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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
...a microsoft technology adviser to say something other than "product x could be improved by using our techology"...?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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...
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.
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.
"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
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.
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
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