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."
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Robert Scoble is a professional Microsoft troll. Please ignore his blogs and his disingenious praise for Firefox.
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?
Yeah, Mozilla should start using Microsoft technologies. It's too damn boring that I can block pop-ups in my Firefox and I don't have any spyware on my system. Hey Mozilla developers, use IE engine for Mozilla and make my day.
1. Use Longhorn-specific extensions 2. Develop MSIE replacement 3. Profit! (for Microsoft, who have just saved a packet on browser development) Meanwhile resources are drained from solutions that will benefit non-Windows users and platforms. Signs of a new strategy from Redmond?
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
WinFS strikes me as a bit odd, anyone care to explain?
Firefox is meant to be a web browser - and no extras. So why would it need to use the filesystem? It's not like somebody wants to integrate Firefox into Longhorn to such an extent as to make it 'part' of the os. Also is WinFS open, did I miss something?
Hmmm those flying pigs sure do look pretty up there in the sky.
Peanut butter and chocolate for example.
:P
Tv and remote.
Geek and computer.
Arsenic and old lace.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Could one not consider XAML just a re-implementation of the XML-based UI builder that the Mozilla guys developed?
:)
Can anyone explain to me why a web browser would care about filesystems?
When will I be able to run Avalon on my Red Hat 9 machine?
Perhaps these guys would be better served by using Free systems for the functionality provided by XAML and Avalon. I happen to like the Mozilla system and Gnome works great for me.
You forgot the "annihilate" step, before you begin washing your hands.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
I think this is a great idea. Currently, Firefox is just not slow, bloated and buggy enough to fit into a Windows work environment. It is upto the Firefox team to change this.
I will applaud any effort to add new, worthless, features into Firefox. This is what makes Open Source great, and could one day make Firefox a match for Internet Explorer.
I would love to see MS, Mozilla and Opera do some work together to make the web a more friendly place. Every time I make a new webpage, I have to fight with atleast 4-5 browsers to make it look nice all over.
Yeah, my english sucks!
--
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.
One one hand, "HOW DARES HE SUGGEST THAT..."
On the other hand, does it mean they're willing to work with third-parties to provide some software like web browsers? It doesn't have to be from the Free world, they could just arrive to a settlement with Opera, for instance.
Sure, Linux is better, and I use it myself. But quite a lot of Windows problems would be solved if Microsoft would just stop shipping their own mail client and browser.
I completely agree. Windows 2k/XP, and in the future, longhorn, is firefox's most important platform. If people start using open source software on windows and see for themselves that it is as good or better than anything else, the jump to linux wouldn't be as significant. If people didn't have to learn new programs even Joe Sixpack could make the switch. Firefox, especially, since it's such a great browser, is the perfect program to promote open source and linux as a viable alternative.
Sorry, but I believe that Safari (Apple's only browser for OS X) is based on the KHTML rendering engine - y'know, Konqueror?
The only OS X 'specific' browser I'm aware of that uses Gecko is Camino, although the rest of the Moz browsers run just fine.
- GNU/Anonymous Coward
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
So he is suggesting that the developers implement technologies that won't be availible on the desktop for at least two years? And then only on one platform?
It sounds like he is wanting them to use these technologies just for the sake of using them, not because there are some great ways they could be used. Besides, doesn't Mozilla already have an XML specification of its GUI?
Descibing how Mozilla could use these to provide truly inovative features would be interesting. THe developers aren't going to use the technologies if they increase OS tie in without providing something truly new.
Spencer Ogden
Well, the great thing about open source is that MS has the power to contribute; just like anybody else. It's one thing when Joe User says "it would be nice if X had feature Y". He may not know how to program. Microsoft sure as hell has the resources to make this a reality. Hell, they could just write an extension so that the core product isn't polluted, and users have the option to turn it on and off at their discretion. Just a thought
...a microsoft technology adviser to say something other than "product x could be improved by using our techology"...?
I mean, how on earth could you miss the opportunity to take advantage of a proprietry, non-portable, technology that hasn't officially been released yet and probably won't be for another 2 years, and even then will be comparitively immature compared with anything, but in particular when compared with XUL that has now been in use for... how many years is it now?
Jeeezzz, these FOSS guys just keep shooting them selves in the foot!!
