«

dantu wrote:

> Keith Bowes wrote:
>
>
>>dantu wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Um, AOL didnt acquire Netscape until 24 November 1998 well after the
>>>advent of 4.5
>>>The Mozilla.org project also predates the merger.
>>
>>
>>I was a little fuzzy on the details. Thanks for correcting this
>>slight misinformation.
>>
>>
>>>the release of Netscape 6 (based on Mozilla prior to the 1.0
>>>milestone) was much delayed. And then when it did come out, it was a
>>>horrible flop, due to it being based on a product that was in effect
>>>a beta product at the time.
>>
>>
>>Yes, but the rendering engine was still superior to Netscape 4.x
>>(since about M10, probably). Also, Netscape should have had seven or
>>eight pre-releases.
>>
>>
>>>Netscape 5 was supposed to be based on the open source of
>>>Communicator upgrade. When that fell thru, the version was changed to
>>>6 when the not then ready Mozilla product was rushed to market.
>>
>>
>>Now, that is the part of the story that I find hard to believe. They
>>should either admit they did it for marketing reasons or explain the
>>discrepancies.
>>
>>
>>>In short, AOL bought the future and then found the
>>>future wasnt what it thought it would be.
>>
>>
>>I have no problem with AOL discontinuing Netscape, since Mozilla will
>>always be ahead (and, AFAIK, is more widely used than Netscape) and
>>Netscape has that whole notoriety thing. But it is the decision to
>>discontinue it immediately after getting license to use IE that raises
>>suspicion. As with the versioning, they seem to be omitting certain
>>truths.
>>
>>
>>>The latest stable release is 1.5.1 actually.
>>
>>
>>Another product of ambiguity. 1.4.1 (I forgot about this minor update
>>in my original post) is actually the latest stable version, as in what
>>is recommended for use. The latest stable build as far as program
>>stability is concerned is the latest nightly build. Either way,
>>anyone who wants something that just works should avoid Firebird.
>>
>
>
> Keith
>
> Of course the rendering agent was superior in 6, it was
> Gecko! The same rendering engine in use today
>
> Admit what? That the planned use of Communicator as an open source fell
> thru? Thats a matter of public record.
> See
>
>
>>http://www.catb.org/%7Eesr/writings/...r/ar01s13.html
>
>
>
> This is what fell through and work had to begin afresh on an entirely
> new program, what we now know as Mozilla. The first six months or so,
> trying to base things on Communicator open source had to be thrown out.
> The problems with using Communicator as a source was that not all parts
> of the code were Netscape's (parts were licensed from other developers)
> and over the years the code had been so enhanced by so many, that it was
> very difficult to follow. It was just simpler to throw everything out
> and start anew. This is a big part in the delay to get a new browser
> out, which led to the premature release of Netscape 6 of course.
> What do they have to explain? Netscape 5 (which never existed really)
> was suppossed to be based on an open source development of the
> Communicator code. When that turned out to be non doable, the emphasis
> was switched to creating an entirely new program from scratch, and this
> program begat Netscape 6 (based on Mozilla .87 thru .94) and then
> Netscape 7 (Mozilla 1.02 and later)
>
> the release of Netscape 6 was totally premature, it was rushed to market
> to suit the marketing types, who wanted something to show to clients
> (mostly commercial clients who had Netscape 4x releases - who then went
> elsewhere, 6 being what it was)
> Most of the developers, and testers who had any input to the project
> were adamant that it should at least be called a BETA product, but once
> again the marketing types over ruled, and Netscape 6 was born. They
> even persuaded Netscape (the portal) to tout it as a 'replacement' for
> Communicator. 6 was based on .87 and .94 of Mozilla and was really
> totally unsuitable for a end user program at that point.
>
> Even marketing belatedly admitted this when they decided to rename the
> Netscape product based on Mozilla 1x Netscape 7, an effort to distance
> the product from the dismal failure that was Netscape 6
>
> Um who is hiding what truths Keith?
> AOL doesnt own Mozilla, it never did. Mozilla does its own thing.
> AOL did plan to have its Netscape (browser) division base further
> products on the Mozilla products, outfitted with AIM, ICQ and Netscape
> (portal) mail links, and this is what AOL finally closed down.
> As to why they did, one can only speculate, AOL isnt saying exactly all
> the factors that went into the decision. The fact that AOL convinced MS
> to give them a long term license was a known fact prior to the
> announcement of Netscapes demise. Sure it was a contributing factor,
> but it wasnt the only factor in the decision.
>
> No, Mozilla 1.5.1 is the latest stable release
> See
> http://www.mozilla.org/
>
> 1.5 is listed as the product, l.6 is listed as a technology preview.
> (1.5.1 is a Mac only build off the stable 1.5)
> See
> http://www.mozilla.org/products/
>
> 1.4 isnt even listed on the products page, its been replaced by 1.5
>
> Firebird .7 is a development
> Thunderbird .4 is development as well
>
>

