Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Picks Up Third Party IRC and RT Messaging
Floris writes "Mozilla picks up steam - it is actually starting to look like a real OSS project now ;) New third party contributions are IRC andReal Time Messaging clients. Funny to think that Mozilla might actually fulfill the promise the browser once was and integrate all internet protocols into one interface."
I agree. Netscape/mozilla is targeting a large group of people. Larger than us slashdotters. Normal users expect their browsers to offer any functionality they'll ever need because they are not skilled enough to select, download and install a custom application (they just install what their provider gives them).
Also Mozilla is extremely flexible. What I heard about this chat client is that it's all XUL and javascript (i.e. not a single line of c except for some networking code which is soon to be replaced).
Not only is it nice for mozilla to have a chat client, this also displays the powerful features mozilla has to offer. A full fledged chatclient implented with mozilla's scripting and XUL features.
If netscape/AOL have any understanding of the market they are operating in, they will make sure that a large number of plugins (flash, vrml, realaudio, java, quicktime, ftp, etc.) is available for netscape the day it is released. If they fail to do so the upgrade won't be compelling enough for most users to dump internet explorer.
Jilles
Some people seem to be forgetting that the World Wide Web was designed to be a medium that transparently handled other protocols. Users could familiarize themselves with one interface -- the Web browser -- and exchange information via HTTP, FTP, Usenet and gopher.
I'd like to see more protocols adopted as part of a Web browser, but not in the "office suite" style that Netscape seems to have adopted. The e-mail and Usenet clients should look and act like Web pages if they are part of the browser, the same way that FTP directories do. You should be able to use them without feeling like you've left the Web. Posting to Usenet from a browser should look like posting to any other form. Reading and writing e-mail using your ISP's SMTP and POP3 servers should look like a free-mail site.
Spawning separate programs with their own unique interfaces is not an improvement. For instance, there's no compelling reason to go with Netscape's e-mail client instead of a third-party's program, because the learning curve is the same -- and both are much harder to learn than a free-mail site like Hotmail or Prontomail.
If Mozilla can assimilate IRC and other messaging standards as part of the Web interface -- rather than a separately spawned interface -- I think it's a great reason to start using the browser again. If it's just being used to bundle and deliver separate apps together a la Microsoft Office 2000, the benefit to users is negligible.
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
I think it's very important for Netscape (or is this really going to AOL ? If so i might as well give up now.) to have clear goals for mozilla. Adding to the already totally rewritten codebase, third party products of dubious quality or usability seems a littly pointless.
From the start as i understood it, the goals for mozilla was to have a very fast layout engine (NGLayout is brilliant) and a thin footprint. That is exactly what most serious users want out of this client. A stable and speedy browser, not bloatware.
Though i do understand that the target market includes many users who do not spend over 5 hours a day on the internet or hacking their 1980's tape kernel drivers for linux. Any such addons such as an instant messager should be a seperate entity that can be downloaded if required.
All the hard work has nearly been done, do not wreck it with bloatware or a by diluting the original worthy goals.
Many people trash Emacs for being 'bloated'. Emacs users reply that Emacs isn't bloated, it just has 50000 elisp modules that you can load.
Many people trash Mozilla for being 'bloated'. Mozilla developers reply that Mozilla isn't bloated, it just has 50000 loadable modules that you can add.
I like Emacs' "bloat". Despite the similarity, however, I am disturbed by Mozilla's bloat. Why? Let me explain...
In Emacs, virtually every module I've seen, except for w3 and a few cute things like the Tower of Hanoi, is somehow related to text editing and viewing. This makes sense since Emacs' primary function for most people is as a text editor. Even the news/mailreader falls into this category, since you have to edit text to read mail and news anyway. Even these 'leverage' the abilities of Emacs to perform their operations.