On a serious note, I was particularly amused by the idea of Opera (of all companies) being a possible user of MS technologies! Erm, is this Scobleizer guy the cleaner at Microsoft or something? I mean, he really doesn't seem to understand *The Way Things Are*(TM) vis-a-vis Opera being particularly relgious about standards and the way Opera and Mozilla don't consider themselves enemies -- at least I've not noticed them taking pot shots at each other!
Netscape as a platform was scary to Microsoft but Mozilla as a platform is much scarier. Longhorn's new XAML is a way to lock-in enable the internet, a way to bait companies into making web sites and web pages tied to Windows. Currently Microsoft is in a unusually weak position because most important things that are done with a computer can be done on non-Windows OS's. XAML would lock a whole new generation of people into using Windows.
If Mozilla comes up with an alternative to XAML that works well across all platforms it has the potential to not just thwart Microsoft's new lock-in plans but also drastically increase the ability of cross platform web-based applications and further reduce the differentiation Windows enjoys. Mozilla + Gnome sounds like something we should all be paying attention to.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
Hey Robert Scoble, Firefox is open source. That means if you want those features then contribute patches or find a company to fund you to do that development. Unlike the company you work for, where people must beg for features or bug fixes and then hope and pray they are implemented, with software such as Firefox you can do it yourself. How's it feel to be fully in control of your own computer? Exhilarating, isn't it?
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
Great! He knows what he wants. The next step is for him to code it, and release it under a Mozilla compatible license.
If he does, then the ball is in the court of the Mozilla team, and they can decide whether or not they're interested. If he doesn't, then perhaps he can interest someone else in doing so. If he can't, that's the way the ball bounces.
N.B.: I don't think much of his chances for acceptance, but anyone who want's a Mozilla extension has the same choices. Perhaps he could create a Mozilla fork, if the Mozilla team doesn't like his shiney new software. That's perfectly legit. I doubt, however, that he'd get many FOSS coders supporting his fork, so it might be a rather large job.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
On one hand the guy says, that its Microsofts mission that Longhorn not break existing apps? And yet in the same report is asking the developers to start thinking about building for the new longhorn framework. So what is it? Make your apps work for longhorn or make longhorn work with existing apps? A little bit of contradiction there.
;
...
Anyhow
While its good that Microsoft are encouraging open source developers to build for their OS, dont you think its a bit lame that they are so against open source software? They need to make their minds up. And if they are going to encourage it how about supplying the tools and documentation to the community in order to enable good interoperability with other programs and operating systems?
Its in Microsoft best interests that software works with Longhorn if it is to be a success. Having said that you can bet your bottom dollar that "certain applications" Office perhaps ? will offer a reduced experience on longhorn requiring you to purchase a newer longhorn version. I dont think its unwise to be cynical about this given the pages of the history books.
Longhorn is a way off now, there are going to be several new generations of OSX and Linux between now and when it is released. A lot can happen in this time frame. If the linux take-up continues at the pace it is at the moment Longhorn is going to have to take interoperability more seriously whether Microsoft or Open Source developers like it or not.
nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
From what I can tell the only thing that 'taking advantage of WinFS' could mean is the metadata aspect, or hooks allowing Firefox to render the preview images of files. Both these features could easily by added to Firefox and would not necessarily break cross-platform support. For example with metadata, you provide the option to write it, but if the underlying system API does not support it, then it just gets ignored. Since there are continual hints that MacOS X may one day get metadata, that we know Longhorn definetly will and that this is always a possibility for Linux and other OSs, I would feel this would be a good move. For example, imagine you download a file and as part of that meta data the URL where it orginated from was stored with the file, then that could be handy for the day that you decide to organise your HD and want to return to the source.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
If Microsoft wants Firefox to work so great with Longhorn they can code the patches themselves. It is Opensource code after all.
I'd rather not see a web browser be too tied down to any platform specific features. If the content can't be run on the trifecta of PCs (Linux, Win32, Mac) than it really shouldn't be embraced. I would prefer to go as far as saying browsers should only support open standards, but then I exclude Flash and Java, but at least these make an effort to work everwhere.
- I think we should start a new marketing campaign: "who can make up the most outrageous thing about Longhorn and get it printed in an industry magazine or pointed to by Slashdot?"
I don't know if he's clearly stating his intentions there or not.- Personally I think this whole Mozilla vs. Longhorn thing is nuts anyway.
