Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Netscape The Internet

Instant Messaging in Mozilla 92

Posted by blizzard from the r-u-b-or-g dept.
The Mozilla project has decided to add Instant Messaging and Chat capabilities to the browser. As a proof of concept, an IRC client protocol implementation will be developed with the hopes that others will add other protocols later.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Instant Messaging in Mozilla More

Instant Messaging in Mozilla

Comments Filter:

  • Does anyone here READ the docs? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    To quote from The API spec [mozilla.org]:

    "The whole IM/Chat module will be an separate module from the rest of the Mozilla client; it will be possible to build the client without any IM/Chat support at all."

    Mozilla has a component model. Mozilla supports dynamically loadable components. It's not like it will be one huge binary.

  • hmmm (Score:1)

    by drwiii ( 434 )
    Is there an open contact-list system out there yet, or are they still all proprietary?

    There have been interesting discussions on SlashNET IRC [slashnet.org] about this over the past few days (how to implement such a protocol, how to design it, etc.)

  • That is odd. Curiouser and curiouser...

    I want to die peacefully in my sleep as my grandfather did...
  • Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:

    ..."release early and often"?

    It isn't enough to make the source available. You have to make it usable in stages.

    That is, Milestones should be points of increased functionality for stable portions, not points of increased stability for all portions.
  • Posted by shaver@netscape.com:

    ``AOL employs the core Mozilla development team, and hence calls the shots by virtue of writing the checks. They can reorient the team to puruse AOL goals (IRC) even when the "open developers" disagree. Its sheer number folks. And the numbers are following the dollars.''

    Hi, there. I've been looking around for a bit, and I can't find a single ``open developer'' -- defined as someone who has contributed a single line of code or more -- who objected to the chat-in-mozilla stuff. Can you point me to one?

    I think I know why I'm having trouble, though: those who actually contribute know enough about the architecture of mozilla to realize that this is an optional component that you can add or remove as desired, like mail/news.

    Actually, I think that anyone who cared to click the link could figure that out as well, since it's clearly mentioned [mozilla.org] that it will always be possible to build the client without any chat support at all.

  • I'm amused at the reactions that say "oh no, now that JWZ has left it's all going to pot", since this integration was originally his idea. Read his "unity of interface" paper referenced on the project front page (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/chat/) before coming to judgement, people. The Mozilla crowd aren't stupid.
    --
  • I've used Agent under Wine, and it works pretty well, although I haven't been that thorough. The only limitation I've run into is the autoplay settings so you can click on a Wav, JPG, etc. and have a viewer program come up immediately. It may be possible to do this by changing preferences, I just haven't tried.
  • > but, why the hell isn't getting a stable,
    > decent, clean code base up and running the #1
    > priority?

    because hacking in new features is more fun than fixing bugs...

    Am I the only one who just wants a decent, fast browser? keep your mail/news/chat out of my browser!

  • Why? (Score:1)

    by sterwill ( 972 )
    Why can't people use a web browser to read HTTP content, a news reader to read NNTP content, an e-mail client for e-mail, and a chat client for real-time two-way communication? It seems like the average communications application is 15 MB; and they all poorly implement the same small set of features not quite well enough to make any serious user happy.
  • Emacs is very different. Emacs uses Lisp to play the roles you've mentioned (news reader, mail client, IRC client, web browser). Check out XEmacs (www.xemacs.org), release 21 has become very modular. The design has been enhanced so that the base XEmacs is quite small (relative to the previous 18 MB download to get all the lisp functionality). XEmacs asks for a list of package servers when a user runs it, and at any time the user can tell XEmacs to go fetch a package (Lisp code to provide new functionality) and install it locally. No restart, no root priveledges (unless you want to install site packages), and 3 clicks of a mouse.

