| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
What I'm trying to say is ...What I'm trying to say is ...Posted May 14, 2003 21:31 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104)In reply to: What are you trying to say exactly? by roskegg Parent article: Christopher Blizzard of mozilla.org Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict (MozillaZine) that Christopher Blizzard sounds like a honest person to me, that he acknowledges the problem on the Mozilla side and tries to do best to mitigate the situation. I disagree with your description of his position as "mealy mouthed weasel words". I also don't see any arrogance, extreme or otherwise, in his words. On the other hand, I hope that AOL and the Mozilla team will learn from this incident and stick with their promise not to use the name "Firebird" on ready software products. As for the apology, I don't feel strong about it. It's up to Mozilla developers to decide. But for the sake of ending this conflict, it's better not to demand the apology from them. I never liked the name "Firebird" for the browser ("Kiwi" was my favorite), but renaming the project one more time would be impractical, in my opinion.
(Log in to post comments)
Mr Blizzards only honesty Posted May 14, 2003 21:35 UTC (Wed) by roskegg (subscriber, #105) [Link] The only honesty that Mr. Blizzard showed in the interview was showing his, and the Mozilla projects, arrogance. I don't believe you have the knowledge to evaluate his interview beyond that. You lack the prior history need to put it in context.
Mr Blizzards only honesty Posted May 15, 2003 2:38 UTC (Thu) by erikharrison (guest, #11204) [Link] That's cool. We lack the context. Provide would you?First you add invective to to a dispute which until recently you have helped to calm down. Next you claim that this invective spurs from an attitude you see in the Mozilla project - an arrogance so great that you would not recommend the Mozilla product were there a clear alternative. Now, I don't recommend products if they are technically incapable (which does not seem to be your stance with Mozilla) or if there is some legitimate harm in using the product (Microsoft licencing is damaging to the consumer). So the Mozilla arrogance must be huge to deserve such treatment. Then you go from claiming that the interview is a clear example of that arrogance, to saying that it is only clear in the context of your five year experience with the project and its predecessor. While that seems a little weak, it would be legitimate if you gave any of that background. You do not. In short, you say "Mozilla is a product which should not be used, because I don't like some of those guys, for reasons I won't explain." Frankly, this seems beneath you, as you have clearly demonstrated your capacity to be politic, calm, and lucid in your behavior up till now, and you technical knowledge is certainly not in question. This is an issue that will be resolved by everybody taking a step back, and not from ringside crowd jeering, and even indirect claims about project leaders integrity.
Mr Blizzards only honesty Posted May 15, 2003 5:40 UTC (Thu) by Sharky (guest, #11210) [Link] Mr. Jonathan Walther, beware: A link to this article was placed on the front page of Mozillazine. Expect a flow of Mozilla sympathizers to follow suit.
|
|
||||||||||||