CNET And MozOffice: Mountains And Molehills? 172
roca writes: "Check out this new CNET article, then check out
the thread that spawned it. Some random person in a Mozilla newsgroup said "hey, wouldn't it be cool to build Office-like functionality on top of Mozilla", and CNET decided this means a MozOffice project is happening (WRONG), and that millions of people need to know about this. Naturally, many readers believe them and are now flaming away because "Mozilla hasn't shipped a browser and now they're doing THIS!" What can a free software project do about this? Close the mailing lists or newsgroups to the media? Flame/sue the people who screw up? What?"
Well, it looks like James Russel has set up a site devoted to this idea on which he outlines why he thinks such a confluence would be a good idea, but he honestly notes: "This site is a placeholder that I hope to turn into an organizational centerpiece for what I think has the potential to be the most powerful side of Mozilla yet." And why shouldn't it be? Can't a modular framework grow far enough to cobble some words together? So long as it stays modular, that is. Even if a pipedream, it's an interesting that will no doubt inspire further inquiry.
The media in work. (Score:1)
there are some of us.... (Score:1)
Re:Can't do jack. (Score:2)
Gecko, the rendering engine, seems fairly stable, and has been for a while. Some complex pages give it trouble still but it's well known which ones. Then means that if you want to use XUL to write an application front-end for whatever, be it a Galaga/Galaxian clone, or an office suite, using Mozilla code *is* a good way of going about it.
We should be hearing about tons of apps using Mozilla components, and doing things less relevant to a browser than an office suite... That's why Mozilla was written that way, the only problem is when some idiot thinks that just because Mozilla is open source, they're going to want to incorporate all wacky unfinished projects into the main browser...
Re:CNet Shoots Itself in the foot (Score:2)
I like rumors, but I prefer they come from the rumors site, that way I know how big of a grain of salt to take them with.
--
J, Internetist
Re:Rumours and the Internet (Score:2)
But there are a lot of crazy dumb people out there too. Have you ever watched Jerry Springer?
- Isaac =)
Re:You can't bitch about something that's free. (Score:1)
I thought (and this is not attempting to be cute, I'm really not sure) that many, if not most, of those developers are Netscape employees who are specifically paid to work on the Mozilla project.
Whether or not it's MPL/NPL, AOL/Netscape would be *nuts* in the eyes of their investors to put the future of the company in the hands of "the OSS community." The next release of Netscape depends on this project.
Re:Wow, was Apple right? (Score:1)
What's really going on here? (Score:3)
The real question here is why has it now become popular to complain about Mozilla???
Here is my theory...everyone who is complaining either knows what is really going on or doesn't. Those that Don't are not seeing much because they probably don't keep track of the project...they are the ppl that say "me too".
The rest of those complaining know exactly what is going on and waht to take some of the fame for themselves...why???
Mozilla Tinderbox [mozilla.org]
Check out this link...here is where the builds and descriptions of bug fixes get placed. Anyone who has been watching tinderbox knows that there has been alot of bug fixes in the past few weeks...plus, the tree in now closed for M17.
This means a new Milestone release is pending...now, why are they complaining that Netscape hasn't done anything???
Mozilla Milestones [mozilla.org]
Well, there you have it. M17 is overdue, the page mentions that it is unlikely that M17 will be released within 2 weeks of 6/28. Now the question is why is there so much fuss about Netscape PRODUCING SOMETHING??? Could it be because the next step is a push to Beta2 for Netscape???
That's right. Within a month of the release of M17, Netscape 6 Beta2 will be released.
Now, read of this what you may, but it sounds to me like a few people want to take the limelight for Netscape releasing Beta2...
Just my $.02 worth, I could be wrong.
Re:Rumours and the Internet (Score:1)
- Rackham
"You can't protect anyone.... You can only love them."
Nice troll (Score:1)
Name one other commercial web browser developed using Open Source Techniques. You can't? Sounds like "research" to me.
Silly me, I thought they were actually trying to get a piece of software out the door
Do you really want just another bloated, buggy POS web browser? The Mozilla team needs to do more than just another "piece of software". Mozilla is about completely rethinking the way software is designed. Or maybe you don't think there's any room for progress? Sorry, but reactionaries are always proven wrong.
(well, actually I quit thinking that a long time ago, as well...)
Yes, IE needs more users. Back to Uncle Bill's sheep farm for you.
-- Floyd
I *heart* Mozilla (Score:2)
They may be slow, they may have rejected my reproducible bugs as WORKSFORME, they may have that damn white menu bar but... I love 'em!
I think it's great that they aren't all about getting a product to market. That is one of the things that is so bad about modern software. I hope they take their time and produce something of excellent quality, and let it be integrated into all the web pads and wearable computers of tomorrow.