Mozilla, on the other hand, is a Web browser. Loadable modules that would make sense would be things like movie-playing plugins, Java VMs, interface touchups, and so on. What doesn't make sense is adding completely new functionality under the pretense of 'integration'. How is it more 'integrated' if my IRC client and Web browser are the same program? IRC clients don't need complex HTML layout; in fact, virtually the only piece of code that the two functions share is the code to transmit bytes over a network and maybe configuration infrastructure. Mail and news clients as well have *no reason* to be 'integrated' into a Web browser unless they are using HTML to send and receive messages -- and as anyone who has unexpectedly gotten one of these HTML messages can tell you, HTML email is Evil. (even with mutt, which parses mailcap and starts lynx..) FTP, on the other hand, makes some sense -- you're generally viewing structured information and retrieving files.
I suspect that most of these will end up being like Emacs' w3: "My Web browser can read mail! How cute!" However, the fact that several of these projects (the mail and news clients at least) appear to be part of Mozilla's "core" distribution makes me wonder about the goals and attitudes of the project.
When I heard that Mozilla was going to create a fast, clean implementation of the browser, I was ecstatic. Finally something that would just let me read Web pages! How wrong I was. I wish I had time to make my own browser, but I've already got plenty of other projects to work on. Hopefully one of the other groups working on a free browser will avoid the pitfall of overgeneralization..
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
This is an exciting demonstration of the componentised Mozilla architecture. Write a core routines in some compilable language if need be, and then build a UI layer on top using JavaScript, XUL and CSS.
Not only is Mozilla a browser, its also a widget toolkit and development platform! We need more apps like this to show the power and extensibility of the tools being developed.
Having seen many posters express concern about Mozilla becoming bloated or
s /irc/js/lib/irc.js
trying to integrate too many things, such as IRC, into the browser, I
wanted to correct these wrong attitudes:
First off, the code for the client was written by rginda, who does not
work for netscape. So, it is totally "third party" and serves as a great
example of what can be done with Mozilla. The Mozilla team itself is
focused on delivering the browser that everyone is screaming for.
THE SIMPLE PICTURE of how Mozilla works: (At least how it appears to me!)
The Common Perception:
[ M O Z I L L A ] = One unit with everything inside it.
The Reality:
[ [[core][core][core][core]] [optional] [optional] [optional] ]
There is a set of core components which make a usable, basic, web browser
which supports the standards defined at http://www.w3.org.
Beyond that core, everything else is just an optional component, like a
plug-in. That's it. The IRC Client is in no way part of the core, (and if
you read below you'll realize its a javascript which utilizes the core
functionality)
Blah blah wait there's more if you want to be able to make an informed
criticism next time:
To summarize the technical documents linked below, Mozilla is built using
components which are for the most part self-contained. A certain number of
these components are necessary to form a working web browser capable of
rendering HTML, CSS, XML, XUL, JPEG, GIF, PNG, and other common web
formats and standards. You can read about these core functionalities and
how they are built in a component-based way at:
http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/overview.html
Beyond those core functionalities, other components may be created which
are also self-contained and do not in any way interfere with the core
browser components. The IRC client works like this. In fact, it only uses
a small component that is loaded when a Javascript file explicitly asks
for the component. The rest of the client uses Javascript and html and XUL
(XML Based User-interface Language: http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe). So,
basically the IRC client is a javascript! What makes it function like
other clients is that is that it _completely_ leverages and relies upon
the flexibility of those core components listed above. In short, it
introduces no bloat.
Some technical documentation on the subject:
http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap.html http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xpcom/
http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/extension
Mozilla is doing nothing wrong. Keep in mind that commercial products you only see the final, optimised, cleaned up, perfected app. If you get to see a "beta", it has been "polished". The mozilla code is the development code. It's full of debugging information. It's not been optimised. It's "in progress".
So yes, as anyone who develops code knows, code doesn't just "happen". I don't start a project that is automatically feature-full, and production ready. It's a long process to get there.
That seems to be the drawback of a highly-visible open source project. People who don't understand software development download the latest milestone, find out it's not finished, and then proclaim that the project is a "failure".