Eh? I hadn't heard anything about the coming browser-vs-OS armageddon until it popped into Scoble's head.Sales 101 Rule #1: Tell the other guy what he wants to hear.
How would a relational database filesystem layer, a bloated 3D interface graphics framework, and a new UI markup language (which Mozilla already has) help a web browser in the slightest?
Open source developers are not your employee/slave, they will do whatever the hell they want and, as a user, you should just feel fortunate that your needs were similar to the coder's. Every newbie who wants to have a longterm relationship with open source must come to terms with this. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of clueless newbies out there and a high concentration of them at MS.
If MS wants Mozilla to support Longhorn, why the hell does not MS submit some code! It is open source for godsakes! That is far more cooperation than MS EVER gives outside developers wanting to support MS software!!! It is amazing how clueless these people are . . . "why want you code for free for us, we are just a poor, multi-billion dollar, monopoly that has been convicted of criminal behavior on both sides of the Atlantic."
If MS has an itch with Mozilla, why not stop BITCHING, shut the hell up, and code! If MS were to code half as much as it bitched, I am sure worms written by 18 year olds wouldn't be ripping new ones out of corporations stupid enough to trust MS.
(This rant has been brought to you by my intolerance of stupidity masquerading as arrogance)
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
But it would be much better driving experience with a huge spoiler, bigger exhaust pipes, a VTEC plate, and few stickers. For good measure, perhaps you could add some neon glow runners.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
We've seen what happens to those who trust Microsoft.
IBM and WordPerfect trusted Microsoft's promise of support for OS/2, and look what happened to them.
WordPerfect trusted Microsoft again when they moved to Windows, only to discover that Microsoft had kept the good API calls hidden, while the API calls provided to WordPerfect were slow and unreliable.
Go (the company) trusted Microsoft with their Pen Computing technology. Go is now suing Microsoft for having stolen that technology. Stacker also successfully sued Microsoft for having stolen Stacker's disk compression technology.
Sun trusted Microsoft, when Microsoft contracted to provide Java support on Windows. But, Microsoft had no intention of living up to their promises, as later shown by Microsoft's internal memos:
> When I met with you last, you had a lot of pretty pointed questions about Java, so I want to make sure I understand your issues/concerns....
> 1. What is our business model for Java?
> 2. How do we wrest control of Java away from Sun?
> 3. How do we turn Java into just the latest, best way to write Windows applications?
Or, as a Microsoft marketing presentation put it:
> Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market.
Of course, Java developers also trusted Microsoft, and here's another memo showing what Microsoft thought of that trust:
> At this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps.
But none of this should surprise us. We've known exactly what Microsoft was planning, ever since the publishing of the Halloween Document:
> OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
XAML is just Microsoft's decommoditized copy of Mozilla's XUL, or XML User Interface Language. If Microsoft had been honest about sharing standards, then Microsoft would have simply used XUL, which has become a published standard.
I think what Microsoft is really afraid of is that, by the time Longhorn and XAML come out (plus the two more releases to get them to work acceptably), Mozilla and XUL (and Gnome, and Mono) will have already filled the Internet-based application development niche. Thus, these Open Source technologies could end up doing to Longhorn what Apache did to IIS, and then it's bye bye Microsoft monopoly.
As a result, Microsoft is borrowing another page from their anti-Java strategy:
> We decided rather than trying to outrun sun at their game to change the rules.
Or, as Microsoft VP John Ludwig put it:
> Subversion has always been our best tactic... subversion is almost invariably a better tactic than a frontal assault... it leaves the competition confused, they don't know what to shoot at anymore...
Believe it or not, everyone that works for Microsoft isn't an evil person trying to crush the free software movement.
Clearly you haven't met any 'softies, either in person or online.
The corporate culture at Microsoft is downright scary. The influence of their megalomaniacal chairman permeates through every level of the company. These people really do believe that they're saving the world with their technology -- and that they're the only ones capable of doing so.
If I were a tinfoil-hatter I might even suspect that the reason soft drinks are still free in Redmond has something to do with the "they drank the Kool-Aid" effect -- the level of groupthink over there really is that consistent.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
I'm sorry, but under what authority does this guy have over Mozilla? At MS he might have programmers licking his toes, trying to make him happy, but out in the real world he is just another jerk that is having trouble coming to grips that the world does not revolve around him or view of things.