To those who say Mozilla is dead: No way! Saying such a thing is tantamount to saying that linux is dead, since, last time I checked, there is no Internet Exploder for linux.
Mozilla: it's for bright people (Score:1)
We keep hearing here that Mozilla is dead because IE has 80% share. What those yelling it seem to forget is that they're talking about 80% of the Net market, which like everything else in the world has lots more dim people than clever ones because there are lots more dim people than clever ones.
What difference does that make? Well, as we all know dim people don't like to learn new things: they will therefore always stick with IE. Clever people OTOH don't mind learning new things because using the same old anything for more than five minutes is boring. Those people (let's call them '/. readers' :) will therefore love Mozilla because it's not only different from IE, but it's also a lot better. Try M16; I just did and it's superb! Ugly default skin yes, but who cares? Give it a new one!
The conclusion: while Mozilla will never displace IE from all of those slow minds, it will thrill the rest of us no matter when it's finally finished; ergo it's not dead. QED. Kudos to everyone involved in creating it.
NOTE: I'm not saying that only dim people use IE, but that dim people will only use IE. It is a subtle difference but /. readers will recognise it.
Oh, and one last thing: if you don't like the sheer size of Mozilla's running footprint, get Galeon [sourceforge.net]. It may be misspelt, but it's tiny and launches in no time.
Re:How clever of you. (Score:2)
Oh great. Another one. The biggest downfall of
the open source movement is going to be shitheads
with the attitude of, "If you're not a programmer
then shut the fuck up and be happy with whatever
we decide to give you."
Not all of us are programmers, and not all of us
have the time to spare from our lives to be
heavily involved with a multi-year development
project. The point remains that adding all sorts
of bells and whistles to mozilla is damaging to
the project for two reasons:
1) It's putting the cart before the horse. There
still isn't a general, feature-complete, stable
and fully functional _browser_ to come from the
project. Build a solid core. Then extend. Not the
other way around.
2) Take a look at the comments from all of those
pathetic little twerps with no skills. (i.e. the
users) The biggest reason that people are watching
and waiting for mozilla is to get a small, fast,
streamlined browser. If it weren't for the huge
footprint and feature bloat of Netscape 4.x,
most people probably wouldn't give a rat's ass
about Mozilla.
Now grow up, and brush that chip off your
shoulder.
Paul Festa is always looking for an "angle". (Score:1)
His last Mozilla scoop accused AOL of being at cross-purposes with itself over instant messaging because Mozilla contained an IRC chat client written by a contributor and that another developer was writing a Jabber client for Mozilla. Yeah right.
Re:How can they do this? (Score:1)
'xcuse ME! (Score:1)
Uh... (Score:1)
(yes, I know it's redundant and obvious, but the delays in getting a real Moz ver out the door are leading to this kind of loss of concentration. CONCENTRATE ON THE TASK AT HAND and get it done first, _then_ start thinking about other new widgets...)
(pre mod'd down for your convenience)
Your Working Boy,
Integrity (Score:5)
When I got interviewed by Wired Magazine and others for an article [wired.com] or two [wired.com] about a little web thing [epistolary.org] I was doing, Leander and all the reporters were sure to get me on the phone to repeat my comments to them, even if what I was saying to them was exactly what I had written on the website. A bunch of the smaller outlets did what C|Net did this time around and just copied my more conversational comments from my website, put quotations around it and made an article from it [epistolary.org]. I thought that was a little sketchy even while this was going on, but I was still happy for the coverage.
I suppose there's two points of view here. You could consider a web page or mailing list like a press conference, roundtable or demonstration where anyone who attends can write about it, but also you could hope that the reporters would put a little more effort into their stories and actually try to get original quotes when people like the Mozilla planners are so easy to contact via e-mail and telephone.
Or maybe in the tech news obsession to scoop the next guy, they're losing what professionalism is left. I sure hope not.
Not to point fingers, but Slashdot hasn't been exactly innocent of this lately, either.
--
Re:What about elementary school? (Score:1)
Err... (Score:3)
Should it have made cnet? Why the hell not? All too often, it has been demonstrated that net-only publications are operating under an entirely new paradigm of journalistic responsibilities. This story wouldn't have made the New York Times (or the Hometown Gazette-Newsletter) but numerous times have we seen similarly insubstantiated articles on, say, slashdot [slashdot.org].
While it is a fact that idle speculation on mailing lists should not be used as the basis for news articles, let's not make an example of this situation. There are much better ones to focus on.
yours,
john
It could be because Netscape 4.X stinks on ice... (Score:1)
Until either the KDE team, Opera, or Netscape/Mozilla officially deliver something stable, the most stable and usable browser currently available for Linux is Netscape 4.72-ish.
