On Tue, 2003-01-28 at 07:09, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > "Mark L. Kahnt" wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 23:58, Curt Howland wrote: > > > Personal reply if possible, I cannot keep up with the traffic on user... > > > > > > Does anyone know why Netscape Communicator has been dropped from > > > Testing? > > > > > > Does Mozilla email load the Communicator mail files ok? > > > > > > Chocolate or Vanilla? > > > > > > Curt- > > > > > > > > > -- > > > "Wherever I go, everyone is a little bit safer because I am there. > > > Wherever I am, anyone in need has a friend. > > > Whenever I return home, everyone is happy I am there." > > > ---The Warrior Creed, Robert L. Humphrey, USMC > > > > Debian Weekly News warned a while back that it would get the hook, as a) > > it is non-free, b) it is buggy and not getting noticeably better as > > Netscape is looking to retire it in favour of Netscape 7, and c) it > > wasn't even being kept up with the latest releases of that codebase from > > Netscape. > > Yes, and with all of that said, some of us still prefer to use it for > various reasons. Mozilla is not a 100% replacement as of yet as it runs > too slowly on older systems, and in addition, the Mozilla mail/news just > isn't as good yet. > > I know there are other alternatives to look at, as well as other ways to > install Communicator. My point is simply that removing the Communicator > packages, as justified as it may seem to many, is still something of a > disservice to a portion of the Debian community. > > Tom I make no observation of relative qualities or selective suitability in one area relative to another - Communicator used to be my default Internet interaction suite, both on Linux and previously on OS/2 and even earlier, Windows NT. That said, I rarely could get the Debian packages to work, and so what I did was I installed it from Netscape's installer under /opt and created my own references to it there. Unlike some other programs, at least Communicator does have a good installer. As Colin notes in his reply, and was noted in the advisory that DWN noted, it was subject to serious bugs that weren't seeing any sign, in Debian, of getting any better. The source code not being available and not as many using it anymore, it was not showing signs of being fixed to be raised to meet Debian standards for security. The decision wasn't something "commercial" - it was in keeping with the Debian policies iiuc. The non-free aspect was not in and of itself the reason for the hook - it just made fixing the other two considerations noticeably more difficult. -- Mark L. Kahnt, FLMI/M, ALHC, HIA, AIAA, ACS, MHP ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935 Email: kahnt@hosehead.dyndns.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part