This move by AOL appears to be highly unpopular given responses so far.
One would wonder then, given that Mozilla development is ostensibly "open", how could such a move be overwhlmingly unpopular and yet go forward?
The answer is obvious - AOL is on its way to controlling IRC (purchase of Mirabalis), and AOL controls Mozilla.
AOL employs the core Mozilla development team, and hence calls the shots by virtue of writing the checks. They can reorient the team to puruse AOL goals (IRC) even when the "open developers" disagree. Its sheer number folks. And the numbers are following the dollars.
This should be a key lesson to anyone invlolving themselves in open source development for a corporation. YOU ARE NOT IN CONTROL.
Licenses aside, AOL employs nearly all of the serious Mozilla developers, so by virtue of this fact it can add new features when it wants.
Maybe this will demonstrate to people this idiocy of volunteering to work for a corporation that has so much money that they do not know where to put it.
Apache rocks. Developers to Apache are not replacing paid work at a company that already has mountains of cash.
Look at AOL's market cap! Look at their cash hordes. They can certainly afford to pay for any work done. Either you get it or Steve Case gets it. He doesn't have a problem taking it so far.
Its called the market economy pal - someone will make a browser if there is a market.
This is a total red herring- the notion that unless I work for free, I won't have a browser.
Firstly, I can get by with v 4.x for the forseeable future.
If things get really bad - I'll dual-boot with NT. Its easier than wasting hours of my life slaving away for a company that has so much money they don't know where to put it (and even more thanks to free labor).
That's why Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in history - they have very well defined "upgrade" paths - even though they really aren't upgrades.
Its a free country - you're free to be as stupid as you want. If people want to buy, who am I to stop them?
but if you don't understand the software engineering process or the way businesses look at the open source model, then please just stay quiet.
Spare us. Netscape didn't have a clue on either of these counts. Yes, a browser is complicated. But in over two years, Netscape has really only revved the browser once, with a buggy version at that.
Even Microsoft has revved two stable browsers out since then.
Any statement to the contrary is garbage. You can slice it any way you want, but in the end you are simpling doing AOL's corporate development for them.
AOL HAS MOUNTAINS OF CASH.
Why on Earth would I donate my time to them?
The code is a beast - they'll have to do this the old-fashioned way - they're going to have to throw money at it.
People who participate in causes are the _ONLY_ people who are keeping this world together.
Like those particiapting in the cause of ethnic cleansing?
Or those participating in the so-called "pursuit of the defense free speech" - the costly series of litigations that in fact have very little to do with speech itself and more to do with expanding societies limits on pornography?
People are so convinced that anything associated with the term "free speech" is unassailable and hence cannot be challenged. What a crock. You've all been duped by the so-called "intellectuals". Whatever.
I cannot believe how many/.'ers fall into this logical fallacy - that one cannot critisize unless one is participating.
This isn't even logic 101 - its logic 010 - a non-credit course.
As for what I have done, I live the liberal-democratic bs I peddle. I speak my mind and do not interfere with other's rights to speak theirs. What more is there? Oh, I suppose if I filed some questionable lawsuits (like the ACLU) I'd be further ahead in your books? America is already the most litigious nation in the world by a mile. Anyone who manages to stay out of court should be given a medal.
Of course at some point the market for Word Processors and Spreadsheets is going to be dominated by free, quality products.
If you want to stay profitable in software, and avoid having open-source software put you out of business, there are a number of ways to do it.
1. Go into a vertical market. Embed in your software some specialized knowlege about a field that not any college kid is going to be able to distill into code. For example, my friend designs software for lighting at large theatrical events. This requires interfacing with hardware that is not available to most people, and requires knowing how theatric lighting is done.
2. Get a great brand. A good brand name can insulate you temporarily from heavy competition. Look at graphics tools - it doesn't matter if the gimp ever becomes better than Photoshop. Photoshop has brand recognition among designers and very little is going to change that.
There is more to the chip market than performance.
