MozillaQuest Magazine has the best, most balanced, accurate, robust and in-depth coverage of AOL-Netscape's Mozilla 1.0 browser on the Internet.

Ok, that one is really old, it is on top of all articles he wrote within the last year. But I think I never mentioned it and it really deserves to be laughed at: don't I show in my articles that almost every line he writes is pure untruth?
I guess this sentence is only there to stay consistent with himself: there shall be NO truth on his page...

A third factor [for delay of development] is loss of focus, which is nothing new in Lizard Land. Mozilla development is shifting from the current Mozilla browser-suite development to a collection of independent Internet-related applications; (1) Phoenix, a stand-alone Web browser, (2) Minotaur/Thunder-bird, a stand alone e-mail and news client, and (3) Gecko, the layout engine that underlies the Mozilla Web-browser suite, Phoenix, and Minotaur -- plus XUL and the Mozilla Applications Programming Framework (APF).

Yes, Mozilla development is directed towards separating the applications. This is old but good news. Errrm... loss of focus?? Mangelo, did you check how many people are currently involved in developing the new separate applications (i. e. how many people are away from "normal" Mozilla development which might decrease development speed)?
It's ONE person (Scott McGregor) doing 98% of the Thunderbird work (yes, Mangelo: it's not Minotaur anymore) - a person who did not do much Mozilla work anyway - and only a handful of persons doing Mozilla-Firebird work (yes, Mangelo: it's not Phoenix anymore, but you can't know that - it's only been public for many weeks). Those persons are also not very or not at all involved in Mozilla development for a long time (e.g.Ben Goodger). So you can't say  that the separate applications are currently slowing down the Mozilla suite.
And Gecko is separate since about half a year, so this work is already done.

Ok, Mangelo, where did you get your "best, most balanced, accurate, robust and in-depth" information??

Each new Mozilla release has new and improved features. However, Mozilla has been and still is plagued by lots of bugs.

This bug-count-gibberish is as old as Mangelo's anti-Mozilla campaign. I've written a separate article about it, rebutting every single aspect of  it that I found. So please go and read my article about bug counts.

For discussion about what bug counts mean and how to intrepret them, please see the section Bug Counts Reflect the Overall Product Quality

They do not. Please read my article about bug counts.

The releases of Mozilla 1.4 puts final nail in the coffin of the Mozilla 1.0 browser-suite and its ensuing 1.0.x editions. It now officially replaces Mozilla 1.0.x as the stable, long-lived, Mozilla branch. However, we heard that long-lived branch plan before.

Yeah, you heard that plan and if you really had listened carefully, you would have heard the words "more than one year".
(See the Mozilla 1.0 manifesto, look for "one year" and you will find it: "stable, relatively long-lived (a year minimum, at a guess)".)
This is the period for which this branch was meant - and the period of Mangelos steady lamentations that the 1.0.x branch was killed by one or another Mozilla release.
This began eleven months ago with his article "New Mozilla Roadmap Sets 1.1 for 9 August 2002 and Effectively Kills Mozilla 1.0.x". All the time he kept saying that the 1.0.x branch had been killed "deader than dead". But it is still alive and now being replaced by the improved 1.4.x branch according with what was planned in the Mozilla 1.0 manifesto in October 2001.

Mangelo not only did never trust that this plan was adhered to, no, even now when it's obvious that it was a success, he cannot admit he was wrong.