Slashdot Mirror
Where Is Firefox OS?
adeelarshad82 writes "Microsoft's very simple yet graceful concept raises a very big question. The way Microsoft is planning out Windows 8, developers will be able to write one HTML 5 app which will run across every Windows 8 form factor, from desktops to laptops, to ARM netbooks and tablets. Given the concept, if you remove the operating system — or at least make it transparent enough that the browser becomes the platform — then suddenly every piece of software works across every piece of hardware which raises the question that why Mozilla hasn't considered a Firefox OS?"
A: Because it's a dumb idea.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
It's fine with me Mozilla isn't doing a "Firefox OS". They can focus more of their efforts on the core Firefox product. Besides, Google is doing a good enough job already with a browser-based OS if you ask me.
The 'browser as an OS' concept is still stupid.
I could draw it out and make it sound pretty, but its stupid nonetheless. Once you've made the browser so big that it encompasses all possible generic operating system needs, it is too bloated and someone else makes a smaller faster better browser.
Operating systems and browsers are two different things.
Now as a work environment, say a desktop interface, browsers have potential, and that's what most people mean, but even there, the security problems of dividing up what is local data and what is remote, what should be executable and what shouldn't becomes a nightmare that is easier to handle when avoided completely.
HTML5 isn't the best way to write any application; that's why almost everyone else who's made an HTML based platform has moved to a native one after the fact. Does HTML need the features necessary to write generic applications? Certainly not. The overloading of protocols (everything as HTTP) and formats (everything as HTML/CSS) is just short sighted laziness.
Please make it stop.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Mozilla make a browser, that runs on an OS. Why would they want to start making the OS as well?
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Because they remember what happened to Netscape. They probably also assume that Microsoft HTML 5 will be incompatible with real HTML 5 or that this is just about as likely to see release on time as WinFS.
http://webian.org/ at least, they're moving towards it.
Its called linux. all firefox needs, is to bundle an acceptable linux kernel together with an installer and firefox.
Read radical news here
I mean, Firefox isn't an OS, so if they're gonna do something completely different, why stop there? How about a Firefox branded computer running on a Firefox CPU? Of course, that has to be powered by electricity, so how about Firefox electrical generators running on Firefox coal or Firefox oil?
Give me a break, THIS is the first Google result for "Mozilla Desktop Environment".
Does a Linux kiosk OS count? How about Webconverger? It is a Debian derivative kiosk that uses Firefox.
One trick pony.
Granted, they do that trick very well, but they lack the resource to manage much more.
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
Just install a very lightweight linux distro. Install firefox on it. Set it to full screen mode.
Done. No need to reinvent the wheel.
Why can't HTML app development be a standard library, compatible with all OS's? Well it can - the trouble comes in making the standard be compatible wth the implementations. Making it no longer a standard, and no longer able to run many apps. There's lots of libraries in that situation. Anything that became standardized across platforms would work.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
I am working on building out the Amorphous OS, (you can Google it) Firefox or something like it would be a big part of it's functionality.
>The 'browser as an OS' concept is still stupid.
Yes, we already have browsers,
A Cloud based OS and blurring the lines between OS executable binaries and HTML though isn't a stupid idea.
I've already given a talk at BAFUG, and am preparing presentations and design docs for each subsystem.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
Does HTML need the features necessary to write generic applications? Certainly not.
The HTML platform does include one killer feature: the JavaScript sandbox partly circumvents restrictions on third-party executables imposed by a device manufacturer or by the administrator of a computer that other people use. For example, Slashdot recently ran an article about a form of "3DS homebrew" consisting of JavaScript applications run in the Nintendo 3DS handheld video game system's NetFront web browser, which acts as an end-run around Nintendo's long-standing policy against software development in a home environment.
Why? Because they haven't gotten Firefox working all that well yet. They're 10 years behind on some bugs. Hopefully somebody organizing realizes that they need to try to do one thing well, at least first, before trying to do a bunch of other stuff half-assed.
Can't remember where I ran across this, but it suits:
Always remember, intentions aside, two half-asseds make an ass-whole.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
why Mozilla hasn't considered a Firefox OS?
I heard you like buying paying for terabytes of RAM, so I stuck a firefox in your firefox so you can bloat while you bloat...
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Which country and where in that country? January in Australia is fairly different than January in Canada, and January in Canada is fairly different depending which side of the country you're on.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Great idea. Then they can make an OS web app that runs on the browser, basically a windows add-on for firefox. That way you can upload your OS in the cloud and just stream it over 3G to all your devices whenever you need it. A side benefit would be that Microsoft would finally get paid for all the pirated software people have stolen from them over the years.
Because then they'd have to deal with all the hardware support and driver incompatibility bullshit that Microsoft and Apple and the Linux crew have to deal with. Not everybody wants to code at the metal level.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Name one other open-source browser developed by an open community process not funded by a corporation that doesn't have some sort of lag on fixing some bugs.
I'm not a FOSS evangelist, but for the resources they have it's not out of the bounds of expectations in my book.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Am I the only one who just wants a browser?
Sure, I like stuff like javascript games (I am a game dev so the topic inherently catches my attention) and some webapps, but I am certainly not willing to give my browser that much importance.
