Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Foundation in More Development Trouble
sebFlyte writes "After the reports of problems with Firefox' development earlier this week there are now rumblings about more serious problems with the Mozilla Suite. Some developers want to spin the suite out as a community project that the foundation has no responsibility for, and others want to create a Firefox Foundation to deal with the success of the standalone browser."
wouldn't it be foolish to create a firefox foundation when so much of the firefox code comes from the mozilla suite (and vice versa to some extent)?
FOSS is great. They can do any or all of the above. I could fork my own version of Mozilla or Firefox right now if I felt that my development process was superior to that of the existing community. I dont see why there is such a big debate here. Do it, see how many developers flow to each side, work from there.
Some developers want to spin the suite out as a community project that the foundation has no responsibility for, and others want to create a Firefox Foundation to deal with the success of the standalone browser.
Or maybe... they could just leave it where it is? Is the Mozilla Foundation really all THAT bad? While I'm sure that everyone has reasons for their position, this smacks of a variation of "Not Invented Here Syndrome".
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I see this sort of instability as only hurting the cause. It will show the general public and/or typical PHBs that closed source software is better because the companies/foundations making it are more stable. Mozilla really needs to try to keep it together.
This must be the third article about Firefox/Mozilla development process problems this week.
Aren't these kinds of problems going on with most projects, including proprietry software projects?
I can't help but feel as though people are just trying to run a smear campaign against the Mozilla Corporation.
The article is headlined "Mozilla's future under debate"
/. headline.
How the hell did "under debate" become "More Development Trouble" in the
(Answer : someone high up at OSDL clear believes "scandal-mongering = advertising revenue")
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
In a time when the open source community needs solidarity, one of the largest and most popular organizations is spreading itself too thin to the point of breaking.
I've been using Mozilla, in some capacity or another, for almost six years, and it's been the only browser I've used (on purpose) for at least five years. So I was confused when Firefox showed up on the scene and suddenly attracted attention. What is it that makes Firefox better than Mozilla? Firefox has tabbed browsing, and pop-up blocking, and all that, but Mozilla did it all two years ago.
The Firefox interface is all XUL - not minimised at all, just with fewer features. It's what allows themes to change the interface, and extensions. If you want a XUL-less browser, try K-Meleon.
Mozilla has become a well-known name (through its history and through Firefox), while the Gecko engine is relatively unheard of. Similarly, people know Internet Explorer instead of Trident or Tasman, Opera instead of Presto, and so on.
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
If GBrowser is for real, why couldn't Google essentially take over by forking eithe Mozilla or firefox (or both)? They could become the effective owners of the software. Would that be considered good or evil?
Well I hope they don't lose any momentum because I just started doing Firefox development for some financial services companies. However, my perception is that development is much more difficult than it needs to be. In order to do anything significant, you have to get the entire tree and program in C++ with many different layers in between. I just think that the development doesn't feel like it's a "platform" you're developing on. The development SDK should be more like a development "kit". I know it hasn't stopped thousands of extensions from being written, but perhaps there could be more significant applications written otherwise.
I would if I had mod points. This is healthy open discussion about the future of an open source project. I seem to remember the original developers of what became Firefox started that project because they were unhappy with the direction of the mozilla browser at the time. This is not instability or trouble, it is part of the evolutionary process of open software...
Whilst the Devs are busy arguing, Microsoft is busy inventing their next browser-os tie in (After receiving carte-blanche from the US Bush/Cheney regime).
,in this case imaginary, lion. They will panic and in the ensuing mess mandate nothing but IE to be used company wide.
There was an episode of nip/tuck last season that had the partners wanting to split the business up after an altrication, as the "divorce" attorney pointed out, when something like that happens cusomters don't know who to turn to, they get confused and more often than not switch to the competition.
Now, the customers are PHB's thinking about maybe doing an enterprise deployment of firefox. But, they will now be worried that if the foundation that backs it splits up, there will be no further development and it will stagnate.
You and I both that's not true, but PHB's aren't like you or I, they don't possess common sense, they are like scared springboks being chased by an
This is bad because it will slow adoption of Firefox (people who use it at work may actually try it at home, like it and switch). We wan't people to switch to firefox because it's more standards compliant and, at the moment, more secure, which is a good thing(tm), not like this infighting, which is a bad thing(tm).
I am NaN
Ah - experimented further with about:config. Found that "browser.tabs.opentabfor.middleclick" seems to do it. Cool - now I'm not so anxious about losing future Mozilla updates.