The Mozilla programmers got where they are on the project because they have talent in programming and want to surrond themselves with such talent. What talent does this guy have? In this community, talk is cheap. He wants the Mozilla programmers to listen, show us the CODE. Otherwise, why the hell should these guys give him the time day!? People write open source code to GET AWAY from jerks like this, who have authority but don't have a clue how things work.
Title means nothing here. I really wish we would just ignore the guy and spend more time appreciating the talented developers that are increasing the quality of all our lives.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Where he flames apple for downplaying one remote-root exploit. Neglecting to mention that thanks to Microsoft's refusal to take advantage of the security capabilities of NT any remote exploit is a remote-root exploit.
And he thinks Mozilla would benefit from better integration with Longhorn? Integrating browsers and the OS has proven such a win for Microsoft.
Or, as I wrote on the site:
I'll put up with Apple downplaying a buffer overflow better than I'll put up with Microsoft deliberately building an architecture that's almost impossible to secure when they integrated IE (a component that has to be designed to deal with untrusted data) with the desktop (a component that has to assume that data is trusted).
I banned IE, Outlook, and any other programs I could identify that used the MS HTML control almost ten years ago now, and the result was that our Windows systems had few virus problems, and they were minor... and could often be traced down to people who used Outlook or IE against our policy.
Before throwing stones at Apple and talking about how Microsoft is "getting it", how about undoing ten years of virus promotion by allowing people to run a secure Windows desktop, with no browser integration, no Active Desktop or ActiveX, no flakey HTML-ised control panel components.
I'd be MUCH happier about the Windows box on my desk if Microsoft would back out a lot of their "innovations". I know it might cause some loss of face to admit that integrating the browser was a mistake, but over the longer term it would produce a significant benefit to both users and to Microsoft's public image as the system became safer, more reliable, more secure, and faster.
Embrace and extend is just another word for "added value". It's a good thing. If you want to be portable, you simply don't use the added value.
The problem is that Microsoft Embraces a crippled version of the standard then makes its own extentions to provide similar functionality. Sometimes the crippling is in a very fundamental way, so if you want to provide nontrivial functionality, you can't help but use the extentions. That leaves companies with two choices, either write two versions of everything or just standardize on the market leader and hope that everyone else can live with the decision.
Microsoft's basic strategy is "Embrace, Cripple, Extend, Extinguish".
is this the same Microsoft that stressed that Lotus should focus their 1-2-3 GUI efforts soley on OS/2 and forget about that interim toy called Windows?
just wonderin'
MS: Together we can rule the software industry.
Firefox: Never.
MS: I am your father.
Firefox: Noooooooooooooo...........
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
Firefox *do* have something to do with the local filesystem: when you're about to save downloaded files. I think it would be nice if Firefox supported the WinFS "Storage" devices, but maybe it will anyway if it just uses the default file dialog, which it should absolutely continue doing like it does now. :-)
:-) The main development team doesn't need to do these sort of decisions, but another developer might, and then the end users have the freedom to choose whatever browser they want.
Other than that, I can't see a reason to use XAML etc. since it would probably break the GUI look & feel and annoy people using Firefox on multiple operating systems. But I'm sure someone will do an own branch for better Longhorn integration, just like there's the Camino browser for MacOS X. And that's the beauty of open source.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
XAML, Avalon
It already does. It's called XUL. There is no reason to replace that with a Microsoft-proprietary technology. If it's going to be replaced with anything, it's going to be replaced with a general-purpose XUL-based toolkit (XUL itself isn't quite there yet).
OSS will offer XAML interoperability probably only if it looks likely that Microsoft won't be able to sue over it. Given Microsoft's rash of patents and intellectual property claims over the last couple of years, that doesn't look likely to me. But the ball there is in Microsoft's court: if they want interoperability, they need to make ironclad legal guarantees to the OSS community that their standards are open.
WinFS
WinFS is just a marketing construct, not new technology. It is some combination of user-mode indexing technologies and databases with some kernel support. Guess what, other systems have had that for years, including Linux.
Microsoft is trying to shove their particular combination and APIs down the throats of developers, but there are reasons people haven't settled on a single standard for this sort of thing: it doesn't make sense for anybody other than the OS vendor.
In the case of mailers, the standard database formats needed are mbox, maildir, and/or mh. The database format Thunderbird has chosen for mail is mbox, which is perfectly reasonable, and it's open and non-proprietary. (Maildir and MH support would be nice, too; I don't think it has that yet.)
instead of making it only within GNOME/Mozilla coalition.