It's not. Even Internet Explorer had a time when the browser was at the point Mozilla is now. Don't forget that. Even though you you can only see the "beta" or final product, don't think that it started out that way. It was a long project, just like Mozilla is.
The project is progressing, and as all projects do, soon reach that finish line. At that point it'll be time to see if it's "fast" enough. For now, it's not. For those wanting to help, find out what's being worked on right now, and what bugs are being looked for. Find bugs and missing features that already in the road map. It does no good to complain that feature "xyz" is not there, when the roadmap already shows that feature "xzy" is planned to be implemented in Milestone 12.
-Brent--
Hey, hold on a second. I don't want all my protocols stuck behind one interface! Is that what the browser is supposed to do? I don't even like the fact that browsers handle FTP and E-Mail links unless you go through an obscure procedure to direct them to other clients.
a m=value
/20323
I sugggest that it is time for universal Internet applications messaging standards (between a user's set of apps, not between computers). It should be simpler than browser Plug-In's. It should be universal unlike ActiveX, OLE, and even COBRA. I don't want to hear it about how you can compile COBRA components on any platform. My wristwatch just won't do COBRA any time soon. It should probably be TCP/IP only so that you can do distributed applications and cool stuff like that.
Here's an idea. Let's see a core component that processes URI's and coordinates Internet information between clients that know how to handle HTTP, FTP, SMTP, IRC, Real Time Messaging, Telnet, SSH, ad infinitum.
The URI is the most powerful identifier, and I am very dissapointed that more applications do not use it. I.e. the notion of
protocol://user:password@host:port/identifier?par
is the most powerful tool anybody has to locate information or services. It works for every applicaiton and every protocol. Imagine if the following links all worked:
http://www.slashdot.org/index.pl
ftp://ftp.freshmeat.net/pub/
irc://JoeSchmoe@irc.slashnet.org/#blah
pop3://JoeSchmoe@mail.myhost.com/Inbox
You get the idea....
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think that Mozilla will ever become my IRC or messaging client of choice. Not that I have anything against these projects. I like to see them. I just think it would be more useful if someone did something like I have just described. If I could code, I would do it.
~GoRK
Either there's a lot of flamebait going around or people don't understand Open Source / Mozilla, etc.
1) These add-ins have been written by people who have no connection to Netscape and are not part of the main Mozilla team.
Therefore this will not slow down development on the layout engine as the people who are working on that (mainly Netscape employees) are still working on it.
2) Anyone can contribute to Mozilla a nd if they do this is a good thing. It's good that these extensions exist but I don't think they'll make it into the official Netscape Communicator distribution. There has been NO word from Netscape saying that they would be included and there's not even a mention of these projects yet on Mozilla.org.
Netscape said they'd produce a small standards compliant browser and I think they'll stick to that as that's the best way to regain market share from IE. Just get it into your heads that just because someone writes it doesn't mean Netscape is going to include it.
I hope that Netscape will offer a selection of download options at least one where it's just browser only, then perhaps mail, news, then perhaps an editor and a pack with everything in it for those who want it. Also remember that most of these extensions are written in XUL/Javascript so that they don't contribute as much to the bloat as traditional addons.
...and if Netscape doesn't release a browser only version and neither does Mozilla.org you can bet that someone definitely will, that's the beauty of open source.
--
There's a directory with all the .sos for the various modules; just add and delete them at your leisure. I believe they're demand-loaded, too.
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org
DNA just wants to be free...
And real-time messaging that's fully open; does that mean they're giving up that silly fight with microsoft?
/. backend.
Well, the protocols are open to use and implement yourself. The servers which AOL owns are not open, unless you can reach a deal with them. You can download the Slash source, but you can't exactly use it to attach to the
Mozilla will be able to use AIM and ICQ due to the fact that AOL owns Netscape. Would they deny their own browser?
Lowmag.net
One minute people are bitching about not enough non-Netscape contributors.... then when a couple start contributing code they bitch about how long it's taking. Sheesh! You guy's are the pits.
