Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“We will end development on Firefox OS for smartphones after the 2.6 release”

discourse.mozilla-community.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: “We will end development on Firefox OS for smartphones after the 2.6 release”

#131

Post by pcwalton »

epoch1970 wrote: post #112
pcwalton wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XUL is insecure legacy tech. There isn't a coherent argument otherwise: XUL is insecure in that it gives addons all the power of the browser, and XUL is legacy, unspecified, single-implementation-wedded XML stuff from the '90s whose functionality has been entirely superseded by HTML at this point. The idea that nothing can be insecure and legacy unless the new alternatives support absolutely everything the old techno…

Is there a list somewhere of which extensions have been deemed "important"? As far as I'm concerned, every single Firefox extension I currently use is important, regardless of what Mozilla thinks of their importance. I also have several extensions that I wrote myself for my own personal use. I'm not looking forward to having to modify them, assuming they'll even work with the new model. This is a good example of the…

There's a tradeoff between keeping legacy code working and deprecating old APIs that are holding the platform back. Keeping all extensions working without changes is essentially incompatible with the migration to a sandboxed, multiprocess browser. Keeping XUL is incompatible with any future migration to a next-generation layout engine. XUL also holds back Gecko development because Gecko essentially has to support two different rendering modes; time spent keeping XUL working is time not spent improving security and performance of the Web stack.

Even if you don't want those architectural improvements, a lot of people do, and I find it hard to blame Firefox for doing what's best for the needs of the majority of its users.

Re: “We will end development on Firefox OS for smartphones after the 2.6 release”

#132

Post by pcwalton »

somebehemoth wrote: post #109
pcwalton wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XUL is insecure legacy tech. There isn't a coherent argument otherwise: XUL is insecure in that it gives addons all the power of the browser, and XUL is legacy, unspecified, single-implementation-wedded XML stuff from the '90s whose functionality has been entirely superseded by HTML at this point. The idea that nothing can be insecure and legacy unless the new alternatives support absolutely everything the old techno…

> ...whose functionality has been entirely superseded by HTML at this point... This is just not true. Not all functionality enabled by XUL can be executed with Web Extensions. Perhaps this will be so in the future. > ...and that's why care is being taken to make sure the important extensions continue to work... Who decides what extensions are "important" and therefore worthy of working in this new "web extensions wor…

> This is just not true. Not all functionality enabled by XUL can be executed with Web Extensions. Perhaps this will be so in the future.

We should be careful to separate XUL-the-layout-system from XPCOM (really, Firefox's XPCOM components). The layout features of HTML and standard CSS have entirely superseded the layout features of XUL in the ways that matter. (There are some exceptions—the tree view control is often cited—but there are lots of HTML substitutes for these things, and XUL has so many problems that on balance the downsides outweigh the upsides at this point.)

What you're actually referring to is the XPCOM components provided by Firefox. It is true that Web Extensions, as of this moment, do not replicate all of that functionality. However, as I said before, that isn't a valid argument that XUL should be kept around forever any more than the fact that 16-bit DOS apps have direct control over the hardware is a valid argument that DOS support should be kept around forever.

> For example, why are Web Extensions mutually exclusive to XUL extensions?

Well, they aren't. But the reason for Web Extensions is to deprecate XUL extensions, and the reason for deprecating XUL extensions is that XUL is legacy, insecure tech.

Re: “We will end development on Firefox OS for smartphones after the 2.6 release”

#133

Post by lbenes »

blux wrote: post #47
pjmlp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just buy plain old dumb TVs, no need to worry about anything. As for FirefoxOS I never understood the point of it. OpenMoko tried to be an open smartphone platform and failed. Nokia did it for Symbian OS with web widgets and it failed. Palm did it with WebOS, with the plus side of allowing C++ bindings for games, and it failed. Android and iOS allow for web widgets and cordova like apps and there usually have bad f…

> I just buy plain old dumb TVs, no need to worry about anything. This is a bit short sighted. In the near future, we will only have 'smart' TVs to chose from.

> we will only have 'smart' TVs to chose from.

Maybe but right now, I just paid almost a $200 premium for 'smart' Samsung TV. Everyone in my family, hates the UI and complained about missing channels compared to our Roku and Chromecast. $35 later and everyone is happy again.

Re: “We will end development on Firefox OS for smartphones after the 2.6 release”

#134

Post by Karunamon »

pcwalton wrote: post #131
epoch1970 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a list somewhere of which extensions have been deemed "important"? As far as I'm concerned, every single Firefox extension I currently use is important, regardless of what Mozilla thinks of their importance. I also have several extensions that I wrote myself for my own personal use. I'm not looking forward to having to modify them, assuming they'll even work with the new model. This is a good example of the…

There's a tradeoff between keeping legacy code working and deprecating old APIs that are holding the platform back. Keeping all extensions working without changes is essentially incompatible with the migration to a sandboxed, multiprocess browser. Keeping XUL is incompatible with any future migration to a next-generation layout engine. XUL also holds back Gecko development because Gecko essentially has to support two…

I'm less worried about the architectural improvements than I am Mozilla's blasé attitude toward making things work - history shows us that MO is to break it and fix things later, rather than releasing something that'll be mostly feature complete on day one.

