Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Netscape The Internet

Has AOL Ruined Netscape? 245

Posted by Roblimo from the oh-for-the-good-old-days dept.
Anonymous Coward sent it: a scathing, three-page ZDNet article that claims the AOL purchase has turned Netscape into a shadow of its former self, that morale there is low and employee turnover is high, and that the company is now mired in bureaucracy, caught between Sun and AOL managements. The article was so sad, I almost wanted to cry by the time I got to the end.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Has AOL Ruined Netscape? More

Has AOL Ruined Netscape?

Comments Filter:
  • Indeed, let's all have a moment of silence for the former Netscape....
    =~(~~~~~~
  • it's a very sad article to read. one could read into it that AOL bought Netscape only to dismantle it and keep the few things that they needed (the browser, Netcenter and a couple of other things).

    combining this article with nomo zilla [jwz.org] and nscp/aol [jwz.org] by jwz the view of AOL one gets is all but pretty.

    Sad to see that what was in many ways such a great company pushing the boundaries, staying on the forefront of the web & Internet revolution, has broken into pieces.

    RIP?

  • I don't understand why AOL bought Netscape in the first hand. Okay, Netscape indeed had a great brand before AOL took over, but AOL and Netscape always have been different types of companies. AOL is service-oriented and Netscape was technical-oriented. The deal didn't, and still doesn't make any sense, because a service company can never run a technical company that always needs to be at the bleeding edge (browser development). A brand isn't everything, by buying for the brand only and don't understanding the other company, you can easily just end up ruining the brand. I think this is what has already happened.

  • Well IMO, Netscape was already headed down because of the hurting that Microsofts IE put on them. For a company that shipped other things besides browsers they sure didn't like someone taking market share from their browser. So how did they respond to this, they put out a browser that was and well is not stable, bug ridden, crashy (if that's a word) I have used Netscape from the 1st day I got on the Internet, I will probably continue to use them, but I have looked elsewhere and found better products from other companies.

    I know AOL probably just wanted to brand name of Netscape because they are probably as tired of Microsoft as anyone else. So, with that in mind they merged with another Microsoft hater, Sun. And all the employees that were used to putting out good quality stuff were just being shuffled around like paper in a trashcan. I don't blame them for leaving.

    I hope that AOL can pull this act together, and start shipping AOL disks with Netscape 5.0 as the browser as soon as it comes out. If they don't then we will know that they secretly bought out Netscape to crush its product and name and was paid to do it by Microsoft? Hmmm..

  • ...IE has over taken Netscape for browswer supremacy.
    Before you rail me for not trashing Microsoft...
    If you dont care about your employer, why would you care about the product? The guys working on IE are probably happier than pigs in shit because a) they're winning, b) it pays well.
  • In Microsoft, respect is gained by getting stuff out the door, not by taking the time to do it properly.

    Internet Explorer is not done properly. Standard support is poor, and undoubtedly the code implementing it is shoddy.

    Security in IE has repeatedly been shown to be badly broken, and almost certainly not an integral part of the design.

    The idea that digital signatures can protect a user from malicious code is ludicrous.
  • Interestingly, my browser (Netscape 4.61) crashed on the third page of the report - not once or twice, but four times. Guess it just didn't want to read about the slow demise of its parent company :)

    Cheers,
    GC

  • It's not just IE (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Have any of you considered the damage inflicted on Netscape by Apache? Maybe they were making a few bucks on Navigator, but they charge thousands of $$$ for their servers, and their market share there is 7.73 to Apache's 53.59. Three years ago they were pretty close.
  • Netscape Communications, Inc. announced 1999-11-09 that its much anticipated Netscape Navigator 5.0 will be available for trial later this month, the final version coming in February of 2000. With a beta version of Internet Explorer 5.5 coming soon, what will happen to Netscape? Is it too late? Is it the end of Netscape and esentially the browser wars? While we all may appreciate the concept of not having to deal with making a site compatible with both browsers, is it truly worth it? Without competition will IE become worse? Or will
    someone create a new and much more powerful browser (Opera?) Story taken from here! [dtheatre.com]
    -------------------------------------------
  • Steve Case must have been smoking something to think Netcenter was worth aquiring. "Portals" of that type are a joke. I'd be shocked if even 5 percent of the "hits" Netcenter get are on purpose. The only reason to go there at all is to DL a new version of their browser. The rest are all just people who probably havent figured out you can just type in the address of the search engine you want, much less how to change their homepage. You dont believe me try taking a few help desk calls one day. I've listened to one tech trying to explain scroll bars to a user. :)
    Not to mention Netcenter is just about the ugliest Portal site I've seen and their web mail the slowest I've had the misfortune of using.
  • Mergers are never pretty, especially for the employees of the company being bought out. AOL really bought Netscape only for their prized possessions, and their fuzzy alliance with Sun was to reap as much as they could between the two companies.

    Unfortunately, AOL was too fast to try an assimilate Netscape into its own corporate family. From experience, that is a trying time for any employee. Priorities change, the work environment changes and there is always the threat that you might become a statistic in the merger ("here is your pink slip").

    It remains to been seen if AOL's approach in acquiring Netscape will hurt AOL in the long run.
  • Okay so AOL owns Netscape. I don't care if Netscape 5.0 has all kinds of dorky buttons hanging off of it. AOL bought the company, and they have the right to use the browser however they want.

    What matters to me in most Internet users is how they implement standards. they can add tons of URLs back to it AOL's domain, all kinds of 'paper clip inspired' interface kludge, that all ok

    Fast, Faster, Fastest, Stable and Standards compliant. These other things that will return Netscape back to prominence on the desktop.

  • You'll never see a more "dumb" company. They bought netscape just to take what they want from it. AOL is not a software company. And what about SUN? Well I counted them out when JAVA didn't deliver all the promises. Netscape was the only one that drove JAVA along. For their own company's sake, I hope they realize just how important the netscape browser really is before it's too late.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Fast, Faster, Fastest, Stable and Standards compliant. These other things that will return Netscape back to prominence on the desktop.

    That's very very funny! You do realize that Netscape gained its marketshare by shitting all over the the standards, don't you? I think the day Netscape dies should become an official day of celebration. Too bad the company didn't die 5 years ago.

    Personally, I don't think anything useful could come out of a company that after 5 years still isn't able to produce a browser than can parse comments correctly.

    -- Abigail

  • AOL's handling of Netscape is typical of any quick merger; by exploiting the track record of a smaller company's "cutting-edge" product, a larger interest will generally view their latest "partner" as a commodity. Apart from its browser, Netscape was most likely purchased in order to serve as part of AOL's research department. The extra cache of their trademark and logo, with Marc Andreesen's press coverage were lucky accidents which helped to sweeten the deal.
  • Personally, I am tired of hearing sob stories about Netscape. Why exactly should I feel badly for the employees that churned out crappy code, wouldn't return my calls when I was actively trying to purchase their product, and gave me hideous tech support afterwards?

    People talk of Netscape as if it were some sort of fallen hero, but the fact is that Netscape is the reason we have never had a standards compliant browser available, ever. Navigator 1.0 added a bunch of crap without being compliant and it went downhill from there. And don't get me started on the bugs in their code.

    In many ways, AOL got suckered by this deal. They should remember next time they are considering buying a software company to look at the code first.

    The Mozilla project is the only thing that they have done right. I just hope it isn't too late for it to matter.

    Woogie
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Is there any hard evidence to show that IE 5.5 or 6.0 will be more featureful than Mozilla 5?

    It's worth noting that IE is no longer in a frantic development mode, since it has performed its function, which was to grab the "market".
  • Hmm. My browser (4.7) did just fine, and I reloaded it a couple of times just to make sure. I'd suggest upgrading.
  • along.

    That's why AOL bought them out in the first place, cause they were struggling.
    Netscape prolly had low moral in the first place. How else can you explain Netscape 4.x?
  • I honestly believe that one of the reasons why navigator is as buggy as it is is due to Microsoft's monopoly on the OS and their illegal leveraging and tying of their browser with their monopoly product. That they added a few additional features that were not hammered out in an official standards group is a non issue as long as they FULLY publish the new functionality, which I'm under the impression that they did.