Thunderbird works fine on Windows (arguably, better than on Linux) and MacOS, in addition to Linux. It just happens not to incorporate every single poorly thought out API that Microsoft keeps coming up with. And that's just fine, as far as I'm concerned. Anybody who wants that sort of thing can use Outlook.
However, I'm sure that Thunderbird will eventually incorporate some platform-specific code to make its messages indexable by WinFS, just like it does some platform-specific things on each platform.
is welcome to write browser extensions to achieve all this stuff.
#!/
I don't want that crap, and I don't want Gnome's crap either.
0 4.3/1344.html]
.NOT gratuitous complexity and over-designed crap you take a look at the only sane OS left: Plan 9; and if you are tired of doing "memory management", why don't you use Limbo (The Limbo Programming Language by Dennis M. Ritchie)?
I want a web browser, if I wanted some kind of megalomaniac "application development platform" I will use Python, thank you very much.
And as long as they don't give me access to the source under an open source license I wont touch it. I have been burned once(Windows), twice(Java), I'm not going to get burned a third time, if you want me to rely on your software you better give me the source and let me fix it(or let others fix it).
As Al Viro, one of the very few reasonable Linux kernel developers, said:
All software sucks, be it open-source [or] proprietary. The only question is
what can be done with particular instance of suckage, and that's where having
the source matters.
-- viro [http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/04
It's sad that we have to get to this, but in the current software industry having access to the source under a open source license is the only warranty that you are not going to be royally screwed, I don't want to be at the mercy of the economic targets of some random company, I already have enough trouble taking care of _my_ business.
Life is too short to run proprietary software.
-- Bdale Garbee
And as for Gnome, I will quote viro wise words again:
Yeah... "Infinitely extendable API" and all such. Roughly translated
as "we can't live without API bloat". Frankly, judging by the GNOME
codebase people who designed the thing[GNOME] are culturally incompatible
with UNIX.
And yea, that is you, my dear Miguel, you have as little clue as RMS of what Unix is all about, I advice you that when you get tired of all that
uriel
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
has nothing to do with taking advantage of operating system specific features. Joe Blow end user wants the richest, easiest experience they can get their hands on.
If you free software/open source evangelists want to really stick it to MS like you say you do then you had best start providing packages that are richer and ESPECIALLY easier than the MS ones.
I'm also perplexed at how many people on slashdot worship open source/free software but hate outsourcing... when you do work and generate value then give it away for free how can you turn around and argue that your time is worth more $$$ than some indian developer?
Maybe they have investigated them and found them not worth bothering with.
"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".
What's stopping MS from doing the work and submitting it to the mozilla team? Or even forking the project? Why should the mozilla team go out of its way to incorporate these great new technologies?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Of course they're a threat to Mozilla. The entire point of Mozilla is that it is cross-platform. Avalon and the laughably-useless WinFS might be able to be used by Mozilla without tying it to Windows. But the cheap XUL knockoff known as XAML? Please.
This is clearly a cheap attempt by Microsoft to Embrace and Extend Mozilla's cross-platform capabilities, with the end goal being, of course, "Extinguish".
Clearly you haven't met any 'softies, either in person or online.
Clearly, neither have you.
The level of vitriol toward Microsoft on this site has gotten ridiculous--it's almost sunk to the level of discrimination, like racism but toward employees of a company. "Oh, they're all evil. They're all sheep."
This coming from someone who is posting a reply in a Slashdot discussion--the Internet king of groupthink and propaganda.
I guess I'm just one of the few left in the world who believes that people are people, and that some guy working at Microsoft who suggests Mozilla take advantage of some Windows technologies that are out in the developer betas now ISN'T something to get worked up over--it's not even newsworthy. Only on Slashdot is this some sort of issue. Look at the sheep baaing, "Embrace and extend, embrace and extend!" over Mozilla possibly using some, dare I say it, XAML in its Windows version.
Your Kool-Aid comment was just ridiculous--like the rest of your post.
"Microsoft steals other people's ideas!" So says the Linux user typing his post in an integrated file/net browser, using a start menu, taskbar, the same print dialogs, a "Control Center," Minimize/Maximize/Close buttons, etc., etc., etc....
.NET/WinFS/Avalon clones, I'll be grinnin'.
