The thing is, just because some group says "Firefox is the new Mozilla", it doesn't mean that Mozilla suddenly becomes a bad, inadequate, or obsolete product. As you note, they ARE very different applications, and this is the problem...
I really don't think that this isn't covered in comparing different versions of the Linux kernel or different versions of Windows. I mean, it might be a different situation in other ways, but like the Mozilla situation, just because Windows XP comes out and a lot of people like it better and Microsoft says, "This is the version of Windows we're supporting," that doesn't make Windows 3.1 any worse than it was. Just because there's a newer version of the Linux kernel doesn't make old versions not-work-as-well. However, the fact that there's a new version written with the intent of replacing the older version is meaningful in terms of whether it's "up-to-date". I wouldn't call Windows 3.1 up-to-date, and even though Windows 98 is still perfectly fine for many uses, I would say that any version of Windows before Win2k is out-of-date. Likewise, useful as it may be, Mozilla is showing its age.
...the group that says "Firefox is the new Mozilla" doesn't appreciate that some of the Mozilla hackers and users don't *want* a new Mozilla.
A lot of people don't like progress. Sometimes for good reason, but still...
Imagine you had a group of volunteers building a car like the Accord, and one year the "head honcho" says "next year's model will be a Civic". Many people love the Civic, and it becomes hugely popular. Is it so wrong for the Accord designers to still keep maintaining their Accord line if they have the necessary skills and resources?
No. I haven't been saying there's anything wrong with people who want to maintain a Mozilla branch based on the old suite. If you like, you can branch off of Mozilla 1.0. It's old software, but if you have the resources and the inclination, go for it and good luck. If Windows 3.1 was open source, and you wanted to go back and develop on it because you loved Window 3.1, and you had the resources to do it, again, I'd say fine. I also wouldn't see the point.
The developers mentioned in the story mostly want to know whether the head honcho of the volunteer group will let them develope the same way they used to, or if they have to create their own group with its own things.
I don't speak for the Mozilla Foundation, but their website has been saying for over a year that the old Mozilla suite won't be actively developed by them because they're focusing on stand alone apps. I haven't heard anything to the contrary since then. Seems like a hint to me.
There is very little difference in the interface. I doubt your standard user would even notice the difference if you replaced one with the other. If the only difference is the interface, Firefox should have just been an XUL theme for Mozilla in the first place then.
Well, ok, so what you're saying is, claiming Firefox is prettier isn't valid, because if Mozilla were to adopt the interface changes from Firefox, Mozilla would be just as pretty? Yeah, I guess that's true.
Extensions required a whole new browser?
No, extensions required a partial rewrite. Changing certain interface issues also required a partial rewrite. A lot of things required partial rewrites, and so the end result is a browser that uses many of the same components, but has been massively rewritten.
And yet, the recent development trouble articles posted show that it is Firefox that is stagnating, due to lack of developers and commitment. 2.0 ain't coming out this year as planned. Just watch.
Sounds a little circular... Developers shouldn't want to develop for Firefox because Firefox isn't as good because it's development is stagnating because developers don't want to develop for it.
What I was saying is, people got excited about Firefox because the Mozilla browser development seemed stagnant. The changes between 1.0 and 1.7 weren't highly visible to most users, whereas Firefox seemed to give nice little features and improvements all the time. Sure, the Mozilla browser was progressing, but not in the areas most people were interested in or even noticed.
This simply hasn't been shown to be the case. As for the end-user who just wants a browser, Mozilla has always had the "Browser Only" option during install.
What about the user who only wants an e-mail client? Or the one who only wants the calendar? Oh, and as I've mentioned elsewhere, where is the "Browser Only" option for the OSX install?
Firefox, when you get right down to it, really is somewhat pointless. Not that it matters if people continue to like and use it, but I think a lot of people just use it because they've been told it's better than Mozilla, not because they actually decided that it was.
Well, ok. The new rewrite of the Mozilla browser is pointless, because all the advantages offered by the rewrite could have been offered by the old Mozilla browser if the old browser had been rewritten to make the same changes as the changes made in the rewrite? I can't quite argue with that.
But... because the old mozilla could have been rewritten just like the rewrite, if we like the new rewritten browser, it's because we've been brainwashed? It's that part that doesn't follow for me.
Maybe that's because you like Firefox and don't use Mozilla?
