Comments for Beonex Communicator

30 Sep 2004 03:49 hstenstrom

Re: Beonex name


> > It wouldn't surprise me if

> > Communicator was registered as a

> > trademark by Netscape (I haven't

> checked).

>

> Well, I did check with them, and they

> said it isn't. Compare Nokia

> Communicator.

>

> > Why not use a more generic term, like

> > Beonex Internet Explorer?

>

> "Internet Explorer" is pretty sure to be

> a trademark (in contrast to "Explorer"

> alone, which isn't, at least per German

> court rulings).

No, it isn't. It was once, but an american court has decided that it's a generic term. That's why e.g. Microsoft can use it for their browser. So can you. Never will you see in a Microsoft advert, that Internet Explorer is a trademark.

29 Sep 2004 07:45 beonex

Beonex name
> It wouldn't surprise me if

> Communicator was registered as a

> trademark by Netscape (I haven't checked).


Well, I did check with them, and they said it isn't. Compare Nokia Communicator.


> Why not use a more generic term, like

> Beonex Internet Explorer?


"Internet Explorer" is pretty sure to be a trademark (in contrast to "Explorer" alone, which isn't, at least per German court rulings).

29 Sep 2004 07:38 hstenstrom

Re: Mozilla with a different name?


>

> % Can someone tell me what's different

> % between this package and straight up

> % Mozilla?

>

>

> See the Beonex vs. Mozilla page.

I think there is a risk that Beonex Communicator is confused with Netscape Communicator. It wouldn't surprise me if Communicator was registered as a trademark by Netscape (I haven't checked).

Why not use a more generic term, like Beonex Internet Explorer?

23 Jul 2002 10:08 beonex

Re: Mozilla with a different name?

> nor did I do structured tests


Actually, I did, about a year ago. See the gory details at the -O2-bug (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53486).

23 Jul 2002 09:34 beonex

Re: Mozilla with a different name?

> The fact that mozilla site says their
> browser is for testing only, does not
> make any recompile automatically "more
> polished".


"Polish" means "lots of minor tweaks, each on their own too small to mention, but significant in the sum". And Beonex *is* more polished compared to Mozilla.


> This is the only actual info I found: [...]
> Well, this does not seem like much ...


You completely missed the point. It's not so much about the code difference, but the purpose. Please read the beginning of the doc again.


%Running Beonex and mozilla side by side I don't really see
> a difference on my Celeron 400.


Beonex Communicator Linux is being compiled with a much better compiler and better flags than the mozilla.org builds. Many people have reported that Beonex Communicator is faster. I don't use mozilla.org's builds myself, nor did I do structured tests, so I have no experience on my own.

23 Jul 2002 07:15 mtsirkin

Re: Mozilla with a different name?
The fact that mozilla site says their browser is for testing only, does not make any recompile automatically "more polished".


This is the only actual info I found:

* Browser
o No revealing "Referrer"
o Cookies are deleted at shutdown
o Certain invasive JavaScript commands disabled
o Lots of minor tweaks

Well, this does not seem like much ...
Running Beonex and mozilla side by side I don't really see a difference on my Celeron 400.


>
> % Can someone tell me what's different
> % between this package and straight up
> % Mozilla?
>
>
> See the Beonex vs. Mozilla page.


11 May 2002 22:30 beonex

Re: Mozilla with a different name?

> Can someone tell me what's different
> between this package and straight up
> Mozilla?

See the Beonex vs. Mozilla (http://www.beonex.com/communicator/doc/vsmozilla.html) page.

01 Jan 2002 11:51 beonex

Re: Mozilla with a different name?

> We'll put up a FAQ sometime
> with details about the differences of
> Mozilla and Beonex Commincator.

Done (http://www.beonex.com/communicator/doc/vsmozilla.html)

01 Jan 2002 09:46 joakimr

Re: Mozilla with a different name?

>
> % the beonex developer say it's not
> for
> % user but I'm sure that the Mozilla
> staff
> % sez the opposite.
>
>
> Mozilla releases page
> <http://www.mozilla.org/releases/>,
> frist sentence:
> > We make binary versions of of
> Mozilla available for testing purposes
> only!.
> > We provide no end user support.
>
> The difference is polish and higher
> security. We'll put up a FAQ sometime
> with details about the differences of
> Mozilla and Beonex Commincator.

cool - look forward to it (still) :-)

18 Aug 2001 08:14 beonex

Re: Mozilla with a different name?

> the beonex developer say it's not for
> user but I'm sure that the Mozilla staff
> sez the opposite.


Mozilla releases page <http://www.mozilla.org/releases/>, frist sentence:
> We make binary versions of of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!.
> We provide no end user support.

The difference is polish and higher security. We'll put up a FAQ sometime with details about the differences of Mozilla and Beonex Commincator.

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

ReciJournal

An open, cross-platform journaling program.

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

Veusz

A scientific plotting package.