Mozilla Unveils Aurora Concept Browser 213
Barence writes "Mozilla has unveiled a spectacular new concept browser, dubbed Aurora. The bleeding-edge browser is part of a new Mozilla Labs initiative, in which the open-source foundation is encouraging people to contribute ideas and designs for the browser of the future. The Aurora browser demonstration shows a highly advanced way of collaborating data gathered on the web, and represents a spectacular introduction to the new Mozilla Labs, which much like Google Labs looks to become a home for offbeat projects which would otherwise probably never see the light of day. More details, and a video demonstration, are on the Mozilla Labs site."
new? (Score:4, Interesting)
This seems like a rather old project. Am I wrong? http://www.mozilla.org/rdf/doc/aurora.html [mozilla.org]
Re:new? (Score:5, Funny)
Then there's also already the Arora [google.com] browser, a WebKit/Qt4 based browser that actually works. I suggest Mozilla rename the browser to something like Phoenix to avoid name confusion.
OMG User Interface Nirvana! (Score:5, Funny)
It looks like:
1) A mess
2) Three OS X docks
3) Dashboard / Yahoo widgets
But with all the aesthetic sense and usability of an Open Source project.
Shameless Contest Plug (Score:5, Interesting)
The bleeding-edge browser is part of a new Mozilla Labs initiative, in which the open-source foundation is encouraging people to contribute ideas and designs for the browser of the future.
Labs is more than that. Back in ought six, Slashdot covered their first extend Firefox contest [slashdot.org] where people were bated with Alienware swag and developer conference passes to develop extensions & plug-ins for Firefox. The second year saw Shareaholic [mozillalinks.org] come out as a winning plug-in. The third year just finished judging [mozilla.com] and I'm excited to see what Mozilla finds as the best Firefox 3 add ons.
It's nice to see a foundation aiding, encouraging and rewarding the average developer off the street for their work. Even better than that is when Mozilla backs a plug-in or add-on it's usually solid and reliable (unlike the many WinAmp plug-ins that plagued my college machine).
Re:Shameless Contest Plug (Score:5, Funny)
...where people were bated with Alienware swag and developer conference passes...
If someone does it to you, it isn't bating.
web os (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the web OS, plain and simple.
It's good but it relies on web services a lot. But that's what a browser is for. Dear Mozilla developers, focus on Enterprise level as well. Though it is open source and all, it would be great to be able to configure Aurora to manage private services.
The question that comes to mind is - will it be like the Aurora class ships in Stargate Atlantis? meaning - what are the security features (better shields?)? What are the requirements? (Will it be ZPM-like requirements?)
Like Google Labs.... it has the same last word (Score:5, Interesting)
The similarity with Google Labs is the word "labs" this is about user requirements and suggestions rather than fully fledged products. Its about people suggesting improvements and then those moving into development. This means its at a much earlier part of the product development cycle than Google Labs (which starts with a beta or alpha product).
Saying its like Google Labs is like saying Saks Fifth Avenue is like Madison Avenue because they both have the word Avenue.
Also Like Adobe & Digg Labs... (Score:5, Interesting)
The similarity with Google Labs is the word "labs" this is about user requirements and suggestions rather than fully fledged products. Its about people suggesting improvements and then those moving into development. This means its at a much earlier part of the product development cycle than Google Labs (which starts with a beta or alpha product).
As long as we're talking about labs, there's also Adobe Labs [adobe.com] and Digg Labs [digg.com] that I keep my eye on. (Funny, I don't actually read Digg, I just enjoy seeing how they visualize their data!)
... like that.
While you're right that these sites aren't open to the public, I think it's mostly due to the nightmare of trying to credit people with ideas when you're making billions off these ideas months later. The community might not
I will point out that the 'labs' concept just seems to be an indication of how these entities see future development. A similarity between Google and Mozilla is that they offer tons of developer resources on their labs sites. I don't think those two are so different from each other.
Instead of looking at these Labs as inferior, I rather give the companies a chance to show me what they think is bleeding edge and a lot of the time it's a good indicator of innovation. However you look at it, it's a good idea to keep an eye on the labs so you know what your competitor/partner is up to and get a glimpse of the future as they see it.
Re:Also Like Adobe & Digg Labs... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Also Like Adobe & Digg Labs... (Score:5, Informative)
slashcode.com
Re:Also Like Adobe & Digg Labs... (Score:5, Funny)
In Cowboy Neal's mother's basement.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I don't actually read Digg
Yeah, like those magazines "no one" reads :P
Re: (Score:2)
Saying its like Google Labs is like saying Saks Fifth Avenue is like Madison Avenue because they both have the word Avenue.
