5 ms·
Article author here. > Really dumb aside that shouldn't have made it past the editor Why? It was 100% intentional and the reason I included it is that I have
by lproven 3y ago
Article author here.
> Really dumb aside that shouldn't have made it past the editor
Why? It was 100% intentional and the reason I included it is that I have often seen this raised as an alleged reason for Mozilla not more aggressively competing with Google, notably here on HN.
I don't believe it for a minute. That is specifically why I said "surely not".
> (not least of all because of the insane rendering of "GoLang").
"golang" is one of its official names and that is because the bare word "go" is open to misinterpretation and is hard to Google. The caps were merely for emphasis, and also, interCaps help screen-reader users.
> This overstates Mozilla's involvement in Thunderbird. The relationship is basically ceremonial at this point.
[Citation needed]
> The way this is written makes it sound like there was a delay to fulfill the promise.
There was.
> In reality, it only took 2 months for Netscape to publish source code. It took another four years for them to decide to scrap the old code and undertake a rewrite that culminated in the release a 1.0 of a different product line which the author refers to here.
Arguably true but, I submit, tangential to the actual point. The decision to O/S it being the same time as the Netscape 5 rewrite was a deeply stupid idea, but also understandable.
However, it was some 25 years ago now, so I didn't and don't think it merits more than a single-line passing mention and was not -- and is not -- worth this level of hair-splitting.
- cxr 3y agoI'm not going to bother responding in depth, since it's evident that that will be fruitless. This, for example, is a good indicator: > Arguably true but There's nothing arguable about it. It's simply "true".
- lproven 3y ago[[Citation needed]] I mean this is ancient history and I really don't know why you are so bothered about it, but as I recall, Netscape was unwilling and unable to open the source code for 3.x or 4.x and so rather than spend all the time and effort to clean it up for publication, it chose to rewrite it. So, as I said: the reasoning was unfortunate but understandable.
- cxr 3y ago> I really don't know why you are so bothered about it Drop the ad hominem if you want to have a serious discussion. (In the future, that is. We won't be having a discussion here, for the reasons stated. You can email me if you want, but I'm going to impose a mandatory 1-month delay for reflection and require a simple affirmation that the purpose will be a genuine attempt to develop the facts rather than "winning" the conversation. Changing the subject, diverting attention with weak attempts at petty retorts, etc. are going to be strictly off-limits.)
- subjectsigma 3y agoMy God you sound completely insufferable. I hope for your relatives sake you only say shit like this online
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- cxr 3y ago<https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments>
- lproven 3y agoThere was no ad hom in my reply, and I don't feel any need for further argument, thanks. My article had plenty of references and citations for the points I wanted to make. If you wish to falsify it, then you need to reply with your own citations. You have yet to do so, and what you claim are significant issues are, AFAICS, trivial cavils.