Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Mozilla Developer Site Goes Live

Posted by timothy on from the developers-section-topic-mozilla dept.

bdaehlie writes "After a lot of hard work, Mozilla's new developer site has gone live. It has been available at a test URL for a while but the transition is now complete. This should be a great resource for Mozilla contributors, web developers, and anyone interested in finding out more about Mozilla technologies."

27 comments

  1. Dear Mozilla Developers by Seumas · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Dear Mozilla Developers,

    Please stop treating OSX as an afterthought and make your browser as fast on OSX as it is elsewhere. Also, please try to make it fit into the OSX environment better rather than making it look like a shanty in the middle of BellAire. I've been a staunch FireFox user since the beginning, but dumped it after switching to OSX because even the non-official OSX-optimized builds lack functionality and/or speed.

    Thank you.

    1. Re:Dear Mozilla Developers by bdaehlie · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the next major version of Firefox, due around the end of the summer. Yeah, nobody likes to hear that "the next version" will fix their problems, but what else can I say... It's no secret that Firefox on the Mac was neglected, but concrete steps have been taken to rectify the situation (including Mozilla Foundation hiring me as their full-time Mac developer). As a result of Mozilla's renewed commitment to the Mac, the Mac Mozilla developer community has been revitalized and is doing some great work. If you want something now, go get a Firefox nightly build for Mac OS X. They are leaps and bounds better than Firefox 1.0.x releases for Mac OS X. Some very general hilights:

      - major UI cleanup, more Mac-like than ever
      - much better performance with plugins and other cpu-intensive tasks
      - more OS-integration features like desktop image support, default browser, etc...
      - more and more complete profile migrators from other browsers
      - many miscellaneous Mac OS X-specific bug fixes

      Unlike the situation 6 months ago, we now have actual work being done to solve bigger long-term issues as well. Some examples are native-looking widgets (like Camino has) and Intel-based Mac support. These are not empty words either - Firefox can actually build and run with native-looking widgets now, and it already runs on Intel Macs. We're also doing work to make the Mac infrastructure more maintainable in the future.

      So we are getting better quickly - we hope you give us another chance!

      -Josh Aas
      Mozilla Foundation Mac Developer

    2. Re:Dear Mozilla Developers by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      Making Firefox work well on Mac has been scheduled for 1.1 for many months.

    3. Re:Dear Mozilla Developers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear MacOSX users, Please stop complaining about being the forgotten/neglected OS. You are the redheaded stepchild, the black sheep in the herd. You have very little to offer the mainstream OS, and you use a system which likes to take from open source without giving back.

    4. Re:Dear Mozilla Developers by Seumas · · Score: 1

      You have very little to offer the mainstream OS,

      Which is why Microsoft tries to emulate Apple as best they can and linux (GNOME/KDE) try to emulate Microsoft as best they can.

  2. since there is a lot of devolpers on this thread by DanThe1Man · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is possible a tad off topic, but since there are Mozilla developers on this thread, I was wondering if one of you could program an extension. I want to block all non-porn from reaching FireFox. Maybe even something that redirects normal material to hardcore lesbians or something.

    And a diet coke. I want a diet coke too.

    That is all, thank you in advance.

  3. Re:since there is a lot of devolpers on this threa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's already here! Check pornzilla

  4. Firefox or Mozilla by superpulpsicle · · Score: 0, Troll

    There are so many people confused by whether Firefox is not Mozilla or it is!? Even when I go to firefox.com, it is routed to Mozilla.com.

    There was always the Mozilla browser 1.4 previously on solaris/windows.... which I never considered to be as good as Firefox 1.0 linux/windows. But it's all the same shit nowadays. WTF is going on. Is Mozilla capitalizing on Firefox development? These websites aren't making it easy in disguise.

