Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla Foundation Meets The GNOME Foundation

An anonymous reader writes "The board of directors of the GNOME foundation recently met with a few representatives of the Mozilla foundation - discussing how they could collaborate a little closer in future. A number of interesting things were discussed, including XAML/Avalon and the future of Firefox in GNOME/Linux. Check out the minutes of the meeting on the Gnome mailing list."

74 of 380 comments (clear)

  1. Mozilla meets Gnome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does Tokyo get stomped?

  2. Do not annoy the Stallman by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 4, Funny
    the future of Firefox in GNOME/Linux
    Isn't that "GNU/Linux"? Has GNOME taken over GNU?
    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    1. Re:Do not annoy the Stallman by ajs · · Score: 4, Funny

      Stallman is a jelous developer, and you shall have no others before him!

    2. Re:Do not annoy the Stallman by Simon+Lyngshede · · Score: 4, Funny

      Soon it will be FireGNOMEGNU/Linux.

    3. Re:Do not annoy the Stallman by duffbeer703 · · Score: 3, Funny

      The proper form should be GNU/GNOME/GNU/Linux

      Where would GNOME be without GNU tools?

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    4. Re:Do not annoy the Stallman by UserGoogol · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
  3. It'd be nice by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Better to standardize on Firefox rather than have the desktop environment people keep churning out half-assed browsers like Konq and Nautilus.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    1. Re:It'd be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yet the engine for konq is used by apple.

      and nautilus isnt even a web browser. (it has html capabilities, but so do lots of apps)

    2. Re:It'd be nice by BuddieFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Konqueror, Nautilus, Epiphany, Galeon, Firefox, Mozilla et etc.. I have to agree that its getting kind of ridiculous.
      Ok, choice is nice and all, but this duplication of functionality and work is probably extremely unproductive as a whole for the progress of open source software. It should be enough with 2-3 choices for browsers instead of 20: one or two lightweight ones á Firefox, and one or two "fully featured" like Mozilla.

    3. Re:It'd be nice by Moridineas · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Half-assed browsers like Konq?! It may be hard for you to believe, but some of us actually find Konq better to use than Mozilla.

      That's certaintly true for APPLE, as Safari is based on kparts as well. Because of that alone, it wouldn't seriously surprise me if KParts browsers have a higher marketshare than mozilla.

    4. Re:It'd be nice by Bricklets · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I use Firefox when I'm working in Windows and Linux, but I use Safari when working on a Mac. Safari uses KHTML (developed for "Konq"). Different strokes for different folks. Just because you don't like a particular browser does not mean others feel the same.

      And by standardization, that does not mean the elimination of all other browsers. It just means basing multiple browers on the same standard (i.e. user interface, rendering of pages, etc.)

      --
      Little Bricklets
    5. Re:It'd be nice by Malc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Firefox is based directly on the Mozilla browser, and it's almost as fully-featured as Mozilla Seamonkey. Unless you're referring to all the other non-browser bumpf that's ignorantly part of the same process space as the Mozilla Seamonkey browser... but Firefox is closing that gap too when it's bundled in a like-feature suite including products such as Thunderbird, Sunbird, etc.

      I wish they would stop wasting their time with Seamonkey and put their efforts in to closing the gap more quickly.

      Anyway, I know what you're saying, but there's got to be a reason why KDE developers chose to write their own from scratch rather than integrate Gecko.

    6. Re:It'd be nice by Abjifyicious · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes Safari is based on the same HTML rendering engine as Konquerer, but the user interface is completely different. On the surface, Safari is far more similar to Firefox than Konquerer.

    7. Re:It'd be nice by jdifool · · Score: 5, Funny
      The socialists, the communists, the social-democrats, the conservatives, the libertarians, the absenteists.. I have to agree that its getting kind of ridiculous.
      Ok, choice is nice and all, but this duplication of thinking and criticism is probably extremely unproductive as a whole for the progress of democracy. It should be enough with 2-3 choices for political parties instead of 20: one or two lightweight ones as the libertarians, and one or two "fully featured" like the democrats and the republicans.

      oh wait...

      --
      Let's overcome our weakness.
    8. Re:It'd be nice by arkhan_jg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I use konqueror these days as my primary browser, rather than firefox.

      For a start, being able to have a tab with an sftp session next to a samba session next to a webdavs session next to a https session is very useful when web developing, or even just integrating stuff between different servers.

      Secondly, konqueror launches a damn sight faster.

      Finally, it integrates a lot nicer into my kde desktop than firefox or it's other gtk-varients.

      Now, if you could use the gecko engine as a kpart, that would rock quite nicely. That said, with safari feeding back their improvements into khtml, konqueror is moving ahead by leaps and bounds, and it's a rare page i have rendering problems with these days.

      All power to the mozilla team - I deployed thunderbird onto the staff windows machines at work as the standard imap client - and I think integration of firebird further into the linux desktop is a very good thing for both parties.

      Ultimately though, a bit of healthy competition is a good thing - otherwise, we'd all just be using IE!

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    9. Re:It'd be nice by ajs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Half-assed browsers like Konq?! It may be hard for you to believe, but some of us actually find Konq better to use than Mozilla.

      It's nice to have another browser around to keep Mozilla moving forward. Stagnation is, of course, bad, but Konq isn't a full-featured browser, and has years of development to go before it is. This is why Safari is so under-featured. That's unfortunate, but they made their choice. Apple users can, fortunately, still use Firefox or Mozilla if they wish.

    10. Re:It'd be nice by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 2, Informative

      konqueror is not as such, as web browser. it can do anything that there is a kpart for (such as khtml - the web renderer). thats why you can edit text files and listen to music, and view files over smb or nfs through konqueror - thats not duplication of effort. kparts minimises this a lot.

    11. Re:It'd be nice by arkhan_jg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Grin, I don't think you remember all the facts.
      IIRC this is how it went...

      NCSA wrote the original mosaic. Spyglass licenced the tech and trademark from NCSA, and wrote spyglass mosaic from the ground up.

      (mosaic communications corporation) MCC was a spin off company of a bunch of the staff from NCSA, and after a trademark wrangle they renamed to Netscape.

      Spyglass mosaic went down the embedded road, i.e. a rendering engine for other software, netscape went the standalone browser road.

      Then came the formation of the W3C, and the (brief) netscape/mosaic wars.

      After that, Microsoft licenced spyglass mosaic to use as an addon for windows 95 - IIRC IE2 was basically mosaic, IE3 was a big upgrade, and IE4 was when microsoft rewrote most of it. Of course, by that point microsoft was outspending netscape in a major way, and the rest is well, well known.

      But I stand by my original point (which was meant to be a joke) - without competition, we'd all be using mosaic, or as it came to be known, Internet Explorer ;)

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    12. Re:It'd be nice by jonadab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > there's got to be a reason why KDE developers chose to write their own
      > from scratch rather than integrate Gecko.

