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..."

9 of 469 comments (clear)

  1. here ya go by grub · · Score: 5, Informative



    1.Switch Mozilla's default browser component from the XPFE-based Navigator to the standalone Phoenix browser.

    2.Develop further the standalone mail companion application to Phoenix already begun as Minotaur, but based on the new toolkit used by Phoenix (this variant has been codenamed Thunderbird).

    3.Deliver a Mozilla 1.4 milestone that can replace the 1.0 branch as the stable development path, then move on to make riskier changes during 1.5 and 1.6. The major changes after 1.4 involve switching to Phoenix and Thunderbird, and working aggressively on the next two items.

    4.Fix crucial Gecko layout architecture bugs, paving the way for a more maintainable, performant, and extensible future.

    5.Continue the move away from an ownership model involving a large cloud of hackers with unlimited CVS access, to a model, more common in the open source world, of vigorously defended modules with strong leadership and clear delegation, a la NSPR, JavaScript, Gecko in recent major milestones, and Phoenix.

    6. ???

    7. Profit!

    Ok, I admit to adding 6 and 7.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  2. Re:Mozilla?? by prator · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's like IE, but with tabbed browsing and without wormholes.

    There are wormholes in IE? Can I use these to go between work and home faster? Wow, this will really increase my productivity. I can use that extra 1 1/2 hours each day playing the new Zelda.

    -prator

  3. 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.

  4. Re:Makes Sense by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I just wish they'd also separate out Mozilla Composer and make the basic no frills standalone HTML editor the world needs.

  5. 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"
  6. Resitance to change? by mu_wtfo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is completely freaking me out.
    I can only wonder at how a radical re-design this is going to turn out to be, from both a developer's and end-user's standpoint. The Mozilla project has, by all accounts, been an incredible success, and has been adopted by some major entities, eg. Sun, HP, IBM, Red Hat. By making this radical a change this soon after 1.0, do we risk alienating users and developers? I mean, now that people have gotten used to Mozilla, we turn around and dump something hugely different in their laps?
    My fear is that commercial entities, along with the pro-Mozilla-the suite camp, will continue development on Mozilla Classic (the 1.4 branch), while the Phoenix folks work on NGMozilla...a fork.
    Hold onto your hats, folks.

    --
    If all the world's a stage, anyone who says they want better lighting spends far too much time in a dark theatre.
  7. 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.
  8. Re:They lost me on the changes to XUL by Brendan+Eich · · Score: 5, Informative

    "what exactly is happening to XUL?"

    Short answer: nothing; sorry we mentioned it.

    Longer answer: we brought XUL up because if we "switch to Phoenix" from the app-suite browser, based on Phoenix as it has been distributed so far, we drop Mac XUL support. We don't want to do that. So in the roadmap, we go out of our way to say that we *are* going to build Phoenix for OS X, when we switch.

    I wonder how we can make this simple point more clear, without inviting confusion. Jumpy roadmap readers seem to skim, and fly off the handle out of fear that we're dropping XUL, or something silly like that. Rest assured, we are supporting XUL fully.

    XUL with some form-submission smarts, but using XML-RPC, SOAP, WSDL, or whatever's appropriate, should become the basis for web applications. XUL widgets should form the kernel of a pragmatic XForms implementation. And XUL's still great for cross-platform applications. We like XUL too.

  9. Re:I really like the integrated suite.. by Brendan+Eich · · Score: 5, Informative

    I use the integrated suite every day -- mostly the browser, mail/news, and message compose. Before any change to the default build, we'll make sure that this mode of operation is possible if you configure mail (Thunderbird, I mean) as an add-on to the Phoenix-based browser.

    Remember, your add-ons persist across upgrades, unless an incompatible change to the new toolkit (which is XUL, XBL, JS, and CSS) invalidates a particular add-on (in which case, you'll need to get the new, compatible version of that add-on once it's out; this kind of invalidation should not happen often). So once you've added the mail extension to the browser, you're set -- you should be able to operate just as you do today with the integrated app-suite.

    That's the goal, anyway, and a requirement to meet before we switch the default build.