then take that source and sell it to others. Mainly I want them to know that if I die in by getting run over by a beer truck (or my business is wiped out by a bomb), their business can still operate...

      I also think the word evil is being a bit overused. Hitler was evil. Pol Pot was evil. North Korea is evil (in today's terms). Closed source is just not 'ideal'. :)

      --
      Hell, there are no rules here. We're trying to accomplish something. - Thomas Edison
  15. Slow down... by Orien · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The amount of interest by non-Netscape companies in Mozilla is surely a positive sign for the future of the project.

    I know we are all anxious to see the project have a long-term future, especially with the recent changes, but that is jumping the gun just a bit. There is a big difference in companies having interest in Mozilla employees than having interest in Mozilla. Just because IBM hired Daniel Glazman doesn't mean they have any interest in Mozilla, they just know he is qualified in specific development areas that they want to focus on.

    1. Re:Slow down... by linuxci · · Score: 3, Informative
      Just because IBM hired Daniel Glazman doesn't mean they have any interest in Mozilla


      Daniel Glazman isn't hired by IBM, he actually runs his own company, that's contracted to work on various enhancements to Mozilla Composer, including Nvu, funded by Lindows.com

    2. Re:Slow down... by cobar · · Score: 2, Informative

      All the guys that were hired by IBM were, to the best of my knowledge, brought on to continue working on Mozilla. doron was definitely hired to do Mozilla development. Shortly before the dissolution of Netscape, IBM was running an ad looking for an experienced Mozilla developer to help get their enhancements landed.

  16. AOL still banner-ad'ing Netscape 7.1 ... by Hobart · · Score: 2, Funny
    Funny thing is, there's still some marketing person at AOL with an ad budget that's got "Switch to Netscape 7.1!" banners playing on http://www.aim.com (and perhaps other sites?)
    --
    o/~ Join us now and share the software ...
    1. Re:AOL still banner-ad'ing Netscape 7.1 ... by TC+(WC) · · Score: 1

      To be fair, you don't need much of an advertising budget to put ads on websites you already own.

    2. Re:AOL still banner-ad'ing Netscape 7.1 ... by rifter · · Score: 1

      To be fair, you don't need much of an advertising budget to put ads on websites you already own.

      No but it does reduce potential ad revenue from other customers...

    3. Re:AOL still banner-ad'ing Netscape 7.1 ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No but it does reduce potential ad revenue from other customers...

      Maybe they don't have any other customers. This is AOL we're talking about. The only customers left are people who haven't hired attorneys to help them get out of their contracts.

    4. Re:AOL still banner-ad'ing Netscape 7.1 ... by IM6100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Switch to Netscape 7.1!"

      As well there should be. I recently switched 'back' to an aging PPC Mac (a 5400/120, eeeek!) as a 'desktop' platform for the living room. The best web browser I have found for it, running MacOS 9.1 in 128 MB of RAM, is Netscape 7.03. The OSS developer crowd, taillight chasers that they always are, have abandoned such an 'ancient' platform. (one of the problems with 'scratching an itch' programmers is they tend to run bleeding-edge hot-dog hardware, not what regular people use). The unofficial 'Mozilla' build for MacOS is a slow, convoluted kludge compared to this official Netscape build of the Mozilla codebase. I don't know why. It just is. Possibly there are non-distributable MacOS bits and pieces that Netscape built with that can't be used in a 'free Open Source' build environment.

      My point: There are TONS of people out there, likely the sort of people still using AOL products like AIM, for whom Netscape 7.x is viable and the correct browser choice. It's a hell of a lot nicer than IE 5.1 for Mac on this aging hardware...

      I miss my Beige G3 but I'd rather have the money at this point.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
  17. Open source, and getting it right. by fishlet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hope this isn't too far off topic

    Mozilla is a prime example of the virtues of open source verses closed propriatary software (ex: IE). When Mozilla was way overdue, people called it dead. From a market share perspective maybe they were right. However because of taking the time to do it right, Mozilla is now the best (if not most popular) browser around. Because of this, those are innovative enough to come up with new features are going to choose Mozilla first to implement their ideas. Some of the guys from Netscape (the real innovators, not the ones who were just there for a paycheck) probably have a few good ideas left in them.

    1. Re:Open source, and getting it right. by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Mozilla is now the best (if not most popular) browser around.

      Mozilla? Most popular?? Here's a link to a blinding flash of reality. Choice quote: "Microsoft's Internet Explorer is currently used by more than 90 percent of Web surfers, according to site visitor statistics published by Google."

      You're not off topic, you're off your rocker!

      --
      evil adrian
    2. Re:Open source, and getting it right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm - Evil the (if not most popular) was used in the sense of statement not claim. fishlet was spot on - it's not the most popular.

    3. Re:Open source, and getting it right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he meant, "Mozilla is the best (even if it's not the most popular) browser." But you knew that.

    4. Re:Open source, and getting it right. by fishlet · · Score: 1

      That's ok.

      I'll order a recall for my hoard of evil minnions that are headed for your door. :-)

    5. Re:Open source, and getting it right. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Read closer, polish up your grammar. To rephrase your quote:

      "Mozilla is now the best brower around, even if it's not the most popular."

    6. Re:Open source, and getting it right. by iion_tichy · · Score: 1

      Those statistics are hard to believe when everybody you know has switched to Mozilla. I wonder how reliable those stats are, given that many clients fake their identity. Most pretend to be IE (perhaps even Mozilla does it at times).

      But even assuming they are correct, the fact remains that people in the know prefer Mozilla/Firebird. So it is only a matter of time untill Firebird will have the higher market share (provided Microsoft doesn't react, which somehow they don't seem to).

      After all, it's the people in the know who eventually tell their friends what Browser to use.

    7. Re:Open source, and getting it right. by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      Yes and thats the matter I have been trying to tell people for a LONG time. 3 years ago, even geeks were saying Netscape is dead, blah blah blah. Mozilla is too bloated. XUL is a mistake... blah blah blah.

      I have been advocating Mozilla since they released the "raptor" engine.

      The raptor engine was a technology preview, consisting of a simple browser with only back/reload/location bar. and its total size fitted on a floppy disk. Small and simple as it was, it rendered CSS better than any browser there. Simple and elegant, certainly better than the bloated unstable mess that was supposed to become Netscape 5 (Netscape was flagged by WSP for poor standards support, and it was IE that was gettign the credit).

      Due to tradmark issues (yes mozilla.org had tradmark issues even at the start) Raptor got renamed to Gecko/NGLayout.

