I'd say that the first thing it proves is you don't remember the tech scene in '98. All the comments you brought up in your GP post were reflected loudly by most pundits during that time. Cringley, spolsky, and many others said AOL was doing a fool's errand by allowing the then-unproven open source bazaar model to rewrite the browser. And that they'd be playing catch-up. And that IE would win because nobody would care about the rewrite. Fast forward to 2014, and blink/Firefox fight for first place, while IE continues to lose market share. Mozilla not only caught up, but is now setting the pace.
The second thing it shows is that history repeats itself. The pundits, much like you will prove to be, were wrong. Thanks to the brilliance of jwz, the Mozilla project and the gecko rewrite has outlived both Netscape and AOL. Firefox is a flagship example of how open development can create a superior product that can outlast the companies that make it.
The next thing this proves is that open development is continuing to show that rewriting an engine doesn't require "betting the company" anymore. Mozilla and Samsung are both heavily-invested in Servo, and are expecting this rewrite to be at the core of your future operating system. But if servo doesn't pan out, Mozilla won't be filing for chapter 11 protection
I'm not sure what I'm reading here. First thing to remember, is that Netscape 4 was pretty rushed and terrible. To the point that I remember thinking of how awesome IE was at a few points. And I already had a large distrust of MS.
That is, MS used some underhanded tactics to gain market share. They also took advantage of (and probably forced) a major misstep by a competitor.
That Phoenix/Firefox was able to be resurrected from the ashes is a fortunate occurrence, but at no time did that at all come of as if it was planned. I pretty much consider it the "classic coke" of the browser wars. (Remember, phoenix was originally Mozilla's suite, stripped down to just the browser.)
So, yes, it has gone rather well. However, I'm not sure the codebase can afford to survive the death of its stewardship again. The statistics show a clear dominance of "not Mozilla" historically.
To the point that I'm not all sure on what you are basing your claim of Mozilla "now setting the pace." Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it is doing well. It is my browser of choice. However, I realize I am the minority both in my friends/family and statistics.
Which is funny. In my family, the browser choice is either Safari or IE. Depending on OS of choice. In my friends, it is Chrome. To the point that I'm not even clear what lessons are to be learned from these choices, honestly.
So, back to the point. How were the pundits wrong? Did AOL/Netscape somehow come off well by the rewrite? Was it a sound investment? If anything, I would think the continued active development of the non-servo codebase shows that it is sound advice not to bet the company on a rewrite, and that they learned it. Are you really claiming otherwise?
The second thing it shows is that history repeats itself. The pundits, much like you will prove to be, were wrong. Thanks to the brilliance of jwz, the Mozilla project and the gecko rewrite has outlived both Netscape and AOL. Firefox is a flagship example of how open development can create a superior product that can outlast the companies that make it.
The next thing this proves is that open development is continuing to show that rewriting an engine doesn't require "betting the company" anymore. Mozilla and Samsung are both heavily-invested in Servo, and are expecting this rewrite to be at the core of your future operating system. But if servo doesn't pan out, Mozilla won't be filing for chapter 11 protection