For me the centerpiece of the OS is the file manager and the tools to do my tasks. I don't want to have to depend on just a browser or webapps that don't have local code to run from your physical computer. We know the cloud is not 100% reliable (sure, it's not 100% unreliable either, but until there's no choice but to use it, I want to use that choice).
And you couldn't do the exact same thing with native code because...?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
MS is really talking about using HTML as the best way to port code between the different versions of Windows 8? That is at least 4 different kinds of fail.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
It is a GUI framework that sits on top of application frameworks, that sits on top of device abstraction layers, that sits on top of the kernel... Just because you stop wrapping the GUI being presented by the browser with it's own GUI doesn't mean that the browser is suddenly the OS. Just because all you as*hats see is a GUI doesn't mean you're 99% of the way to having an operating system once you've cobbled one together. You HTML5/Javascript people are creating a mess just as bad as what the IT marketing departments did the with stupid "Cloud." (TM)
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
just two weeks ago. Webian Shell on top of Linux sounds a lot like Chrome OS to me...
That's why its fucked in my eyes.
Mozilla or extension developers have strayed to far for the main concept of small tool that help to full blown lunacy.
The other day I came across fireSSH that's right a an SSH client inside a browser!
As a network security guy I felt like going to a field where there is no technology or civilization for hundreds of miles, taking a deep breath and scream every obscenity under the sun. There is just no hope for some people.
The big issue when it comes to OS design is the API, and if it can possibly be an improvement over what is currently out there. Think about it, it's all about making an API for programmers to code for that will be better in some way, shape, or form compared to what else is out there. For phones, you see Android, WebOS, iOS, and the list goes on. Some use Linux under the API, so what API would be better? How many attempts will there be to slap a new API on top of Linux, call it a new OS, and then watch as no one bothers to code for it?
Mozilla doesn't need to make a new OS with what is already out there. Then again, we don't need other operating systems that are based on web technologies, since by nature, the majority of the API code is the source of whatever limitations there will be. A better OS would be something that is designed to be VERY VERY low profile with very little overhead, and then make sure the design always stays lean and mean. If something is going to be optional, then make sure the OS does not get weighed down by forcing that item to be active. Now, most people don't think about it, but Linux is really a kernel with the GNU setup on top of it to provide those basic OS features. Now, take a Linux kernel, and replace the GNU stuff with something that is GUI based and REALLY REALLY tight, without the bloat that comes from standardized libraries that have 20 functions that do the same thing. Re-invent the wheel with all the modern stuff put in there, but without all the bloat and legacy stuff that comes from needing to make things compatible. New OS means you need new code anyway, so why not start off REALLY clean?
And that is why Mozilla won't do it, because the amount of effort needed to make a really NEW OS that does away with all that legacy garbage that slows everything down is very high.
your PC in c++ ? your PC in javascript ? your connexion to the interwebs ? the cloud's servers ?
You've got your answer !
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
MS needs a browser based OS to maintain market share in the world of sub-$500 internet devices. We have seen these fail, and everyone is saying lack of mobile broadband is going to kill them, but these are going to be targeted at home user with WiFi that want inexpensive machines that can move around the house. The benefit is going to be reliability, and MS want to take users away from Apple in this lucrative market and return them to MS.
Likewise Google has to have a mobile OS to continue to collect information. The mobile OS is prefect for Google because everything a user does is recorded, track, mined, and sold. Google already has significant market share, so, as we see, the internet devices are being sold at a healthy profit, and the benefit to the user are free applications after the fact. This gives MS hope as it can often intimidate manufacturers to sell at a less healthy profit in return for marketing support that will create the volume that MS wants.
So we have one company that wants a WebOS to keep it office franchise alive, another that wants to keep the advertising money flowing. Where would mozzila be? They have no market share concerns, they have no free apps, and there is no open hardware platform for a table or internet computer. So one can buy an expensive laptop, pay the internet tax, and then install this great Mozilla OS. We have seen how well this works for Linux. Or one can buy the allegedly open Android or Chrome tablet and install Mozilla. What is the point? Chrome is not a bad OS.
As we have seen on the iPhone, software developers don't want to develop for the web browser. They want native Apps. The machine needs to do both, unless one is in the business of locking in users like MS or Google.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Because they invented the concept and had already rejected it?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
"which raises the question that why Mozilla hasn't considered a Firefox OS?"
Mozilla has considered a Firefox OS and decided against it.
Using Google Chrome as an example, the Chromebooks serve a small niche of users who only do specific tasks. Real OS's like OS X, Windows and Linux provide the ability of satisfying all user types to do any task.
Besides, explain to me how a Firefoxbook/pad would be able to compete with a Chromebook when it'd take several hours to boot after grandma accidentally let FF install 100 different useless add-ons.
Ave Molech Setting
...which will just go from suck to blow...
Nobody cares what the CAPTCHA for your post was.
Can someone summarize this article for me? I can't open the link because firefox has been constantly locking up on me since the last release.
slow pieces of shit.
Well, that's no excuse. That didn't stop Windows Vista from being considered and released.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
MS's beatdown of little-guy Netscape doesn't really say anything about behemoth Google's chances of success, and there's room for Mozilla (and anyone else) to survive with some coat-tail surfing.
