Python plugin

[William Tanksley]

On 8 Jan 2000 00:01:31 GMT, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote:
>>>(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?

We are -- MSDOS is a clone of CP/M.  We left CP/M behind because it didn't
have the capability of being compatible; it was a backward-looking design.
HTML has the same problems, and XML is trying to fix them.

>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.

When designing a web page, you want to let people read it.  I can't
believe that you, of all people, are denying this.

>>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.

I suppose throwing fragments of animated GIFs all over the screen counts
as being stable.  I personally don't like it.  What made me stop (I
switched back to IE 4.0) was two things: first of all, a HUGE display bug
which would grey out my whole screen until reboot; and second, the huge
security holes.

>First, from personal experience at least, IE 5 is 100% more stable than any
>Netscape version I've ever used.

I've seen SO many more crashes and glitches in IE 5 than in Netscape that
this is not even funny.  I can only guess that you're comparing IE on
Windows to Netscape on Linux -- the Linux version of Netscape is REALLY
bad.

>As far as the current versions of Netscape
>are concerned, Mozilla doesn't even hold a candle to them.

I've *seen* it hold a candle to them.  They went up in flames, too!  At
any rate, I wasn't able to make M12 crash.  I didn't keep on using it,
though, because it doesn't have some of the features I use regularly, such
as trackpoint scrolling.

>Which is pretty
>suprising since its built from the same codebase (supposedly) as the much
>more stable NT version.

Um...  Sam?  Mozilla is a complete rewrite.  You were supposed to know
this.  We've talked about it before.

>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.

That may be our problem -- I've always tested it under Windows.

>(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).

Probably not -- I'd bet that there are many other causes for crashes.

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

I don't bet, but I like Opera too.  A graphical browser which lets me use
keyboard-only access -- how cool can you get?  Everybody try out Opera.

It'll be really nice to have a halfway decent graphical browser for Linux
again.

>Samuel A. Falvo II

-- 
-William "Billy" Tanksley, in hoc signo hack