Right. I do like Firefox, and so I use that rather than the Mozilla suite. I also prefer Windows XP to Windows 3.1, and I prefer OSX to System 8. I even prefer the most up-to-date version of OSX than 10.0. Generally, I do find that there are advantages to using up-to-date software. Now, it isn't always the case, but usually, when I upgrade to the newest version of whatever software I'm using, I find that the new version is improved in at least a few meaningful ways. Sometimes I've had to go through a PITA migration period, but it usually ends up being worth it (in my experience) to stay up-to-date.
A few bugs aside, I've found Firefox to be a worthwhile upgrade. I understand you disagree and, though I'm not trying to tell you that you can't disagree, I find your distinction between "end users" and "power users" to be problematic. Often, self-proclaimed "power users" end up using the term "end user" to be a euphemism for "stupid know-nothings", while these "power users" are, in fact, simply users who suffer from a strange form of OCD that requires them to tweak computers endlessly with little or no result.
Perhaps that's not what you meant, but even (or especially) smart people who use their computers for real tasks can understand the value of consolidating and reorganizing cluttered interfaces to provide easy access to commonly-used settings.
Mozilla vs Firefox is not Linux 2.4 vs Linux 2.6, it's more like FreeBSD vs NetBSD or KDE vs GNOME. An even better analogy might be Sawfish vs Metacity (ignoring that these probably don't share much code).
Again, maybe this is a function of me being a clueless user, but I don't see that. Take KDE and Gnome as an example... these are two *very* separate and competing projects being developed in parallel by different groups. Firefox, however, *is* the new Mozilla browser. Sure, it's very different, and has been through a massive re-write (which is why I originally compared it to Windows 3.1 vs. XP or really old Linux kernels), but it's been groomed during the past couple years *specifically* to replace the old Mozilla browser. I know, it started out as a different project, but Mozilla took it on and announced that the standalone apps would *replace* the Mozilla suite-- I don't remember when, but over a year ago. They continued to develop the old version while the stand alone apps were still in beta, but now Firefox and Thunderbird are both >1.0.
While it makes a lot of sense to me to continue to maintain old products for a while, in order to support users who haven't moved on yet, I'd still think that, eventually, people need to move on. I still don't see why we shouldn't view the stand-alone apps as the new, upgraded Mozilla suite, especially considering that was the MoFo's intention. If you want to branch the old version and make a competing browser, then that would be the new, competing/alternate product.
This is different from users complaining about the discontinuation of a product - in this case, a large portion of the Suite fans are its developers.
I didn't say it was like "users" complaining that MS wasn't putting enough resources into Windows 3.1, I said it was like "people" complaining, and I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that developers are people. Anyway, I would assume that the developers are users, or else why would they complain? I mean, they're users of a sort. Or are you saying people who work on Mozilla, who don't use it at all for anything, are annoyed because they don't get to work on it anymore?
Now, I'm in no position of authority, but my personal suggestion to developers would be that, if you love Seamonkey but not Firefox, then move over to Firefox and work on it in order to fix what you believe to be its shortcomings. Sure, you can spin off the old suite and continue working on it, but I would hope you'd have a reason why besides merely "loving" it.
I don't know, maybe it's because I'm just a clueless user who likes Firefox better, but the whole thing seems a little strange. To me, it'd be comparable to developers being upset that all the development on the linux kernel is going into the 2.6 branch, and no one's paying enough attention to the 1.4 branch anymore. Because they "love" that branch. I mean, fine, if you want to spend your time back-porting improvements to old versions, go ahead. But it seems strange to me.
Because the slashdot article distorts the actual situation? ^_^ If you read the linked article, it mentions that "one user commented" with the firefox foundation suggestion; and that suggestion was really to rename the mozilla foundation to reflect its primary product.
What is being suggested is to spin off the suite into a community driven project rather than one handled by the MoFo.
Actually, I did read the article. The user comment said, "You Firefox boys start a separate foundation -- 'The Firefox Foundation'." Now, a lot of this argument ends of being about technicalities, and not about whether people can continue to develop the old suite. I totally agree that if there's a community that wants to continue to develop Seamonkey, then they have every right to do so. If someone wants to take Mozilla in a totally new direction, they can do that too. That doesn't require some sort of a "spin off" by the MoFo, it just requires that the community pick up the source code and start working.
But I have heard people before comment (the user cited in the article isn't the only one) that Mozilla is somehow at fault for deciding to focus on a Firefox/Thunderbird/Sunbird suite instead of developing Seamonkey more. Sort of a "The MoFo is for the old suite. If you want a 'Firefox Foundation', go start one, but get Firefox out of the Mozilla Foundation!" attitude. Clearly these people favor the old suite, which is fair, but they [at least] seem to be in the minority of those who actually use Mozilla based software.