      Then the desicion was made to drop the Netscape Communicator code, and switch to Gecko, the mandate being to bring a standards compliant browser. People groaned "Oh no, just bring out *a* browser, ASAP".

      Then Mozilla switched to using XPFE to ease crossplatform efforts, instead of custom interfaces, leading to the next set of groans, "Oh my god its going to be slow/bloated/unstable"

      Mozilla got trashed, and cited as a failure of Open Source, by both Geeks and IT journalists. IE got praised... for both standards compliance and Stability.

      Netscape released Netscape 6.... BIG GROANS.... caused a rapid stink. Critisism all over the place.

      All thsi time, Mozilla said.. wait and see... it will be the best when finished...

      Now what do we have?

      Mozilla/MozillaFirebird/Netscape7.1, the stable/fast/compliant broswer... the BEST browser bar none... Based on X-Platform XUL... Open Source success.... blah blah blah.

      The point I am making is, I woudl liek to congratulate the Mozilla team for creatign a WORLD CLASS browser, dispite all the unfair critism they have face. I admire their strength to continue with their beliefs despite worldwide critism, and proving the world + its dog wrong, when the time came right. Thank you for your creation.

      I also congratulate AOL/Netscape for funding this massive project, in spite of it "looking bad" on the record books during the early stages.

      And those who are reading this.. remember OSS is not always magic.. it requires hard work and belief.. but the fundamentals still hold true.. OSS rocks.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    8. Re:Open source, and getting it right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how come Opera gets no love here? the quality of opera has gone down a littile in the last few releases and theres a lot of things that still haven't been fixed but they have mouse gestures! i know mozilla 1.0 had it but it wasn't as good as opera's. plus opera had tabbed windows before mozilla and opera is as fast, if not faster, than mozilla. dunno much how their standards support is, though.

    9. Re:Open source, and getting it right. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      So everyone you know uses Mozilla therefore it must be very popular? Irrefutable logic. +5 Insightful.

      In the real world, Mozilla has about a 3% share of the installed base of browsers. Don't expect that figure to jump any time soon.

    10. Re:Open source, and getting it right. by potsmaster · · Score: 1

      totally agree!

      i've been running mozilla on linux and (sigh...) winblows since version 0.6 or so. initially it was painful but even the earliest versions were compelling enough - cookie filters anyone? - to keep at it. now i've boobytrapped my website to send ie idiots (90% of my visitors - as can be easily determined by ie's failure to load one of my stylesheets) to mozilla.org for a real browser...

      --
      REPORT ALL OBSCENE MESSAGES TO YOUR POTSMASTER
    11. Re:Open source, and getting it right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera's standards support is great. Their CSS2 support for example is as good as if not better than the latest Mozilla release. Many validated CSS and DHTML tests work in Opera and fail in Mozilla. Just make sure you have the latest version of Opera, it's getting better and better all the time.

    12. Re:Open source, and getting it right. by Salsaman · · Score: 1
      I tried Opera for the first time a couple of weeks ago. Tried to type in a URL, saw there was no location bar, couldn't figure out how to switch one on, and gave up.

      Maybe it was just misconfigured somehow, but a browser isn't much use if you can't browse anything with it !

    13. Re:Open source, and getting it right. by ErixTr · · Score: 1

      Also a user who can not find the location bar on a browser has no use. ;)

      Did you try double-clicking or just choosing "file" and then "new page"?

      Give Opera a new chance. It is really nice.

      --
      less is more
    14. Re:Open source, and getting it right. by iion_tichy · · Score: 1

      "So everyone you know uses Mozilla therefore it must be very popular? Irrefutable logic. +5 Insightful."

      Well, it's a statistical sample, after all. Admitedly it's biased, but still.

    15. Re:Open source, and getting it right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you boobytrapped your website!

      You are a huge fucking booby - and no mistake!

  18. This is good and bad news by Gwala · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While it is a problem - that AOL has decided to simply leech of Mozilla (however, I'm unsure about their state in regard to the various contract's with MS over using internet explorer - there's at least 3 contracts about that, that I know of) if you look at it, this can only mean more development of Mozilla & friend's, which is now far superiour than what netscape ever was, and can only get bigger and better (and more popular, considering the next IE's going to be bundled with Longhorn)

    -Gwala

    --
    #!/bin/csh cat $0
    1. Re:This is good and bad news by linuxci · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Rumour has it that there's going to be a 'service pack' (hate that term) for IE released next year which will feature pop-up blocking to finally bring IE users into the 21st Century.

      Between now and then we need to convert people to alternatives if the alternatives better suit their needs.

    2. Re:This is good and bad news by Ice_Balrog · · Score: 4, Informative

      AOL isn't leeching. First of all, they are donating $2 million to the Mozilla Foundation. Second, they donated a while shitload of hardware to the Mozilla Foundation. Third, they don't even make the branded version of Mozilla (Netscape) anymore.

      --
      #include "sig.h"
    3. Re:This is good and bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to your link, it's a service pack for XP, not for IE. It's not going to help people running MacOS or Windows 2000 or 9x, and there's still a lot of them around.

      MacOS users have Apple pushing Safari, so they're okay, but you'll still have the Win9x/2k crowd to evangelise even after the XP service pack. Besides, popup blocking is only one of the features Mozilla has over IE, and IE users can get it now _anyway_ with the Google toolbar.

      In other words, I wouldn't say that the release of the service pack in question is suddenly going to stop people switching to Mozilla.

    4. Re:This is good and bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already use a better alternative than Mozilla and it runs on top of IE.

  19. Making progress by linuxci · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Although it's good to see a lot of Mozilla developers still getting paid to work on Mozilla development, there's also a lot of former Netscape people that have went to work on other browsers but still occaisionally keep up involvement with Mozilla. e.g. Ian Hickson now works for Opera software but still has some involvement in the Mozilla community as does David Hyatt who left Netscape to work with Apple on Safari.

    There's also more volunteers than the early days, not just with coding and testing, but with user support too, such as the excellent Mozilla Firebird and Thunderbird Help sites.

    But in reality to the end user, it does not matter how many people are developing it, it's the quality of the product that counts, and I think that with recent releases there's nothing that can beat Mozilla in all round usefulness. If you've not tried it for ages then it's worth a try now, features like type ahead find, tabbed browsing and of course pop-up blocking make it an excellent product and make using IE a painful process. The fact is on any platform IE looks like the third rate choice, if you don't like Mozilla then there's always Opera, although personally I hate the interface to it - but others will disagree, choice is good, and having a situation where more people try alternative browsers is good for making sure we don't get tied into a Windows (i.e. IE) only web.

