Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 4 Will Push Edges of Browser Definition
Chris Blanc writes "Mozilla Lab's push is to blur the edges of the browser, to make it both more tightly integrated with the computer it's running on, and also more hooked into Web services. So extended, the browser becomes an even more powerful and pervasive platform for all kinds of applications. 'Beard wants the new online/offline, browser/service to be more intelligent on behalf of its users. Early examples of this intelligence include the "awesome bar," which is what Mozilla calls the new smart address bar in Firefox 3. It offers users smart URL suggestions as they type based on Web searches and their prior Web browsing history. He's looking to extend on this with a "linguistic user interface" that lets users type plain English commands into the browser bar. Beard pointed me towards Quicksilver and Enso as products he's cribbing from.'"
Because I would like my browser to interact with my machine as little as possible && and I am not at all into social networking.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I really dont want mozilla suggesting anything in my address bar
Didn't we try this 10 years ago, and it sucked? I want more separation between my browser and OS, not less.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Even though this is Open Source It sounds to Scarry.
We origionally used firefox because it was a fast simple browser without all the overhead of Mozilla/Netscape. It seems like it is going back into that direction again. Why because once it got popular people began asking oh One more thing. The firefox team needs to learn to say NO to feature requests and Yes to fixing bugs and not finding excuses not to fix them.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I don't WANT the edges pushed. I just want a browser, really. I just want to look at web pages, maybe even post to the occasional online forum (like Slashdot). I don't want a huge bloated thing that will suck up all my system resources and take two minutes to fire up. I just want a simple, standard-compliant, browser. Please, just let Firefox be that and make a new program to do all that other crap.
We're not going to fix the memory leaks.
(Seriously though, I love Firefox. But please remember why it was spun-off from Mozilla in the first place...)
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
Anyone else find the security aspect of this a bit frightful? They want a database which will track our browsing habits, constant updates to the Mozilla servers, and integration with the OS?
Firefox starts to sound like the next big brother.
I tend to agree. I think this is fine for the crowd that knows nothing about computers and WANTS to know nothing about computers. You doubleclick one icon and it does everything, they can't tell it's laggy and they don't care.
Techies need techy programs, quick/fast/onlywhatyouneed. For some reason FF3 (which I have been impressed with up until now) has seemed to lag quite a bit lately. I'm trying out Opera 9.5 (my 3rd go at their beta) and Webkit (forced to use windows here, webkit is my choice on OSX). Both have quite a bit of merit.
The whole original premise of Firefox was that it was lightweight, fast, and actually worked. Because of this, I think they should keep the firefox brand as-is... make it smaller, faster and more lightweight, but no reason to go fill it up with these features.
I think they should fork development into a new product. Basically going in the direction that they are discussing with version 4. These features look like they could be a great idea. A lot of really progressive and great things look stupid on paper, but once you see them and use them, they can surprise you, at times.
Personally, I think they need to make firefox even moreminimalistic. Something that will have the absolute smallest memory footprint after being launched and be snappy and responsive. Modern websites have a TON of code ([x]html/css/javascript) and graphics so it's understandable that the footprint would grow when you have 30 tabs open; but on slower hardware such as the eeepc or older laptops, I'd like the browser to not impact the system quite as much in the memory department.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
Mozilla Lab's push is to blur the edges of the browser, to make it both more tightly integrated with the computer it's running on, and also more hooked into Web services.
So what they're saying is, "We're cloning internet explorer"?
Doesn't Firefox already use up enough memory? Currently Firefox is running on my computer using up nearly 800MB of RAM. I have 3 tabs open and none of them are doing anything intense. I'm glad my computer has 2 gigs of RAM but I bought that for Photoshop not Firefox...
It seems that the world is moving back to a thin client setup; but instead of a client having a network connection to a server, its communication is via several abstraction and generic transport layers (HTTP / AJAX); instead of using a relevant protocol, everything is translated into XML-based RPC; and instead of using a useful widget set, everyone is bastardising HTML (eg, the hundreds of javascript-based calendar widgets; when all GUI toolkits I know of have one built in).
Is it just me, or is this hideously inefficient, ugly, and Wrong(tm)?
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
You can do that with a standard pop email client using gmail now. Why should it be built into the browser functionality?
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Tagged with "jumpedtheshark".
A web browser should be a web browser, goddammit.
The Mozilla Foundation is the single biggest thing hurting Firefox. The MoFo has already turned Firefox into proprietary software. Seriously, Firefox isn't as free as you think, all while falsely claiming Firefox is open-source. They commit extortion against people who make custom icons, and they've announced that no one is allowed to distribute Firefox without MoFo signing off on it. Debian and the FSF want nothing to do with them, and for good reason.