Firstly, Alphas have historically been expensive.
Secondly, Alphas have very little native-ported software that people care about, at a price-point that makes it worthwhile to move to the platform.
Thirdly, Alpha was oringally a product of DEC, and doomed early by poor marketing.
The only comapny that will destroy Intel will be the one to provide the same (or better) performance of x86 apps, at or below half of the cost. Expensive chips are passe.
Duh! - Buy Dell instead - Compaq wishes they did!
on
Compaq's CEO Resigns
·
· Score: 1
Compaq has been unable to beat Dell in reducing inventories.
Compaq's sales model is in disarray, and they have never truly absorbed DEC.
AOL - with its staggering mountains of cash - can go hire its own programmers and tech writers. I think the legitimacy of the entire Mozilla project evaporated as soon as it came (ostensibly) under the stewardship of AOL.
"Mozilla isn't AOL" is but one myth associated with this project.
Can I forward my ValuPak coupon packets to you Jon? Perhaps you can mull over the free carpet cleaning offers while enjoying a snifter of brandy with the other literary bigwigs.
Slashdot Mirror
This move by AOL appears to be highly unpopular given responses so far.
One would wonder then, given that Mozilla development is ostensibly "open", how could such a move be overwhlmingly unpopular and yet go forward?
The answer is obvious - AOL is on its way to controlling IRC (purchase of Mirabalis), and AOL controls Mozilla.
AOL employs the core Mozilla development team, and hence calls the shots by virtue of writing the checks. They can reorient the team to puruse AOL goals (IRC) even when the "open developers" disagree. Its sheer number folks. And the numbers are following the dollars.
This should be a key lesson to anyone invlolving themselves in open source development for a corporation. YOU ARE NOT IN CONTROL.
Why would AOL want an IRC client?
Perhaps because they bought Mirabalis, the largest IRC utilities vendor last year...
Licenses aside, AOL employs nearly all of the serious Mozilla developers, so by virtue of this fact it can add new features when it wants.
Maybe this will demonstrate to people this idiocy of volunteering to work for a corporation that has so much money that they do not know where to put it.
Adding more bloat to a project in trouble doesn't sound too bright.
Of course, the addition of Instant Messaging is understandable seeing how AOL IS MOZILLA and MOZILLA IS AOL.
You can do this with Mozilla too
Only if it compiles.
You obviously haven't been paying enough attention to the project
Obviously you don't program for a living if you think Mozilla is useable in production software.
You can use Microsoft's rendering engine as an embedded object.
This is arguably better for programmers anyway. Most programmers would rather deal woth component interfaces than source code.
Apache rocks. Developers to Apache are not replacing paid work at a company that already has mountains of cash.
Look at AOL's market cap! Look at their cash hordes. They can certainly afford to pay for any work done. Either you get it or Steve Case gets it. He doesn't have a problem taking it so far.
You people have to quit being suckers.
Its called the market economy pal - someone will make a browser if there is a market.
This is a total red herring- the notion that unless I work for free, I won't have a browser.
Firstly, I can get by with v 4.x for the forseeable future.
If things get really bad - I'll dual-boot with NT. Its easier than wasting hours of my life slaving away for a company that has so much money they don't know where to put it (and even more thanks to free labor).
That's why Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in history - they have very well defined "upgrade" paths - even though they really aren't upgrades.
Its a free country - you're free to be as stupid as you want. If people want to buy, who am I to stop them?
people have a right to pornography
This pretty much sums up American activism since 1975. Pity.
but if you don't understand the software engineering process or the way businesses
look at the open source model, then please just stay quiet.
Spare us. Netscape didn't have a clue on either of these counts. Yes, a browser is complicated. But in over two years, Netscape has really only revved the browser once, with a buggy version at that.
Even Microsoft has revved two stable browsers out since then.
Any statement to the contrary is garbage. You can slice it any way you want, but in the end you are simpling doing AOL's corporate development for them.