Except Google isn't gunning for market share, and I believe they're still one of the larger sources of direct funding for the Mozilla Foundation. Google just wants advancement. Before Chrome came along, every browser's javascript engine was absolute shit. Slow and crappy and slow and slow. V8 kickstarted everybody's interest in Javascript (as Javascript is what really makes Google run) and now everybody is much faster than the first release of Chrome, which gives Google plenty of room to make bigger, better browser applications. They didn't want to beat everybody, they just wanted to scare everybody and say "Look, speed is important to people. Do you see how fast our market share is growing? You had better pick up the pace or you will become irrelevant as quickly as our new browser renders Google Maps Satellite View."
It worked.
And today Microsoft still holds the majority of the browser market share, but most of that comes from enterprise and people who either prefer IE (those people DO exist, believe it or not) or people who just don't care to deviate from the default (which is also just fine).
January in Canada is fairly different depending which side of the country you're on.
Seasons are opposite across the equator, sir. When it's Winter on one side of Canada, it's Winter on the other. The only difference is that Southern Canada might be i-cant-feel-my-face cold while Northern Canada is holy-shit-i-think-my-balls-just-froze-off cold.
That's what Chromium is for!
"Why Mozilla hasn't considered a Firefox OS?" They did. It's called "Google Chrome". Seriously, Google hired large numbers of people from Mozilla a few years back. They still work with Mozilla while simultaneously working for Google. Chrome is built on a base of Firefox. Chrome OS is the Chrome browser layered over a custom build of Linux. It's this reality that Microsoft is moving against with this development. Microsoft is playing catch-up, not leading the way.
Well, to be fair the actual core functionality, including the browser would be still written in whatever c variant the various parts are written in. Really linux + window manager + desktop setup they choose + the browser. The name is really a misnomer; it is really more of an OS with stripped-down functionality with chrome being the centre with web apps on top. Your point about native code is true though; no matter how hard you try, writing photoshop in javascript just isn't feasible, or any app with advanced functionality. I'm not saying this not knowing Javascript and HTML, but I'm saying this knowing its speed(I've had to do work speeding up portions of code for optimization, writing web apps, etc for years) and your comparing centiseconds to nanoseconds. Also HTML is a layout manager that seems to lack a lot of the things common to desktop applications, which has lead to hacks around it, but they aren't pretty. I haven't checked out HTML 5 yet, as it doesn't work on everything yet. Plus HTML and CSS in particular are really a mess when you get to cross-platform issues. It would be a big step backwards.
What would a "Firefox OS" do that running FIrefox fullscreen won't? If you want to make your web browser your only application, DON'T RUN ANY OTHER PROGRAMS. Jesus Christ people, there's nothing innovative or novel about a system that will only run a web browser. It is a crippled system and a stupid idea.
*This* is a real browser based OS: http://michaelv.org/
Why not combine the browser and the OS? Because people who do programming have been refining a model of how things should be done since the 60s that says the opposite. Call it "levels of abstraction", "modular programming", "interface driven", "black box programming", "information hiding", "object oriented", etc etc. They all call out for not jumbling everything together -- that's "spaghetti logic".
I remember back in the day, when I actually wanted to major in CS, Java came out. Yes, that long ago. And the big thing about Java was that you would be able to write code that was platform-independent, and just rely on a Java interpreter that would be released on any necessary platforms. Which is why everything is written in Java now...
I'm just saying, using a browser as a conveyance for some sort of universal HTML-based software market just seems like a new version of an old idea that didn't pan out in the first place.
Also, not to nitpick (well, yes to nitpick), but I think that part that says "suddenly every piece of software works..." needs a bit of filling out. Especially at the "suddenly" part.
Also also, Mozilla would be better off not trying to be the Gobot to Google's Transformer, if you see what I mean. That niche is already being filled by Google. Mozilla should focus on making a niche for Firefox, not making it an also-ran to Chrome OS. Full disclosure, I'm not a fan of Firefox since Chrome came out, and since I put Opera on my Droid. But, there must be some area where Firefox excels, because it has a solid base of users. They should exploit and enhance that area.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
Seasons are opposite across the equator, sir. When it's Winter on one side of Canada, it's Winter on the other. The only difference is that Southern Canada might be i-cant-feel-my-face cold while Northern Canada is holy-shit-i-think-my-balls-just-froze-off cold.
While what is called winter occurs at the same time of year across Canada, Halifax and Vancouver, for example, experience a very different version of it.
I believe that was the point the OP was making.
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
And the only possible password will be 12345
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
mod parent up please.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
Just click the maximize button! It's another pointless illusion such as the appification of everything. Google chrome web store "apps" are are just a links to a web page. Lets hope this doesn't happen to Firefox too.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Mozilla IS funded. You should see how much money they get from Google alone!
Not enough people, anyway, for it to be really successful. I think part of the problem is that it took them ages to actually create a separate "XULrunner" package, so that you could install XUL once and then install Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, Songbird, etc. When it was just the Mozilla Suite (Seamonkey, now), it might have made sense to bundle XUL with that, but if I ship a XUL app, it shouldn't be tied to Firefox itself.
But people did write apps using XUL -- Songbird wasn't even affiliated with Mozilla, if I recall. And people wrote tons of Firefox extensions that are almost standalone apps in their own right -- Zotero, for instance. (I think Zotero would make more sense as a standalone XUL app and a "send to Zotero" Firefox extension, but whatever.)