Too confusing for mere mortals. The Mozilla nomenclature derives from a
development architecture. People who seek, either at Walmart or via
online, actual "stuff" they want to buy or use can't follow it. If
Mozilla wants to be anything other than a niche oddity it needs to
change its public persona. Hell, I follow this stuff and I'm confused.

I couldn't care less what any company or organization calls any internal
project; pick a name, call it anything. I don't care. But, when you
put it out there, alpha, beta, test, release, free, pay to play,
anything, label it in a sensible manner. To do anything else is
marketing suicide.

And what the hell is the difference between Mozilla 1.4.1 Stable Release
and Mozilla 1.5 Release? Aside from the feature and bug resolution
differences? I mean, what the hell is is the difference between a
"stable release" and "release?" Jesus, no wonder the average person
runs screaming from this software.

Listen, lest anyone get their underwear all in a twist, yes, I'm a
Mozilla Champion. I love the software. I try to help others who are
trying to figure it out. But that doesn't mean I think it's without
flaws, nor that I think the folks who manage it are totally clued into
the marketing of it.

Just my three cents.


--
Ed Mullen - Mozilla Champion
http://edmullen.net
http://edmullen.net/moz.html
Can you buy anything specific at a general store?

Ed Mullen wrote:

>dantu wrote:
>
>
>
>>Keith Bowes wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>dantu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Um, AOL didnt acquire Netscape until 24 November 1998 well after the
>>>>advent of 4.5
>>>>The Mozilla.org project also predates the merger.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I was a little fuzzy on the details. Thanks for correcting this
>>>slight misinformation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>the release of Netscape 6 (based on Mozilla prior to the 1.0
>>>>milestone) was much delayed. And then when it did come out, it was a
>>>>horrible flop, due to it being based on a product that was in effect
>>>>a beta product at the time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Yes, but the rendering engine was still superior to Netscape 4.x
>>>(since about M10, probably). Also, Netscape should have had seven or
>>>eight pre-releases.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Netscape 5 was supposed to be based on the open source of
>>>>Communicator upgrade. When that fell thru, the version was changed to
>>>>6 when the not then ready Mozilla product was rushed to market.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Now, that is the part of the story that I find hard to believe. They
>>>should either admit they did it for marketing reasons or explain the
>>>discrepancies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In short, AOL bought the future and then found the
>>>>future wasnt what it thought it would be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I have no problem with AOL discontinuing Netscape, since Mozilla will
>>>always be ahead (and, AFAIK, is more widely used than Netscape) and
>>>Netscape has that whole notoriety thing. But it is the decision to
>>>discontinue it immediately after getting license to use IE that raises
>>>suspicion. As with the versioning, they seem to be omitting certain
>>>truths.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The latest stable release is 1.5.1 actually.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Another product of ambiguity. 1.4.1 (I forgot about this minor update
>>>in my original post) is actually the latest stable version, as in what
>>>is recommended for use. The latest stable build as far as program
>>>stability is concerned is the latest nightly build. Either way,
>>>anyone who wants something that just works should avoid Firebird.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Keith
>>
>> Of course the rendering agent was superior in 6, it was
>>Gecko! The same rendering engine in use today
>>
>>Admit what? That the planned use of Communicator as an open source fell
>>thru? Thats a matter of public record.
>>See
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://www.catb.org/%7Eesr/writings/...r/ar01s13.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This is what fell through and work had to begin afresh on an entirely
>>new program, what we now know as Mozilla. The first six months or so,
>>trying to base things on Communicator open source had to be thrown out.
>>The problems with using Communicator as a source was that not all parts
>>of the code were Netscape's (parts were licensed from other developers)
>>and over the years the code had been so enhanced by so many, that it was
>>very difficult to follow. It was just simpler to throw everything out
