Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Starts To Follow a New Drumbeat
ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes "Key, then, to the Drumbeat project is openness, specifically openness as applied to the Internet. That fits in well with the original impulses behind Mozilla and Firefox. The former was about transforming the Netscape Communicator code into an open source browser, and the latter was about defending open standards from Microsoft's attempt to lock people into Internet Explorer 6 and its proprietary approaches. Both Mozilla and Firefox have succeeded, but the threats have now changed."
Rah, rah, rah! Open standards! Who will not support that! It's got OSS Crunchy Goodness!
Actually, what I'd really like to see in FF is *LESS BLOAT* and some attention to memory management... I'll wait...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Key, then, to writing summaries is quality sentences, specifically sentences that don't read like this one.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
I don't know what this 'Drumbeat' project is and also I am not sure what is Communincator exactly so obviously I must provide an opinion on this 'story'.
Really, whatever is written in the summary, I don't understand what they are talking about, can anyone translate into normal speak for the ununinitiateted?
You can't handle the truth.
Imagine if Firefox was perfect and the web environment was stable: in other words there was no need to change it anymore until the environment changed. Would the Mozilla folks let it be? No because people are now employed by the Mozilla Foundation and jobs are at stake. Firefox is effectively a commercial product now. As happens to nearly every commercial software product that meets its users needs and original design goals, the software will come to experience feature bloat as the developers try to keep the attention of its userbase. (For the record, I think the claims that it is already bloatware are premature.) Feature bloat and change for the sake of change are the future of Firefox and it will all come in the name of "innovation". PS In any case, the Linux version of Firefox could use some attention devs!
FTA:That's all well and good, but it raises the question: what should Mozilla be doing *after* it conquers the browser world – that is, once it has 50% market share?
Easy, people should begin to explore other alternatives like Chrome, Safari and Opera. There should ALWAYS be choices because absolute power corrupts absolutely whether it's IE or Firefox. It's naive to make simple assertions like Microsoft = bad and Mozilla = good. Any organization that gets that kind of control eventually capitalizes on it. I know the article says "The threats have changed". How about "Mozilla's motivations will change?"
I really hope Mozilla can make it happen.
Where is Google in this? Why are they dragging their feet?
After all, without openness where would they be?
The largest challenge to openness stares us in the face every day, and nobody seems to notice: Much of our data is stored in proprietary servers controlled by private companies, including Facebook, Google, and Twitter. The Internet was consciously and carefully engineered to put the power in the hands of the end user; data was stored at the end point in open formats (think of POP/IMAP mail and USENET forums, for example). Now a new generation of less sophisticated users hands over their personal data to private companies. Not only are there serious privacy risks, but we've lost control of our data. You are dependent on Facebook's good will to migrate *your* data to another application. What happens when your cloud vendor goes out of business?
Too long; didn't read. Repeating the same mission statement 3 or 4 times with minor modifications doesn't make for a terribly great article. Generally, mission statements shouldn't even be expressed the first time around.
Wow, I've that there is a trend for schools to stop teach cursive writing, which I couldn't care less about, but have they also stopped teaching the scientific method? Your hypothesis is that FF is the most unstable program in common use, and you back up that hypothesis with your own, no wait, with anecdotal evidence that some people are having issues with FF. The conclusion from that evidence, is that you are correct?
Have you collected any evidence about other browsers crashing, or any program, as state "most unstable program", and not just browsers. Have you collected data on actual program usage to determine crashes per program use? Have you considered that some, perhaps even all, though unlikely, that those users problems might be caused by another source and not the FF programming? Have you considered...
The Mozilla Foundation may be badly managed, it may not. From the simple amount of, what can only be considered crap, data you've 'collected' it is impossible to tell, and your assumption that it is badly managed should be considered nothing more than FUD.
Simple:
* FF is a user's primary browser; user has loads of crap piggybacked on top of it
* User tries a fresh install of a different browser, without aforementioned loads of crap
* User is amazed!
This works both ways, I'm sure this is why most average joes think FF is so much better in the first place.
Apparently nobody taught you to differentiate between an Opinion (aka. comment on a forum) and a Paper/Thesis/Study. Unless specified otherwise EVERYTHING in the comments section is opinion. Forcing people to write "In My Opinion" in front of every damn sentence they type is stupid. This is already assumed. And you are a moron.