mozdev.org is independent of mozilla.org and always has been, so they should not be affected by this announcement in any way (besides benefiting from any positive press Mozilla receives).
Note that mozdev.org has recently completed a very successful fundraising drive.
Two of your three problems are solved. Mozilla's mail client now remembers the last selected message in each IMAP (and POP too, I presume) mailbox, and you can configure it to send plain old text messages.
The latter feature has been around for a while; the former feature is relatively new but is definitely in 1.3.
Until recently add-ons could only be installed in the Mozilla application directory, where they get deleted every time you upgrade to a newer version.
A bug was recently fixed that makes it possible to install add-ons into the user profile directory, where they persist through upgrades.
Note that until 1.4alpha comes out, this fix will only be available on the nightly builds. Also, add-on authors have to modify their add-ons to install into the profile directory. If you are an add-on author, see the bug for an example of how to do this:
No, only a small subset of known bugs are listed in the "Known Problems" section of the release notes. You should check bugzilla.mozilla.org for the status of the bug report you submitted, and if the bug is marked fixed, but you are still experiencing the problem, then reopen the bug report.
This is very similar to how Mozilla's talkback works, if you replace "serialized XML representation" with "stack trace".
I think relevancy searching on bug comments has a pretty good chance of reducing duplicates, since a popular bug tends to acquire a number of comments from different users describing the problem in their own words, the effect of which is to build up a comprehensive keyword list.
We might hook this up to the "enter bug" form so you get a list of potential duplicates before your bug is added. If yours turns out to be a dupe you might have the option of submitting your description of the problem as a comment on the original bug.
The interaction recording functionality would be very useful for interaction designers but would probably not provide enough useful information for developers to track down and fix many code bugs.
Registering and logging in is a necessary impediment, at least for Mozilla. Mozilla's bug tracking system requires minimal effort to file a bug--to register you just need an email address and to file a bug you need to log in with the password sent to that address--but we still get way too many duplicate bug reports or reports with no relevant information that take up too much time to deal with.
The point about the difficulty in searching for a bug is well taken, but note that MySQL, upon which Bugzilla and probably some other bug tracking systems depend, has a "full text search" feature that could be used to provide relevancy-ordered search results.
The "ardent few" problem is a difficult one to solve, since open source software thrives off the contributed labor of self-interested parties. We've been churning around this problem ever since OSS got name brand recognition and "regular users" started using it, and I don't think it'll really be solved until someone develops a fundamentally different model for OSS (unless this is large corporations funding OSS and contributing their expertise in making the software user-friendly so they can "sell" it to users, in which case it may already exist)
I'm sure many people will complain about Yahoo charging money for adding sites to its directory, but here's a better idea than complaining on Slashdot: go to the Open Directory Project and start participating. Be an editor, or just submit links. The better the ODP gets the less often I (and you) will have to go to Yahoo. Even Google partners with the ODP. Shouldn't you?
Two months ago, the central IT department at the large Silicon Valley company for which I work sent everyone a message saying they would be rebooting the Exchange servers that night. At the end of that message was a short blurb that from now on the Exchange servers would be rebooted on the first Saturday of every month.
Last month this schedule changed to the first Friday of every month, and yesterday we received a message that the servers will be rebooted in the middle of this month as well (tonight, to be precise).
Dave Flanagan's petition comes too late to do any good. Large-scale software projects don't decide to ship all of a sudden. The release of Netscape 6 has been planned for months, and check-ins to the Mozilla source tree have been restricted for a long time as part of the process of stabilizing the tree for shipping.
Flanagan may be right about PDT being way too conservative, but at this point it's better for everyone if Netscape 6 ships, because it means the Mozilla source tree will open back up to continuing development by both third-party and Netscape developers. This means the Mozilla browser will get better quicker.
The other thing Flanagan misses is that the bugs he cites are minor issues with Mozilla's standards support, not major flaws. I reported an HTML4-compliance bug with Mozilla that got pushed off until after the release of Netscape 6 too. I wish it hadn't, but realistically this bug is not going to cause a great deal of trouble, especially not compared to the troubles IE causes by its lack of standards support.
