Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Whither Mozilla?

By anaesthetica in Internet
Tue May 15, 2007 at 02:22:42 PM EST
Tags: Open Web, Mozilla, Firefox, XULRunner, Adobe, Apollo, Microsoft, Silverlight, Sun, JavaFX (all tags)

The Mozilla community has been both shaken and energized by the announcement of three rich internet application frameworks to be released by Microsoft, Adobe, and Sun. Just as Firefox has begun to make headway in the Browser Reconquista, the possibility of a closed, proprietary web seems to loom ahead.

With Mozilla 2 kicking off, anxieties about the future of the open web and what Mozilla has to do to keep it open are growing more acute. The question is now whether focusing too greatly on Firefox's successes is in fact myopic and preventing Mozilla from working on the next generation of web technologies.

Three groups have emerged in the ensuing debate. Chris Messina fired a shot across the bow with a lengthy complaint about Mozilla and its undue focus on Firefox instead of the broader open web platform. Mozilla Corporation employees have been busy doing damage control, emphasizing that Firefox does not need to worry about proprietary rivals, and that XULRunner ought to be platform enough. Finally, some Mozilla developers are beginning to think that the variety of projects will never receive the support they need, because Mozilla Corporation sees Firefox as the be-all-and-end-all of its strategic horizon.


Mozilla 2.0 vision

Firefox 3.0 is well on its way in the development process, with Alpha 5, the first to include high-risk changes, set for release in about two weeks time. Based on Gecko 1.9, Firefox 3.0 will presumably be the last major release before Mozilla 2. Brendan Eich's vision, spelled out about seven months ago, calls for simplified APIs, updated Javascript, replacing XPCOM with C++ exceptions wherever possible ("deCOMtamination"), and improved security. He concludes with,

[M]uch of what I wrote here, much of my work in Mozilla, is focused on the platform, yet I noted above that we always put apps such as Firefox first, and do not claim to be "a platform" for everyone. In spite of this, people are building apps such as Songbird on top of XULRunner. So what are we, platform or app? The answer is "both, in a virtuous cycle".

Mozilla outflanked?

Chris Messina, a former Flock developer and SpreadFirefox volunteer, posted a 50-minute vlog enumerating his concerns about Mozilla's direction. His discussion centered around Mozilla 2 potentially missing the forest for the trees and becoming overly focused on the short-term successes that Firefox has enjoyed, while failing to outrun the proprietary flanking actions being undertaken by Adobe and Microsoft for the "next generation" internet technologies.

Messina points to Microsoft's Silverlight, Adobe's Apollo, and Sun's JavaFX, all of which are billed as frameworks for the creation of rich internet applications. Missing from this list of companies is Mozilla Corporation, which has no rich internet application vision, nor any publicly-outlined competing vision.

On a broader level, Messina desires a wider, longer-term view of where Mozilla Corporation is headed, not just a roadmap for Firefox 3.0. Idealistic ideas about openness dominate his discussion: Mozilla Wifi, a Mozilla application ecosystem, Mozilla code repository, Mozilla social networking, and outreach to developers about upcoming standards. His position on broadening Mozilla's efforts and reaching for bigger goals are premised on the idea that the browser is a commodity item, not something that motivates average users, and that browser marketshare isn't the most valuable turf to be fighting for.

Upcoming features and the competition

Another two recent pieces, not explicitly written as responses to Messina, nonetheless rebut some of the concerns he voiced.

Richard McManus at Read/WriteWeb writes about Mozilla and microformats. Responding to a Web 2.0 Expo presentation by Alex Faaborg, his central concern is what the adoption of microformats and will mean for Mozilla's position. McManus disputes Messina's assertion that "Firefox is not an information broker." Indeed, the move from information access to information subscription to information manipulation is actually useful to normal people, whereas creating the best open source development platform is a worthy goal but not one of immediate utility. Being an information broker, according to McManus, is thus a step in the right direction in competing against Microsoft, Adobe, and Sun.

Meanwhile, Mike Shaver, technology strategist for Mozilla, has posted his own discussion of Adobe and Microsoft's proprietary tools and what they will mean for Mozilla. His conclusion? Not much. Proprietary development tools ("toolchain bait"), in his opinion, will consistently fail against competitors that allow you do what you like with your own applications. Mark Pilgrim essentially agrees.

