Mozilla Foundation's Future: No Mozilla Suite 1.8 486
batb0y writes "The Mozilla Foundation has published its Mozilla Application Suite transition plan, confirming that there will be no official Mozilla 1.8 release. There will be a 1.7.6 release to be maintained by the Mozilla Foundation. All future suite versions from the Foundation will be minor updates only." Don't despair, however, as there is already a community effort underway to continue development.
That sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like the Mozilla Foundation made a decision that they preferred the Firefox development model. Firefox, Thunderbird, and Sunbird are set to be the *new* Mozilla suite, and the old one is in maintenance mode. It seems like this is comparable to people complaining that Microsoft isn't putting enough development into Windows 3.1.... Well, yeah, it's the old product that they've discontinued.
Now, it's all open source, so if someone wants to work on it, go ahead. But why people are trying to convince the Mozilla foundation to offload their new, exciting, successful, popular line-up of software and head back to what's become a bit of a dead-end, I don't know.
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as there's good interoperability -- and I don't see how this decision is going to hurt that -- does it really matter whether there are five apps that each do one thing or one app that does five things?
p
Let me get this straight. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Mozilla (suite) is dead. Long live Firefox.
2) Gecko lives as the main development focus.
3) Mozilla (suite) will be born again as Seamonkey, but won't be high visibility.
From a development point of view, this may make sense. From a branding point of view, it seems odd. It appears that the Mozilla "brand" is being de-emphasized in favor of the individual component names. While Firefox is a memorable name, it seems like a loss not to take advantage of the Mozilla name recognition.
Re:That sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
No... (Score:3, Insightful)
If Mozilla Suite had community enough to support it, they would have been integrated into the Mozilla Foundation to begin with. That it's been dropped like this shows there are plent of people willing to talk about supporting it, but not enough people willing to actually do it.
Mind you, maybe this will shake some supporters out that didn't realize things were in such rough shape.
Good thinking! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a major issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Reading everything, this looks like a minor issue. They're just saying "Mozilla-the-suite is going away. If you want a browser, use Firefox. If you want mail/news, use Thunderbird.". The code isn't going away, if I read it right, just the one-big-suite front-end as a product on it's own.
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Death Knell (Score:1, Insightful)
Windows comes in basically one flavor, you install it or buy a computer with it installed and that about the end of the configuration, then it's all about using Photoshop, or Word.
yo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let me get this straight. (Score:3, Insightful)
They should keep the brand (Score:5, Insightful)
Fumble at the goalline (Score:5, Insightful)
All their announcements (posted by different people, linked to other websites for "clarification") talk about a failure to communicate expectations to developers, consumers, members of the team. Well, this announcement is confusing, and exactly the reason why corporations continue to consume inferior Microsoft crap: because Microsoft clearly communicates what will be released, so corporate IT can plan around it. Even when Microsoft lies about releases, they give a clear communication for PHBs to use in their management jobs. Which is the number one priority for success in corporate environments.
This transformation might very well produce a continuing improvement in Internet client apps, as the project team members claim. (Though the separation of the Internet Search field from the Get URL field from Mozilla -> Firefox will surely cripple my own productivity
Re:That sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the point, create an open source browser that looks similar to IE and then do a better job than MS. That's the real strength of the Firefox team. They've made the Windows version the primary development product over the Linux and Mac versions. Once the Window version is at an acceptable level work on the others (not that the Linux version is worse, but the same can't be said of the Mac version).
Once the common home users start making the switch in mass it's easier to show them other projects like OpenOffice, etc. Then after they are accustomed to looking for and using Open Source projects it'll be easier to move them to a Linux distro.
- Brad
Re:The Death Knell (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a full-time, very-pedantic, anal-about-standards, web developer, so I can speak with absolute authority on this
I just clicked on your link, and you are out of spec. because you serve XHTML as text/html without complying with Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0 recommendation.
Furthermore, your code kicks Internet Explorer and Opera into "quirks mode", where they intentionally go out of spec. in order to cater to non-compliant pages.
If you are going to claim to be an absolute authority on something, make sure you're doing it right, eh? :)
Re:Mozilla Suite is Dead! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Firefox forever! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Second, the idea that ordinary users can't learn to switch interfaces is absurd. People have gone through DOS, the MacOS, and Windows; through WordStar, WordPerfect, and MS Word; through Mosaic, Netscape, and IE. A product that looks like the MS equivalent but isn't quite the same thing isn't the way to get people to switch.
Which leads me to my third and most important point: if you build a product that looks almost exactly like the MS equivalent, but acts just a little different, people aren't going to say, "This is almost as good, and it's free, so I'll use it." They'll say, "This is a cheap knockoff." You can replicate every widget, every menu item, every weird behavior -- but all you'll do with that is lull people into a false sense of familiarity, so the first time something doesn't behave exactly the way it does in Windows/Word/IE, their reaction will be to assume that the F/OSS app they're using is broken, and that by extension, F/OSS is broken. And where will that send them? Right back to Bill.