>>and start anew. This is a big part in the delay to get a new browser
>>out, which led to the premature release of Netscape 6 of course.
>>What do they have to explain? Netscape 5 (which never existed really)
>>was suppossed to be based on an open source development of the
>>Communicator code. When that turned out to be non doable, the emphasis
>>was switched to creating an entirely new program from scratch, and this
>>program begat Netscape 6 (based on Mozilla .87 thru .94) and then
>>Netscape 7 (Mozilla 1.02 and later)
>>
>>the release of Netscape 6 was totally premature, it was rushed to market
>>to suit the marketing types, who wanted something to show to clients
>>(mostly commercial clients who had Netscape 4x releases - who then went
>>elsewhere, 6 being what it was)
>>Most of the developers, and testers who had any input to the project
>>were adamant that it should at least be called a BETA product, but once
>>again the marketing types over ruled, and Netscape 6 was born. They
>>even persuaded Netscape (the portal) to tout it as a 'replacement' for
>>Communicator. 6 was based on .87 and .94 of Mozilla and was really
>>totally unsuitable for a end user program at that point.
>>
>>Even marketing belatedly admitted this when they decided to rename the
>>Netscape product based on Mozilla 1x Netscape 7, an effort to distance
>>the product from the dismal failure that was Netscape 6
>>
>>Um who is hiding what truths Keith?
>>AOL doesnt own Mozilla, it never did. Mozilla does its own thing.
>>AOL did plan to have its Netscape (browser) division base further
>>products on the Mozilla products, outfitted with AIM, ICQ and Netscape
>>(portal) mail links, and this is what AOL finally closed down.
>>As to why they did, one can only speculate, AOL isnt saying exactly all
>>the factors that went into the decision. The fact that AOL convinced MS
>>to give them a long term license was a known fact prior to the
>>announcement of Netscapes demise. Sure it was a contributing factor,
>>but it wasnt the only factor in the decision.
>>
>>No, Mozilla 1.5.1 is the latest stable release
>>See
>>http://www.mozilla.org/
>>
>>1.5 is listed as the product, l.6 is listed as a technology preview.
>>(1.5.1 is a Mac only build off the stable 1.5)
>>See
>>http://www.mozilla.org/products/
>>
>>1.4 isnt even listed on the products page, its been replaced by 1.5
>>
>>Firebird .7 is a development
>>Thunderbird .4 is development as well
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Too confusing for mere mortals. The Mozilla nomenclature derives from a
>development architecture. People who seek, either at Walmart or via
>online, actual "stuff" they want to buy or use can't follow it. If
>Mozilla wants to be anything other than a niche oddity it needs to
>change its public persona. Hell, I follow this stuff and I'm confused.
>
>I couldn't care less what any company or organization calls any internal
>project; pick a name, call it anything. I don't care. But, when you
>put it out there, alpha, beta, test, release, free, pay to play,
>anything, label it in a sensible manner. To do anything else is
>marketing suicide.
>
>And what the hell is the difference between Mozilla 1.4.1 Stable Release
>and Mozilla 1.5 Release? Aside from the feature and bug resolution
>differences? I mean, what the hell is is the difference between a
>"stable release" and "release?" Jesus, no wonder the average person
>runs screaming from this software.
>
>Listen, lest anyone get their underwear all in a twist, yes, I'm a
>Mozilla Champion. I love the software. I try to help others who are
>trying to figure it out. But that doesn't mean I think it's without
>flaws, nor that I think the folks who manage it are totally clued into
>the marketing of it.
>
>Just my three cents.
>
>
>
>
For my money, each numerical increase is a stable release.
I.e. 1.5 (1.5.1) is the latest stable release
1.4 (1.4.1) was the previous stable release

For example, 1.6a, 1.6b, 1.6RC1 are developmental releases
when 1.6 is released, it will be a stable release
When will 1.6 be released? when its stable enough <g>
Who knows how many nightly builds or release candidates there will be
between now and then, not me.
If the build isnt stable enough we may even see 1.6rc2 1.6rc3 and so on,
but once it is stable enough it will be 1.6

I think its become quite simple.
Once the build becomes stable enough, it will be released and given a
release number (the next one will be 1.6 of course)
nightly builds after such will have a build number, but generally will
be referred to as 1.7

It may take 2 months (60 nightly builds +-) or 3 months (90 +- nightly
builds) for a version to reach release status (stable). 1.6 is probably
very close (the release candidate moniker is a give away).