      Mozilla wasn't really ready for primetime yet when they started working on
      Konqueror, and there was some doubt in some circles whether it ever would be.
      If they were starting Konqueror from scratch now, they probably would embed
      Gecko rather than creating KHTML, which would put Konqueror in the same
      category as Galeon and Chimera. On the other hand, if Gnome and Gimp were
      starting now they might've used Qt (or, indeed, might not have been started
      at all, if KDE already existed), but at the time Qt wasn't Free enough to
      suit certain people -- hence, GTK and Gnome. (It would be nice if a theme
      selection/creation/application engine existed that themed both of them
      together -- preferably it should theme both Gnome1 and Gnome2 applications
      as well as KDE ones. And other kinds of integration, like supporting one
      another's panel apps and whatnot, is good too.)

      Personally, I'm glad we have both Gnome and KDE and that they're different,
      because I like having more than one good choice. (Yeah, there are other
      choices; some of them are even almost featureful...) A certain amount of
      duplication of effort is good, because it creates choice. It is possible
      to go too far, though, and if all the browsers you mention were complete
      duplication of effort that would be bad. As it happens, though, there are
      basically two OSS graphical browser layout engines (that matter): Gecko,
      and KHTML. Almost all of the browsers use one or the other, so that cuts
      down quite a bit on the duplication of effort. Yeah, there's duplication
      in the front-end interface stuff (toolbars and whatnot), but at least they're
      not reinventing the whole browser layout engine.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    13. Re:It'd be nice by Moridineas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes Safari is based on the same HTML rendering engine as Konquerer, but the user interface is completely different. On the surface, Safari is far more similar to Firefox than Konquerer.

      And where exactly do you think the bulk of the code in Mozilla goes? The rendering engine IS the single biggest component of any browser.

      Besides--what's so different about the interface of say Konq and Mozilla? I like Konq because it's faster in my experience--what makes the UI's so different?

    14. Re:It'd be nice by dn15 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Besides--what's so different about the interface of say Konq and Mozilla? I like Konq because it's faster in my experience--what makes the UI's so different?

      I'm not the original poster but here's my take: Konqueror's engine is fine but my problem with the interface is the tons of buttons that are in the toolbar, and the rather painful customization window one must use to remove them. A little like Opera but not nearly as bad.

      If you open a default configuration for Safari and Firefox (and even Mozilla), they're very similar in layout. And they're minimalist. In this respect, Konqueror's design is more like IE than it is Safari or Mozilla-based browsers.

  4. Preliminary list of agreements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    The GNOME people have agreed to cooperate subject to the following conditions:
    • The organization name "Mozilla" must be changed to "GNU/Mozilla".
    • The project name "Firefox" must be changed to "GNU/Firefox".
    • The technology name "XAML/Avalon" must be changed to "GNU/XAML//GNU/Avalon".
    1. Re:Preliminary list of agreements by corban.elektrolite · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can please someone explain me in clear and sound terms the recurrent FSF bashing ?

      i can. stallman had some great ideas and wrote some k3wl essays, but time has changed. stallman became annoying. in his eyes, the only way to release software is GPL. while speaking all the day about freedom, he likes to enforce everyone to use the gpl. go to gnu.org and read some things like "why you shouldn't use the lgpl" and the like (don't get me wrong, i like the gpl-idea, but i also like the freedom to choose the license by myself).

      the second reason is: whatever goes on in the it-world, the fsf (or stallman, most people think they are the same) must bash it. remember the "java trap" rant?

      fsf bashing happens because fsf starts behaving like a lobby or a commercial organisation. trying to establish only one way of thinking as the right one and all that stuff. read some fsf papers about "linux is not gnu, but gnu/linux is".

      ps:don't get me wrong again, i like the fsf, they just have a horrible pr.

      --

      this is not a real .sig

  5. It's genius by teamhasnoi · · Score: 5, Funny
    They're going to incorporate the browser into the OS. It's a sure sign that linux is ready for the desktop, because obviously you can't have an OS that isn't tightly integrated with the internet.

    Vision like this could only come the linux community.

    1. Re:It's genius by mopslik · · Score: 2, Funny

      obviously you can't have an OS that isn't tightly integrated with the internet.

      Even more: I hear they'll be giving the browser away for free. It's madness, I say! Madness!

    2. Re:It's genius by bonch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't it strange that everyone bitched about the lack of necessity for IE to be integrated into the shell of Windows 98, then went right out and redid it for KDE without a second thought? I never understood what a filesystem browser had to do with the program that renders my HTML for me. It's like people just accept it because Windows 98 did it--meanwhile bitching about the non-innovation of Windows 98 and Microsoft.

      Don't get me started on taskbars and start menus, two things that don't belong ANYWHERE near a Linux desktop yet somehow got adopted as well "just because."

  6. Re:Be careful how close you get to Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny


    I agree. No sooner have I downloaded and installed Mozilla browser that I have noticed by 17-year-old son looking at pornography and the images of filthy women on the Internet. Plus he started talking somce Communist manifesto stuff and once said he was going to install Lunix on our home machine.

    I am not a violent man, but from good father's perspective I had to whip out my belt and show him that's the road to hell. That changed his perspective entirely, so right now he's quite happy using Internet Explorer 6 on Windows ME and paying for all the applications he uses except some cheap crap, that's so bad they have to give it away for other people to pick up.

    I also own 100 shares of Microsoft stock in my portfolio, and so does my wife, so no Lunix talks are permitted in my house, since we are all planning for happy retirement.

  7. I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) by henriksh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is really odd that Gnome opted for Epiphany as a default browser in 2.x, when Galeon is a better and more featureful choice. I've read that the reasons were that Galeon did not follow some UI guidelines (this could surely be worked out?), and that Epiphany is simpler to use.

    I just find it hard to believe than anyone would pick Epiphany over Galeon, even considering simplicity, since Galeon mostly works like Mozilla. Galeon seems simpler to use to me - Epiphany doesn't look or feel like any other browser I've used.

    1. Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about Galeon developers not wanting to integrate with GNOME? While Epiphany has helped develop and test leading edge GNOME apis, like the toolbar editing feature.

      Epiphany IS much more integrated into gnome, and is simpler to use. Those were the reasons. They are facts so its not really a matter of opinion.

    2. Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) by KingJoshi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The multiple choices are both the good and bad of GNU/Linux.

      From the discussions, it's also evident. You have different distributions and you want and need some standards but then the more parties involved, the more difficult that can be. That's where Microsoft has an advantage.

      Reading that, it was worrying more than anything else. GNU/Linux and FOSS can't always play catch-up to Microsoft. But you have all these different groups with their own agendas in GNU/Linux.

      You know the saying, "United we stand, divided we fall." There has to be balance between unification and diversity and more importantly, there has to be initiative and goals from that unified group. I know some have tried and it's nice to see attempts at initiatives here. Hopefully, more progress is made.

      --
      In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these. - Paul Harvey
    3. Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) by 13Echo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This topic about Epiphany really opens a new can of worms. Now, I'm going to go off about Gnome in general. Epiphany, itself, really is a good example of one of Gnome's major problems.

