Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet

Chief Lizard Wrangler axed 213

Posted by CmdrTaco from the well-thats-not-so-good dept.
Kalak writes: "MozillaQuest is reporting that Mitchell Baker was laid off by Netscape back on August 23. True to form, there are also discussions on this on bug #96747." She spoke at OSCON and I was pretty impressed. She seemed legitimately committed to the mozilla project being a successful open source project. Not sure how this bodes for Moz itself, but it sure is unfortunate.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chief Lizard Wrangler axed More

Chief Lizard Wrangler axed

Comments Filter:

  • Accurate information here (Score:5, Informative)

    by Satai ( 111172 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:13PM (#2255791)
    Mozillazine [mozillazine.org] has information about it here [mozillazine.org]. MozillaQuest [mozillaquest.com] is and has been unreliable. See MozillaQuestQuest [mozillaquestquest.com] for more information.

    • somehow the MozillaQuestQuest link doesn't render at _ALL_ using IE 5.5. i then opened it in mozilla, and it displays just fine... hummm..
      wonder why that is :)

      • This is intentional. It's a joke. :-) The page is served as text/xml - its correct MIME type - and only Mozilla understands it correctly.

        Gerv
        • Actually it works in Opera too. :)

      • Re:Accurate information here (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Actually, IE renders the page as it renders most xml documents: an expandable, hierarchical representation of the data. You can expand or collapse data to see more or less information about the data.

    • No kidding. It amazes me that there are still people who read MozillaQuest for reasons other than a good laugh.

      Of course, given /.'s record on accuracy in reporting, MozillaQuest is a good fit...
    • MozillaQuest has to be the most misinformed Mozilla related (and Linux in general) site I've ever read.


      Mike Angelo (who writes all the articles ) doesn't appear to know or understand what's going on in the project at all well.


      One recent gem was where he accused Netscape of stealing Mozilla code for Netscape 6.1 and the coincidental release of Mozilla 0.9.2.1! What a dolt!

    • For all the flaming of MozillaQuest by the Mozilla faithful, I have yet to see the flamers document a single objective inaccuracy. Most of the responses consist of personal attacks devoid of content. In this case, we have to look at the fact that MozillaQuest broke the layoff story -- accurately -- while the advocacy site, MozillaZine, was still in denial about the prospect of the AOL layoffs hitting the project.

      As far as I can tell, MozillaQuest's only crime is in pointing out facts about the late, buggy, and ugly Mozilla project that its small remaining core of advocates would rather see suppressed.

      Tim
      • why not look at the several threads on mozillazine.org which document the distortions of fact and pure speculation on the part of mozilla quest? Various errors include misinterpretation of bug statistics, misconstruing the meaning of projected release dates, and a uniformly unequivically negative opinion of everything mozilla. Mozilla Quest has a bad reputation because its view is extremely contrary to the opinions and experiences of users and programmers of mozilla. While it could be that MQ is right and everyone else is wrong, most people have concluded that MQ is not a valid source for mozilla information.

        Again, please refer to mozillazine archives for in depth discussion.
        • why not look at the several threads on mozillazine.org which document the distortions of fact and pure speculation on the part of mozilla quest? Various errors include misinterpretation of bug statistics,

          I've read all of them carefully. So far, not one has documented an objective error. The responses are always along the lines of, "so what that we didn't fix a lot of the bugs for this milestone that were marked to be fixed? What does that matter? The project is still getting better, isn't it? How can he say it's buggy? Mike Angelo is such an idiot!"

          misconstruing the meaning of projected release dates,

          Very similar issue. He points out that a new milestone means a slip in the 1.0 release date, and the responses all say "so what that 1.0 will be a few months later? We're not a commercial project! We don't have a schedule! Who cares when we ship? Mike Angelo is such an idiot!" Again, no factual errors in his analysis are demonstrated. He's reporting things that are true, but taboo on the advocacy site.

          and a uniformly unequivically negative opinion of everything mozilla.

          Yes, but I was asking for examples of objective factual errors on the site. You don't like his opinions, fine, but that doesn't make him an unreliable source. He broke this story. People at MozillaZine knew about the story for a week and a half and tried to keep it secret. Who's the better news source on this story? MozillaQuest 1, MozillaZine 0. Sorry, but it's a fact.

          Tim
          • so what that we didn't fix a lot of the bugs for this milestone that were marked to be fixed?