I live in another city and cannot grok your simile in fullness, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
The similarity with Google Labs is the word "labs" this is about user requirements and suggestions rather than fully fledged products. Its about people suggesting improvements and then those moving into development. This means its at a much earlier part of the product development cycle than Google Labs (which starts with a beta or alpha product).
Saying its like Google Labs is like saying Saks Fifth Avenue is like Madison Avenue because they both have the word Avenue.
1) Google Labs starts with alpha or beta products? Have you notice that they then don't progress beyond alpha or beta?
2) Saks is sort of like Madison, just with a roof.
Re: (Score:2)
I support her, she is hot
Yeah, when you put her on fire!
inno (Score:5, Interesting)
But there hasn't been anything truly revolutionary in the world of desktop software in a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously have not played Half-Life 2 is this is what you really think. It Roxzorzz!!!eleven111!1!
Re: (Score:2)
HL2 in my mind was one hell of a let down - well expected this amazing thing.. and when it came out i just felt hordily let down - yet every one seems to love it - i just don't get it.. sure they made improvements but so many things where over looked that it just seemed like a rehash of the same old.
Re: (Score:2)
It's nice to see some innovation in software
According to the FAQ, Aurora is not a product to be released though. It's not software. It's a video, and that's all there seem to be to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox and Safari are trying to be a better IE.
I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but it would be more correct to say that IE = 7.0 is trying to be a better Firefox. Firefox and Opera regularly take features and ideas from each other.
And web 2.0 apps and chat clients are basically better versions of Usenet and IRC.
Most web 2.0 applications are attempting to duplicate functionality that was once better suited to standalone desktop applications. Instant messaging clients are the new IRC whilst web forums ha
Sombody please tag this story! (Score:2, Funny)
"Spectacular".
Re:Sombody please tag this story! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Did you notice the 3D 'mouse' she was using. can you imagine having to hold your arm above your desk for hours a day.
I can google something (or delicious or whatever) and copy the link into an IM window WAY faster than that person was working.
The only cool thing in that video was the automatic transformation of data. That idea might come to fruition... it would be fairly easy to create an markup language for data and have a plugin that could re-render on the client side.
Nothing is wasted! (Score:2, Insightful)
Though Aurora may never see the light of day, the ideas brought forth may find themselves in future iteration of the browser, and even the web.
At the very least, open-source innovations like those provide previous art when a troll patents the very same idea years later.
All in a name (Score:5, Informative)
Re:All in a name (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask them to change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla uses experimental names, and changes them at release all the time. I'd ask them if they intend to use a different name upon a possible release.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I honestly thought this article was regarding the Arora browser based on WebKit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:All in a name (Score:4, Funny)
Re:OT: Needs screenshots (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All in a name (Score:4, Informative)
Correction: Firefox WAS called Firebird, then changed after the database collision was noticed. And this was AFTER changing the name from Phoenix because of the BIOS manufacturer. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox#History [wikipedia.org] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox#Release_history [wikipedia.org]
Not more frames (Score:5, Interesting)
I am definitely not a fan of the pop-up frames as you move the mouse to the edge of the window - it is one of the things I don't like about Sugar OS on my XO/OLPC laptop. I don't know if others have had similar problems, but I found them way too easy to trigger and very distracting when you were in the middle of doing something else.
Also, I am not sure how practical the bookmarks/history view is for large amounts of data. It looks like they are taking a leaf out of iTunes' album view. I still use bookmarks instead of tags (not sure if that makes me a dinosaur or not) and I have a helluva lot of them. A visual representation of them versus the existing menu structure would make it much harder to find what I am looking for. It is down to my personal preferences admittedly, but if the end goal is to make information easier to find, I don't think it works.
Oh, and did anyone else get reminded of the D&D computer games with the radial menus when watching the demo?
Re: (Score:2)
I found them way too easy to trigger and very distracting when you were in the middle of doing something else
This is a problem Adobe Lightroom suffers from as well.
I think it is a good idea poorly implemented. In Lightroom the menus can be tacked in place so they don't close, but they can't be tacked closed so they don't open when the mouse moves over them.