Re: “We will end development on Firefox OS for smartphones after the 2.6 release”

#135

Post by freehunter »

drdaeman wrote: post #31
paride5745 wrote: post #3

This is a good news. Firefox OS was never a real product, but a PoC. IMHO, Mozilla should absorb the Tor project and focus on Free Web technologies, e.g. a really Free email service and a Free cloud storage service. Yes, I intentionally use capitol F for Free. How to raise money? Freemium model. A good email+cloud storage service, with the optional pay model for using a custom domain. And stop attacking the Linux dis…

> a really Free email service What do you mean, exactly? Service that's Free as in "Free Software"? We have enough of free MTA, MDA and MRA software, and while they can be always improved further there's need to start a new project. There are also a lot of packaging efforts, where anyone can find what they'll be pleased with (from source tarballs to build to one-click "rent a server and provision everything there, pr…

A Gmail that doesn't sniff your emails to serve ads to you or hand them over to the government, that's based on a FOSS project and can be hosted on your own server if you'd like to. Throw in an encryption option and you have a winner.

Re: “We will end development on Firefox OS for smartphones after the 2.6 release”

#136

Post by freehunter »

pjmlp wrote: post #65
izacus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And where do you get those in sizes of 50"+ with proper remotes, color reproduction (HDMI color range!) and other functionality expected from a TV?

A trip down to any consumer store here in Germany?

They have 50 inch computer monitors for $450 with built in TV tuners and speakers at any store in Germany?

Oh wait, if it has a built in TV tuner and speakers, it's just called a television. And we have those at Wal Mart in the US.

Re: “We will end development on Firefox OS for smartphones after the 2.6 release”

#137

Post by yuhong »

cpeterso wrote: post #95
epoch1970 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think at this point that the Firefox brand has been tarnished, unfortunately. For many average users, the term "Firefox" reminds them of the slow browser they used to use before switching to Chrome. For more advanced users, the term "Firefox" reminds them of the browser that includes ads (even if these are being removed), has unnecessary functionality built in (Pocket, Hello), and has undergone questionable UI chan…

When the time comes, I think Mozilla should move on from the Firefox brand to an exciting new browser brand. Mozilla forked Phoenix from SeaMonkey. Microsoft forked Edge from IE. When or if Mozilla can start merging the Servo engine or Electrolysis multi-process support into Firefox might be a good time. (I like the name Servo for the whole browser. :-) Like IE, Firefox has had a hard time shaking its old reputation…

I was thinking of having the two browsers coexist for a while now. Firefox for those who need XUL add-on support, the new Servo-based browser for those who don't.

Re: “We will end development on Firefox OS for smartphones after the 2.6 release”

#138

Post by Dylan16807 »

Karunamon wrote: post #84
Dylan16807 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Version numbers and menu placement have nothing to do with being "nannyish" or data collection. Can you name three good plugins? Removing an insecure legacy tech is not a big problem when the extension API is right there.

I said more nannyish AND chromelike. Three good plugins? Have nine. Here's my plugin load right now: * uBlock * Privacy Badger * HTTPS Everywhere * Calomel SSL Validation * FoxReplace * Vimperator (which used to be Pentadactyl before Mozilla decided that I can't use it anymore[1]) * Noscript * DevEdition theme enabler * 1Password And please spare me the "insecure legacy tech" argument. The new plugin architecture exp…

Oh, you weren't talking about plugins.

The XUL removal is annoying but in theory the new system should be able to support almost everything the old system did. It's not going to be like chrome where you can't even change the tabs.

The extension signing is about the only thing nanny-ish, and they're trying not to restrict people. For the most part it's an automatic scan, they won't block you based on what your extension does, and you can personally use a build that doesn't care about signing. It's not perfect, sometimes there are delays, but they're trying. They don't want to be a massive malware vector.

Re: “We will end development on Firefox OS for smartphones after the 2.6 release”

#139

Post by cpprototypes »

Mozilla/Firefox has a serious issue marketshare issue and it's not clear if they're aware. I'm beginning to see pages that break on Firefox or have warnings that Safari, Chrome, IE must be used. If Firefox doesn't find a way to gain or at least maintain marketshare, they risk becoming irrelevant. Since Firefox is their main revenue, this should be considered a company survival situation. But they're not acting like it.

Re: “We will end development on Firefox OS for smartphones after the 2.6 release”

#140

Post by dang »

Flimm wrote: post #71

Can the mods edit the title? Mozilla officially stopped their development efforts of Firefox OS on smartphones, not the brand in general.

Yes. Sorry that took so long.

The submitted title was "Mozilla officially killed Firefox OS". Submitters: it's against HN's rules to editorialize titles like that. The site guidelines ask you to use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait. Making a title more misleading and more linkbait is the opposite of that.

In this case we changed it to what seems to be the most relevant subtitle. That's ok for submitters to do as well. What's not ok is to make up your own sensational language.

Post reply on HN