ForumZilla is a XUL application that provides a Usenet newsreader-like interface to web discussion forums like Slashdot (although you can't read Slashdot with ForumZilla yet). Get more info at the ForumZilla web site:
My understanding is that the parody exemption for IP rights violations applies only to copyrighted works; trademark violations cannot use this defense. I'm not saying what PETA is doing is right, only that what Michael writes about parody being permissible is inapplicable in this case.
Mozilla has cookie management, a sidebar, an open-source development model, built-in RDF for real-time updates to data in the sidebar (see f.e. the bookmarks tab), and an article on how to do it.
That means the only thing they are missing is you writing the code. Go to it!
the article on Wide Open News says the Evolution mail client will be able to display Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint attachments;
KOffice is one of the most promoted advantages of the new KDE 2.0 (and current 1.12), and Gnome has for a long time followed in the footsteps of KDE (not intended as an insult);
There is no comparable GTK-based office productivity suite.
Clearly, then, [I cannot choose the glass in front of you, and] SpiderMonkey is an office productivity suite with word processor, spreadsheet, presentation, and other components.
C'mon folks, it's not a new kind of bagel spread. It's gotta be a software product built on GTK that fills a gaping hole in Linux users' desktop needs. What else could it be?
C: Mozilla is not as good as my favorite production browser.
A: Mozilla is pre-alpha software. It is not supposed to be as good as your favorite production browser. It is supposed to be as good as your favorite production browser back when it was pre-alpha, so please do post comparisons if you used pre-alpha versions of IE, Navigator, or Opera.
C: Mozilla is too slow.
A: Mozilla is pre-alpha software. It is supposed to be slow at this stage of its development per the industry-standard practices of building features first and optimizing them later, including debugging code in software being debugged, etc. You might better phrase this complaint as "Mozilla is being built using software engineering best practices rather than according to my personal list of priorities."
C: I hate X about Netscape Navigator.
A: Mozilla is a completely different code-base and is conceptually very different than Netscape Navigator. Many of the problems with Navigator do not exist in Mozilla (f.e. too many extraneous toolbar buttons). Mozilla is also an open-source project, which means anyone (the AOL/Netscape company, Microsoft, Richard Stallman, you) can download the source and build their own browser.
C: Mozilla is too ugly.
A: Mozilla's interface is completely skinnable (down to the existence, placement, and content of toolbars, menus, buttons, dialog boxes, etc.) so you are free to make it look however you want. Besides the default skin a number of people are spending their valuable time creating alternate skins so you actually won't have to lift a finger to have a pretty Mozilla as long as you like one of the alternate skins. Otherwise, sorry, you will have to lift a finger.
C: Mozilla does not/will not contain Java.
A: Mozilla already supports Java on some platforms and will sport complete support for the latest versions of Java in its production release.
C: Mozilla pops up a DOS window on me.
A: Mozilla binary builds are created by the project team so everyone who wants to can help test and debug the software. The DOS window is an important part of this process. Notices are posted on the web site and the ftp server that Mozilla does not have any anything of interest to a non-developer available for download. You are a developer interested in helping to debug the software right?
C: Mozilla doesn't/won't have SSL, encryption, etc.
A: Mozilla can't add this stuff into the open-source browser because of US export control laws, but Netscape is going to add it into the Netscape-branded version of Mozilla they release. Third parties outside the US may also add encryption to the Mozilla source code base to produce a browser with strong encryption capabilities available around the world (more than can be said for Navigator or IE).
C: Mozilla on the Mac does not look like a Mac application.
A: W3C standards require all HTML to be styleable, including GUI widgets. This cannot be done with native widgets on the Mac, hence Mozilla must use its own styleable widgets for all GUI components in web pages. Mozilla has also chosen to use the same widget set to construct its user interface. Besides extensive skinnability, Mozilla recently added a technology called XBL to improve the native look and feel of the application.
C: I don't want to lift a finger to use Mozilla. I just want a fast, bug-free, pretty, featureful browser.
A: Wait until the production release.
C: I haven't downloaded any [recent] version of Mozilla, nor have I bothered to visit the web page recently, but Mozilla still sucks.
A: ?
Mozillans: Reply with corrections/additions and I'll add them to the next version I post next time a Mozilla article comes out on Slashdot.
I also notice Mozilla's sluggishness on my Celeron 333 Linux box, although it's far from unusable.
Two things to note:
1. Mozilla doesn't have its memory or disk caches enabled yet. Therefore, it loads every page from scratch every time, even when you just press the back button. This is a big contributor to perceived slowness (the kind of slowness most people are talking about whether they know it or not).