While it's better than the older versions, it's still very unstable. I get hangs from missed DNS queries (The rendering engine should be in a seperate thread from the one doing the fetching and the UI should be seperated as well.). I get hangs and crashes from sloppy resource utilization (If I've been running Netscape for a while (it's been up for a day or so...), the stupid thing just quits displaying pages altogether until I exit and restart.). Java and Javascript crash the thing fairly regularly (about 30-50% of the pages I visit, I can't visit unless I'm using a Windows browser...). Sometimes, when you successfully (or catestrophically) close the UI, the thing leaves behind parts of itself that you need to go through with PS/TOP/KTop/etc. and kill off the process that Netscape's off in la-la land with.
To be sure, it's very likely that some of it is what you're claiming, but, I suspect much of the ire that's coming from this is due to what I just said and the likely possibility that it's getting old for some people.
Re:More Mozilla FUD...(but I just want a browser!) (Score:1)
However, I have to agree with the suck.com [suck.com] article when they say that mozilla should have released a 1.0 far sooner. I want a good browser, and I think a lot of other people do too. Netscape sucks and people are getting tired of using it. I really really just want a (galeon like but without all the hoops you have to jump through) good browser that renders well and in compliance to standards (whatever they are).
I don't need mail, news, XUL, XML, XBSL, a mozoffice, a mozchat, a mozOS or anything else (yes, I know that some of those don't exists, but you get the point right?). I just want a browser.
IMHO once a 1.0 browser has been released, bug fixed, etc, then add in all the other stuff, like mail, news, chat, etc. XUL is cool so that people can skin everything, but do you really think that that's needed by 99% of the people out there? Esp the ones like myself who have basically 2 choices for graphical browsers under linux (netscape and mozilla).
Again, don't get me wrong, I've been using the milestones and nightly builds and watching things get better and more stable all the time and been loving them and singing the praises of mozilla. I just want a good browser.
Regards
How can they do this? (Score:3)
How can they put an office suite into Mozilla when they haven't yet got Quake and Space Invaders in there yet?
Re:Wow, was Apple right? (Score:1)
They stole the whole GUI thing from Palto Alto guys and actually had the balls to try and sell it. They are constantly doing things like that but they usually implement badly or time it wrong. I still think that home PCs will eventually come by default with tv cards and such like one of the old PowerMac home units they put out a few years ago. They have a good feel on the technological next step.
This does not mean they always implement correctly.
Re:You can't bitch about something that's free. (Score:1)
Sign me up for that!
If we're going to compete with closed-source corporations, we need to be responsive to users, deliver on-time, stable software like they do, and do it just as good or better than them. The time for excuses is over, we're in this to win.
What is XUL? NT (Score:1)
--
Re:You can't bitch about something that's free. (Score:1)
CNet Shoots Itself in the foot (Score:1)
Did this just shoot C|Net's Credibility down a few (or more than a few) notches? Oops.
You must be a troll. (Score:1)
Nobody could be that dense, you must be a troll.
In case you really haven't read through the preferences, try following the Customize Homepage [slashdot.org] link, scroll down to Exclude Stories from the Homepage, look on the left at Authors, and check off the ones you don't want to hear from. I've got Jon Katz checked off on mine, and I never see anything by him. I suggest you check off anyone you don't like.
What can they do? (Score:2)
----------------
Programming, is like sex.
How about get over it? (Score:1)
I have an idea! (Score:1)
XUL (Score:1)
Re:More Mozilla FUD... (Score:2)
2. Debunk #1: Mozilla is not late. Despite the fact that we have a timeline [mozilla.org] for Mozilla, and it's behind schedule, that does not mean it's late. You will note we took the "1.0" off the timeline, thus Mozilla will never be late no matter how many thousands of years it takes us.
3. Rumor #2: It'll never ship. Too much feature creep, too late.
4. Debunk #2: Of course it will ship. Just because, once again, we don't actually have a 1.0 release planned doesn't mean it'll never ship.
5. Rumor #3:They're trying to turn it into an operating system.
6. Debunk #3: No. It's a platform, which apparently is like an operating system but slower and less useful.
7. Rumor #4: It's too flexible. It trues to do too mch. It's too easy for people to hang things off it.
8. Debunk #4: Mozilla is certainly not too flexible. Everyone wants modularity. Ask your mother if she's happy with Internet Explorer. "Hell no," she'll tell you, in between shots of Wild Turkey. "I want a browser with an XUL interface! So I can give it a 'Dawson's Creek' theme!"
9. Rumor #5: It's too slow.
10. Debunk #5: It is most certainly not too slow. When you start it up, it's doing all kinds of complicated things with plugins and modularity your puny brain could never possibly understand. You should be thanking us for it only taking 30 minutes to get going. When you click on a menu, and it takes 4 minutes for it to come down, that's breaking a world record for XML parsing! 4 minutes is fast for all the modularity you get!