    So you're blaming Netscape for the fact that Microsoft doesn't have a standards compliant browser? Please, go troll elsewhere.

    AOL didn't get suckered. There's a thing called due dilligence. If they didn't do it, then it's their own fault.
  • did they ship an AOL 5.0 CD with IE on it?

  • Internet Explorer is not done properly. Standard support is poor, and undoubtedly the code implementing it is shoddy.

    Excuse me? Not done properly how huh?
    Hrm, it's componentised, it's fast, it's lean and mean. Standard support is the BEST of any browser currently out there - so what if it has more non standard features - that doesn't make the standard features dissapear.


    Security in IE has repeatedly been shown to be badly broken, and almost certainly not an integral part of the design.
    The idea that digital signatures can protect a user from malicious code is ludicrous.

    Security in some windows components are broken, which cause IE uses, makes IE broken (it's hard to draw the line where IE ends and other things start - ala COM).
    Anyway, digital signatures don't protect stupid users. And their very concept is not sand box code, but to allow code to run, but only if the user agrees. Signatures basically allow people to sue the ones responsible if the code is bad.
    Java is limited cause it's sand boxed, and already there are efforts to extend it with signatures.

    And BTW, have you ever looked at the security options in IE? It looks like just a long list box, but there are advanced features, there are at least 5 different dialogs each with their own dialogs and settings especially for Java. IE allows a flexible range of customization and settings - MUCH more so that Netscape.
    BTW, netscape plugins aren't secure either.

  • Netscape is dead ? But Mozilla lives ! (Score:3)

    by JPMH ( 100614 ) on Saturday November 13, 1999 @05:21AM (#1537142)
    Massive staff turnover... job losses... plunging morale... and comments like

    But while the Netscape brand may live on for some time, it is quite clear to many current and former Netscape pros that the culture they helped create behind the name is long gone. But while the Netscape brand may live on for some time, it is quite clear to many current and former Netscape pros that the culture they helped create behind the name is long gone.

    "We defined the Internet culture. We were really the first 'dotcom' startup," says one former Netscape facilities exec. "I loved my time at Netscape ... but it's a completely different company now."

    The most interesting thing about this article, I thought, was how little of it applies to Mozilla.

    Post jwz, it seems that morale at Mozilla has just been getting better and better. Developer turnover appears to be very low -- the same names are still appearing week after week in the status reports as 12 months ago. There's now a real confidence and enthusiasm that they are on a realistic timetable to deliver a world beating product -- and soon. Mozilla's culture is alive and well.

    Yeah, it sounds from this article as if the rest of Netscape has taken a beating. Sic transit gloria mundi.

    But as a consumer brand Netscape is defined by the browser. With Communicator 2000 in the next couple of months also including some of the goodies AOL has been keeping on its secret list, the Netscape brand is going to be back with a bang.

  • Sorry, not just shipped it. Printed it on the front instead of Netscape...
  • Are you talking about My Netscape? I happen to think that it is quite excellent, and I have all my fav channels (slashdot, freshmeat, mozilla.org, segfault, linuxgames, etc etc) registered. The free email netscape.net is also pretty nice.

    I'm not complaining at all.
  • It's usually top management and the visionaries who get shaken out first, which of course makes the culture clash even worse.

    I've been through this as an employee and it is a miserable event, maybe taking 18-24 months to settle down for those who ride it out. Not a fun time.

    Usually what ends up happening is that the smaller aquired company ends up being totally assimilated into the culture of the larger aquiring company.

  • Everytime I go to the home.netscape.com web site I get pounded by annoying popup ads for stupid products that I don't want or don't tend to buy. Do you really think i'm going to "get AOL 5.0!" for linux? This is the same way with aol.com (yes i've been to the web site) more annoying popup ads in the same format as the Netscape ones. There were no popup ads on Netscape before the AOL merger. So it brings me to the question why did AOL buy Netscape, certainly not for its browser capabilities.. America Online software uses Internet Explorer. The only way AOL has helped/not helped netscape was to put ads on there web site, include there lame software into netscape, and not use there browser.
  • In writing this article I was mostly asking questions to my readers and hoping they would post comments in response.

    One thing to always remember is that making a HTML renderer can not be easy so we can almost be sure that no matter what we will have unhealthy browsers which crash frequently.

    I personaly will not use IE mostly because I refuse to sell out to Microsoft all the way and with effecient testing and comparing of both 4.0 browsers Netscape ran faster and more reliable..

    during these tests I also learned that running netscape and IE 4.0 on the Win 95 OSR2.5 Netscape will have a very unexplainable crash.. So naturally with my persecution complex I decide that MS was viciously and intentialy crashing my Netscape browser.
    But now with the release of the IE 5.0 I cannot rely any longer on the benchmarks which once were my standing ground.

    And as I always end my comments.. Don't take my word for it. Test it your self.
    -------------------------------------------
  • Because their contract w/ MS (which lets them be on the desktop of Windows when you install it) hasn't expired yet.

  • Netscape (the company) is dying - not just because of the corporate clash with AOL, but because they just don't have the technology.

    The shipping Navigator is second rate compared to IE5, and who uses a Netscape server these days? For webservers, it's IIS vs Apache, and for application servers, the Netscape one has such a bad reputation that people are dumping it for anything else.

    There is still the Netscape name, though, and that is worth a huge amount. Everybody has heard of Netscape, if only they could find a way to use that!

    AOL should spin an E-Technology company off and give it the Netscape name - they would make billions! The value of AOL stock has nothing to do with Netscape, but if there was a relaunch of Netscape, with some valid technology it would rock - hell, they could sell support for Apache or something.

    Forget this stuipid I-Planet thing. When did you ever hear anyone from Sun talking about that?

    The game isn't over for Netscape, not by a long way, but I think it's future lies in technology, not services & portals.

    --Donate food by clicking: www.thehungersite.com [thehungersite.com]

  • one could read into it that AOL bought Netscape only to dismantle it


    I've often wondered that myself. They bought a browser company, and immediately said they would still integrate IE into the aol software. Why??? If it were my desicion, i would invest money into nestscape then when it was ready dump IE and integrate netscape. But for some reason aol never had any intent to do that...*sigh* At any rate i continue and will continue to use netscape; a web browser is not a suitable OS!
  • I think owning Netscape is a big feather in the cap to AOL and Steve Case. Before AOL bought Netscape, AOL didn't have nearly the cachet as a serious player. As you say, Netscape is a great brand.

    Sun really needed the Netscape Servers to be able to sell a complete Internet solution based on commercial products. I think Sun is still convinced that most customers want turnkey systems based on commercial products. This is perhaps getting less true all the time, but it still represents the largest market segment. AOL could sure make good use of Sun systems too. So, the three way deal was a match made in heaven.

    Note that Netscape is the loser here. Nobody knows or cares what Netscape wants. It's irrelevant. Microsoft "removed their air supply" and AOL/Sun picks at the pieces.

