Slashdot Mirror
Browser news
Mitchell Baker, Chief Lizard Wrangler for Mozilla, has
denied that Mozilla's development model will change.
In related news, nullspace
wrote in about netomat, a new
"non-linear browser". "It bucks the trends of current browsers by mining random visuals and snippets of sentences from the Web and having it float endlessly across a black backdrop, accompanied by clips of sound, if the user desires.
Users can specify a topic, then retrieve text, images, and/or audio from the Internet on the subject. They navigate by typing keywords into the browser, not by pointing and clicking."
First, non-linear is rapidly becoming one of those psuedo-intellectual words I can't stand, joining the ranks of paradigm, post-modern, and psuedo-anything. Depending on scale and scope, nearly anything can be seen as either linear or non-linear. Euclid brought us non-linear geometry, Orson Welles brought us non-linear cinematography, now we have non-linear web browsing. Oh joy.
GPL is a Good Thing (tm).
But having a non-GPL license is most definately not why Mozilla has had a hard time recruiting developers. That is only true in a Linux-centric view. You neglect the tons and tons of Windows, Mac and non-GPL UNIX coders out there. Many of them believe in open source software, and many of them get sick at the mention of the GPL.
The reason Mozilla has had trouble recruiting is because of the choices Netscape made about just what they were going to release to the public. They released a huge mass of code that didnt even compile. That's not very attractive to developers. Developers like to either start something new from the ground up, or enhance something that works. They're not too keen on being handed a bowl of data-spaghetti and asked to clean it up and make it work. It's a daunting task.
I, for instance, probably know enough about programming that I could have contributed, in however small a way, to the effort. I did not contribute because I don't have the skills to understand what's already there. I'd get lost in the code trying to find the one piece I am good enough to work on.
GPL had nothing to do with it. The Linux community may have been put off by that, but the developer community as a whole couldn't give a rat's ass if it's GPL, Artisitic, BSD.. or MPL.
--- Tao
Arrgg!!!
Anyone who follows the development groups even supperficially, or simply see how one milestone after another are meet, knows that the Mozilla project is progressing _very_ well.
And this isn't some GPL vs. OSI contest. RMS want, just like everybody in the free software community with a clue, the Mozilla project to succede. To decision makers everywhere, Mozilla is _the_ test of whether the free software/open source (no, they don't care about the difference) works.
FWIW I decided to see just what this "netomat" is all about.
The "interface" consists of a text bar (like the address bar) across the bottom, and the rest of the screen is a big black area with what you could call "links" floating around, mainly text but sometimes pictures, that move contrary to your mouse (if you move your mouse to the right, they all move left, etc.) I typed the first thing that came into my head (Dave Matthews) into the text bar, and I started to see links floating around corresponding with Dave pages I had visited before. If I clicked on one, other links showed up, but no actual content.
Though a five minute test-drive probably isn't a fair evaluation, the conclusion I came to is that it's useless. It seems to be directed at the common population -- a more "intuitive" approach to the internet, but it confused the heck out of me. The links floating around when the browser first opens seem to be completely random, and when clicked on, show things that have nothing to do with what you clicked on.
Like I said, I only got the five-minute version. Maybe the usefulness is in utilizing the "netomatics files" (some kind of script?), but I just don't get it.
Though it does say something for the merits of Java development. The install was very smooth and the program started up without complaint.
#define TONGUE_IN_CHEEK
You know, I've been saying all along that this is what they should do with Lynx. Perhaps the Lynx development team can integrate the non-linear engine with the world's greatest text-only browser? Perhaps, it would herald a new era of ASCII art.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
Doesn't Netscape have various commercial products which include Navigator? Wouldn't putting Mozilla under GPL also mean they would have to put the AOL client, their proprietary calendaring software, and their WebTV-like firmware under GPL?
