Python plugin

[Samuel A. Falvo II]

>>(Personally, I think the COM solution is a superior one anyway, but that's
>>just my opinion.)
>
>Sure it is -- but compatibility is even better.

Then why aren't we all using CP/M?

There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to this whole
"backward compatibility" thing.  Sometimes you just have to pick up your
bags, and leave Hotel Compatibility behind.  Time marches on, after all.

>Mozilla is right now (M12) almost as stable than Netscape 4.7 or IE 5.0

For the record, three people in this office, who have used Mozilla before,
laughed when I mentioned what you said.  In three words, Not Even Close.
First, from personal experience at least, IE 5 is 100% more stable than any
Netscape version I've ever used.  As far as the current versions of Netscape
are concerned, Mozilla doesn't even hold a candle to them.  Which is pretty
suprising since its built from the same codebase (supposedly) as the much
more stable NT version.  People have been saying, "Mozilla is almost as
stable as..." for the last three years. Without fail, every time I try it,
Mozilla segfaults on something trivial on every Linux box I've used it on.
(I'd be willing to bet that the bugs that destabilize Mozilla under Linux
have to do with XPCOM, and their apparent disregard for existing COM
specifications).

Right now, my bets are on Opera, if and when they ever release it.  And yes,
I'd be willing to pay for it.

>(although it still lacks some important features, and both of those
>browsers are terrible for stability).  The codebase is big and
>complicated, but I like the progress they're making.

As do I -- I'm not commenting on their progress.  I was commenting on its
suitability and stability.

-- 
KC5TJA/6, DM13, QRP-L #1447
Samuel A. Falvo II
Oceanside, CA