  • Oh yeah? Well sit on this and spin.... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The way I see the situation is that AOL really has no competition anymore in thier market. Remember Prodigy? What about Compuserve? oops, AOL owned now too. When you get right down to it, there isn't much out there other that AOL for some people. I remember when a 2400BPs AOL connection was the ONLY way for 100 miles to get online. Luckaly all that has changed and I have a computer now with a LAN connection to the internet through my college. But looking back at that time you could say that AOL was really bringing the internet to the people. Now, they didn't do it very well, and they CERTINLY paid for all of it through the constant advertizing. Now here comes this Netscape thing. Why? It seemed to me like AOL had everything going for it. Internet for the masses, OK, maybe some competition with webTV. It just didn't make any sense, and it still dosen't. I think that is why it didn't work. If AOL had some heavy competition from someone like Compuserve, then this would be a super stratigic move to strike against them. Probably company policies would be much more liberal, and everyone would have that "all fuzzy" feeling again. But, I would go as far to say that Netscape only had that feeling so long becuase it was "rage against the microsoft machine" time again. This is my point. Heavy competition = good working enviroment. Now, just for a second, I wanted to say something about microsoft. I think that these guys know they better get thier act together before the budding OS Linux comes a callin. I am running Win 2000 Beta, and you know what? It's nothing special. THAT in it's SELF is something to be supprised about. When was the last time you installed windows and Boom! Look at these channels! and boom! let's get your butt on the net! Win2000 didn't do any of that. Now, I have to assume that this is for Win2000, and NOT for Win Millenium (god I hate that name). But, I think that you can easily compare the two companies again. Microsoft = Machine, Linux = "Playful bunch of hackers that rage against it." Our heros in other words. It was the same battle in the browser wars, and as most people agree, Netscape LOST when IE4 came out. IE5 is really good stuff, no one can argue there, and Netscape 4.7 is crap, my opinion. Now we can look at the state that AOL is in, and ask ourselves, how much WORSE could microsoft get if they actually WIN against Linux, Macs, and other OSs? Now there's something to keep you techies up at night! (halloween music starts to play) The Frozen Viper
  • Is it any coincidence that ZDNet first comes up with an article announcing the death of Netscape's Navigator product line a few days ago, when Mozilla is well up and running, being possibily one of the best and most popular open-source projects ever, and now, just as conveniently, do another announcement reinforcing the notion that Netscape is dead?

    Even if they substantiate their ideas, it should hardly be taken as reality with the track record that they have.
  • So you're blaming Netscape for the fact that Microsoft doesn't have a standards compliant browser? Please, go troll elsewhere.

    Call a spade a spade. Microsoft's bypass of the standards process does not justify the same by Netscape and vice versa. The Open Source community should supports open standards and the companies that adhere to them, and should avoid products that aren't standards-compliant *especially* when the lack of compliance is because of a desire to achieve market dominance.

  • What about Mozilla? (Score:4)

    by pwb ( 14817 ) on Saturday November 13, 1999 @06:10AM (#1537159)

    I have been watching the browser wars with much interest in the last several months. This is because I manage a project developing Java applet based database clients. I find both browsers very buggy and don't particularly like either. At the moment there just isn't anything better. Unfortunately because of the slow movement at Netscape for the last year, I see Microsoft gaining quickly in performance and features, and will probably blow by Netscape in the next year.

    I see IE as the biggest threat to Linux . The reason for that is I see the browser becoming the desktop of the future. If IE is the only real browser left, then Micrsoft will have an even bigger and stronger monopoly on "desktops" than they have now. Microsoft isn't about to make a Linux version of IE. And with out a good browser, Linux will never make the transition to the desktop from the server. (Taking over the server market I see as just a matter of time.) Part of my assumption here is that the next killer App will be built on top of a browser. And if IE is the only serious browser in town, then Microsoft still holds all the cards, (and a couple of spare Ace's).

    So from my point of view Mozilla is more important to linux than gnome/kde. Having said all of this, I have a question. A freind of mine and myself have talked about putting together a Mozilla distribution CD that contains "up to the week" source code, and the latest Milestone binaries currently found on mozilla.org. If you could buy one of these CDs, would you buy it? Would you report bugs or help with the Mozilla development? The only problem is that because of the rapid change in code and binaries, glass mastered CD's are out, it takes too long to have that done. And quick turn around for CD-R's is a bit higher per disk ($5-6). If you would buy and use a Mozilla distribution CD , mail me at Noble. [mailto] Also we need people who can help set up the distribution for others OS's (Windows and Mac). I think we have Linux (and most unix) covered. E-mail me if you have time and knowledge to help with that.

    But most importantly, help Mozilla anyway you can.

  • >Hmm. My browser (4.7) did just fine, and I reloaded it a couple of times just to make sure. I'd suggest upgrading.

    I had upgraded to 4.7, but sadly it seemed to be even more buggy (and choke harder on java-enabled pages) than did earlier versions. Thus I downgraded to 4.61. Sad, really, as I have been using Netscape exclusively on my personal box (sadled with IE occasionally at work) since version 1.1

    Cheers,
    GC
  • Are you talking about My Netscape? I happen to think that it is quite excellent, and I have all my fav channels (slashdot, freshmeat, mozilla.org, segfault, linuxgames, etc etc) registered. The free email netscape.net is also pretty nice.

    No, I was refering to the main site. I'm glad netscape's webmail works for you, it was always slow as hell for me. Not to mention the conter-intuitive interface ie: clicking next to see the previous (cronologically) message. Personally I prefer to read my mail in order recieved. Threads you know. :)

    my.netscape looks very similar to h3o.net which has email forwarding, and is linux oriented. I prefer that.
  • There's been quite a bit of speculating about netscape / mozilla here lately, much of which seems not to distinguish between the two.

    Here's a thot tho... perhaps the death of the "commercial" netcape browser would benefit Mozilla?

    Mozilla's not about to go away, it seems to be linux's best hope for a stable browser. I for one dont think linux stablility is nearly as important to the corporate netscape as it's windows performance is.

    While overall I think the death of the official netscape browser would be a bad thing, would it's absense spur faster development of mozilla?

  • Note that Netscape is the loser here. Nobody knows or cares what Netscape wants. It's irrelevant. Microsoft "removed their air supply" and AOL/Sun picks at the pieces.

    Netscape's shareholders wanted money. They got it.

    Netscape wanted survival. The browser team survives.

  • That would make a really good argument on some other planet but around here there needs to be a competitor to Microsoft.

    I'll grant you that the current browser offering leaves alot to be desired, but the Mozilla project shows alot of promise.

    There needs to be a viable alternative to IE and Mozilla is going to be it. Netscape is trying hard, don't forget they get ZERO revenue from the browser and don't have Microsoft's resources to make up for that shortcoming. I'll add that Netscape was FORCED into this strategy by the guys from Redmond who began to give IE away for free.

    Also, don't even suggest that IE didn't shit all over standards either.

  • As you point out, early NS didn't pay too much attention to standards. They didn't have to, they were the only game in town. And that's the best reason to have more than one browser around - if we ever have just one browser to work with, that company will gain default control of the standards, whether it be the Netscape of a few years ago, MS with IE in some murky future, or UltraBrowwer 15.1 of WorldDOM (lame pun, sorry).

    As long as we have alternatives, there will be pressure to stick with real W3C standards so they'll all work with the minimum of dumbass workarounds.

  • It ain't AOL's fault. (Score:5)

    by hatless ( 8275 ) on Saturday November 13, 1999 @06:46AM (#1537168)
    For one thing, the buyout made millionaires out of most longtime Netscape employees. Bolting the minute one vests is a perennial problem at tech companies, and it's getting worse.

    Second, Netscape's Unix-oriented tech culture started to hurt them when focus shifted towards usability features and cute UI flourishes in 1996. This was clear both on the browser side
    • the tedium of installing plugins, the horrors of SmartUpdate
    • their miserable signed-applet security dialogs

    and on the server side
    • the stubborn insistence on browser-based interfaces for server administration; client Java wasn't good enough but a native GUI would have made many admin tasks easier. Between their awful web admin UI and their poorly-documented config file format, Apache was easier to administer
    • for all their open APIs, and with all due respect for their LDAP servers, would it have killed them to bundle modules for native-OS authentication (at least NTDOM and NIS) with their admin server? This sort of thing came across as arrogance and contempt for the customer.

    I don't, however, fault them for their lousy tech support. I always found their server support group competent and responsive. It wasn't their fault that the product engineers would leave nasty bugs unfixed for release after release. That's why Apache's so compelling. And unless you had a special relationship with Microsoft, mediocre support like Netscape's was far above average.

    AOL and Sun bought themselves a troubled company with a faltering product vision, and they knew it. That doesn't mean Mozilla's not great technology; it is. And it doesn't mean Netscape's server line isn't good. It is. That's why their mail, web, directory, cert and app servers are the basis for the iPlanet line. But both the client and server groups at Netscape were sorely lacking product architects with customer and market focus.