      I'm finding that many Gnome developers are going with making things so ridiculously simple at times that it is almost getting stupid. I use Epiphany, but I prefer Galeon as well. Comparing Epiphany to more feature-rich browsers like Galeon/Konqueror/Firefox makes Epiphany seem almost like IE to some degree. I suppose that is the point. I can browse with Epiphany and still get a reasonably good experience, where if I am forced to use a Windows machine (and IE) I am greeted with a slow browser with no features, tons of pop-ups, lack of tabbed browsing, lack of middle click, etc. Sure, you can add these extensions, but that's not the point.

      The Gnome project seems to be interested in keeping things as simple as possible without taking too many features away. There are some things about Galeon/Firefox that I never used. There are some things about Epiphany that I would love to have. Any choice is better than IE for most browsing. I guess that is the point.

      What is really odd about Gnome's usability though, is that it is really inconsistent between apps. Even more annoying is that there are such major changes between different versions of Gnome, that really negate the "ease of use" concept that they seem to promote. For example, what in the hell is up with the new spatial Nautilus? Sure, it's fast. Sure, it works well in some respects. Sure, I'm getting used to it. Sure, I can enable "classic mode" and browse that way. But it seem to be *unfinished*. That's the big deal. Someone above mentioned that Gnome feels half-finished in many respects, and I tend to agree (in spite of it being my desktop of choice). Perhaps if they would stick to keeping major UI standards for major versions (between 2.x and 3.x, for instance), maybe someone could finish implementing a product or feature and make things consistent for once. Though I kinda like the new Nautilus spatial file manager, there are a lot of things that are missing that really make it difficult to use for certain things.

      So, back to Epiphany... While I feel that it feels a lot like Galeon or Firefox in most respects, some design decisions are just weird! For example, the way that it manages tab organization, or the slim feature-set that give you the ability to customize it. I like the browser, but I feel that Marco is going way too far in some respects. I really appreciate his work; Don't get me wrong. It's just something that I'm seeing from many Gnome-centric projects as well.

      It's just weird. You have an app like Evolution, which is kick-ass as far as mail apps are concerned, but other things seem to be broken or incomplete; Epiphany, Totem, (the new and improved) Nautilus in spatial mode, G-Streamer, etc. To the guy that posted that really long response of above; I feel your pain. I love Gnome, but I can't help but think that the head developers are a little lost at times. There really isn't a very good sense of group direction and planning... At least compared to KDE, in my opinion.

    4. Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) by akeru · · Score: 4, Informative

      "better" is a very subjective term, especially as far as Galeon and Epiphany are concerned. The reasons GNOME went with Epi over Galeon are essentially the same as why Marco (lead developer) left Galeon and started Epiphany: the (other) Galeon developers wanted to duplicate a lot of things that were already present in GNOME. The short list of duplication in Galeon/GNOME is MIME, Proxy and Mouse settings. The outcome of this is that there are (at present) 4 choices for a GNOME webbrowser, none of which are ideal.

      --

      Let's hope that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space 'Cause there's bugger-all down here on Earth.

    5. Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) by Jameth · · Score: 4, Informative

      "I feel your pain. I love Gnome, but I can't help but think that the head developers are a little lost at times. There really isn't a very good sense of group direction and planning... At least compared to KDE, in my opinion."

      What's really amazing is that KDE is the one with nothing even resembling central leadership, and GNOME is the one which is generally run by a group of core developers and decision makers. How did that happen?

      By the way, you're completely right.

    6. Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The thing that REALLY gets me about Epiphany is the idiotic bookmark system. They threw away the baby with the bath water.

      That "feature" alone lost me as a user(of Epiphany, not GNOME). Epiphany's bookmark system is slowly starting to resemble a "normal" bookmark system again(because most people hate it the way it is), while Galeon has been slowly adding incremental improvements to their bookmark system. Simply being able to have bookmark aliases in Galeon makes Epiphany's new bookmark system redundant, sans the search(who really needs to SEARCH their bookmarks anyway).

      As for the "Spatial" Nautilus... At first I thought that was just stupid fluff. I thought they would lose users over that. After trying it, I have come to the conclusion that it is so much better. I never liked using file managers before, but now I actually use Nautilus some.

      The one feature of the new Nautilus that makes the deal for me is the little button in the bottom left that allows you to open parent folders quickly. That way you can middle-click around, or File -> Close parent folders, and if you need to access a parent folder, it's quick. It's much quicker than browsing around your filesystem in what has become the traditional manner.

      So generally, I like the direction GNOME is going, but Epiphany really bothers me. I use bookmarks a lot, have several hundred, but Epiphany's bookmark system is unusable for me, so I continue to use Galeon. I would like to use Epiphany, for it's GNOME integration, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen any time soon.

      But at least we have choices. I really don't NEED my web browser to come standard with my DE, so in the end, I'm happy regardless.

      --
      Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    7. Re:I find it odd indeed... (slightly OT) by ttk · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The reasons GNOME went with Epi over Galeon are essentially the same as why Marco (lead developer) left Galeon and started Epiphany: the (other) Galeon developers wanted to duplicate a lot of things that were already present in GNOME. The short list of duplication in Galeon/GNOME is MIME, Proxy and Mouse settings.
      Please research the subject a little more thoroughly before making these false claims. None of the above were ever considered to be rewritten in Galeon, and there is no interest in duplicating stuff that's already in GNOME, what would be the point? And what is the Mouse settings supposed to mean anyway?
  8. Is OSS going the Microsoft route? by alen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does this mean that Mozilla will be integrated into GNOME? If yes, then isn't this doing the same thing as IE into Windows which everyone on /. says is evil?

    1. Re:Is OSS going the Microsoft route? by dAzED1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      no one said integrating a web browswer into the desktop was evil.

      one company controlling the browser, the desktop, the OS, the applications, the server apps, and...whatever else...that is what is innappropriate. Not having a choice - that is what is wrong.

      Don't want your browswer to be integrated? Use KDE, or the gnome fork that won't be integrated. Take the source and do it yourself, if you'd like. Not that you're making a serious question...

    2. Re:Is OSS going the Microsoft route? by 74nova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      im not going to fault you for asking that question, first of all. on the surface, they seem similar. however, i dont have to install gnome at all. nor do i have to install X, for that matter. the point is that you cant have windows without IE. i can still have gnu/linux in a nearly-infinite number of other combinations with or without gnome if i dont like mozilla being integrated. not only that, but IMO, mozilla is much better software than IE.

      --
      use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
    3. Re:Is OSS going the Microsoft route? by iabervon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um... KDE is the wrong suggestion. The browser (konqueror) has always been integrated into KDE.

    4. Re:Is OSS going the Microsoft route? by ajs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Others have replied, but let me be very specific: Microsoft was not wrong FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT. Tight integration between the browser and the desktop is TECNICALLY sound. The problems were that a) they did not publish the API for tying a browser into the desktop, so only IE could implement the API and thus IE was essentially part of the OS b) they had competition in the market that they were attempting to squash by making their product useless... such a melding of GNOME and Mozilla would not render Opera useless on Linux, as long as Opera played nice with GNOME in the same ways as Mozilla.