There's another reason XUL never caught on, though: It seemed pointlessly different than HTML. That is, they created their own separate markup language, rather than extend HTML. At the same time, you couldn't really write websites in XUL -- if I recall, it would at least ask for some sort of permissions -- that, and it wouldn't run on any other browser. So, despite the fact that so much of the Firefox UI (or, I'd guess, most of Firefox that isn't Gecko) is written in XML+JavaScript, it was still very different than the Web itself.
Compare this to their new invention, Jetpack, which is really taking the main idea behind the Chrome extension API and applying it to Firefox -- Chrome extensions almost entirely use HTML+JavaScript. They add some custom JavaScript APIs, but other than that, if there's a way to do what you want to do in HTML+JavaScript, they won't duplicate it for Chrome -- for example, if you absolutely need to run native code with full OS access, you use NPAPI and write a plugin, and restrict it to your extension.
I think this might be why HTML5 is taking off as an actual generic application platform -- people need web apps anyway, so it's already a cool idea to take your web app offline and integrate it into the desktop. Or, if you're writing a new app, you already have a bunch of web developers that you needed for your web app, so you don't need to hire or train experts in Win32 or .NET -- you just write another web app.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
why does everyone think coud os is gonna take over desktop computing, i for one dont trust google with all my data or anyone for that matter. does cloud have its place of course but will it ever take over computing i dont think so. and i assume the guys and mozlla have the same mindset. its like gnome and ubuntu thinking we have to use 3d on are desktops even thow it offer no real usefullness other then killing your gpu. its not good to have the gpu always running in 3d.
Well, lets put it this way, then: Windows 8 will be a slow piece of shit. In addition, it looks like it will be incompatible with every piece of windows software currently out there, unless I completely misunderstand (they're telling us developers we can't use the old tools... so I take that to mean that the old tools won't produce usable code, therefore previously released code.... junked.)
The one thing of value Windows offered -- to me -- was long term backwards compatibility. With that gone, it's basically an entirely new OS, and you know what.. no thanks. I'd rather move to linux, which is very well established by comparison. Assuming my Mac somehow became dysfunctional.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Because I don't want an OS that only uses one of my CPU cores!!!!
Most are, but they can also get to the Chrome extension API, I think. That, and it means Google can sell them the way they can sell other "apps", which means that whether it's "just a website" or not, I can actually sell it to you as if it was a thing.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Why is using Firefox (really XUL/Gecko) as an application development platform for creating an SSH client any less secure than using any other combination of libraries and UI frameworks for doing so?
Le français vous intéresse?
unless I completely misunderstand
You completely misunderstand. Even the official Windows 8 first look video shows running legacy applications (seek to 3:02). Where did you hear (from Microsoft, not rumours) that existing stuff won't work?
Except Google isn't gunning for market share? Are you sure? I think you mis-read their business strategy.
Kill all humans...
Not in the browser market, no. They have enough market share that they're able to influence the market and keep the innovations and advancements flowing, and that's all that matters to them.
Don't worry Windows 7 will be supported until 2020 and by then Ballmer will hopefully be fired and the office guys will put out another decent OS. That is one of the nice things about Windows, its support cycles are long enough if you time it right you can just skip completely the shit releases which traditionally have been every other one.
So I figure Windows 9 will be just Windows 7 with some updates and a little extra bling and all will be good again, and on a positive note i'll probably make a nice pile o' cash stripping out Win 8 for 7 the way I did Vista for XP, I'd say thanks MSFT but it seems such a waste that Win 7 rocks and instead of doing the smart thing and just adding some nice features to make it worth upgrading (I'd suggest something as easy as homegroup for computers in different locations, so someone like my dad could just use a USB stick to copy some token at work and be able to stick the stick in and have it hook up to his work PC from home) it'll be some "me too!" Apple ripoff that is gonna royally suck ass just so they can try to hop on the ARM bandwagon, even though backwards compatibility is what sells Windows and without it there is no point in buying MSFT anything.
As for TFA, because currently FF 4 sucks the big wet titty when it comes to memory and CPU, two places that are seriously constrained on mobile devices? i have to support everything from decade old office boxes to the latest quads and I've been having to switch everyone over to Comodo Dragon as FF 4 is simply unusable on anything slower or smaller than a 3.2GHz P4 with 2Gb of RAM.
I'm typing this on a 1.8GHz Sempron with 1.5Gb of RAM, which is 512Mb more than you get on the average netbook and faster than a single core Atom, yet FF 4 is completely unusable, even with ABP. Launching a tab can slam the CPU for up to two minute where the machine is unresponsive, and may the FSM help you if you dare to click on a video link as FF 4 will slam the CPU into the redline while giving you a slideshow. Compare that to Dragon and other Chromium browsers where I can have several tabs open without ANY CPU slamming, just a VERY quick spike and then it drops, and when I click on a video link the video plays nicely on anything short of HD, and even the HD ones play alright as long as I let it buffer a little first. Not to mention for some reason FF will slowly but surely continue to suck RAM until it slams the swap, whereas Chromium actually gives back RAM when you close a tab.