    In this regard, the buyout offered Netscape a chance for redemption. If AOL can be made to care about Mozilla, their understanding of customer-focused (as opposed to geek-focused) usability can help it in ways XUL and XPFE as rallying slogans couldn't. And though Sun is still coming up to speed as a software vendor, they at least know how to listen to their customers in designing products in a way Netscape never did.
  • Apache hasn't cut into Netcenter's profits as much as the numbers would make one believe. Most of the Apache users (aka us) would probably not go buy Netcenter if Apache did not exist... we use Apache cause it kicks ass and is FREE. If Apache were taken away from me, I would not go out and buy Netcenter...I would cry and then get a XOOM page or something. I think MS's WebServer/IIS has cut into Netcenter's tangible market more than Apache. any thoughts?
  • Folks,

    If you think Microsoft smashing Netscape on the Windows platform is bad news, consider this possibility: Microsoft could easily direct its resources to create a Linux version (written under GPL guidelines) that will effectively finish off Netscape once and for all.

    People conveniently forget that Microsoft has written a version of Internet Explorer that runs on the Sun Solaris operating system. It wouldn't take much work to convert that code into something that will run under Linux.

    I mean, look at the Macintosh version of Internet Explorer. This version was literally written from scratch specifically for MacOS, and it's a very good and very FAST browser (it's certainly faster than Netscape Communicator 4.5 and later).

    Because Internet Explorer for Linux will be open source, that bunch of 1,000 Linux programmers will be able to suggest changes that will improve it rapidly. Microsoft could make like quarterly releases of IE for Linux on CD-ROM (with all the suggestions and changes from Linux programmers).

    Another thing people forget about is the MS-funded TransVirtual open-source Java project. Microsoft will likely incorporate TransVirtual Java code into Internet Explorer for Linux, and given TransVirtual's goal of full Sun Java 2.0 compliance, it'll be VERY interesting to see what Scott McNealy has to say if TransVirtual's open source Java VM and compiler is submitted to Sun for Sun compliance testing (especially given the fact that Sun is still reluctant to "open source" Java).

    In short, don't just count out Microsoft just yet. They could literally turn the open source community upside down (and you wonder why Microsoft has opened a major development center in Mountain View, CA--the heart of Linux development).
  • Netscape was a classic example of a naive, technology-driven start-up unable to cope with a leadership position and an excess of capital. AOL has simply saved the remaining Netscape employees from becoming unemployed and picked up a marginally well-trafficked Web site in the process. All the other problems are of Netscape's own making.

    Specifically, they were never able to articulate a compelling technical vision. (c'mon, did *anyone* really think a Web browser was an operating system?) They never shipped a single product that was complete and of sufficient quality to warrant the market share they claimed or the price they charged. They never executed a successful acquisition strategy to do something constructive with the mass of cash they raised in their IPO.

    So in the end, they ended up with a bunch of 3 year old technology, nothing new in the pipeline, no partners or acquisitions to take them in a new direction, and competitors that followed a logical path towards the commoditization of Netscape's entire product line.

    Anyone with an ounce of business sense predicted in 1995 that Web browsers and Web servers would become integral parts of every operating system and ship on all new computers. Where did Netscape think they were going to make money? They can poor-mouth Microsoft all they want, but they simply put themselves out of business if for no other reason than a lack of vision.
  • No, Netscape lost its will to live when Microsoft decided that the web browser market would be a nice thing to own.

    --

  • IE for Solaris (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you take a look, you'll see that IE for Solaris is essentially IE for Windows with Windows API libraries for Solaris. Not native code.
  • AOL can't do that. They'd lose their space on the Windows desktop. That kind of thing doesn't seem like a big deal to us, but it's a major source for new users.

    Maybe once the DoJ is done nailing MS to the floor AOL will start using Netscape.

    --
  • There are at least 10 sources to this article, but /none/ of them are identified in this story! It's a great story, but how can anyone believe it conclusively? ZDNet could have just as easily made the whole thing up!

    Sure, it's believable, since AOL is evil incarnate [/dripping sarcasm] but I just have to say WTF Man, couldn't they have found one person in the rogues' gallery to own up to their statements? If they don't work for Netscape anymore, what the hell do they have to lose?

    J.
  • There's been alot of talk about "inevitable clash of cultures," regarding the AOL-Netscape story, but it didn't have to be that way--it wasn't inevitable. Steve Case and his cronies bear responsibility for driving off some of the best and brightest software developers in the country.

    The reason I say this was avoidable is the way that AOL has managed acquiring Mirabilis and Nullsoft--essentially it has taken a "hands off" approach to both ICQ and Winamp/SHOUTcast. Someone there finally did the right thing and recognized that the users of those products were skeptical of AOL's influence and were worried that AOL ownership would alienate the user bases of each product.

    Maybe the same micromanagement goes own behind the scenes at Mirabilis and Nullsoft but we don't hear about it, but I doubt that's the case. Each of these product lines retains a huge user following that's growing and both are pretty much devoid of AOL branding.

    I wonder how different things would have turned out had AOL seen the catfight with M$ over instant messaging on the horizon. With everyone else out of the way, Billgatus of Borg's newest target for destruction is AOL in the IM arena, and ICQ and AIM are winning the day for AOL so far. If AOL had had the foresight to see a hurculean battle against Microsoft, maybe they would have given the resources and stability to leave Netscape alone and let it do what it did best--make browsers.

    The big question that remains unsanswered is how does AOL's management feel about these departing people? I've always believed that you can replace machines or technology but you can't replace people. Talent, especially in today's hot economy, is a valuable asset that you can't squander or drive off. Okay so it's America and the victor gets the spoils and all that good BS...but I bet there's some relocated Netscape employees that are really making a difference with some other companies out there and are very satisfied with their new endeavors. Ex-Mozilla,org [ex-mozilla.org] is a good place to find out where they are now.
  • There's been alot of talk about "inevitable clash of cultures," regarding the AOL-Netscape story, but it didn't have to be that way--it wasn't inevitable. Steve Case and his cronies bear responsibility for driving off some of the best and brightest software developers in the country.

    The reason I say this was avoidable is the way that AOL has managed acquiring Mirabilis and Nullsoft--essentially it has taken a "hands off" approach to both ICQ and Winamp/SHOUTcast. Someone there finally did the right thing and recognized that the users of those products were skeptical of AOL's influence and were worried that AOL ownership would alienate the user bases of each product.

    Maybe the same micromanagement goes own behind the scenes at Mirabilis and Nullsoft but we don't hear about it, but I doubt that's the case. Each of these product lines retains a huge user following that's growing and both are pretty much devoid of AOL branding.

    I wonder how different things would have turned out had AOL seen the catfight with M$ over instant messaging on the horizon. With everyone else out of the way, Billgatus of Borg's newest target for destruction is AOL in the IM arena, and ICQ and AIM are winning the day for AOL so far. If AOL had had the foresight to see a hurculean battle against Microsoft, maybe they would have given the resources and stability to leave Netscape alone and let it do what it did best--make browsers.

    The big question that remains unsanswered is how does AOL's management feel about these departing people? I've always believed that you can replace machines or technology but you can't replace people. Talent, especially in today's hot economy, is a valuable asset that you can't squander or drive off. Okay so it's America and the victor gets the spoils and all that good BS...but I bet there's some relocated Netscape employees that are really making a difference with some other companies out there and are very satisfied with their new endeavors. Ex-Mozilla.org [ex-mozilla.org] is a good place to find out where they are now.
  • sorry for the comma in Ex-Mozilla.org
  • "Standard support is the BEST of any browser currently out there"

    Big deal they first wiped out the competition and only then could they claim to offer the best support for standards. Just wait two months or so, then mozilla comes out.

    "Java is limited cause it's sand boxed, and already there are efforts to extend it with signatures."

    As far as I know signatures/certificates are in JDK 1.1 and newer version. Java operates in a sandbox by default. With the use of certificates you can allow applets outside the sandbox. I think Java's certificate model is a bit more sophisticated then ie's security model.

    "It looks like just a long list box, but there are advanced features, there are at least 5 different dialogs each with their own dialogs and settings especially for Java. IE allows a flexible range of customization and settings - MUCH more so that Netscape."

