Slashdot Mirror
FireFox and Longhorn: Meant For Each Other?
News for nerds writes "According to the internetnews.com report, Microsoft's technology evangelist Robert Scoble said in his blog and interview that while he is a user of Firefox it can be improved if Mozilla developers take advantage of Longhorn technologies such as XAML, Avalon and WinFS, instead of making it only within GNOME/Mozilla coalition."
I run FireFox on linux, solaris, and windows 2000 regularily. I'd rather see FireFox efforts put into features which are easily cross-platform, rather than a Longhorn branch.
What about making those technologies available to other platforms with a no-royalties license instead?
Believe it or not, everyone that works for Microsoft isn't an evil person trying to crush the free software movement. The point of this article seems to be that a Microsoft employee recognizes Firefox's superiority. If this guy is able to admit openly on a Microsoft website that he doesn't even use IE, maybe developers should listen to him. Sure, making a Longhorn only version is not the solution. GNOME should investigate these features to see if they are worth trying to duplicate. Ideas shouldn't be cynically disregarded just because of where they originated.
If the Mozilla developers feel that cross platform is most important (which I feel is most important), they should just consider what these suggestions mean and maybe make them design objectives if they are at all possible.
So Firefox doesn't use Avalon or WinFS yet. Not surprising considering they are not in use except in Microsoft development shops. His argument seems to be "but then you'll be a couple of years behind everyone else". I'm not sure it matters that much. I doubt anyone but IE developers are doing any coding against these frameworks ATM because they just aren't solidly locked down yet. Coding against a changing framework and API with disappearing/suddenly new features is a recipe for disaster unless you have a good inside track.
If you read the comments he spends a lot of time saying how wonderful Avalon and WinFS are. If anyone asks why he says "because they're revolutionary". So what sort of features are they actually going to have in the release version? He spends pretty much the entire thread dodging that.
Microsoft has no clue exactly what is going to make it into Longhorn, nor exactly what sort of feature set these "revolutionary" technologies will posses. Why on earth would start trying to code against them now?!
And in the end, if he really thinks it will be that wonderful to have Firefox using Avalon and WinFS... well, he can always write the code himself can't he. It is open source, so he can fork and do what he likes.
My impression (after reading through the comments to the blog): All hype and bluster and no content. I don't think Mozilla should be the least bit concerned.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I have to wonder at his comments, asking such things as "why is Firefox not taking advantage of avalon?" or "why not WinFS?" or "Why not XAML?"
They're marketing type questions coming from a clueless droid.
The obvious answer is the same as the answer to the questions "Why is Firefox not taking advantage of features of Mac OSX 10.6" or "Why is Firefox not taking advantage of features of the Linux Kernel 2.8"
COS THEY'RE NOT FUCKING HERE YET!
He's not asking questions. He's sowing seeds.
No need - there's already an organisation dedicated to making the web a more friendly place. The problem is, some, browsers don't follow the standards too well, choosing to implement proprietary extensions to published standards, and implementing standard extensions slowly at best.
<voice type="Blackadder-Wise-Woman">There are three solutions to this:
- Persuade certain browser vendors to comply with modern standards;
- Persuade the entire online community to switch browsers to modern, standards-compliant browsers;
- Kill everybody!
</voice>This is where the serious fun begins.
My question is, will the cloning of the APIs/technology be *legal*?
...Great for Microsoft, but clear evidence that software patents are BAD for consumers. (Also reminds us that OSS is wonderful, OSS is great, but for the *most part*, most OSS that has been produced so far is not INNOVATIVE. When the primary goal of a project is to clone another product (Evolution springs to mind), it's just not something that drives the realm of computing forward. It's GREAT for competition, though).
...And don't get me started on the dangers inherent in developing using Mono. Ugh.
With Microsoft patenting everything under the sun that relates to Longhorn, how long do you think it would take it would take Microsoft to whip out the lawyer hordes if an open-source project (or any competitor) were to build a XAML implementation?
It's a very smart strategy. Even if Longhorn and associated technologies aren't released until 2007, with current momentum Microsoft will still have a fairly heavy stranglehold on the desktop. Longhorn will fairly quickly be adopted by the masses, pushing their proprietary tech onto the world.
XAML poses to be significantly cool. How long do you think it will take before we start seeing sites that are XAML-only? I mean, today how many MAJOR websites can't even be bothered to do even basic cross-browser compatibility checking (or do outright requirement of IE), let alone spend the resources to implement sites using two very different technologies?
The OSS community says "hey, that's no problem, we'll play catch-up like we always have. We'll just clone your stuff!" Then Microsoft starts slyly waving software patents in Mozilla/KDE/Opera's face.
And chances are that MS will license the technology to Apple, or someone like that, but you can see the danger for OSS browsers and OSS platforms.
"First of all, Longhorn has a mission not to break existing apps. If we broke existing apps, we'd be hurting our customers, our partners and ourselves," Scoble told internetnews.com.
Here's another quote I remember:
"Windows isn't done until Lotus won't run".