Slashdot Mirror
Netscape Reborn?
An anonymous reader writes "BetaNews reports that Netscape has been revived with Firefox backing. 'Despite media reports and industry pundits over the years relegating Netscape to Internet history books, AOL has restarted the browser's development. The company plans to bring back a refreshed Netscape browser based on Firefox.'"
... live longer.
Well, the post war era will show.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
It may be based on Firefox, the old source for Netscape/Mozilla, it may even look like Netscape of old, but it'll never have the same feel that Netscape had.
FTA - "The browser's market share has dropped to single digits"
HEY! I'm 20% of all Netscape users! w00t!
-B
And lo, the child did become father to the man, and the student the master.
a world in progress...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Now ,who is this Netscape browser being revived for?
What is the reasoning behinnd creating Netscape,when firefox already exists?Is it for name sake?
Why does yahoo do this
Maybe AOL has finally understood that their previous strategy was not optimal in the long run, if IE wins hands down(as it has almost done) so that there is no competition, will Microsoft then still play with the ISPs, or will they start requiring use of their server sofware and such "to be fully supported"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Peoples memories of Netscape and the brand are not good now, why bother with this, why not just back the Mozilla name and at the same time unite to take on Internet Explorer.
If they do this, it just means browser stats will start to show up as something like IE 50%, Mozilla Firefox 25%, Netscape 20% which would totally obscure the actual success of Firefox.
(Don't bother debating the values I've used, they are totally fictional and not meant to even be predictions)
> Isn't firefox based on Mozilla?
Yes.
> Wasn't Mozilla based on Netscape
No, Netscape was based on Mozilla.
> So now Netscape is going to be based on Firefox?
Yes.
> Netscape->Mozilla->FireFox->Netscape!?!?!
No:
Mozilla -> Netscape
Mozilla -> Firefox
Firefox -> Netscape
Because there's gold in them thar code...
Seriously, AOL has a history of taking a good product and milking all the cash they can out of it. (Ads in AIM/ICQ anyone?) To a lesser extent winamp (Pro version)
I wouldn't be surprised if they "refresh" Netscape with a firefox engine and an Opera business model to milk some more pennies from advertising.
In the end its all business...AOL doesn't do anything without the goal of profit.
Maybe they should call it Netscape Phoenix or Netscape Firebird (ducks)
Would someone mind trying to explain what the point of all this is? Why would I choose a Netscape branded version of Firefox, repleat with pre-set home and search pages aimed at generating ad revenue for one of largest companies in the U.S., when I could simply download and install the free and fully function version from Mozilla.org? Plus, are they going to ensure compatibility with all the existing extensions? Why is Slashdot even interested in following Netscape anymore? The last time I visited their homepage, I really had to dig to find the browser.
Branding is important so I think that they should perhaps promote both project by naming it Netscpae Firefox.
ayottesoftware.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is GOOD. Firefox will still be around- AOL can't make it go anywhere.
But having Netscape back is great for many reasons. Having a commercial vendor chasing bug fixes and adding features helps, but most importantly Firefox was born from the Ashes of Netscape, but the code was set free first. The more companies that can see a project like this happen the more they'll be inclined to release code that they've run out of legs to push.
IBM has helped pave the way- opening big chunks of code and hoping others will help them push the projects along, but the open source movement will be helped tremendously if this is happening across a wide open front.
-- Q
The Netscape name still means a lot to people. Slashdotters care about the codebase and feature set, not the branding (or rebranding, or re-rebranding). But there are still many, many users who will "upgrade Netscape" before they will "download and install Firefox", all due to the familiarity of the name and trust in the brand.
And "Mozilla" is a tougher sell yet.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
That's the whole point of open source. As long as they act in accordance with the Firefox licence, there's no problem.
If you do consider this a problem, I can only suggest creating your own licence that prevents this sort of thing.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Yes well we're not all flag-waving fanboys. From a practical point of view, anything that increases the popularity of Mozilla-based browsers is a good thing. The more people who use Mozilla (in whatever form), the more web developers who'll have to design their sites properly. All of this reduces the dominance of IE.
With a version 1.0 of Firefox do we now have the proof that the Gecko engine can be embedded in applications outside of the Mozilla suite.