2. Mozilla is doing more per page load than NS4.x... it is also building and exposing a complicated standards-based DOM tree structure. This is a very good thing, but it does take more time.
Arguably IE 5.x is doing the same, so this shouldn't ultimately slow Mozilla down more than it slows IE down (unless IE cuts corners for speed--we know they cut corners on implementing the DOM spec, but we don't know why they did it).
Ultimately, though, what other people have said is correct: Mozilla is pre-alpha, and until it is beta this is normal. Come back and complain if Mozilla is still slow when it hits beta, or better yet stop complaining and help the project out.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but MMIALS (my mom is a law student) and MSWALUSGSOI (my sister was a lawyer until she got sick of it), and MCIAILS (my cousin is also in law school), however IDTTAOTBWTE (I didn't talk to any of them before writing this email).
Nevertheless...
It's great to hear so many great and well-founded opinions on the legal invalidity of this legal action here in this Slashdot forum, but don't forget the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
This is especially true in the US courts, as personal experience and Hollywood filmmaking have made abundantly clear to me, and it's even worse in the case of preliminary hearings, for which defendants rarely have much time to prepare (as opposed to the well-planned-out plaintiff).
So, for this preliminary injunction, I'm pinning my hopes on the activist contingent at the hearing (everybody please go if you can, it does make a difference in many ways whether it is apparent or not) and on the possibility some of these defendants got the bucks to hire the lawyers to take this on.
In the long term, though, where is the SPACLLDF (stupid patent and copyright laws legal defense fund)? We are probably the richest oppressed group in the history of existence, so let's get organized. Are there any leaders in the audience, or anyone with the knowledge of how to set up a legal defense fund?
I didn't think so.:-> I know I haven't, even though:
1. I have them, since I have the manual for my monitor and the specs are in it.
2. I told myself I would.
If even a small fraction of Linux users contributed their monitor specs to the X monitor database, this problem would go away quickly. Since I have never found any of my monitors (probably about five or so) in that database, I can only assume no one is doing it.
Since I haven't done it myself, maybe there's a reason for this I don't know about (like the database is really hard to contribute to), but I suspect it's more that too many Linux users are leeches nowadays, looking to get something for nothing, myself included.
Since I don't like thinking of myself as a leech, I just checked out the XFree86 FAQ. I didn't find anything about contributing to the monitor database, but I did find this list of places to find monitor info on the net:
I have mixed feelings about this, because although I sympathize with Corel, I know all too well what it's like to have to go through a public agency procurement process.
Bidding or no (orders under a certain amount didn't require public bidding), that process is so difficult people would do almost anything to avoid it. I never saw anyone profiting from steering a purchase towards a particular vendor, but I did see (and experience) two quite common phenomenon:
1. people with way too much work to do and not enough time to do it taking the easy way out, choosing the product whose vendor was most available, who they had prior experience with, or who put on the best show;
2. people who did their own research to find the best product (including criteria of applicability and price) for whom the procurement process was just an impediment to completing their work.
Consider how you'd feel if the operating system, new server, or desktop machines you spent time deciding on were rejected in favor of some other product through a process you couldn't control? Can you rationalize all criteria you use when deciding what to buy?
For instance, I often purchased computers from a certain company with competitive prices on the strength of their tech support and the ease of their online ordering process. It saved me a lot of time, and that translates into money saved by my organization, but thank God I didn't have to bid it out or the paperwork alone would have evaporated all savings.
I'm not saying it's right. In fact it's particularly insidious in the not-quite-the-same-but-related-headaches procurement of employees (the hiring process), where even well-meaning people can perpetuate ingrained discrminatory practices (i.e. old boy's network).
However, the DOL is unlikely to be in a nefarious plot to rid the world of Microsoft alternatives. They probably just decided it was their best option under whatever circumstances they were dealing with, and then they did what it took to make it happen.
Mozilla has been planning since the summer to release a public alpha in December, followed by a beta a few months later. In some cases these two releases were called "mozilla beta" and "netscape beta", admittedly a confusing way of describing the releases, and one which was rectified a while ago.
A few months ago some reporter misunderstood the release schedule and reported Netscape would release a beta in December. Since then this inaccuracy has propagated into all subsequent news articles through the common journalistic practice of re-using previously published work instead of doing original research.