Also, the idea of naming it the "Firefox Foundation" is a little silly. It's not all Firefox, but it is focused on Mozilla-based products, which should eventually all tie together into a new Mozilla suite. "The Mozilla Foundation" is an appropriate name.
If you use FireFox and Thunderbird, you end up with higher memory usage as you get two copies of the Mozilla core loaded, whereas with the Suite you only have one copy loaded. This problem gets worse if you also use the standalone Composer or Calendar.
But why would I want an IRC client built in to my browser anyhow? I mean sure, I could also build an office suite, photo-management software, an MP3 player, a DVD player, scanner software, a Pac-man game, and everything other app I could possibly want into the same executable, and if I ran all of them at once, it might be a more efficient use of memory resources (though. Still, it seems to me that it's a better approach to only put things together in the same application if they're related tasks.
Really, the biggest difference in Firefox is it shuts up the people who want to be able to download just a browser without the other stuff, but who also refuse to use the Mozilla net installer. If you used the Suite's net installer, you've always been able to tell it not to download the extra junk, but there's a large portion of people that liked to ignore the net installer and then bitch about being forced to download and install the parts they don't want.
Now where on the Mozilla website is the net installer for OSX? I've looked around a bit, and if it's there, they sure are putting it in a non-obvious place.
That's kind of what they're doing. Not 'shit-caning' the suite, but according to their development pages, Seamonkey (the suite) is continuing to be maintained with security updates, but the stand-alone apps are the focus of the active development.
Not that I'm an insider and know for myself. I only know what publicly available on their website.
Sure, sure.... I used to run Galeon (spelling?) on Gnome, Camino on OSX, and Firefox on Windows, merely because I like consistency in my interfaces. However, ever since Firefox began looking native on all three, I pretty much stick with Firefox (and sometimes safari) and it's very nice to have the same browser on whatever OS you choose without it ever looking out-of-place.
More to the point, the Mozilla foundation is dealing with a whole bunch of products from the original Mozilla suite (Thunderbird, Firefox, Sunbird, and others). What would be the point of pulling Firefox away from that?
It seems like the Mozilla Foundation made a decision that they preferred the Firefox development model. Firefox, Thunderbird, and Sunbird are set to be the *new* Mozilla suite, and the old one is in maintenance mode. It seems like this is comparable to people complaining that Microsoft isn't putting enough development into Windows 3.1.... Well, yeah, it's the old product that they've discontinued.
Now, it's all open source, so if someone wants to work on it, go ahead. But why people are trying to convince the Mozilla foundation to offload their new, exciting, successful, popular line-up of software and head back to what's become a bit of a dead-end, I don't know.
Firefox is faster- I haven't tried it in a while, but at least a couple years ago, when I made the switch, Firefox loaded faster, and seemed generally more lightweight
Firefox is prettier- totally a matter of opinion, but it seems to be the majority opinion that Firefox has a better interface all around
Firefox's Extensions- I'm not a developer, but people seem to think that Firefox's extension system is easier, more flexible, and generally better than any means to alter/add-on to the Mozilla suite. (don't know much about it though)
the Mozilla suite seemed stagnant- this is an issue of perception, but I've talked to a number of people that thought the Mozilla suite has a clunky interface from 10-15 years ago (it still looked like Netscape 4). The mere appearance of 'newness' was enough to get some people excited. Along these lines, the Firefox people have done a better job of making Firefox look native on various operating systems
breaking Mozilla suit up made sense for development- eh, it's arguable, but many people seem to believe that breaking the suite up into its components (browser, e-mail, calendar, chat, composer, etc.) would make it possible for each individual component to progress faster. Besides giving people the ability to pick and choose the components they wanted, and increasing the efficiency of the resources used by not including components that people weren't going to use, there's the idea that breaking some of the interdependencies between components will allow developers to do, for each component, what is best and will make the most sense, without needing to worry as much about the effect on other components. The rapid progress of both Firefox and Thunderbird seems to indicate that there's something to it.
So that's what I can think of off hand. Personally, I'm not sure why a web browser ever had a e-mail program and HTML editor and chat all built into it anyway. Sure, make a suite, distribute them all together, but why make them all part of the same program?