(In a separate blog post, Shaver directly addresses Messina's vlog, whining about it being bleeding-heart "performance art.")

Firefox only?

Ben Goodger, lead Firefox developer, reports on a Mozilla Corporation board member, Brendan Eich, essentially writing off the non-Firefox products offered by Mozilla.

Goodger concludes that Mozilla projects other than Firefox might decide that it's a better strategic move to seek greater autonomy from Mozilla Corporation. Why settle for table scraps from the "Firefox Corporation"? Mike Pinkerton, lead developer of Camino, caught flack a couple months ago when he opened the possibility of dropping Gecko for WebKit. While Pinkerton's principal concerns about code structure/focus (poor architecture, bloat, XPCOM, heavy focus on Windows, steep learning curve) ought to be addressed in part by the cleanup of Mozilla 2, the systemic bias against a 1% browser on a 4% operating system will continue to keep Camino at the margins without a sea change in Mozilla Corporation's outlook.

What is Mozilla?

The answer to the question of Mozilla's direction seems dependent on what one sees as the proper goals of Mozilla. Is Mozilla simply a browser company? Is it broader than that: a platform for internet applications? Or broader still, as the central front and last best hope for a free and open web?

Brendan Eich's cold-hearted realism about the distribution of Mozilla's resources seems to be the correct mentality. It would be a tremendous abrogation of Mozilla Corporation's responsibility to its contributors, just as Firefox has achieved a significant marketshare, to take the company's eye off the ball. Thirteen percent in the U.S. is significant, but there's still a ways to go. If that means that also-rans like Camino, Songbird, and even Thunderbird receive a place at the table but no support, so be it. Of course, this position presupposes that browser turf is still valuable and still worth fighting for. Given that Firefox's success was responsible for Microsoft reconstituting the IE team after it having been disbanded for several years, it seems that, at the very least, Mozilla's competitors deem it valuable turf.

It is unclear that Apollo, Silverlight, and JavaFX will become anything more than the next Flash or AJAX. Both are in common usage and present hurdles for an open web, but neither represents a strategic threat to the continued viability of openness and non-proprietary development. The utility of simple markup and reams upon reams of text remains clear, and indeed this remains the obvious format for nearly every significant website, whether corporate or personal. Moreover, the fate of walled garden approaches to the web is written on the wall (how are Compuserve, Prodigy, and AOL doing with their subscriber-only content?).

Mozilla the platform

Winifred, CEO of Mozilla Corporation, announced two days ago that, more than a browser, Mozilla is a platform. While this does not sate the hunger of more idealistic open source advocates, such as Messina, and would seem to contradict Eich's admission that non-Firefox projects won't get much investment, it seems like XULRunner will remain a vital part of Mozilla.

The plan breaks down as follows:

  1. XUL will continue to be invested in and developed
  2. XULRunner will be invested in insofar as it serves Firefox
  3. Non-Firefox XUL applications will receive "targeted investments" (i.e. table scraps)
  4. XULRunner will not be developed as a standalone runtime environment

Previously she voiced clear-cut opposition to increasing the Foundation's focus on the platform alone while de-emphasizing the browser. Shaver, in a follow-on post, says that he expects there will be a self-supporting XULRunner community, just like there is a self-supporting SeaMonkey community, neither of which does or will receive direct investment from Mozilla.

Mozilla-as-a-platform seems to be the exact wrong approach to a strategic end run around Adobe and Microsoft. Mozilla cannot compete with similar web-application technologies. No one likes using XUL (a point made by Messina), and the removal of XPCOM on the road to Mozilla 2 is ongoing. More fundamentally, Siracusa has made a parallel point about the differing competencies of corporate versus open source projects. Mozilla lacks the corporate authority to make a rich internet application framework able to rival Apollo, Silverlight, or JavaFX, and they know it. But Mozilla certainly can outrun its rivals in demonstrating the superior utility of open formats--HTML, CSS, DOM, and open structures like RSS and Microformats--relative to proprietary options. Advogato seems to think that JavaScript will be the development tool of choice (recall that Mozilla 2 will feature a JS2 VM).

Rich internet applications, proprietary and closed, will be a niche reality Mozilla is forced to deal with. It behooves Mozilla to gain more Firefox marketshare (and therefore a position significant enough that corporations will not accept solutions that are IE-only) before these technologies are used to make mainstream web-app offerings. But these web-apps will not dominate the vast majority of the content on the web, which will remain for the foreseeable future, text-based.

