Re:Morbid obesity for Firefox is not progress.
on
Firefox 3.0 Preview
·
· Score: 1
I agree with keeping Firefox slim.
People say they want "just a Web browser"... but what if this *is* the Web in 3 years time and these web applications are the future, soon to become the norm? If Mozilla didn't start making moves to support it now people would be complaining that they, like Microsoft back in the 90s, failed to anticipate the future of the WWW and got left behind.
What if in the days of text only browsers people said "...but the Web is about text, we don't need no stinkin' graphics!" (yeah it's unlikely, I know, but bear with me I'm making a point here;-) ) or when the Web was text and graphics, "...we don't need no video, we've got text and graphics!"?
What I am saying here is this: the Web evolves and browsers need to keep up with it. I know they're having a hard enough time keeping up with things like Javascript and CSS and people will argue they should get existing standards right first before trying to support anything else (to which I agree in part) but we don't really know what the Web will be in 5 or 10 years and our browsers will have to support whatever it becomes. We will have to adapt too just like those users and their browsers did back in the early days of the Web.
Mozilla's mandate for Firefox is that it would be fully compliant with the latest W3C Web standards and the W3C seems to be looking into this technology. Should Mozilla ignore it or support it?
Maybe the solution is to introduce these features as an add-on until the technology becomes more ubiquitous and then introduce it into the main build?
The logic you weave assumes that somebody is sitting there with a non-functional bunch of hardware with no OS, and now has to go shopping for it.
...
So who is this market with people with 5 year old PCs, and no use for them, who need to go get an OS? It doesn't exist.
Well... my sister who is not working and does not have a computer, is desperate for a PC so she can surf the web, IM/VoIP with family emigrated to Canada, send emails and write up her CV, was last week the recipient of one of my old PCs. It is probably still capable of running Windows XP but I do not have a spare, licensed copy lying around, only Windows 98 first edition with no firewall which would probably get hacked and virus-infected in less than 20 seconds.
She is sitting there right now with a non-functional bunch of hardware with no OS. So, I'll be installing a nice, secure, up-to-date and easy-to-use copy of Ubuntu 6.10 on it for her (which is easily enough "razzle and dazzle" to do what she wants to do on it).
I do not think she is in a unique position - there are plenty of people with 5 year old PCs with no OS who need to get hold of one somehow; people who can't afford Vista or even second-hand XP. Why should they even bother with a great, secure alternatives like Ubuntu Linux so readily and freely available?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with keeping Firefox slim.
People say they want "just a Web browser"... but what if this *is* the Web in 3 years time and these web applications are the future, soon to become the norm? If Mozilla didn't start making moves to support it now people would be complaining that they, like Microsoft back in the 90s, failed to anticipate the future of the WWW and got left behind.
What if in the days of text only browsers people said "...but the Web is about text, we don't need no stinkin' graphics!" (yeah it's unlikely, I know, but bear with me I'm making a point here ;-) ) or when the Web was text and graphics, "...we don't need no video, we've got text and graphics!"?
What I am saying here is this: the Web evolves and browsers need to keep up with it. I know they're having a hard enough time keeping up with things like Javascript and CSS and people will argue they should get existing standards right first before trying to support anything else (to which I agree in part) but we don't really know what the Web will be in 5 or 10 years and our browsers will have to support whatever it becomes. We will have to adapt too just like those users and their browsers did back in the early days of the Web.
Mozilla's mandate for Firefox is that it would be fully compliant with the latest W3C Web standards and the W3C seems to be looking into this technology. Should Mozilla ignore it or support it?
Maybe the solution is to introduce these features as an add-on until the technology becomes more ubiquitous and then introduce it into the main build?
Sure... here you go.
Well... my sister who is not working and does not have a computer, is desperate for a PC so she can surf the web, IM/VoIP with family emigrated to Canada, send emails and write up her CV, was last week the recipient of one of my old PCs. It is probably still capable of running Windows XP but I do not have a spare, licensed copy lying around, only Windows 98 first edition with no firewall which would probably get hacked and virus-infected in less than 20 seconds.
She is sitting there right now with a non-functional bunch of hardware with no OS. So, I'll be installing a nice, secure, up-to-date and easy-to-use copy of Ubuntu 6.10 on it for her (which is easily enough "razzle and dazzle" to do what she wants to do on it).
I do not think she is in a unique position - there are plenty of people with 5 year old PCs with no OS who need to get hold of one somehow; people who can't afford Vista or even second-hand XP. Why should they even bother with a great, secure alternatives like Ubuntu Linux so readily and freely available?