Users, or those not interested in testing, dont have to look any further
than the Mozilla home page or the products page.
1.5 currently is listed as THE product
1.6a (or 1.6rc1) is currently listed as a development product, for
testers and those who want to be on the bleeding edge.
Ergo, users should use 1.5 (1.5.1 Mac)
Testers can use 1.6a or 1.6rc1
other testers can use he nightly builds


In other words, as it seems to me, there WOULDNT be a 1.5 release
unless it was stable, it would still be in nightlies or in the disguise
of 1.5rc1, 1.5rc2 and so on. It wouldnt be released as 1.5 unless it
was stable enough to merit such.
To explain it another way. 1.6rc1 (release candidate 1) is now out. If
that doesnt meet stable requirements, then 1.6 wont be released, it will
be held back until there IS a stable branch of 1.6 that merits the
designation

>
> Another product of ambiguity. 1.4.1 (I forgot about this minor update
> in my original post) is actually the latest stable version, as in what
> is recommended for use. The latest stable build as far as program
> stability is concerned is the latest nightly build. Either way, anyone
> who wants something that just works should avoid Firebird.
>

Firebird is my default browser, what is to avoid there?
Same usability as Mozilla 1.5 for browsing, but no added email etc. things
that I don't use. I think the development guys find it faster to make new
things, not that i seem to need any now, than having to maintain the whole
Mozilla suite?
Jarmo P

Jarmo P wrote:

>>Another product of ambiguity. 1.4.1 (I forgot about this minor update
>>in my original post) is actually the latest stable version, as in what
>>is recommended for use. The latest stable build as far as program
>>stability is concerned is the latest nightly build. Either way, anyone
>>who wants something that just works should avoid Firebird.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Firebird is my default browser, what is to avoid there?
>Same usability as Mozilla 1.5 for browsing, but no added email etc. things
>that I don't use. I think the development guys find it faster to make new
>things, not that i seem to need any now, than having to maintain the whole
>Mozilla suite?
>Jarmo P
>
>
>
>
Firebird is still in beta at the moment, and has not implemented all the
features found in the suite.
Some people prefer to have the 'suite', one program handling most
internet connections, others dont
In time Firebird will progress to the point where the suite will be
redundant, and then when Thunderbird (the standalone email/news client)
reaches the same state, people will be able to recreate the suite by
getting both <g>

The plan was (still is) to have each component of the 'suite' available
on its own, so people can use as much or as little as they desire.
Once all components reach release stage, they will work together as
seamlessly as the suite

The 'suite' model was pioneered by Netscape, and as such was carried on
by Mozilla. One download and you had most everything you needed to
communicate over the net, no need to download a seperate program for
mail. It appealed to many. No need to learn two separate programs.
The component model (such as Firebird/Thunderbird) can be made to serve
those who dont want a suite model, but also can be configured as a
complete suite if someone wants such (a download that gets you both
components each preset to use the other as default)

The intent of breaking down the suite into component parts was to free
those developers working on the browser from interaction with the
email/news component. I.e. they didnt have to worry about breaking
something in email/news when they made a change in the browser (or vice
versa). In the end, users will end up with two programs that will take
a little more space than the combined one (some coding will be
duplicated of course). The component model also allows precise
comparisons with the other products available, most of which dont come
in suite packages, but as standalones.

There are pros and cons to each approach (suite versus component). One
of he intents of the Firebird/Thunderbird projects is to (in the end)
have products that combine the advantages of the component type
development (faster, more easily managed development, better overall
speed) with the advantages of the suite model (no need to set up two
distinct programs, seamless intregation of the components, unified
command structures). In effect giving consumers their cake any way they
want it, do it their way.