You were giving people a bad impression of the Mozilla organization.
Galaxy, I am convinced that you are trolling this discussion, and I simply called you on it.
I investigated your claims about Mozilla bug reporting and simply responded with the truth:
1. When you were filing Mozilla bugs, you weren't following any (or most) of the Bug Reporting guidelines set out by the Mozilla organization.
2. When other members of the Mozilla community politely asked you to follow the bug reporting guidelines and set out to assist you in doing so, you reponded rudely to them and insulted the community as a whole.
3. Now, like many other people who constantly attack the Mozilla project at every turn, I think you have a personal axe to grind against Mozilla. The massive exaggeration of numbers and other factors in your comments gives me the impression that your real complaints are not based on technical merit, and many of them are simply misinformed (the Palm Pilot statement, for example).
And where did I get this information? Simply by using the Query function under bugzilla. If you had done the same, maybe you could have contributed to the base of information about the bugs you wanted to fix, instead of filing dupes.
I guess I can live with some of your misinformed comments, I deal with misinformed idiots every day in my life, and I have yet to be killed by any of them. However, when you spread misinformation about one of the most important processes to a project that is trying to push to a stable release, the bug reporting process, I have to refute the misinformation, and make it clear to the general public that there is a hidden motive in play.
Don't like to be called on misinformation? Fine. Don't spread it.
Galaxy, you are BLOODY clueless
That &amp problem is not a mozilla problem, it is a freshmeat problem. it shows up in your post as well.
Now about those bugs you filed:
First of all, you didn't file 1000000 bugs, or whatever exaggerated number that you claim, you filed 6 bugs. And you filed them fairly recently, because they all have numbers around the 62000-63000 range. Of those 6 bugs:
-2 were marked Duplicate, in otherwords, there was already an open bug report about that issue.
-1 was marked WORKSFORME, which means that none of the developers or the QA people could reproduce the bug. When that happens, you might try using a newer build.
-3 were marked INVALID, which means that the bug report wasn't talking about any valid issue. If it is a valid issue, but something that they don't want to do, they will mark it WONTFIX instead.
The three bugs that were marked invalid were:
61856 - BUILD BLOCKER! which ended up being a conflict between glibc headers and kernel headers and NOT with Mozilla. (and they even gave you a patch to work around a problem that is obviously a glibc problem, not a mozilla problem). This was marked INVALID because it wasn't a bug with Mozilla.
62341 - (PLEASE REVIEW THE CODE), which is actually a bug filed about bug 61856. The person who marked it invalid rightly told you to go back and make your points in bug 61856. You don't open another bug to complain about a previous bug!
63045 - Why am I doing all of these bug report? Because,... where you went on a long rant and then proceeded to point out three problems with mozilla using language such as shit, and WYSIWYG isn't WYSIWYG (?!). The person who answered you politely asked that you file each bug that you mentioned separately, asked you to read the bug reporting guidelines, and THANKED you for using mozilla and reporting bugs. You then proceeded to respond rudely to him and everyone involved with the project, and said that Mozilla was a waste of time. Despite your rudeness, people then proceeded to take the vague issues that you reported and separate them into bugs 63064, 63066, and 63068 (which became a dupe of 55921). And unless you did this yourself (I can't tell), they even put you on CC: on those bugs automatically, so you could see how they were being resolved!
Now I'm not exactly the model person to talk about politeness and not upsetting others (see bug 54594 Jason Eager needs to calm down about mozilla bug reports), but I think it is becoming clear that your real problems with Mozilla are personal and not technical. I find it hard to believe that you're accomplished with technical analysis when you can't even follow a bug reporting process correctly. The majority of Open Source projects are run by people who speak english somewhat well, so you're going to have to brush up on your english skills, or find a very good translator.
About your other points:
-You don't really understand the philosophy of the Palm Pilot, do you? It wouldn't make any sense to put something like Mozilla on a palm pilot, because you're not going to have the space on the palm screen to render CSS et al correctly on it anyways! There's no way that you're going to write an application that runs seamlessly cross-platfom with the palm-pilot, it would either be too limited on the desktop, or wouldn't fit on the palm-pilot. When you design programs for the palm pilot, you design them SPECIFICALLY for the Palm Pilot.
-If you compile mozilla with debugging turned on, all of the optional items turned on, it IS going to take about 1.2 gig to compile. It's keeping all of the libraries for the items that it compiled, and it is building many many test applications that the QA people use to debug mozilla. You might want to turn debugging off if you don't want that, then it will take less space to compile. Yes, on a Pentium II 233, it DOES take all night to compile. Do you want to know how long it takes Internet Explorer to compile? From a Microsoft insider, I heard that it takes all night on a 700 MHZ machine. Of course, we will never know for sure, for obvious reasons. But that is par for the course. It will always take more resources and memory to compile a complex program then to actually use it. That's why they make nightly builds, so you don't have to compile it yourself if you don't want to.