The power of all the volunteers in the world, and what do we do? We make a UNIX clone. Then we make a Windows clone on top of it. Nice.
A couple of years after Longhorn comes out, and GNOME/KDE decide to implement their
There is no Avalon, only XUL.
Being a smartass is a much better thing than being the alternative.
So Firefox doesn't use Avalon or WinFS yet. Not surprising considering they are not in use except in Microsoft development shops.
Have you been living under a rock? Longhorn betas come out all the time. The WinHEC build is used by major development companies like Adobe and Macromedia to test-run the new technologies with their apps.
I've never seen so much whining and bitching over some guy at Microsoft daring suggest Firefox, an OSS app that 99% of you haven't even contributed code to yourself, support some Windows features for its Windows port! You guys sound ridiculous.
Couldnt a group just maintain the Longhorn version of the browser, much as the Windows version of GAIM is handled? The thing about gaim is that it uses GTK on windows so the windows ports just deals with the issues that are different on windows and linux and not abstracted by GTK. Alot of the windows specific stuff is implemented as plugins and more look and feel oriented like the taskbar icon plugin. This microserf is proposing the mozilla team make changes to low level part of firefox.
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
They own it, legally or not, and they wield a mighty financial hammer to prevent any use of it that they do not want. They control it. Unless they release it under the GNU or some such similar and appropriate license, I would not use it, and I doubt any OSS coder of worth would either (coding for OSS). Of course, there may be some exceptions, but they always come at a price.
So, to the MS evangelist, tell MS how great a product this is and how important it is to place MS code in the public domain. Tell MS how important it is to participate in the OSS community as an active, honest, open member. If you can convince MS that these are all good things, and MS starts doing these things, then maybe it might be a good idea to include MS technology in core OSS technologies.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
I don't think this MS schmuck is saying re-write Firefox in XAML, or if he is then he is an idiot. However, the Windows implementation of XUL and the Gecko runtime could make use of Longhorn APIs. The current Windows implementations definitely make use of Win32 APIs, just read the build instructions for Windows. Going from XUL to XAML is just a matter of doing an XSLT transformation. Firefox could still be done in cross-platform XUL, just its implementation on Longhorn systems could make use of Longhorn specific APIs, kinda like its implementation on Linux making use of GTK+ for example.
BTW, I'm a Mozilla user - most people may use IE, but that doesn't make them right.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Does anyone here remember why Firefox/Thunderbird was born? To escape Mozilla's bloat. I think the Opera browser influenced its initial design, which in earlier versions even fitted on a floppy while being IE6 compatible for the most part. The whole appeal of firefox over mozilla and others is the simplicity and therefore the speed and efficiency.
It can be used as a platform for other browser technologies, but they should be renamed, and firefox vanilla should always be as simple portable and small as reasonable possible for general browsing.
Theres nothing wrong with Someone with a lousy sparcstation 5 running NetBSD and using Firefox. With Mozilla, you couldnt work with an Ultra 60.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I have met some 'softies, as you put it. Had a business relationship with them for a year. I went to the Redmond campus for a week and escaped unscathed.
When I was there (December 1999), the talk around the campus was the anti-trust suit. Most of the employees felt wronged, they just didn't understand why charges were being brought against the company. When I'd mention things like breaking competing applications and hidden APIs, they just stared at me blankly.
They're smart people, certainly, but I really do think that they are somewhat brainwashed, when it comes to the company, and what it does. They're not knowingly against other companies or Open Source software, they just see a Microsoft solution as the only solution.
-- Joe
This looks pretty cool, but I wonder if there is any security built in to this kind of stuff. Does this mean that someone could send an XAML document in an email and its the new adware instelled virus that downloads your data in 50 lines of XAML? While I think it is cool technology, don't get me wrong. I am concerned that if it is that easy to write code, it then becomes that easy to exploit Longhorn. I hope MS builds security into their Outlook client in Longhorn that will match that of the new firewall tools that I have heard they are coming out with in their new OS.
On an off NOTE, I think that the Linux competition as small as it may seem ( market share wise ) and the number of viruses that are coming out, are actually prompting MS to step up its product and make it much better. New firewalling capabilities that are improved about as good as iptables, but easier to use. I hope they fix some of the bugs in IE, in particular IE 5&6 window.open() should not forget the cookies in the opening window. Yes this is a bug, go search their web site.