Eich's waffling about whether Mozilla is a browser or a platform and Messina's wish to see a Mozilla "environment" are misplaced. Mozilla Foundation's half-measure of sort-of supporting XULRunner is a step in the right direction, but really, what are they hedging their bets for? In view of the strategic non-threats of rich internet applications, and the lack of any other XUL-based applications catching media attention or community enthusiasm, Mozilla should "double down on Firefox". Messina is right that Mozilla should go to Washington on behalf of an open web, but it shouldn't do so as a dispenser of charity for open-source projects. It should arrive in a position of strength, as the producer of the browser that all Senators' kids are using.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Mozilla's priorities should be:
o Focus on Firefox, drop financing for everything else 22%
o Focus on Firefox, support other projects capable of catching media attention 27%
o Spread the financial support through all major projects 13%
o Spend our mounds of cash on making a platform, with Firefox as the media-friendly demonstration of the technologies 13%
o Milk Firefox for all it's worth, spend money on developing the next big thing 13%
o What's Mozilla? Is that some kind of Japanese thing? I watched Cowboy Bebop once, but I don't really like anime 9%

Votes: 22
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Mozilla 2 kicking off
o Mozilla 2
o Brendan Eich
o Chris Messina
o vlog enumerating his concerns about Mozilla's direction
o Silverligh t
o Apollo
o JavaFX
o Mozilla and microformats
o microforma ts
o Mike Shaver
o discussion of Adobe and Microsoft's proprietary tools
o Mark Pilgrim
o agrees
o directly addresses Messina's vlog
o Ben Goodger
o reports
o writing off the non-Firefox products
o Mike Pinkerton
o dropping Gecko for WebKit
o Thirteen percent in the U.S.
o Winifred
o Mozilla is a platform
o XULRunner
o XUL
o opposition to increasing the Foundation's focus on the platform alone
o self-suppo rting XULRunner community
o differing competencies of corporate versus open source projects
o superior utility of open formats
o JavaScript will be the development tool of choice
o JS2
o double down on Firefox
o Also by anaesthetica


Display: Sort:
Whither Mozilla? | 64 comments (46 topical, 18 editorial, 2 hidden)
chris messina (2.50 / 4) (#1)
by The Lady In The Radiator on Mon May 14, 2007 at 07:07:27 PM EST

what did he actually do? on his vlog he goes on about "designer and admin?"


so i'll have to -1 (2.00 / 2) (#24)
by The Lady In The Radiator on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:11:01 AM EST

since you're linking to some dude who is a marketing guy and not a developer of mozilla.


[ Parent ]
Remember: make best apps that fools can use (1.40 / 5) (#5)
by United Fools on Mon May 14, 2007 at 08:00:38 PM EST

and you will win!

We are united, we are fools, and we are America!
You need to focus on security and performance (2.14 / 7) (#12)
by Thought Police OMalley on Mon May 14, 2007 at 10:59:38 PM EST

of the Mozilla software. For example, there are a lot of exploits in Javascript and HTML code that Mozilla needs to fix in Firefox. At times the web browser can be slow and unresponsive while waiting for a web page to load over a slow connection, and the stop button doesn't work because the mouse cursor is locked in an hourglass and Firefox does not respond until the web site responds with some data. It is a major flaw in Firefox that needs to be fixed.

I think you ought to also mention there are a lot of web sites designed for Internet Explorer 6.0 and above, and refuse to work with Firefox or any other browser. Under Linux and other Unix operating systems, Internet Explorer is not an option to use, and Firefox needs to be able to render the HTML tags that IE renders as well as the standard HTML 4.0 tags that Firefox is built for as well. Then you just get a user agent switcher extension (which should be built into Firefox IMHO) and you can visit the IE only web site, unless it uses VBScript and/or ActiveX.

FireFox and The Spinning Pizza Of Death (3.00 / 7) (#15)
by MichaelCrawford on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:39:26 AM EST

FireFox is also a huge memory hog. Before I upgraded my RAM, I had 512 MB on my MacBook Pro, which should have been enough for anyone. But if I tried to run Parallels - even with its RAM allocation set low - at the same time as FireFox, I'd get the spinning cursor for like a minute whenever I switched between them.