Ryan Fenton
Maybe they should shit-can the Mozilla suite and concentrate all efforts on their most successful products... Firefox, and Thunderbird. Considering the huge success of Firefox as a stand alone browser and thunderbird as an email client. I see no point in keeping the mozilla suite around any longer.
From a marketing perspective they've already put all their eggs in the firefox basket...
Even netscape wants to ride the firefox wave to success with the release of the Netscape 8 browser.
Why not make Mozilla a container app for firefox and thunderbird? FF and TB would basically be plugins for Mozilla. That way you have a single code base for the browser and mail app. Adding the calendar to Mozilla would then be easy, you just load the plugin.
Imagine being able to open your email on new tab in the mozilla window?
I know they're trying to tweak every possible thing to grow as fast as possible, but this is just pointless. Nothing is ostensibly broken at this point, so why fix it when it may not be there?
Unless there's some creative differences happening that are only now coming to the surface, leave it alone, your organizational model is fine.
The MoFo is merely experiencing some growing pains that come along with supporting a newfound success. The more popular something becomes, the more people want to change it and ride the wave. I think Mozilla should stick to their current development policy, but they've got to get rid of Seamonkey at some point. Firefox and Thunderbird (and soon, Sunbird) are going to do for Mozilla what Seamonkey should have done: getting the technology into users' hands.
You are only as much as what you do with what you know.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Mozilla Foundation formed because Netscape/AOL wanted Mozilla to become a community project that the corporation has no responsibility for?
If the Mozilla Foundation has no responsibility for the Mozilla codebase, just what is the point of their existence?
I say desolve the foundation permanently. Give project leaders direct control over their codebases. Fear will keep the users in line! Fear of this battlesta-- . . . no, wait, I mean Microsoft, fear of Microsoft.
Seriously though, if the Mozilla Foundation doesn't want control/responsibility of the Mozilla codebase they should just simply disband and give the code back to the community. Someone will pick it up.
Big projects using CVS somehow all wind up with
with nasty politics. This is because CVS commit
rights give a very visible rank to some people.
It only gets worse if you add "core" membership.
Linus keeps things fuzzy. The innermost circle
of developers is poorly defined. This lets
everyone think they are "in" or "out" as best
suits their personality.
I've seen the problem on wikis too, with admin
rights. Giving out explicit rank is dumb.
Sounds like a debate, which is what organizations do. They debate strategic moves. Saying they are having "problems" implies something else entirely.
What did you eat today? http://www.atetoday.com/
People in a team having differeent ideas for the future of a project != "in trouble".
"Google is in trouble - some employee want to bring Google News out of Beta, while others do not."
Everyone always throws up K-Meleon as the Firefox alternative -- that's fine, under Windows. When you ask for a linux alternative, they blather about Galeon or Epiphany, or sometimes even Dillo, which is nowhere near useable.
Galeon and Epiphany require both Gnome and Mozilla to be installed on the system. That is a fuckload of dependency to browse the web. It also means Galeon and Epiphany aren't really standalone browsers; they're like MyIE or whatever IE wrapper is popular this week.
The only extension I ever use with Firefox is adblock*, and I'm learning to program in more languages specifically so I can strip Firefox down and get it back to where it was in the early days -- small, fast, and lightweight.
* -- yeah, yeah, I know adblock runs against the whole revenue stream of the web, and it keeps me from supporting websites, blah blah blah. If I want to support a website I'll donate to it.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
Is the Licence so restricted? Can't anyone who would like to just fork the project?
.
It's open source people, this is how it works when heavy problems show up:
1) Gee cool project. I like the tool
2) Gosh, I miss foo in this. But I guess someone would need to implement bar before that could work.
3)
- "Hey folks, I've done this patch. Could you check it out, merge it in and may I join the devteam?"
- "No. You stink. We don't want you. You know to much, and besides: I'm the big guru around here. Go away."
- "Ok. Sorry for wasting your time."
4) sf.net/my/.makeNewProject( my tool );
Or did I miss something here?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I'm a Luddite when it comes to Firefox. I don't really understand why it was created, notwithstanding that I've been told several times that if I had any savvy at all I would find the reasons apparent, as everybody else does.
I see it as brand-name dilution. I was an early Mozilla evangelist. Now all the people I converted from the dark side are terribly confused and groaning "Do I have to change again?" You mean I have to replace Mozilla browser/mail by 2 different programs? "It's almost the same only better - I'll help you convert" doesn't play very well as an answer.