Organization = disorganization? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is with this new desktop "paradigm" I keep seeing everywhere from this new browser to the new multi-touch displays? Where everything is disorganized and you simply wander through everything tossing it out of the way like looking through your dirty clothes hamper for a clean set of underwear. Call me old fashioned but I like hierarchical data and tree structures.
I understand it's just a concept, but seeing this type of thing everywhere has me wonder who exactly is doing usability and what they are smoking because I want some.
Re:Organization = disorganization? (Score:5, Interesting)
Order? Structure? Hierarchy? How quaint! Don't you realize that no one has any time for that anymore. The new paradigm for the future is EXACTLY to toss everything on the floor and let the glorious God SEARCH order it for you.
The new usability is all about easing the life of the content creator, and letting the computer sort things out. Creating order is boring and hard. The content user is responsible for leveraging SEARCH to find what it needs. Oh, maybe you can throw a category tag on something if you really need to find it again quickly.
This is the whole GMail vs. Outlook argument that I see over and over again. Trees and hierarchy are soooooo old fashioned. This is just a visual extension of the death of the hierarchical structure in our lives.
Re:Organization = disorganization? (Score:4, Interesting)
Except Gmail encourages you to use tags, which are functionally no different to folders/directories if you just use one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is different than folders/directories. It is better. You don't have to know any hierarchy before tagging something. As you indirectly point out, it can have multiple tags, and really it is a helper to SEARCH. It can help organize things for sure, and I find it more useful, ultimately, because it is not hierarchical. But it is not the same as folders/directories.
It really is more like throwing everything on the floor, except you have a magic tool to grab any item you want, so long as you have the right in
Re:Organization = disorganization? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except Gmail encourages you to use tags, which are functionally no different to folders/directories if you just use one.
It's marginally easier to put many tags on one file as opposed to creating one file and then all the shortcuts you want in different folders as they apply. People just don't understand shortcuts. At one job, we had a big bunch of marketing cruft in a folder, 30gb of videos, pictures, etc. So and so would want that stuff in their personal folder and sure enough, they'd copy and paste. Management refused to let us set size limits on folders and so it would be a constant cycle of losing drive space, looking for the new offender, explaining how shortcuts work, making shortcuts for them, then watching some other idiot make the same mistake, then going back to the first idiot who forgot everything you told them making the mistake all over again. And any time we tried to put restrictions on things management would order them removed.
I'm of the opinion that if you can't let someone do something bad, then you won't end up being angry they did it. If people demonstrate they won't listen to instructions like "stay away from the angry bear" and management refuses to let you put the bear in a cage, you shouldn't be responsible for maulings. Doesn't work that way, though.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Order, structure, and hierarchy work great for my files and things. But for my bedroom and workshop, "toss it on the floor" seems to be the entrenched system.
Re:Organization = disorganization? (Score:5, Interesting)
When you find yourself spending your whole day organizing data into trees, but the amount of data is constantly growing, you begin to realize that it's not useful to perfectly organize everything anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Google — you could have one central authority organize everything into a single hierarchical structure that's organized very well... or, you can do as good of a guess as possible with lots of help from machines.
Yeah, but then it would be a hierarchical officious oracle, but someones already done that so it would be yet another hierarchical officious oracle, which has also been done so it would have to be yet another yet another hierarchical officious oracle, or YAYAHOO!
I think it might work, unless Microsoft are looking to move into that market segment.
Re: (Score:2)
Hrm, I agree with your point on letting the search feature organize things for you and it made me rethink my position - I'm not against this type of file storage at all. My main objection is to the display itself, how everything is just floating around with some things standing out like a tag cloud, etc. Another example is the "photo app" where one can toss around photos like they are old photos on a table. To me this is neat, but functionally a bit off for me. I prefer a cleaner form of information display
Re: (Score:2)
10 years? It's one of the oldest desktop interface paradigms, "spatial computing" as implemented by Apple in 1984, defined by letting people put shit where-ever they want, and it stays there. The "browser" metaphor used by virtually everyone, but especially Microsoft in Windows 98 and later, doesn't work as well because it allows a lot of strange situations that have no analogue in real life, like having the same "folder" open in multiple "windows" at the same time
The reason these videos are cluttered is be
Re:Organization = disorganization? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However a lot of the people I interact with, some are technical type users, others aren't so much, who have their desktops littered with icons almost filling the entire wallpaper. Granted I can understand that sometimes even in chaos there is
Re: (Score:2)
> Where everything is disorganized and you simply wander through everything tossing it
> out of the way like looking through your dirty clothes hamper for a clean set of underwear.
