Comments on: The Great Mozilla Platform Debate http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/04/25/the-great-mozilla-platform-debate/ The official AllPeers blog Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:23:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: enefekt http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/04/25/the-great-mozilla-platform-debate/#comment-58002 enefekt Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:43:31 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/04/25/the-great-mozilla-platform-debate/#comment-58002 Wish I had more time to get on these threads earlier! Oh well, its good to be busy! I think thats a good point that is being raised by Brendan, even with the "small fry" stab. An example I like to point out is the cool XUL Explorer app built on XULRunner that Mark Finkle whipped up: (http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/xul-explorer/) The Mac app bundle is close to 50 MB while application code is only like 400 KB! How many more cool XULRunner apps could be created if devs didn't have to worry about: - Rolling their own distribution scheme - Rolling their own installation scheme - Rolling their own updating scheme - XULRunner modifications to slim down the runtime to a size that you don’t mind duping for every app you create. Wish I had more time to get on these threads earlier! Oh well, its good to be busy!

I think thats a good point that is being raised by Brendan, even with the “small fry” stab. An example I like to point out is the cool XUL Explorer app built on XULRunner that Mark Finkle whipped up:
(http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/xul-explorer/)
The Mac app bundle is close to 50 MB while application code is only like 400 KB! How many more cool XULRunner apps could be created if devs didn’t have to worry about:

- Rolling their own distribution scheme
- Rolling their own installation scheme
- Rolling their own updating scheme
- XULRunner modifications to slim down the runtime to a size that you don’t mind duping for every app you create.

]]> By: Brendan Eich http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/04/25/the-great-mozilla-platform-debate/#comment-57688 Brendan Eich Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:19:42 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/04/25/the-great-mozilla-platform-debate/#comment-57688 <blockquote>we’re an open source project with lots of unbeholding contributors</blockquote> Er, "unbeholden". We in mozilla.org staff who worked for Netscape used to call ourselves "beholden mozilla.organs", and even recuse ourselves when necessary for staff to make judgments independent from Netscape or AOL influence. It's not easy developing the platform we have and building its high-leverage parts, while trying to maintain or remove the less valuable parts. Adding unknown requirements from private startups just won't do. The tendency to fork XULRunner is not a surprise. We've seen it with other open source platform code that's not so well-distributed that its distribution creates an ecosystem, or (suppose Firefox is a big enough distribution) where the new apps need cutting edge platform changs whose patches haven't even shown up in bugs. Linux is a fine example; arguably Perl in past releases was too. I agree with Matthew that smaller XUL app fry with less novel platform demands would cling to the Firefox distribution, remora-like, to good effect for the entire ocean. That would be a fine thing, and it's not an anti-goal to ship XULRunner under a Firefox 3 or 4 release. It's just a lot of "last mile" work that trades against innovatively updating the number two browser on the planet. /be

we’re an open source project with lots of unbeholding contributors

Er, “unbeholden”. We in mozilla.org staff who worked for Netscape used to call ourselves “beholden mozilla.organs”, and even recuse ourselves when necessary for staff to make judgments independent from Netscape or AOL influence.

It’s not easy developing the platform we have and building its high-leverage parts, while trying to maintain or remove the less valuable parts. Adding unknown requirements from private startups just won’t do.

The tendency to fork XULRunner is not a surprise. We’ve seen it with other open source platform code that’s not so well-distributed that its distribution creates an ecosystem, or (suppose Firefox is a big enough distribution) where the new apps need cutting edge platform changs whose patches haven’t even shown up in bugs. Linux is a fine example; arguably Perl in past releases was too.

I agree with Matthew that smaller XUL app fry with less novel platform demands would cling to the Firefox distribution, remora-like, to good effect for the entire ocean. That would be a fine thing, and it’s not an anti-goal to ship XULRunner under a Firefox 3 or 4 release. It’s just a lot of “last mile” work that trades against innovatively updating the number two browser on the planet.

/be

]]> By: Brendan Eich http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/04/25/the-great-mozilla-platform-debate/#comment-57683 Brendan Eich Thu, 26 Apr 2007 17:10:29 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/04/25/the-great-mozilla-platform-debate/#comment-57683 Kaply and I go way back, so I can say this: he's enjoying some fine tequila in suggesting that Mozilla is to blame for Joost, e.g., having a patched XULRunner. I've been nagging Alex Fritze to get patches landed, and (apart from a non-response asking for something unrelated that we should do anyway to help corporate contributors streamline their CVS access requests), it's clearly either hard or not a priority (or both) for Alex et al. to unfork and get patches lined up to land. Please note that I'm not busting on Alex or other Joosters here. I am busting on Mike a bit. Free lunch demands and blame-pinning where we don't yet have the code to land, are just wrong. As for Songbird, we've landed big, risky patches (e.g., see <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176182" rel="nofollow">bug 176182</a>) at later points in past cycles, just for Songbird. The idea that we (what "we"? we're an open source project with lots of unbeholding contributors) use some kind of "is it needed by Firefox?" test is false. Last time I heard this (from sicking), a bunch of us landed hard on the notion. /be Kaply and I go way back, so I can say this: he’s enjoying some fine tequila in suggesting that Mozilla is to blame for Joost, e.g., having a patched XULRunner. I’ve been nagging Alex Fritze to get patches landed, and (apart from a non-response asking for something unrelated that we should do anyway to help corporate contributors streamline their CVS access requests), it’s clearly either hard or not a priority (or both) for Alex et al. to unfork and get patches lined up to land.