    1. Re:Firefox or Mozilla by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Firefox is a web browser. Mozilla is a web suite (browser, mail, irc client, news, composer). Both use the Gecko HTML renderer. There's a lot of shared code and features between the tweo, but its not 100% shared. Both products are made by the Mozilla foundation, and are 100% open source.

      Firefox is in version 1.0.6 currently. Mozilla is in version 1.7.8 currently. So yes, Mozilla 1.4 is a lot worse than Firefox 1.0, as 1.4 has a much older version of Gecko at its heart. A comparison of Mozilla 1.7.8 and Firefox 1.0.6 shows them to be much the same at rendering, with slightly divergent feature sets.

      For myself, I prefer Mozilla suite, I use the email client anyway, may as well load both at once. And I think the UI for Mozilla is better than Firefox. But they are pretty similar over all.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:Firefox or Mozilla by NanoServ · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Mozilla Foundation (a group) developed the Mozilla Application Sutie (a web browser). That became too bloated, so they started working on a spin-off called Mozilla Firefox (another web browser). Now that Firefox is mature, the Mozilla Foundation has announced that they will no longer be supporting the Mozilla Application Suite, and it has now been renamed to SeaMonkey and will be developed by a separate group. So basically, the Mozilla Foundation (mozilla.org) created and develops the Firefox web browser.

    3. Re:Firefox or Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Mozilla is a web suite (browser, mail, irc client, news, composer).

      Web Browser is web. Mail is not. IRC is not. News is not. Composer is.

      40% web, 60% other.

    4. Re:Firefox or Mozilla by Linus+Torvaalds · · Score: 1

      Web Browser is web. Mail is not. IRC is not. News is not.

      That's a common misconception. According to Tim Berners-Lee, the guy that coined the term "World-Wide Web", anything addressable by a URL (now URI) is part of the WWW. This includes Usenet, as there are nntp: and news: URI schemes.

      More info, with cites.

    5. Re:Firefox or Mozilla by ross+axe · · Score: 1

      So, Sendmail is a Web server? Hosts whose names start with www can reasonably be expected to speak NNTP?

    6. Re:Firefox or Mozilla by Linus+Torvaalds · · Score: 1

      So, Sendmail is a Web server?

      No. "Web server" is actually a common term for an HTTP server (there's the misconception that the WWW==HTTP again), Sendmail is not a web server, because the term "web server", as everybody knows it, refers to software that exclusively deals with the HTTP portion of the web.

      But yes, as there is a mailto: URI scheme, email is part of the WWW, and you could call Sendmail part of the WWW infrastructure.

      Hosts whose names start with www can reasonably be expected to speak NNTP?

      Of course not. A hostname starting with 'www.' might denote that it is part of the WWW, but that doesn't mean that it must necessarily speak every protocol that comprises the WWW, any more than a hostname beginning with 'mail.' means that there must be a POP3 server, IMAP4 server, webmail server and SMTP server all running on it.

      Are you actually disagreeing with Tim Berners-Lee, or are you saying that he doesn't really mean it when he explains what the WWW is?

    7. Re:Firefox or Mozilla by ross+axe · · Score: 1
      Are you actually disagreeing with Tim Berners-Lee, or are you saying that he doesn't really mean it when he explains what the WWW is?

      I'm saying it's almost universally accepted that 'World Wide Web' means HTTP+HTML. As for the opinions of Mr Berners-Lee, his original proposal describes the WWW as hypertext based. I would not imagine that he considers email to be part of the Web.

    8. Re:Firefox or Mozilla by Linus+Torvaalds · · Score: 1

      I'm saying it's almost universally accepted that 'World Wide Web' means HTTP+HTML.

      This thread started because an AC felt the need to "correct" somebody's "misuse" of the term 'web'. Obviously it's not that universally accepted, especially as the guy who invented the term doesn't agree with the definition.

      I would not imagine that he considers email to be part of the Web.