      No one in their right minds would claim that tighter integration between the browser and desktop is bad, only that it can be done badly.

  9. Re:GNONE-ME by ajs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comparing Nautilus with Konqueror is pure nonsense, comparing GNOME with KDE is even bigger nonsense. If we get a team of developers on a Table and discuss all the crap we find between KDE and GNOME then I can tell from own experience that the answer is clearly that GNOME will fail horrible here.

    What can you say... most of that isn't even coherent enough to be deemed english.

    But KDE had exactly all these things 2 years ago already. There is a development difference of 4 years between both Desktop solutions.

    And there's a development difference of 2-4 years in the other direction on other issues. What's surprising about one (very good) desktop system having different priorities than another (very good) desktop system?

  10. Just a lil humor by SavedLinuXgeeK · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does anyone else find it funny that A Dragon type creature, and that a gnome can end up being friends? This just keeps reminding me of shrek, and I hope that gnome never becomes an annoying jack-ass. I will leave that title for SCO.

    --
    je suis parce que j'aime
  11. Re:avalon? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to Google it's a lot of things, including a 3D image archive, a comic strip, an Apache project for service and component management or a Beowulf cluster.
    However, there's no Microsoft stuff on the first ten hits.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  12. Progress, but someone needs to lead by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 4, Insightful
    One inherent advantage Microsoft has over collaborative projects is that they don't need to persuade their own developers - they just point the boat and say "go here if you want to get paid". In the open source world, the consensus approach of feeding/starving projects based on their relative merits, and the unwillingness to leave anyone out in the cold definitely hampers major moves.

    Such is the case here. The need to more closely integrate the web rendering model and the desktop model is clear, and Microsoft is probably on to something compelling with Avalon/XAML. ActiveX was a disastrous first brush with integration but its clear they see a need and there is a need. Safe local applications integrated with the network do make sense.

    On the open source side someone will have to lead to get this done - and not be afraid to leave some groups out. Epiphany should be an early victim - a "default" app no one uses.

  13. 'Proprietary' extensions by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 2

    "Brendan spoke about the need for innovation, and not just clinging to web standards."

    This is heading towards proprietary extensions territory, a la Netscape/IE. Even if the implementations are 100% free software, this might lock out other apps and projects. It would take a major undertaking for them to comply with the new 'standards'.

    1. Re:'Proprietary' extensions by Brendan+Eich · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Physician, heal thyself. I give specific reasons for not bowing to arguments from authority. You whine factlessly about my rejection of your favorite authority. Who is being arrogant here?

      Just because the w3c endorses a specification does not mean that spec is a good or necessary standard (which, sorry to disappoint you, I and many others who agree with my point of view do believe exist).

      The w3c uses a closed, multi-year process where too many big and small companies pay-to-play and design-by-committee, with too little backward compatibility, and not even consistency among their own specs (e.g., the CSS and DOM deviations in SVG). Specs go to REC status without complete implementation or widespread market testing.

      The consequent neglect of HTML, DOM level 0, and other under- or un-specified de-facto standards used by billions of web pages, has aided and abetted MS in cementing its monopoly. And now that monopoly vendor is moving the goal posts on the entire web client game. I do not whine about this (unlike you, who seems content to whine in /. about bad ol' me) -- I'm actually working on ways to combat web monoculture. This focus is about to curtail my time responding on /., but feel free to mail me.

      If your idea of fighting the bad effects of IE or Windows Longhorn on the web is "implement XForms in Mozilla", then you need to calm down and explain how that does anything except waste time and bloat Gecko's footprint. Without any browser market share to speak of, even if Mozilla supported XForms, web content authors in a few years are much likelier to use XAML than XForms. Apple, Opera, and IE will never support XForms natively, and XForms plugins are neither well-distributed not transparently integrated with HTML and other supported standards.

      So give it a rest -- try fact-based opinions instead of w3c authority trips for a change.

      If your "I want a standards compliant browser" demand means anything here, it can only mean that this is all about *you* and *your wants*. "Uncompromising" standards compliance is a goal of Mozilla for standards that actually matter in the real world, like HTML, CSS, and DOM (including the unspecified parts). If on your planet, XForms matters, get busy implementing it in Mozilla. We're accepting patches.

      /be

    2. Re:'Proprietary' extensions by Brendan+Eich · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'll repeat for the last time that Mozilla will take an XForms implementation that builds on the existing code. If it's small enough, several drivers@mozilla.org including me have said we'd ship it in the default build.
      I have never heard you say this before, which is why I asked about it. I re-read your comments in bugzilla and I see you talking (comments #71, #80) about reasons why it might be undesirable, but none that say what it would take to include it. It appears you've either softened your stance, or I misunderstood it.
      You need to read better. See http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=XForms #c26, my second paragraph, quoted here:
      I would join roc, as a driver@mozilla.org, in wanting to take a performant, low overhead, smoothly integrated implementation of XForms, provided jkeiser and other Gecko owners and peers agree (cc'ing dbaron, he should be in on this too). Since XHTML 2.0 has been done in Mozilla using only XBL/JS (see http://w3future.com/weblog/gems/xhtml2.xml), why can't XForms be done, as roc suggested, using XBL? Do we need to revive the stalled XBL form control work, to have scriptable interfaces for form submission?

      Who will own this bug? A bug assigned to nobody@mozilla.org is not going to get re-targeted from the Future.

      Notice the low comment number. Reading the whole bug to which you are coming late may help keep you from spitting bile at me unjustly.

      I'm tired of repeating myself. I don't "recoil" at reasoned consideration of any spec, and for that reason Mozilla implements many w3c recommendations. But no one should bow down before a standards body blindly, especially not a minority market-share browser vendor that cannot cause content authors to increase the support of standards simply by spending (considerable) scarce resources on implementing the long list of w3c recommendations, out of blind faith in magic standards fairies causing the world to change for the better.

      Here's yet another fact: XForms is not new. Four years in the standards process, about a year and a half at CR (Conditional Recommendation, which is a greenlight to implementors). Good luck to it, it needs it.

      /be

  14. Overlap in functionality != unproductive effort by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Konqueror, Nautilus, Epiphany, Galeon, Firefox, Mozilla et etc.. I have to agree that its getting kind of ridiculous.
    Ok, choice is nice and all, but this duplication of functionality and work is probably extremely unproductive as a whole for the progress of open source software. It should be enough with 2-3 choices for browsers instead of 20: one or two lightweight ones á Firefox, and one or two "fully featured" like Mozilla.


    Isn't the whole point of open source that there's as many choices as there are people to invest the time and energy? Shouldn't that broaden the possibilities of a given piece of software, if each is trying to bring something new to the table?