However, it seems like the real and valid complaint that I've heard concerning the OS tax is when Microsoft has worked out deals with OEMs so that, even if you manage to buy it without Windows, you still pay for Windows. There was some mini scandal a while back with one of the big guys (HP or Dell?... can't remember) where it became public that Microsoft had strong-armed the OEM into a deal where whenever the OEM sold a system, whether it had Windows or not, the OEM had to pay Microsoft for a license, and passed the cost onto consumers.
Anyway, a complaint against Microsoft for that makes sense to me, and that's what was (to my knowledge) origin of the term "Microsoft tax", in that they were taxing OEMs for doing business rather than charging them for licenses.
A complaint against Palm for not selling PDAs without PalmOS? Oh, shoot, it's also hard to buy a cell phone without address-book software already installed! And try finding a television without a power cord or remote. I wanted to build my own, cooler, remote control, but they're going to charge me for the included remote anyhow!
Yeah, I think some of this is just a matter of the market for products that don't function out-of-the-box is much smaller that for products that function out-of-the-box, and most large vendors don't want to spend much time and effort going after that small market.
Actually, he's using correct terminology (I guess, insofar as there's "correct terminology"). Apple doesn't call their laptops "laptops", they call them "portables".
Well, whole numbers, not integers, right? I don't remember a -2.-3.-5 release....
Re:Speaking of the new splash screen
on
Gnome 2.10 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Ok, so at least I'm not the blind or stupid one.
FYI: 2.10==2.1 when 2.10 is a decimal. If it's a version number, 2.10!=2.1. Well, at least depending on your numbering convention. Some people treat version numbers like decimals, but many do not. Gnome (and Apple, and the Linux kernel), use a whole number point-release system (my terminology, made up on the spot). So how that works is, when you want to divide releases, you put a point (not a decimal) and at another whole number. Therefore, 2.6.1 falls under version 2.6, as does 2.6.7. 2.6.10 comes directly after and is an upgrade on 2.6.9 in the same way that 2.6.7 comes after 2.6.6.
So 10.0 comes way after 1.0, 10.10 comes a while after 10.1, 10.10.10 comes a few patches after 10.1.1. If we wanted to further sub-divide, 10.10.10.10 would come directly after 10.10.10.9. (but that would look too much like an IP address, so maybe that's why nobody divides that far, but instead seem to label releases "r1" or "rc1" or "beta" or whatever. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.
Also FYI, in both gnome and the linux kernel, there's another thing to know about their versioning scheme: even and odd numbered 0.x releases should probably not be thought of as upgrades on each other. I thought that might have been the source of confusion, seeing as the list 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 2.10 skips the odd.x releases. The reason for that is, odd.x releases are development branches, and not everything in the 2.9 branch automatically goes into the 2.10 branch. Only the new features that are stable and ready make it. Some things might be dropped, and other things might be carried over to the 2.11 branch for further work.
Now, I know a lot of what I've just written is well known to a lot of people here, but part of my confusion (thinking I was missing something) came from assuming that this was common knowledge, which I guess maybe it isn't. Or was the OP trying to be funny?
Yes, I believe that all the apps I mentioned (GIMP, OOo, and Evolution) have been ported to Darwin and will run under OSX's X server. However, that's not the same as saying I've gotten them to work. Granted I haven't tried in a while, but I suspect that it's still easier and faster to get them running on YDL (since they're installed by default) rather than OSX. Plus, like I said, they won't look like native OSX apps, so they'd be more at-home in a Gnome desktop.
Personally, as far as DEs go, my preference is for OSX. However, I also run Ubuntu (Gnome) on my Dell at work, and I'm quite happy with it. If there were some reason why it made sense to drop OSX and run Linux/Gnome on my Powerbook, I doubt the change would really bother me. However, if I *had* to run a Linux app, I'd probably look to fink before I wiped my OSX install.
Bla bla bla.... I don't say this because I really think you care about my preferences, but more to indicate that a lot of this *is* preference. Whether you want to run Linux or OSX on Apple hardware depends on what you like and what you need, and though I doubt everyone on earth is scrambling to buy an iPod with YDL pre-installed, I'll admit that I might try installing YDL on my iPod when the new version becomes available for free.
Setting aside the "because I can" and "because it's Linux" arguments, what is the benefit of running YDL instead of OS X on one's Mac?