    I assume this is also a feature of GNU Emacs version 21 but I haven't checked so I'll stick with the XEmacs terminology. A quick check of the Vim archives show the latest version weighing in at 1660 KB (source code and run-time library data), and XEmacs at 6330 KB.
  • Certainly I don't think most of us would want to lose the "click on the email link in the browser and up pops an email window" feature.
    I would certainly LOVE to lose that feature! When I click on a "mailto:" link, I want it to spawn an rxvt with mutt in it, where I can fill out the headers, and continue to Emacs to compose my message. The Netscape mail "editor" sucks, it really does.
    And, of course, once you do that ... you'd might as well put email in. And, since the basic email interface is similar to NNTP, here comes NNTP, too.
    There's some anti-logic for ya. "The interface is similar, thus the implementation must be similarly trivial!" Gee, a web browser looks kind of like the front of my Marshall digital effects processor. Should Netscape just throw in a 24-bit digital multi-effect processor so that when we click on a link that might be PCM data we can add reverb, chorus, delay, and equalize the output? Why not add cab simulation, and we'd better take advantage of 3D sound hardware on PC sound cards (because it's there, right?), and, well, the interface looks almost kinda like what we started with.

    After we're done with sound, let's put a 3D VRML viewer, and handle MIDI sequences via external sequencer devices, and since most of our work is graphical we should provide our own accelerated graphics card drivers in place of the operating system's native drivers. Printed output is important, so besides redistributing all the printer drivers we might need, we'd better make sure we can master content to digital media. Let's write and include a handy CD mastering applications suite, so at the click of a mouse button, the user can save entire sites to CD! Perfect!

    Back to news... not only will we read news, decode multi-part pornography so the user doesn't have to learn uudecode, thread our messages, handle MIME attachments, and maintain address books, we will also let the user contribute messages! Yes, and in spectacular fashion! For this purpose we will need an editor for the user... but since this is the King of All Web Browsers, it must be the King of All Editors! Emacs is nothing... we will dynamically interpret not only lisp, but perl, scheme, Java, and even Python! Our editor will be infinitely extensible using all of these languages simultaneously, and we will rejoice in the technical majesty it has brought.

    AND FTP! Yes, no browser is complete without an incomplete FTP client! We will list directories, you betcha, and let the user download multiple files at once! The user will have no fine grained session control, but it will be grand!

    And last, and probably least, we will even speak the HyperText Transfer Protocol, and transfer documents through it. They will have the ability to traverse links to other pages, but will never do so since he will spend an average of 29 days simply "exploring" the "premium dynamic content" by way of our super extensible plug-in All Media Handling functionality. In fact, he will probably never leave his "start page", since the web is crap and there's nothing good out there anyway.

    This was a rant. The web sucks. Get over it.

  • Nice thing about having it all-in-one is that you have a cross-platform mail/addressbook/browse that works and is deployable now. easy to train.

    But it's not available now. It's available whenever people get done adding yet another feature that just can't be left out of the program.
  • Who ever said you have to use this? The advantage of Mozilla being quite modular allows us to choose whether or not we'd like to use this. If it's done well, I may use it myself. I do like the idea of having one application which is the interface for all of my interactive network communication. But don't go around likening the foremost open-sourse browser projects to IE, that's silly.

    Oliver Soell, MCSE
    oliver@spam!grandmas.org
  • [...]
    the only thing holding me back from being 100% Linux/X is a good newsreader [...]

    Gnus [gnus.org]. The king of newsreaders.


    --
    W.A.S.T.E.

  • "Some people apparently want to do IRC in their web browser, allthough I can't understand why..."


    Because it's a whole lot easier to tell my mother-in-law or father-in-law or wife to "Just click on that link on my home page" - like they can do with IE4 (loads up Comic-Chat - ugh!). Personally I'll stick with x-chat thought...

    Matt.

  • Sigh (Score:1)

    by Tarrant ( 1817 )
    First the Mozilla project insists on putting mail and news in their browser. Now they have to put a chat client.

