And you think companies would want to use Chrome if it will install a new version any day of the week without having been tested with corporate-app #12 ?
Their (Mozilla) gripe with catering for businesses is that business want/prefer: 1. long release cycles and/or 2. a lot of security updates for old versions
2 things Mozilla doesn't want right not, when they are very busy adding more and more support for all the different 'HTML5'-specifications.
I think the reason they didn't, is that the Mozilla developers are afraid the corporations will 'forgot' to upgrade the browser and we just get a lot of old/insecure software again.
This is one of the reasons why Firefox doesn't do process-seperation of tabs (actually pages per domain as Chrome does it), because it will use more memory.
More processes is higher memory usage*.
* Yes, you can use shared libraries and stuff, but if it is gonna be a security container I'm sure their are some limitations to that. Or atleast those libraries need to be marked read-only.
Filesystem access is already in the HTML5-specifications, it works just fine.
And it depends how you look at it, just take Chrome OS as an example, anything Chrome (OS) needs like teleconferencing is actually atleast in the process to be standardised by the W3C.
Well, it is pretty clear from what people have found in Windows 8, extending is exactly what Microsoft will do in HTML5. It will be ActiveX all over again.
They don't have a seat in the WHATWG, which is an effort started by Mozilla and Opera to create HTML5 (HTML for applications) when the W3C thought XML was the best thing since sliced bread and wanted to create something which isn't backwardscompatible with HTML4.
But HTML5 is actually 'standardised' in W3C and Microsoft like many others is part of that ofcourse.
Actually, newer plugins should be based on Jetpack, which uses a newer API of Firefox which will stay stable and thus the addon developers don't need to worry/test/set the version-check anymore or atleast a lot less. It should be handled automatically.
I'm not sure I agree about what you think Google's motives are, I think they are willing to use other models of making money if they can find them.
For now they just want a bigger marketshare, this isn't just about speed. But also about features and making the Internet important (making the desktop irrelevant).
And in Europe IE does not have the majority marketshare, they still do have the biggest share though.
Re:Q: Why hasn't Mozilla considered a Firefox OS?
on
Where Is Firefox OS?
·
· Score: 1
You do know that for Google ChromeOS is what they wanted to have ? And Android was just needed to fill a gap because HTML5 wasn't ready.
Slashdot Mirror
The function doesn't exist, but their are 2 fields of IT which combined fill that gap: webdeveloper and sysadmin.
And you think companies would want to use Chrome if it will install a new version any day of the week without having been tested with corporate-app #12 ?
And keeping httpS://
Most users don't even know what a browser is and don't even recognise the differences.
They should be looking into using JetPack instead, it doesn't need a version-bump on the extension. Because it uses the newer stable extensions API.
Their (Mozilla) gripe with catering for businesses is that business want/prefer:
1. long release cycles
and/or
2. a lot of security updates for old versions
2 things Mozilla doesn't want right not, when they are very busy adding more and more support for all the different 'HTML5'-specifications.
1. Newer extensions should be written with the use of JetPack API, it is easier to write them that way and they don't break on updates.
2. I think Mozilla knows what the most populair _extensions_ (those are not plugins !) are and should be able to check them.
I don't know if they do so though.
I think the reason they didn't, is that the Mozilla developers are afraid the corporations will 'forgot' to upgrade the browser and we just get a lot of old/insecure software again.
But I could be wrong.
Awesome isn't the word I would use.
It slowed down any other developments so much, it boggles the mind.
boohoo:
http://dowebsitesneedtolookexactlythesameineverybrowser.com/
This is one of the reasons why Firefox doesn't do process-seperation of tabs (actually pages per domain as Chrome does it), because it will use more memory.
More processes is higher memory usage*.
* Yes, you can use shared libraries and stuff, but if it is gonna be a security container I'm sure their are some limitations to that. Or atleast those libraries need to be marked read-only.
That was before Firefox 4 actually, if I remember correctly it was one of the biggest changes in Firefox 3.6
And the same applies to any hardware acceleration, which is also in IE9, Chrome and Opera atleast on Windows.
Getting past Vista isn't a big achievement though.
Which is an obvious fit for Python, because it's creator wanted it to be used that way.
From the Wikipedia page about Guido:
"In 1999, Van Rossum submitted a funding proposal to DARPA called Computer Programming for Everybody,..."
I guess it depends how you look at it, the user specifies the files you can read.
There is no sandbox like a specific directory or something like that, the file can be from anywhere.
Filesystem access is already in the HTML5-specifications, it works just fine.
And it depends how you look at it, just take Chrome OS as an example, anything Chrome (OS) needs like teleconferencing is actually atleast in the process to be standardised by the W3C.
So no proprietary extensions.
If they think silverlight is such a good idea, they should push the good parts in W3C.
But I expect them to extend HTML5 in Windows 8.
Well, it is pretty clear from what people have found in Windows 8, extending is exactly what Microsoft will do in HTML5. It will be ActiveX all over again.
They don't have a seat in the WHATWG, which is an effort started by Mozilla and Opera to create HTML5 (HTML for applications) when the W3C thought XML was the best thing since sliced bread and wanted to create something which isn't backwardscompatible with HTML4.
But HTML5 is actually 'standardised' in W3C and Microsoft like many others is part of that ofcourse.
DRM is exactly what Microsoft said Siliverlight should be used for on the (public) web.
Actually, newer plugins should be based on Jetpack, which uses a newer API of Firefox which will stay stable and thus the addon developers don't need to worry/test/set the version-check anymore or atleast a lot less. It should be handled automatically.
I guess because of Ocean currents ?
I do think FF4 is better than FF3.6 or atleast I'm using FF7 and it doesn't feel bloated.
I'm not sure I agree about what you think Google's motives are, I think they are willing to use other models of making money if they can find them.
For now they just want a bigger marketshare, this isn't just about speed. But also about features and making the Internet important (making the desktop irrelevant).
And in Europe IE does not have the majority marketshare, they still do have the biggest share though.
You do know that for Google ChromeOS is what they wanted to have ? And Android was just needed to fill a gap because HTML5 wasn't ready.