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."
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".
JWZ
Bio: I used to be a hacker. Now I run a nightclub.
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
Coming soon...
... etc - ad nauseum.
Life after Worldcom
Life after Boo.com
Life after SCO
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...
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.
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:
-- David Polberger Computer Science major, University of Lund, Sweden
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.
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.
Darl Mcbride lives alone in a studio apt in utah, wasting away dreaming of what might have been...
An identical comment was posted on MozillaZine earlier today by "glazou" - is that you, or are you kharma-whoring?
To donate to Mozilla Foundation:
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/donate.html
sPh
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.
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.
SCO.com uses Linux
o/~ Join us now and share the software
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.
Blender And Linux Fan
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Apparently, he's thrown all away to become a club owner.
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.
- 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 !
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?
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?
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.
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
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
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.
>
> 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.)
Why would I pay money for something when I can get it legally for free? Thats illogical.
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.
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?
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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
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.
-rickI 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
Funny, they want people to call it New View... I read it as Envie You
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
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