> Call me old fashioned but I like hierarchical data and tree structures.
Do you have your underwear neatly folded and sorted in appropriate drawers? Welcome to the dinosaur club! Most people I know leave their clothes on the floor exactly as you are describing. You walk into their house and the entire floor is carpeted wit
Re: (Score:2)
Where everything is disorganized and you simply wander through everything tossing it out of the way like looking through your dirty clothes hamper
You know, I'd keep all my clothes in the hamper if I could just say, "Tennis shorts, black" and have it come popping to the top. This is why desktop searching, indexing, etc is becoming so prevalent. Most people don't have any real organization (being in tech support for awhile, I can attest to the directory "structure" on some people's machines) -- so companies
Hierarchy or Tags (Score:2)
Why not both?
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is that the data really exists in one place, and you can, if you want, access it through a hierarchy.
But the new (everything old is new again) idea is that you can also organize everything in a completely different but still the same way. That is, instead of having to manually find all your music on your computer, you have a saved search that contains references to every .mp3 on your hard disk. Now you can have your cake and eat it too.
It's only been in the past half decade though that this has bec
Re: (Score:2)
Get A Mac? Spotlight does this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The purpose of a computer is to do busy computational work. That is, a computer can't create a weather model, but it can read data from sensors, plug the numbers into the human-created model, and then spit out an answer. In effect, computers are there to automate and simplify hard tasks, and eliminate menial ones.
Organization is one of the last frontiers of automation, if not the last frontier. For the most part, everybody has a "system" of organization. There are rules to this system that are by and large
Adaptive Path designed Aurora with Mozilla (Score:5, Informative)
Setting aside the gushing tone of the submitter's post, Aurora is Adaptive Path's first open source design project and collaboration with Mozilla -- it's not all Mozilla.
Adaptive Path team designers and members discuss the design process extensively and in detail on their blog. More details in the Firehose [slashdot.org]
You might want to check out the Aurora Launch Party [yahoo.com], too, if you're in San Francisco tonight
there is no browser (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just the release of part 1 of a 4 part series showing a mock-up of what a future browser might look like. There is no code, there is no browser, this is vapor-ware at its finest. Additional Adaptive Path, the people who made the video, are throwing a party to celebrate their release of the video.
When did software development turn into movie producing?
Re:there is no browser (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, software development is not just code, there's also requirements gathering and design, among others. I'm not saying Adaptive Path didn't jump the gun, but the coding part is easy enough with excellent developers, design, and communication.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the colonizing-another-planet part is easy enough with excellent engineers, design, and communication.
Well, the world-peace part is easy enough with excellent leaders, design, and communication.
Well, the find-the-higgs part is easy enough with excellent scien
Re: (Score:2)
If Firefox was designed from the beginning to support concurrency for tabs, then yes, it would have been easy to implement. But because it was designed and coded from the ground up to not... well, it's not so simple.
Re: (Score:2)
When has it not been? Good software development even uses storyboards.
Re: (Score:2)
"this is vapor-ware at its finest"
If it's about fighting IE 8 or Windows 7, we may very well fight vapor with vapor.
Considering Microsoft's huge resources, in order to minimize their effectiveness, we must send them running after their tails implementing every interface idea we can prior-art them with (like they are doing with multi-touch) while we only pursue the valid ones.
If we do it right, they will spend all their resources in futile capabilities and end up lacking on important features their business
Lowfat Project (Score:2)
I can't VTFV because I'm at work (ha), but from the screenshots Aurora looks like it could do for the web what the 'lowfat' project could do for digital photo albums.
His webpage isn't very up-to-date, but you can find a Youtube video of the 'lowfat' software here [youtube.com].
It actually does not require XGL, I'm not sure why those Youtube videos seem to think that it does.
The actual webpage for the project is here [thepimp.net]. It's not too hard to get up and running if you're using a semi-recent version of GNU/Linux. :-)
Related to Amaya? (Score:4, Informative)
A quick scan of TFA doesn't reveal the heritage of Aurora, but the emphasis on web publishng vs viewing, and even the name, both immediately bring to mind the (ancient, but continuously updated) W3C editor/browser Amaya:
http://www.w3.org/Amaya/ [w3.org]
Is it like a concept car? (Score:4, Funny)
In that the release date is the same day as duke nukem for(n)ever?