            This is part of the normal bug triaging process. Mangelo seems to find it very strange that we should prioritise bugs and decide which ones to fix now and which ones can wait.

            a new milestone means a slip in the 1.0 release date,

            This is another thing he keeps saying which is not true. It does not mean a slip in the release date, because we have no release date. New milestones get added to Bugzilla and the roadmap whenever we run out of the ones we've got. This action does not say anything about any dates.

            People at MozillaZine knew about the story for a week and a half and tried to keep it secret.

            They didn't try and keep it secret. It's not a secret - Mitchell's post to the public newsgroups shows that.

            If you want a classic example of how mangelo writes untruths, how about "Netscape denies Netscape 6.1 is based on Mozilla source code"?

            Gerv

      • Re:Accurate information here (Score:4, Informative)

        by ajs ( 35943 ) <ajs.ajs@com> on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @01:47PM (#2256227) Homepage Journal
        Contradiction coming... wait for it...
        For all the flaming of MozillaQuest by the [...] late, buggy, and ugly Mozilla project [and] its small remaining core of advocates [...]
        [snipped from the beginning and end of the post to show the contrast in tone]
        This is called flaming. MozillaQuest is factually inaccurate from time to time (though, so is the rest of the tech media). The problem isn't that. The problem is that MozillaQuest reports only part of the story. This story, for example, never reported that, while she was being laid off, she was also going to continue working on the project.

        So called "delays" are often clarifications in the time-line (where no dates were previously available). This may or may not be an inaccuracy, depending on how you look at it, but is clearly a misrepresentation of the state of Mozilla development.

        Mozilla is, for the record, the browser/mail agent that I've been using as my sole browser for the last six months. So far, I've had less crashes than IE, and far fewer bug-related complaints than with NS4. And yet, according to MozillaQuest, Mozilla is still too buggy for anyone to use....
      • The best example, is his repeaded statement that Netscape denied it used mozilla for Netscape 6.1. All Netscape said was that it would not confirm or deny rumors inregards to the exact version branching inwhich Netscape 6.1 came from. You can read this in his "Netscape denies is uses Mozilla Code for Netscape 6.1 Browser" article. This is in info box on the right hand side, apart from the actual story.
      • Maybe you're one of those who'd like to see Mozilla "suppressed". I guess you haven't used it lately, it might be late, but I'll take a late project over one rushed out the door too soon any day.


        If you don't like the way it looks, then use a different theme; if you think it's buggy, help find and squash bugs. There's just no excuse to complain with a project of this nature, other than you actually being one of those people who engage in "personal attacks devoid of content". Which doesn't seem to be the case!


        As for MozillaQuest's journalistic integrity, what they initially strike me as, is one of those sites whose reporting style is aggressive and inflamatory, which is good, because it leads to heated and interesting discussion and generates more traffic for them (hate to see another .com bite the dust). I don't have a problem with that, and neither should anyone else, as long as they keep their reports accurate. Those people who prefer a more "serious" reporting style should stick to other sites like mozillazine.

        • There is nothing wrong with being agressive and inflamatory as long as you get your facts straight. MozillaQuest writes articles that are inaccurate or completely wrong because the guy hasn't bothered to check his facts out before venting. The most famous example was the Netscape denies using Mozilla code in Netscape 6.1 story which accused NS of stealing Mozilla code to make 6.1, failing to grasp that this is the whole point of the NS/Mozilla relationship.
      • "facts"? MAngelo's "facts" are mostly misunderstandings (intentional or not) of how a development team and bug database actually work. He makes an assumption that somehow bugzilla bugs of a given severity are all objectively rated, that the bugzilla database is totally up-to-date with actual development at a given point, that all bugs in the project have been found and are in the database, how obscure the bug is, etc.

        I've reported dozens of bugs in bugzilla - just because I reported them doesn't make it buggier than before I reported them, but by his measures it does, even though many of them have been fixed.

        mangelo simply wants to find ways to present Mozilla in the worst light possible, and will root around until he finds "proof" of his assertion. Lies, damn lies, and statistics, after all, can be used to "prove" anything.

        Does he lie? Maybeso, but probably not. He certainly does see everything through colored glasses, and either misinterprets things, or purposely misleads (take your pick). He's decided he doesn't like something about it, and he's going to do his best to make sure everyone else doesn't like it either. Obviously you decided long ago also ("late, buggy, and ugly", etc), and so anything posted by someone who says "it's getting pretty good" will be discounted as "flaming by the mozilla faithful".

