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

141–150 of 156 posts

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

#141

Post by dang »

fulafel wrote: post #4

The title is beyond editorializing into the factually incorrect territory, as they are not saying they're killing Firefox OS? The pivot from phones to "connected devices" was already announced before[1] and this is just fleshing out that. The language sounds a lot more like corporate-speak than what Mozilla's external communications usually are, I wonder if this is standard fare or if this team is coming from differe…

Yes. We changed the title. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11037408.

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

#142

Post by somebehemoth »

pcwalton wrote: post #132
somebehemoth wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...whose functionality has been entirely superseded by HTML at this point...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 The layout features of HTML and standard CSS have entirely superseded the layout features of XUL in the ways that matter.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 ofte…

Thank you for explaining the difference between XPCOM and XUL layouts

> 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

I don't think I argued that it should be kept around forever. The point I was refuting was that Web Extensions are ready to replace existing firefox extensions. At some point it will be true that Web Extensions are as capable as existing firefox extensions. At that point deprecating existing extensions make sense (or slightly sooner). Lots of people rely on existing extensions. Taking those extensions away without a real alternative solution is just rude to end users. This move may be past due from a security standpoint, but it is extremely premature from a user experience perspective.

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

#143

Post by matzipan »

sp332 wrote: post #42
matzipan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So which part of replacing the Firefox brand with Iceweasel is coherent branding?

Mozilla wants people to be able to trust the Firefox brand. They don't even use "Firefox" branding on their own nightly or dev builds. They only put it on software that's been through their own QA. So you're free to use the code, but they won't let you put the name or logo on any forks or even builds they haven't signed off on.

That's kinda ironic, cosnidering Firefox OS was a pos.

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

#144

Post by epoch1970 »

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…

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against Firefox improving and evolving.

And I really don't care if Firefox is or isn't using XUL. As a user, that's quite irrelevant to me.

However, as a user of Firefox, I am weary about being put in a position where the extensions I depend on no longer work, and either I don't have any recourse (if what the extensions do is no longer permitted or possible) or the recourse involves a large expenditure of effort on my part (rewriting my own private extensions).

The friction of using Firefox has been steadily increasing over time for me.

At this point, it's only the Firefox-specific extensions I use that keep me from switching to an alternative browser.

I know I'm not alone.

Many in the Firefox community already went through the broken extension experience back around Firefox 5 and we are not eager to go through that again.

If Firefox users do experience problems with these upcoming extension changes, then I fear it will be the last straw for many of us.

And if there's one thing that Firefox and Mozilla really can't afford right now it's to lose more users. There are very few of us, relatively speaking, as it is.

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

#145

Post by Karunamon »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #138
Karunamon wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 extensi…

I can totally understand having an approval process for things they distribute.

I can not understand refusing to let people install their own plugins unless they use some other random build.

What's the actual problem being solved here? If you've already got malware on your machine with the ability to install plugins in the browser, don't you have bigger problems than an unwanted toolbar popping up?

Furthermore, how do you think people are going to react to plugins they use being suddenly switched off, with no recourse, other than downloading, installing, and configuring a new browser? (Which, by the way, misses that critical bit of security, leading back to the "why?" question)

I can tell you how I felt when Pentadactyl stopped working. It's enraging. https://twitter.com/TKWare/status/690580588416339968

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

#146

Post by strcat »

carussell wrote: post #51
lmm wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Debian "objected". Mozilla's trademark rules are not compatible with the DFSG, therefore Debian can't distribute an officially branded Firefox. I do think the ideal thing would be for Mozilla to distribute Firefox packaged in such a fashion that the branding can easily be swapped out (in the same way that e.g. Redhat isolates its trademarked material to a couple of packages and documents exactly what yo…

Two things: 1. It's true that the Debian didn't initiate the schism. Mike Connor (Mozilla) told the Debian folks to stop distributing branded builds that weren't QAd by Mozilla. 2. When doing a build, it has always been trivial to create an unbranded version. Unbranded versions are what you'd get by default. At this point, I haven't run a build in years, but it would be surprising if this weren't still the case.

I don't think it's the case anymore. They used to name the releases and then brand it based on the name. The releases are treated as inconsequential now.

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

#147

Post by guelo »

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.

That seems doubtful. If nothing else price competition should keep barebone TVs available. But also consumer demand for non-smart TVs will exist.

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

#148

Post by Dylan16807 »

Karunamon wrote: post #145
Dylan16807 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 extensi…

I can totally understand having an approval process for things they distribute. I can not understand refusing to let people install their own plugins unless they use some other random build. What's the actual problem being solved here? If you've already got malware on your machine with the ability to install plugins in the browser, don't you have bigger problems than an unwanted toolbar popping up? Furthermore, how d…

We're in a weird world of '''Potentially Unwanted Programs''' that pretend to be something the user wanted while spamming them and collecting info on them. If they can't sneak in, some will give up, and some will patch firefox and become politically easier for anti-malware to kill.

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

#149

Post by elcritch »

majewsky wrote: post #70
CaptSpify wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is hard about it? I've never used it, but have been meaning to for a while. Are there licensing issues? or is it just hard to actually get working?

In version 28 or so they removed the ability to configure Firefox Sync against a custom Sync server. You could continue to use an existing setup but there is no UI for setting up a new one. (all AFAIK)

It's things like this which become annoying. Almost like an old school corporate mentality... despite being an open-source platform. I'm trying to get into using Firefox again but the lack of transparency from Mozilla Inc. is frustrating.

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

#150

Post by pjmlp »

mst wrote: post #124
pjmlp wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A trip down to any consumer store here in Germany?

Given most of us aren't in Germany, what's obvious to you presumably isn't obvious to the people downvoting you. If that's the case, providing links might help.

Why should I provide the links anyway?

The haters will downvote, regardless of what I write.

The others will think that instead of Germany I could have written any European country name, because you just need to get into a regular store to find such dumb TVs.

Post reply on HN