    Just what is wrong with getting the browser portion finished? Haven't the developers seen those all-too-common projects that never end? "Just one more feature, then we'll release". Ugh. Each feature takes longer than the last, and eventually you release with inadequate bug testing.
  • All I want is a freaking Web browser!

    Not a mail reader (I have Pine).
    Not a news reader (I have Gnus).
    Not an IRC client (I have bitchX).
    Not a contact manager (I have a Palm IIIx).
    Not an HTML editor (I have Emacs).

    See a pattern?

    Nick (Bander)
  • I suppose one adjective you forgot was "good". Because both netscape 2 and lynx wld satisfy those needs. Although I suppose you wld want something which cld use something newer than just HTML-2.0

    Log

  • You saved me the trouble of saying the same thing...
  • Mozilla was shaping up- right now, I'm wondering if there's a possibility to salvage Gecko and transplant it to another browser, say Mnemonic...

    As for the list you gave:

    Lynx- Nice.
    Amaya- Cumbersome to use. Unless you've got a style sheet telling it what to do, it renders wierd...
    Mnemonic- Definitely a possibility. It's also a canidate for the transplant of Gecko...
  • What does AOL have to do with IRC?
  • To a lot of people, `The Internet' is just one, fairly amorphous lump. A lot of people don't really care that IRC and FTP are different protocols, in the end it's all `The Internet', and it makes sense to use the same tool to access it.

    Remember that many businesses now have a lot of their internal software accessible using Intranets. Some people almost never need to leave the browser any more.

  • Code-bloat is a valid concern. There's a strong argument that we really shouldn't need PII-350s with 10gig hard discs. That said, I do agree with your main point: this isn't an excuse for techno-luddism. The solution to code-bloat is to write small, self-contained modules (something the Mozilla people now seem to have got the hang of rather well).

  • It's YOUR project (Score:3)

    by thomasd ( 3336 ) on Tuesday April 20, 1999 @08:59AM (#1925631) Homepage
    It's amazing to see so many negative reactions to an announcement which, to my mind, just confirms the commitment of mozilla.org to interesting, creative, hacking. This doesn't mean extra delay and bloat before we see a release browser. Really.

    Mozilla work on all kinds of projects beyond the direct push towards the codebase for Netscape 5.0. All those handy development tools, for a start. Plus oddballs such as ElectricalFire [mozilla.org] and Grendel [mozilla.org]. This is just another idea that's being bounced around. I really don't expect it to take away programmer time from work on the main browser core. But on the otherhand, maybe some of us would like to hack on this.

    Complaining won't do any good -- if you don't want to code, just sit back and wait for 5.0, then use it however you like. Or don't, if you prefer, it doesn't really matter. On the other hand, if you do want to take control then get coding, or documenting, or testing, or whatever takes your fancy. This can be your project just as much as it is AOL's. Get to it.

  • First off, let me say that I'm not a good enough code hack to understand much about the Mozilla code, but I have to agree with some of the other posters here - why isn't getting the browser component stable and fast the highest priority for the Mozilla developers? Heck, at this point I'd just settle for stable and let fast come when it may.

    I use Mozilla every day - a version before the new layout engine debuted - on my Alpha because it's about the only graphical browser that will run natively. Imagine my surprise when I tried the M3 milestone release and much less stuff worked correctly (or at all) than the October 1998 version I'm using for casual browsing now.

    I realize that much of the work between then and now went to the rendering engine (and, running viewer I could see the improvements), but why even bother with other stuff like chat when apprunner's in such sore need of repair?

    My kingdom for a nice browser that doesn't require me to use my Alpha to emulate an x86! :)
  • I'm not one to criticize most of the work all of these people are doing, but I have to ask whether there's really a point to doing this? I mean, for one thing, is this something mozilla should be concentrating on? We have yet to see a completed, stable browser out of the project, and yet there's this announcement apparently dated this past Sunday.

