11–20 of 59 posts
So Mozilla's fully open "Boot to Gecko" will power the carriers walled garden "fully closed" wet dreams?
The main thing is B2G is COMPETITION!
Much in the same way that Firefox rocked the IE boat, B2G should hopefully offer a sound alternative to iOS/Android.
As much as I appreciate the efforts to build a successful, truly open mobile OS, the "browser as an OS" approach is an incredibly dumb idea. It's another step away from general purpose computing, and I don't like this direction one bit. Some people here on HN might not really want to hear this, but web apps aren't the future . You just fundamentally cannot put everything on the web. It works for incredibly simple thi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a lot of inaccuracies in the article and that's one of them. There's also this: > Basically, B2G is just a cut-down version of Linux that automatically loads Firefox; basically, it’s like Chrome OS, but lower tech. How is it "lower tech"?
Heya; I wrote the story. I agonized about leaving in that 'lower tech' bit. Basically, B2G is built on the Android kernel. Chrome OS has a ton of security features that aren't present in Android. By 'lower tech', I mean that B2G won't have Chrome OS's verified boot, double sandbox, and other tweaks like that. (Though I suppose B2G could have those eventually!)
Chrome OS was about building (a desktop computer) around the web as it exists today whereas B2G is about building (a mobile phone) around the web as it will (hopefully) exist in the future.
Side note: I hope "Boot to Gecko" won't be the official name of the OS. First, most users don't know what booting is or what Gecko is. Second, it will be awkward to use an imperative phrase as a noun. "This phone has Boot to Gecko." "Did you see that game for Boot to Gecko?" Very awkward. GeckoOS might be OK; something inspired by the word "gecko" would be better still. A quick look at the Wikipedia article suggests…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heya; I wrote the story. I agonized about leaving in that 'lower tech' bit. Basically, B2G is built on the Android kernel. Chrome OS has a ton of security features that aren't present in Android. By 'lower tech', I mean that B2G won't have Chrome OS's verified boot, double sandbox, and other tweaks like that. (Though I suppose B2G could have those eventually!)
It's odd that you would equate different design goals with being "lower tech". By the same criteria Android is a lower tech than Chrome OS. Chrome OS was about building (a desktop computer) around the web as it exists today whereas B2G is about building (a mobile phone) around the web as it will (hopefully) exist in the future.
I don't think you can compare Android to B2G. But yeah, perhaps I should say 'simplified' rather than 'low tech' :)
Side note: I hope "Boot to Gecko" won't be the official name of the OS. First, most users don't know what booting is or what Gecko is. Second, it will be awkward to use an imperative phrase as a noun. "This phone has Boot to Gecko." "Did you see that game for Boot to Gecko?" Very awkward. GeckoOS might be OK; something inspired by the word "gecko" would be better still. A quick look at the Wikipedia article suggests…
The UI layer is already called Gaia, I would assume that's what they'll refer to the product when speaking to end-users.
The part that scares me most is the thought that Mozilla is willing to give any power back to the carriers. I do not want this, not in a million years. I'll take Apple's walled garden over AT&T's heap of shit, any day of the week.
Conversely, taking power away from someone is usually why you keep the system closed.
As much as I appreciate the efforts to build a successful, truly open mobile OS, the "browser as an OS" approach is an incredibly dumb idea. It's another step away from general purpose computing, and I don't like this direction one bit. Some people here on HN might not really want to hear this, but web apps aren't the future . You just fundamentally cannot put everything on the web. It works for incredibly simple thi…