Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla's Nightingale: Why Firefox Still Matters

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla could be heading into an open confrontation with its rivals Google, Apple and Microsoft as browsers evolve into platforms. Mozilla's director of Firefox engineering John Nightingale gave some insight on the past, present, and future of Mozilla and outlined why Firefox still matters. While Mozilla is accused of copying features from other browsers, the company says the opposite is the case. Nightingale says that a future Firefox will give a user much more control over what he does on the Internet and that Mozilla plans on competing with the ideal of an open web against siloed environments." Chrome may have a nice interface and be a bit faster than Firefox's rendering engine, but if Firefox failed as a project I'd miss its Emacs-like extensibility (something all other browsers lack).

16 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Only open source standards compliant browser by zget · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Firefox matters because it's once again the only open source browser that goes by standards instead of doing whatever they want. Chrome was there for a long time, but now immediately when they started to gain some market share Google decided to do what Microsoft did in the 90's and start implementing their own features and not documenting them good enough for others to implement. Then they went on and created websites that only work with Chrome. I have no idea why and when Google started acting like the new douche bag in town, but it's finally happening. And things were going so well for web designers now that Microsoft picked up their act and made IE9 standards compliant and HTML5 capable..

    1. Re:Only open source standards compliant browser by BenoitRen · · Score: 3

      The douchebag behaviour started earlier than you may think. They do plenty of user agent sniffing on their services. For example, their reverse image search is a simple file upload to use, yet they sniff for it. Got SeaMonkey (even the latest)? Doesn't work. Firefox 2.0? Not good enough. Firefox 3.0? Still not good enough. Firefox 3.5? Nope. Firefox 3.6? Now we're talking.

  2. Education by i.r.id10t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is also usually the only browser many learning management systems like Angel support other than Internet Explorer ..

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  3. Platforms by danbuter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't need my web browser to be a full platform. I need it to be a web browser. I wish these guys would figure that out.

    1. Re:Platforms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's pretty bizarre what some people are saying is desired. Supposedly we're all going to ditch our desktops for mobiles, and we're going to ditch our applications for browser applications. And yet, so many people simply don't want that, and bitch about how unimaginably it sucks, whenever they try it.

      The very idea of leaving a comment on Slashdot without a keyboard is laughable (yes, you can do it, but it's painful compared to "old" tech), as is the idea of seriously editing any sort of text (whether it's code or Google Docs' word processor) in any browser, or (best of all) editing in a mobile browser.

      I guess they think that if they keep on repeating these silly ideas, people will get used to how much the future is going to suck compared to 2011, and they'll accept it. The problem with that, is that anyone who doesn't buy into the bullshit, is going to be at such a competitive advantage with those who do, that there will be constant pressure to restore the desktop. How can anyone really think the do-everything-in-browser and do-everything-on-mobile prophecies have what it takes to be self-fulfilling?

  4. One thing Mozilla has that the others do not by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's Open Source. Unimportant to the apathetic, however it is a factor which will become more important as corporations increase their role in governments.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  5. What They NEED to do... by sycodon · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...is to make a version of Firefox that is essentially a fat client for web applications.

    Think client server architecture, but the client is generic and provides complete access to the OS GUI API, robust security and complete control of the app.

    No more alphabet soup of languages, syntax and extensions to provide a real GUI interface. They could even leverage AJAX to eliminate the fucking PostBacks.

    Of course it will all end up in some standards committee, get raped by Microsoft and finally killed as everyone rewrites the apps yet again to support I.E. 23.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:What They NEED to do... by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Interesting

      XULRunner didn't take off because of a couple things.

      Its just too much of a bitch to get started. Its not hard, its just slow and tedious as you spend 90% of your time googling and pulling in bits of information from all over the web in order to finally get a working XULRunner package. The Mozilla documentation is out of date, in multiple ways. You can see that some bits have been updated, but they aren't current, just newer than some other things. Never can you find any current documentation, unless you consider poor people stumbling through it and sharing their work on newsgroups to be documentation. I certainly don't.

      Too fat. Simple apps take too much. Too much of a download for something simple. In theory you only need it once for all apps but ... see below.

      Bad integration with the OS due to chaotic API. The API is constantly in massive flux, you can pretty much rest assured that any moderately complex app is going to have hacks for EVERY damn version of XULRunner, FORGET supporting nightly builds, you might be able to bounce off an installed firefox or thunderbird installation, which limits the number of releases you're trying to hit, but there are still far too many to cope with, so that means ... you ship your XULRunner app with a known good XULRunner. Hope the user doesn't update it to fix security issues!

      Because of the above, getting an xulrunner package to download and double click to run doesn't work for crap if the user tries to use another one as well, unless maybe you're doing in house apps that share the same XULRunner version compatibilities. Good luck with that, we found that two internal teams working on seperate based XULRunner apps couldn't/wouldn't keep themselves in sync just cause it wasn't work it. Should they waste several hours of time validating code every time someone wants to bump to a newer version of XULRunner for some feature, or ship another 20-60 megs of course instead? Well, the only intelligent choice at face value is to waste disk space since its not an immediate cost.