    With the default settings, ie is very insecure since vbscript and activex stuff are enabled then.
    Netscape doesn't support these things and doesn't need the complex dialogs to turn them of.

    "Security in some windows components are broken, which cause IE uses, makes IE broken (it's hard to draw the line where IE ends and other things start - ala COM)."

    That's what we call a messy program. Netscape proves that you don't have to do things that way to make a browser so IE's insecurity is inexcusable.
  • While we all may appreciate the concept of not having to deal with making a site compatible with both browsers, is it truly worth it?

    That one is easy. Stick to STANDARIZED HTML. I don't use ANY IE or Netscape extensions, it's just not worth it.

  • IE 4.0 crashed on third page too. There was some problem with the scrolling. The problem spilled over to my other IE windows and stopped when I shut this particular window. Funny. Wierd.
  • They have a long record of being in bed with Microsoft. And they happen to run a very similar story [zdnet.com] about Sun's acquisition of Star Division, citing even more vague sources ("according to sources who claim they obtained their information from researchers with The Gartner Group" - isn't that nice?). So all of this seems just to be the campaign of the week, let's see what's to follow...
  • you find IE5 slow? I assume you're running it on a 486. Get off your wallet man!
  • The Netscape we used to know and love is dead. It's just that simple. Steve Case is evil. A campaign is needed to stop this insanity. Steve makes nearly anything he touches wither and die. AOL is an evil cooperation. I presume Netscape, when restored to sort of normalness, will produce the same crap that AOL software does. I use it. (Not by choice, parents) It shuts down all of the time. I warn you all before upgrading when 5.X or 6.X comes out:It will be different, in an evil sort of way. In conclusion, the underdog known as netscape is dead, just another victim of cooperate greed.
  • I personally am unhappy with both browsers. They are slow, non standards complient, loaded with crap I do not need in a web browser, and crash all the time.

    You can still get the standalone Navigator from their ftp servers. I quite like Navigator but I don't really like the extras that are added in to form Communicator (I mean, I have Emacs!) so I just stick with the original. I will be getting up to speed with Mozilla on Solaris and Linux soon and I'm hoping to switch over when it supports my fairly limited web needs.

    Chris Morgan
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Let's take a look at your scenario. Micros~1 releases a browser for Linux. It is:
    1. Decent
    2. Open Source
    3. GPL'ed
    How would this be anything other than good? Sure, it might contribute greatly to the death of Netscape, but who would care at that point? We'd have a decent open-source GPL'ed browser! Any problems (e.g. standards non-compliance, useless bloat) could be fixed, and the fixes could be distibuted thanks to the hypothetical licensing.

    The only real problem with your scenario is that it will never happen.

  • The article is FUD.

    Don't you find it curious that a whole series of stories like this have appeared just prior to the release of Netscape 5.0? Don't you find it strange that, according to the comments, 90% of Windows supporters want to see Netscape dead? Does it make sense? Why would the average Windows user care?

    The story is part of Microsoft's ongoing campaign to kill Netscape and leave Microsoft with a near-monopoly in the web browser market. If Microsoft succeeds, then technological progress on the Net will slow to a crawl, because any innovation will have to come from Microsoft.

    The Mozilla project is progressing nicely. Those who claim that Mozilla's progress has been slow are either showing a high degree of ignorance, or have an ulterior motive. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that, after giving up on trying to improve the original Netscape code, the Mozilla team has basically rewritten the browser from scratch in less than a year. It's an amazing accomplishment!
  • It amazing. Instead of hiring people who were with the www at its inception, perl and lisp scripting merrilly, the market has started hiring more and more people who know VBScript so that Microsoft's precious IIS can deliver those "customized" *.asp pages. We have been able to do the same damn trick since the HTTP standard was released, sure maybe we couldn't use OLE to link up to a nother MS SQL database but who gives a rats ass
  • Surely it can't be made truely open source, even if M$ tried to, for practical reasons. The "viral" nature of the GPL and other similar licenses would mean that code changes in the linux version couldn't be fed back into the (main) win32 IE as that would force win32 IE to adopt an open source license (unless I'm misinterpreting the GPL). Microsoft would, understandably, be unwilling to do this, and hence the two version's of IE would become separate entities- No bad thing IMHO, but unlikely to be welcomed by a company such as Microsoft, for both profit-making and support reasons.

    just my 2hundreths of your local currency unit...
  • .... that Netscape is not Mozilla :)

    Netscape is kindof irrelevant these days, they may be dead (and as far as I am concerned, they have been dead for a good 12 months), but mozilla is alive and well.

    I tried out one of the nightly builds a couple of days ago, and it really has come a long way... even since milestone 9 :)

    at this rate, we should have a decent usable browser in early 2000 :)

    smash
  • Interestingly, my browser (Netscape 4.61) crashed on the third page of the report - not once or twice, but four times. Guess it just didn't want to read about the slow demise of its parent company :)

    Opera 3.60 seemed to handle it fine. I can't wait for the linux release.


  • Big deal they first wiped out the competition and only then could they claim to offer the best support for standards. Just wait two months or so, then mozilla comes out

    Big deal? The original post said IE was bad at standards.
    Pst. Netscape never had the same level of standards IE4/5 had nor did they even attempt it until IE4 came out and killed them on technical levels.



    That's what we call a messy program. Netscape proves that you don't have to do things that way to make a browser so IE's insecurity is inexcusable.

    Uh. Yeah, you can not COMPONENTISE things, not reuse code and not add advanced features if you want to.
    "messy" is what I'd call netscape.

    Why do you think they threw away the old source and started a new new componentised model...funnily enough, they based it on COM.
  • Besides wanting the Netcenter hits, AOL had a reason that made it imperative to buy Netscape:

    AOL needed to ensure the survival of the Netscape browser.

    AOL knows that Microsoft wants their business. They also know their history, for example, they know that Microsoft has used Windows in ways that tended to sabotage Microsoft's competitors (e.g. DR-DOS and WordPerfect).

    Consider this quote from Bill Gates:

    "You never sent me a response on the question of what things an app would do that would make it run with MSDOS and not run DR-DOS. Is there any version check or api they fail to have? Is ther feature they have that might get in our way? I am not looking for something they cant get around. I am looking for something their current binary fails on."

    Or, consider this quote from Microsoft's Brad Chase:

    "We will bind the shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experience."

    If Netscape disappeared, and AOL was left dependent on IE, how long would it be before AOL's customers found it a "jolting experience" to surf the Net, while MSN's customers found it smooth as silk?
  • Whaddya mean, they don't have Microsoft's resources to make up for zero revenue? AOL has buckets of money, and considering that they need some kind of UI for thier service, you'd think they'd be happy to spend it on their own product, rather than license IE technology from MS.
  • Because Internet Explorer for Linux will be open source, that bunch of 1,000 Linux programmers will be able to suggest changes that will improve it rapidly. Microsoft could make like quarterly releases of IE for Linux on CD-ROM (with all the suggestions and changes from Linux programmers).

    Availability of source code does'nt mean a theorical IE on Linux would gather much developper. Look at Sun with their pseudo-OS Solaris : are they're thousand of developper contributing to Solaris code ?

    Beside that, I doubt that MS could release anything remotely open-source ...
  • Microsoft could easily direct its resources to create a Linux version (written under GPL guidelines) that will effectively finish off Netscape once and for all.

    I would love for Microsoft to do this. But they won't. The reason so many people hate Microsoft is that they don't "play nice". Doing what you suggest would be "playing nice". It won't happen.

    If, through some miracle, it does happen, then great! MSIE does have some nice features, and the standard benefits of Open Source Software would still apply. By going OSS, MS would relinquish control to the users. That would be a Good Thing. So I hope they do so.

    I find it entirely more likely that Microsoft would release a closed, binary-only port of MSIE for Linux, in the hopes of driving Mozilla out of the picture. Once Mozilla has fallen behind, Microsoft could then drop MSIE on Linux, leaving Linux users out in the cold.
  • have you ever looked at the security options in IE? ... IE allows a flexible range of customization and settings - MUCH more so that Netscape.