Oh, I don't know, but not every Linux app is ported to Darwin, and maybe someone only wants to run Linux apps. I know if I had Mac hardware and only wanted to run OpenOffice and Evolution and the GIMP, I'd get rid of OSX and install Linux, just 'cause it's easier to get those working, and the interfaces would be more at home in Gnome than OSX (I like consistency).
Anyway, that doesn't necessarily tell you why you'd want to boot into Linux from an external hard drive, but I bet someone wants it. Actually, now that I think about it, I've tried installing Linux on my iPod to try it out (I thought it'd be easier than making a dual-boot system) so I don't think it's too weird.
Do you use gnome? If you did, I'd think you'd be interested to hear that the DE you use has just released a cleaner, more polished version. Given that this particular DE has a relatively large user base, yeah, I think it's worth a story. If you don't find the story interesting, feel free to not-read it and not-post-responses to it.
(And yes, I used 2.8, I'm using 2.10, and there are more changes that a single alteration to the way window focus is handled.)
What people are saying is true, that synaptic helps with the apt-get situation, and Ubuntu is a good all around Debian/Gnome distro, easy to use, easy to install. I'm running Hoary right now (which should be released fairly soon, I believe).
However, and I know this is off-topic, (and as soon as I hit submit, I'm sure I'll get flamed by someone) but if you're looking for something like Linux, but more polished and consistent, with an easier way to install apps, you might want to at least consider looking at OSX as a possibility.
I know you're joking, but isn't that the purpose of this sort of point-release? Polish/stabilize what's there? I mean, if it had a bunch of exciting new features, wouldn't it be 3.0?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "no". The future viability is not in question. There's lots of development going on, a relatively large user base, and I'd even say a loyal user base.
Slashdot Mirror
With as mysterious as those tasks are, he may as well have just two pieces of advice-- If you want to be successful:
I really don't think that this isn't covered in comparing different versions of the Linux kernel or different versions of Windows. I mean, it might be a different situation in other ways, but like the Mozilla situation, just because Windows XP comes out and a lot of people like it better and Microsoft says, "This is the version of Windows we're supporting," that doesn't make Windows 3.1 any worse than it was. Just because there's a newer version of the Linux kernel doesn't make old versions not-work-as-well. However, the fact that there's a new version written with the intent of replacing the older version is meaningful in terms of whether it's "up-to-date". I wouldn't call Windows 3.1 up-to-date, and even though Windows 98 is still perfectly fine for many uses, I would say that any version of Windows before Win2k is out-of-date. Likewise, useful as it may be, Mozilla is showing its age.
A lot of people don't like progress. Sometimes for good reason, but still...
Imagine you had a group of volunteers building a car like the Accord, and one year the "head honcho" says "next year's model will be a Civic". Many people love the Civic, and it becomes hugely popular. Is it so wrong for the Accord designers to still keep maintaining their Accord line if they have the necessary skills and resources?
No. I haven't been saying there's anything wrong with people who want to maintain a Mozilla branch based on the old suite. If you like, you can branch off of Mozilla 1.0. It's old software, but if you have the resources and the inclination, go for it and good luck. If Windows 3.1 was open source, and you wanted to go back and develop on it because you loved Window 3.1, and you had the resources to do it, again, I'd say fine. I also wouldn't see the point.
The developers mentioned in the story mostly want to know whether the head honcho of the volunteer group will let them develope the same way they used to, or if they have to create their own group with its own things.
I don't speak for the Mozilla Foundation, but their website has been saying for over a year that the old Mozilla suite won't be actively developed by them because they're focusing on stand alone apps. I haven't heard anything to the contrary since then. Seems like a hint to me.
Well, ok, so what you're saying is, claiming Firefox is prettier isn't valid, because if Mozilla were to adopt the interface changes from Firefox, Mozilla would be just as pretty? Yeah, I guess that's true.
Extensions required a whole new browser?
No, extensions required a partial rewrite. Changing certain interface issues also required a partial rewrite. A lot of things required partial rewrites, and so the end result is a browser that uses many of the same components, but has been massively rewritten.
And yet, the recent development trouble articles posted show that it is Firefox that is stagnating, due to lack of developers and commitment. 2.0 ain't coming out this year as planned. Just watch.
Sounds a little circular... Developers shouldn't want to develop for Firefox because Firefox isn't as good because it's development is stagnating because developers don't want to develop for it.
What I was saying is, people got excited about Firefox because the Mozilla browser development seemed stagnant. The changes between 1.0 and 1.7 weren't highly visible to most users, whereas Firefox seemed to give nice little features and improvements all the time. Sure, the Mozilla browser was progressing, but not in the areas most people were interested in or even noticed.