    1. Re:Making progress by gregmac · · Score: 1

      But in reality to the end user, it does not matter how many people are developing it, it's the quality of the product that counts, and I think that with recent releases there's nothing that can beat Mozilla in all round usefulness. ... The fact is on any platform IE looks like the third rate choice

      I have to agree. I've switched to Firebird exclusively for a web browser on both Linux and Windows. Using IE has become a painful experience.

      On my home system, some adware program installed some search bar and removed the google bar, and I tried a whole ton of things but could never completly get rid of it. I had to reinstall the googlebar to get it back. At that point, I got fed up, and decided to look at Firebird 0.7 which was just released (I had already been using Mozilla on linux at work). Instantly, I loved it. It amazes me the lack of features IE has.

      Over the weekend, I was writing a reverse proxy (of sorts) to access a proprietary SCADA system. Worked great in Firebird. I loaded it up in IE and had a whole ton of problems. One that sticks out is from a http://domain.com session, sending a "Refresh: 1;https://domain.com" header causes IE to ignore (as far as I can tell) the https, as it sits in an infinite reload cycle. I guess version 6 isn't mature enough to have complex bugs like that worked out?

      It's kind of funny, because as I was adding in these kludges to make it work in IE, I had this flash of deja-vu.. and realized I used to do the same thing about two years ago, trying to get pages to load properly in NS4 (and no offense to the Netscape guys - espessailly since this article is about them - but NS4 was around for far too long, without supporting fairly simple DHTML things, style sheets (fully), and various other things I can't think of at the moment). NS4 was basically killed off then (yes, I know what MS did. But even me, at the time totally pro-NS anti-IE, switched to IE because it was superior), and now I see the same thing beginning to happen to IE.

      I can't even remember using the web and putting up with popups. Or how I ever managed to get work done having 10 IE windows open, instead of one or two Mozilla windows, with tabs. Or seeing an interesting link on a web page, and loading it in a new tab in the background to look at when I'm done with the current site. Or being able to highlight a word/acronym/product name and click "search" and have it load up in google in a tab in the background. I could go on and on..

      --
      Speak before you think
    2. Re:Making progress by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Basically, my top Windows browsers are in this order:

      Opera 7.2x - smallest modern browser, fastest, IMHO best UI
      Firebird 0.7x - small, fast, feature-loaded, however, it's not good at tabbed browsing - good IE drop-in replacement, though
      IE 6.0x - It's already installed, but it's huge, slow, and needs Google Toolbar for popup blocking
      Mozilla 1.5x - Not as big as IE, but VERY slow - making IE better...

      As for e-mail, here's the order:

      Thunderbird 0.3x - Bayesian filtering, easy UI, what else is there to say?
      Eudora 6.0x - It's commercial, but they've finally got bayesian-style filtering, and is similar to Opera in it's tabbing and advertising behavior (BTW, it IS faster than Thunderbird, but it's larger)
      Mozilla 1.5x - Big and VERY slow, but it's supposed to be just like Thunderbird...
      Outlook Express 6.0x - Big, slow, and virus-prone, but it's easy
      Opera 7.2x - I HATE M2's UI... so much that virus-prone OE is ahead of it...
      Outlook XP - MASSIVE, expensive, useless spam filtering, VERY slow, EXTREMELY virus-prone, etc., etc.

    3. Re:Making progress by Reziac · · Score: 1

      {plaintively} Do you know anyone formerly with Netscape, who might know where the NS3.04 codebase is, and who could get it opensourced?? Thankx for any help!!

      (Yes, NS3.04 is still my browser of CHOICE. Moz v0.99 is my #2 browser. Don't like v1.5, tho.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:Making progress by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      You might want to check Pmail, it's what I've been using since 1994,
      it might not beat Thunderbird, or you might not like the UI, it needs a little getting used to. It's free (as in beer) no adds, so for me it beats Eudora.

      Adriaan.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    5. Re:Making progress by Nplugd · · Score: 1

      Is there really a point in comparing those product ? Especially from performance point of view. I mean, Thunderbird is a light mail client, whereas mozilla is a browser/mail client/editor/... and Outlook is, well, a lot of thing really. We're using Outlook in the corporate environment, and I gotta say there's a lot of features pretty useful (calendar management, and all related tasks). Do you have that with thunderbird ? (seriously, I'm asking, never used it). I say that's cheap MS bashing. I've seen better around :)

      --
      Je n'ai pas d'avenir Je n'ai qu'un destin Celui de n'être qu'un souvenir C'est pour demain
    6. Re:Making progress by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      This is just for e-mail. No, Thunderbird doesn't have calendaring. However, there are OSS calendaring apps (for Linux anyway). Did you notice I prefer Outlook Express to Opera for e-mail?

  20. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    After reading this site for a few years now, I'm of the opinion that...slashdotters...are pretty immature and socially inept.


    It took you years to realize that? Hell, I think it's part of the FAQ now.
  21. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Ha ha - good one!

  22. Left Out Of The Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    16 developers currently work for McDonalds
    3 developers work at Arbys
    1 developer works for TGIF

    30 developers are currently living in Mom's basement/guest room/crashing on the couch.

    5 developers are living under the River St bridge, 3 in boxes, 2 in old station wagons.

    3 developers "left the reservation" and are currently living in a commune.

    1 developer is a mid level Amway rep

  23. Not much work left on core Mozilla? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I hate to admit to such a thing, but I'm really greatful for AOL's life support for the Mozilla project. Now Mozilla isn't just good, it's the best browser ever made, and its modular design makes it easy to add extensions to it (which in the end make for its coolest features, like mouse gestures and adblock).

    I honestly haven't noticed any really significant improvements in my Mozilla experience in the last 6 months. As far as I'm concerned, Mozilla is done. Sure, it's nice to stomp some bugs and increase performance by ever-diminishing increments, but I think we've passed the point when the average user on a good computer even notices.

    That's intended as a huge compliment to Mozilla.

    I also think the remaining hackers are doing the right thing in trying to furhter modularize the code. These are the sorts of things that end-users (hopefully) don't notice, but they make the individual components more useable.

    But I have to wonder whether Mozilla requires the huge programming push that it has needed two years ago. Is there ever a time when you just basically declare it done and leave it in the hands of some maintainers, like the 2.4 kernel?