    That being said, I agree that it would probably be best to focus efforts on the more mature technologies. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it's unproductive: rather, they're producing something, but there may be a lot of overlap between it and any other browser-type app out there.

  15. Re:Be careful how close you get to Mozilla by The-Dalai-LLama · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate to feed the trolls but criminy...

    can only be useful in the context of searching for and downloading hardcore or violent pornography

    The emphasis is in the original post and it's an utterly ridiculous claim. Trust me, these fantastic features are every bit as useful and functional for downloading and cataloging even low-key, family-friendly porn that has nothing to do with whips, chains, or farm animals in leather pants.

    Besides which, your cheap attempt to inject a little extra hype carries a distinct tone of shrill hysteria, which detracts from any attempt at a more reasoned argument. Your attempt to use one narrow aspect of the whole broad, rich spectrum of glorious pornography is misleading enough that it probably has its own latin name.

    I guess it also goes without saying that the uses for tabbed browsing are limited only by the imagination and intelligence of the person who browses.

    Consequently, your options may be severely limited. Let me help you get started.

    • The glorious power of tabbed browsing:
    • Allows you to open up every category of the Chadwick's Catalog at once
    • You can do a Google search for "Moral Purity" and open each result in its own tab
    • Each article on the American Family Association's Website can be opened in its own tab. You can read the current article while the others load.
    • You don't have to use Firefox's handy extensions on pictures of porn. Because Satan and his Mozillian Minions made them available through the GPL for free, you can use them to collect and trade pictures of Jesus or even pictures of beautiful cathedrals, without ever worrying that your licensing fee will be used to fund sex-correction surgery for a 16-year old Taiwanese lady-boy.
    • If you have Bible questions, you can open a tab for each answer, drastically reducing the amount of time it takes to hide those words in your heart.
    • Tabbed browsing is so useful that you can go to the Anti-Porn Guy's website and open each of his informative links in its own window to find others who will help you with your crusade against tabbed browsing.

    To sum up: tabbed browsing is your friend. Whether you are cruising www.hotasiansluts.com or www.jesus.com, tabbed browsing can make your internet experience faster, easier, and better.

    The Dalai Llama
    ...tab for the children...

    P.S. - I gather that your tirade against tabbed browsing is a recurring theme. Feel free to bookmark this post and refer to it as needed.

  16. Oh christ. by karmaflux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Please, please, please let this fail. The last thing I want is my favorite browser family tied to freaking GTK or Gnome.

    --

    REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.

    1. Re:Oh christ. by evilviper · · Score: 4, Informative
      The last thing I want is my favorite browser family tied to freaking GTK or Gnome.

      Ironically, it already is... Mozilla has always required GTK, and (very few) GNOME libraries.

      The fact that you don't realize this suggests that you've probably never compiled Mozilla, and just download the binaries. In which case, you won't be affected in the slightest, anyhow.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  17. Suggested innovation by claes · · Score: 2, Informative

    The meeting suggested innovation - what about this:

    Tie XForms together with email. The purpose is to allow forms to be sent with email, as alternative to HTTP POST. Integrate it with mail clients so that clicking a link opens the compose window, which will load the form, show it, ready to fill in. When clicking send, the form is evaluated and sent. This is much nicer than filling in an order form in a browser, since you get to keep a copy in the outbox. Actually, I am surprised I don't see this already. Of course, it needs to be standardized, but you have to start somewhere. Is there perhaps already an RFC in progress?

    1. Re:Suggested innovation by iabervon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's the big idea about email? Why not just save HTTP POST form responses in the equivalent of an outbox? The ability to save things is unrelated to the protocol used to send them (and HTTP is a much better protocol for this application than SMTP).

      I think that the ability to save forms and form responses would be a major advantage, however.

  18. good idea that.... by zogger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...mozilla wants to collaborate closer with GNOME and that they asked for it first, according to the release of the minutes of the meeting. Cool Beans. Something that I like, more focused direction on unification for a polished product. *Choice* is good,but it's subjective without some sort of rational goal, choice by itself is mostly used as a buzzword, there must be a *goal* in making the choice and having multiple choices, not just that there *are* multiple choices extant.

    And my choice and I bet millions of others would be a "linux thing" that worked cohesively together, and that just won't happen very quickly with thousands of directions taken, many of them just parallel trails with each other.

    I most certainly would *chose* an operating system/distribution that worked all well together. A choice of a chaotic mish mash of thousands of incompatable apps and a so-so functionality is not much of a choice if you want quality over quantity.

  19. Re:Be careful how close you get to Mozilla by Queuetue · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was going to mention that you were being a little rough on the parent, until I saw you were beating yourself up... Which I suppose is ok in my book, as long as you know what you're doing. :)

  20. Re:[O/T] Defending my post by Nspace13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would say that (much like you decided to take a hit on your karma by posting your opinion) Mozilla is simply supporting their own right to allow others to develop extensions on their open platform. Mozilla didn't develop these two extensions which I admit may aid in surfing for porn but come on, let some people surf for porn. There are numerous extensions to Mozilla's browsers and most of them are quite useful. Saying that because a browser lets you flip through a collection of numerically ordered images is supported pornography is like saying all browsers should be banned because they let you type in URLs and the URLs may point to pages that contain pornography. There are image collections out there that are definitly worth flipping through that do no contain porno.

    --
    steal this sig
  21. Not a compelling strategy by kollivier · · Score: 3, Interesting

    OSS developers tend to push the rather silly 'it's cheaper so they'll switch if we offer a similar solution' battle plan. No thanks. I'm still using Windows (actually, Mac primarily) although Linux is cheaper because Windows and Mac provide me with a whole lot of ease of use that Linux lacks, for what is relatively a small amount of money. (When you consider I work on these things 8 hours a day!) When Linux provides ease of use at more than a superficial level (no, having a GUI doesn't automatically mean "easy to use") then I'll think about switching.

    Apple was smart when they took an attitude of "we don't *CARE* what Microsoft is doing, we'll just carve our own markets and create compelling value". This strategy works, because Apple isn't constantly trying to catch up with Microsoft. Instead, they're working on the best possible solution for *their* customers, not Microsoft's. They have a very good understanding of who their customers are, and which customers they're likely to switch over. They've done research on this.

    What Mozilla should have learned by now is that the browser just isn't that important anymore. "Our browser is better than yours" will hardly cause end users to switch in boatloads. Developers, however, are more open to switching and more keen on using these technologies in their own apps. Yet, despite this, they say that embedding and the GRE are not priorities until FireFox 1.0 is released. So their focus is on making a good browser, which MS already has. (Don't start about the benefits of Mozilla over IE, I know what they are and most users neither know nor care.)

    Their real potential growth market is in embedding, where Windows/Linux/Mac apps can share a similar rendering engine, in tools like Quicken/TurboTax. XUL is an added bonus. But embedding is not a priority nor is it easy to do. So while they could be getting Mozilla/GRE dumped on all sorts of desktops via third-party apps, they've chosen to focus on converting end users, a majority of whom just don't care about which browser they use.

