4 ms·

> If mozilla did the same with FireFox a and would focus on long term stability and bug fixing rather than grafting new parts onto it and re-writing old parts t

> If mozilla did the same with FireFox a and would focus on long term stability and bug fixing rather than grafting new parts onto it and re-writing old parts that are working just fine I'd be OK with that too. Although I agree 100% with the sentiment, the trouble with this approach is that the web moves much quicker than email.

jacquesm 11y ago
It is my opinion - which is not shared by many, I'm aware of that - that the web is moving too fast. This is why we're dealing with massive data leaks and unreliable services on a daily basis. If the quality of desk top software in the 80's and the 90's had been as bad as the quality of your average consumer website (my bank for instance) then the PC revolution would have never happened. I'm all for a slower pace with a much stronger focus on quality.
- gist 11y ago
  "which is not shared by many" I agree with your opinion and am one of those that shares that thought as well. "If the quality of desk top software in the 80's and the 90's" Exactly. And it couldn't be as bad back in the day when things had to be good simply because you didn't want to have to update by floppy (or even CD) a bunch of software with issues. The focus on quality isn't there. It isn't there because of the safety net of being able to update people over the web. Nothing appears to be thought out in advance anymore. Maybe "no beta or alpha testing" might be an exaggeration but it just seems like "shove it out and when problems develop patch it".
  - vocatus_gate 11y ago
    A large part of the instability and security problems are also because software is so, so SO much more complex these days. There is just a lot more to consider when writing code than there used to be. So it's not necessarily that it's moving too fast, it could also just be from increased complexity.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      We actually make it more complex. That's self-fulfilling prophesy, software is more complex because we choose it to be so. It does not have to be so. Feature wise we could do just about what we can do today, maybe a bit less eye candy but rock solid if we chose to walk a different path.

jacquesm 11y ago

It is my opinion - which is not shared by many, I'm aware of that - that the web is moving too fast. This is why we're dealing with massive data leaks and unreliable services on a daily basis. If the quality of desk top software in the 80's and the 90's had been as bad as the quality of your average consumer website (my bank for instance) then the PC revolution would have never happened. I'm all for a slower pace with a much stronger focus on quality.

gist 11y ago
"which is not shared by many" I agree with your opinion and am one of those that shares that thought as well. "If the quality of desk top software in the 80's and the 90's" Exactly. And it couldn't be as bad back in the day when things had to be good simply because you didn't want to have to update by floppy (or even CD) a bunch of software with issues. The focus on quality isn't there. It isn't there because of the safety net of being able to update people over the web. Nothing appears to be thought out in advance anymore. Maybe "no beta or alpha testing" might be an exaggeration but it just seems like "shove it out and when problems develop patch it".
- vocatus_gate 11y ago
  A large part of the instability and security problems are also because software is so, so SO much more complex these days. There is just a lot more to consider when writing code than there used to be. So it's not necessarily that it's moving too fast, it could also just be from increased complexity.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    We actually make it more complex. That's self-fulfilling prophesy, software is more complex because we choose it to be so. It does not have to be so. Feature wise we could do just about what we can do today, maybe a bit less eye candy but rock solid if we chose to walk a different path.