    Also, is this something that people really want in the browser? I mean, how many people use chat-specific protocols aside from IRC? I'm not really up on all of this stuff, so maybe there are like 20 often used chat protocols, but in my surfing, most people use already web-based solutions like java applets, constant-refreshes (annoying, IMHO), or forum based communication (ala slashdot or motley fool, etc.). I'm not sure if this is even a great idea.

    However, as I said, if this is what they want to do, let them do it. I'm just curious as to why.

    Sujal

  • the only one that seems to come close is peruser.
    But thats putting it bluntly

  • right we shouldn't need PII-350's to view a website but if we can do all sorts of cool stuff on a pentium 90 then I don't see why people with PII 350's have to be stuck with lynx
  • yeah it's under the GPL which means it can't be used in commercial software (such as html editors)
  • Sometimes I get the impression that alot of the people knocking this off probably don't even use ICQ or AOL IM (oh no! both owned by AOL!) In fact I get the impression that some would just as soon return to the gopher days with no graphics on websites. (oh no! I can't have that kind of bloat on my 350 mhz PII with 64 megs and 10 gig hd!!!)
    I think this is a cool idea-it's not essential to the mozilla project but it certainly won't kill it either. So please, ignore the luddites. This is a killer feature-being able to integrate ICQ, AOL IM and irc
  • ... de facto, some folks just wanna do it, not wonder about how they're doing it or what with etc.

    Nice thing about having it all-in-one is that you have a cross-platform mail/addressbook/browse that works and is deployable now. easy to train.

    (you can configure NS to use an external mail proggy anyhow ...)

    C

  • And now we see why...

    jwz has abandoned the project. Boy, the developers over there learned their lesson for all of a week. I had such high hopes for the project. Oh well.

    Actually, this was jwz's idea, almost a year ago: see the mosaic of chat [mozilla.org] from Mozilla's "Blue Sky" pages, from almost a year ago now. As the page's title (Unity of Interface) suggests, he argues that a generic chat UI should be developed, encompassing the various chat protocols that exist on the net - which sounds quite a lot like this idea.

    I note that if you actually read the page this story refers to, you'd have seen this link already.

    FWIW, I didn't think I'd want to use an integrated IRC client then - his page notes the difficulties, such as IRC being line-based, while talk is character-based, for one thing - and I don't now. But I don't see how the implementation of a multiple-protocol instant messaging client as a bad thing - just not necessarily integrated with the browser.

  • If someone wants to write a generalized, pluggable chat and IM interface, so be it. Nothing wrong with adding hooks for such components as long as it doesn't distract anyone working on the components the browser, editor, mail and news depend on.

    Indeed, as long as we're resigned to an understanding that there isn't going to be an NGLayout-based browser in wide, stable release for another year, this sort of thing is actually good for the Mozilla project, since it increases the number of people coding for (and thus familiar with) the Mozilla architecture and APIs.

    And who's to say that contributions to tendrils like an AIM, ICQ or IRC client won't bubble up to the browser core? Again, I'd hate to see this take people away from the core, is all.
  • Why would AOL want an IRC client? If it were truly AOL driving this decision, I would have expected AIM.
  • All I want is a freaking Web browser!

    Not a mail reader (I have Emacs).
    Not a news reader (I have Emacs).
    Not an IRC client (I have Emacs).
    Not a contact manager (I have Emacs).
    Not an HTML editor (I have Emacs).
    Not a Web browset (I have Emacs).

    er wait...
  • I don't want my web browser to have a built in IRC client. For that matter, I don't want it to have built in mail, news, MUD or Netrek clients either. I already have fine programs for all these things. What I want is a small, light, fast web browser, period.

    I hope they're putting all this extra cruft in dynamic libraries, and setting up the config files so I can compile my own minimal version.

  • Actually I do use Lynx probably 70% of the time, and probably always will. You are right, though,
    that I'd like to see Mozilla support the latest versions of HTML and CSS, as well as XML and XSL.
  • Licenses aside, AOL employs nearly all of the serious Mozilla developers, so by virtue of this fact it can add new features when it wants.