It took a gig more RAM to be able to run Parallels and FireFox together. Considering that I first learned GUI programming on a Mac 512k (that's "kilobytes" for you young'uns), well, it just ain't right.


Looking for some free songs?


[ Parent ]

QUIT COMPLAININ GRAMPA - (3.00 / 3) (#17)
by insomnyuk on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:12:26 AM EST

HERE IN FUTURELAND WE DO THINGS IN MEGABYTES AND GIGABYTES, AND WE AREN'T BAREFOOT, UPHILL, IN THE SNOW NEITHER.

---
"There is only one honest impulse at the bottom of Puritanism, and that is the impulse to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness." - H.L. Mencken
[ Parent ]
Kids these days don't know how to write fast code (3.00 / 7) (#18)
by MichaelCrawford on Tue May 15, 2007 at 02:01:43 AM EST

Mac OS 9 on my 150 MHz PowerMac 8500 was a damn sight faster than Mac OS X Tiger on my 1.83 GHz Core Duo MacBook Pro.

I paid for all those gigahertz dammit, and I want them doing useful work, not spinning pizza dough for Steve Jobs.


Looking for some free songs?


[ Parent ]

Tiger is a memory hog by itself (none / 1) (#27)
by b1t r0t on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:30:35 AM EST

I think it's the fault of Dashboard and Spotlight. OS X will always be slow if you don't have enough RAM, but Tiger raises the RAM bar. You really need at least a full gigabyte if you want to use Tiger for anything serious.

Meanwhile, I have a pair of Blue & White G3s on the low end, one running 10.3 as an internet server, another running 10.4 as a "random box with my ancient files that I can VNC in to". (It runs Tiger to index those ancient files.) The former is full of RAM, the latter isn't (yet, because I haven't gotten around to opening it up lately).

-- Indymedia: the fanfiction.net of journalism.
[ Parent ]

Back in the salad days of the Macintosh (none / 0) (#57)
by Thought Police OMalley on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:14:18 PM EST

they used assembly, Pascal, and C programming. Before OOP was used, things were small in size and ran fast as programs.

OSX uses Objective C and C++ and compiles larger code sizes and uses objects and OOP which eat up more CPU cycles and memory. Keep in mind that half of OSX is based on *BSD Unix code and the other half is based on Mac OS9 code with some Next Openstep code added in plus Aqua, Cocoa, and some other things that Apple threw in. Giving OSX a huge memory footprint and not leaving Firefox any room in memory unless you got at least a gigabyte of RAM or more.

[ Parent ]

Wired agrees with you (1.50 / 1) (#58)
by Thought Police OMalley on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:11:25 PM EST

Apparently they think Firefox is bloated as well and that it needs to be trimmed.

When I read that article, I thought of you.

[ Parent ]

I have never had any problems with Firefox. (none / 0) (#33)
by dakini on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:47:38 AM EST

It has worked quite well for me.

" May your vision be clear, your heart strong, and may you always follow your dreams."
[ Parent ]
Parallels is the problem (none / 0) (#56)
by Thought Police OMalley on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:09:56 PM EST

it needs 512M of RAM just to run Windows XP at a decent speed. If you only had 512M on your MacBook, it ate up 256M of RAM, leaving OSX with 256M to work with and Parallels with 256M to work with to run XP half-assed.

Try running Firefox for OSX without Parallels and see what happens.

I have XP with 512M of RAM on an AMD Durion 1.6 Ghz system and it works great. It is just slow to load up, being that it has a 10M footprint but if you choose quickload it stays resident in memory so it loads faster.

Even at 512M of RAM, XP runs a bit slow, and it runs faster with 1G of RAM.

[ Parent ]

Pump the Web ... (2.00 / 8) (#30)
by Peahippo on Tue May 15, 2007 at 09:21:06 AM EST

... and get a result even worse than my mixing of metaphors.

Rich Internet applications? We have those now, with Java, and with a bit of a contribution of Flash. The Web is largely unchanged by the presence of Java. Javascript is much more omnipresent. So, missing the impact of a single company's killer app, Korporate Amerika resorts to hype once again.

A significant part of modern hype is to change something only for the purpose of producing a new name or aspect of the same old thing. The OSI model works perfectly fine. We have perfectly functional stuff at each layer. What on earth will changing the application layer really do? Will we start seeing stuff in colors never seen by man? Will we hear sounds out of the Human range? Has Microsoft finally achieved the piece of software code that can communicate with Human minds via telepathy? No, no, and most certainly NO.