        Unlike either you or mangelo, I actually try to make things better. And it is AMAZINGLY less buggy than the NS6.0 release, and is pretty darn solid. Perfect - hardly; and nor is IE. But it's gotten pretty darn good and stable, and keeps getting better.

    • MozillaQuestQuest.com is a riot. Thanks for the pointer!
  • Is there any information on where she is going? In a perfect world, one of the Linux companies would hire her to keep working on Mozilla.

    • Re:Where is she going? (Score:4, Redundant)

      by sparcv9 ( 253182 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:26PM (#2255830)
      According to her reply [mozilla.org] to the Bugzilla post, she will continue to work on the Mozilla project, just not under the employ of Netscape.

    • "We sent an e-mail inquiry to AOL-Time-Warner's Netscape division spokesperson, Catherine Corre about the lay-offs..."
      Oh no, the big media dinosaur ate the puny mozilla lizard!

      Applying the laws of discrete mathematics, this would imply that the story is redundant and mozilla was never really free software after all...

  • This is OpenSource. She can still work on it just without pay, and on her own time. This is not good, most certainly, but hey, at least she isn't stricken from contributing.
    • This is OpenSource. She can still work on it just without pay, and on her own time. This is not good, most certainly, but hey, at least she isn't stricken from contributing.

      Which is one of the obvious strengths of the open source system. Although It sort of depends on what her severance package was, etc....

      You can spend an awful lot of time working on a project, and find that it drained time away from you looking for a job.

      - - -
      Radio Free Nation [radiofreenation.com]
      an alternate news site using Slash Code
      "If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"

      • She was been paid, it wasn't a free project for her.

        She probably will try to find out someone who will pay the same for the same work. She didn't worked for free.

        She worked on a free project but not for free.

  • MozillaQuest not to be trusted (Score:5, Informative)

    by asa ( 33102 ) <asa@mozilla.com> on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:26PM (#2255832) Homepage
    In general it is good practice to avoid reading this website if you're interested in accurate reporting about Mozilla or mozilla.org (probably anyhing else for that matter). With articles like "Netscape Denies It Uses Mozilla Code in Netscape 6.1" you have to wonder...

    Anyway, if you want real information about what's going on why not ask the folks actually involved. Mitchell Baker (still chief lizard wrangler) had this [google.com] to say in the mozilla news groups.

  • Please don't link to bugzilla from the front page! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ardran ( 90992 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:28PM (#2255842)
    CmdrTaco et al,


    Please don't link directly to a bugzilla bug ever again, at least not from the front page. The system is under constant use by bug reporters, triagers, and developers, who are all working hard to make the 0.9.4 milestone happen as fast as possible. /.'ing the server only serves to disrupt development. In the future, please think about the people who are relying on a particular server before targetting it for destruction. Thanks.

  • That explains why we haven't seen 0.9.4 yet...
  • So far there doesn't seem to be too much Netscape bashing going on here, which is a good thing. Layoffs are part of the normal business cycle. It's part of the price we pay for the great job motility we've enjoyed in the tech industry in recent years.

    The nice thing about an open source project, however, is that someone can move between companies and still contribute. They can even take a break from a project and then come back.
    • Layoffs are part of the normal business cycle.

      Since when did this become true?

      I can see how some economists would claim this, and some would even suggest that this is a Good Thing(tm), but call me skeptical, I don't see it.

      I suppose that grossly inflated share prices compared to earnings is a normal part of the business cycle too...

      • What, do you want the government to set share prices?

        Part of the fun of a free market economy is that there is nothing stopping idiots from spending too much money for the goods and services they receive. Yes, sometimes that means that people will foolishly invest in companies that have no chance of ever having the kinds of profits that would justify their share price, but the alternative is far worse.

        Free Market ecnomics certainly has its ups and downs, but it beats central planning of the economy all hollow. And if you are careful and stay away from people promising huge riches with little work you will find that you can avoid investing in companies that have no chance of ever justifying their sky high price.

    • Yeah, the great job mobility which translates to "start over every six months."

      I'll vote for a different business cycle. Tough to qualify for a mortgage (HA! right...) when you're between jobs three months out of every nine.

      It's also mind-bogglingly expensive for companies to replace their staff every 18 months.

      (Notice how everything is measured in months now? Remember long-term planning? Or is that part of the old economy?)