    While I agree with Microsoft's design here in theory, in practice, there have been countless holes discovered in these settings, which make them useless.
  • How long have you been involved in the desktop Internet scene? I was installing Internet for thousands of clients in 1993 for $20 (CAN) a month (200 hours access). We distributed Netscape 1.0 and then 1.1N ... if it hadn't been for Netscape, we wouldn't have had a service to sell. Internet explorer 1.0 (and even 2.0) weren't worth the 'free'ness they were bundled for. Sure, MS caught up and I'm not here for the browser wars, but Netscape made the Internet what it is today, not Microsoft. Sure, they've fallen behind the times, but many of us remember the Netscape that got us really moving. Yes, there were browsers before; there was even Lynx. However, those didn't push the limits like Netscape did ... if you can't think of reasons Netscape should be honoured, you just weren't watching what happened.

    - Michael T. Babcock <homepage [linuxsupportline.com]>

  • Flash, attention-grabbing story...but inaccurate! (Score:5)

    by elig ( 100430 ) on Saturday November 13, 1999 @08:53AM (#1537212) Homepage
    Having lived through all of what the author describes, this article simply distorts Netscape's past year of history in order to create a flashy, attention-grabbing story --- even if it's of questionable accuracy.

    1. Attrition: Yes, people have burned out and left Netscape. But, you know what? New, enthusiastic employees of equal or greater caliber --- excited about the work that's being done at Netscape, and already trained from hacking on the Mozilla source code --- have come back to replace them in full force. The net effect is zero.

    2. Netscape culture: Guess what? For most employees, the culture *hasn't* appreciably changed. Employees' dogs and children still have company badges, and we drink all the beer we want. ;) Yeah, it takes a few months to order a new computer, and we see an AOL logo at company meetings. So what? Personally, I think AOL is a great company to work for, whether perceived as "cool" or not.

    3. 5.0 Release Date: The author provides no evidence that the turnover has resulted in the one year delay in the Communicator 5 beta. Which is convenient --- because no cause and effect relationship exists between these two events. As many Mozillans have pointed out already in far more detail, the delay came about from a ground-up rearchitecting of the entire product. (And anyone who is bothered by this can go to http://www.mozilla.org and help ship a browser; whining here won't do jacksquat.)

    4. Barry Schuler's comments: I attended that meeting. Barry **never** made these comments. He was, however, busily serving up a barbeque after the meeting, as Mr. Barksdale himself would have done. (Another AOL executive, in fact, did make these comments, but the journalist is, in my opinion grossly stripping the comments out of their intended context, which would have been obvious had he attended the meeting.)

    Based exclusively on my personal experiences, it looks to me as if this journalist sought to write an article about a topic, and then wedged the facts to fit his original preconceptions. We ain't dead yet. ;)

    --- elig@prometheus-music.com's personal $.02.
  • Yep. You are misinterpreting the situation totally. There are several fatal flaws in your ramblings.
    • Not all open source licences are copylefts
    • You can quite easily dual-licence software under two different licenses

    The real reason M$ won't licence any of their software under an open source licence, is quite mystifying. I guess it must be due to them all being evil borg, or something.

  • As an ex-Netscape employee, a lot of (well, nearly all of..) the article rang true. Especially the part about Netcenter, with which I'm most familiar.

    I recognized very specifically who said some of the anonymous quotes. It was a tad eerie.

  • "The original post said IE was bad at standards."

    And they are right, it is. IE 5 is not HTML 4.0 compliant, does not conform to the XML 1.0 standard, makes a mess out of CSS 1.0, not to mention CSS 2.0, has a proprietary version of XSL.

    The fact that netscape does not implement those standards is not relevant because it does not claim to do so.

    I never said netscape was a good program, worse, I'm using ie 5 right now for the simple reason its better than ns 4.

    "Uh. Yeah, you can not COMPONENTISE things, not reuse code and not add advanced features if you want to. "messy" is what I'd call netscape."

    Agreed, they're both messy programs. But just wrapping your code in activeX doesn't make it any better. MS stuff has way to many dependencies on the lower level OS hence its poor security.

    BTW. strange senctence: you cannot ... unless you want to.

    As far as I know mozilla is crossplatform which means it is definately not based on COM. Probably they use some sort of ORB that resembles COM. At this point I would like to point out that MS did not invent COM, it's just a classical example of their embrace and extend policy. COM in it self is not evil but the stuff they put on top of it at MS is.

  • (Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs! Don't forget the http://!)
    --------------------------------------- ----
  • Now if only Corel would jump into the browser competition like it has the OS, Office, and Drafting worlds, then I would be happy... Do you realize that Corel is aligning themselves to compete / replace microsoft on nearly every front but this one?

    -Woil.
  • Hmmm... Here's an equally true statement:

    Netscape Navigator is not done properly. Standard support is poor, and undoubtedly the code implementing it is shoddy.

    Security in Navigator has repeatedly been shown to be badly broken, and almost certainly not an integral part of the design.

    The idea that digital signatures can protect a user from malicious code is ludicrous. (Netscape has this feature too.)

    Yawn.
    --
  • Well quite honestly.. I'd have to say Netscape killed Netscape. Lack of vision, lack of conforming to standards, lack of interest in forming OEM relationships. Netscape literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, they _were_ the monopoly in the browser market..and they let Microsoft chew them up and spit them back out. Netscape was dead before AOL bought them. Now of course some people are angry at microsoft for making IE free...well let me ask you something, Gimp is free, Gimp is similar to Photoshop, a commercial product that costs quite a bundle. Gimp is packaged with most Linux distributions (if not all?) Is Gimp evil? Netscape should've created other sources of revenue. Also notice that we now have two competing browsers that are _free_ as opposed to having one browser that was not. The consumer benefitted from competition. If you believe netscape should've remained the monopoly..well don't point fingers at Microsoft then. Now the issue here is "What comes next?" AOL does have gigantic resources to use in competition with MS, not only are they a wealthy company, but they also command the largest Internet user base. After their contract expires in 2001 (?) They should be able to dump their new AOL-Netscape browser onto every one of their customers which could shift the playing field overnight.
  • Hold on to your hats, because I'm about to offer what appears to be a real commodity here on Slashdot: an informed opinion. I worked for Netscape from 95-99. I was there. Were you? That being said, keep in mind that this is my opinion. (#include ) The most prophetic thing I ever heard about Netscape was that it was eventually going to be a Harvard Business Study. From what I understand about those studies, that isn't very complimentary. Casting aside the inflamatory excesses of the ZDnet article, there are only two reasons why Netscape is in the position that they are in now: mismanagement and poor product quality. In that order. That should tell you something (i.e. mismanagement engenders poor product quality). I've read some comments in this thread that stated it was "wrong" for Netscape to consider the browser a "platform". Well, if we didn't convince you, we certainly convinced Microsoft. The Dept. of Justice was also able to convince Judge Jackson for us. (For those who haven't, those findings of fact are _great_ reading.) Let me let you all in on a little secret: the "Browser Wars" were/are a creation of the media and user communities. Boiled down to the purest fundamentals, our strategy was to create a networked computing "platform". Market share, especially after MS started doing their nasty, was only of marginal interest. We were trying to do something completely different. (And they are trying again with 5.0/Mozilla.) What? The "Browser Wars" didn't happen? Nonsense! I must be an idiot! How can I say that? Well, it's pretty easy, though many in the Slashdot/Linux community don't realize it. The fact is that there is a significant difference between "geek" computing and "consumer" computing. Consumers don't care about standards compliance. Consumers don't care about plugins and extenstions. Consumers care about one thing: they want what they're using to work and they don't care how. They were the target for the new platform. Our efforts were directed primarliy at them. For a whole host of reasons (mismanagement and poor quality), we were unable to achieve this. MS was, irrespective of the underhanded and illegal crap they did to make sure they were able to. Yes, as an engineer I agree that standards compliance would be a wonderful thing. There are several problems, though. The main one being I don't think developers (not just in the OSS community) don't know what they mean by the term "standards compliance". Do you know how many ambiguities are in the average standards document? (More than there should be.) What happens when the biggest fish in the pond (i.e. MS) zigs, and the rest of the community zags? This is what I think of when I hear people whining for "standards compliance": developers want their code to work and they don't care how. Does that sound like the above definition of a consumer? Bingo! It should. Achieving true standards compliance will take a lot more activism than the community is putting out. About that activism for a moment. For all the adulation Netscape/AOL got for starting the Mozilla project, the amount of useful work that has come from outside the company doesn't measure up. Sorry to burst your bubble, guys, but according to my still-connected comrades there are at most a dozen or two useful outside contributors. Most of the people who blindly assert that Open Source == Good do like to look at the code and _maybe_ tweak it for their own purposes, but the truth is that there is a high barrier to entry into the community because the source tree is an undocumented rats nest. So where are the people to document it? (More than the current 'Find the Design Patterns' thingy that's happenning.) Where are the thousands of people to QA? There's a lot more to QA than just swiping the bits and complaining about bugs. Open Source is not automatically good. It only matters if there is an active community that sincerely cares and goes out of it's way to allow newcomers to contribute without alpha-male "I'm elite and you're not," posturing. I'm firmly convinced that the success of any open source project is directly proportional to the extent that it fosters a "good" community. The Mozilla Project would not exist if AOL didn't pay the salaries of the majority of engineers who work on it. I'm sorry but that's not my definition of a "good" community. Two things have to happen if open source is to be more than a flash in the pan. The first is that the community has to realize that consumers don't care how things work. This is hard because it is fundamental to geek nature to care about how things work. The second thing is that enough socialization has to take place to end posturing, encourage newcomers, and understand that not all work can be sexy. The Mozilla project has a lot of thankless work that needs to be done. For those that truly care about their computing environment and open development communities, try to contribute whatever you can whenever you can. You may not get the reward and recognition you want, but when people talk about how great the new open source browser is, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you contributed. Having volunteered in areas outside the open source community, that feeling is more valuable than our whacked capitalist^100 culture makes it out to be.
  • Added to which, Netcenter has basically fallen off of the map in term of portals (not that it was ever a real threat to the established players),