So I'd have to say a "FF OS" based on the current FF would be a majorly BAD idea, because they have some serious problems in that code. Even the devs admitted here in an article a few months back that they needed to work on memory usage, boy is THAT an understatement! I don't know what they did, as pre 3.6.x it was actually quite nice but after 3.6 it has been going downhill fast. Maybe Gecko simply can't take all the additions like a separate flash container being bolted onto it, I don't know, but currently I wouldn't use it on less than a 3.2GHz with preferably HT and 2Gb+ of RAM and those specs are more than a little too high for a mobile OS, unless mobile means like Alienware laptops in that you need a really long extension cord?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
"we'll accept the bloated runtime, and then too late see that only the most circumspectly crafted apps can avoid dependencies on some platform-specific library that can't be duplicated elsewhere (e.g. the situation with .NET/mono right now...), whether from incomplete specifications or patents -- worst of both worlds."
Of course and for the same reason as .NET/mono, this is being pushed by Microsoft. Did you think the platform specific libraries were an accident or oversight? Windows tie-in was a design decision and it will be again.
Oh please! Ya wanna know why Netscape died hard? Because they put out a total POS release that was NS4 and then they broke one of the cardinal rules which basically gave the market to MSFT.
You may be too young but I was one of the poor bastards that had always used NS and had TRIED to use NS4. Let me give you my impression of me using NS4: "Alright! Its installed! So lets fire it up and go.../NS4 crashes/....Okay, must have been a glitch! So I'll just go to a different site this time and../.NS4 hangs and THEN crashes/...huh, maybe that site is buggy. This time I'll just go check my.../NS4 crashes and BSODs the OS/...*&^*^%*&^%*&%!
NS4 was complete and total garbage, NS6 was released THREE YEARS later (there was no NS5) and by that time nobody gave a shit because IE was "good enough". If you look at the download numbers (NS4 was in the days before IE was bundled) I'm sure you'll see a BIG spike soon after NS4 was released. Compared to NS4 IE4 was a big bundle of candy flavored goodness. No frankly it wasn't great, but at least it ran most of the time and didn't BSOD the OS like NS4 which in the days of dialup meant a long bunch of BS as you had to reboot and redial.
As for TFA, because FF isn't the "lean mean" browser it was originally supposed to be, but a big bloated monster? mobile is all about thin and light, because with the exception of the top o' the line mobiles most have less CPU and RAM than we used on desktops a decade ago. FF 4 is frankly a huge bloated mess, especially compared to Chromium based so I can understand why nobody at Moz is talking about a FF OS.
I hate to say it, but maybe it is time for a rewrite of the Gecko engine? Because ever since the 3.6 branch I've found it to be quite painful on anything less than a 3GHz+ with 2Gb of RAM, which is a hell of a lot more than your average mobile device. It is pretty obvious at least for now that mobile and green computing are gonna be popular for awhile, and FF bloat just don't fit in with that. When FF 4 can give a really nice experience on a single core Atom with 1Gb of RAM and work well all day then maybe a FF OS will be in order, but that day sure ain't today.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Separation of code, If Firefox is compromised, So is SSH and all of you keys. The more stuff you run in Firefox the juicer the attack vector.
So basically MS coders have now finally made it possible to create a single piece of software and have it run on ANY computer? As long as it runs the Windows... Windows 8? WOW! Amazing! This tech will SET the WORLD alight and give me apps that look and function exactly the same on my 3 screen desktop as on my phone...
Why is there no Firefox OS? Actually, there are LOTS of apps that use the Mozilla code base to create apps that run on ANY OS the browser runs on. Take firebug. Runs on Linux, OSX and even Windows! And ANY version of Windows far more then MS itself supports with its latest browser.
A further answer can be found in gmail. I like the interface of gmail but why oh why did Google put a DIFFERENT interface on their own phones? Because they know I would have hated the full web interface on such a small screen? Oh.... they know me so well. It is as if they got a direct line to my most secret communications! Magical.
I know MS fanboys got it hard, but really, has MS so little to offer that the notion that you can a website can be seen on single generation of Windows and be rendered without failing on one form factor or the other that amazing to you guys? Oh wait... for MS it is (has a flashback to developing for IE 5.0 for the XDA)
THE HORROR, OH THE HORROR!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Agreed. I am on a six year old laptop with 2ghz CPU and i find Ff to be quite snappy. I have done some, rather unscientific, comparisons between it and Chromium and i can not really clock a perceptible difference, and i would willing tolerate a small difference to retain Ff's functionality too, any day.
Which is not to say that i wouldnt like it to be leaner, of course.
More diplomatically put: they're having enough problems getting firefox 4 to work as a browser, getting an entire operating sytem platform up and running is going to prove more difficult than that.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
It doesn't look like they will be departing much from how Windows 7 technically works. That part will stay the same, it is mostly gui and new API (and still supporting the old API).
New things are always on the horizon
I'm not sure I agree about what you think Google's motives are, I think they are willing to use other models of making money if they can find them.
For now they just want a bigger marketshare, this isn't just about speed. But also about features and making the Internet important (making the desktop irrelevant).
And in Europe IE does not have the majority marketshare, they still do have the biggest share though.
New things are always on the horizon
I do think FF4 is better than FF3.6 or atleast I'm using FF7 and it doesn't feel bloated.
New things are always on the horizon
Sorry, going to have to call bull on this one. I've got a P3 650MHz with 384MB of RAM that I use for linux (ultra)legacy testing and firefox 3.6 ran fast enough. FIrefox 4 was excellent, faster than chrome in fact, on that same machine. It's every bit as responsive as it is on my usual 2.8GHz dual core 2GB ram system.
