doron's blaahg

For public relations reasons, it is important for Mozillazine to downplay the signficance of yesterdays events in order to pacify its users. Obviously, given Mozillazine's original text on the matter, we can see that they are essentially the 12th man on the deal team, last to know. Their propoganda is to be expected. After all, it is difficult to tell your fan club that Mozilla, in addition to Netscape, is fucked.

Midas is easily added to Firebird. All you need to do is remove --enable-plaintext-editor-only . The GRE is surely not going to ship with this option, neccessary for HTML mail, so Firebird will most likely support Midas when it becomes the main product.

Yup, Mozilla is gonna have a hard time in the future.

Let's hope opensource can handle itself, I don't know

You make good points in your entry...

I really hope Mozilla.org survives and Firebird becomes something everybody will use, a success.

Ps. TBird is not a browser ;)

right, but its a product.

Doron, first, thanks for everything you have done to make Mozilla what it is today.

Secondly, where does this leave you?
Will you continue to help hack on mozilla, or will your life lead you somewhere else?

Good luck in whatever you do.

Frodo wrote: "For public relations reasons, it is important for Mozillazine to downplay the signficance of yesterdays events in order to pacify its users."

I don't think the article (which I didn't write) downplayed the significance. AOL pulling out is a disaster and probably the most major threat to the Mozilla project so far. It is a Bad Thing.

Frodo: "Obviously, given Mozillazine's original text on the matter, we can see that they are essentially the 12th man on the deal team, last to know."

Not quite sure what you mean here but then I didn't see the original text. We've known informally that Netscape was on the chopping board for months now.

Frodo: "Their propoganda is to be expected. After all, it is difficult to tell your fan club that Mozilla, in addition to Netscape, is fucked."

Maybe it is. But I hope it isn't.

1. Firebird will have Midas.

2. Netscape had people working on 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. Just because 7.1 was based on Mozilla 1.4 doesn't mean people weren't working on the milestones that preceded it. Buffy was under development when I was at Netscape last summer.

3. The news sites like to proclaim that "50 Netscape coders laid off" but less than 15 of them actively worked on Mozilla. Sure, people like Ben, Hewitt, etc. worked on Mozilla in the past, but they've officially been employed to do other stuff for quite awhile now; it's been a long time since Netscape had many resources on the browser. I think people are still remembering a world when Netscape CPD had a crapload of people on the browser, but they don't realize that the landscape has slowly changed over the past year (see checkins). The Buffy engineering team itself was jag, samir, shuehan...who else?

4. Mozilla.org doesn't have much end user support yet. Firebird has more in the way of David Tenser's site, at least. The situation will improve. Meanwhile, where was Netscape's end user support? Netscape's help was so laughably bad I can hardly believe it came from a professional company.

5. Yep, the name situation is pretty messed up. And yet, I'll bet most people still recognize the Netscape name (although coming generations don't; most of my friends don't know what a Netscape is). However, just because the brand recognition exists doesn't mean the recognition is positive (Netscape 6 anyone?). The people in my life, at least (from a young Physics teacher at my school to an older Burger King executive who lives near me) seem to equate Netscape with "old and dead." Eventually I started saying "I work for AOL" instead of Netscape because I was so tired of hearing "uh, Netscape is still around?"

And Frodo, I don't know where you get your information, but MozillaZine is co-run by a person who (a) works for Netscape, (b) is friends with many of the now-ex-employees and (c) knew about a week in advance that the layoffs were coming.

I think I know what "Frodo" is referring to.

Within hours of Mozillazine posting this about the Mozilla Foundation:

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3420

They then posted this about the layoffs:

AOL axes Gecko team, dumps Netscape

It has been learned through public and private sources that AOL has axed the Gecko team in a mass firing and are dismantling Netscape (they've even pulled the logos off the buildings).

To us, their $2 million contribution to the nascent Mozilla Foundation now comes across as nothing more than a face-saving gesture.

Stay tuned for updates.

Mozillazine then changed much of the text, including the title, shortly thereafter to this:

http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3422

Note how the $2 million dollar pledge (from the Mozilla Foundation article) became a $2 million dollar face-saving gesture only a short while after, which of course was later retracted, along with the "axes" verb.