11. Rumor #6: It's too bloated.
12. Debuk #6: It's not too bloated! Who wouldn't want to spend a mere 30 megabyte download to get not just a medicore web browser, but a mediocre mail client, mediocre news client, mediocre chat client, and HTML editor that's about as enjoyable as licking pennies! And don't forget...modularity! So people can build all kinds of amazing mediocre functionality into it! Believe me, this is what you want. This is what everyone wants. The Mozilla project will drag you there, kicking and screaming, whether you like it or not. I should probably point out Galleon, to try and excuse the fact that the web browser in Mozilla sucks ("If you're one of those crazy 'hacker types' who wants a custom browser that boots in under an hour...").
13. Rumor #7: Wait, how is all this FUD? Aren't these legitimate arguments?
14. Debunk #7: No. Any and all arguments against Mozilla are wrong and thus automatically FUD.
15. Rumor #8: Aren't you just arguing all this because you're in denial about backing a losing browser/platform/whatever the hell you want to call it?
16. Debunk #8: No. If Mozilla really was lousy, which it is not, I would be able to handle the fact that I've wasted hours and failed to lose my virginity over a mediocre computer program. Really!
Wait! Come back! Let me tell you more about themes!
Re:Rumours and the Internet (Score:1)
Well, you know how dumb the average person is, right? By definition, half the people out there are even dumber than that.
I think you're confusing 'average' with 'median'.
Re:How about get over it? (Score:1)
Rumor Mill (Score:1)
This guy James Russel was just talking about the idea of using Mozilla as the front end of Star Office.
Then the media takes it and make into a big deal.
How many times we heard Microsoft was going to open up thier source code?
We need to take everything with a grain of salt. Think about it.
Re:I want a browser (Score:1)
Re:Rumours and the Internet (Score:1)
Not just the net, this applies to the entire media in general. I hate to say it, but all mainstream "news" is is glorified gossip. This mixed with the First Post Complex (FPC) that we see here on slashdot ever so frequently makes a very dangerous combination. It's sad to see how many misunderstandings have arisen because a news outlet had to get "First Post" and completely screwed up the story in the process.
Mozilla.. Star Office.. Sun.. (Score:1)
funny enough it just might be the ticket.... (Score:1)
MozOffice, vs Gnome Office vs KOffice means more to me that we have good frameworks for making integrated office applications (phil begone, its unnatural!) I still would like to see SIAG and such make a run for it also. And who knows, the dream of JavaOffice still might not be that far off.
Did I hear shudders? I wonder how many linux puppies are not looking into a future of even better things. As if they have arrived and say 'six xterms and a soda Pop and I have a GUI. I want it small and light and easy to program in 1986 technology!'
Such is the barnacles that induce drag on any forward moving ship.
Wow (Score:1)
Problems with Electronic Media (Score:2)
The result of all of this activity is that news organizations tend to publish stuff even before the report can verify the facts... and sometimes get it wrong. In earlier times the time pressure was still there, but there were a lot of really good editors who would filter out crap so it wouldn't get published. It also took quite a bit longer to become a major reporter, so you would have to prove yourself and develop the skills to know what is pure Bulls*** and what is a legitimate rumor. Now days anybody with an e-mail address can throw up a web page, and call it professional journalism.
With this situation: I will blame C-Net. Their editors should have done a much better job of checking up on this story... by calling up Netscape or at least e-mailing some of the people directly in the newsgroups that posted. It wouldn't be that hard to verify the information before they posted the article. At least with a news fourm like
Why sequester yourself from the media? (Score:2)
In a case like Mozilla, why close yourself to the media? About the only coverage of Mozilla I've seen is right here on Slashdot. A little more exposure for Mozilla certainly can't hurt. Maybe it could even draw some more people to the project, who knows? But just closing your doors to the media and saying "Go away!" will just divert some much needed attention away from your cause.
As for suing / flaming, that won't do any good. As somebody already mentioned in this thread, the reporters have Constitutional protection, as long as they didn't know it was false. As for flaming, well...go ahead. But let's remember people, this is their job, and besides, nobody's perfect. Hell, I'm sure Slashdot has taken a rumor / false story all the way as well.
--
Re:More Mozilla FUD... (Score:1)
Re:Hey, it could happen. (Score:1)
Is it safe to assume that it already practices cunnilingus, or is the fellatio plug-in a concept-in-practice-in-work and the wimmenfolk have to wait for M19?
I told Festa it was bogus, but it still ran (Score:5)
Yesterday, he emailed me for more quotes. I told him a few of the quotes and then basically told him that "MozOffice" was just an idea and was not newsworthy. Here's exactly what I said in my email to him yesterday (LONG before this article went up):
> I do think the ideas in my post have merit, but
> please don't convey the impression that this is
> something Mozilla will or might do. Mozilla is
> open source, and probably every day someone
> comes up with some half-baked idea for something
> cool they could do with it. I don't think that's
> news.