I have no ready solution, now that Firefox has established a beach head (IMO, due to surrendipity and marketing rather than inherent superiority). I suppose I'll have to try my best to convince the disciples that they should change horses yet again.
While Firefox was the right approach in this direction it still is a huge monster compared to solutions such as KHTML (Apple WebCore or GTK+ WebCore).
I really agree with this. Normally, I'm strongly anti-anti-bloat (see this post for why), but KHTML is so much faster than Gecko, without sacrificing features, it's insane. As an HTML renderer, it's just as capable as Gecko, and it's faster. It also has far better CJK support than Gecko--I still can't get Japanese text to display right in Firefox, but I have no problems with Konqueror. There are only two reason I still use Firefox: JavaScript and AdBlock.
KHTML still lacks a good JS engine for Linux--KJS just plain blows, and I've not seen Safari/WebCore's JS engine ported to Linux yet. As for ads, Privoxy is decent, but going through a proxy server (even a local one) causes a whole host of problems, not to mention that since it's not in the browser, I don't have that handy AdBlock button and dialog.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
I don't know about the rest of you people but I still use Mozilla as my 3rd browser behind konqueror and firefox.
I'm sure other people have found similar things. It remains the only browser that opens most of those silly Javascript sub-windows. I can only imagine the other browsers don't do this because the javascript is some broken hack - but whether it is or isn't, sometimes you just need to open these things.
If they abandoned Mozilla Suite and its users, how do I know they won't abandon the current Firefox or Thunderbird apps?
That's the question every business will ask before adopting any other Moz app, if Mozilla Foundation abandons the Mozilla Suite. In fact, some will ask it about any FOSS product. That particular FUD already exists; this move would reinforce it.
It might seem unlikely that Firefox would be abandoned, but what happens to 1.0 when FF 2.0 comes out? Support and maintenance for old products is essential for any business customer; upgrading can be very expensive (deploying across thousands of computers, modifying any integrated software, etc) and often doesn't help the business' bottom line. IBM supports products forever, it seems; Microsoft supported Windows 98 until (last year?). The Linux 2.4 kernal is certainly maintaned; what about 2.2? IBM's name is behind Linux, anyway.
MoFo would look like an unreliable vendor with a good product. I posted in Slashdot previously that they aren't really community driven, which isn't necessarily a bad thing -- it's just different. It appears they may not be customer driven, either. What's driving MoFo?
Wasn't there a /. article a few weeks ago about how elite the firefox devs were and how they wouldn't tell anyone how to be part if the "inner circle" because figuring it out was part of the secret handshake bull$#!+. And now they are running out of people with no community support? Hmm, I wonder why. Am I reading that wrong or are they getting what they asked for?
If you're not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate
Perhaps you should learn how to sensationalize things like sebFlyte does. Honestly, what sounds better: "Mozilla Foundation in More Development Trouble" or "Mozilla Foundation Experiencing Perfectly Normal Behavior" ? The first implies that not only was the Mozilla Foundation in trouble before, they are now in even MORE trouble now! Based on this headline, I'd say it's only a matter of hours before the Mozilla project dies completely.
Why do I keep typing pythong?
If any browser is ever going to overthrow IE, it's going to need the support of a large number of people. Firefox has made a quick shoe-in, and this hasn't happened since the Iron Curtain went down with the Windows 95 IE tie-in. I think as geeks we need to get over our petty differences, and support Firefox even if it isn't our favorite. If Firefox is wildly successful, that doesn't mean you can't still use Mozilla yourself.
What we need to do is allow Windows users to experience a change in web-browser, the last time this happened was 10 years ago by now. If Firefox captures a 25% 'market share', and we realise that it may eventually need to be replaced... so what? At least these 25% of the people would be more open to change after experiencing the difference between IE and Firefox than if they had just kept using IE for another 2-3 years.
The longer IE stays the de facto standard, the longer it will dominate the Windows browser market. And thus, the longer it will remain a tool of Microsoft's monopoly. Support and promote Windows users switching to Firefox, even if you think you have a better alternative. Why? Because it's good for your alternative. Your alternative will never have a chance until someone sinks IE.
I remember reading JWZ's blog back in the Netscape days. I remember one entry in particular where he noted that Netscape had changed. It used to be full of people who wanted to help create a great company. It turned into a place full of people who just wanted to work for a great company. The people who live to help create get replaced by those who want to ride on their coat-tails. This happens when businesses become successful. Everything changes. Like the band that was good friends and partied together every night. They get signed, shit gets serious, and suddenly they're fighting and arguing about things till they break up and go their separate ways.