    Another great growth area would be Composer, which is already a decent contender to FrontPage, but which most people don't even know exists. Again, a compelling selling point for Mozilla (and embeddable!) but it basically gets ignored. In fact, I think editor embedding is actually a killer app for Mozilla - how many apps work with HTML these days? And unlike with the browser, Mozilla has very little competition here. FrontPage and Dreamweaver are expensive, and they don't offer a real, compelling benefit over Composer.

    Instead of pursuing these opportunities, now it sounds like they're going to dump bunches of resources integrating with GNOME and trying to beat Microsoft at its own game (good luck, you're not the first to try!). Also, sounds like they're going to try reinventing portions of wxWidgets/wxWindows internally to provide a "native" XUL, like OpenOffice is now in the process of doing with their own toolkit. Talk about collaboration! It's a wonder we haven't tore Microsoft a new one yet...

    1. Re:Not a compelling strategy by Brendan+Eich · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Good point about Apple, but only half the truth is told here. Apple is not targeting commodity PC hardware. It has its own boutique hardware that people want in addition to the boutique software Apple purveys. This is a huge advantage, although of limited growth potential, and an advantage that is not transferable to Linux.

      Embedding is hardly a growth market. There are at most a handful of apps that might embed Gecko on Linux, and Mozilla would get little or no funding or user-agent market share from them. The embedding apps would free-ride on the funding from AOL, and on recurring funding from strategic partners that the Mozilla Foundation has gained through application-based strategies since its founding.

      Consider that PTC, maker of ProEngineer, has been embedding Gecko for years in ProE on Linux (on Windows, ProE uses Trident). Good for PTC, we support their embedding -- but it has not benefited Mozilla with either funding or measurable user-agent market share.

      This may be heresy to open-source true believers, but maintaining and extending Gecko requires a minimum number of paid, full-time hackers, managers, and QA and release staff, in addition to the wide and deep volunteer community from which those staff were hired. Currently Sun, IBM, Red Hat, and the Mozilla Foundation, at least, employ such people. The need for paid staff comes from the complexity of the web: 5 billion public pages, millions of private intranet pages and web apps, lots of quirks and buggy content, de-facto standards, gaps in de-jure standards.

      To fund an effort of this scale, you need a successful business strategy.

      You propose a "killer embedded library" strategy, which would be a departure from what works. Let's look at three strategies already in use in Mozilla's area, Internet client software:

      Mozilla already has "killer app" strategies in place funding the browser and, more recently, Thunderbird.

      MS's "killer apps on OS monopoly" ping-pong strategy is well known. MS also has "killer tools for programmers" and "extensive developer support/documentation" efforts that undergird a "developer mindshare" strategy that builds on and perpetuates the OS monopoly, and that may yield killer apps (which MS then can acquire).

      Macromedia made the right moves early with Flash, building great tools and gaining >90% distribution of the FlashPlayer plugin, and they're parlaying that into a "killer rich client app platform" strategy. Good for them, but Mozilla lacks that well-distributed a front end, and lacks the tools (and the need for tools -- the web was and probably will continue to be mostly built by hand).

      The striking thing about these examples is the emphasis on end-user or developer applications that make real revenue. No one is just purveying anything like a web content engine library to be embedded in unknown applications, and getting any kind of return on investment. This is not surprising. There is no commerically viable "killer embedded library" business for web content engines, thanks to MS subsidizing Trident to zero cost on Windows, and Apple doing the same for KHTML on Mac OS X.

      (Yes, MS and even Apple, for all I know, have tried and are trying to recoup some of the huge costs they've sunk, by for example charging AOL or Intuit for the privilege of embedding a supported version of Trident, or licensing its source. But that does not make a viable business out of the subsidies.)

      Those subsidies also made browsers free on those OSes, but browsers are still killer apps, mainly because they are sufficient front ends to web apps, which have displaced fat/proprietary/vertical client/server apps.

      There are still people, not all end-users, who will pay for browsers, and not only on Linux. Some customers don't want to be locked into the OS vendor's browser, especially when it is IE. Some customers value cross-platform reach, for migration and coverage. "Customer" here includes anyone helping fund the engine and the killer app that uses it

  22. Maybe you're right. by RealityThreek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You say, first, that Linux is hard to use because it's tools are superficial. Then you say that Apple did it right because they chose to carve their own market.

    Linux has already done this. It's current market is full of geeks who don't think that Linux is hard to use. I think Windows is hard to maintain, and that's why I use Linux. The Linux community is now trying to expand their market to people like you, who don't see the elegance of how things are handled in a unix-ish OS.

    Is my response elitist? A little bit, but it's true. I think you're original post was ignorant. I've been tossing the idea around in my head that maybe it would be better if Linux -wasn't- the most used OS. It'll end up like Windows.

    --
    :wq
    1. Re:Maybe you're right. by kollivier · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Linux has already done this. It's current market is full of geeks who don't think that Linux is hard to use. I think Windows is hard to maintain, and that's why I use Linux.

      But I was talking about GNOME and, more importantly, Mozilla. Are Mozilla and GNOME just targetting geeks? From what they've said in the past and in the meeting notes, I don't think this is the case. My issues were with how they intend to gain marketshare in the other markets, those who are using other OSes or other products.

      The Linux community is now trying to expand their market to people like you, who don't see the elegance of how things are handled in a unix-ish OS.

      Then, no disrespect, but it is failing miserably, and statements like "who don't see the elegance.." are indeed elitist and makes it sound like this target market is too dumb for Linux anyways. I use Linux-based distros (Mandrake currently, though not as my primary desktop), I've learned quite a bit about UNIX/Linux, the command line, etc., and while I see its benefits, it was (actually is) a painful and steep learning curve. It's orders of magnitude harder than learning Mac and Windows for someone who didn't start off on UNIX. How can something so elegant be so painful? I just don't see it, right? Well, if I hadn't been stubborn enough to learn how Linux works (and actually it's thanks to Mac that I got more of a sense of the command line), I would have given up on it long ago.

      Is my response elitist? A little bit, but it's true. I think you're original post was ignorant. I've been tossing the idea around in my head that maybe it would be better if Linux -wasn't- the most used OS. It'll end up like Windows.

      Actually, Linux is just a kernel. This is an important point. There are probably 100s of Linux-based OSes. So why can't you have your uber-geek distribution (Gentoo? Debian?) while I have my easy to use distribution? In fact, I think everyone talking like there is one "Linux" confuses the issue considerably.

      Also, it doesn't *have* to end up like Windows, but if it does, it will be because the open source community made it that way. My concern is that this is actually where projects like Mozilla are trying to push things. Windows != easy to use. Windows = "one way to implement an easy to use desktop, although far from the best way to do it". Anyone who uses Windows as the gold standard for ease of use will never create a compelling reason to switch from Windows. In fact, as the saying goes, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". OSS software will thus be seen as the "cheap knock-off" of high-quality Windows software. And that's the last way I'd like OSS to be perceived.