The IRC and instant messaging stuff is being written by external to Netscape contributors building on the basic Mozilla foundations. What they are doing does not impact the release schedule in the slightest.
Another thing to note is that I doubt whether you will see either of these things in a Netscape/AOL branded product (i.e. what Netscape make from Mozilla with added crypto, etc). They will want to add their own clients for obvious reasons.
I just wish that folk would get off Mozilla's back for a minute. As a Mozilla contributor myself(MathML) I get sick of seeing people taking side swipes at the project. Either help out or shut up, please!
A lot of the posters here are missing the point. There are *optional* features. Because of the fact that you have the source code for Mozilla, you can disable these features with little difficulty - or add new ones, if you so desire.
This is what Open Source / Free(d) Software is all about. It's about choice. Nobody is forcing you to use these addons, but you have the option to use them.
A few months ago (maybe even a few weeks ago) many people were saying Mozilla is a failure. Try out the latest builds - it's getting better and faster all the time. I would use it as my main browser except for the fact that it uses more memory than I'd like (I only have 32MB because my motherboard has a bad SIMM slot). It looks better than netscape and very soon will be faster.
It think it's great that people are able to add things to Mozilla if they choose - don't you agree?
Hey all you /. folks! :)
/.! To make some corrections to the posts that I've seen floating around, allow me to submit the following comments:
I am actively helping in the Jabber project, and I am sad to see so many hastily posted comments here on
1) Jabber is not a rip-off of anything. Jabber is completely different than other IM systems. The first thing that sets it apart is that it is open source and GPLed. But what is more interesting than that is the fact that Jabber has the ability to speak to any type of communication protocol that ANYONE would care to develop a module for. The thing that makes this even cooler is that the modules just need to be installed on the Jabber servers. That way a Jabber client (like the one that is going to work WITH Mozilla) can instantly have access to other protocols as soon as the server has been updated - no updating of the clients is necessary.
2) I have to PARTIALLY agree with the posts about Mozilla getting bloated. But I say partially because I don't believe that most of the posters (especially the AC's) realize that what makes Mozilla bloated is the MODULES (not sure what the "official" term is for modules in Mozilla). The Mozilla Jabber client just works WITH Mozilla and may not necessarily be included in the binaries and so forth and I can't imagine it being required in source packages. DaKrushr already wrote a good post covering this.
3) Jabber has hardly anything to do with Mozilla. Yes, we will be developing a CLIENT to use with Mozilla, but that is just one client. We have clients for almost anything you can think of - Java, Windows, X Window using GTK+, a JavaScript one for browsers, MacOS, Linux command line and more! Please realize that the Jabber client that will be working with Mozilla is just a tiny part of what the Jabber project is all about.
Thank you for your time, and I hope that you will look more indepth into Jabber before writing it off in a heartbeat.
If you'd like to ask some questions, feel free (as temas already posted) to pop into #jabber on the Open Projects IRC Network (try carter.openprojects.net).
Eliot Landrum
Leader of Jabber Documentation Team
eliot@landrum.NOSPAM.cx
my guess is that Mozilla, although "Netscape," is not AOL. I've seen Jabber before -- it's supposed to be an implementation of EVERY IM protocol -- but they're not going from the official AOL docs. (assuming there are some somewhere) AOL might still end up locking it out and/or putting pressure on Mozilla to have it removed. personally, I think this technique would backfire (check me on this here -- I haven't read the NPL all that carefully) if someone is allowed to fork the source tree. of course, AOL could end up blocking it anyways (if they still have anything up their sleeve) but it's horrible public relations (although mostly with people not likely to use AOL) and I don't see them risking it. They might say "well, Microsoft is a company and so we have a problem with them, but this is a "community project" and so we're ok with it." kind of a cop-out, but there you are. then their only recourse to blocking Microsoft would be legal and not technological.
offtopic amusement: when I went to MozillaZine, there was a banner for MSN Instant Messager. Hmm...
Lea