From an old post in his blog:
What is most amazing about this is not the event itself, but rather, what it indicates: Netscape has gone from ``hot young world-changing startup'' to Apple levels of unadulterated uselessness in fewer than four years, and with fewer than 3,000 employees.
But I guess Netscape has always done everything faster and bigger. Including burning out.
It's too bad it had to end with a whimper instead of a bang. Netscape used to be something wonderful.
The thing that hurts about this is that I was here when Netscape was just a bunch of creative people working together to make something great. Now it's a faceless corporation like all other faceless corporations, terrified that it might accidentally offend someone. But yes, all big corporations are like that: it's just that I was here to watch this one fall.
Perhaps the same fate awaits Mozilla. Hopefully not, but when your product becomes as successful as Mozilla and Firefox have, things do change and change is inevitable. It all comes down to how the people involved with the projects handle the change.
Mozilla did rise from the ashes of Netscape though. Hopefully some of the original Netscape people are still around to help lead Mozilla in the right direction, using their experience from the crashing and burning of Netscape in the late 90's.
JWZ's rantings can be found at http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/
Here is an article at EWeek about some of the problems with FF 1.0.1 update and the need for a better update system and more servers. He also mentions the problems with reviewers, but the update problems are far worse in the near term. The fact that the update.mozilla.org is very slow to update extensions was a bad sign. Of course extensions are non-critical compared to the browser itself. Now it looks like browser updates are handled the same way. I had much the same experience on my laptop as the author of the article. First it took forever for the update to appear. When it finally did show up the update system pushed out a completely new installer file, and messed up the installed program list with two install enteries linking to the same program. When Firefox went from 1.0PR to 1.0 it was handled much better. Only some files needed updating, it was not a complete reinstall. I believe that much of the criticism is valid and not just anti-Firefox FUD. Encourging more external contribution and finding more reviewers, as well as defining the relationship between the Firefox and Mozilla suite developers are longer term issues that need to be addressed, but better managment of the update system is something that is more pressing and is having a negative impact on users today.
I don't see this as a serious problem! It's good that they discuss how to proceed.
What they have missed is to make the Composer a separate product but it now exists as NVU mostly supported by Linspire. NVU seems to become a very good product and needs more support.
I think it will only become good out of this!
Got Success?
Engage ego warp drive.
You Mozilla guys might as well go to work for Microsoft now and get it over with.
When the Firefox idea of separate apps arrived, I didn't get goodness. It just seemed like a sop to Windows users who were used to having IE and Outlook slightly separated in Windows. Putting everything together seems better. Their usability is all interrelated anyway, so why not? You can still use another html editor or email client or whatever if you want. I want to drag and drop URLs seamlessly back and forth between email, browser, and composer. It is great to have everything quickly launch together and be available with a click.
If the future is to have the suite split up, then at least there should be uniform hooks that will allow any conforming app to interface with the others, as the suite allows now. If not, we have lost something.
Developer's are often their own worst enemies, throwing a hissy fit every time things aren't going smoothly. It generates lots of useless emails and /. posts, but rarely does much good.
Mozilla and Firefox are not two separate entities, they are just two flavors of the same brand ice-cream. One can live without the other, but they are stronger together. If they separate, only the competition will benefit.
I'm fairly confident that many in the Mozilla/Firefox community know this and are not going to let some whiney volunteers cause a rift. Its natural for there to be problems in the community and for people to voice their discontent, but that doesn't mean the project is in jeopardy. It just forces people to look at what their doing and decide if there really is a problem that needs to be addressed. This is what helps community/volunteer-based development thrive after all, the constant reflection and criticism of the project that drives developers to do their utmost.
If you give away your source code and promote the open source aspect of it, you need to live with the fact that you're not going to be in charge of it. The only way to own it is to release only binaries and write all the supporting libraries from scratch so you're not restricted by the GPL.
Looks like Mozilla and Firefox are dead too!
Too bad one of the big commercial software companies haven't developed a browser that integrates well with an operating system...
I have not seen support for a Custom Configuration Kit or the Mission Control Desktop mentioned in the same sentence with Firefox. For that reason I must assume Firefox is targeted solely at individual users.
The Mozilla suite, on the other hand, contains at least vestigial code support for a CCK and MCD. These would be crucial tools for enterprise rollout and day-to-day active management of Mozilla suite components. Like its ancestor, Netscape Communicator, the Mozilla suite is clearly targeted at enterprise users. Its demise would be an unspeakable loss to all sizes of corporate and government enterprises.