This simply hasn't been shown to be the case. As for the end-user who just wants a browser, Mozilla has always had the "Browser Only" option during install.
What about the user who only wants an e-mail client? Or the one who only wants the calendar? Oh, and as I've mentioned elsewhere, where is the "Browser Only" option for the OSX install?
Firefox, when you get right down to it, really is somewhat pointless. Not that it matters if people continue to like and use it, but I think a lot of people just use it because they've been told it's better than Mozilla, not because they actually decided that it was.
Well, ok. The new rewrite of the Mozilla browser is pointless, because all the advantages offered by the rewrite could have been offered by the old Mozilla browser if the old browser had been rewritten to make the same changes as the changes made in the rewrite? I can't quite argue with that.
But... because the old mozilla could have been rewritten just like the rewrite, if we like the new rewritten browser, it's because we've been brainwashed? It's that part that doesn't follow for me.
Right. I do like Firefox, and so I use that rather than the Mozilla suite. I also prefer Windows XP to Windows 3.1, and I prefer OSX to System 8. I even prefer the most up-to-date version of OSX than 10.0. Generally, I do find that there are advantages to using up-to-date software. Now, it isn't always the case, but usually, when I upgrade to the newest version of whatever software I'm using, I find that the new version is improved in at least a few meaningful ways. Sometimes I've had to go through a PITA migration period, but it usually ends up being worth it (in my experience) to stay up-to-date.
A few bugs aside, I've found Firefox to be a worthwhile upgrade. I understand you disagree and, though I'm not trying to tell you that you can't disagree, I find your distinction between "end users" and "power users" to be problematic. Often, self-proclaimed "power users" end up using the term "end user" to be a euphemism for "stupid know-nothings", while these "power users" are, in fact, simply users who suffer from a strange form of OCD that requires them to tweak computers endlessly with little or no result.
Perhaps that's not what you meant, but even (or especially) smart people who use their computers for real tasks can understand the value of consolidating and reorganizing cluttered interfaces to provide easy access to commonly-used settings.
Again, maybe this is a function of me being a clueless user, but I don't see that. Take KDE and Gnome as an example... these are two *very* separate and competing projects being developed in parallel by different groups. Firefox, however, *is* the new Mozilla browser. Sure, it's very different, and has been through a massive re-write (which is why I originally compared it to Windows 3.1 vs. XP or really old Linux kernels), but it's been groomed during the past couple years *specifically* to replace the old Mozilla browser. I know, it started out as a different project, but Mozilla took it on and announced that the standalone apps would *replace* the Mozilla suite-- I don't remember when, but over a year ago. They continued to develop the old version while the stand alone apps were still in beta, but now Firefox and Thunderbird are both >1.0.
While it makes a lot of sense to me to continue to maintain old products for a while, in order to support users who haven't moved on yet, I'd still think that, eventually, people need to move on. I still don't see why we shouldn't view the stand-alone apps as the new, upgraded Mozilla suite, especially considering that was the MoFo's intention. If you want to branch the old version and make a competing browser, then that would be the new, competing/alternate product.
But I guess it's all in how you look at it.
Correction: it's had a long line of *really cool names*.
I didn't say it was like "users" complaining that MS wasn't putting enough resources into Windows 3.1, I said it was like "people" complaining, and I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that developers are people. Anyway, I would assume that the developers are users, or else why would they complain? I mean, they're users of a sort. Or are you saying people who work on Mozilla, who don't use it at all for anything, are annoyed because they don't get to work on it anymore?
Now, I'm in no position of authority, but my personal suggestion to developers would be that, if you love Seamonkey but not Firefox, then move over to Firefox and work on it in order to fix what you believe to be its shortcomings. Sure, you can spin off the old suite and continue working on it, but I would hope you'd have a reason why besides merely "loving" it.
I don't know, maybe it's because I'm just a clueless user who likes Firefox better, but the whole thing seems a little strange. To me, it'd be comparable to developers being upset that all the development on the linux kernel is going into the 2.6 branch, and no one's paying enough attention to the 1.4 branch anymore. Because they "love" that branch. I mean, fine, if you want to spend your time back-porting improvements to old versions, go ahead. But it seems strange to me.
What is being suggested is to spin off the suite into a community driven project rather than one handled by the MoFo.