I guess now that they are in every market they have only one thing left to do and that is make their product really better.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
HFS and HFS+ are from Apple.
And yes, NTFS 5 can defrag itself; all copies of NTFS 5 are shipped as part of operating systems that include a Defrag applet for the Microsoft Management Console. To launch it under Windows 2000 Professional, go to Start > Programs > Accessories > System Tools > Disk Defragmenter.
Release a good product tomorrow instead of a bad one today.
Customers who vote with their dollars have seemed to prefer a bad product today.
XAML is windows-only and is a lame attempt at reinventing a wheel that the Mozilla working group has so nicely invented: The Mozilla cross-platform application framework. XAML would restrict apps to windows.
furthermore, i consider XAML to be a very dangerous technology as far as security is concerned. It looks to me like it attempts to further blur the line between web "pages" and full-blown applications running on the client-side with no permissions restrictions.
lemme put it this way: it is okay for "web pages" to embrace some technologies that enable various compelling user-interface paradigms to further enrich the browsing experience: DOM/CSS/JavaScript (DHTML), Flash and whatnot. As long as they cleanly operate within the browser sandbox.
It is okay for applications and application frameworks to embrace and build-upon web-based technologies to further enrich user interfaces that should inherit from web-browsing user-interface paradigms: Mozilla Application Framework, KHTML/WebKit. Such applications are real applications which users must go thru the conscious steps of installing, with the inherent knowledge that an application could actually hurt their computer system. Any application that works within this model is standalone, and was installed within the constraints of the operating system.
What microsoft appears to be doing with XAML is to push ActiveX one step further, and instead of blurring the line between a web-based document and a full-blown computer application, simply COMPLETELY REMOVING THIS SEPARATION. You'd be looking at running applications simply by pointing your application to a web-based URL: http://widgets.com/evilApp.xaml. Security implications of this are HUGE and horrific when considering microsoft's past track record.
I believe microsoft sees Mozilla as a threat. XAML is their answer to that threat. That blog is attempting to seed brains in that direction.
consider the fact that today, to upgrade windows, you are trained to go to http://www.windowsupdate.com/ and watch your whole upgrade happen INSIDE of your web browser. Forget downloading an executable and running it or having a separate application that is dedicated to software updates. NAH. let's just teach users that running software from your browser is ... OKAY. So next time they see an ActiveX prompt about allowing some code from Gator/Claria, Inc. to run, they'll think that's OKAY too. Let's really remove all layers of security and further open ourselves to stupid worm-spawning trojans.
i'll stop here. windows appalls me. if it doesn't appall you then you've never had to support armies of newbies running windoz, starting with your own family.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
The scene: Bill Gates at the Microsoft annual conference, on stage surrounded by a halo of flames: "We understand that some Microsoft employees have yet to sell their souls to devil (signing booth to your left), but if we all stay focused on doing our part, then the evil of Microsoft as a whole will be upheld."
Seriously, you don't have to be a baby eating demon of Microsoft upper management to be causing damage. Just do your job at Microsoft and ensure the evil spreads, keep those wheels moving.
On a related note: not everyone in the Nazi party during WWII was inherently evil, nor those soldiers and government officials in America today - you aren't evil, you're just doing your job. How can you help it if your government is in league with the devil?
I post this anonymous, but where's the fun in that? Please note, whilst this post includes Microsoft bashing (which is Slashdot friendly) it also America bashing (which is 1/2 Slashdot friendly and always seems to attract 'patriots' (which I get) and 'gun advocates' (which I really don't get, seriously guys: some things don't have anything to do with guns!)) and the word Nazi.
I worked full time for an University "ResNet" program where it was our job to get student owned computers in the resident halls on the network. Because of the DMCA complaints and network worm problems, we are using SWU's Network Registration System to force a login that is associated with the network card's MAC address. Of course, before prompting for username and password, we setup the system to use SSL encryption. What we found is that 1 out of 10 Windows XP machines either shipped without the DLLs for the Crypto Service properily registered or the registration was lost during install of XP SP1. Microsoft is even aware of the problem.
The bottom line is that about 10% of the students could not get to SSL encrypted web pages. The solution was to promote use of FireFox which doesn't have dependences on these broken Win32 services. What Robert Scoble considers to be an "improvement" for FireFox, I would consider to being a step back making it just as worthless as IE when something causes IE to break.