    Maybe this will demonstrate to people this idiocy of volunteering to work for a corporation that has so much money that they do not know where to put it.

  • Why would AOL want an IRC client?

    Perhaps because they bought Mirabalis, the largest IRC utilities vendor last year...
  • *shrug*

    So is this going to delay Mozilla longer? Or can we just plug this in later?
  • I hate that I can't NOT install that when I get the new version of Netscape for Windows...

    You know, the only thing holding me back from being 100% Linux/X is a good newsreader... I need a program comparable to Forte' Agent for Linux... if anyone knows of one let me know, though :-)

    8Complex
  • Yeah, Agent works fine with WINE, unfortunately it doesn't when you don't have a dial-up connection. I get all kinda crazy Winsock errors trying to use it with my cable modem.

    I don't know if I'm missing some configurations with WINE or what, but its just frustrating.

    8Complex
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Certainly I don't think most of us would want to lose the "click on the email link in the browser and up pops an email window" feature.

    And, of course, once you do that ... you'd might as well put email in. And, since the basic email interface is similar to NNTP, here comes NNTP, too.

    I have to say, though, that I liked Netscape 3's user interface for such things much better than 4's. They really messed up 4. If I didn't need dynamic HTML, I would have never upgraded.

    D

    ----
  • Also, is this something that people really want in the browser? I mean, how many people use chat-specific protocols aside from IRC? I'm not really up on all of this stuff, so maybe there are like 20 often used chat protocols, but in my surfing, most people use already web-based solutions like java applets, constant-refreshes (annoying, IMHO), or forum based communication (ala slashdot or motley fool, etc.). I'm not sure if this is even a great idea.

    I think this is entirely the point. People want to "live" in their web browser, because it provides a convenient, consistent interface to many forms of information. Because of this, they will use web-based chat clients, whether based on Java or annoying (and expensive) frequent refreshes, etc. Hence, it makes sense to integrate it into the browser cleanly rather than always using such clumsy interfaces. (However, it remains important to make it modular so people who aren't interested in the functionality don't get burdened with the overhead.)

  • I really hope this doesn't mean that the IM-system will be too heavily integrated into Mozilla... (or integrated at all)

    The IM-system definitely should be stand-alone (with optional integration into Mozilla? Can't see why one would like to do that though).

    But it's good to have a big (open) organization starting it up...

    --

  • For everyone worrying about bloat out there: Don't. It's going to be a pluggable module. That said, the mozilla developers really need to quit spreading themselves thin with these side projects and concentrate on just getting a Mozilla 1.0 out now. There is not one person out there who is going to use or not use Mozilla because it either has or is lacking a chat client. I know people are going to say that it's totally separate and won't distract from the main project development, and that everyone working on the chat client wouldn't have been working on the main project anyway, but I don't buy it. I have no doubt that this will delay mozilla further, and even if it's only one more day, IE's only going to gain more mindshare and marketshare. Good luck to all the guys who stuck with the project despite the resignations, but c'mon, focus on the main goal and get a 1.0 browser out.

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  • If you go to http://egg.microsoft.com (which is a linux server) They are talking about chatting and IM proticall. I think it is just the next step to a fully web based world where we live in our computers and (@#slap#@) oh i was having a moment...
    Just my 2 cents.
    --
    Joshua Curtis
    Lancaster Co. Linux Users Group
  • This is Microsoft style bloat.
    "lets add another quadrillion features to w2k, lets add a gazillion more to MSIE5".

    I think, that browsers should have been browsers and thats it.
    No chat, no audio streaming, not even ftp.
    I thought gecko^H^H^H^H^HNGLayout stood for being modular.
    I though i could seperate the html rendring from being able to browse files, or chat.
    But appearently, they just add and add and add.