      What's the point in me posting links if you aren't going to read them? The reason URIs are called URIs and not UDIs is because the web includes non-document resources like email addresses. Axioms of Web Architecture written by Tim Berners-Lee explicitly mentions mailto.

    9. Re:Firefox or Mozilla by ross+axe · · Score: 1

      I don't deny that URIs are part of the Web. That doesn't make the things they point to part of the Web (hint: email works just fine without URIs).

    10. Re:Firefox or Mozilla by Linus+Torvaalds · · Score: 1

      You: I don't deny that URIs are part of the Web. That doesn't make the things they point to part of the Web

      Tim Berners-Lee: An information object is "on the web" if it has a URI.

      I already pointed you to that quote. Try reading what I link to - it directly contradicts what you are saying. I'm not linking to random documents you know, they actually have relevence.

    11. Re:Firefox or Mozilla by ross+axe · · Score: 1

      'On the web' is not the same as 'part of the web', any more than 'on the TV' means 'part of the TV'. Arguably, mailto: URIs do put email 'on the web'. Still, email functions quite happily without URIs. I could put a bus journey to my house 'on the web' by inventing a new URI scheme that allows 'bus://my-house?via=the_chip_shop'. The wouldn't make the bus, my house or the chip shop part of the Web.

    12. Re:Firefox or Mozilla by Linus+Torvaalds · · Score: 1

      'On the web' is not the same as 'part of the web'

      Sigh. Now you are just trying to weasel out of the argument by playing with semantics.

      A web page is on the web. A web page is part of the web. A mailbox is on the web. A mailbox is part of the web. A newsgroup is on the web. A newsgroup is part of the web.

      In this context, "on" and "part of" are synonyms. Here's a quote:

      The Web is a universe of resources. A resource is defined by [RFC2396] to be anything that has identity. Examples include documents, files, menu items, machines, and services, as well as people, organizations, and concepts.

      Note the words "The web is...". Not "The web points to..." or "The web contains...". He's talking about the web being directly comprised of the resources that are linked together. You know, in a web-like manner? In other words, leaf nodes are still nodes.

      Arguably, mailto: URIs do put email 'on the web'.

      So the original complaint that it was not proper to refer to Mozilla as a "web suite" is without merit - even if you draw a distinction between "on the web" and "part of the web". Right?

      email functions quite happily without URIs.

      So what? Something doesn't have to rely on URIs to be part of the web. If you point to a resource with a URI, you make it part of the web, whether the resource wants to be part of the web or not.

      I could put a bus journey to my house 'on the web' by inventing a new URI scheme that allows 'bus://my-house?via=the_chip_shop'.

      Your URI scheme wouldn't be recognised by anybody but you though.

      The wouldn't make the bus, my house or the chip shop part of the Web.

      If you had broad agreement on the bus URI scheme (e.g. had it ratified as an IETF standard), then yes, it would.

      The web is an abstract concept, not a protocol or network connection. It links resources together. If your bus journey is defined as a resource, and it is pointed to by a URI, then it's part of the web.

      Your mistake is thinking that "URI == part of the web" is the extreme part of your example. It's not. Defining the bus journey as a resource is the extreme part of of that example.

    13. Re:Firefox or Mozilla by ross+axe · · Score: 1
      Sigh. Now you are just trying to weasel out of the argument by playing with semantics.

      Given that we are trying to define 'the Web', I'd say semantics is entirely relevent.

      A web page is on the web. A web page is part of the web. A mailbox is on the web. A mailbox is part of the web. A newsgroup is on the web. A newsgroup is part of the web.

      A white line is on the road. A white line is part of the road. So far, so good. A car is on the road. A car is, however, not part of the road. Analogies like this just don't work.

      In this context, "on" and "part of" are synonyms.

      I read "on" as being synonymous with "accessible from". IOW, the Web, aside from being a valuable resource itself, also provides a convenient access point for other Internet resources.

