For once andkon makes valid points, so let's fix them:
http://mozilla.org/developer/ is intended to be the site for developers /
testers. It could probably use a bit of work, though.
I don't know who controls store.mozilla.org.
Linux -> All
I wrote a mail to the shop owner. In my words, he said the following: The
creator of the shop is looking forward to creating a completly new site. He also
said it's more a "chicken and egg" problem. Since the backend system of the shop
was some "as-is" thing developed by someone else and so it (probably, i dont
know) hasnt been tested very much with low-market share browsers. If someone
wants to read this mail himself, please mail me, i don't want to quote personal
store.mozilla.org is served by NetLedger.
Their store functionality is not great and they dropped official support for
Netscape/Mozilla a little while ago. I used to work at NetLedger in 2000 (not
on the store feature though;-), please let me know if I can be of any help.
Marking bug 213413 as a dependency. This is one of the points he brings up.
This bug covers many different issues, and as such is invalid, unless it's
intended to be a meta bug.
After spending a couple of minutes I've found about half a dozen existing bugs
that cover issues mentioned in that page. If it's useful, I'd be happy to mark
them as dependencies, and also file a dozen or so more bugs for the other issues
However, given that there are already many bugs about site-wide structure/design
issues with the Mozilla.org site which aren't getting dealt with, I'm not sure
that filing a whole pile more bugs, and creating meta bugs to track them is
going to do anything other than clutter up bugzilla.
dbaron - I understand that you're part of the new Mozilla.org website-drivers
group, and that you have some action items. Maybe you could tell us if pursuing
this bug is useful?
A summary of the points made in that document:
Mozilla should promote how its browser and email client are better than
The fact that the products are free should be emphasised at every oppertunity.
Split "the development of everything that isn't directly related to the browser
and email client" to a site other than mozilla.org
Create a site called "Mozillatech.org" for testing and nightly builds
Focus on marketing standalone products
Write installers for the standalone products
The mission statement is vauge
No clear description of what Mozilla provides
Poor site organisation
Integrate news, press and news archive, then let Alex at mozillazine write
There are too many menus and navigation is inconsistent
Paid telephone support is expensive and gives the impression the product is hard
People with fast connetions who only want to install Mozilla on one computer
won't need a CD, so don't sell them
Graphics are confused and inconsistent- hold a graphic design contest
Colour scheme is inconsistent
The firebird and Camino pages don't convey the correct information or don't
sound like they've been written by a marketing department
Some pages have other minor problems
The page markup could be improved
The store is "a bucketload of ****"
Mozilla foundation has a poor business model and is running out of money
The Book of Mozilla isn't entirely truthful
I may have missed a few.
That seems like an awful lot of issues for one bug report. I tend to concur that
it's invalid, although it might be useful to decide which issues need seperate bugs.
Relevant points either already have their own bug or are being worked on by