    What made Mozilla great is that it was a start from scratch, and it was (at least initially) architectured according to sane principles. Maybe the best thing Mozilla developers can do now is to leave it alone and work on Safari. The Konqueror code is where Mozilla was 2 years ago, except much smaller, more readable, and faster (not faster than Mozilla now, but certainly faster than Mozilla 2 years ago). I don't consider it blasphemy for a huge Mozilla fan like me to accept the fact that Mozilla is more-or-less done, and that volunteers who understand it well enough to contribute would make better use of their skills working on something like Konq rather that building angels in the Mozilla architecture (which no one but God can see). Or, go and write good open-source office software. There's a real need for improvement there... as there isn't in Mozilla.

    1. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by jdavidb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mozilla could use Free Software/Open Source dropin replacements for Java, Flash, and all that junk. I mostly don't like those things anyway, but sometimes I'd like to have them.

    2. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by jsav40 · · Score: 1

      Probably not on Mozilla itself (but) there is a real move towards a less monolithic approach with projects like Firebird & Thunderbird.

    3. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by linuxci · · Score: 1
      Maybe the best thing Mozilla developers can do now is to leave it alone and work on Safari

      You mean KHTML? Safari itself isn't open source, but all the work that involes KHTML source is, however, I agree that's just picking at slight details.

      But, no, I don't think Mozilla is done - it's currently the best browser around IM (and many others) HO, but there's still a lot of things that could be improved and bugs needing to be fixed. So Mozilla needs to keep on improving, we don't want Mozilla to turn into another IE - where it's almost stagnant and new features take ages to appear.

    4. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I did mean KHTML. I'm pretty impressed with what Safari and Konqueror can do.

      Mozilla extensions/plugins already make it very easy to add new features like encryption. So I don't worry about feature stagnation. And I know there are still bugs, but they hardly bite anymore.

      Your point about Internet Explorer is a good one: It has stagnated, and Microsoft is essentially giving up on further development. This kills the most important reason that once made it urgent for browsers to keep changing: new online standards being implemented by websites. Now, Mozilla can relax about things like CSS2 for a while. Since IE can't render that stuff anyway, there won't be websites that use it. There's no harm done to Mozilla if it stagnates in parallel with IE, and just squashes some bugs and adds/improves a few plugins. It's already so much better, it's biggest problem now is just getting people to try it. That gives developers the breathing room to work on a more ambitious project from scratch or from KHTML.

    5. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by linuxci · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Mozilla can relax about things like CSS2 for a while. Since IE can't render that stuff anyway, there won't be websites that use it.


      To me that seems like a good idea to get top class support for the standards not supported by IE, it helps make more web developers wake up and realise how useless IE is. I know some people who think they're web developers who still think 'Netscape' is version 4.x and those that tried 6.0 gave up on it altogether. Netscape 7.1 was a fine browser (and probably the last Netscape) as it was based on Mozilla 1.4.

      Anyway, I'm drifting, the point is, if Mozilla can get the marketing right and get the word spread about its capabilities, web developers will wake up to how useless IE's standards support is and may start helping push the alternatives (although I doubt in the near future they'd do anything to break rendering in IE - but they might take advantage of some features that'll look better in a modern browser). Basically, the more advantages Mozilla has over IE the better, and if KHTML and Opera can support the same standards then great.


      Personally I'd like to see Mozilla's (all Gecko based browsers) share around 25% which would be enough to make web developers code to the standards, but not enough that Mozilla developers would get the temptation and do a Microsoft (unlikely), the other 75% of the market could be between Opera, IE and the KHTML browsers.

    6. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by adamfranco · · Score: 1

      I honestly haven't noticed any really significant improvements in my Mozilla experience in the last 6 months. ...

      accept the fact that Mozilla is more-or-less done

      While this may be the case with SeaMonkey, Firebird and Thunderbird are cranking along and breaking new frontiers in speed, features, and usability. When we get to the point that Firebird and Tunderbird are mature, then it could make sense to move resourses else. For the time being though, I'm glad that resourses are being devoted to Mozilla/Firebird/Thunderbird to make them as good as they can be. Mozilla is (and probably will remain for some time) one of OSS' biggest "killer apps" along with Linux and Apache. What makes it in some ways even more important than the other two though, is that it can be and is used by average users. Those average users are the ones that us OSS conoscenti need support from in government, industry, economy, and elsewhere.

      If we head away from Mozilla too soon, there is a possiblity that we would miss out on the gaining of much good karma with non-geeks.

      --
      "When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
    7. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by linuxci · · Score: 1
      the other 75% of the market could be between Opera, IE and the KHTML browsers

      Considering the success of Google just by word of mouth then it shows that sometimes the better product can be the most successful (comparing MSN and Google search - not wanting to start a discussion on whether there's other search engines superior to Google) but fighting the Microsoft marketing machine can be terrible.

      So to rip off someone elses idea (I seen it in a blog post somewhere - sorry can't remember the source) it'd be good to see Google getting involved with the Mozilla project because one of Microsoft's current targets is Google. Look at it this way - many people download the Google toolbar for IE, now what happens if in Longhorn MS make it difficult for Google to make addons for IE like that, and in fact have an MSN toolbar that looks and functions almost identically to the Google one?
      If Google made a customised version of Mozilla Firebird (once Firebird is ready for the prime time) that has all the features of the Google toolbar as well as all the cool features we expect from Mozilla based browsers then this could help with Mozilla's marketshare as well as reducing Google's dependence on their richest rival. It would also suddenly make the official Google toolbar available on more platforms.

      Yes, I know there's an unofficial Google toolbar or two for Mozilla, and for many people (me included) the built in search bar is more than good enough, however, making it official and publicised on Googles pages would do the marketshare of Mozilla the world of good and hopefully help Google too

    8. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I'm drifting, the point is, if Mozilla can get the marketing right and get the word spread about its capabilities, web developers will wake up to how useless IE's standards support is and may start helping push the alternatives.

      In this I think you are correct. Remember the state of things back when IE and Navigator were competing? Web designers would use the full features of their preferred browser, and possibly add an emasculated version of the site for those whose tastes differ. But the things I'm thinking of were those little banners you got everywhere - "This Site Best Viewed With Netscape Navigator: Click Here To Install."

      If web designers like CSS2, and web designers use CSS2, and web designers put, on their emasculated non-CSS2-versions of their sites, links to simple installers for the Windows version of, say, Firebird, then think of all the clueless users who will click those links, and start using the better browser, without even having to think about what they're doing?

      To me, this looks like one of the most likely means by which alternative browsers could gain market share.

    9. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has happened. The 1.4 stable branch of Mozilla has only a tiny number of people working on it and the 1.0 stable branch basically runs with nobody working on it. However, like the 2.6 Linux kernel keeps getting worked on despite the fact that there's a 2.4 branch, the Mozilla trunk remains under development.