So this CNET story didn't go up out of plain ignorance. At best, it's negligence, at worst, it's naked deception.
Rob
Mountains, molehills, and CNet (Score:1)
With regards to roca, I think that he may have read a little too quickly through the CNet article. The assumption that the article is based entirely on this news thread [mozilla.org] is well refuted by CNet's quotes from MozOffice project leader, James Russell, and his web site [home.com] on the subject.
Also, neither the article nor the MozOffice web site (or roca himself, to be fair) implies that MozOffice is a part of the Mozilla project. It is a separate project which plans to use the Gecko engine and Star Office's existing code (soon to be open-sourced) to create a cross-platform office suite. Claims that this project will further delay Mozilla are simply misinformed.
- Stealth Dave
Re:Integrity (Score:1)
Re:George Carlin (Score:1)
--
Good Idea, Ignorant Poster, Bad Idea, Has Worked (Score:2)
MozOffice is happening, or at least the ''random person'' is trying to make it happen. It is a very interesting project, and comes after people have succeded in using it to program games [slashdot.org] and otherwise try and create a cross-platform Web browser/OS suite. CNET didn't get anything wrong--they are very clear that it was another entity apart from Netscape and Mozilla proper that was working on this project, and it appears that the only entity mistaken (before millions of /. readers read only the quoted paragraph on the home page), was the submitter.
Unfortunately, I tend to agree that Mozilla is nigh death [slashdot.org], failing under the burden of its own bloat. However, I have high hopes for Galeon [slashdot.org]. If it succeeds, Good Things are ahead. The largest problem still remains: combating the Win/IE monopoly on the desktopm which is only worsended by the fact that many sites are now optimized for IE (causing more people to use it, and here we have a Catch-22 for ya').
Only time will tell if a combination of an MS break-up and a ''Best of Netscape'' browser can turn the tides in the browser world. Then again, one wonders if netscape/aol [zdnet.com] is the answer we want. [slashdot.org]
Closing comment: It worked for Emacs!
--
Re:Rumours and the Internet (Score:1)
I think you are confusing jokes with reality! :)
Re:What about elementary school? (Score:1)
Wow, was Apple right? (Score:5)
Doing this on Linux has a lot of advantages, but it would be a huge amount of work, as most of the system isn't even remotely there. I encoruage people interested, though, to check out the old OpenDoc whitepapers and documentation.
After all, what was Apple's first OpenDoc application? CyberDog the web browser, of course!
It's the readers who are stoopit (Score:2)
The nascent, independent MozOffice has barely registered on Mozilla's or Netscape's radar.
I read the article and it sounded to me like someone had an interesting idea and it has little to do with the Mozilla team itself. Tell me again the problem with this article? Sounds to me like some flame-happy jerks got themselves all in a self-righteous huff over nothing... and that's CNet's fault how?
At the risk of over use let me say. . (Score:3)
Even the sniveling dribble and clueless clacking of a script kiddie druling on his keyboard . . . wait for it . .
This is the price you pay when you open things up for public scrutiny. Mozilla has been the only browser on this peecee (PIII 450 128RAM) for about a week now (I'm typing this in nightly build number 2000 07 23 20) and I respect everyone involved in building the lizard. Do I care if the finished lizard morphs into the next killer app? no. As long as they ship at least one version, and can demonstrate that the project has legs, I'll be contributing all that I can.
To quote someone who put it well:
"You can gain, or loose, a lot of customers fast on the net".
This flame war of the day is just an illustration of that.
Re:Rumours and the Internet (Score:1)
Actually, by definition, you're thinking of the median.
- Rackham
"You can't protect anyone.... You can only love them."
Re:Wow, was Apple right? (Score:1)
At one point, Microsoft actually endorsed OpenDoc as an "OLE development tool," but Novell and IBM dropped the ball on the Windows implementation, and on not synching up with Apple on all the APIs.
Re:You can't bitch about something that's free. (Score:2)
-- Mozilla needs to ship solid code ASAP? CHECK
-- Mozilla needs to be able to browse the modern Web? CHECK
-- Mozilla needs to not be so far behind IE when it ships that people write it off? CHECK
-- Mozilla needs to have a mail/news client so that the millions of Communicator users aren't driven away? CHECK
-- Did I mention ship solid code ASAP? CHECK
Doesn't feel like denial to me.
Re:Err... (Score:1)
Re:It's not news that the news isn't news (Score:2)
But what if (Score:1)
Seriously , anyone , myself included , who has tried to put together a word processor will tell you that the bastard lies in the document renderer. It's an absolute prick. The two big users of these document renderers are ... web browsers and word processors. Surely I am not the only one to see this. Remember Composer? As severely half-assed as it was, the thing was my wordprocessor of choice for ages.