Shouldn't it be more important to try and develop an embeddable browser (already done) and its supporting infrastructure (not as complete) - like documentation, languge bindings, etc, etc.
This is something that Gecko# has started in a way, but I'm sure a lot of projects (both open source and commercial) would benefit from being able to embed gecko.
In the Windows world, developers can just embed the IE browser using an ActiveX control. I'll bet that a lot of commercial developers would have no problem dropping the IE control in exchange for a Gecko control - less operating system (assuming one buys into the idea that IE is comingled with the OS) level dependancies.
With a well supported embedded component, Walmart could have their own browser.
[ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
...promote both project by naming it Netscpae [sic] Firefox.
Or, how about "Fire (E)scape"?
(Doesn't really matter what they name it first, though. If history is any guide, they will probably change the name several times.)
Bureaucracy loves company.
.. and the Netscape dudes had a knack for milking the cash out of AOL.
;)
$4.2 Billion can't be wrong
You can put lipstick on it and call it Gertrude, but in the end, a pig is still a pig.
That is, what I like about Firefox/Thunderbird is that they aren't "Netscape" per se. AOL is looking at Netscape's shortcomings and assuming that a simple substitution of the browser code with Firefox will gain support? Maybe for the unwashed masses who don't really care (and are probably using IE because it's there). If you told me it was "Netscape; powered by Firefox," that would not intice me to use Netscape.
I think what is not said is that MS probably plans the same thing for IE, albeit in some surrepticious manner. Maybe a rewrite to avoid any obvious license violation. But, I bet we'll notice that IE will start behaving a lot more like Firefox.
But, I wonder if Firefox will start having integration issues with Winders machines? It's been known to happen. MS sends out a critical security update, and Firefox will start having problems. Things break, din't they?
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
This is one of the things I don't get about open source. Don't the developers of Mozilla open them selves for exploitation developing these projects and then allowing companies like AOL to basically take all their hard work, re-brand it, then make money off of it? We have a few "internet appliances" in the office which are basically just Linux distributions with a fancy web gui to control them. Yet these companies make boatloads of money selling other people's work. The original programmers don't even get credited! Is it time for some sort of new GNU? Something that protects the effort these buys put into everything by ensuring that the projects they create can't make _someone else_ rich? Or am I totally ignorant to how this all works?
No, Netscape was based on Mozilla.
OK, so you haven't been around that long. Netscape 6 and later was based on Mozilla. Mozilla itself started when Netscape open sourced Netscape 4. So Netscape is Mozilla's daddy.
If you go further back, they're all of course descendants of NCSA Mosaic.
siener's youtube channel
http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/history/netscape .htm
Chris Williams clw7500nc@gmail.com
What is AOL going to do? They are going to re-brand Firefox as Netscape. A new skin later, they have a *very* good browser... with the backing of what was once upon a time one hell of an Internet brand.
It makes quite a bit of business sense, actually - for a minimal cash investment, they get a damn good browser to give to the brand they helped destroy, in an attempt to recreate it.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Netscape is only really Mozilla's daddy in the sense of the corporation - Netscape corporation started the Mozilla project. Netscape opened the code to the bulk of the product Netscape, the open source community took a look and pretty much rejected the code while supporting the project.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I would like to point out (as I'm sure many people already know) Netscape is also being launched as an ISP. Given Netscape's ownership, I would guess that it's simply AOL repackaged with pretty, less-offensive icons. Commercials have been all over History channel. Seems to be the same target audience as AOL. Maybe I'm being overly skeptical, but it seems that AOL is getting more desperate with each quarter. Can't we just give Netscape a proper burial and move on? Is there really a need for another Earthlink/NetZero rip-off?
Anyways, they even have one of those new-fangled web accelerator gadgets that makes one of them there internets go really fast. I also hear there are naked chicks. My cousin's got it.
"You and your third dimension."
A little history leason is in order:
Netscape, the company, begot Mozilla, the Browser.
Mozilla, the browser begot Netscape, the Browser.
Mozilla, the browser, begot Firefox, the Browser.
Firefox, the browser, begot Netscape the Browser.
Man, that's one screwed up family tree :>
/. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
<i>Mozilla -> Netscape
Mozilla -> Firefox
Firefox -> Netscape</i>
"Mozilla" (original by "Mosaic Communications")
|
Netscape 1-4
|
Mozilla (the open source one)
|
+oooo+oooooooooo+oooooooooo+
| | |
Netscape 6,7 Firefox Other gecko browsers
|
+o+oooooooooooooo+
| |
Mozilla Netscape ?
