[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Netscape goes GPL.



Hi everyone!

I read everything any of you wrote. I had many things to say, but I
restrained myself, till the discussion would relax. I won't quote
the original posters, but everything I am going to write is a
response:

1. It was not a big surprise. Netscape's step was logical, expected,
   and was known to many (including me) for about a month. Many in
   Israel heard about the license that Netscape gave "People and
   Computers" (Anashim U'Machshevim) to include their browser in the
   monthly "InterCD" (free of charge), and there were hundreds of
   similar cases around the world. Actually, Netscape's browser is
   already free for about a month, but they "forgot" to advertise
   it.

2. Netscape was already in big troubles, even when it still made
   some money from the browser. To be more detailed, they had a loss
   of $89 million (!) in the last quarter. The number of 18% is not
   the real number. It doesn't include the incomes from all the
   flavours and versions of the browser. And don't compare Netscape
   to Caldera/Cygnus/RedHat. These companies don't have the same
   costs. Maybe 1/100. Netscape must reach an annual income of
   billions of dollars in order to survive.
   Gartner claimed that the only chance of Netscape (and Oracle) to
   survive is to merge (i.e. Larry would buy Netscape). I still hope
   to see it, but maybe Netscape is tired of waiting for this step,
   so... (read the next)

3. Maybe IE is dead, but Netscape (not the browser, but the company)
   is going to kill itself too. The loss will deep. But there is
   some logic in this step (exactly like the "Tamot Nafshi Im
   Plishtim" of Samson). Microsoft wanted to buy Netscape before the
   IPO, but Netscape refused. Maybe the roles reversed...  Netscape
   tells Microsoft: "Either we'll both have problems, or we'll have
   to co-operate". It is very pessimistic, but maybe Netscape prefer
   Bill upon Larry (exactly as Apple before).

4. DO NOT BELIEVE Netscape's "first quarter of 98". As usual, half
   of it is true. I think that "first quarter" is true. Regarding to
   "98", I don't think. After all, Netscape does not have a good
   history in promises and in standing in schedules.

5. I don't understand why it looks so easy for you to put the
   sources in the GPL. Most of the parts included in the
   "professional" version are commercial, and owned by 3rd parties.
   Many libraries of the basic version are commercial too. For
   example, there are some key widgets which belong to 3rd parties
   (e.g. the XmLGrid). And does anybody think that JavaSoft is going
   to permit Netscape to publish the full sources of its Java VM?
   And what about RSA?  And what about other dozens of parts?  It is
   not going to be simple, and even in the end of the process, we'll
   have a primitive browser, without most of the features which
   helped Netscape to gain most of the market.

6. Someone discussed the complexity of compiling Netscape. It won't
   be so hard. I already compiled much more complicated packages.
   Although I saw a strong (Digital's) Alpha crashing again and 
   again when I was trying to compile Oracle (I mean THE Oracle, not
   an Oracle based application), I don't think Netscape is so heavy.

7. During this discussion, someone compared Hebrew support for X to
   Titanic project. As almost all of you know, I already did it, in
   addition to dozens of other projects I did. It works perfectly,
   and all the UNIX vendors in Israel already purchased it (in
   addition to many software houses and large sites). He claimed
   that a full compatibily is hard to be achieved; Well, my product
   is fully (100%) compatible, in both source AND binary level, to
   the original X (11.5 AND 11.6) and Motif. And its BiDi is fully
   compatible to Microsoft (although visual order is supported as
   well). You can take a Motif application, just replace its libXm
   (by changing LD_LIBRARY_PATH), and have the full Hebrew features
   that this application has under the Hebrew Windows.
   By the way: this "someone" said: "but it can be done, the
   foundation is there". Well, the foundation is not there anymore.
   It is very sad, and I knew all the staff (I enjoyed a week with
   them).

8. One claimed that freeing the sources of Netscape will ease the
   localization of it to foreign languages, including Hebrew. First
   of all, I don't know what is wrong with my Hebrew support for
   Netscape. But secondly, and much more important, is the following
   fact: There is an exact correlation between the "commerciality"
   of software, and its chances to be localized to Hebrew. There are
   thousands of commercial software packages, and thousands of free.
   Among the commercials, 200-300 have Hebrew support. Among the
   free?  3, maybe 4. I can explain the reasons of this amazing fact
   in hours, but I don't have the time for it. Just remember one
   thing: The chances of Netscape to have Hebrew support, are lower
   than ever.

9. One claimed that freeing the sources of Netscape will improve it.
   Unfortunately, the technical problem of Netscape is not lacking
   features. Moreover, I think Netscape is too rich in features. And
   IE too, of course. The problem of these two browsers is that
   instead of being just browsers, they became monsters, with
   hundreds (or even thousands) of small features. So both are
   unstable, crashing again and again, and have severe memory leaks. 
   Freeing the sources will allow Netscape to have many more
   "exciting" features which nobody will need, but the stability will
   not be improved.

10.As a (claimed to be) expert in Hebrew localization, I must admit
   that Microsoft is doing very well. Although everybody has many
   complaints regarding to their Hebrew support, I still didn't see
   anybody (including me) who has a competing Hebrew. It is sad to
   say, but we are all, years behind Microsoft, in Hebrew
   localization, who set new standards in it (and don't laugh at me)

11.Summary: I have to agree with Michael who claims that Netscape is
   not going GPL, but GPF (General Protection Fault), and that this
   is a step of despair. Maybe the step is good, but Netscape is
   still in big troubles, harder than ever.

P.S. The most important feature of a software product, as I claim
again and again, is its source availability. But it is important
only for us, as potential "customers"; It doesn't help Netscape :-(

-- 
Eli Marmor
El-Mar Software Ltd.