Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla's Major New Roadmap

kerz writes "mozilla.org today released a new version of it's famed roadmap, this time with some pretty major changes. First and foremost, they plan on ditching the large Mozilla suite in favor of Phoenix and Minotaur. Secondly, they have plans to change the milestone cycle to allow for more time to fix the Gecko layout engine to be smaller and more efficient. MozillaZine has the scoop..."

13 of 469 comments (clear)

  1. Makes Sense by zeoslap · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nice to see a focus on keeping the engine and the codebase lean and mean. Good luck to em.

    1. Re:Makes Sense by mixmasta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry to go against the grain here but I love mozilla, it does everything I want, and fast.

      I installed the browser and mail on my machine that I use for mail, and just the browser on my machine at work. After years of waiting, all the functionality I need is complete, close to perfect even. I've got tabs, popup, image, and spam blocking too!

      If you don't want one of the other components, don't #@$#%ing install them! (And quit yer whining.)

      Why would I want to go back to another half finished browser?? I think this decision is a mistake, and just serves to lose momentum.

      I think a better idea would be to work on making mozilla more modular and making other performance tweaks. Why reinvent the wheel again?

      --
      #6495ED - cornflower blue
  2. Sounds like a good idea... by guacamolefoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Smaller
    2. Faster
    3. Less bloated

    Less is more, in many, many things. Including software.

    GF.

  3. Re:This is a Good Thing, IMHO. by DrXym · · Score: 4, Insightful
    14Mb isn't particularly fat or bloated when you consider that you're getting a mail/news client, a browser, a JS debugger, a DOM inspector, an IRC chat client and an HTML editor in all that.


    And if you don't want all that 'bloat', then use the use the net installer and install only the browser portion.

  4. Please tell me this is a late April Fools joke.... by psykocrime · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is lame. I *LIKE* the existing XPFE browser / application suite.

    Phoenix is nice, the new standalone mail/news client will probably be nice as well, but I see no good reason for them to drop the application suite.

    All this talk about how Mozilla is too big, too bloated, has too many features, etc., is a load of shit, IMHO. Unless you're trying to run Mozilla on a freaking Pentium 100 with 64 megs of RAM or something else antiquated like that, performance is fine. And if anything, there are still plenty of features that *should* be put into Mozilla, that the Mozilla.org folks refuse to implement, despite how many votes the RFE has, or how many people want it.

    I say they should just keep developing Mozilla as it is, keep improving it, keep adding features, and let the people who want to work on Minotaur, Phoenix, whatever, do so.

    --
    // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
  5. I agree.. by elemur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mozilla originally took too much of its Netscape roots to heart. That is understandable, but its a very good thing that people were finally able to break from that past. Netscape Communicator was supposed to be all things.. Mozilla continued that track, but with a nicer rendering engine and snazzy features.

    I don't personally I have a problem with the size of mozilla, but since I only use it for browsing, it will be really nice to get rid of the rest of this monolithic application.. but to have it available for when I want it.

    The path it has set now reminds me of the KDE applications. The PIM/Mail suite has a great deal of functionality.. but you don't have to load it just to browse a web page. (Though many would argue that Konqueror also tries to be all things to all people..)

    On Linux.. Mozilla and Phoenix are the way to go.. though on OS X, Safari is a really nice browser.

  6. Re:competing with camino by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, they aren't competing any more than Mozilla and Camino compete. When you're dealing with open, free projects, there really isn't such a thing as "competition".

    I imagine that people would use Phoenix on the Mac if they wanted to have that nice "one browser on every platform" feeling. I know that's why I sometimes use Mozilla on my Mac.

    All this means is that Mac users have even more choice when it comes to browsers, and to me that's a good thing(tm).

    By the way, Phoenix already exists for the mac (sorta).

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
  7. Re:Phoenix for Mac OSX! by funkhauser · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The problem with bringing Phoenix over to the Mac is that it will have some of the same problems as Mozilla for the Mac: particularly, non-native widgets and lack of real integration with the system.