To a rational observor this suggests shock and dismay, and perhaps anger, in whoever wrote the article. Since Alex says it wasn't himself, maybe it was the Netscape inside tracker, Jason Kersey.

Netscape had support, and still has, run by another company. Plus we had developer support, which mozilla.org has 0. People come to irc and get shoved to #mozillazine.

15 core devs gone is bad blake. Wake up. Take the red pill.

Lars wrote: "[Regarding the article revision] To a rational observor this suggests shock and dismay, and perhaps anger, in whoever wrote the article. Since Alex says it wasn't himself, maybe it was the Netscape inside tracker, Jason Kersey."

The MozillaZine article database suggests that the initial article about the Netscape layoffs was written by Chris Nelson (MozillaZine's founder), who still posts stuff now and again. I knew the layoffs were happening (and knew about the likelihood of them for months) but didn't have easy access to the Internet at the time. I believe Jason Kersey (who hasn't worked for Netscape for several months now; he works on My AOL but is still based at the Mountain View campus) was worried that if he posted anything too early, he'd be at risk of violating his non-disclosure agreement. I don't know if Chris knew about the layoffs in advance or whether he or Jason revised the article (the revision was, at least, noted). I'll find out.

Peronally, I do not think that the Netscape layoffs were in any way a good thing. It's the worse thing ever to happen to the Mozilla project. However, at least AOL are transferring various resources to the Mozilla Foundation. It's not as if they just unplugged Bugzilla and went home.

I wrote: "I don't know if Chris knew about the layoffs in advance or whether he or Jason revised the article (the revision was, at least, noted). I'll find out."

Seems Chris wrote the original article. It was revised by Jason and Chris after objections from mozilla.org.

Hi Alex,

"Seems Chris wrote the original article. It was revised by Jason and Chris after objections from mozilla.org."

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

So it was Mozillazine's Founder, Chris Nelson, who was shocked and dismayed by the news, and was essentially lying when he said 'To us' in:

"To us, their $2 million contribution to the nascent Mozilla Foundation now comes across as nothing more than a face-saving gesture."

Lars wrote: "So it was Mozillazine's Founder, Chris Nelson, who was shocked and dismayed by the news, and was essentially lying"

I don't think he was shocked. More disappointed and perhaps a little angry. He wasn't lying, just saying what he thought.

Hi Alex,

Thanks again. I didn't think he was lying, either.

So, if I understand things right then:

One of the spokesmen for Mozillazine, Chris Nelson, who is also Mozillazines founder, wasn't surprised by the news when he stated....

"To us, their $2 million contribution to the nascent Mozilla Foundation now comes across as nothing more than a face-saving gesture."

....shortly after the Mozilla Foundation announcement. But rather, he was disappointed and perhaps a little angry. Read the above quote and think for a moment, are you sure he wasn't surprised?

Anyways, Mozilla.org objected to this so, according to you, Jason Kersey and Chris Nelson retracted the paragraph altogether and replaced it with this:

"The news isn't all doom and gloom, folks. I've been informed that the number of volunteer Mozilla hackers started eclipsing the number of Netscape hackers last month, and that a number of folks have already been snatched up by other organizations."

A paragraph which Doron refers to in his blog titled 'Stupidity'.

I guess I'm a little lost here because according to "Frodo"....

"For public relations reasons, it is important for Mozillazine to downplay the signficance of yesterdays events in order to pacify its users. Obviously, given Mozillazine's original text on the matter, we can see that they are essentially the 12th man on the deal team, last to know. Their propoganda is to be expected. After all, it is difficult to tell your fan club that Mozilla, in addition to Netscape, is fucked."

....he seems to have hit the nail right on the head.

Lars wrote: "One of the spokesmen for Mozillazine, Chris Nelson, who is also Mozillazines founder, wasn't surprised by the news when he stated....

"'To us, their $2 million contribution to the nascent Mozilla Foundation now comes across as nothing more than a face-saving gesture.'