    2. Re:Maybe you're right. by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting
      How can something so elegant be so painful?

      It's quite simple. You are so adjusted to the Windows/Mac way of doing things, that doing things the Unix way is unthinkable. It's not that Unix is any harder, it's just that it's totally different.

      I started with Windows (and some Mac expercience) and went through the same pangs you are. Now that I've gone through all that, and know Unix as well as anything else, I wouldn't switch back unless my life depended on it. The Unix way is more elegant, more flexible, and far more powerful. The things I have Unix boxes setup to do, couldn't possibly be done in Windows (which, I believe, is why Apple wanted a Unix base-system).

      <RANT>
      Personally, I think that Linux distros make things far more difficult than they need to be for users. GNOME and KDE are like a whole OS on top of Unix, and another very complicated thing that beginners feel they need to learn. Instead, if they started everyone off with a working system, with XFce as their desktop environment, people would take to it quick than MacOS, because it's so simple.

      They should also include a single, simple program, that would allow you to configure everything about your system (vaguely like the windows control panel). Up to now, all of the configuration tools do different things, and none of them do it all.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  23. Re:Be careful how close you get to Mozilla by ajs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A brief summary of my previous post would be to say that certain features of Firefox make it too easy to misuse the web browser to surf for pornography

    Um.. April 1 was a while back...

    But I've since discovered that actual Mozilla supported extensions such as this one, "Magpie" or this one "Prev/Next image", which are actually given web space and bookmarked by default by the Mozilla developers themselves can only be useful in the context of searching for and downloading hardcore or violent pornography

    Magpie can be used to download any images, including non-violent porn, violent non-porn and non-violent, non-porn... imagine!

    Prev/Next image is useful for any numerically indexed images such as software screenshots, wallpaper, artist portfolios and even, yes, porn.

    Again... you... were joking... weren't you? Man, I really hope so.

    Pornography is destroying the Internet and the moral health of this nation

    Well, let's see... pornography not only paid for much of the exisiting Internet buildout (given that it was the first, and for a very long time, ONLY widespread profitable enterprise on the Net) it has also underwritten most major changes in media since the printing press. Ever wonder how there came to be a separate rate for postcards? Yep, porn. So, if you want to remove porn-related media start with the postal rate for postcards.

    And "destroying ... the moral health of this nation"? I guess you're probably refering to the US, since most of the ignorant sods that say "this nation" over the Internet are from the US. And, I would venture to say that something that has been around and a strong part of our culture for over a century... probably isn't the reason for any currently growing woes. In fact, I've noticed that in the last 10-20 years we backward US types have actually started to GET OVER porn and recognize it for what it is: pictures, nothing more, nothing less.

    Perhaps someday we'll be so grown up that we can talk to each other about sex and not get flustered. Wow, imagine being an adult AND being allowed to act like it!

    Having a major open source project associate itself publicly with perversion and pornography [...] is no way to gain respect.

    1. Seems to work fine in every other area of life
    2. When did you introduce perversion?

    Repeat after me: images aren't porn unless they involve sex. The ability to manipulate imagines cannot preclude sexual images.

    Those two are true regardless of how you feel about sex and porn.

  24. Re:What a beautiful strawman you've constructed! by The-Dalai-LLama · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From you:

    tell me how the functionality of Magpie can be used for something other than pornography??

    From the Magpie site:

    Save Linked Media: Save all files linked to from the page you're currently looking at by hitting Ctrl+Shift+S. To specify which types you want saved when you do this, use Magpie's Options panel.

    From me:
    You can use Magpie to go to a page with nothing but sound clips from the movie "Clerks" and you can download all the quotes. No porn involved.

    From you:

    Please note: my problem with this is that they are Mozilla supported extensions. perhaps you would actually like to also address that point, yes?

    From me:
    Mozilla is going to support anything that will improve and extend the functionality of their browsers. The more valuable and flexible a tool is, the more widely it will be used and the greater the number of uses to which it will be put.

    Much like the word "tool."

    The Dalai LLama
    ...tired of tilting at windmills...

  25. Mozilla's greatest success is libification. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The current problem with Mozilla is that it is a monolith suite. Where Mozilla succeeds is where they allow Mozilla functionallity to be imported into other applications.

    One of Gnome's greatest strength is that developers can pick and choose which libraries to include to build their applications.

    The Mozilla people need to extract from their code useable libraries that anyone can use. This alone will lead to integration with Gnome, as has been the case with the HTML rendering.

  26. YES! We need to sort out the damn GUI bindings. by mpcooke3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. IBM's SWT requires C++ interfaces and it needs gnome in addition to current GTK bindings. SWT is the fastest best API supporting most common platforms it runs 10 times faster than mozilla because it uses native widgets.

    2. XUL needs to be mapped to SWT bindings so it has faster native cross platform support. This would be the quickest way to get mozilla to run and look like a native app on most platforms.

    With these two changes people can develop cross platform apps with native GUI's either directly in C, Java or using XUL for layout.

    3. Once that is done you can clone XAML/Avalon.

    If I have any spare time this weekend I will put togethor the neccessary patches ;)

    Matt.

  27. Feh. by alehmann · · Score: 2, Informative
    There are so many things wrong with this that it's difficult to start. The first is Jeff Waugh's proposal that Epiphany replace Firefox as a the de-facto Linux browser. Jeff Waugh is GNOME's most extreme evangelist and from my communications with him I get the impression that he would like nothing more than for GNOME to become integral to every Linux system. In reality, all that users would gain from Epiphany is that things might be a little more consistent *if* they happened to use GNOME. If not, too bad:

    # apt-get install epiphany-browser
    Reading Package Lists... Done
    Building Dependency Tree... Done
    The following extra packages will be installed:
    docbook-xml docbook-xsl gconf2 gnome-doc-tools gnome-icon-theme gnome-mime-data libbonobo2-0 libbonobo2-common libbonoboui2-0 libbonoboui2-common libeel2-2 libeel2-data libfam0c102 libgconf2-4 libgnome-desktop-2 libgnome2-0 libgnome2-common libgnomeui-0 libgnomeui-common libgnomevfs2-0 libgnomevfs2-common libnautilus2-2 liborbit2 libscrollkeeper0 libxslt1.1 scrollkeeper yelp
    Suggested packages:
    gnome-vfs-extras2
    The following NEW packages will be installed:
    docbook-xml docbook-xsl epiphany-browser gconf2 gnome-doc-tools gnome-icon-theme gnome-mime-data libbonobo2-0 libbonobo2-common libbonoboui2-0 libbonoboui2-common libeel2-2 libeel2-data libfam0c102 libgconf2-4 libgnome-desktop-2 libgnome2-0 libgnome2-common libgnomeui-0 libgnomeui-common libgnomevfs2-0 libgnomevfs2-common libnautilus2-2 liborbit2 libscrollkeeper0 libxslt1.1 scrollkeeper yelp
    0 upgraded, 28 newly installed, 0 to remove and 83 not upgraded.