  • Don't Look At Bugzilla! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gerv ( 15179 ) <gerv@@@gerv...net> on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:32PM (#2255869) Homepage
    Please don't slashdot our Bugzilla server! Please! We need it, and currently it's dying.

    Gerv

  • How this bodes for the Mozilla project (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hillct ( 230132 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:33PM (#2255870) Homepage Journal
    This question was raised in the posting, but it begs a deeper question. Are OSS Projects dependant on their founder?. The imediate reaction is no, expecially in this case where she was not the founder. The closes to a single indevidual founder we could get for Mozilla would be Jamie Zawinski [jwz.org] and the project continued on without him, but how many OSS projects are organized as a cult on personality? Is this a failing of social order of OSS, or is it just a failing of leadership and administration?

    Large scale projects like Mozilla, and Apache could probably withstand a complete changing of the guard, but how many smaller prjects could handle such a change and still continue to produce quality software?

    Does anyone have a mechanism to quantify the critical mass of an OSS project?

    --CTH
    • GAIM [marko.net] had a changing of the guard a while ago and was picked up by another. Development still continues on GAIM. It's not a large project by any means, and it doesn't have a great number of developers. But it has survived a switch of maintainers.


      I don't know that there's any machanism to qualify the critical mass of an OSS project... I guess it would just be "how many people are using it?" and "if it went away, how would this affect the computing world?"

    • What if they were run over by a bus [segfault.org]?

      Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted

    • The only really big project that seems to be driven by a cult of personality is the linux kernel. (and even then their is a lot of overlap between others who are "in charge". Xfree, Apache, etc hae teams, but not one all important person in charge. As such they've gone through a number of changes of personelle without much problem at all.
    • but how many OSS projects are organized as a cult on personality? Is this a failing of social order of OSS, or is it just a failing of leadership and administration?

      I'd argue the opposite. Successful projects, both open source and commerical, tend to be organized by a single person, or a very small team, with a definate goal. You can have hundreds of players as long as they all know who the leader is. If you have a very large committee running things, then the project will become bogged down with disputes over ownership, direction, and responsibilities. If you don't have a definate goal, then you'll end up deciding to re-invent wheels which are perfectly round, because they're not the right shade of blue.

  • Not Netscape - AOL (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dhamsaic ( 410174 )
    Am I the only one that thinks it's worth mentioning that there is no Netscape any more? There's only the Netscape Division of America Online. AOL laid her off. Not Netscape.

    I'm starting to sound like JWZ...

  • There are people trying to get work done in Bugzilla and you're making that very difficult. Thanks.

    --Asa

  • MozillaQuest? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by basilfawlty ( 154213 )
    Why does /. continue to propagate the anti-Mozilla rants from Michael Angelo? He is not even close to a viable source of information on Mozilla. See bug 97146 [mozilla.org], as well as previous /. posts that say just what I said.

    Please, please. Don't feed the trolls.

    • Re:MozillaQuest? (Score:3, Informative)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )
      Yet another argument infavor of using a referer to suppress /. at bugzilla. Please stop doing this. It's quite inconsiderate, after there have already been requests to avoid slashdotting that particular server.

      Development servers are typically sized for the load that they will normally receive. They aren't expected to have to stand up to the kind of pounding that a high traffic server would have. It is not kind to abuse them in this way.

  • godd*mit! (Score:2, Redundant)

    by Ryandav ( 5475 )
    GET THAT LINK TO BUGZILLA OUT OF THE STORY, EDITORS!

    There's nothing relevant or terribly useful at all at the link, and SomeOfUsAreTryingToWORK!

    (calming down a little)

    Revise the story, please!!!!!!

  • Some more info (Score:3, Informative)

    by CondeZer0 ( 158969 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:44PM (#2255913) Homepage
    Some karma whoring..

    From an Asa article [mozillazine.org] at mozillazine.org: " Mitchell Baker's post on her current situation involving Netscape and mozilla.org [google.com]"

    To all the mozilla people: continue the great work, all you rock!

    Best regards

    Uriel
    • Well looks like Asa posted this before me...

      *sigh*

      Well, he deserve the karma, and his post is really informative, not like mine :)

      /me thinks of poor Asa's wife...
      Asa, don't work so much!