Whack in a word filter (bar evil probs with loopy ActiveX streams etc) and your laughing.
QA and this matter (Score:2)
But I realize all I can do in my role with testing software is of course, reporting and verifying bugs. It's not my role to fix 'em, nor have really any say on new features.
In fact, the most I can do is reject a build if it is way super-unstable, and wait for a better one(acceptance testing).
But in my job I have seen more-important bugs go by that i have reported, but the programmers don't feel like fixing. With some I am a bit more zealous about, knowing that the users of the soon-to-be software would be screaming bloody murder about it.
SO, after my whining, what do I see? Bug not fixed, and they added in some stupid feature nobody will really make use of.
Oh well. I've done my part.
Just my 2 cents.
Re:Accurate and insightful CNET article (Score:1)
What they seem to want it some kind of magical context -sensitive universal container/editor -- fine, just redesign OpenDoc and OLE and make it work on a finer-grained level than anybody has ever attempted before. Piece of cake !
More Mozilla FUD... (Score:4)
Because of the philosophy of mozilla (It's a platform, not a browser), you can do *anything* with it. At the moment, you'd be brave to build an office suite on it(unless you have about a terabyte of RAM). But you could. All the bits are there.
Whenever I use mozilla as 'just a browser', I feel guilty. It already does so much that it's astonishing.
I offer a free beer to the first person who sends me a solution to the Tower of Hanoi problem to me written in XUL. For the first person to write a C compiler in XUL, I'll buy their first session with a psychiatrist. They'll need it.
Re:Rumours and the Internet (Score:2)
A year or two ago, a Phoenix evening news show ran a story about how a group of "hackers" had gotten ahold of the credit card numbers of all AOL subscribers. The source for the story was a forwarded email.
-B
Hey, it could happen. (Score:4)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
More About OpenDoc (Score:3)
Homepage [apple.com] Programmers Guide [apple.com]
Class Reference [apple.com]
And, finally, a petition to add OpenDoc functionality [summary.net] to Java.
Enjoy!
Mozilla stripped down to just the browser (Score:2)
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! [8m.com]
Re:You can't bitch about something that's free. (Score:2)
shit i want to see the unification of physics but you don't see me flaming steven hawkings for not being able to deliver on the promise.
Yabbut... (Score:2)
Well at least we have Slashback. (Score:2)
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! [8m.com]
Just because C|Net does not have a clue... (Score:2)
If you look past the headline (if you can) there is a wealth of information in the orgs that are whining, i.e., look them up by person (not firm) that is whining and add that to your list of idiots that you no longer deal with. Second, look at the firms, submit resumes to the managers of the idiots complaining (to replace the idiots doing the complaining).
If this makes no sense, either the Fosters flowed too much or you need to go back over it
Exactly what you have done... (Score:2)
Point out that the article is a crock and have a go at their credibility. You may not see a direct affect over one article but if they don't learn, they eventually lose hits.
eg. Does anyone here automtically take anything MSNBC produces as gospel before they verify the facts of a story elsewhere?
ZDNETs another example... They may be pulling hits but do we really care if they pull the wool over the eyes of the inept? - nobody with a true tech. oriented background takes anything ZDNET posts at face value either...
Re:This is screwed up. (Score:2)
You're looking for Konqueror. Comes up in <8 secs, loves keyboard input and has no composer or built-in e-mail :)
--
But why? (Score:2)
Hey, I have an idea. How about nothing. Isn't that the point of open source? The cream rises to the top even without million dollar prime-time ads, and regardless of silly reporters. What need is there to retaliate at all? Why not just go about the business of writing code. Or should the community become as litigious as our enemies (MPAA, RIAA, etc)?
Re:Contribute (Score:2)
The message is: Contribute.
Read the FAQ [mozilla.org], browse the source [mozilla.org], help with a bug [mozilla.org], do what you can to help and the product will ship quicker.
Most of the help needed doesn't even require you to be a programer. Helping to narrow the focus of bug reports [mozilla.org] helps the programer focus on the problem instead of the fluff. It's a huuuge help.
Re:Rumours and the Internet (Score:2)
That's a "mean" thing to say!
--
There is no soup either.
Keep the media informed (Score:2)
The only way that an open software project can quash these kind of rumours is by keeping everyone, including the media, informed. I think a lot of teams (being primarily programmers, rather than pointy-haired types) overlook this. If the project itself is not seen as a credible, authoritative source of news pertaining to the project, then those looking for information will go to newsgroups and the like, and start reading whatever they like in to the random line-noise they find there.
Even open software projects need to manage public and media expectations.
Yeah, I'm sorry. But /. UI design *is* sucky (Score:2)
Rumours and the Internet (Score:3)
But seriously, one would think that after a couple of years people would understand that 98% of the 'information' you see on the Net is rumour, innuendo, falsehood, deliberately misleading or aggrandizing.