I have much less of a problem with Opera. Opera doesn't hide the fact that they're not free at all. It's a closed-source browser that admits it. The Mozilla Foundation lacks that honesty.
Not to mention performance: Firefox is a giant memory leak, while Opera just keeps chugging along. Then again, Opera has managed to piss me off with 9.50...I hate how 9.50 totally locks up my computer and makes my hard drive grind for 30 seconds flat every time I type a URL into the address bar.
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
Welcome timetravelers to the world of 1996!
Funny..will they talk about about running applications from a browser window...and will they then tout pay-per-services through a web-based subscription model? And yes, why use Microsoft, when a thin OS client is all that will be needed when Netscape...oops...Mozilla runs everything from a browser.
Gee, I bet they'll next try to sell me on Savings & Loans created funds to house all my Dot.com gains!
They really need to just work on having the fastest and most standards-compliant Web browser available. That is what people want and expect from Firefox.
Microsoft has been trying to "blur the lines" of their browser for years, and look at the mess that's ended up being. Once you start blurring the lines and hooking more and more into the operating system- you create security and reliability risks. Firefox is popular now because it is more standards compliant than IE 7 (and probably IE 8) and is considerably safer and more reliable. Why ruin a good thing?
That's true for email, but from a general standpoint there's only a finite number of applications possible for an infinite amount of web applications. Desktop versions of Picasa, Google Calendar, or even any given corporate intranet app would be nice. Plus, from a developer's standpoint, the idea of being able to push out fixes and having users automatically receive them every time they connected to the network would be a good thing.
Frankly, it sounds a little bit like Java, which is why even as I type this, I wonder where I've heard all this before. (In fact, I work in the commodities industry, and one of our trading platforms works just like this, except they have official releases.)
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
To all the people panicking about IE like OS integration, I think you're all over-reacting and missunderstanding. There's more than one way to join two things together.
The article doesn't go into specifics, but I'd imagine that what Beard is talking about is creating a browser that has a richer UI, and not limited by the traditional browser window. The effect would be a browser that doesn't look like a browser, and webapps that don't look like webapps. This doesn't mean a tightly-coupled OS/Browser combo like IE is/was. Obviously Mozilla can't really do that, since they don't have control over any OS.
AccountKiller
Kiss the original reason for Firefox's invention goodbye. "Now introducing Firefox 4! Now with added bloat!"
That said, I'm using Firefox 3 Beta 4 and it's less bloaty (memory footprint wise) than Firefox 2.
Of course it is inefficient and Wrong(tm), and I have commented before on this same issue. And don't get me started on writing rich web applications that run on different browsers. Cross-browser compatibility very frustrating and maybe even harder than cross-platform compatibility.
However, what else do you suggest?
1. A Browser is already available on most systems, nothing to install.
2. Having an application run inside your Browser is reasonably secure.
3. HTTP is a protocol that is enabled/working on 100% of machines connected to the internet.
4. Zero administration. User doesn't have to do anything to get it working.
If you were to have another Application Client, you would need:
1. Damn good design and balance between various issues (performance, friendliness to user, ease of development, security, features, integration into OS, etc). And of course open standards. This can be achieved, but it's not easy. A lot of projects tried it and failed.
2. Popularity. It would have to be on >30% of machines out there. You would basically have to convince Microsoft to include it with Windows. And that is not going to happen, because it would threaten their office monopoly and other products.
3. Networking. You would have to convince millions of clueless network admins and security policy makers to allow another protocol on their network, especially in corporate networks. Not going to happen, and will impede your popularity a lot.
So writing applications for browsers is a really bad idea, but it is the best we have. If Microsoft didn't have a monopoly, and we could easily distribute another client to desktop/home machines, this might be less of an issue.
And practice shows that thin clients are a GOOD idea if you have clueless users. And most of the users are. You cannot trust users to administer their machines properly. Well designed server is more reliable than a malware ridden desktop machine. And it can backup files automatically, preserve user settings, work from different places, etc.
--Coder
Not to mention that a browser,which is the single biggest source of viruses and exploits,really shouldn't be more tightly integrated into the OS it's running on.The fact that IE is tightly integrated is the reason I have it blocked at the firewall on all my machines and am using Firefox in the first place.But at least with Open Source if Firefox royally bones it there will be Seamonkey,Kmeleon,or some other fork pop up that uses the Gecko engine without doing something stupid like tightly integrating with the host.Now if I could just get Noscript and Adblock running in Kmeleon I'd have what Firefox was supposed to be originally:a fast lightweight and nicely customized browser that gives me the web MY way.But this is just my opinion,YMMV.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.