      Take care

      Uriel

  • AOL Deathblow? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by idonotexist ( 450877 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:44PM (#2255914)
    Please excuse my thoughts of a potential conspiracy theory here. Given the significance of AOL (Netscape) developers to the Mozilla project and the lay off of a (significant?) number of employees, including lead developers, to Mozilla, it seems to me AOL is attempting to kill Mozilla. Why else would AOL make such a move? I mean, what other result would come from this by not continuing support of Mozilla? (eh, 'mozilla is available for download' is not significant support imo).

    The motive? Who knows. Recently, though, AOL and Microsoft were engaged in intense negotiations regarding the inclusion of AOL in Windows XP.
    • you cant kill mozilla.
      it exists as a open source project now, and even if they said, "Our servers and sourcecode... mine mine ! you all go away (which is exactly how software companies act... like 3 year olds fighting over a ball)" it is still out there, many many still have the sourcecode, and it will continue.

      AOL cannot stop it, netscape cant stop it.

      It's a moot point and will only speed it up if they try to stop it.

      • Re:AOL Deathblow? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @03:44PM (#2256913) Homepage Journal

        No, no, no.


        The conspiracy theory is about half right.


        AOL wants to keep Mozilla waiting in the wings as a potential threatening poker chip in its negotiations with MS about desktop icon placement, default MSN services, whether AOL will pursue the legal complaints that Netscape originally filed, etc.


        These negotiations pivot about various points, such as whether AOL will use IE or Netscape, whose streaming media format they will support, etc. As such, the poker chips in this game can be quite important and valuable because the game is for such very high stakes.

        The Netscape/Mozilla browser represents a bugaboo to MS for two reasons.

        1. As a ghost of a vanquished enemy that could be brought back to life to challenge IE if suddenly AOL were to release tens of millions of CDs with a working Mozilla on it.
        2. The same ghost carries with it the wounds it suffered during the famous Air Supply Cutoff that the Dept of Justice is so intent upon examining. Rather than have AOL with a well funded legal department display the corpse for all to see, it is better to lay flowers on that grave and not upset the status quo.

        The upshot is that Mozilla is an excellent poker chip where it stands now, getting preened but not quite ready for prime time. It serves AOL's purpose well in keeping the beast of Redmond at bay.

        If the Mozilla poker chip were actually played, either releasing it for general widespread use or using its legal status to beat up MS in the courts, then a lot of blood and fur would fly. Not a business decision that they want or need right now.


        Kind of like the book and movie Shogun, if you recall the end, where Lord Toranaga keeps Anjin-san building dangerous ships to keep his adversaries at bay, but secretly Lord Toranaga burns the ships when they are in danger of becoming a full fledged reality.


    • I think this [marketwatch.com] might be a more logical explanation..

      Not that I don't appreciate a good conspiracy theory (-:
    • Maybe. But if AOL thinks they can afford to let MS control internet client software, they're dumber than I think they are...
  • Oh god, when will people learn; MozillaQuest is not a reliable source for Mozilla development information!

    I'm so tired of this. All the major geek news sites like this one keeps posting new references to this very misinforming site.

    Please boycott it. I know I will.
  • Just wanted to say thanks for keeping us from working with our main tool, Bugzilla. I hope we don't have to suffer this again in the future.

    -Fabian.
  • I wondered if something like this wouldn't be far behind the announcement that Netscape isn't "doing" browsers anymore. A lot of speculation about future fallout was bandied about in this Slashdot discussion [slashdot.org]. It seems like the chips are beginning to fall. I guess we'll see where they all land.

  • I can see the new MozillaQuest headlines now (Score:5, Funny)

    by chabotc ( 22496 ) <chabotc@ g m a i l.com> on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @12:51PM (#2255950) Homepage
    "Mozilla milestone 0.9.4 delayed again: due to a large conspiricy, the slashdot community decided to kill of mozilla's bugzilla server, completely stoping all work on the branch".

    In related news, from the bugzilla 2.5.1 Changelog:
    * Added a slashdot effect filter, if HTTP_REFER = '*slashdot.org', show a 404 page.

  • Bugzilla Mirror - Use this instead. (Score:3, Informative)

    by cetan ( 61150 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @01:00PM (#2255984) Journal
    http://www.necrosys.net/mirrors/bug_96747.html [necrosys.net]

    Don't kill bugzilla.mozilla

  • no good for slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ahmetaa ( 519568 )
    Slash dot has made mistakes 1- Linking to the one of the most horrible designed web site ever (mozillaquest) 2- Not ignoring that site, although many times it was explained nicely from Mozilla workers why this site cant be the source for Mozilla project, and yet there is real info in mozillazine.org 3- Sadly, by linking to the Bugzilla directly. Today was an important day because 0.9.4 was ready to go. Now who knows when bugzilla will work again. deliberately bombing one of the gratest open source project ever. i am likely to believe slashdot likes magazine conspiracy rather than reality. PS: For God's sake who will listen Wrangler??