    It might also be detrimental to Mozilla on the Mac. Right now, it's basically Camino vs. Safari. If it becomes Phoenix vs. Camino vs. Safari, the Mozilla camp becomes split.

  8. Re:This is a Good Thing, IMHO. by sphealey · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is a Good Thing, IMHO, as Mozilla itself was getting fat and bloated. Of the Mozilla step-children I like Pheonix the best and I'm glad to see that the Mozilla team has the self-honesty to realize the better way to go and ditch major portions of their established work.
    Perhaps. But in the corporate environment, you cannot afford to have rugs pulled out from under you like this. Consider a technology director who just finished convincing the powers-that-be that Mozilla was preferable for an enterprise-wide, mission-critical app (perhaps due to security concerns). Now comes this announcment, and that guy is looking for a new job while Internet Explorer is made mandatory at that site. Oops.

    The corporate market is where 80% of the world's PC installs occur, and Mozilla.org has never shown the maturity to support that market.

    sPh

  9. So use Pine. Seriously. by gosand · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I want to type in courier just like I can in Pine, or netscape messenger.

    So use Pine.

    Don't laugh! I still use it as my email of choice. I used to use Netscape, but when I got DSL and my Linux machine fully running, I just stuck with Pine. (I tried Kmail for a while, and Opera mail). People laugh at me, but when I am at home, I can view attachments fine with it. When I am away from home, it is a bit harder. But I don't have to download my email either. I can download PuTTY wherever I am, ssh into my box, and read my mail in about a minute. I did this recently while traveling in France. I also use fetchmail to gather my various accounts into one on my machine at home. Even on dialup I can check my mail pretty quickly.

    People can't believe that I still use Pine, but it is light, fast, and easy. Of course, if access to my home machine is cut off for some reason, I have to use my ISPs webmail, but I LOATHE webmail. I don't have a compelling reason to use a GUI mail client.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  10. Re:Too risky! by ubernostrum · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Wasn't it better to fix crucial Gecko bugs before doing any crucial architecture changes?

    IANAMD (I am not a Moz developer), but I believe one of the problems is that some things in Gecko cam't be fixed without redoing the architecture. By every account I've read, most of the Gecko codebase is a mess.

    we should expect that after 1.7 Phoenix's Gecko will be diferent than Minotaur's one

    Huh? Do you even know *anything* about how Moz/Phoenix/etc. work? Gecko is developed as a component which is embedded in applications, not as a part of applications themselves. Hence, there won't be a "Phoenix Gecko" and a "Minotaur Gecko". There will be Gecko, and Phoenix and Minotaur will embed it. From what I've read, installing them both on the same machine will likely have them share a common Gecko install, they won't even install two copies of it.

    Not to mention that they want the Mail app to be able to stand alone or embed in Phoenix according to the user's wishes . . .

  11. Re:Not a smart move and here's why by mu_wtfo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think you're wrong, and here's why:
    First, I'd like to address your "stability and adoption" comments. Stability - Phoenix is, at the very least, as stable as Mozilla, and anecdotal evidence I've seen suggests that it may, in fact, be far more stable. Adoption is certainly not an issue - it's not like mozlla.org is saying "Hey, our previous product sucked, try this new one!" - they're merely integrating similar, better technology into an existing product, and removing some of the not-so-great parts.
    As for the lack of a migration path - remember, Phoenix is based on the same technologies (Gecko, XUL, XBL) as Mozilla, so development-wise, that all stays pretty much the same. The main difference for developers will be the new code ownershp model, about which I can only say "It's about time!"
    So, while the "resistant-to-change, mozilla-loving" part of me agrees with you, the logical, wants-the-best-for-Mozilla part knows that this is the rigt path for the project.

    --
    If all the world's a stage, anyone who says they want better lighting spends far too much time in a dark theatre.
  12. The basic no frills standalone HTML editor by Confused · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The basic no frills standalone HTML editor the world needs is vi.

    And if people would stay away from Frontpage and the like, the world would be a better place too.