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?"

Comments

Q: Why hasn't Mozilla considered a Firefox OS?

[MrEricSir]

A: Because it's a dumb idea.

Re:Q: Why hasn't Mozilla considered a Firefox OS?

[MrEricSir]

It's like using a desktop computer just so you can remotely eject the CD tray and knock over a cup of water to water your plants while you're on vacation.

Yes, you COULD do that, but it's wasteful and unnecessary. And last I checked, wasteful and unnecessary weren't the hallmarks of a "simple" design.

Because its a stupid idea

[MikeBabcock]

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.

Re:Because its a stupid idea

[amicusNYCL]

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.

Now there's a thought.. Mozilla can wait until everyone else gets all bloated, then they can launch a new project to create a fast, lightweight standalone browser without all the bloat of their current offering.

Re:Because its a stupid idea

[rtfa-troll]

The 'browser as an OS' concept is still stupid.

[...] 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.

The whole point of the "browser is an OS" is not to "encompass all possible generic operating system needs". The idea is that most of those needs will be handled by a "the cloud". Most of the time, when Microsoft or an IT manager talks about it, that doesn't mean anything sensible. However, when Google talks about it, it really means

• You aren't going to have to do file storage because your named objects are going to be stored in the cloud server and just cached locally
• You aren't going to have to do much computing because most of that will be handled by Google's servers
• You aren't going to have to think about application security because that will be handled by Google's
• You aren't going to have to control privacy and data flow because Google will do it for you.
• You aren't going to have to handle user management because Google will do that for you.
• You aren't going to have to handle setting up a file server/ file sharing because that will be done already, by Google
• etc.

If that list scares you, then it should. Basically what you are saying here is that when you move to a "Browser is the OS set up" what you are actually moving to is a "Google is your administrator and your system and all applications are controlled by them set up". You had better hope they are nice http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/>operators

Operating systems and browsers are two different things.

You are answering the wrong question here. The question isn't "should I build these things separately". The question is, "should the user have any understanding of the underlying operating system, and if so, do I need any more interface to it than a web browser can provide?" The Google answer is "no". Fundamentally, you as a naive user, surrender everything to Google. Your so the OS is still there, just the user doesn't have to worry about what it does or how it works.

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.

Given that nobody has fully implemented it ye very few of the people who used HTML used HTML 5, so that comparison isn't yet made. Probably we should come back to that ten years from now to get the proper empirical data. However, every potential alternative platform has problems:

Windows binary no simple way to install applications; user need to download, install, approve etc. Many different incompatible versions and bad multi-version support Linux binary not widely enough installed; users are resistant to learning; several different versions OS/X binary both disadvantages of Windows and Linux at once! Java "binary" horribly variable platform versions; users are resistant; inconsistent user interface; ugly Flash "binary" partly incomplete platform access; horrible security model; horribly s.low and unstable; at serious risk of elimination in the next couple of years HTML5 / AJAX incomplete platform access; slow.

Does HTML need the features necessary to write generic applications? Certainly not.

Again it's the wrong question. The question is: "does it make sense for the people writing the HTML 5 standard to make generic applications possible". The answer is "unfortunately yes". They see a gap in the market and they are closest to filling it. Let's be clear what the gap is:

• Cross platform (Windows XP -> Windows 2008 / OS/X / Linux + Mobile )
• Dynamically installable (you don't need t

Sigh...

[Haedrian]

Just install a very lightweight linux distro. Install firefox on it. Set it to full screen mode.

Done. No need to reinvent the wheel.

I just want a browser

[Windwraith]

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).