Re: (Score:2)
It's the day after DNF, so they can add a plug-in to view your scores in real time.
Wordle (Score:2)
Cutting-edge Eclipse/Gecko/Java browser (Score:4, Interesting)
We released our own research-oriented web browser:
http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/suprabrowser
It is designed to run in a VM where the individual stores all of their private data on their own server. It supports persistent, threaded instant messaging, bookmarks, RSS, file management, contact management, threaded discussions, web page highlighting, email, mailing lists, and more.
If it sounds like too much, you can use whatever parts you want. All network traffic is encrypted using 3DES after a zero knowledge based authentication.
For better or worse, it is certainly one of the most innovative products in the computer industry, open source or not, but that means that it takes a bit more marketing to get people interested. It's a fairly different concept as far as information management is concerned, but definitely a necessary one.
Horrible UI (Score:4, Insightful)
That radial menu tells me these people know nothing about good UI design. It appears to work precisely the same way as a contextual menu, except that you can't see what any of the options are until you mouseover the button, which reveals an icon (possibly with a label, I couldn't tell from the low-res video). The way the option buttons are arranged around the circle, the chances of memorizing precisely which button performs what task are minimal, since it's difficult to distinguish between a button at 7:00 and a button at 8:00 (when the number of buttons is not constant, as it is on a clock face, which is why I can tell the difference between 7:00 and 8:00 there).
Compare this to the standard contextual menu. You can see all the menu options at once (unless there are too many to fit on the screen and they scroll), they all have a text label, they could have an icon as well (they usually don't, but certainly should if the concept can be represented in icon form), and the interface is already familiar to nearly everyone.
I mentioned scrolling when there are too many options in the menu. Imagine the radial menu interface with that many options on it. Imagine how long it would take to hunt through them one at a time to find the one you're looking for.
What an objective piece (Score:2)
... no wait, it wasn't - I was thinking about something else *g*
Not especially well-received by the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Obligatory platform gag (Score:2)
who's the target audience? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't figure out who this is supposed to be for.
My parents and family would be thoroughly confused by it, as would likely be most other "normal" users.
As a power users, I'm not sure this helps me either. I don't want icons "drifting away" from me, and it doesn't seem to make anything I do any faster.
Jurassic Park File System (Score:2)
This is a UNIX system. I know this! [dailymotion.com]
I'm not falling for this again! (Score:5, Funny)
This is not a concept car (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm hoping that I can tread the line between being appreciative of the creative work that has obviously gone into this, and trying to keep my feet on the ground. I've worked in a lot of software companies that have tried to "design" the "next great thing", and to put it bluntly, I see a lot of that in these videos.
When you go to the Mozilla Labs site, you are informed that these are concepts; ideas that they want to flesh out. But what I think is missing (even to the designers) is the question of how it will actually work. It's blue sky thinking with all the inconvenient "it's impossible" tasks shoved down to the hapless "engineer" who tries to build it.
Seemingly simple things like taking a random table in a web page and building a meaningful line graph out of it turns out to be extremely hard in the general case. I speak from experience here, having been paid lots of money to do it several times before :-) (despite my protestations of impossibility). Random data in webpages (or other documents) are just not structured well enough to do it -- and it turns out that partial success (i.e., it works "most of the time") is mostly useless.
The car industry has a long tradition of building concept cars. These are cars that are not meant to be sold. They are only ideas that might fire the imagination for future designers. But the difference between concept cars and these software concepts (not just Mozilla Labs, but many large companies that I could name) is that concept cars *are actually cars*. You can drive them. These concepts are like pictures of concept cars -- or animated movies of concept cars. It's like saying, "My concept car is the one in Speed Racer".
Like I said, the ideas are interesting. But I'd really prefer it if the industry would build working software as a concept. One extremely good example of what I'd like to see is Englightenment. It often sucked (especially if you read the code in the early days). But the concepts were *magnificent*. And they were demonstrably *possible*.
A person writing a window manager could look at Enlightenment and say, "That's sooo cool, but I need it to be a bit more conservative in some ways" and write something that fit the bill. Looking at these concepts, all I can say is, "I'm glad I don't have to write it".
Uhh oh... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can just see it now. The girlfriend (replace with "mom" for the typical slashdot user) sits down at the computer and opens up Aurora. All of a sudden she's swept with a tornado of porn, bizarro internet videos, bookmarked pictures of her hot friends on myspace, etc. Thought that changing the name of those bookmarks to "email" and "lolcatz" was enough security? Not any more, buddy...