  • Gill Bates [mailto] writes: "According to this bugtraq report [randombugtraqlink.org] a rogue Mozilla programmer has inserted illegal DVD descrambling code into the freely-distributable Mozilla browser source code. Is there any question now whether open-source software is dangerous to intellectual property?

    That should keep those Mozilla folks busy awhile. Who needs to script up some virus to take over broadband computers to send DDOS attacks at targets when you can just link to a website in a /. submission?

    Seriously, isn't it time that Slashdot start mirroring some of these web pages that they kill via the /. effect? This could have easily been saved on the /. servers and then linked to without kiling the bugtraq servers over there.

  • MozillaQuest for eradication... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by linuxwolf ( 161541 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @01:09PM (#2256035)

    Does anyone have the scoop as to why Mike Angelo hates Mozilla so much? Was a contribution burned? Did they decide to use someone else's ideas instead of his? Is he just having a permanent "that-time-of-the-month"?

    I ask this because he is not forthcoming on his own information. That, and his site is very, very misleading. Do not be fooled the "we asked" or "we investigated" lines. This is the pursuit of one person.

    Also, almost all of this individual's "articles" are taken from the Bugzilla entries and Mozilla mainsite postings. They have little foundation in actual fact.

    Now, I myself am not involved in the day-to-day of Mozilla and Netscape, but I follow the direction of this project closely, since the technologies being developed here (mainly XUL and XPCOM) can have a dramatic effect on the future of my employers (sorry, I cannot go into much detail here). I keep updated from the mailing lists, and from MozillaZine [mozillazine.org] and The lizard farm [mozilla.org].

    I very rarely ever head over to MozillaQuest. The reason: most of the "articles" are factually incorrect. take for instance the article on "Mozilla 0.9.2.1 released". If all you ever do is read MozillaQuest, you'd think there was this tremendous conspiracy going on between Mozilla and Netscape. But a quick perusal of Mozilla and/or MozillaZine shed actual light on the subject: The 0.9.2.1 release is 95-99% equivalent to Netscape 6.1, and is being provided for developers to test and debug their XUL/XPCOM/Plug-ins/skins/etc.. against for Netscape 6.1 compatibility.

    MozillaQuest is fiction, with enough truth to make it sound legitimate. If you want the real scoop, head over to MozillaZine [mozillazine.org]. Don't waste time at MozillaQuest.

    • But if they posted links to authoritative sources, we wouldn't have anything to whine and moan about! Where would our precious karma be then?

      Actually, I have my own conspiracy theory on the subject. See, Taco's run up a tremendous gambling debt, and his income from Slashdot just doesn't cover it anymore. So every chance he gets, he puts up a story with a link to MozillaQuest. Why?? Because CmdrTaco is actually Mike Angelo! He's doing it for the ad revenue!

      I have proof. First, no self-respecting parents would ever name a child Michael Angelo, unless they were some terrible TMNT freaks. Second, have you EVER seen them TOGETHER?

      I didn't think so.

  • Does anybody have any clues as to who this mysterious major vendor is? It's pretty obvious that the insiders at Mozilla.org are under NDA or something like that.

    The timing of this makes me wonder if maybe Mitchell isn't going to some other Mozilla related company. Even if not, I think it's interesting that the "commercial" Mozilla community is growing beyond just AOL. It makes for a healthier project.

    • Does anybody have any clues as to who this mysterious major vendor is?

      My guess would be RedHat, although that is pure conjecture on my part. I remember somebody from RedHat stating not too long ago that they are planning of replacing Netscape with Mozilla in their Linux distribution at some point and RedHat Linux 7.2 is just around the corner. Mozilla surpasses Navigator 4.x on Linux in just about all respects at this point, so I wouldn't be surprised if RedHat made the switch now rather than waiting for Mozilla 1.0.

      There are some good (and probably better informed) guesses at the Mozillazine article on the subject [mozillazine.org]. So far, the other guesses are OEone and Netscape (yes, there's a good explanation for Netscape being the masked vendor even though they just released Navigator 6.1 - read the comments below the article).