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
I guess because of Ocean currents ?
New things are always on the horizon
And in Europe IE does not have the majority marketshare, they still do have the biggest share though.
Well, that was misuse of my native language. IE doesn't have the majority market share anywhere, but they do have the dominant one. Google doesn't make a whole lot of money on Chrome, though. I don't have statistics and research in front of me, but I presume that the majority of Chrome users came from Firefox or another alternate browser (the vast majority of which have Google as the default search engine and even homepage anyway). Google has spent a lot more money developing Chrome than they have made directly from it.
Google's business is in browser applications. That means that no matter how good their applications are, they're still constrained by the limitations of the browsers. A few years ago, Google started pulling way ahead of the curve as far as how well Javascript engines could run the new apps they were trying to develop, so they needed to kick the industry in the ass a little bit, and Chrome did that. By building a browser that was over twice as fast as any other on the market, they really scared the other competitors into focusing on speed and less on feature bloat like what was happening at the time. Now everybody is mostly neck and neck. Chrome isn't significantly faster than anybody else, but damnit if Google isn't trying, because the faster Chrome gets, the faster everybody else has to get to compete. In the end, Google doesn't care what browser you use when you're using their applications, but your browser has to be able to handle the ever-increasing toll these applications take on its engines. Google has succeeded in their primary goal. Everything else is just frosting.
Because you have 2 options:
A) Perform the majority of the processing on a server in another language. This causes lock-in, prevents "off-line" use and requires access to external hardware.
B) Perform ALL the processing in the browser. This is SLOW compared to native apps and seriously limits hardware access. Ever tried to use a scanner in html5?
" Is there some way to get markup to execute procedurally?"
Yes, see XSLT.
But of course didn't mean that, they meant that the apps are actually in Javascript, but Javscript pretty heavliy relies on DOM, which is what is new in HTML5.
The performance difference between a well designed OOP program and a hand-coded assembly program is negligible compared to the difference between native code and running an application through a web browser.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
People seem to be mistaking the Desktop Widgets being coded in Javascript as the whole OS being a giant interpreter with no support for proper apps.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not in the browser market, no. They have enough market share that they're able to influence the market and keep the innovations and advancements flowing, and that's all that matters to them.
So their main goal is not to make money but to produce innovations and advancements? I'm sure their shareholders would be interested in that one.
So their main goal is not to make money but to produce innovations and advancements?
IN THE BROWSER MARKET, yes! Their shareholders will be perfectly satisfied that they're encouraging people to use the world wide web more, where Google has a near monopoly on advertising, and makes money hand-over-fist. As far as Google is concerned, it doesn't matter whether you use Chrome or Firefox or even IE, as long as you continue to browse the web where all their advertisements live. So their main goal with Chrome is exactly what RoFLKOPTr stated.
Promoting their brand is probably a secondary goal, but it's secondary enough that they're still going to be perfectly happy to help Firefox (or Safari or Opera or even IE) improve as well. Anything to get eyes on ads.
There is no Firefox OS because the premise is completely wrongheaded. Just because a single piece of software handles HTML5 across all apps does NOT make that piece of software an OS. Off the top of my head, an OS needs to have a really fast, efficient, highly optimized kernel; control all the peripheral devices that the system has (or that might reasonably be connected to it some day); synchronize all the different activities, many of them vital or highly time-sensitive, that must be carried out; create, manage, and terminate processes and threads; manage memory, including virtual memory and multiple layers of storage with different access time versus capacity tradeoffs; impose and administer a security regime; support networking; etc., etc., etc.
You can certainly make compromises, by limiting the tasks a given system will undertake. That way you end up with either a minimal "hobbyist" user interface, like MS-DOS (which "was relatively fast because it didn't have the overhead of an operating system"), or a walled garden setup which will only do a fixed, immutable set of things and cannot be altered or extended. But a "walled garden" militates against most of the characteristics that define a modern computer; if you can't write code for it, add new applications, or add on new hardware, it's not a computer but a consumer appliance.
The whole merit of browsers like Firefox and Opera is that they are Web browsers, complete Web browsers, and nothing but Web browsers. That complies with the Unix tools philosophy, which requires that each software tool should do exactly one thing and do it really well - ideally, so well that no one ever considers writing an alternative solution. It was Microsoft that decided to blur the borders between Web browser and file system browser (as witness the choice of names "Internet Explorer" and "Windows Explorer"), but that was originally done for legal and business reasons, not for technical ones.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Obviously they have.
It's called Linux!
This must be the weakest set of arguments I've seen on /. /. community to tear apart the remainder.
I'll point out just a few flaws here and leave the rest of the
I don't think that's the biggest reason.
Apples and oranges. You can't just say platform independence is less important than garbage collection, they're not comparable.
The main point of this discussion is that a browser OS's could make apps platform independent - please read the second sentence of the original post.
How many people think Java failed?
I'd say Java succeeded, despite Microsoft's attempts at sabotage. Of course IE no longer comes with a JVM, but that's because once MS realized their sabotage attempts had failed and they decided to use their OS dominance to win the war by simply removing Java. Considering that MS still have 81 percent of the OS market, I think Java is doing rather well.