Now suddenly some reporter discovers what's actually going on, but instead of printing a retraction of earlier stories they say the Netscape beta has been "delayed". It isn't true, and while I expect it from the news sites I've been reading it from for months, I figured Slashdot would be able to figure it out. I guess not.
Slashdot Mirror
mozdev.org is independent of mozilla.org and always has been, so they should not be affected by this announcement in any way (besides benefiting from any positive press Mozilla receives).
Note that mozdev.org has recently completed a very successful fundraising drive.
Two of your three problems are solved. Mozilla's mail client now remembers the last selected message in each IMAP (and POP too, I presume) mailbox, and you can configure it to send plain old text messages.
The latter feature has been around for a while; the former feature is relatively new but is definitely in 1.3.
Until recently add-ons could only be installed in the Mozilla application directory, where they get deleted every time you upgrade to a newer version.
A bug was recently fixed that makes it possible to install add-ons into the user profile directory, where they persist through upgrades.
Note that until 1.4alpha comes out, this fix will only be available on the nightly builds. Also, add-on authors have to modify their add-ons to install into the profile directory. If you are an add-on author, see the bug for an example of how to do this:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16296Check out the Progress and Future of Mozilla-the-application-suite for information on what's coming up in the next few months.
No, only a small subset of known bugs are listed in the "Known Problems" section of the release notes. You should check bugzilla.mozilla.org for the status of the bug report you submitted, and if the bug is marked fixed, but you are still experiencing the problem, then reopen the bug report.
This is very similar to how Mozilla's talkback works, if you replace "serialized XML representation" with "stack trace".
I think relevancy searching on bug comments has a pretty good chance of reducing duplicates, since a popular bug tends to acquire a number of comments from different users describing the problem in their own words, the effect of which is to build up a comprehensive keyword list.
We might hook this up to the "enter bug" form so you get a list of potential duplicates before your bug is added. If yours turns out to be a dupe you might have the option of submitting your description of the problem as a comment on the original bug.
A few notes:
I'm sure many people will complain about Yahoo charging money for adding sites to its directory, but here's a better idea than complaining on Slashdot: go to the Open Directory Project and start participating. Be an editor, or just submit links. The better the ODP gets the less often I (and you) will have to go to Yahoo. Even Google partners with the ODP. Shouldn't you?
Two months ago, the central IT department at the large Silicon Valley company for which I work sent everyone a message saying they would be rebooting the Exchange servers that night. At the end of that message was a short blurb that from now on the Exchange servers would be rebooted on the first Saturday of every month.
Last month this schedule changed to the first Friday of every month, and yesterday we received a message that the servers will be rebooted in the middle of this month as well (tonight, to be precise).
Your mileage may vary.
Dave Flanagan's petition comes too late to do any good. Large-scale software projects don't decide to ship all of a sudden. The release of Netscape 6 has been planned for months, and check-ins to the Mozilla source tree have been restricted for a long time as part of the process of stabilizing the tree for shipping.
Flanagan may be right about PDT being way too conservative, but at this point it's better for everyone if Netscape 6 ships, because it means the Mozilla source tree will open back up to continuing development by both third-party and Netscape developers. This means the Mozilla browser will get better quicker.
The other thing Flanagan misses is that the bugs he cites are minor issues with Mozilla's standards support, not major flaws. I reported an HTML4-compliance bug with Mozilla that got pushed off until after the release of Netscape 6 too. I wish it hadn't, but realistically this bug is not going to cause a great deal of trouble, especially not compared to the troubles IE causes by its lack of standards support.
If you had the business plan/funding/etc. for a company that would pay you to develop NEdit for a living, would you?
ForumZilla is a XUL application that provides a Usenet newsreader-like interface to web discussion forums like Slashdot (although you can't read Slashdot with ForumZilla yet). Get more info at the ForumZilla web site:
http://www.forumzilla.com/My understanding is that the parody exemption for IP rights violations applies only to copyrighted works; trademark violations cannot use this defense. I'm not saying what PETA is doing is right, only that what Michael writes about parody being permissible is inapplicable in this case.
That means the only thing they are missing is you writing the code. Go to it!