Please note that I’m not busting on Alex or other Joosters here.

I am busting on Mike a bit. Free lunch demands and blame-pinning where we don’t yet have the code to land, are just wrong.

As for Songbird, we’ve landed big, risky patches (e.g., see bug 176182) at later points in past cycles, just for Songbird. The idea that we (what “we”? we’re an open source project with lots of unbeholding contributors) use some kind of “is it needed by Firefox?” test is false. Last time I heard this (from sicking), a bunch of us landed hard on the notion.

/be

]]> By: Michael Kaply http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/04/25/the-great-mozilla-platform-debate/#comment-57639 Michael Kaply Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:35:30 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/04/25/the-great-mozilla-platform-debate/#comment-57639 The comment about Joost and Songbird is a self fulfilling prophecy. Projects that build on XUL Runner have to ship their own runtimes because Mozilla does a poor job creating one. Maybe if there was a focus on a good XUL Runner, companies would use that instead of rolling their own. The comment about Joost and Songbird is a self fulfilling prophecy. Projects that build on XUL Runner have to ship their own runtimes because Mozilla does a poor job creating one. Maybe if there was a focus on a good XUL Runner, companies would use that instead of rolling their own.

]]> By: pd http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/04/25/the-great-mozilla-platform-debate/#comment-57624 pd Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:08:24 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/04/25/the-great-mozilla-platform-debate/#comment-57624 The official (and quite vague 'managerese') response? http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/mitchell/archives/2007/04/the_open_web_and_firefox_focus.html The official (and quite vague ‘managerese’) response?

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/mitchell/archives/2007/04/the_open_web_and_firefox_focus.html

]]> By: funTomas http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/04/25/the-great-mozilla-platform-debate/#comment-57622 funTomas Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:30:25 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/04/25/the-great-mozilla-platform-debate/#comment-57622 Can't agree with pd, having peeked into MoFo's kitchen what FF3 is up to, I don't think no inovation takes place there. To support it, I'd mention a few of them: APNG,,SVG, js. But I must agree with Matt, XULRunner is somehow undervalued. MoFo's focus should shift from FF to its platform before it's too late (http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-6179305.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news) On the authoring tools topic, the score is even worse. OK, no crystal ball here too, so time will show. Can’t agree with pd, having peeked into MoFo’s kitchen what FF3 is up to, I don’t think no inovation takes place there. To support it, I’d mention a few of them: APNG,,SVG, js. But I must agree with Matt, XULRunner is somehow undervalued. MoFo’s focus should shift from FF to its platform before it’s too late (http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-6179305.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news)
On the authoring tools topic, the score is even worse. OK, no crystal ball here too, so time will show.

]]> By: pd http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/04/25/the-great-mozilla-platform-debate/#comment-57618 pd Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:27:53 +0000 http://www.allpeers.com/blog/2007/04/25/the-great-mozilla-platform-debate/#comment-57618 The question for me is not where does MoFoCo put it's resources in the future, but now? Innovation in Firefox seemed to end with version 1. That was when many seemed to disappear to their own startups and / or Google. The recent changes seem to be bug fixes and rolling in ideas from Extensions. If there isn't a lot of innovation going into Firefox then what is MoFoCo really doing? Stagnating? Has it put it's hands up and said "enough's enough, this is all we can handle"? If MoFoCo isn't finished innovating then XUL (give it a better name, please!) as a platform has to be the most important next step. The question for me is not where does MoFoCo put it’s resources in the future, but now?

Innovation in Firefox seemed to end with version 1. That was when many seemed to disappear to their own startups and / or Google.

The recent changes seem to be bug fixes and rolling in ideas from Extensions.

If there isn’t a lot of innovation going into Firefox then what is MoFoCo really doing? Stagnating? Has it put it’s hands up and said “enough’s enough, this is all we can handle”?

If MoFoCo isn’t finished innovating then XUL (give it a better name, please!) as a platform has to be the most important next step.

]]>