    10. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by Cyno · · Score: 1

      I thought Apple was already working on Safari/Konqueror..

      Konq needs better CSS. Other than that I'm satisfied with the progress on both fronts.

    11. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...Firebird & Thunderbird."

      For certain. And have them leave behind that horrible profile manager so that opening multiple instances on different desktops works as expected.

    12. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has stagnated, and Microsoft is essentially giving up on further development

      Not even close. MIcrosoft is working on a complete rewrite and has devoted quite a lot of internal resources to the project.

    13. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by DrEasy · · Score: 1

      I think this is a fantastic idea! Why don't you Mozilla guys contact Google? The average Joe that does his browsing with IE and his searching with Google would probably be interested in a "Google Web Browser".

      --
      "In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
    14. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by BZ · · Score: 1

      > But I have to wonder whether Mozilla requires
      > the huge programming push that it has needed two
      > years ago.

      If you ever want it to support things like CSS2.1 (with its major change of how style computation and inheritance work), then yes.

      If you ever want it to support CSS3 Selectors, then yes.

      If you ever want to be able to read layout code without losing your sanity, yes.

      If you want to have multiple apps using the same shared code (Firebird/Thunderbird/whatever), then absolutely.

      The list goes on and on.

    15. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by BZ · · Score: 1

      Oh, one more thing. Konq is nowhere close to rendering "real-world" HTML like Mozilla did two years ago. Safari is closer, and maybe some of that will migrate back to Konq eventually....

    16. Re:Not much work left on core Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FB hasn't had many improvements since 0.5 when it was FKA Phoenix...which I still use cause its faster (autocomplete bug be damned)

  24. Re:C Compatibility by rfmobile · · Score: 1

    It's cross platform at the *source code* level.
    Is that so hard to understand?
    Do you expect XPCOM modules compiled under MSVC to run on Mac OS X?
    -rick

  25. Re:it is not a democraty: by RocketJeff · · Score: 1
    Companies get what they want (the ability to cut development time and costs with prewritten code they can easily adapt).
    Which they have to release the source code for free. (GPL)
    1. Mozilla isn't purely GPL'd (it's a mishmash of NPL/MPL/GPL/LGPL depending on the part. They are working on cleaning this up).

    2. Even with GPL'd software, you only need to release the source if you distribute the binary. If you develop/enhance GPL'd software, you don't have to release the binary/source if you don't want to.

  26. jwz by Knights+who+say+'INT · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I will never forget how sad was jwz's communication that he was resigning from his position at Netscape/AOL. I was just a teenager, but it made me set aside any plans of getting into the computing industry.

    Apparently, he's thrown all away to become a club owner.

    1. Re:jwz by yog · · Score: 1

      Don't feel too sad on Jamie's behalf; in his position, he must have done very, very well financially and doesn't need to work. Anyway, it's typical for people in acquired companies to move on to more interesting and entrepreneurial pursuits, often things they could not afford to do back when they had to work for a living.

      Besides, he was dead wrong about Mozilla, as we have seen. It was not a dying project. True, it didn't take over the world but it's a very solid product that thousands of people use, a worthy successor to Netscape. The thing it lacks currently is a compelling feature that will convince millions of IE users to download it and use it as their default browser. Maybe some existing feature is it, like popup killer or XUL or tabs; I don't know. IE's good enough. Mozilla has to be 10 times better before the masses adopt it, so there's work yet to be done, but it may happen.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
  27. Mozilla Consulting, lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    Now THAT'S a money maker!

  28. Developers are people also by jhines · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given that people with common intests form communities, it isn't unreasonable for this community to be interested in what happens to the people of that community.

    That I've never met them in person, doesn't stop me from being concerned about them.

    1. Re:Developers are people also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that I have never, and most likely will never, meet them lays a broad framework for my not giving two shakes of a rats tail about them.

      And since I don't know you, you are now lumped into the same "don't give a shit" category. Prior to this, I was ambivalent about you. You tipped the scales though.

    2. Re:Developers are people also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's ok. Next time I hear about someone dying horribly, I'll hope it was you :).

    3. Re:Developers are people also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..for my not giving two shakes of a rats tail about them.

      It's curious that selfish idiots like you often use stupid little sayings like that. Your kind is easily identifiable and therefore easily ignored.

  29. Shame this is modded down - valid point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too many people here have some kinda evangelica faith in OSS as a business model.

    OSS is not a 'business model' its a colaborative software development model. Why? Because "IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY MONEY" (don't give me that 'you make the money doing custom work and consultancy - because it's BULLSHIT for small developer shops).

    While some great things have come out of OSS projects, it is not the future model for mainstream commercial software IMO.

  30. Re:The Editor war is over : Vim won! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vim won!

    That's a bit like Stalin winning over Hitler.

    I don't know who was the worst!

  31. Life after AOL by axxackall · · Score: 1
    I guess that what we should expect next counting:
    • AOL mostly connects customers through modems, ignoring the trend of DSL;
    • AOL supports only Windows, ignoring the trend of Linux;
    • AOL does not use good technology when it owns them and let Mozilla/Netscape go;
    Who wants the bet about when AOL will be a history?
    --

    Less is more !
    1. Re:Life after AOL by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      AOL could last a long time. It has many loyal customers who think of 'AOL' as the Internet.

      For an example of a similar phenomenon, look how long Apple Computer survived with a 'cooperative multitasking' kludge of an Operating System and a rabidly loyal customer base.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    2. Re:Life after AOL by glenrm · · Score: 1

      Already started they are losing subscripers and AOL is no longer a ticker symbol. I use RoadRunner which is great broadband service from Time Warner why would I need AOL? Time Warner is thinking the same thing in my opinion well they are thinking why did I merge with AOL?.

    3. Re:Life after AOL by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      The way I read it AOL bought Time-Warner for $112 billion.

      I'm sure the previous owners of Time-Warner don't trouble themselves with regret too hard.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    4. Re:Life after AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at how much market share Microsoft got with a 'cooperative multitasking' kludge of an Operating System.

    5. Re:Life after AOL by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft probably didn't 'win' much market share with Windows 16. They just held onto it and it transitioned their customers gradually onto Win32. I can remember when Windows 16, specifically version 3.11, was an upgrade to DOS, because the Virtual 86 mode meant it multitasked legacy DOS apps fairly well. Not as good as DesqView, of course, but nobody ran DesqView 'cuz it wasn't Microsoft.

      Actually, a greatly overlooked product/platform was DesqView/X. It was a layer to run on top of Windows 16 that included an X Server. I had a friend who used it to run X apps back in the days when that was a pretty exotic thing. I think he was on a dialup at 14.4K when he was doing that. But, then, he was the nerd running a VT-100 with Regis Graphics, too (before he hooked up an actual computer to his modem).