      Here's a quote: The Web is a universe of resources. A resource is defined by [RFC2396] to be anything that has identity. Examples include documents, files, menu items, machines, and services, as well as people, organizations, and concepts.

      Just because the Web consists of resources, that does not mean that all resources are part of the Web.

      So the original complaint that it was not proper to refer to Mozilla as a "web suite" is without merit - even if you draw a distinction between "on the web" and "part of the web". Right?

      By either your definition or mine, calling an email client a Web program would also suggest that the inbox it manages is a 'Web inbox'. It, after all, the inbox that has a URI, not the mail client. You could even go so far as to say that if I tried to sell my shoes on eBay, they would become 'Web shoes', which is clearly silly. However, the shoes would have a URI and therefore be part of the Web under your definition.

      email functions quite happily without URIs.
      So what? Something doesn't have to rely on URIs to be part of the web. If you point to a resource with a URI, you make it part of the web, whether the resource wants to be part of the web or not.

      Given the high status of URIs on the Web, I feel that to be part of the Web a slightly less tentative connection to URIs is necessary.

      I could put a bus journey to my house 'on the web' by inventing a new URI scheme that allows 'bus://my-house?via=the_chip_shop'.
      Your URI scheme wouldn't be recognised by anybody but you though.

      True.

      Your mistake is thinking that "URI == part of the web" is the extreme part of your example. It's not. Defining the bus journey as a resource is the extreme part of of that example.

      No, I knew perfectly well that devising a URI scheme for bus journeys was ludicrous. My point was that any object or concept could be placed on the Web with a suitable URI scheme. My 'shoes on eBay' example suggests that even new URI schemes may not be necessary. This, I fear, leads to an overly broad and not terribly useful definition of 'the Web'. I consider it more useful to say that the Web essentially ends more or less where the hypertext ends, i.e. the advert for the shoes is 'part of the Web' but the shoes themselves are merely 'on the Web'. An email message (even if it was composed with the aid of a mailto: URI) must still traverse a nontrivial system containing no hypertext, URIs or any other Web-like technology. Therefore, I do not consider either the message, or the system through which it passes to be part of the Web. Webmail services, naturally, are part of the Web. However, receiving email form a webmail user does not change the nature of my inbox (it's still private) and does not make it part of the Web.

      We already have the term 'Internet' and I see no value in generalising the the term 'World Wide Web' to be synonymous with it. If ever this 'semantic Web' we keep hearing about comes info being I may change my viewpoint, but for now, a mailto: is still just an interface between the WWW and email.

  5. This is great by hattan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm really glad this site is available. When I tried to write my first extension several months ago I found it to be a daunting task trying to find any documentation that was easy to read. I'm looking forward to reading through some of the other developer tutorials and spending many long hours programming....I guess I'll need more soda now.

    --
    Take the Dragon Survey
    1. Re:This is great by stevey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Isn't this what the book / online book Creating applications with Mozilla was supposed to help with?

      Sure it's about applications rather than interfacing with the core of the browser, but it covers the concepts of XUL, packaging, etc.

  6. Wiki.mozilla.org by fulldecent · · Score: 1

    Your account at developer.mozilla.org does not also work at wiki.mozilla.org. Maybe they should?

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  7. XUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This should be a great resource for Mozilla contributors, web developers, and anyone interested in finding out more about Mozilla technologies.""

    Hopefully the XUL material will be better, and more complete.

  8. Next Mozilla release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, when are you guys going to release a new version of Mozilla (with the zlib fix)? I read somewhere that you were going to do it sometime last week, but I just checked the site, and nada.

  9. Great project! by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

    Nice site design, offers tutorials on mozilla and non-mozilla technologies, it's content is completely wikified... This is great news. It seems that this will be the kickstart for some non-mozilla developers to join the project and give the mozilla foundation their 0.02$. Very nice indeed.

    Mozilla foundation, keep up the excellent work. The open source comunity (and other users too) are extremely thankfull. Kudos!

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.