[Project_owners] MS Office and Seamonkey
pete at mozdev.org
Sun Sep 14 11:44:58 EDT 2003
Steve, I just have to comment on the "points" you raise. Everything you
site is UI related. The ideas you site were exaustivly debated back in
1999 in the mozilla UI newsgroup. Where a growing reaction to the real
crappy direction the Netscape driven Mozilla UI was heading. This
insurrection lead to a community driven ground up XUL based xpi browser
package later named Aphrodite. In a sense Aphrodite was the *first*
Firebird and the core developers behind Firebird today know this piece
of history well. At it's peak, Aphrodite had a much simpler, easy to
use UI and quickly surpassed the current SeaMonkey browser in features.
Why, because it was community driven. Good ideas were put to use and
things were implemented as a result. There was a great deal of
enthusiasm, because Aphrodite had become a voice of the open source
community at the time, which in turn drew in even more new developers.
It was clear and uncontested, Aphrodite was the encapsulation of all the
great ideas the were permeating in the Mozilla UI newsgroup. In fact
Aphrodite actualy beat Mozilla SeaMonkey to skin switching. At the time,
you could get Aphrodite w/ a bunch of skins before skins/themes where
even "correctly" implemented in Mozilla. And the Aphrodite "xul
morphing" which it was later called, was sharply criticizded by many
You are directing your points to the existing owner of Aphrodite.
Aphrodite like most other Mozdev projects fell by the way side because
of the very problem we are discussing. Unless you have an *unlimited*
amount of time to work on a Mozilla project, you will be spending all of
your time trying to keep your app actually working like John stated
clearly in another post. So the reality is Mozilla tends to works
against the application developer. It was clearly stated that "Mozilla
is not intended to be an Application Development Platform". MAD is
something born out of the open source community. Apps like Chatzilla,
Jabberzilla, Forumzilla, etc were all created outside of Netscape in the
open source wild.
I don't think anyone here is debating about the SeaMonkey UI. John and I
and many others were not only unhappy w/ the SM UI, we were obviously
proactive about doing something about it. The UI is not the issue here.
You are "preaching to the choir".
One thing Microsoft does right is provide a base set of dll's (core
libraries) w/ clearly documented, easy to use, stable, API's so
developers can do what they need to do "write killer apps". This is
where Mozilla falls way short and the mistakes of the past keep
repeating themselves. Instead of providing a core stable base
architecture, with easy to use API's, we are wittnessing "!000 browsers
bloom syndrome", "Bloom Syndrome" or "BS" for short. :-)
Because of "BS" Mozilla.org is making some obvious mistakes. Instead of
making the effort be to release the birds as xpi packages that run on
top of a stable GRE/MRE, they are following the same monolithic
SeaMonkey "bloatware" path and releasing full redundant distributions of
the same core libraries. This strike me as silly to say the least.
So I see an obvious confilct of interestes here. "Mozilla As Platform"
and "Bloom Syndrome".
So as far as direction goes, we can either read the *MAP* or just keep
putting up w/ *BS*. :-)
More information about the Project_owners