I think it behooves reporters to consider the Net to be a source for story ideas, but that nothing can beat picking up the phone, making a call, and asking for confirmation before printing a story.
--
Isn't this contradictory (Score:2)
Bad Reporting (Score:2)
Uh, guys, M17 still hasn't been released... speaking of bad reporting :-) (I know, I shouldn't nitpick - sorry).
BTW, a clarification: the Mozilla source tree has branched. The M17 / nsbeta2 branch is being stabalized, and should be released fairly soon (speculation). The M18 'unstable' tree is where all the new features are going in. Once M17 has been released, the two trees will probably be merged.
BTW, you can get both pre-M17 and pre-M18 nightly builds from ftp.mozilla.org [mozilla.org].
As to the actual story, CNET is just ignorant. Like any company in a capitalist economy, it only exists while there is demand for it to exist. If you make it well known that CNET is biased and inaccurate, the 'proles' will turn to another source for their news. Eventually, people will realize that better news sources exist, and use them instead.
Whoop... Emacs has a new successor (Score:4)
We just need to put a team in place, scrap all the current StarOffice code, and go at it!
(ok people, I'm being sarcastic)
Re:Rumours and the Internet (Score:2)
Technically, the mean has _nothing_ to do with being the center of the population. Only if you assume the population is evenly distributed can you say they'll be roughly the same.
I don't know if that applies here. I've seen too many 'spikes' -- crazy-smart people that are an order of magnitude ahead of the crowd. I suspect that they skew the curve so that well over half the population is 'below average'.
Slashdot a tad hypocritical (Score:2)
The real question should now be how do we deal with Slashdot? I mean, this is bulls**t. Don't go blasting a someone/thing else that you yourself are obviously just a guilty of!
Or is this ok an acceptable because slashdot ripped on Microsoft (the cool thing to do), while C-Net screwed over the open source community?
Re:/. feature request in light of this (Score:3)
Try your Preferences.
--
Whoa.... cool the flames (Score:2)
Somebody *is* looking at the possibility.
The only problem I see is the lack of seperation between the MozOffice group (person?) and Mozilla.org.
But... the information and the links clear that up.
People need to read the article and should look at the coments that the person submiting makes. He was off base, the title is off base and now, the
Get the facts, report the facts and leave speculation alone.
In this case CNET did a *better* job than
Hey, C|NET! (Score:2)
Now we just sit back and wait for the C|NET exclusive expose on Microsoft's new open source strategy...
J
why sue? bring it. (Score:3)
Bring it on Suck, bring it on CNET, bring it on Web Standards Project (actually no, the WaSP can go die, they are the ones who have made the stupiest statements about Mozilla, the little Microsoft knob-gobblers), bring it on, cause when Mozilla ships, you'll be left with a few old articles noone cares about and Mozilla will gain market share from all the inevitable "wow, mozilla actually shipped - and it's good!" stories.
In the meantime, I reiterate, the web standards project is the lamest industry group ever and need to prioritize beyond their current "hey maybe if we make totally inappropriate attacks on Mozilla, Microsoft will listen to us and buy us more plane tickets to Seattle".
sig:
Re:What is XUL? NT (Score:2)
It's not too hard to use and it's relatively (for an open source project anyway) well documented. The lack of absolute positioning is a drawback, I think. They want you to define all your UI elements in terms of minimum/maximum sizes and springs, which is much harder than saying "make a 64x64 button and put it *here*.
--
You can't bitch about something that's free. (Score:3)
Why are people flipping out about mozilla? It's not like you paid money for it. The developers working on it are doing so because they enjoy it and think it's a good thing for the future of free computing. Bagging on them for being ambitious is ignorant. If you want a trimmed down browser, then you go, take the Gecko engine, pop it onto a canvas, and get something like Galeon [sourceforge.net].
I could see this if it was an upgrade to something you paid money for. It isn't. You should be thanking the developers for even trying! If it's not happening fast enough for you, go see how you can help Moz, Galeon, or any of the other alternatives out there. Otherwise, sit down, shut up, use Internet Explorer like a good lemming, and stew, because bitching about things isn't helping. Maybe bitch at RedHat if you bought it for not having a stable, argueably critical, component of their operating system present. Or, hell, contribute to Mozilla!
Kudos to the developers on Moz for trying; Shame on anyone complaining.
Early and Often (Score:3)
I don't want to release lousy code.
Right now I'm working on a game that, when it's playable, will be released under the GPL. I even have a sourceforge page ready for it (so I can learn how to use the sourceforge utilities once it's complete). Why am I not releasing the code right now? A few reasons:
- The code's incomplete. By which I mean that you can't tell what my design is by the code. Which means that, if I were to release now, I might get patches from people that, while probably being very high quality, do not mesh at all with how I wanted the game to evolve. This'll be a problem anyway, but once the design is clear, it'll at least be a little easier to tell what kinds of additions need to be made to the code.