    Netcenter is still one of the top 5 sites on the internet in terms of hits. How can you say that it's fallen off the map. It gets more hits the /. ever will.

    -Brent
    --

  • I can't believe the amount of negative posts about Netscape in this topic. The story itself was already crap but it looks like all the backstabbers are busy this weekend. I can't but wonder if some ACs are here to try to boost opinions that Netscape lost because of an inferior product.

    Now let's have a reality check. Netscape is not about Communicator anymore. It's been about Mozilla [mozilla.org] already for more than a year. Sure they have released new versions of Communicator, but all the hard development and hopes are on Mozilla. And believe me, Mozilla is looking better and better every day. Just grab a nightly build from ftp.mozilla.org [mozilla.org] and see with your own eyes.

    Mozilla has been built from ground up. It's well designed and has some really ground breaking code. It's already faster than IE and there's still a lot to optimize. The nightly build for win32 is just 5,2 MB. Compare that to the 18,1 MB bloat of Communicator and tens of megs of MSIE. Those who have programmed know that the bigger the executable, the more it contains ugly spaghetti code. Mozilla is also perfect for cell phones and hand held devices as it's small, componentized and runs on a free OS. That gives Mozilla a difinite edge compared to MSIE.

    We've been patiently waiting for Mozilla for a year already. Now that Mozilla is getting close to ready, we get to read all these horror stories about Netscape being dead. It's just FUD and if you read the Findings of Fact [gpo.gov]-document, you don't have to be a genious to figure out who's feeding these news. But it doesn't matter what ZDNet, Gartner or Microsoft say. Mozilla will ship within 2-3 months and it will be a great product.

  • Of course Microsoft must've also hacked the macos, solaris, irix, linux, and whatnot kernels to include the "make Netscape suck" option.

    The quality of Netscape on non-microsoft platforms certainly may be something to debate about, but it's certainly not anything more then your opinion that Netscape sucks on other platforms. Certainly there are many people who believe that IE on Solaris and HP sucks worse.

    But it is fact, as documented in the FoF that Judge Jackson released, that Microsoft intentionally made it a "jolting" experience when users tried to use Netscape as the default browser under Windows. So maybe MS didn't make it suck, but the certainly did make it hard for you to make it the default browser on Windows. I know for one that it isn't a problem to make Netscape the default browser on Linux.

    -Brent
    --
  • I had inside experience with Netscape before AOL gobbled them up. It wasn't a very pretty sight. Netscape couldn't finish any products--they would often cancel them right after a big we're-making-the-best-thing-since-sliced-bread gala. The Netscape that most people think of had already died out long before AOL came along.
  • I can't see Netscape winning back the browser wars. They have just pissed their market share away and haven't made much of an effort to remain competitive. Maybe Mozilla can change this, but I wouldn't bet on it.

    Maybe you could elaborate on this. I see Mozilla as a *huge* effort to stay competitive.

    This is a market where the main competitor doesn't play by the rules. How do you think Netscape should have competed?

    I think that be redefining the market, and then making as much effort to create that market, is the best thing that Netscape should have done. By taking the time to have a solid Mozilla project, that is the best way to compete that there is.

    -Brent
    --
  • All this crap from ZDET really means is that the division between Windows Users and Non-Windows users is growing faster and deeper which is something that is seeming more and more to scare the hell out of the IE/Windows-boosting crowd, because it really means that any "standards" from Microsoft most likely won't be supported outside of MS.

    The fevor of both the Windows users, and the Linux users is getting to the fanatical level of religous bigotry. Pretty soon it'll be taboo to talk about religion, politics, and what OS you use. The pro-Microsoft arguments have especially been getting worse and worse lately, with the debate not being over concrete things, but just abstract ideas. IE is better then Netscape because the moon is full tonight. Nay-yay-yah!!!

    Chrome Effects was an example of this

    Oh, did I miss something important? What is Chrome Effects?

    -Brent
    --
  • Hmmm... Here's an equally true statement:

    Yep, but that Netscape code is going away anyways, so it doesn't matter. And most of those issues didn't exist when the browser was first developed meaning that there basically had to be kludges to get them in.

    However, that's no big deal, because we have Mozilla now. Mozilla was written from scratch with all these issues in mind, so it implements them in a documentably superiour manner.

    -Brent
    --
  • So you don't believe Microsoft engages in FUD campaigns, and other unethical behaviour?

    Here are some Microsoft quotes for you . . .

    Microsoft's Brad Silverberg re DR-DOS:

    "We are engaged in a FUD campaign to let the press know about some of the bugs. We'll provide info a few bugs at a time to stretch it out."

    Microsoft analysis paper re DR-DOS:

    "On the PR side, we have begun an 'aggressive leak campaign' for MS-DOS 5.0. The goal is to build anticipation for MS-DOS 5.0, and diffuse potential excitement/momentum from the DR DOS 5.0 announcement."

    Microsoft PR plan re DR-DOS:

    "Objectives: FUD DR DOS with every editorial contact made."

    Microsoft's Brad Silverberg re DR-DOS:

    "What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has bugs, suspect that the problem is dr-dos and then go out to buy ms-dos. or decide not to take the risk for all the other machines he has to buy for in the office."

    Microsoft J++ Pricing Proposal re Java:

    The "strategic objective" is to "kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market."

    Memo re Java:

    "at this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps."

    Microsoft's Vinod Valloppillil re Linux:

    "OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market."

    Microsoft's James Allchin re Netscape:

    "I don't understand how IE is going to win. The current path is simply to copy everything that Netscape does packaging and product wise. Let's [suppose] IE is as good as Navigator/Communicator. Who wins? The one with 80% market share. Maybe being free helps us, but once people are used to a product it is hard to change them. Consider Office. We are more expensive today and we're still winning. My conclusion is that we must leverage Windows more. Treating IE as just an add-on to Windows which is cross-platform [means] losing our biggest advantage -- Windows marketshare. We should dedicate a cross group team to come up with ways to leverage Windows technically more. . . . We should think about an integrated solution -- that is our strength."