This "new thing" will only deliver the same stuff to our computers through different, more bloated software, probably under more restrictions arbitrarily set by the controlling companies. Please note restrictions = unmotivation.

On top of all this, our "rich Internet apps" available through Java for years simply haven't been universally adopted. We already live in the future, rich-app-wise. Could it be -- I ask rhetorically -- that the web is already delivering as well as it can, already? Could it be that it's not the quality of the spigot, but the size of the pipe, that really determines how unusable the web is today?

So, much like Egil, anaesthetica fails it. Corporation propaganda like this is about as tired and frequent as are the periodic claims that Apple Computer is going down, honestly, we mean it this time, really, c'mon, why don't you believe us?


you fail it (2.00 / 2) (#32)
by bunk on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:23:32 AM EST

the idea that everyone should give up on rich internet app technologies because they are presently only a niche is just plain wrong

do you seriously want to continue with the crappy, broken web technologies we have today?

the winning solution will be open, because as you say restrictions = unmotivation; and mozilla corp could be the open source friendly org to produce it


hunger strike + bong hits = super munchies -- horny smurf
[ Parent ]

Time to De-Bunk It (1.50 / 4) (#34)
by Peahippo on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:21:58 PM EST

Look, cockspring, did I say "give up on it"? No, I just pointed out that bringing out more bloated forms of the same software is a pathetic pursuit.

Only fuckknobs like yourself -- constantly fellating crapware producers -- think that today's web technologies are "crappy" and "broken". There's a lot you can do, and we ARE DOING, with such a web. Sorry if the usage-maintenance period of a mature technology isn't as sexy as you thought it should be.

People like you fail it when you don't see how sexy this MILF is as she is. We live in the future already. I can send a fucking email around the world in moments. I can upload, download, and store the equivalent of entire libraries. I can become conversant in any topic much more easily than before. So ... instead of whining about how "crappy" all this is, why not use it productively for a goddamn change?

... you assgoblin.


[ Parent ]
yeah nice rant dickwad (none / 0) (#36)
by bunk on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:05:42 PM EST

but cts ain't giving up his crown any time soon

you are truly in denial if you think that the current mish-mash of web technologies is anything better than a barely passable compromise

I don't see how wanting mozilla to focus on producing a good rich app platform is "fellating crapware producers"

the current web is no MILF, a more representative mascot would be the goatse man


hunger strike + bong hits = super munchies -- horny smurf
[ Parent ]

So *you* say ... (2.00 / 3) (#52)
by Peahippo on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:01:58 AM EST

.... as *I* say, all performed on a site we've used for years without a lick of Java to be found in its construction. There's a reason why we don't change the knife, fork, spoon and chopsticks -- some things are entirely good enough and really can't be improved upon in practical terms.

As I said before, Java just doesn't have the market penetration you'd expect, if the web really does have limitations where Java would open them. The current facts oppose your sentiment like a month of Sundays. Since Java is readily available to make the web "better", and it's clearly not being used, then how can you possibly justify some massive project that merely delivers the same platform?

In case your weren't keeping track, I owned the fuck out of you at the first posting. That you continue to deny current reality is sadly amusing. Now, let's hear your "no! no! no!" sophomoric replies ... you jizzcaptain.


[ Parent ]
Your poor impulse control notwithstanding... (none / 0) (#40)
by mirleid on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:38:16 PM EST

...I think that you're missing the point. Yes, we could (and did) play some great games on the Spectrum. Programmers back then did wonders with 16k (remember how the 48k version used to be considered OTT? I do), but still people wanted more. Even though I can still derive some enjoyment out of playing Jet Set Willy or JetPac in this day and age, I like the "bloated" versions better. I like the stupidly high frame rates, texture mapping, directional lighting, etc offered by today's software and hardware.

People will always want bigger, more OTT experiences. Somebody that qualifies the products that deliver that experience "bloatware" is, IMHO, suffering from tunnel vision where technological evolution vis-a-vis people's expectations of "something bigger" is concerned.

Chickens don't give milk
[ Parent ]
And in response ... (1.00 / 3) (#53)
by Peahippo on Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:24:52 AM EST

... to this Q of yours:

"do you seriously want to continue with the crappy, broken web technologies we have today?"