Nobody will ever be as good at being Microsoft as Microsoft is. Instead of trying to be almost kinda sorta just as good, we should try to be better -- and "better" implies "different."
Re:Mozilla Suite is Dead! (Score:3, Insightful)
Um... looks like we need a new entry in The Book of Mozilla.
Why it sucks for me to read this (Score:1, Insightful)
I want my Mozilla 1.8 (Score:5, Insightful)
say "oh we never intended to put out a Final 1.8"
BULLCRAP...and they KNOW its bullcrap!
You have a 1.8 that is 99% done, FINISH IT!.
This is not Windows 3.1...This product had a new beta put out LAST MONTH! The nightlys say "Beta 2"
Take out the unimplemented features, fix the bugs release 1.8 and call it a day.
vote on it (Score:4, Insightful)
I have still yet to see a single, solid reason on why Firefox is supposedly better.
end rant, commence modding
Re:Mozilla Suite is Dead! (Score:3, Insightful)
And what did the bird (Phoenix/Firebird) do? He:
Re:That sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, come to think of it, exposing every possible option is something that Microsoft likes to do, too - just use Outlook for five minutes and compare and contrast with a saner email app like Thunderbird or Apple Mail.
I do agree with your point about free software and Microsoft UIs - it's something I think to myself every time I use KDE or StarOffice.
Re:That sucks (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, in WindowMaker (and a few other X11 window managers that I've used) you can move a window by holding down Alt, grabbing anywhere in the window (with the left mouse button) and moving the window around. Likewise, to resize a window, you can hold hold down Alt, and drag any one of the four quadrants of a window. As far as I am aware, you still can't do anything like that in Windows; You have to grab the title bar or the window edges, which requires much more precise mouse movement. It's absolutely terrible with a trackpad. (I imagine some people can work around this by maximizing all their windows all the time, but I find that just slows me down even further.)
And don't even get me started on Microsoft's recent practice of moving icons around so that you can never get used to where they are...
It's nice that people come up with all sorts of theories as to why Microsoft's UIs should be nice and wonderful and easy to use, but my experience is that they are, as Daniel Dvorkin put it, lousy.
Amazing how few realize Mozilla browser != Firefox (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Actually, the Mozilla browser and Firefox are quite different. This is the main reason that many people (myself included) don't want Mozilla to be discontinued. We prefer the Mozilla browser over Firefox. To some of us, Firefox feels like a "dumbed down" version of the Mozilla browser. Now, I understand the intent is for Firefox to appeal to a much wider audience, and that is fine. Believe me, I am behind the Firefox effort 100%, and I install it for people all the time when trying to wean them off IE. But many of us still vastly prefer the Mozilla browser for our own personal use.
There are many other reasons I prefer the Mozilla browser over Firefox, as well as many reasons I enjoy the full Mozilla suite. But that is not really the point of this post. The point is that the Mozilla browser and Firefox are two different things.
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:2, Insightful)
For me, it was annoying but fixable, and points 4, 5, and unnamed 6-x still stand. For newbies or the tech-shy who aren't comfortable tooling around in the config file, they're stuck with these behaviors until their son visits to fix these 'problems' (hopefully before they exercised their right to say "screw it" and switch back to IE).
In short, none of their decisions are fatal, but IMO they add to the annoying factor that cruds up the acceptance rate. YMMV.
Re:Fumble at the goalline (Score:1, Insightful)
So, is WinFS going to be shipped with Longhorn? Will it be backported to XP? If "Microsoft clearly communicates what will be released", then those questions should be easy for you to answer.
This Really Sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
I really like Mozilla. I was just thinking last night how irritating it is to use Firefox.
I have used many browsers in the past (Firefox, Galeon, Opera, Konqueror, IE, Netscape, NetFront, Lynx... you name it), and I keep coming back to Mozilla. Every time I get frustrated with another browser, Moz has a way to solve the problem. Sure, it is not perfect, but it is way better than most I have used.
Re:vote on it (Score:4, Insightful)
1. You seem to be making the very common mistake to think that you are representative of the general population (potential users). The IQ is distributed normally, that is, it follows a bell curve. That entails that on average, people have an IQ of 100, and the largest number of people have exactly 100. (It's not their fault, and it's not a problem. No need to pity them, no need to be arrogant about it.)
2. Even as people gifted with an above-average intelligence, I'm not sure if we want to waste our time learning about configuration options of our applications. We're not the boy scouts. Your browser is a tool. It's not a goal in itself. That's essentially why I like OS X, and it's a criticism that applies to a large proportion of open source software coming from Linuxland.
Re:vote on it (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't use Firefox (Score:2, Insightful)
Regards,
Christopher.
Re:That sucks (Score:1, Insightful)