(next version) (what this article is about)
where there's fish, there's cats
Actually, if you go back even longer, you'll find Mosaic, the common ancestor of both Mozilla and Internet explorer.
And before you ask, no, there is no common source code. The source code lineage has been broken many times. For example, the original Netscape was made by the same guys who did Mosaic, but apparently they didn't reuse Mosaic code. Same for Internet explorer, MS licenced a version of Mosaic (Spyglass) but it is doubtful if they actually used any of the source code for IE. And lets not forget that the Mozilla project decided to ditch the netscape codebase they had been given.
And of course, to make it even more complicated, netscape 7.x were/are based on Mozilla.
Mozilla was written with the Netscape code. Yes, they rewrote most of it, but they still used the code as a framework when they were write the original Mozilla milestones. So Netscape 4.x is the ancestor to the current Mozilla project.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Branding is important so I think that they should perhaps promote both project by naming it Netscpae Firefox.
I think the name "Netscape" actually carries negative currency. I know people who still harbor such residual hatred for Netscape 4 that the only reason they happily use Firefox now is because it doesn't say "Netscape" on it anywhere. And these people are developers!
where there's fish, there's cats
However there is a possible bright side to all of this. They may contribute to the project. They may find bugs that they want to fix, and they should have to contribute those fixes back to the community.
While all good, those things are *nothing8 compared to what AOL could do for Mozilla, if they truely wanted. ALl they have to do is ship Firefox as the default browser in the next AOL update, and Firefox is instantly one of the most used browsers on the internet.
Do not underestemate the huge market share AOL has. Them alone adopting Firefox would *force* all web providers to support non-IE browsers for all offerings.
Turn your flagging product code over to nameless unwashed masses who chip away at improvements and kick in a few great new features. Then a few years later, harvest the improved code and restart your business. I may be cynical. I may be assuming too much about netscape re-appropriating Firefox/Mozilla code. But AOL is NOT the nicest or most deserving entity to receive such a boon from Netscape's original dicision to open up mozilla code. Our tolerance of AOL must be that we all just hate Microsoft and want somebody to stand up against MS.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
No, that's a myth that's grown up over the years. It wasn't the "open source community" that decided to rewrite Mozilla, it was Netscape. Their management mandated the rewrite in late 1998 (against the wishes of most of the development team, who didn't like the six-month deadline they were given).
Most people know however, that Netscape was 'defeated'.
Why would you market a browser brand name that was already defeated handily by Internet Exploder? Most people know this, and others will simply ask their friends "Is Netscape any good?" with the simple reply, "I don't know, but I use Internet Exploder."
What do you think people will buy into more easily?
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
From the article
They already are making a browser based off IE, but it won't be called Netscape.
The first browser was called Mosaic, not Mozilla.
Right?
Martin
Most rewrites also happen in parts. So that while at the end everything is rewritten during development you have rewritten code and old code sitting next to each other so that you have some working product.
So Netscape is still Mozilla's daddy.
This is not just nitpicking. Starting from scratch is a totally different approach to development then doing a complete rewrite. With a rewrite if you do it right you can have working product to show your achievements so far at an earlier stage. If you start again from scratch you lose the baggage of old code being used but you also need to build everything before you can show your product.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
AOL bankrolled the Mozilla foundation for several years, and when they let them go, they donated some stuff and did the decent thing (IIRC). Netscape 6+ was based on the Mozilla suite. What's so strange/controversial about Netscape basing a browser on Firefox?
AOL is in the dumps, but it's still a large corporation with huge marketing muscle. Is it bad for Firefox if a Netscape browser based on it starts to show up in AOL marketing?!
Beyond brand cheering, the most important thing for the success of Firefox is that it (or branded versions of it) reach about 10% or so of websurfers; large enough to force sites (except slashdot!) to write compliant HTML, and small enough not to attract the majority of internet security attacks. AOL/Netscape's move can only help.
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
And in case you need any proof, look at the function names. They all start with ns*.
The real rewrite was Gecko, which gave birth to XUL which did result in a pretty solid rewrite of the browser, but as I recall, the JavaScript engine never saw (nor needed) a complete overhaul.