YES ... since these technologies are neither crappy nor broken. I'm having a perfectly acceptable web experience here on K5, for example. I understand that I already live in the future, and therefore want what I have ... and I'm not spending my time wanting what I can't have, which is the platform you content fellators constantly seek.

Bunk, you just got pwned. SRSLY. My pwnpole is in your n00bhole, lubelessly slammin' away. You should change your name to bunkkake, if you know what I mean. Har! What a Web 2.0 pumpin'/pimpin' LOSER you are!


[ Parent ]
Bought the hype (3.00 / 3) (#35)
by anaesthetica on Tue May 15, 2007 at 12:45:16 PM EST

I'm fairly confident that I have not communicated any kind of optimism or excitement about the future of rich internet applications. *I* don't think they're strategically important. Some of the linked discussions do, some don't and dismiss closed solutions just as you do.

Moreover, I quite clear take the same position that you do: rich internet apps are the next flash, and will remain in niche usage. A significant niche that cannot simply be ignored, but a niche nonetheless. The MILF-web (a far better term than "open web" I agree) technologies--HTML, CSS, DOM, Javascript, RSS, Microformats--are certainly going to remain the principle tools and structures for the text-based web.

This is why I reach the conclusion that I do: rich internet apps are not a strategic threat, Mozilla need not be a platform to compete with them, and should double down on Firefox and web standards.

I may fails it, but not out of any misplaced excitement for a shining rich app future.

—I'm the little engine that didn't.
k5: our trolls go to eleven
[A]S FAR AS A PERSON'S ACTIONS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT NOTHING BUT GOOD COMES FROM GOOD AND NOTHING BUT EVIL COMES FROM EVIL, BUT RATHER QUITE FREQUENTLY THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT REALIZE THIS IS IN FACT A MERE CHILD IN POLITICAL MATTERS. max weber, politics as a vocation


[ Parent ]
Er... MILF-web? (none / 0) (#54)
by haflinger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:04:05 AM EST

Obviously somebody is unaware of the pornographic connotations of that acronym.

Bah. Um, I'm not going to say it, but it has to do with mothers.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

MILF-web (none / 1) (#55)
by anaesthetica on Thu May 17, 2007 at 03:08:59 PM EST

MILF-web makes perfect sense.  Those old standards--HTML, CSS, DOM, etc--are like the hot old mom that you still want to shag.

Sure, there are new "BARELY LEGAL JUST TURNED 18" technologies being trotted around by the big corporations.

But really, all you want is your hot old MILF-web technologies.  The structures are still hot.  And the web stays open, just like your mom.

—I'm the little engine that didn't.
k5: our trolls go to eleven
[A]S FAR AS A PERSON'S ACTIONS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT NOTHING BUT GOOD COMES FROM GOOD AND NOTHING BUT EVIL COMES FROM EVIL, BUT RATHER QUITE FREQUENTLY THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT REALIZE THIS IS IN FACT A MERE CHILD IN POLITICAL MATTERS. max weber, politics as a vocation


[ Parent ]
+1 fp (2.20 / 5) (#31)
by circletimessquare on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:11:48 AM EST

because it's a serious article in a sea of drek


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

It is spelled 'dreck'. $ (none / 1) (#37)
by Joe Sixpack on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:18:30 PM EST


---
[ MONKEY STEALS THE PEACH ]
[ Parent ]

Like stuff like that ever bothered CTS...[] (3.00 / 2) (#38)
by mirleid on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:24:38 PM EST



Chickens don't give milk
[ Parent ]
both are acceptable spellings moron nt (none / 0) (#39)
by circletimessquare on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:34:56 PM EST



The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

[ Parent ]
-1 (3.00 / 6) (#41)
by NoControl on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:45:47 PM EST

I was with you until 'vlog'.

I apoligize (3.00 / 7) (#42)
by anaesthetica on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:51:28 PM EST

It felt dirty even typing it. I've been performing castigatory ablution all morning.

—I'm the little engine that didn't.
k5: our trolls go to eleven
[A]S FAR AS A PERSON'S ACTIONS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT NOTHING BUT GOOD COMES FROM GOOD AND NOTHING BUT EVIL COMES FROM EVIL, BUT RATHER QUITE FREQUENTLY THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT REALIZE THIS IS IN FACT A MERE CHILD IN POLITICAL MATTERS. max weber, politics as a vocation


[ Parent ]
He likes it (none / 0) (#62)
by cerberusss on Wed May 30, 2007 at 12:17:05 PM EST

He probably likes it when he's vlogged.

