3 ms·

Netscapes idea of rewriting the entire browser was so famously bad it’s a popular blog entry that people still refer to now. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/20

Netscapes idea of rewriting the entire browser was so famously bad it’s a popular blog entry that people still refer to now. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-... The operating system vendor creating thier own browser was always going to happen Neither Apple, Google or Microsoft were ever going to let themselves be beholden to a third party for anything as essential as the browser

fnordpiglet 3y ago
There was no plan to rewrite the browser. It was to replace the rendering and layout engine with Gecko, and the chrome with XUL. Both of these were the foundation of Firefox, so wasn’t such a bad decision after all? Netscape 5 was post revenue decimation and was a bizarre organizational screwup between the Mozilla efforts and the existing rendering engine folks, where the existing engine folks thought they could salvage the renderer. They were not able to, and the gecko efforts were the only viable path forward. I’ve read Joel’s outsider view from Microsoft’s monopolist vantage and it doesn’t square with reality of what actually occurred. And his discussion of the situation sans the fact Netscape was in disarray after his employer destroyed our business illegally leaves a lot of crucial context out of the discussion. Fact is even in Mozilla and Netscape 6, and in both efforts for 5, most of the code carried over. The rewrite was primarily focused on integrating or improving the rendering engine (remember 5 was two competing camps trying to get to done first, some bizarre cargo cult management decision based of Microsoft culture). Ironically the historical truth is Joel’s advocated way of incrementalism was the side that actually lost and couldn’t deliver anything. The rewrite is what you use today in Firefox.
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  Netscape's failure seems to have been caused by years of incrementally piling new features over the old rotten core without much cleanup / refactoring, which is certainly not what Joel suggests
- scarface_74 3y ago
  > Both of these were the foundation of Firefox, so wasn’t such a bad decision after all From a business standpoint or even market share, can you really say that Firefox is a success? It only survives because its largest competitor is also its biggest funder. We also have an existence proof that if the competitor is better - ie Chrome - people will go out of their way to download an alternative. You see that people download Chrome on both Macs and especially Windows.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
I’d note also the issue wasn’t Microsoft writing their own browser. They already had. The illegal thing they did was integrate the browser directly into the operating system as a mandatory thing for free as a way to drive a competitor out of business, which succeeded. This isn’t my opinion, this is public record and a legal finding of fact. Netscape would have improved in response given a normal competitive market. But they didn’t and couldn’t. Instead we started Mozilla, which is probably a better outcome for everyone. My work on creating the Mozilla project is a highlight of my career.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Out of all of things that Microsoft was actually found guilty of, bundling the browser with the OS was never one in the US. There was never a time since MS bundled the browser with the Windows that they were forced not to do so. There was also never a browser choice mandate in the US.
  - dwattttt 3y ago
    Even as a fan of Microsoft, rephrasing that as "the entirely legal thing they did that drove a competitor out of business" doesn't make me feel better about the outcome.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Isn’t the simple explanation that Navigator sucked and people decided not to go out of their way to download it? Navigator did suck and was crash prone and could bring down the entire operating system on weaker operating systems like the Mac. We have two instances where people did in fact choose to go out of their way to download better browsers then the default - first Firefox and then Chrome.
      - icedchai 3y ago

fnordpiglet 3y ago

There was no plan to rewrite the browser. It was to replace the rendering and layout engine with Gecko, and the chrome with XUL. Both of these were the foundation of Firefox, so wasn’t such a bad decision after all? Netscape 5 was post revenue decimation and was a bizarre organizational screwup between the Mozilla efforts and the existing rendering engine folks, where the existing engine folks thought they could salvage the renderer. They were not able to, and the gecko efforts were the only viable path forward. I’ve read Joel’s outsider view from Microsoft’s monopolist vantage and it doesn’t square with reality of what actually occurred. And his discussion of the situation sans the fact Netscape was in disarray after his employer destroyed our business illegally leaves a lot of crucial context out of the discussion. Fact is even in Mozilla and Netscape 6, and in both efforts for 5, most of the code carried over. The rewrite was primarily focused on integrating or improving the rendering engine (remember 5 was two competing camps trying to get to done first, some bizarre cargo cult management decision based of Microsoft culture). Ironically the historical truth is Joel’s advocated way of incrementalism was the side that actually lost and couldn’t deliver anything. The rewrite is what you use today in Firefox.

The_Colonel 3y ago
Netscape's failure seems to have been caused by years of incrementally piling new features over the old rotten core without much cleanup / refactoring, which is certainly not what Joel suggests
scarface_74 3y ago
> Both of these were the foundation of Firefox, so wasn’t such a bad decision after all From a business standpoint or even market share, can you really say that Firefox is a success? It only survives because its largest competitor is also its biggest funder. We also have an existence proof that if the competitor is better - ie Chrome - people will go out of their way to download an alternative. You see that people download Chrome on both Macs and especially Windows.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

I’d note also the issue wasn’t Microsoft writing their own browser. They already had. The illegal thing they did was integrate the browser directly into the operating system as a mandatory thing for free as a way to drive a competitor out of business, which succeeded. This isn’t my opinion, this is public record and a legal finding of fact. Netscape would have improved in response given a normal competitive market. But they didn’t and couldn’t. Instead we started Mozilla, which is probably a better outcome for everyone. My work on creating the Mozilla project is a highlight of my career.

scarface_74 3y ago
Out of all of things that Microsoft was actually found guilty of, bundling the browser with the OS was never one in the US. There was never a time since MS bundled the browser with the Windows that they were forced not to do so. There was also never a browser choice mandate in the US.
- dwattttt 3y ago
  Even as a fan of Microsoft, rephrasing that as "the entirely legal thing they did that drove a competitor out of business" doesn't make me feel better about the outcome.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Isn’t the simple explanation that Navigator sucked and people decided not to go out of their way to download it? Navigator did suck and was crash prone and could bring down the entire operating system on weaker operating systems like the Mac. We have two instances where people did in fact choose to go out of their way to download better browsers then the default - first Firefox and then Chrome.
    - icedchai 3y ago