- the article on Wide Open News says the Evolution mail client will be able to display Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint attachments;
- KOffice is one of the most promoted advantages of the new KDE 2.0 (and current 1.12), and Gnome has for a long time followed in the footsteps of KDE (not intended as an insult);
- There is no comparable GTK-based office productivity suite.
Clearly, then, [I cannot choose the glass in front of you, and] SpiderMonkey is an office productivity suite with word processor, spreadsheet, presentation, and other components.C'mon folks, it's not a new kind of bagel spread. It's gotta be a software product built on GTK that fills a gaping hole in Linux users' desktop needs. What else could it be?
C: Mozilla is not as good as my favorite production browser.
A: Mozilla is pre-alpha software. It is not supposed to be as good as your favorite production browser. It is supposed to be as good as your favorite production browser back when it was pre-alpha, so please do post comparisons if you used pre-alpha versions of IE, Navigator, or Opera.
C: Mozilla is too slow.
A: Mozilla is pre-alpha software. It is supposed to be slow at this stage of its development per the industry-standard practices of building features first and optimizing them later, including debugging code in software being debugged, etc. You might better phrase this complaint as "Mozilla is being built using software engineering best practices rather than according to my personal list of priorities."
C: I hate X about Netscape Navigator.
A: Mozilla is a completely different code-base and is conceptually very different than Netscape Navigator. Many of the problems with Navigator do not exist in Mozilla (f.e. too many extraneous toolbar buttons). Mozilla is also an open-source project, which means anyone (the AOL/Netscape company, Microsoft, Richard Stallman, you) can download the source and build their own browser.
C: Mozilla is too ugly.
A: Mozilla's interface is completely skinnable (down to the existence, placement, and content of toolbars, menus, buttons, dialog boxes, etc.) so you are free to make it look however you want. Besides the default skin a number of people are spending their valuable time creating alternate skins so you actually won't have to lift a finger to have a pretty Mozilla as long as you like one of the alternate skins. Otherwise, sorry, you will have to lift a finger.
C: Mozilla does not/will not contain Java.
A: Mozilla already supports Java on some platforms and will sport complete support for the latest versions of Java in its production release.
C: Mozilla pops up a DOS window on me.
A: Mozilla binary builds are created by the project team so everyone who wants to can help test and debug the software. The DOS window is an important part of this process. Notices are posted on the web site and the ftp server that Mozilla does not have any anything of interest to a non-developer available for download. You are a developer interested in helping to debug the software right?
C: Mozilla doesn't/won't have SSL, encryption, etc.
A: Mozilla can't add this stuff into the open-source browser because of US export control laws, but Netscape is going to add it into the Netscape-branded version of Mozilla they release. Third parties outside the US may also add encryption to the Mozilla source code base to produce a browser with strong encryption capabilities available around the world (more than can be said for Navigator or IE).
C: Mozilla on the Mac does not look like a Mac application.
A: W3C standards require all HTML to be styleable, including GUI widgets. This cannot be done with native widgets on the Mac, hence Mozilla must use its own styleable widgets for all GUI components in web pages. Mozilla has also chosen to use the same widget set to construct its user interface. Besides extensive skinnability, Mozilla recently added a technology called XBL to improve the native look and feel of the application.
C: I don't want to lift a finger to use Mozilla. I just want a fast, bug-free, pretty, featureful browser.
A: Wait until the production release.
C: I haven't downloaded any [recent] version of Mozilla, nor have I bothered to visit the web page recently, but Mozilla still sucks.
A: ?
Mozillans: Reply with corrections/additions and I'll add them to the next version I post next time a Mozilla article comes out on Slashdot.
I also notice Mozilla's sluggishness on my Celeron 333 Linux box, although it's far from unusable.
Two things to note:
1. Mozilla doesn't have its memory or disk caches enabled yet. Therefore, it loads every page from scratch every time, even when you just press the back button. This is a big contributor to perceived slowness (the kind of slowness most people are talking about whether they know it or not).
2. Mozilla is doing more per page load than NS4.x... it is also building and exposing a complicated standards-based DOM tree structure. This is a very good thing, but it does take more time.
Arguably IE 5.x is doing the same, so this shouldn't ultimately slow Mozilla down more than it slows IE down (unless IE cuts corners for speed--we know they cut corners on implementing the DOM spec, but we don't know why they did it).