[ Parent ]
Oh come on now! (1.50 / 2) (#43)
by The Lady In The Radiator on Tue May 15, 2007 at 02:09:58 PM EST

Please tell me what Chris Messina has done for Mozilla or associated projects. You listed him as a "developer" and I can't find any development from his end at all.

This is a case of a marketing "consultant" attaching himself to a project and not actually being involved with it. K5, you can do better.


Messina (none / 1) (#44)
by anaesthetica on Tue May 15, 2007 at 02:18:18 PM EST

Messina himself is not terribly important. But with the rate that Mozilla folks have been scrambling around to counter the concerns he raised in his video, at least they think he's worth doing damage control over.

You can palpably sense the anger in Shaver's voice in his blog post addressing Messina's video. Apparently the video is being sent around quite widely, and Shaver is on the receiving end more frequently than he'd like to be:

If people don't stop link-dropping me Chris Messina's performance art, I think I might have to hole up in a mountain cabin with automated weaponry and an ever-declining respect for personal hygiene.

Besides, Messina's just one of the three camps emerging from this anxiety attack about Mozilla's future. Focus on the other two groups if you can't deign to comment on a marketer's views.

—I'm the little engine that didn't.
k5: our trolls go to eleven
[A]S FAR AS A PERSON'S ACTIONS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT NOTHING BUT GOOD COMES FROM GOOD AND NOTHING BUT EVIL COMES FROM EVIL, BUT RATHER QUITE FREQUENTLY THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT REALIZE THIS IS IN FACT A MERE CHILD IN POLITICAL MATTERS. max weber, politics as a vocation


[ Parent ]
I think he's not suitable for this article (none / 1) (#47)
by The Lady In The Radiator on Tue May 15, 2007 at 02:39:03 PM EST

His video is self contradictory. He uses a proprietary codec and claims that he wants people to use a free web that does not involve the use of proprietary standards and software.

It's the first guy you mention and he's a complete poseur just drumming up some advertising for his lecture circuit that involves crap like "unManaging!" lessons.


[ Parent ]

The Foil (none / 0) (#48)
by anaesthetica on Tue May 15, 2007 at 03:01:15 PM EST

His video surely is self-contradictory.  You'll notice how he bemoans the lack of rah-rah spirit for Firefox anymore, but bases the rest of his vision on the premise that browsers are dead technologies and ought to be abandoned to focus on the ecosystem/platform.

But he serves two functions in the article: 1) the Mozilla Corp responses would make less sense if you didn't know who or what they were responding to, and 2) he's a convenient foil, representing the overly ideological and unfocused idealists.

Whether or not he's a poseur doesn't really matter--hell, he's more involved (or was more involved) than any of us will ever be.  I doubt this video will actually serve the purpose of getting him on the lecture circuit.  Only the Mozilla faithful will spend 50 minutes to watch it, and they're not the ones organizing panel discussions at conferences.

—I'm the little engine that didn't.
k5: our trolls go to eleven
[A]S FAR AS A PERSON'S ACTIONS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT NOTHING BUT GOOD COMES FROM GOOD AND NOTHING BUT EVIL COMES FROM EVIL, BUT RATHER QUITE FREQUENTLY THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT REALIZE THIS IS IN FACT A MERE CHILD IN POLITICAL MATTERS. max weber, politics as a vocation


[ Parent ]
Yes well... (none / 1) (#59)
by factoryjoe on Wed May 23, 2007 at 11:40:08 PM EST

I suppose I deserve some good put-downs, and I'll take them as they come. I do agree that I was pretty contradictory in some of my statements... video is certainly not a medium I'm used to.

Regardless, the response has been pretty interesting and I think primarily productive.  I think we'll see interesting developments with MozPAD and Mozilla proper is actually talking about this stuff, which is a good thing as well.

As for the conference circuit jab, it's an ironic remark considering that I was on the selection committee that put together the design track at O'Reilly's recent Web2Expo and I also spoke at the event. I don't think I deserve any special attention for my post, but if you're going to do some roasting, you might check the roastee before flinging the flames. Jes sayin'...

[ Parent ]

Finally a response I care about (none / 0) (#60)
by anaesthetica on Thu May 24, 2007 at 05:03:46 AM EST

Hi Chris Messina!