Don't forget that Navigator/Mozilla was always intended to be a loss-leader for Netscape's commercial products. They're still a corporation seeking profit on intellectual property. They could still do that with a GPL licence, but it would be harder.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
it's called "webcollage" and it's a module in xscreensaver. The only difference between it and this neomat thing is that webcollage is completely random.
but from what i've read, so is neomat.
--
Posted with Mozilla
I won't get into the pseudo-intellectual tripe that netomat was introduced with. Others, far more sarcastic than I, have already slashed it to ribbons.
I guess I instantly identify myself as part of the pre-1990 crowd with my reaction to netomat: if it becomes popular, how much bandwidth will it waste? I remember when doing something stupid like streaming video would have gotten your network privileges revoked. Granted, we've got (nearly) adequate bandwidth now, so it's not as much of an issue, but still --- we finally get to the point that we have oodles of bandwidth, and we end up with some useless screensaver specifically designed to waste it.
Yeah, the net is changing the world, but not the way we thought it would in the old days. We've just provided an almost unlimited forum for endless garbage. Silly me, I thought that was what TV was for.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Netomat is potentially the key that your parents give you at the ripe old age of 21. It is the symbol of the shift into a new paradigm.
There's far too much focus on technology in the industry, an obsession with bandwidth and the browser universe. They are merely tools, we're the drivers. Netomat heralds the enablement of technology -- creating a complete interactive experience. We wield the force Luke. Things are just starting to get a little more interesting.
"What we are talking about now is a communications revolution. That is exciting because communication is the basis of culture. We are amplifying and enhancing the foundations of culture and society with this communications revolution. All the dynamic and revolutionary effects we are going to see will come from these tiny chips being used in a commiunication mode." Kevin Kelly.
Sure beats joinin' the dots which was virtually where we were before. No matter how hard I try I can't see in black and white. Sure it's just a tool but I prefer to use a screwdriver over my fingernail anyday.
BLAMMO shaken not stirred
Mozilla was the one project
Sorry. That's just not true.
But here we go again. People with *no* direct knowledge of the project will launch into rambling speculations about 'why it has failed', inevitably leading to '... but jwz said so.'
A wide number of people will chime in with their varied (and often hollow) reasons for why they haven't participated. However, they will feel emminently qualified to discuss the project's "failure" with great authority.
And the people who have taken the time to look for themselves, make up their own minds, and, heavens, perhaps even have made an *effort*, will have to waste their time writing "no, that's not true; please look at the facts".
Of course, this pattern will repeat, until sometime late this fall, when Mozilla begins to enter beta.
At this time, I'm sure it will be the naysayers who will be first in line to congratulate themselves on "what a great job I did to make Mozilla a great piece of code."
It is only the install program that seems to be platform specific. Its a windows self extracting .exe installer. Once its installed it appears to be straight java. I'd be willing to bet that it should work on OS/2 that is if you can get it install. (Your the guy who said you had OS/2 right?) If not I bet you could unpack it into someone elses machine and copy the appropriate files over.
Its basically an artistic thing. No real purpose but something neat to show your friends. Basically you type in a word/phrase and it looks it up in a search engine and then pulls sentences with those words and some random images and places them randomly on the screen and lets them float around. Its just for artistic sake nothing else. When trying to picture it, think of floating text screensaver, which pulls its data from random places on the net.
I think that while this may be a rediculus example of computer art, it got me thinking about the whole topic. And I was wondering, just how should a computer artist sell his art. I mean realistically is someone can make endless copies of an artwork, they can't charge much for it. For example prints, while they are sellable, still generally cheap unless they are of a limited quantity. So I was thinking, what about software could be limited, the true ownership. What if the artist made a limited number of versions of a program, say 5. They programs had absolutly no difference in them cept the version numbers reported in the corner of the screen. Could the artist then turn around and sell the copyright ownership for each version seperatly. Thereby keeping limited quantities (of true ownerships, owners can lincense out copies oviously) and keeping the price high?