    ...And I already have GTK2 and Gecko installed. You get to keep most of the new stuff resident in memory for no gain.

    By the way, even if Epiphany does not become the standard browser, I don't like the direction things are headed in with Firefox becoming the default. The designers seem to have outsourced their UI design to Redmond. Here are a few examples of the things I don't like about Firefox that I feel came directly from IE and really don't jive with my habits that come from using NSCP products for 10 years:

    • When you try to add a bookmark, it opens a dialog. Netscape never did this, not even in version 1.0. I much prefer the old way.
    • By default, Firefox zooms images that you view directly to fit the screen. When I occasionally used Windows lab machines a few years ago there was nothing I hated more than loading a screenshot and seeing it scaled down. At least you can turn this off in the preferences.
    • Both Mozilla and Firefox have adopted favicon.ico from IE. IMHO this is a horrible idea and never had any point. In Mozilla you can turn it off in the preferences dialog. In Firefox, you can partially turn it off using the cryptic about:config.
    • "Options" is under "Tools". This is unintuitive. I understand that Edit isn't the best choice either, but it's been that way for a decade.
    • When you try to type in a URL, a dropdown of completions appear. Most people like this. I don't. Mozilla lets you turn it off. Firefox doesn't.

    And there are many more things I dislike about Firefox, but these are just the ones I feel they took directly from IE. I understand that they want it to be easy for IE users to migrate, but this inflexible browser really doesn't meet the expectations of power users like myself and many of my friends. I've tried to reason with some of the Firefox developers about some of these issues, and they firmly believe that Firefox should cater to the needs of IE converts. They don't want to add preference items for the admittedly minor things I care about because it would confuse people and possibly make Firefox's preferences UI as slow as Mozilla's (XUL doesn't seem very scalable). This is proof that only having one browser is not sufficient, especially if it's a least common denominator one. I haven't used Epiphany, but I can't see how it would be better to remove the choice between Firefox and Epipha

    1. Re:Feh. by Brendan+Eich · · Score: 2, Insightful
      There seems to be some confusion. No one is proposing that Mozilla and GNOME implement "XAML" -- it's a pre-release, proprietary moving target. Also, the Mono project is not part of GNOME.

      What everyone wants, what even Microsoft is "reacting" to, is the graphics capabilities of modern PCs, the ease of UI and graphical design inherent in XML declarations and managed code driving a layout and rendering engine, and the current failure of web standards to marry the two. MS can cut through the red tape and make a UI and graphics language that rivals XUL and Macromedia's Flex markup language combined.

      Matching MS's every move is stupid, and it wasn't what anyone proposed. Building a competitive graphics and UI toolkit together was on the table, because otherwise the open source alternative to things like XAML (or MXML) is fragmented and weak.

      BTW, Active X plugins are supported in Mozilla, conditionally (whitelist empty by default). Too many sites use Windows Media Player, and it requires Active X plugin glue. Last I heard, http://www.gamespot.com/ still showed hot new games' cut-scenes using WMP only.

      You should know that mozilla.org does not endorse Active X, but Netscape/AOL funded the WMP plugin work in order to "make sites [like gamespot] work". The complaint that "too many sites don't work" is still hurled at Mozilla and Netscape by PC vendors, when justifying their decisions not to bundle a Mozilla browser alongside IE, just as an alternative.

      /be

  28. I will believe it when I see it by mrcparker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is GNOME we are talking about.

    This is the same GNOME that starts a whole lot of really cool things but never finishes them.

    - GNOME vfs - great idea, but none of the modules really work like they should. The ssh, smb, and ftp method are all sketchy at best.

    - CORBA-like Object system - another great idea with some great code behind it but hardly implemented in any applications. I should be able to use a web browser object, a emailer object, etc.

    The two issues above take the "OBJECT" and "NETWORK" right out of GNOME. I really like GNOME - libxml, atk, bonobo, and gtk are excellent.

    I would believe that this is going somewhere if the KDE group announced it, but I have a feeling that this will be yet another great idea that will never really pan out.

  29. While on the topic of wishes by ciroknight · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You know what I wish for? A visual XUL generator, just like Visual Basic in Windows. I also want the Mozilla team to make Firefox run XUL applications using the currently selected GNOME skins and widgets, so that it integrates cleanly. With that, Linux would have a true RAD environment, and maybe we could get more new developers into Linux.

    This being said, I too hope they slow down production on Seamonkey and shift gears, but they're close and they're getting closer every release. And Firebird's already over 90,000 lines different than Mozilla, not to mention fast as hell on both platforms I use daily (Linux + Windows).

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    1. Re:While on the topic of wishes by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The project is called Vixen.>

      "Vixen is designed to be a Visual XUL IDE similar to Visual Basic, Delphi, Macromedia Dreamweaver and Glade, but for the XPToolkit technology developed by the Mozilla project. The initial goal of Vixen is to allow developers to quickly develop professional quality dialogs and windows without having to write any (or at least much) XUL or CSS by hand. The long term goal is to create a comprehensive development environment for rapid development of XUL applications."

      What I want is XUL and GTK-xml to merge, along with Glade and Mozilla Composer. I'd like to be able to drag and drop menus, use table wizzards, define popups and buttons, and then save it as XML, and use it to create the gui for webpages and linux apps. Seems like C, C++, and Java (at least) could be targets.

      The layout for a table is just that, the layout for a table. Abstract it, and use that abstraction for *every* table (so merge with OpenOffice's XML too).

      Why not go another step, since java is the OpenOffice extension language, and merge Glade/Mozilla Composer with NetBeans?

      Ok, now its time to wakeup and come back to reality...the xml for XUL and GTK-xml are (pretty radically) different... but why is that? Why is the xml for a table in OpenOffice different?

      *sigh*

  30. QT/KDE interface? by tuxdude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is there someone working on Firefox or Mozilla with QT/KDE interface?

  31. Better question by bonch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Instead of the Mozilla Foundation, why the hell isn't the GNOME Foundation meeting the KDE Foundation?

  32. Under development by superyooser · · Score: 2, Informative
  33. gently flogging a dead horse with scented bootlace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Allright, I'll bite. First, just for reference, if you look at this guy's posts, almost all of them are rated (-1). So, his statements aren't merely bad; they are consistently bad to the point where (we must assume) multiple moderators over time thought it was worth it to burn their mod points to take this guy out.

    Major premise however, is the question: what's wrong with looking at porn? Honestly. How does looking at pictures of nude (or naked) women (or men) destroy the moral health of a country?

    I'm not sure what ``moral health'' is, anyway. But even assuming the US ever had, I think after Wounded Knee, Vietnam, Nisei camps, etc., it's pretty much gone. How does a person looking at porn have a worse effect on a nation's moral character than would killing women and children?

    As George Carlin put it: Of all the things you could do to a person, giving someone an orgasm is hardly the worst thing in the world. In the army they give you a medal for spraying napalm on people. Maybe I'm not supposed to understand it!