Major continuing vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer
No real changes to IE in how many years?
Popup protection took how long?
The problem with monopolies is they are under no pressure to change things. If there's no competition, why bother? Microsoft left an opening by moving their development efforts somewhere else and the folks at Netscape/Mozilla seem to have the experience and expertise to fill it. I say good for them - the browser market is due for some change.
Gecko# (gecko-sharp) is part of the mono (http://www.mono-project.com/) project to implement C# and the .NET CIL.
.NET / Mono supports (i.e. Windows/Intel for MS .NET, a whole bunch more for Mono).
Mayne the example I have for ActiveX was a bit misleading - I was trying to get across that what is needed is a platform independant way of embedding the browser. Gecko# is a binding for C# (using GTK# - the GTK bindings for C#). In theory it should work on any platform that MS
This then takes people away from being worried about which OS your developing for and just worrying about the application your developing.
If there is a well documented, straight forward method for embedding a browser and you have a choice between a non-portable MS IE browser and a portable Gecko browser - which one are you going to pick. I'm well aware that it will depend somewhat on the application, but a lot of people will pick the portable way. Especially if the market their aiming for is even flirting with Linux/MacOS.
[ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
You're right, Epiphany deserves to be mentioned, it is the browser of choice for GNOME. And in case you didn't know, there is a separate package called Epiphany-extensions. Epiphany extensions are of course not as numerous as Firefox ones, but if you want to port one, essentially only the XUL interface has to be replaced by a GTK one.
Why not just get firefox itself??!? The AOL-ized Netscape is just going to be a advertisement festival that I'd really rather just skip altogether.
Is AOL that delusioned, that they believe they will be able to provide any real value on top of what Firefox already brings? I imagine that they will repackage it and put it on all their mass-mailed CDs, which is a good thing overall if it gets people to use it, but who knows what spyware and adware AOL will strap onto this.
This is just another example that AOL/Netscape isn't actually going to innovate something; they just splash a new coat of paint and call it their own. That's why Netscape lost the browser wars. Thankfully its corpse was used to grow the seeds of Mozilla.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
People, even if you don't use it, it means the Mozilla engine now has more marketing muscle behind it. And the more the Mozilla engine is used--regardless of whether it's Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, Camino--it's one less copy of IE in use!
And really, what's the big deal if people use Netscape instead of Firefox?
Just when the name "Mozilla" and "firefox" started to become creditable, then all of a sudden AOL wants back in! They will just make an adware version of firefox that also installs aol icons all over the place, and slap the name Netscape on it.
Just as Richard M. Stallman predicted.
http://community.netscape.com/nscpbrowser requires an AOL Logon (i.e. AIM) but allows you to check up on what is going on. Not too informative right now though.. Check back on the 30th.
I do like the poll. Currently, 81% of users are running Firefox. I didn't realize we were spreading THAT quickly!
Seemingly in competition with itself, AOL has also been beta testing an Internet Explorer based Web browser it calls "AOL Browser." AOL Browser is independent from the company's client software and adds features such as tabbed browsing and privacy options on top of Microsoft's IE engine.
Wow, all the features of Firefox, with the security of IE. Why build a browser based on IE?? Reminds me of the Holy Grail.
---
HERBERT: But Father, I don't want any of that.
FATHER: Listen, lad. I've built this kingdom up from nothing.
When I started here, all there was was swamp. The king said I was
daft to build a castle in a swamp, but I built it all the same,
just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second
one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third one. That
burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth
one stayed up. An' that's what your gonna get, lad -- the strongest
castle in these islands.
The word is begat.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
They have a chance to bring back their network from the dead. They can not play in MS's yard and win. This offers them a chance to move their customers to Linux (or some other OS, but I do not think it is possible).
By moving their default Browser to Firefox AND offering Open Office and some form of open multi-media (ogg/vorbis, real, whatever), they can get their current customers use to alternatives. Then offer up a dvd with a Linux install. It should have Firefox, OOO, and some simplified form of a Linux desktop.
Funny thing is AOL expanded huge by moving to the internet. IOW, by moving to an open forum and then making it easy. They could take something like Linux which many consider difficult and make it easy. Then prevent MS from undercutting or backstabbing them
But, this is the new AOL that we are talking about with little to no foresight.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I agree it's good to have commercial input.