- No documentation. I don't mean API documentation, I've been javadoc-style commenting my code since I started. I just don't have any design documentation online. It's all on paper in a three-ring binder. I simply design better when I can draw diagrams and such on paper.
- It's not playable! Right now you've got the title screen, and a dialog where you can select plugins. Everything else is infrastructure. I imagine someone who might want to contribute to the project would like to have something at least marginally playable - the contributor would otherwise have to work for quite some time before any results were visible.
- I might not finish. Don't get me wrong, I fully intend to do this, but it might take me a while. I've seen open-source game projects start up with an announcement akin to "Hey everyone, I've got a great game I want to make, with a website! All we need are some artists and coders, come and sign up!" -- and they're never heard from again. I don't want to end up like that. It'll be a disappointment not only to myself, but also to any other developers, and anyone who was interested in the game.
So yes, I think there are good reasons to keep a project to yourself until it's ready to be given to the world. You just have to know when to let goIt's not news that the news isn't news (Score:4)
They try, but they never get it right.
Take this from a guy who's given a zillion interviews -- I don't even cringe anymore -- I just wonder WHAT they'll get wrong.
So, here's the deal -- the news guys got it wrong. Tell them the truth, and move on. Get over it.
There's nothing you can do about the media -- they're consitutionally bullet-proof so long as they didn't know it was a lie. And that's the way it should be. You WANT THEM to rush with what feels like a scoop. YOU NEED THEM to do that.
Just don't give them shit when they mess up. They're only doing their job.
Re:You can't bitch about something that's free. (Score:3)
I agree, and I've sat out the last few rounds of Mozilla bashing -- especially since a recent bit of feature creep was the one I've been begging for since the project started.
But there's a major problem here. I don't go around bashing everybody with a project on Freshmeat that I don't think is up to par but it's wrong to think that whether or not Mozilla exists doesn't affect any other projects. It consumes a huge amount of community resources in coding and bug testing and its existence has discouraged others (except KDE [konqueror.org]) from building a decnt browser on their own. And reading MozillaZine and comments by Mozilla devlopers here suggests they're in complete denial. They need to realize that there's a major problem -- and if they don't, we all need to realize that.
Re:Nice troll (Score:2)
Re:Can't do jack. (Score:3)
scale (Score:2)
Depending on scale, I think that open sourced projects should stay closed source until they have a good, defining, deliverable. A defining deliverable is important because it makes people say oh,this can be used for class A of things, instead of thinking, well, as long as we are designing this couldn't we just include class B of things? After all, even though open source always runs the risk of being redirected or split into a different direction, if the object is a good tool for its job there won't be as much call to make it a do-all-but-nothing-well-tool A set of individual tools that can be used in tandem is much better than a monolith like an office suite (even though to some extent a suite is a set of individual tools).
Problem being, for something the scale of mozilla, it may not have been viable to close development until it was clearly defined... or wait; was mozilla based on netscape code and hence defined in that sense, or was it built up from "scratch"?
Quality platform + showcase app = A good idea. (Score:2)
Providing the "killer app" to run on Mozilla is a great idea.
Something is needed to showcase the technologies in Mozilla, and assuming that this project did not divert energy from the Mozilla development (which I can't imagine it would) this would be a logical way to do that.
As for the naysayers who say "Mozilla sucks" or "They're not sticking to their release schedule; this would be a waste of time", those people are obviously not interested in adding value to the open source and free software platforms, so they can be ignored.
Mozilla is not being developed based on timeline commitments, as are commercial products. Rather, it is being developed based on quality commitments. So far, the milestones have given ample proof that these quality commitments are attainable and worthwhile. Keep your pants on, people. Meanwhile, do what you can to further the effort. If that means creating "Office" capabilities to run on Mozilla, then so be it. Excellent.
Can't do jack. (Score:5)
First: You can't stop anybody from creating a "bag on the side of your project" to attempt adding some functionality as a patch. (i.e. embedding Microsoft Office functionality in your project's product)
The best you can do (if you have that much centralized control) is not accept their patches into your project's mainline and not warp your design to provide hooks to support them (unless such hooks look like a good way to support something else specific or as a general support hook).
Second: It's the media. Unless they've libeled you all you can do is ridicule them for their errors (and the people who believed them for paying attention to such a ludicruous story).
If a media outlet does such stuff often enough, it eventually lowers their credibility as a source, placing them at a competitive disadvantage. But eventually is a long time. For now the best you can hope for meanwhile is the equivalent of a page-9 retraction of their page-1 feature - which won't stop the flames at you.