Kudos for stirring up a hornet's nest.  K5 appreciates a good troll.

Don't sweat the jabs.  (Although Shaver was quite a dick on his blog and in some comments on other blogs).

I'm glad your video provoked a response.  Even if I don't agree with your ideas, it's the type of discussion that needs to be had as Mozilla 2 kicks off.  (I was disappointed at the uninformed, rather brainless response my article got from k5).

—I'm the little engine that didn't.
k5: our trolls go to eleven
[A]S FAR AS A PERSON'S ACTIONS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS NOT TRUE THAT NOTHING BUT GOOD COMES FROM GOOD AND NOTHING BUT EVIL COMES FROM EVIL, BUT RATHER QUITE FREQUENTLY THE OPPOSITE IS THE CASE. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT REALIZE THIS IS IN FACT A MERE CHILD IN POLITICAL MATTERS. max weber, politics as a vocation


[ Parent ]
XUL needs overhauling (2.33 / 3) (#46)
by regeya on Tue May 15, 2007 at 02:28:04 PM EST

I've looked into doing XUL and wasn't overly impressed, though if I had to do by-text-editor GUI development I might. Nevertheless it seems like a mess.

I've seen some stuff recently about adding XUL stuff to JavaScript UI systems to speed up "rich" Web apps, but I can't think that in its present form it'll be terribly popular.


[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]

The 'Rich Internet Application' (2.62 / 8) (#50)
by the77x42 on Tue May 15, 2007 at 04:35:12 PM EST

Microsoft already has this in ActiveX. My hats off to Mozilla for not caring. They shouldn't. Do one thing and do it well, render content according to W3C.

If I need Rich Internet Applications, read: Sloppy Resource Hogs, I will just switch over to the dark side temporarily by using IE Tab.


"We're not here to educate. We're here to point and laugh." - creature
"You have some pretty stupid ideas." - indubitable ‮

lol JavaFX (3.00 / 2) (#51)
by Chewbacca Uncircumsized on Tue May 15, 2007 at 10:52:11 PM EST

One of the developers has a demo on him blog. You click, do you want to download this? Sure. Now how about this? Sure. Java Logo appears. Hey, here it comes, want to download this? Why not. Big white square on screen. Tiny orange-bordered calculator in lower right corner. w00t! I beat my Playstation to bits with a hammer, I don't ever need it again!!1!

Great article. (none / 1) (#61)
by andr0meda on Sun May 27, 2007 at 08:57:25 AM EST


I think the end-conclusion is right, that Mozilla is the main driving force behind the FireFox browser, and in creating FireFox, gave itself a future as a platform to build future applications.  That is the stongest card it has, and it would be a fool to trade it for another..

The fact that there is not a flood of new applications based on Mozilla platform has a lot to do with the relationship with the rest of the open source program.  If you look at how Apache allows projects to crystalize in embrionical forms before accepting and supporting them, and see how Mozilla simply delivers a codebase that is hard to get into, without any set out patht to see your work pay off to the commuity..

If the web v.xyz starts somewhere, it is within FireFox. W3C all the way, and more. The JavaFX solution is once more dead on arrival.  Silverlight is ajax revamped, but has a few nasty entry points through the .NET platform, which could levitate it above the rest of the pack. XULRunner.  Better to keep it as is, and start up something new that addresses the WEB2.0 "requirements", which we all know are still on toddlers ground.. The VisualBasic squize-all-right-in-way is not the best way, we all know..

That said, it must be amuzing for the MSfties to read that the OpenSource community apparently is not strong enough to build and sustain ecosystems around such a potent platform..

Do not be afraid of the void my friend, is it not merely the logical next step?

The Web Is Dead (none / 0) (#63)
by unknownlamer on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 02:45:10 PM EST

The future is Xanadu.

Or distributed CLIM. STAY TUNED SECRET PROJECTS KTHX.


--
<vladl> I am reading the making of the atomic bong - modern science
XUL would be great if it weren't for RDF (none / 0) (#64)
by codeboy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:34:12 AM EST

XUL is so simple and easy to pick up, it makes MXML and XAML look really bad by comparison.  

But then you can't use Mozilla's XUL without having to figure out how RDF works, and RDF is, unfortunately, completely incomprehensible.

Whither Mozilla? | 64 comments (46 topical, 18 editorial, 2 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!