      • RedHat seems unlikely to me. I doubt they'd take a branch and try to stabilize it themselves. IMHO they would just pick a build at run with it. It's just not important enough for their business for them to bother with a separate branch.

        Netscape would make a certain amount of sense, but why keep it a secret?

        I could see AOL, but I don't think AOL needs to put out a release any time soon. They'd be better off just waiting for 1.0.

        OEone? I don't really know much about them. Would they really be called a "major" vendor? Major contributer yes, but major vendor seems like a bit of a stretch.

        Somebody like Nokia or Sony (for the PlayStation) might be a possibility. I could imagine them wanting to keep mum about their product, and they would definately count as major.

  • What's next, using the National Enquirer? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kelson ( 129150 ) on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @01:17PM (#2256090) Homepage Journal

    Didn't you learn from the last time? Using MozillaQuest as a news source is like using the National Enquirer. If you dig deep enough you might find a kernel of truth, but most of it is sensationalist, wildly inaccurate crap. This is the site that claimed Netscape 6.1 was not based on Mozilla code, includes things like duplicates and feature requests when counting the number of "bugs," and somehow manages to skew every bit of news, whether positive or negative, to make it evidence of Mozilla's demise/irrelevance/uselessness/etc.

    If you want straight-forward news (including the real story about Mitchell Baker), check out MozillaZine [mozillazine.org] instead. They may not update the site as frequently, but it's generally news from people who are actually involved with the project, and it's a hell of a lot more accurate (one advantage of waiting until you have real information instead of making up your own).

    • I can see the MozillaQuestQuest article now:

      MozillaQuest lays off MozillaQuest's Chief Article Wrangler, Michael Angelo, And Others?

      According to Bug Number 34834 in the MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite's BugQuest database, MozillaQuest's Chief Article Wrangler, "Michael Angelo has left MozillaQuest." However, he is still listed on MozillaQuest's article pages as the MozillaQuest article writer.

      Here's what we think happened. It appears that Michael Angelo's position at MozillaQuest was eliminated and that he consequently was laid off on or about 4 September 2001. Although Michael served as head of the MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite he was actually employed by Matrix Wireless and was being paid by Matrix Wireless for his work at the Magazine-Suite.

      The lion's share of people working on the entire MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite are employed and paid by Matrix Wireless - or at least were employed by Matrix Wireless. Matrix Wireless through its spokesman Michael Angelo has refused to disclose how many Matrix Wireless employees work on the Magazine-Suite. However it is likely that at least 100-200 positions have been eliminated at the Magazine-Suite, which would leave it with only -99 to -199 employees. So layoffs at Matrix Wireless could have a substantial impact on the MozillaQuest Magazine-Suite.

  • New threat to the internet (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05, 2001 @02:04PM (#2256321)
    -PAFP
    September 5 2001, 4:54 AM
    It has been discovered that a new and mysterious underground hacker-website called the "Slash Dot" has developed a powerful & destructive cyberweapon. Sources say that by "hyper linking" to a government or industry webserver, the Slash Dottors can destroy the victom's operations for days at a time. A recipient of a hyper link attack this Wednesday was the site called "Mozillabug", a massive technological service used by thousands of businesses to obtain free program "code". FBI spokespeople were unavailable to comment, it is believed a presumably insane collegue died of laughing upon hearing about this new internet security threat.
    Industry leader Microsoft Corp [MSFT] has recomended users perchase their new Windows XP operating system in order to take advantage of their new innovation: a firewall. Firewalls are believed to protect users against all internet security threats, but Microsoft spokespeople were unable to elaborate due to lack of knowledge in the subject.
    Meanwhile, reports are coming in that members of the Slash Dot called "Anonymous Cowists" are posting the phrase "Hacked By Chinese" on message boards all over the internet. British MPs have claimed in Parliament that reading those messages can cause keyboards to emit green haze.

    Joe Bloggs, PAFP news.
  • It must be that Taco decided we already have enough news today, and didn't want another Mozilla story on top of this one - so he posted the link to Bugzilla, bringing it down and preventing 0.9.4 from being released. How deviously clever.

    Either that or he's just stupid (this evidence is supported by the fact that he keeps posting links to MozillaQuest) and had no idea his idiocy would singlehandedly set back the release of 0.9.4.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close