<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><title>DarkTrojan - Posts tagged mozilla</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.darktrojan.net/news/" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.darktrojan.net/news/?atom" /><entry><title>Rant: addons.mozilla.org</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="/news/2009-08/rant-addons-mozilla-org" /><published>2009-08-15T21:21:44+12:00</published><updated>2009-08-15T21:21:44+12:00</updated><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>According to AMO, 700 people use my addon, <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/11005">Shrunked</a>. Despite the fact that it's been a month since release, <strong>less than 20% of them use the latest version</strong>, which is far superior to the previous versions. Here is why:</p>
<ul>
<li> The addon is 'experimental'. No it isn't, it long since stopped being an experiment. 700 people use it without problems.</li>
<li>People who install 'experimental' addons apparently don't deserve to know when a newer version is available. Surely these users are more likely to want to know that.</li>
<li>AMO reviewers keep finding things wrong with it without giving me any useful information about how to replicate their problems. I can't progress from 'experimental' without a reviewer's approval.</li>
</ul>
<p>Like a lot of Mozilla things, I think AMO has a fair amount of potential. If only they'd spare the person-hours to make something decent of it.</p>
<ul>
</ul></div></content></entry><entry><title>Yay</title><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="/news/2009-07/yay" /><published>2009-07-31T22:02:32+12:00</published><updated>2009-07-31T22:02:32+12:00</updated><content type="xhtml"><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p><a href="http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/8e3f77b2c264">See this?</a></p>
<p>I wrote it, I did.</p></div></content></entry></feed>