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
  32. Here's a better link to donate to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Here's a better link to donate to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or even better: Hunger

  33. FUD FUD FUD by hummassa · · Score: 0

    1. they don't have to give the source code for free (GPL). GPL says: you have to give the source code (or an offer etc etc) TO THOSE WHOM you give your binaries, and you CAN charge for those binaries AS MUCH AS YOU WANT.

    2. I use a lot of websites, and firebird do render them all perfectly or semi-perfectly. my online banks (3 of them) work without any glitch.

    3. trademarks? easily avoidable, but try to hack IE sources and you'll see the MS Lawyers Corps on you!!!

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:FUD FUD FUD by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      1. Well first, about the "uncertainty". Mozilla isn't clearly GPL, so that is a lot to be uncertain about if you want to integrate it in commecial software. (suppose microsoft did a MS- mozilla, that would scare you? )

      2. A lot do work fine, but the last few % don't work well. Can't tell you why, i just use a second browser for that. (javscript is the main culprit think)

      3. mysql.

  34. Re:Uh - really? by linuxci · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although it might not be the most important issue in the world, the fact is to guarantee that in the future we're able to have choice in the marketplace then we need to invest in alternatives, whether that's by donating to the Mozilla foundation, buying an Opera licence, etc.

    $50,000,000 may sound a lot, but that's pocket change to Microsoft and Microsoft make their money by people paying for Windows (often as part of the cost of a PC) and other software like Office. Your argument makes no sense, at least with free software you've got the option to donate, with commercial software people are wasting billions with no other option - therefore should Microsoft be stopped from selling software so we can give the money to the poor instead?

  35. Re:it is not a democraty: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Internet" "optimized"? You are a cretin. The Internet != the Web. Your life is shit, and you're a loser.

  36. So is AOL not using a Moz-based browser? by hungryfrog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I haven't been following this closely, but there was a ton of buzz a year or so back about AOL switching to a Mozilla-based browser. IIRC CompuServe even tried it for a release or two. So have these plans gone away, or do they just plan to use Mozilla without contributing now?

    1. Re:So is AOL not using a Moz-based browser? by linuxci · · Score: 1
      I'd like to know that too. Most people seem to believe they've ditched Mozilla entirely, but I'm not complaining as they did give the Mozilla Foundation $2million. It also says in that original press release "We're grateful for the past and ongoing support of America Online, and we look forward to continuing to work with AOL over coming years.", so does AOL still have some plans for Mozilla or was that just usual politeness in press releases. Perhaps they're interested in the technologies but needed to cut costs significantly - if this is the case, it'd also give MS a false sense of security.


      Anyway, that's speculation, the foundation is formed so whatever happens Mozilla is now totally independent of AOL which is a good thing, but I'd like to see them still use Mozilla products.

    2. Re:So is AOL not using a Moz-based browser? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      My understanding is:

      CompuServe for Windows is Mozilla-based
      AOL for Mac OS X is Mozilla-based
      AOL for Windows is MSIE-based

      AOL kept playing with beta versions of a Mozilla-based AOL for Windows, but as it turns out, it was just a ploy to scare Microsoft into giving them some money and a better licensing deal.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  37. Re:U.S. agrees to international control of its tro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excellent news, if your an idiot or Eurotrash. Excuse me, that was redundant

  38. SVG still needs to be done by ishmalius · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I consider SVG to be the "next big thing" in HTML. It only seems to be stalled for lack of critical mass. People aren't using SVG since no browser supports it natively. No browser supports it natively since people don't use it yet.

    But it is SO tantalizingly close in Mozilla, that it is painful to see it so far away. Checking the progress of SVG in Mozilla, it seems to be stagnating. It really needs some General Patton to force-march it toward a release.

  39. Oh! Nice Moderation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The suggestion that money could be more usefully spent on caring for people rather than being pissed away on some unnecessary OSS software earns poster -1 !!

    GO SLASHDOT!!

    1. Re:Oh! Nice Moderation! by sphealey · · Score: 1
      The suggestion that money could be more usefully spent on caring for people rather than being pissed away on some unnecessary OSS software earns poster -1 !!

      GO SLASHDOT!!

      Is the Internet the most important thing in the human world? No, of course not. Is it of some importance? Well, yes. Is free access (free in the Stallman sense that is) to the Internet of some importance? IMHO, yes.

      Right now a lot of western governments are under pressure to "get services on the web". Heck , I write my state representative once a quarter and ask him when our archiac drivers' license bureau is going to make services available on-line, the way all our neighboring states have.

      But - if the only way to get those services is through a propriatary browser, one which controls 97% of the market and is manufactured by a convicted monopolist, is there a bit of an issue? Tracking the recent "eGovernment" camapign in the UK, I would say yes, there is an issue.

      So I would like to see some good, supportable, sustainable alternatives to Internet Explorer available and in use, as I think it has some bearing on the future of free information access.

      sPh

      PS Yes, I am aware of the problems of living on a low income, and I do not expect those people to contribute any cash to Mozilla. But I am quite sure there are 1,000,000 Mozilla users on the face of the earth who can afford to skip 25 coffees or 10 super-latte-mocha-blobs at their local shop and donate the savings to Mozilla Foundation. They they haven't done this says something about the Open Source model. IMHO.

  40. As a Microsoft evil developer by tekiegreg · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'd have to admit, Mozilla has made some great strides at least as far as its place on my desktop.

    After the demise of netscape in market share, I became a complacent IE user, and my web page development was IE focused, with Netscape being a back-watered to make sure it just looks "reasonable". However...

    When I upgraded to Windows XP, I found IE locking up and having some more general weirdnesses than before. Frustrated I download the latest stable Mozilla (currently I'm still using 1.4). All I could say is Wow...a faster load time than IE ever was, and it's actually easier to code than for IE, with descriptive Javascript errors, and *gasp* debugging for Javascript that works intuitively. Built in popup blocking, etc...

    Nowadays both get equal treatment in my web development, simply being "reasonable" isn't enough in Netscape, my pages must work as intended in Netscape/Mozilla or I will be re-checking my code. What's next?? Might I even ditch WinXP and grab the latest Debian build? Perish the thought...

    --
    ...in bed
    1. Re:As a Microsoft evil developer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But theres not that many popups anyway..I use IE and I only have to close like twice a day.