Bah (Score:2)
I'd just be happy if firefox 3 would run on my trusty, stable Mandrake 10.2 box. It's the only piece of software I've installed that will not run due to dependence on newer pango/cairo things. Gosh, even the latest pidgin compiles fine on this system.
Oh well. At least 2.0 is still good for awhile.
The '90s want their canned demo back. (Score:2)
I remember seeing canned demos like this at least 10 years ago. This really reminds me of the one Apple did.
There's no working code behind those videos, just slideshows.
Oh God, am I the only one? (Score:4, Funny)
Thunderbird still flapping? (Score:2)
It seems like Mozilla is almost wholly focused on browser tech.
While I realize that webmail is supplanting a lot of thick clients, and that Outlook will be the corporate norm so long as exchange is the norm, it would be a shame if Thunderbird development was allowed to languish.
Are there any other open source mail clients out there that are picking up speed?
Re:Another browser? (Score:5, Funny)
How many more web browsers do we need?
um about 3 +/- the sq rt of a loaf of bread
Re: (Score:2)
How many more web browsers do we need?
Aurora is not a browser, it's a video file demonstrating a couple of ideas. It's not software.
Re:The future of Firefox is MSIE? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ugh. I really hope they figure out threading. Right now web2.0 is like windows3.11 level multitasking-- One site or plugin starts to eat all of your resources and until you manage to close it or it fixes itself you can't use any of your other (web)apps.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you want for podcast support?
When I click on a podcast in Firefox, either it plays through the site's player, or the mp3 downloads and plays in my computer's media player.
What is missing here?
As for handling library functions of my media, I leave that to my media player. I'm not sure I need Firefox to handle that.
Re: (Score:2)
So Firefox should be iTunes and handle media subscriptions, download media, and handle media library functions?
How would Firefox even know which podcasts to download?
Let's say I want to listen to Bill Simmon's BS Report from ESPN. The link the podcast is always different. How will the browser just know to find the link, even if I tell it I always want the BS Report?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> How would Firefox even know which podcasts to download?
Firefox already understands RSS feeds. Podcasts are RSS feeds with a <media> element. All Firefox has to do is queue up all files mentioned in the media element using its download manager, and provide a bit of UI to manage/play the media.
That said, just because Firefox *can* do this doesn't mean it *should*. To do this properly and not in a half-assed way, Firefox would have to essentially turn into Songbird (or iTunes) and bundle its own cod
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That, and the kitchen sink.
Maybe Songbird is what you want, although it's not ready yet.
Re: (Score:2)
I sort of agree. It's pretty obvious to me what the next gen browsers ought to be based on, and that is RSS. The browser should be based on RSS, with smart feeds (like Apple's smart folders applied to feeds) and smarter search. NetNewsWire sort of does this, but the browser side of the app is lacking. Safari treats RSS the way I like, but doesn't allow for smart feeds. I can see many people wanting better social networking features as well.
Firefox has become for me what I tried to get away from when I first
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
hi, it's 1985 calling. ever heard of this [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
And it's funny, they constantly attack Silverlight, they constantly attack Flash and then all of them use proprietary operating systems, they don't seem to have a problem doing it.
Open Standards != Open Source
And then they had the Guiness record thing for Firefox 3 and you went to the website and it had a flash map to show where people are downloading - so there definitely is a double standard here.
I don't see a problem with advocating for open standards while simultaneously being pragmatic about your website design. Even if they were able to make their Flash map using Ajax and canvas in Firefox, it wouldn't have worked in IE so their audience would be diminished.
consumers dont care where new ideas come from, just as long as they're offered at competative prices
That is largely true, and they don't even seem to care so much about price so long as they can grab the install CDs from work.
Re: (Score:2)
I am quite sure they will say so.
Re: (Score:2)
+5 Awesomely appropriate, and perfectly executed movie reference.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bleeding-edge!
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting. I didn't take too close a look at the browser pages (what, read TFA?!?!), but I think push technology for browser is the ultimate thing for changing the world.
I mean, current browsers are pull clients, they retrieve data from a server and display it. If the server could push data back to the browser in-between direct requests, then you could build fully working applications, similar to desktop ones. Once you have that... your OS is just a container to run the browser, the desktop becomes
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Opera already has voice recognition.
Internet Explorer: Where do you want to go today?
Firefox: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
Opera: Are you guys coming or what?