[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]

Re: Viability of Linux companies (Was Re: A Linux Todaystory has been mailed to you!)



indradg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx proclaimed:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kingsly John" <kingslyj@xxxxxxxx>
> > On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Arun Sharma wrote:
> > (If you download the latest JavaScript manuals from netscape ... you will
> > see that most of the stuff meets ECMA specs.)
> MSFT does make the following claim -- "Microsoft® JScript® 5.5, a powerful
> scripting language targeted specifically at the Internet, is the first
> scripting language to fully conform to ECMAScript, the Web's only standard
> scripting language.". Although, since its from MSFT we have to take some
> salt with that.... ;-)

Word from a person who has spent the last 6 years working for
corporations of one sort or the other: Do not take marketing brochures
too seriously.  They are written by marketing wonks who do not
understand scientific rigour.

> IMHO, this is getting ridiculous... lets admit something honestly...
> Mozilla is good, but Netscape has really messed badly. Admit it! It has
> lost the browser war, it has lost all the early advantages and its top gun
> status when /it/ was able to direct and focus setting up of standards. And
> it is making us old-timers who had embraced NS with open arms when it was
> the first major commercial application to become open source, look stupid
> in front of our closed-source colleagues.

Having been a close non-objective observer of the browser war, I have
formed some opinions of the "marketplace" and humanity in general. 
Netscape lost.  But not on technical merits of the product (at least
till the 4.x series).  Illegal bundling practices of certain
Seattle-based corporations was one of the main reasons.  Another reason
was the herd mentality of giga ISPs like AOL.

If AOL were to bundle Netscape instead of IE, the Netscape marketshare
would zoom up to a much more respectable 40-ish percent.  My point is
that Netscape's open or closed-ness had little to do with the steady
erosion of marketshare.

Neither OE nor Netscape Messenger still provide the sort of features *I*
want.  Software like mutt does.


> Netscape has done a lot of good things. But they are no longer with /it/.
> However sad that might be there is no way we can escape that reality. It
> has lost its momentum and focus. With some many exciting new technologies &
> standards coming through why should i (either as a developer or an user) be
> pulled back from utilizing those? 

But marketshare is determined by users.  And almost all users don't care
about standards.  They care that they have a sturdy browser that helps
them view the pr0n sites they go to.  Both Netscape and IE perform well
for this.  I have used Netscape almost exclusively for the last 5 years
and have not had any reason to switch.


> Most open-source projects are managed on the basis of meritocracy... why
> should the yardstick for judging NS/Mozilla be any different from that?

And meritocracy /is/ the yardstick being used in allowing developers
contribute to Mozilla.  The meritocracy you speak of applies to tech
savvy gearheads.  End users usually don't care.  They are willing to
live with a software's weirdness and instability as long as they have to
do minimal stuff.  This would explain the popularity of a certain
Operating System and a certain online service.

Thaths
-- 
thaths at aunet dot org                     http://www.aunet.org/thaths/