Ultimately, though, what other people have said is correct: Mozilla is pre-alpha, and until it is beta this is normal. Come back and complain if Mozilla is still slow when it hits beta, or better yet stop complaining and help the project out.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but MMIALS (my mom is a law student) and MSWALUSGSOI (my sister was a lawyer until she got sick of it), and MCIAILS (my cousin is also in law school), however IDTTAOTBWTE (I didn't talk to any of them before writing this email).
Nevertheless...
It's great to hear so many great and well-founded opinions on the legal invalidity of this legal action here in this Slashdot forum, but don't forget the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
This is especially true in the US courts, as personal experience and Hollywood filmmaking have made abundantly clear to me, and it's even worse in the case of preliminary hearings, for which defendants rarely have much time to prepare (as opposed to the well-planned-out plaintiff).
So, for this preliminary injunction, I'm pinning my hopes on the activist contingent at the hearing (everybody please go if you can, it does make a difference in many ways whether it is apparent or not) and on the possibility some of these defendants got the bucks to hire the lawyers to take this on.
In the long term, though, where is the SPACLLDF (stupid patent and copyright laws legal defense fund)? We are probably the richest oppressed group in the history of existence, so let's get organized. Are there any leaders in the audience, or anyone with the knowledge of how to set up a legal defense fund?
I didn't think so. :-> I know I haven't, even though:
1. I have them, since I have the manual for my monitor and the specs are in it.
2. I told myself I would.
If even a small fraction of Linux users contributed their monitor specs to the X monitor database, this problem would go away quickly. Since I have never found any of my monitors (probably about five or so) in that database, I can only assume no one is doing it.
Since I haven't done it myself, maybe there's a reason for this I don't know about (like the database is really hard to contribute to), but I suspect it's more that too many Linux users are leeches nowadays, looking to get something for nothing, myself included.
Since I don't like thinking of myself as a leech, I just checked out the XFree86 FAQ. I didn't find anything about contributing to the monitor database, but I did find this list of places to find monitor info on the net:
http://www.xfree86.org/FAQ/#MONITORS
I have mixed feelings about this, because although I sympathize with Corel, I know all too well what it's like to have to go through a public agency procurement process.
Bidding or no (orders under a certain amount didn't require public bidding), that process is so difficult people would do almost anything to avoid it. I never saw anyone profiting from steering a purchase towards a particular vendor, but I did see (and experience) two quite common phenomenon:
1. people with way too much work to do and not enough time to do it taking the easy way out, choosing the product whose vendor was most available, who they had prior experience with, or who put on the best show;
2. people who did their own research to find the best product (including criteria of applicability and price) for whom the procurement process was just an impediment to completing their work.
Consider how you'd feel if the operating system, new server, or desktop machines you spent time deciding on were rejected in favor of some other product through a process you couldn't control? Can you rationalize all criteria you use when deciding what to buy?
For instance, I often purchased computers from a certain company with competitive prices on the strength of their tech support and the ease of their online ordering process. It saved me a lot of time, and that translates into money saved by my organization, but thank God I didn't have to bid it out or the paperwork alone would have evaporated all savings.
I'm not saying it's right. In fact it's particularly insidious in the not-quite-the-same-but-related-headaches procurement of employees (the hiring process), where even well-meaning people can perpetuate ingrained discrminatory practices (i.e. old boy's network).
However, the DOL is unlikely to be in a nefarious plot to rid the world of Microsoft alternatives. They probably just decided it was their best option under whatever circumstances they were dealing with, and then they did what it took to make it happen.
Mozilla has been planning since the summer to release a public alpha in December, followed by a beta a few months later. In some cases these two releases were called "mozilla beta" and "netscape beta", admittedly a confusing way of describing the releases, and one which was rectified a while ago.
A few months ago some reporter misunderstood the release schedule and reported Netscape would release a beta in December. Since then this inaccuracy has propagated into all subsequent news articles through the common journalistic practice of re-using previously published work instead of doing original research.
Now suddenly some reporter discovers what's actually going on, but instead of printing a retraction of earlier stories they say the Netscape beta has been "delayed". It isn't true, and while I expect it from the news sites I've been reading it from for months, I figured Slashdot would be able to figure it out. I guess not.
Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself:
The Milestone Chart
Quoting from the article "[ Fwd: The Plan]" (1999 September 24) in the newsgroup "netscape.public.mozilla.porkjockeys":