      (That's if you don't visit pr0n sites of course ;))

  41. Post is blatantly PLAGARISM - mod REDUNDANT by Gzip+Christ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This bozo is karma-whoring and somebody needs to mod him down. What he posted is a blatant duplicate of post number 9 in the original Mozillazine article.

    1. Re:Post is blatantly PLAGARISM - mod REDUNDANT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh...right. maybe you ought to stop trolling and write something insightful yourself, if you can. Jerk.

    2. Re:Post is blatantly PLAGARISM - mod REDUNDANT by Gzip+Christ · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Uhhh...right. maybe you ought to stop trolling and write something insightful yourself, if you can. Jerk.
      WTF?! I gave a link directly to the original post that was copied word for word. Are you too lazy to actually click on the link? Or are did I use too big of a word for you when I called it "plagarism"? Let me rephrase it for you with fewer syllables so that you can hopefully comprehend it: this guy did not write his own post - he copied what someone else wrote. Understand?
    3. Re:Post is blatantly PLAGARISM - mod REDUNDANT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went to your link, and I didn't see it. I see this kind of shit all the time, where some troll comes after an actually insightful post and says in all caps "don't click!! goatse link above!" when the link is to an helpful page, and not a man's gaping anus. Obviously, you're up to the same tricks. It's people like you who ruin /. for the rest of us.

    4. Re:Post is blatantly PLAGARISM - mod REDUNDANT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should stop smoking cock and actually click the link. You'll find they are one and the same. Nice troll though.

    5. Re:Post is blatantly PLAGARISM - mod REDUNDANT by Gzip+Christ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Moderators, this "anonymous coward" is most likely the original poster who copied the Mozillazine comment. Anybody out there who is swayed by this poster and doesn't want to click on the link that I provided, click on the link to the Mozillazine article in the original story and look for comment #9. You will see that the original post is plagarized from there.

    6. Re:Post is blatantly PLAGARISM - mod REDUNDANT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My god, stop whining.

    7. Re:Post is blatantly PLAGARISM - mod REDUNDANT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really is amazing you haven't been moderated down to "-1 Flamebait" already. I don't understand why you have such an incredible hangup over trying to ruin the original poster's good name with your flagrant lies and abuse. Perhaps you should look within, and try to divine what it is that's making you lash out like this? In your youth, did the other children taunt and tease you, because of your apish features and webbed feet? Did you father run out on your mother to live a life of high adventure, riding the rails with nothing more than a chinese prostitue and some gumption? Please, don't let your hatred of yourself ruin all the beutiful things of the earth. Your posts make baby jesus cry, and nobody wants that.

    8. Re:Post is blatantly PLAGARISM - mod REDUNDANT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey man. I clicked your link and I did see exactly what you are talking about. Thanks for letting me know the grandparent was a fraud :)

  42. SVG still needs to be done-until it runs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well don't forget SMIL and MathML.

    Complementry technologies. It also needs fuller support of CSS2 as well. And a decent (and stable) plug-in interface.

  43. Re:Pull Over! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >>Cause my shit firm and tight

    Then I suggest you use a laxative, or eat more bran and fibre.

  44. TheRegister has AOL rumours by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

    http://theregister.co.uk/content/6/34015.html

    T-Online being the suggested purchaser

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  45. The Slashdot X-Files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read /. for a whiile longer and it will all become clear. 90% of the purported 'professional developers' whining and opining on here are either students, hobbyists and assorted wanabees.

    Ahhh the Slashdot agenda. Mistake #1. Never talk about the Slashdot agenda.

    Just like the X-Files, the truth is out there, but on Slashdot it gets modded down to (Score: -1) !!!!!

    The biggest problem I find with Slashdot is it's intolerance of differing viewpoints. Couple this with the sheep mentality and you get a very dangerous situation. Most intelligent people simply regard Slashdot as a giant trollfest. "Slashdot, opinions that don't matter."

    [Moderator hint (Score: +5 Funny)]

  46. No. 2 in a series.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ???

  47. No. 3 in a series.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Profit !

  48. East Meets West by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Interesting
    > The way I read it AOL bought Time-Warner for $112 billion.
    >
    > I'm sure the previous owners of Time-Warner don't trouble themselves with regret too hard.

    Actually, a lot of them do.

    AOL employees (regardless of where they were located) grew up with a west-coast dotcom culture: OMFG, I'm an options millionaire! Call my broker and sell me out the day the options vest, and I've got fuck-you money, meaning that if my boss gets on my case someday, I can say "fuck you!" and walk out the door!

    Contrast that with the east-coast Time-Warner/media culture: "OMFG, we just got bought out by a bunch of n00bz. What is with these kids and that Steve Case guy, and where do they get off selling themselves out like that? Even if I wanted to, I can't really sell my shares, that'd be a demonstration of disloyalty, it's just not the right thing to do. I'll do better by keeping my stock until I retire. After 15 years of leveraging our media properties with the AOL brand, I'll be sitting pretty while those young whippersnappers are all broke. I'm a smart east-coast establishment type!"

    So when East met West, and West walked out the door with $1M, and East held on to see the greatest destruction of shareholder value and the worst merger idea in financial history... yeah, there are a lot of Time-Warner drones who do regret it to this day.

    (Fuck 'em, I says. Any fool could have seen the merger was a Bad Idea. The right thing to do was to sell both stocks before the deal even closed and put your capital somewhere less dysfunctional. But what do I know, I'm a West-Coast type, my loyalty is to my capital, and nothing else.)

  49. Why? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Why would I pay money for something when I can get it legally for free? Thats illogical.

  50. Komodo for Mac OS X!! by AssFace · · Score: 1

    When I was under Windows I developed a Komodo addiction or dependancy (the IDE from ActiveState).

    Now that I am using Mac OS X, there is no Komodo and I really want one now.

    The thing is built on the Mozilla base - so ActiveState should grab up some of them dudes and force them to work on Komodo for Mac OS X - make it so.

    --

    There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
  51. Does Linpack even run on Windows? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

    When you have to run it to gauge the performance of your computer for that competition, what are the chances your cluster is going to run Windows?

    1. Re:Does Linpack even run on Windows? by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1

      If your spending >5M on a cluster, I'm sure you can allocate a few dozen hours to porting it....

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
  52. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Color me jaded, but do people just not care about other people anymore?

    No, can you give me any good reasons why I should?

  53. Mod this, and all of the above, redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the spirit of the parent post:-

    Some examples of industrial use of Mozilla technologies

  54. Re:Mozilla is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is much more to life than just statistics, and your quite pessimistic and unacademic approach to statistics overall does not provide a clear picture. Although you appear to have done some research, your analysis is more than a bit pedantic.