      The update mechanism is a couple clusterfuck as well, thanks to various bits of half implemented features.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  6. Re:Too many links. by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now you know what it feels like to try to choose a Linux distro.

    Like it or not, too many choices is bad.

  7. Noscript by Holammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Noscript is the #1 feature why I'm using Firefox. I suspect a lot of medium to advanced users desire its functionality.

  8. What good is extensibility... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ... if Firefox's new and unnecessary rapid development cycle renders plug-ins invalid every three months, and the plug-in developers choose not to participate in Firefox's inane rapid development cycle. I, a Firefox user, am left with an egregious choice of keeping the browser secure by jumping on the rapid development cycle bandwagon, or using the plug-ins I want to use by skipping the security updates embedded in the rapid development cycle.

    .
    All in the name of inflating the ego of some developers who are in a testosterone-enabled development war with other browser developers.

  9. I'd miss NoScript and shitload of other add-ons by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The closest thing you can get to NoScript on Chrome is NotScripts. And I'm sorry but that sucks ass by comparison.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  10. Re:Money from Google by BZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > If Google pulls out in favor of Chrome, you have to
    > ask what will happen.

    You can ask... or you could look up the answers.

    The 2010 data is not out yet, but the 2009 numbers are at http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/mf-2009-audited-financial-statement.pdf which means you don't have to worry about citing 2006 numbers.

    As of 2009, Mozilla had $120 million in net assets. Expenses in 2009 were $61 million. Revenues were $104 million. They were hiring as fast as they could find good people, and earning more money than they could spend. They had 2 years worth of operating costs in the bank. All of this is public data, as it is for any other nonprofit.

    So if trends continued in that revenue and expenses grew at the same percentage rate, and if you assume that Google is still 85% of their revenue stream (the data on that doesn't seem to be available), what would happen if Google pulled out is that Mozilla would have about 2.3 years to find funding sources to replace that revenue. Assuming they kept spending as much as they do now in the meantime instead of trying to stretch the money out.

    On the other hand, you also have to wonder what the bottom line for Google would be from 20-30% of internet users not having Google as the default search engine anymore, say. And if that were a possibility, why Google would want to risk that.

  11. Re:Firefox will matter to me again... by Gordo_1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Honestly, i don't get this complaint. The belief that Firefox has progressively gotten slower and more bloated over the years is an outright falsehood that keeps getting recycled over and over again on Slashdot and elsewhere. Go ahead and install Firebird 0.7, Firefox 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0, then explain to me where you believe the bloat has crept in... Yes Firefox 4.0 is more feature-rich than previous versions, but if you don't want to use things like sync, you don't have to use them. With a clean comparable profile, each successive Ffx release has delivered some combination of:

    * greater stability
    * better memory management
    * faster javascript
    * faster DOM rendering
    * faster startup time
    * support for new standards/technologies

    Frankly, I don't think anyone remembers how rough around the edges Firebird was, because it was comparatively so much better than it's only real competition at the time (IE6).

  12. Re:Make a Firefox classic by Daetrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "A few clicks"? Here's the process i went through to get Firefox4+ looking like the old style Firefox i want. Note first of all that i'm not sure this list is complete, the last time i needed to use it i found that i'd missed a couple steps. I think i wrote them down at the time, but i can't be sure of that. Also, it's still not perfect. The status bar in particular is still a little wonky.

    View->Toolbars->
    - Menu, Navigation
    - Turn off Tabs on Top

    Tools->Options
    - General: Always ask me where to save

    Add-Ons:
    - Status-4-Evar 2011.07.20.21
    - New Tabs at the End 1.0 (not always necessary? Why not?)
    - Menu Editor 1.2.7
    - Firefox 3 Theme for Firefox 4.0
    - Switch to Tab No More 1.0
    - Active Stop Button 1.4.9
    - Back/forward dropmarker 1.0
    - Remove New Tab Button 1.0
    - Stylish 1.2

    Right-click on toolbar->Customize
    Move home/stop buttons (currently have to put stop before reload, or they'll merge)
    Make sure "Icons" and "Use Small Icons" are selected

    Stylish:
    // Remove "Tab Groups" from tab list
    #menu_tabview,
    #alltabs-popup-separator
    {display: none !important; }

    That's a bit more than "a few clicks" and enough that i think a "classic" version of Firefox would be justifiable. Not to mention the risk that at any future upgrade they could re-break one of these fixes, or break something entirely new, possibly in a way that can't be easily corrected with just "a few clicks."

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  13. I'd miss firebug and web developer by acomj · · Score: 3, Informative

    Firefox is really the bees knees for web development....
    firebug for javascript...

    http://getfirebug.com/

    and the poorly named web developer plugin for css make firefox a potent tool.

    http://chrispederick.com/work/web-developer/