"....shortly after the Mozilla Foundation announcement. But rather, he was disappointed and perhaps a little angry. Read the above quote and think for a moment, are you sure he wasn't surprised?"

Yes, I'm sure. I just asked him.

Hi Alex,

Thanks for your reply.

Alex wrote: "Yes, I'm sure. I just asked him."

He wasn't surprised? shocked? startled? dismayed? Ok, then.

I have one more question, though.

When he stated this:

"To us, their $2 million contribution to the nascent Mozilla Foundation now comes across as nothing more than a face-saving gesture."

What did the $2 million dollar contribution come across as before?

Lars wrote: "He wasn't surprised? shocked? startled? dismayed? Ok, then."

No. I asked him. He'd been expecting it since AOL bought Netscape.

"When he stated this:

"'To us, their $2 million contribution to the nascent Mozilla Foundation now comes across as nothing more than a face-saving gesture.'

"What did the $2 million dollar contribution come across as before?"

Chris says "now" was just an editorial error. There was no before.

Hi Alex,

Thanks again for reply.

Alex wrote: "Chris says "now" was just an editorial error. There was no before."

Sheesh. I wish you have said that earlier. For a moment there I thought someone was lying.

Speaking of editorial errors, I think "Frodo" one, too, when he said:

"For public relations reasons, it is important for Mozillazine to downplay the signficance of yesterdays events in order to pacify its users. Obviously, given Mozillazine's original text on the matter, we can see that they are essentially the 12th man on the deal team, last to know. Their propoganda is to be expected. After all, it is difficult to tell your fan club that Mozilla, in addition to Netscape, is fucked."

He should have said:

"For public relations reasons, it is important for Mozillazine to downplay the signficance of yesterdays events in order to pacify its users. Obviously, given Mozillazine's original text on the matter, we can see that they are disappointed and perhaps a little angry. Their propoganda is to be expected. After all, it is difficult to tell your fan club that Mozilla, in addition to Netscape, is fucked."

For example, if you see an AIM window peeking out from behind your browser and you click on it, that window will come to the front, but the main application window will not. The Mail.app/Activity Viewer is another example. The Aqua system of layers works well in many instances, but not in all. Thank goodness that the Dock is always there to come to the rescue. I know that clicking on an application icon in the Dock will always result in not only the application coming to the front, but also any non-minimized windows associated with it. And if the application is active but no windows are open, clicking on the Dock icon should create a new window in that application.

This topic is one we will tackle later in this article, but it refers to making sure that your application and the dock aren't fighting it out for supremacy of the screen.

The simple fact is that, when all other factors are equal, where will consumers spend their money? I believe that in the long run, the best looking, easiest-to-use applications will also be the most successful. I think that's why Apple encourages developers to write programs that are 100 percent Aqua-compliant.

Clicking an application in the dock should always bring forward an active window. If the user clicks on an open app's icon in the Dock, the application is active and all unminimized windows come along with it. I have found a few problems with windows behaving independently of their application.

Whether native or not, this is obviously one of the first steps on your way to OS X. Keep in mind that often, the functionality of your code has a lot to do with how your interface is designed. How many developers have come up with great functional ideas from working with their interface or looking at their competitors'? Start working on your Aqua compliance from day one. Don't wait until the last minute.

You Must Promise. To call your mother, to help old ladies cross the road, and to turn your cell phone off at the movies.

So far in these articles, I have only dipped a toe or two into Aqua's pool. I have covered basic aspects of building an Aqua-compliant application, including the building of photo-illustrative/3D application icons. Now it's time to address other components of our Mac OS X application.

User Assistance. This is helping the user with the proper "next step" when performing a task. Less guesswork for the user on what to do next makes for a better experience.

For example, if you see an AIM window peeking out from behind your browser and you click on it, that window will come to the front, but the main application window will not. The Mail.app/Activity Viewer is another example. The Aqua system of layers works well in many instances, but not in all. Thank goodness that the Dock is always there to come to the rescue. I know that clicking on an application icon in the Dock will always result in not only the application coming to the front, but also any non-minimized windows associated with it. And if the application is active but no windows are open, clicking on the Dock icon should create a new window in that application.

Don't give up, you are close.