    Microsoft's James Allchin re Netscape:

    "Pitting browser against browser is hard since Netscape has 80% marketshare and we have [less than] 20%. . . . I am convinced we have to use Windows -- this is the one thing they don't have. . . . We have to be competitive with features, but we need something more -- Windows integration."

    "If you agree that Windows is a huge asset, then it follows quickly that we are not investing sufficiently in finding ways to tie IE and Windows together."

    Microsoft's Paul Maritz on Netscape:

    The major reason for this is . . . to combat Nscp, we have to [] position the browser as "going away" and do deeper integration on Windows.

    Microsoft's Christian Wildfeuer on Netscape:

    "The stunning insight is this: To make [users] switch away from Netscape, we need to make them upgrade to Memphis. . . . It seems clear to me that it will be very hard to increase browser market share on the merits of IE 4 alone. It will be more important to leverage the OS asset to make people use IE instead of Navigator."

    Microsoft executive re Netscape:

    Content drives browser adoption, and we need to go to the top five sites and ask them, "What can we do to get you to adopt IE?" We should be prepared to write a check, buy sites, or add features -- basically do whatever it takes to drive adoption.

    Microsoft's Brad Chase re Netscape:

    "We will bind the shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experience."


    Yep. Just honest-to-goodness competition on the merits of their products -- in a pig's eye.

    Sources:

    DR-DOS Case - Consolidated Statement of Facts:

    http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html

    Java Case - Motion for Preliminary Injunction:

    http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/051498.unfair.html

    Linux - Halloween Document:

    http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.h tml

    DOJ Case - Findings of Fact:

    http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html
  • ie5, on the other hand, no matter what you say, is fast and it barely ever crashes. yes, you heard me right, it barely EVER crashes.

    I use IE 5 on Windows because I've found that using Netscape 4.7 was a "jolting" experience. However, IE 5 crashes or otherwise chokes up at least once a week on me. But that's okay, because I'm only using it until Mozilla is released.

    -Brent
    --
  • Its happening. One of the greatest things I have seen is the separation of rendering engine from the application. The KDE html rendering component is being ported to bonobo and wrappers for mozilla is already underway IIRC. With HTML rendering everywhere will give GNU a truly web desktop... the right way I because of the nature of open development.

    Also there is mnemonic. If you are extreme web surfer dude you won't care about mnemonic. But the mnemonic project is looking to do a very extensable browser interface. They want to do HTML, XML, TeX, MathML, etc. And I don't think it is tied to GUI.

    GZilla is coming along nicely I think. Then there is Lynx which is a viable alternative right now. I use it consistantly and the only reason I use netscape occasionally is because too many web developers don't care about text-only users...

    Then there is emacs/w3. I haven't been able to get this one to work but I hear it has impressive CSS support.

    Just remember this when considering Bazaar development. Programmers program because it is interesting and not for production value. Just because we have two great desktops doesn't mean we won't have another superfluous desktop or ten more. Same thing goes for every other free software project. If it is interesting it will be done, how much it benefits our revolution is often beside the point.

    Nothing is more important than the hack.

    ***Beginning*of*Signiture***
    Linux? That's GNU/Linux [gnu.org] to you mister!
  • Just because some people find they need to upload/download pictures of themselves and others and their dogs doesn't mean they have no right to the bandwidth. If they pay for it then they can do what they want with it. Many people don't need computers but they have them, I would rather have them use AOL and call tech support than have them call me so I can explain TCP/IP to them.
  • OK, your making pretty much the same point I did:
    Mozilla uses a ms com like orb but ms did not invent it.

    About the technical advantages of COM, sure it is convenient that you make a COM component of anything. This includes Java classes (through a bridge).

    But why would people want to use RMI when they have COM? Apart from its platform independence, RMI can do some stuff COM cannot: download classes from a remote spot, serialize objects over a network connection and some other stuff. All this at the cost of language independence.

    Likewise, JINI can use the same mechanisms to do cool stuff you simply cannot do with COM.

    So a language dependency has the great advantage that you can do language specific stuff.

    "Microsoft are big and considered evil, but they really do have some pretty neat technologies, and they manage to integrate them well into the windows api (giving them away free)."

    I don't really think discussing companies in terms of good and evil makes much sense and of course MS did some neat stuff. I don't think COM is neat, though. A lot of win32 programmers seem to be really impressed with it but from where I'm standing its just a very simple ORB with lots of stuff strapped on top of it. I've seen much more impressive stuff like CORBA and voyager and considering this, MS could have pulled out something more advanced if they had taken the time to do the research & development instead of hacking a simple RPC mechanism on top of OLE.

    Of course even a simple ORB allows you to do some neat distributed programming but that's not the point.

    That's exactly the reason why the mozilla team used a COM like orb. It's relatively simple to implement, small, fast and provides what they need. I'm sure if rpc would have been in the requirements they would have chosen something more heavier: CORBA.
  • You're forgetting that MS doesn't have to release IE under the GPL. It is perfectly free to continue to use its standard proprietary license. And there is no requirement that IE be any more `decent' than it is today: enough people like IE just the way it is, and it is just those people would make it a serious contender for the Linux browser market.
  • Um, last time I checked, most iPlanet products were picking up where the Netscape ones left off. Most of the "migrations" such as they are, are going to be from the discontinued Sun products. Let's look at that:
    • Directory server. It's an LDAPv3 server with LDIF support. Migrating to the Netscape/iPlanet product won't take long at all.

    • Mail server. Sun's mail server is a POP3/SMTP/IMAP server with no particularly special features. It authenticates against an LDAP server. THe Netscape/iPlanet mail server is a POP3/SMTP/IMAP server with a few special features. It authenticates against an LDAP server. Migration of mailboxes should consist of a few Net::IMAP perl scripts.

    • Web server. Sun's non-Java webserver is nothing special, and nobody of note uses it anyway. Moving CGIs written for it (which is about all it can do) won't take much. And Sun's Java Webserver is a Servlet 2.0 webserver with sub-1.0 JSP support. The Netscape/iPlanet Enterprise Server supports 2.0 servlets and sub-1.0 JSP. No code will likely have to change to move to this. The big deal, such as it is, is learning a new admin tool and config file format.

    • Application server. This is as much of a trouble spot as there will be. In essence, the iPlanet Application Server is going to be the Kiva/Netscape engine combined with the NetDynamics tools. So NetDynamics customers might have a bit of a hump to get over, but nothing much worse than what most EJB appserver customers go through in order to take advantage of new revs of the APIs.


    As a customer of both companies, this doesn't seem bad at all. I've seen worse upgrade headaches from a single vendor. What are Sun's customers pissed about with regard to their server software? They've got the most popular commercial Unix out there, and some of the best hardware and hardware support around. Their own server software line was never that popular in the first place, and moving customers from one standards-compliant server software line to another isn't bad at all.

    Yeah, iPlanet == Sun, but it's not like changing the brand name means the underlying products came out of nowhere.

    Are you a paying customer of either? Personally, I'd rather use OpenLDAP, Cyrus, and an EJB appserver that plays nice with Apache. But as a customer of both Sun and Netscape over the years, I think the Sun adoption of the Netscape server product line is good news.
  • Yeah. That was smart of them. Now they got Active desktop, web folders, HTML help, etc. in Windows 98. Even an application my mom uses uses the IE component.

    But I see more potential with Free Software. Bonobo technology, for instance will let you embed graphics into the filemanager, icon lists into a spreadsheet, spreadsheets onto the desktop, etc. I think KDE is a ways ahead in this technology (I saw a screenshot of Konqueror with an embeded terrminal).

    I think with Free Software, this technology will probably be used more. I think the idea of embedding things on the desktop is a very intriguing idea. Who needs wallpaper when you can embed a graphic. We can even mimic ActiveDesktop with a Mozilla or KHTML componetent.

    Ah, the possibilities.

    ***Beginning*of*Signiture***
    Linux? That's GNU/Linux [gnu.org] to you mister!

Slashdot Top Deals

What this country needs is a good five cent microcomputer.

Close