251–260 of 326 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that Servo was more experimental research, with an eye towards possibly being integrated at some point.
Does Firefox have any Rust component at all if Servo is not apparently used at all by it, currently? People have been claiming Firefox components were written in Rust for ages, usually meaning Servo, but it seems now that those claims were just misleading.
Can Servo be used as an Electron replacement?
Could be awesome! But it would need a JS engine.
Be it lisp, WASM, plain old C... It's just functions to call, that change the DOM, CSS properties, load pages, perform computations, call APIs...
Of course, the thing you lose is the hardware and software abstraction layer provided by chromium's javascript APIs. Those could be exported to a select number of languages, it wouldn't be hard for a single dev to create a usable runtime in their language if they are provided with C bindings to the H/SAL...
We've been cagey about this over the months since the Servo team at Mozilla was disbanded, since there were various moving pieces that needed to fall into place. We're excited about the possibility for Servo to continue growing and evolving in its new home, though!
Tangent: is your username in combination with that comment a reference to the Mozilla Lifeboat?
FWIW Mozilla gave up on producing an alternative browser engine years ago, much to the annoyance of its developers. The recently brought out one for Android aka GeckoView, but I doubt if any developers will have some interest in using it.
When Microsoft ports its new Chromium based WebView2 which is currently available on Windows to both desktop Linux and Android I doubt anyone will be interested in GeckoView any more. Mozilla's current role is to enable Google and Microsoft to point out to regulators that there are alternatives to their market dominance and gain some referral revenue in the process. The simple thing is no one is interested in an alternative browser engine from Mozilla because they gave up on that ages ago.
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/ag0ug0/what_is_it_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/9ugy1h/this_week_i...
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/bld586/what_is_you...
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/akovnq/the_leg...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see any irony there; people care about firefox, and there is literally no way to donate money to develop firefox. Maybe donating to the foundation sorta indirectly helps firefox, but a reasonable person could easily view them as mostly unrelated.
Sure, you can donate money to develop Firefox, but it's not a core part of Mozilla's business model to support that. Instead you would need to track down an OSS developer that is either an active contributor, or who is willing to work on Firefox, and then sponsor their work through a number of different contributor pathways. There are Github sponsorships, direct funding, or any of the options here - https://itsfoss.c…
I wish servo would adopt a more permissive license, something like MIT or BSD instead of MPL. I think that existing projects like chromium have a competitive advantage because they have permissive licenses. If the community around servo would like to see more projects like electron built around servo they should consider it.
MPL is a perfectly fine license. It has most of the benefits of permissive licenses (non-virality, worry-free integration with proprietary code) with most of the benefits of copyleft licenses also (changes to the library itself must be public). I fail to see what benefits a more permissive license would bring.
While this is great news on one hand, on the other hand, how could Mozilla manage to lose its browser engine project ? If a web browser company can't even keep its browser engine project, what is really Mozilla working on these days ?
It's really a classic situation, the greenfield project is stopped and the historical "old" project keeps going on.
That's it. Firefox already has big chunks of Servo inside, those aren't going anywhere - without them firefox will be slow again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WebXR is also completely inane. What users are you "shipping" to? A tenth of a tenth of a tenth of a tenth of a percent of internet users? You have a massive effort ahead of you, and you won't get there by chasing distractions. You need to have a singular focus if you're going to accomplish this goal.
It seems more than a bit presumptuous to tell open source maintainers what they “need to” do. If they announced tomorrow they’d decided to focus all their efforts on using Rust to calculate digits of pi, that’s their perogative. As a prolific creator with a strong sense of vision for your projects, I’d have expected this to be obvious.
What I am doing here is not that. I am explaining a fact. If you want to go to the moon, you need a rocket. Building a zero-gee deep fryer to serve hotdogs on the way is not going to get the job done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MPL is a perfectly fine license. It has most of the benefits of permissive licenses (non-virality, worry-free integration with proprietary code) with most of the benefits of copyleft licenses also (changes to the library itself must be public). I fail to see what benefits a more permissive license would bring.
I'd prefer the LGPL to the MPL for projects where a less viral copyleft is wanted.
That makes it unusable for Rust, Go, and some C++ libraries.
Wheras with MPLv2 the contract is basically "if you make a change to any of the source code files derived from the original work, those changes have to remain under MPLv2". But linking that code from non-copyleft code is OK, and extending it with subclasses or traits is OK, as long as any modifications made to the original library itself are made available. And there is no limitations on linking proprietary libraries from MPLv2 code as there is with (L)GPL.