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...
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?
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."
I'd just like to point out for the record that Microsoft employees contribute more to the Democratic party than any other company in the United States and that the Microsoft itself has made only negligible political contributions to both parties. Bill Gates is certainly no conservative.
The idea that the Bush/Cheney regime as you call it should be determining whether a browser should be embedded into an OS is rediculous. The last thing we want is our elected officials telling us how to package and sell our software. Let's press them on software patents, not bundling issues.
Someone you trust is one of us.
It's trickier than that. A lot of developers like the suite much more than Firefox. Some core devs have suggested they might stop working on Gecko if the suite dies. The Mozilla suite is basically in the opposite situation of Firefox: Firefox has LOTS of users and apparently way too few developers; Mozilla has LOTS of developers and not as many users. Killing the suite doesn't mean all of those developers would jump ship to Firefox. I personally don't like Firefox, so I write code for Mozilla. If it comes down to "Firefox or else", there's a good chance I'd find something else to do with my time.
My server
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.
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?
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?
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.
Many of your changes could wind up in firefox anyway...
8 and with a lot of help from existing developers, fixed it. As time went on, I found other things I didn't like, and worked on them. Since then, I've fixed quite a few bugs: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_for mat=advanced&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=exact& email1=cst%40andrew.cmu.edu&chfieldto=Now
No, they CAN'T! Firefox people are very strict about not adding things for transitioning Mozilla users - for example, they rejected a patch I wrote that allows ctrl and alt to be un-reversed based on a hidden preference (basically, ctrl+enter and alt+enter are backwards in Firefox - an unnecessary annoyance). There are many other things they don't accept - my definition of "better" is just not the same as theirs.
If a developer only wishes to develop for the moz suite but no on is there to use it, are you making a difference?
So what, am I wasting my time working on Mozilla? No, it's a hobby which happens to benefit me (since I get a better browser). Besides, there is a difference between not having 25 million users and not having ANY users. If a Mozilla 1.8 is released, I'm sure there will still be many thousands of downloads.
If you abandon mozilla for dropping the suite you were never a true open source developer to begin with.
I liked Mozilla, but wanted it to do something it didn't support (play a sound when a download finishes). I found this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1649
Does the fact that I do this work for free, in my free time make me a "fake" open source developer? Am I supposed to continue to contribute if the project moves in a direction I don't like? If that's what's required to fit someone's definition of "true open source developer", then fine, I'm not one.
It really boils down to this: I don't like the same things Firefox devs like, and as such, making Firefox "better" in my opinion would require that I fork it. Instead, I choose to contribute to Mozilla, whose developers I see eye-to-eye with much better. Unlike a personal Firefox fork, Mozilla at least has some users.
My server
Got Success?
Engage ego warp drive.
You Mozilla guys might as well go to work for Microsoft now and get it over with.
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.