AOL HAS MOUNTAINS OF CASH.
Why on Earth would I donate my time to them?
The code is a beast - they'll have to do this the old-fashioned way - they're going to have to throw money at it.
MOZILLA IS AOL.
People who participate in causes are the _ONLY_ people who are keeping this world together.
Like those particiapting in the cause of ethnic cleansing?
Or those participating in the so-called "pursuit of the defense free speech" - the costly series of litigations that in fact have very little to do with speech itself and more to do with expanding societies limits on pornography?
People are so convinced that anything associated with the term "free speech" is unassailable and hence cannot be challenged. What a crock. You've all been duped by the so-called "intellectuals". Whatever.
What have you done lately?
/.'ers fall into this logical fallacy - that one cannot critisize unless one is participating.
I cannot believe how many
This isn't even logic 101 - its logic 010 - a non-credit course.
As for what I have done, I live the liberal-democratic bs I peddle. I speak my mind and do not interfere with other's rights to speak theirs. What more is there? Oh, I suppose if I filed some questionable lawsuits (like the ACLU) I'd be further ahead in your books? America is already the most litigious nation in the world by a mile. Anyone who manages to stay out of court should be given a medal.
The ACLU are only "liberal" insofar as it relates to forwarding their left-leaning agenda.
Only the truly dim believe that the ACLU is out to forward a truly liberal-democratic agenda. They were laughed out of most law schools decades ago.
Only the truly decadent cater to such white guilt.
...Until someone uses it for something useful.
Whenever someone is in court using Freedom of Speech as a defense, invariably its a test to see how young a girl they can stick in their magazines.
Free Nudies For Everyone!!!
Honestly, thats about the most intelligent response you can muster to such rubbish.
Of course at some point the market for Word Processors and Spreadsheets is going to be dominated by free, quality products.
If you want to stay profitable in software, and avoid having open-source software put you out of business, there are a number of ways to do it.
1. Go into a vertical market. Embed in your software some specialized knowlege about a field that not any college kid is going to be able to distill into code. For example, my friend designs software for lighting at large theatrical events. This requires interfacing with hardware that is not available to most people, and requires knowing how theatric lighting is done.
2. Get a great brand. A good brand name can insulate you temporarily from heavy competition. Look at graphics tools - it doesn't matter if the gimp ever becomes better than Photoshop. Photoshop has brand recognition among designers and very little is going to change that.
There is more to the chip market than performance.
Firstly, Alphas have historically been expensive.
Secondly, Alphas have very little native-ported software that people care about, at a price-point that makes it worthwhile to move to the platform.
Thirdly, Alpha was oringally a product of DEC, and doomed early by poor marketing.
The only comapny that will destroy Intel will be the one to provide the same (or better) performance of x86 apps, at or below half of the cost. Expensive chips are passe.
Compaq has been unable to beat Dell in reducing inventories.
Compaq's sales model is in disarray, and they have never truly absorbed DEC.
Some of the stock talk in Slashdot cracks me up.
AOL - with its staggering mountains of cash - can go hire its own programmers and tech writers. I think the legitimacy of the entire Mozilla project evaporated as soon as it came (ostensibly) under the stewardship of AOL.
"Mozilla isn't AOL" is but one myth associated with this project.
Like I said, no one worth listening to.
Not to burst your bubble, but PE and IceT are has-beens. So is Prince.
Sigue Sigue Sptunik? Hahah.
Can I forward my ValuPak coupon packets to you Jon? Perhaps you can mull over the free carpet cleaning offers while enjoying a snifter of brandy with the other literary bigwigs.
Junk mail is junk. Let the filtering begin.
using font="arial,helvetica" is the preferred method - it covers both of your platforms (unix and windows/mac).
Delivering correctly configured computers on time (a noted VA weakness) is probably a bigger issue to address.
Once Dell starts shipping linux, VA is going to be in big trouble unless they become more fascist about delivering the right product on time.