I've taken recent code written for Java6 and had it fail to run on Linux because the code was littered with hardcoded backslashes
Coding like this is just dumb. Using it as an argument is even dumber. If you plant to say that Java shouldn't leave you open to shooting yourself in the foot like this, then you're on rocky ground. Java has less ways of shooting yourself in the foot than most languages.
But if you want your HTML to work, you need to at least support the latest Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and maybe IE and Opera. If you've done that, there's a good chance you've coded more or less to the standards,
And this is how you'd like the future of coding to be?
the only reason Java can maintain anything approaching a standard is because there is exactly one implementation
There are loads of different VMs out there, with far far less compatibility problems than there are between browsers.
If Java was more like HTML, then Dalvik would've been pressured to become more and more standard, and where it got the standard and OpenJDK didn't, OpenJDK would be fixed -- but instead, Oracle sued.
Dalvik is not a JVM, didn't you know that? Oracle don't need a reason to start suing someone.
Everyone already has a browser, and most people have a fairly decent browser, other than, maybe, office drones stuck with IE6
Try looking at some statistics before coming out with comments like this.
It also helps that JavaScript doesn't suck nearly as much as Java, as a language.
Talk about destroying any hint of credibility that you might have had left.
... versus the funding behind Safari, Chrome and IE?
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
It seems to me that many slashdotters use an O/S and a browser as interchangeable things. They are not. When we say "a browser O/S", we mean an operating system with a browser as its user interface.
Firefox can already be a "Browser O/S", if the default program to start when the X-Window server starts in a Unix-based operating system is Firefox.
or you wouldn't ask.
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
Where did you hear (from Microsoft, not rumours) that existing stuff won't work?
Ha! We don't listen to what Microsoft says here, obviously they'll just lie. But an online acquaintance of a friend of my cousin's girlfriend said it was true on an Apple forum, so that's good enough for me.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
ol' redmond will lock it up so that any nice features will be ridiculously useless. customization and utility is the anti-product.
I refuse to strain my eyes (I sit about 1.5m away from the 22" 1080p screen).
If you don't want to strain your eyes, shouldn't you be sitting a little closer? Sounds like you're twice as far from the screen as you should be if you want to be able to make useful use of the pixels you have. If you zoom everything to hell, you might as well be using a 640x480 monitor.
which is totally what she said
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Same here, for the most part. It takes longer than I'd like to start up, but since I rarely close it that doesn't bother me too much.
I'm not sure about a browser-based OS, but here's what I think will happen to browsers:
1. Developers are annoyed by having to design their website/webapp for 5 different browsers.
2. Also, developers are annoyed by using javascript and HTML, and not their favorite languages.
3. Open-source developers create tools that compile from any language into javascript+HTML.
4. Developers and users complain about speed.
5. Developers start targeting google's NaCl platform.
6. Other vendors adopt NaCl.
7. But there's still HTML. Developers are still annoyed by differences between HTML implementations.
8. HTML gets more complex. Implementations grow even more apart. Developers go crazy.
9. Open-source developers start creating a rendering engine that runs on NaCl.
10. NaCl runtime api improves. Various open-source rendering engines will now run on NaCl.
11. Websites/webapps will include their own favorite rendering engine.
12. Caching techniques in the browser will prevent network overload.
13. ?
14. Profit!
(prediction could be slightly off, because I'm typing this at around 3:00 AM local time)
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
And you couldn't do the exact same thing with native code because...?
In the case of PCs, the native code would have to have been installed by the computer's administrator. People using a computer in the break room at work, at a friend's or relative's house, or in a public library or Internet cafe are often not an administrator.
In the case of appliances, even the owner of a device isn't an administrator. All native code must be digitally signed by the appliance manufacturer, and some well-known manufacturers have long had a blanket policy not to sign anything developed at home.
On a side issue, I get tired of the way almost every native program downloaded (for windows at least) needs to have a front end installer. It should be self-contained and the exe should work right off the bat. Browser 'apps' don't have that issue.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
That is an excellent deal indeed. I decided to switch from dual CRT to a widescreen monitor a few years ago, and decided I'd be just as well getting a 40" HDTV rather than a separate PC monitor and TV. I haven't really used it much as a PC display since I switched to laptops and console gaming, but if I ever get another desktop machine or gaming laptop, it's going to be hooked right in there.
which is totally what she said
It would make me run out and buy their stock today if that was true. When money is goal number 1, the company is either stagnant or already dieing. Good product, advancement, something else has to be goal number 1, or the bean counters will kill the company.
I simply do not trust anything from Microsoft to be in the best interest of consumers. They haven't proven historically that they are capable of standards based benevolence (IE 6 anyone?). The MS setup of HTML5 will have to mandate that the html 5 apps are locked into the Windows ecosystem or Microsoft won't let this happen. It completely debases their platform with no chance for the up-sell. Maybe this is why they are debasing the security of WebGL? So they can come in with a proprietary platform that is full of great patents to protect the developers and end user from frivolous lawsuits.... Maybe it seems like this is a gross exaggeration, and most likely it is. However it is an honest gut instinct based off prior history, and I really do hope that I am wrong.
Uhhh...where EXACTLY in my post which mentioned Windows several times did you notice me say ANYTHING, anything al all, about Linux? That is like saying "Well my motorboat runs well" in the middle of a conversation about cars.