    I know a good number of people that swear by Firebird, and I very much like it myself. Perhaps some more relevant statistics would be how many people have downloaded the Firebird 0.7 software? How many that use IE have never even heard of Mozilla? What percentage of a survey group (using another seperate control group) would switch if they knew (plus with features like pop-up blocking built right in???

    you're the one who's dying, every second. Statistics can lie.

  55. why I use IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After seeing how poorly programmed Nutscrape was, Im surprised they arent all sucking dick for beer money.

  56. Re:Promises promises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a little love?
    Don't you need some affirmation?
    If your ideas were rated objectively, all the time, you'd be suicidal. Let's go over our Stuart Smally mantra, now. Repeat after me:
    I'm good enough. I'm smart enough, and, doggone it, people like me.
    Now, admittedly, this is offtopic, too, but we really need to just feel better about ourselves.

  57. The way I read his post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla is now the best (if not ALSO THE most popular) browser around.

    My first thought was
    most popular != most widely used
    (just the least cussed-at).

    gewg_

  58. Re: Task Manager memory reporting by bunratty · · Score: 1

    No, programs don't release memory when their windows are minimized. It's just that some of the memory that window took up isn't counted in the number reported in the Task Manager. I think the column that shows actual memory usage is VM Size, which counts all the memory used by that task, not just "active" memory.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  59. Re: Task Manager memory reporting by uradu · · Score: 1

    > No, programs don't release memory when their windows are minimized

    Except if the app deliberately does so by watching for the minimize message. The logic might be that if the user minimizes the window, some performance-related data can be released (e.g. reduntant data structures to speed up display), to be reconstructed again when the user switches back. In any case, if you were correct the memory use should go back up in Task Manager when restoring Mozilla. Except it doesn't.

  60. Netscape Public License by KAMiKAZOW · · Score: 1
    I have a problem with this whole thing. It's the NPL.
    about: still says ''Copyright (c) 1998-2002 by Contributors to the Mozilla codebase under the Mozilla Public License and Netscape Public License .''
    According to the NPL ''[...] Netscape may choose to reintegrate such code into Covered Code without being required to distribute such code in Source Code form, even if such code would otherwise be considered ''Modifications'' under this License.''
    Correct me, if I'm wrong, because my English skills may not be the best. This means, that AOL/Netscape does (still) have the right to use Mozilla code in their own products without the need to release the source of modified Mozilla files? AOL fired all developers, spends no more mony in the development, and still has the right to do whatever AOL wants with the source?

    The Mozilla Relicensing FAQ says:
    ''Why didn't you completely eliminate use of the NPL?
    Because we don't yet have all the necessary permissions from AOL Time Warner that we would need in order to do so.
    ''
    Didn't AOL transfer all Mozilla copyrights from Netscape to the Mozilla Foundation? If yes, then the Mozilla Foundation should finally get rid of the NPL.

    1. Re:Netscape Public License by linuxci · · Score: 1

      They've only got those 'special' NPL rights for code that they've actually written, all other code is licensed under the MPL (which gives no special rights to Netscape) usually under an MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licence.

      Even Netscape developers started writing most code under the MPL more recently.

      So even if Netscape don't relicence all their code then it's only a very small percentage of it that's affected, definitely not enough for Netscape to make a whole browser out of.

    2. Re:Netscape Public License by Gerv · · Score: 1

      This means, that AOL/Netscape does (still) have the right to use Mozilla code in their own products without the need to release the source of modified Mozilla files?

      Only that tiny proportion of the Mozilla code which is still under the NPL; this right has long been useless to Netscape due to the large amount of MPLed code in the tree.

      Because we don't yet have all the necessary permissions from AOL Time Warner that we would need in order to do so.''

      The Relicensing FAQ is out of date (I'm currently revising it.) The Foundation inherited Netscape's right to relicense all NPLed code under a license of its choosing; it will be exercising that right to relicense all NPLed Mozilla code under the MPL tri-license.

      Gerv

  61. Re: Task Manager memory reporting by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

    The program I worked on at my last employer had exactly the same behaviour. We have never been able to figure out what caused it, but while it was running the memory usage in the task manager would slowly creep up. But after min/max it would be back at where it started.
    And this programs did run from months continualy. So we just minimized every week or so.
    I think it's something to do with GDI resources allocated windows handles or something like that.

    Adriaan

    --
    RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  62. Re:Wow! Fantastic! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With it's only rival not being developed at all, mozilla is definately leading.

  63. Re:C Compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's very hard to understand that you need Microsoft Visual Studio to compile Mozilla for Windows AND NOT lose compatibility with commercial plugins.


    As for the person that moderated original post as flamebait: it's sad to see that this question has no way to get through. By the way, it's more on-topic that you could think. How would you achieve critical mass if creating components is so unnecessarily difficult.

  64. Re:C Compatibility by rfmobile · · Score: 1

    If you feel strongly about this, then come up with a design that achieves binary compatibility between different compilers with different runtimes. You've already got the NSPR.

    It's not that this issue is being ignored, it's just not an easy one to fix. The bulk of the developers for Windows are using Microsoft tools while the bulk of the GNU C++ developers are using Linux. The path of least resistance has - so far - lead around the issue above.

    The same problem might exist for other platforms that are fortunate enough to have multiple compiler suites available.

    But please, don't brow-beat the issue - get up and do something about it.

    -rick
  65. Re: Task Manager memory reporting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys should check out
    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7 6831

  66. tax benefits from donating by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

    I get some tax relief for donating money to certain non-profits. I've posted before how I donate a few bucks to Mozilla, GCC, the FSF, EFF, etc. You can save quite a bit of money if you fill out the long-form tax return and document your 'charitable contributions'.

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  67. NVu? by MadJo · · Score: 1

    Funny, they want people to call it New View... I read it as Envie You

  68. Grow up you childish "branedead" fucker! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Choice comments from your crappy web page...

    /* neat hack to prevent branedead-ie from loading css it can't render */ // the twit is running a microslop browser - to mozilla with them! // that got rid of them!

    Yeah! I'm sure Spike would thing you were really cool!

  69. Tolerating one error would fix most of this by tc9 · · Score: 1

    Failing to end Table Delimiters. leaving out a whackTD leaving out a whackTR Even though it is followed by a new TD or TR. Mozilla leaves a black page. I renders. Sure its sloppy/incorrect but moa and pa web-poster, who just want to it too work, not to have a rasberry blown at them by some self-important dweeb nyah nyah you didn't say it right! For harder pages, where more sensitive stuff is being done strict standards are not really required, any more than a strict grammar check on postings to SlashDot should be required