But also, the mere name Netscape is still widely recgonised by websites as a supported browser. There are sites I've seen that will work in Netscape 7.1 or 7.2 but won't work in Mozilla 1.3 or 1.7. Betfair.com is one example but I've seen others.
Netscape still has a lot of cachet as The Other Browser Brand.
Liam P. ~ "Intelligence is a lethal mutation." (me)
Slashdot will fix the fucking site so all us firefox/mozilla users won't have to reload every other goddamned page.
Where I work, we design our sites to work with IE; Not my decision, but a decision none the less. One of the things that I really missed about having to use IE over FireFox is the tabs.
Enter FlashPeaks' Slimbrowser; It is simply a browser that puts IE into tabs and has the ability to use XML-based toolbars (of limited use, but still not bad). It is a good space saver on my taskbar. There are a few minor issues but they're nothing horrible.
I would imagine that AOL's IE-based browser would be more of the same, with the addition of a bunch of garbage that they usually throw in their products (Look at what happened to ICQ as an example).
Love sees no species.
Let's say you and your buddies decide to write a book, and you call yourselves "Netscape Communications Corp.". You start with a short story that was called "Mosaic" written by a bunch of nerds called the NCSA.
Now, you wrote this book, and called it "Netscape". It was pretty good, but you kept updating it through revisions 1.2, 2, , and 4, each a few months or years apart. While you were at it, you released a couple of special "Gold" editions which had a bunch of extra crap in it, and maybe a "Communicator" edition which was really a trilogy.
By the time you've realeased version 4 of the book/trilogy (and a few subrevisions to correct the awful spelling mistakes and grammatical errors), you realize that it sucks pretty hard.. you've added pointless plot twists, introduced internal inconsistencies, and basically, it's not all that great any more.. so people stop buying it.
You decide to work on version 5 of your book, only realize it's going to be a LOT of work to make anything worth reading, and your publisher has told you to stuff it. So, you stop working on it, and say, "Hey! You want rights to a book?" to the first group of bearded hippies that walks buy.
So, the hippies take the book, some chips, smoke a lot of dope, and make friends with you and your crew. They pour through it carefully, keeping the good parts and ditching the crap. These hippies release a version of your triology and call it "Mozilla".
But; the story's not over yet. Your publisher has been sold, along with your name. The new owner of your name asks the hippies for a copy, which they gladly provide. This copy is put through the spin cycle on a washing machine along with some gum and wax crayons, and is released as version 6 of the trilogy.
Now, a bunch of other hippies come along (while the Mozilla hippies are fiddling with this and that -- trying to get the book "perfect", as only hippies can do), and decide they want a book, too... only the Mozilla book is the size of the freakin' family bible and they're too frail to lift it. So, they release the Reader's Digest version of the first book of the trilogy -- which, due to the editorial skill of this second set of long-hairs, happens to be quite good.
This second group of hippies called the book by a variety of names. First, they called it Phoenix, but an evil company that made typewrite daisy wheels told them to change it, or they'd sue. Next, they called it Firebird, and another evil company (this time making filing cabinets) told them the same thing. Then one of the hippies was on an acid trip, and thought he saw a red panda in his vision quest. Looking up "red panda" in warezed version of Microsoft Encarta, he saw that it was also known as a "Fire Fox". Taking this as a sign from Budha (or at least a Karma-earning omen), the hippies called their latest book "Firefox".
And lo, they editted and polished Firefox for many moons, until the publisher who bought your original publisher who went tits up when your Netscape Communicator "trilogy" failed decided THEY wanted a book of their own. But rather than fix that steaming pile of crap, they dropped by to see the second group of hippies.
The hippies weren't home, so they couldn't ask if they could use the book, but there is it was -- sitting on top of the photocopier, along with a sign that said "Yo - wanna book? Have one. If you've got some extra, we'd appreciate if you'd stick around for a toke".
And so, this distant relative of your original publisher, using your name (Netscape Communications Corp) makes some photocopies of the Firebird book, splashes some paint on the cover, sticks a couple of coupons in, and releases a "new" book on newstands everywhere.
Now? What the hell was that book about?
Oh yeah. It's the source code for a web browser.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?