Frankly it could run like the second coming on Linux for all I care, after watching the drivers fall down and go BOOM! in Linux every. single. time. I tried to update the damned thing I wouldn't touch that POS with a 50 foot barge pole. When Linus gets fired or retires and you FINALLY, after all these damned years, have a stable driver ABI like the rest of the planet? Then I'll take another look. But playing "hunt the forum for fixes" wastes too much of my already limited time. I need an OS to "just work" even after I update it, and Windows does. Sorry.
Now on WINDOWS, WinXP Home SP3 to be exact, I watch FF 4 slam the CPU for every new tab, slam the CPU for several minutes and give me a slideshow when I watch a video, and slowly but surely suck up all the RAM, even if you don't do anything but just let it run. Comodo don't do that, Chrome don't do that, FF 4 does. And I have the same extensions I always have had, just ABP and ForecastFox. That's it. Hell even the FF devs said the memory usage was problematic not a month ago in one of the articles. Maybe you think they are full of shit too?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I thought Chromeless, which evolved from Prism, was the answer to that...
You mean that if I write a Windows 8 application, it will run on Windows 8?? AMAZING!
âoeIn theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." â Albert Einstein
You can run just about anything in a user-level sandbox.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Windows doesn't come with tools to quickly set up a user-level sandbox; an administrator would have to install such tools. It does come with a web browser.
All native code must be digitally signed by the appliance manufacturer, and some well-known manufacturers have long had a blanket policy not to sign anything developed at home.
They'll do the same thing with Javascript.
Among current video gaming appliances, Xbox 360 is the only one not to have a web browser. All others (PSP, Wii, PS3, iPT, DSi, 3DS) can run arbitrary JavaScript programs downloaded from the Internet. PSP, Wii, and PS3 also run ActionScript programs in Adobe Flash Player.
Microsoft doesn't talk to me. -->
Google it
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
We're talking about creating a new OS that's based on a web browser.
For one thing, existing devices don't already have this OS installed. For another, Google is working on Native Client, which in its first iteration appears to be a sandbox for specially compiled native code. But at some point, the code will generally have to run on CPUs that use more than one instruction set, such as x86 vs. POWER vs. ARM. The planned successor to Native Client is PNaCl, which uses LLVM bitcode. But at that point, what's the difference between using PNaCl and using Java, ActionScript, the CLR, or JavaScript?
Open Task Manager some time and check out just how much memory it's using... for 5 tabs, expect it to be 500MB or more. In fact on my PC, Firefox clocks in at twice the memory usage of SQL Server, 3 times the memory usage of Visual Studio 2010, and about the same memory usage as Duke Nukem Forever.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Because even native English speakers are confused by statements like that. The editors here suck.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Hm, interesting, haven't had driver problems at all in the last 3 years I've used linux (after a huge batch of wireless cards got decent drivers). Not any bugs really too- but my experience can't speak for everyone's of course, and I do tend to purchase good hardware for compatibility. Anyway, it used to be a win2k machine which was quite clean of bloat and malware, and firefox 3.5 or 6 performed admirably- not as fast as firefox 4 at page loading, but no memory leaks or anything, certainly not much slower than 3.6 on my then current pentium 4 running linux. Oldest XP machine I've ever run firefox on was a pentium 4 1GB so I can't speak for legacy stuff post 2k. Posting this from a friend's windows 7 laptop and it runs fine here too.
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
Strange, I'm on arch 64 bit with much inferior hardware (pentium D, 2GB RAM). Only addons I run are noscript and adblock plus though.
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
I never said the others weren't, I was just pointing out that your "not funded by a corporation" statement was false.
Well the P4 had that long ass pipeline which for some reason FF 4 seems to love, try it on AMD CPUs and its a different story. Maybe they are using Intel's rigged compiler?
As for Linux and drivers, your post just hit the nail on the head accidentally about what is wrong with the community: They say Linux is a replacement for Windows, when really it is a replacement for Macs. Like a Mac you have to be DAMN picky about hardware, and even then it can be a roll of the dice.
Owning my own little shop I have plenty of boxes of all makes and sizes to try it on and frankly it is more likely to fail at least one driver on update as not. The problem is once you get it running YOU CAN NEVER UPDATE as that will cause the thing to fall down and go BOOM! which in this era of zero days is just too risky for my customers and I can't afford to give away lifetime support, especially when a broken driver may not get a "forum fix" for a week or two which is simply unacceptable when you have a customer wanting their wireless back. Linux makes a great server OS, where companies spend millions to deal with Linus' PITA driver model, but desktops? Most don't care so you literally have a driver written by Bob in his basement, that is hacked together and will crap itself when you update. No thanks.
Anyway next time you are on a Windows box try Comodo Dragon and compare it to FF 4. Even with ABP and ForecastFox installed on both the Dragon frankly stomps the living crap out of FF 4 on memory usage, on CPU spikes and percentage used, frankly there isn't a metric where Dragon don't stomp the fox. Personally i hope they fix it, as I miss my NoScript which there is no replacement for on Chromium based (NotScript is a bad hack and been abandoned) but as long as I have to support a wide variety of hardware I need a browser that works on everything and from 3.6 up FF has just been getting steadily worse.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.