Actually, I did read the article. The user comment said, "You Firefox boys start a separate foundation -- 'The Firefox Foundation'." Now, a lot of this argument ends of being about technicalities, and not about whether people can continue to develop the old suite. I totally agree that if there's a community that wants to continue to develop Seamonkey, then they have every right to do so. If someone wants to take Mozilla in a totally new direction, they can do that too. That doesn't require some sort of a "spin off" by the MoFo, it just requires that the community pick up the source code and start working.
But I have heard people before comment (the user cited in the article isn't the only one) that Mozilla is somehow at fault for deciding to focus on a Firefox/Thunderbird/Sunbird suite instead of developing Seamonkey more. Sort of a "The MoFo is for the old suite. If you want a 'Firefox Foundation', go start one, but get Firefox out of the Mozilla Foundation!" attitude. Clearly these people favor the old suite, which is fair, but they [at least] seem to be in the minority of those who actually use Mozilla based software.
Also, the idea of naming it the "Firefox Foundation" is a little silly. It's not all Firefox, but it is focused on Mozilla-based products, which should eventually all tie together into a new Mozilla suite. "The Mozilla Foundation" is an appropriate name.
But why would I want an IRC client built in to my browser anyhow? I mean sure, I could also build an office suite, photo-management software, an MP3 player, a DVD player, scanner software, a Pac-man game, and everything other app I could possibly want into the same executable, and if I ran all of them at once, it might be a more efficient use of memory resources (though. Still, it seems to me that it's a better approach to only put things together in the same application if they're related tasks.
Really, the biggest difference in Firefox is it shuts up the people who want to be able to download just a browser without the other stuff, but who also refuse to use the Mozilla net installer. If you used the Suite's net installer, you've always been able to tell it not to download the extra junk, but there's a large portion of people that liked to ignore the net installer and then bitch about being forced to download and install the parts they don't want.
Now where on the Mozilla website is the net installer for OSX? I've looked around a bit, and if it's there, they sure are putting it in a non-obvious place.
Ok, then I'm only as blind and stupid as you need to be in order to not-get the joke.
Not that I'm an insider and know for myself. I only know what publicly available on their website.
Sure, sure.... I used to run Galeon (spelling?) on Gnome, Camino on OSX, and Firefox on Windows, merely because I like consistency in my interfaces. However, ever since Firefox began looking native on all three, I pretty much stick with Firefox (and sometimes safari) and it's very nice to have the same browser on whatever OS you choose without it ever looking out-of-place.
It seems like the Mozilla Foundation made a decision that they preferred the Firefox development model. Firefox, Thunderbird, and Sunbird are set to be the *new* Mozilla suite, and the old one is in maintenance mode. It seems like this is comparable to people complaining that Microsoft isn't putting enough development into Windows 3.1.... Well, yeah, it's the old product that they've discontinued.
Now, it's all open source, so if someone wants to work on it, go ahead. But why people are trying to convince the Mozilla foundation to offload their new, exciting, successful, popular line-up of software and head back to what's become a bit of a dead-end, I don't know.
- Firefox is faster- I haven't tried it in a while, but at least a couple years ago, when I made the switch, Firefox loaded faster, and seemed generally more lightweight
- Firefox is prettier- totally a matter of opinion, but it seems to be the majority opinion that Firefox has a better interface all around
- Firefox's Extensions- I'm not a developer, but people seem to think that Firefox's extension system is easier, more flexible, and generally better than any means to alter/add-on to the Mozilla suite. (don't know much about it though)
- the Mozilla suite seemed stagnant- this is an issue of perception, but I've talked to a number of people that thought the Mozilla suite has a clunky interface from 10-15 years ago (it still looked like Netscape 4). The mere appearance of 'newness' was enough to get some people excited. Along these lines, the Firefox people have done a better job of making Firefox look native on various operating systems
- breaking Mozilla suit up made sense for development- eh, it's arguable, but many people seem to believe that breaking the suite up into its components (browser, e-mail, calendar, chat, composer, etc.) would make it possible for each individual component to progress faster. Besides giving people the ability to pick and choose the components they wanted, and increasing the efficiency of the resources used by not including components that people weren't going to use, there's the idea that breaking some of the interdependencies between components will allow developers to do, for each component, what is best and will make the most sense, without needing to worry as much about the effect on other components. The rapid progress of both Firefox and Thunderbird seems to indicate that there's something to it.
