Re: mozilla/bloatzilla users please test

[Theo de Raadt <deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org>]

> On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 15:59, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 15:03, Peter Valchev wrote:
> > > > with this diff, if you've been using mozilla, you're now using
> > > > bloatzilla. and if you've been using mozilla-firebird, you're now using
> > > > mozilla.
> > > 
> > > Uh why?  Does this solve a problem?  Or is it just funny.
> > 
> > 1) It is better for users.  Users do not want a browser which takes 45
> >    seconds to start up, has more bugs, and is 3x slower than the other
> >    one.  They want something that they can use.
> 
> Ok, so it's just funny.
> 
> "bloatzilla" while accurate, doesn't fix the stated problem.  It will
> still be there.

You ENTIRELY miss the point.

People do not live in a vacuum.

They think "hmm, I need a browser"
Then they say "oh I heard about mozilla"
then they install it

You think they should install the CRAPPY BLOATED PIECE OF SHIT by default.

We think otherwise.

> What might be a better option is to have the mozilla port only build
> development and/or library packages for other ports/packages that want
> them (galeon comes to mind but there are others that aren't in-tree
> yet).  This way there's NO {bloat|mo}zilla at all and the message is

That changes zero.  You don't understand people.

> sent loud and clear without the risk of confusing the heck out of people
> ("what's bloatzilla?") and possibly breaking other ports.

confused people?  over that?  Who gives a rats ass.  This is not about
those people.

This is about regular joe doing pkg_add mozilla*

That's what he thinks he should do, and in OpenBSD, he will end up
with the choice he things he is making. He thinks that gets him a
simple browser, and it will give him what he thinks he wants and
needs.  It will not fill his drive and memory with a beached whale.