Pro-Mozilla vs. Anti-Mozilla (i.e. Ed... )

[adambyte]

In case you're not up to speed on the whole Mozilla / AOL contreversy, you can read it here...

http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthr...threadid=12040

Now, I'm just curious, how do you guys honestly feel about the whole thing?

And is there anybody besides Ed who has this view of Mozilla and its related projects? Ed is the only one I've seen who is this anti-Mozilla.

Happy voting.

[gerbick]

personally, as long as it's DOM compliant to the highest degree, and a light RAM user... I could care less if it was coded by your grandmother.

I just want a good browswer finally on OS X.

[ulrik]

I am not Anti-Mozilla.

Mozilla is one of the few products where the Open Source idea is used by a big company. But well, I am a fan of the Open Source community, and while developing for AOL, at the same time, they develop this product for EVERYONE! It is open source! If Microsoft wants to use it, they can! As long as it remains open source. And if they fund the development, like AOL, I have no problem with them using it "closed" source. I am neither a fan of Microsoft or AOL/Netscape, nor am I a fan of the race for "domination" of the browser market these companies do.
Do I stop using MySQL only because three of the programmers of MySQL at the same time are programmer of Microsoft SQL Server? No.
Do I stop using DivX 4 and soon DivX 5 only because the development on these open source codecs also helped Microsoft creating their new codec AND bringing their MPEG 4 codec (developed together with the Motion picture expert group and now sold to Frauenhofer) - WHICH WILL BE INCLUDED IN QUICKTIME 6 - to what it is now? No.
Every product somehow influences other products. If it is not an open source product, the idea will be copied. The GUI from MacOS in the past was copied by Microsoft! Somehow you can say that the Mac users who made the idea of a GUI so revolutionary and successful "somehow" helped Microsoft to copy it. Without the success of Java on the internet, Microsoft wouldn't dare creating their new .Net-architecture.
Ideas are copied every day, and only successful ideas. And who makes them successful? We, the end users.
The only difference between this and the open source community is, that in the open source community, this "copying" is easier and is what drives the open source community. As long as the "copied" and improved product is still open source or still supports the open source community, why not?
The render engine of Netscape - as long as it is based on Mozilla - will be open source! I know that Ed is angry about the fact that the open source community somehow does the work for Netscape/AOL, but as a true fan of this community, I see this as the beginning of what everybody in the community wanted!

It's sad that a company like AOL is one of the supporters of the consumer Open Source product market, but well...it has to start somewhere...most technologies are in first place developed for the bad bad army with their bad bad wars...ok, the last statement was a joke

[serpicolugnut]

I only have one beef with AOL's involvement in the whole Mozilla project. The beef is simple: AOL (outside of the Netscape brand) isn't using it! Mozilla is one hell of a browser, and it isn't even done yet, but AOL still uses IE as the browser in it's software.

I understood why they did it originally. They had to have a bargaining chip to get on the MS desktop. But now that the contract has expired, and the DOJ has opened up the MS desktop to 3rd party vendors, I don't see why AOL doesn't start using their crown jewels.

Anyway, the Mozilla engine is great. I've been using Mozilla as my primary browser since the 0.9.8 release. While not perfect, it is currently the best of breed on OS X.

Here's a list of my grievances with it:
1) Needs further OS X optimization. Rendering is good, but window resize, menu scrolls, etc could be better.
2) Needs a good Aqua skin. The "Classic" skin has adopted some Aqua-ness, but it's but ugly. I stick with the Modern theme, which is fine. But I'd like to see a straight up Aqua skin.
3) Improved bookmark management. This is one area where both IE and OW have Mozilla beat.
4) And finally, I'd like to see more progress on the MRJ plugin. It's functional now, but could stand some serious work.

[RacerX]

I'm sorry Ed, but I sit here watching MSN take over the largest dial-up service in my area and have clients (both Mac and Windows based) asking me for an alternative solution, I find it hard to consider AOL the Bad Guys, no matter how you try and spin it. This seems to be a very personal issue for you so I'll limit this to this one post (seeing as I have avoided the issue all together up to now anyway).

Browsers and the Internet

My current computer situation leaves me working with three browsers. Netscape for Solaris, Irix, and Mac OS (A/UX to Mac OS 9.2), OmniWeb for Rhapsody and Mac OS X, and Internet Explorer for sites that don't display correctly in anything else in Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X. The question should be why do I have to use IE at all? And the answer, Microsoft has gotten web developers to use their version of HTML (aka MSHTML) in stead of HTML 4. And then there are sites I can't access at all because web developers are using Java apps(which should be completely cross platform) that look for a Windows Registry. Originally the Internet was a platform independent connection for everyone who could get access, but now Microsoft is worked very hard to make it a Windows only environment. AOL/Netscape at least include Macintosh for the most part, and Netscape is one of the only browsers for non-Windows/non-Macintosh systems.

Given that, how could anyone compare what Microsoft is doing to AOL/Netscape? Microsoft is working to remove choice from people, and many of the choices they want to see removed are ones I use. AOL is not trying to take over anything, or make anything that was originally open closed to all who don't use their products. Further, AOL/Netscape is not trying to shut out all other browsers from the internet (or don't you remember MSN turning away Opera browsers for no other reason than them identifying them selves as an Opera browser).

I currently use AOL for two reasons: (1) no DSL in my area and (2) it lets me give internet access to four other people who would not have it other wise. What features do I personally use AOL for? Currently I only use the TCP/IP connection. That is right, I sign on, hide AOL, and go about my business on the internet. Do I care that AOL 7 for Windows has more features than AOL 5 for Macintosh? No, because I don't use any other part of AOL other than the connection (and giving others a connection). Do I care that AOL uses IE as a browser engine rather than Netscape? No, because AOL as a browser/e-mail client sucks anyway.

My thoughts on AOL/Netscape: Enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[fryke]

Let's face it: Right now there is *ONE* competitor to Mozilla that lets you view all pages at a decent speed, and its name is Microsoft Internet Explorer. I don't blame ANYONE to ditch IE for Mozilla, because I think it's politically correct.



As soon as OmniWeb, iCab or Opera do their jobs better than the biggies, I think we're really free to choose. Right now I try to surf in OW whenever I can and only switch to IE if I have to. I'll try Chimera again when it's grown up a bit.

But what you, Ed, basically say, is to choose IE over Mozilla, and I can't agree to that. If you were to say: Use OW instead of everything else, I could understand. But you can't do that because OW still has a way to go.

So right now: Mozilla is the only decent choice besides IE. Go figure: Do you want to feed the Beast or the Beast?

[edX]

ok, my brain still doesn't have all the blood back from manually laboring in the yard, but i think i need to correct Fryke's misconception right away. the rest i will come back to.

ie instead of netrape? never did i say that. read my signiture - "using icab whenever i can". I also play around with OW and Opera from time to time, but so far icab does the best overall job for me. I still don't understand why more people aren't using it unless all those preferences are just too intimidating.

but i think you got the Beast or the Beast part right. of course i am not totally convinced they are not the same Beast. At the least they are kissing cousins.

and what is the number one thing i dislike about Apple? Their part in perpetuating the myth that you ought to have ie or netrape since you need one of them to work your itools account. Bah!!

[BlingBling 3k12]

here's are my philosophys...

if it's open source, it should be made better, since it's linking the brains of thousands of developers...

although... my true philosophy is that if it works great without screwing up, i'll use it...

plus it's gotta look good... that's the reason i don't use Netscape/Mozilla... the pages look like shit... and so does the browser... that's why I use IE... it just works...