So that's what I can think of off hand. Personally, I'm not sure why a web browser ever had a e-mail program and HTML editor and chat all built into it anyway. Sure, make a suite, distribute them all together, but why make them all part of the same program?Anyway, a complaint against Microsoft for that makes sense to me, and that's what was (to my knowledge) origin of the term "Microsoft tax", in that they were taxing OEMs for doing business rather than charging them for licenses.
A complaint against Palm for not selling PDAs without PalmOS? Oh, shoot, it's also hard to buy a cell phone without address-book software already installed! And try finding a television without a power cord or remote. I wanted to build my own, cooler, remote control, but they're going to charge me for the included remote anyhow!
Yeah, I think some of this is just a matter of the market for products that don't function out-of-the-box is much smaller that for products that function out-of-the-box, and most large vendors don't want to spend much time and effort going after that small market.
/royal wit cheese
Well, whole numbers, not integers, right? I don't remember a -2.-3.-5 release....
FYI: 2.10==2.1 when 2.10 is a decimal. If it's a version number, 2.10!=2.1. Well, at least depending on your numbering convention. Some people treat version numbers like decimals, but many do not. Gnome (and Apple, and the Linux kernel), use a whole number point-release system (my terminology, made up on the spot). So how that works is, when you want to divide releases, you put a point (not a decimal) and at another whole number. Therefore, 2.6.1 falls under version 2.6, as does 2.6.7. 2.6.10 comes directly after and is an upgrade on 2.6.9 in the same way that 2.6.7 comes after 2.6.6.
So 10.0 comes way after 1.0, 10.10 comes a while after 10.1, 10.10.10 comes a few patches after 10.1.1. If we wanted to further sub-divide, 10.10.10.10 would come directly after 10.10.10.9. (but that would look too much like an IP address, so maybe that's why nobody divides that far, but instead seem to label releases "r1" or "rc1" or "beta" or whatever. I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea.
Also FYI, in both gnome and the linux kernel, there's another thing to know about their versioning scheme: even and odd numbered 0.x releases should probably not be thought of as upgrades on each other. I thought that might have been the source of confusion, seeing as the list 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 2.10 skips the odd .x releases. The reason for that is, odd .x releases are development branches, and not everything in the 2.9 branch automatically goes into the 2.10 branch. Only the new features that are stable and ready make it. Some things might be dropped, and other things might be carried over to the 2.11 branch for further work.
Now, I know a lot of what I've just written is well known to a lot of people here, but part of my confusion (thinking I was missing something) came from assuming that this was common knowledge, which I guess maybe it isn't. Or was the OP trying to be funny?
Personally, as far as DEs go, my preference is for OSX. However, I also run Ubuntu (Gnome) on my Dell at work, and I'm quite happy with it. If there were some reason why it made sense to drop OSX and run Linux/Gnome on my Powerbook, I doubt the change would really bother me. However, if I *had* to run a Linux app, I'd probably look to fink before I wiped my OSX install.
Bla bla bla.... I don't say this because I really think you care about my preferences, but more to indicate that a lot of this *is* preference. Whether you want to run Linux or OSX on Apple hardware depends on what you like and what you need, and though I doubt everyone on earth is scrambling to buy an iPod with YDL pre-installed, I'll admit that I might try installing YDL on my iPod when the new version becomes available for free.
Oh, I don't know, but not every Linux app is ported to Darwin, and maybe someone only wants to run Linux apps. I know if I had Mac hardware and only wanted to run OpenOffice and Evolution and the GIMP, I'd get rid of OSX and install Linux, just 'cause it's easier to get those working, and the interfaces would be more at home in Gnome than OSX (I like consistency).
Anyway, that doesn't necessarily tell you why you'd want to boot into Linux from an external hard drive, but I bet someone wants it. Actually, now that I think about it, I've tried installing Linux on my iPod to try it out (I thought it'd be easier than making a dual-boot system) so I don't think it's too weird.
(And yes, I used 2.8, I'm using 2.10, and there are more changes that a single alteration to the way window focus is handled.)
However, and I know this is off-topic, (and as soon as I hit submit, I'm sure I'll get flamed by someone) but if you're looking for something like Linux, but more polished and consistent, with an easier way to install apps, you might want to at least consider looking at OSX as a possibility.
/anything to avoid the evil empire?
I know you're joking, but isn't that the purpose of this sort of point-release? Polish/stabilize what's there? I mean, if it had a bunch of exciting new features, wouldn't it be 3.0?
So, yeah, the answer is no.
erm... Maybe I'm blind or stupid. What's wrong?