    I'll finish with a quote:
    "You know software is good, not when there is nothing more to add,
    but when there's nothing more to take away"


    ---
  • I happen to agree with you and frankly this sort of feature I would expect to see in a commercial package (ie IE). I think the reason that these types of features exist is so that more laman (sp?) users can do more with fewer programs. Also, this could broaden the user base of irc (not that it particularly needs it). Eh, so long as it's modular code that I can opt to install or not I'll be happy.

  • Emacs (Score:1)

    by blaine ( 16929 )
    The difference is that Emacs isn't an editor. Emacs is a lisp evaluation environment. It just happens that it edits text well. Most people who revere Emacs revere it for the fact that it does so much. I have a friend who never closes it; it is almost his window manager :)
  • I seem to remember hearing that Agent worked not bad under wine...
  • More "features" = more bloat = more delay. "Let's throw in a chat client, but wait, how about we start from scratch with that too?"

    These people should be shot for their wanton misuse of development resources. Every day without a Mozilla release pushes me closer to switching back to NT, just for IE. (Yes, IE sucks, but its a damn sight better than Netscape.)

    Sigh... where's opera for linux?

    -Tom

    "Help me Opera, you're my only hope"
  • seems like everyone is saying that they already have an IRC client, why do we need another?--well this isn't an irc client!--from their page, it will apparently suppot multiple protocols, such as AIM, and IRC, and hopefully ICQ, etc. I don't know about anyone else, but this is excatly what I need! right now I have to run three different programs with three different interfaces to stay in contact with people. I think after reading, the unity of interface document, that this is what they are trying to do, in general, with mozilla. The project seems to have moved away from being a browser, to being a, uh, portal? a central interface for a large number of internet related programs, with similat UI's etc. The difference between this and a browser is the same as the difference between their Communicator and Navigator projects--one is just a piece of the other. In mozilla, I think gecko could be considered the browser component, and just a piece of the project overall.

    anyway, that is my opinion, and yes it is probably wrong!

  • remeber that the idea is that mozilla is NOT a browser anymore--it is a suite of integrated internet applications
  • jwz has abandoned the project. Boy, the developers over there learned their lesson for all of a week. I had such high hopes for the project. Oh well.

    -Brian
  • My bad. In that case, I guess he has little right to complain about not being able to ship a usable product. If they started with a nearly unusable/unworkable code base and decided that rather than get something resembling a browser out the door the best thing to do is add more unrelated features, then he deserves the crumbling mess he got. I don't want to sound harsh, but supporting something this ridiculous, then complaining about featureitis and an inability to produce a releaseable version is absurd.

    -Brian
  • In fact, the proposal to add chat to Mozilla appears in this [mozilla.org] mozilla.org "Blue Sky" article dating from last May - written by jwz.

    From what evidence I've seen, your accusation seems rather unfair - or at least, there's been no obvious sign yet that Netscape or AOL executives have been imposing their will on the Mozilla full-timers. (I certainly can't deny that they could if they decided to.) Quite the opposite: what seems to be delaying Mozilla most is the desire to redo nearly everything from scratch, which certainly suggests an engineer-driven rather than a manager-driven project to me.

  • You won't have to. Mozilla will be built both with and without the functionality. It would pay to actually do some reading on a subject before you run at the mouth.
  • Good use of a double negative. AOL IM is a pain but not difficult to get rid of. Sometimes you just have to say hay I got this for free so I should not complain.
  • I got a point, none of you would even dream of commenting in the same way on linux, menmonic, gnome, KDE or anything (maybe apple though). If linux get another driver or feature you wouldn't complain about bloat and delays, would you ?

    The real problem as I see it is that netscape has pulled the mozilla page, for some reson. How independent and free is relly mozilla?, how can we trust it then netscape can remove, and trie to kill any project they don't like?. It's not our project as long non of us contributes and non of us even feel the slightest appeal to contribute. As I see it, mozilla has not been working hard enough to "help" people contribute (but what do I know). And we, the people/users/programmers has not been enough open minded, still today, after endless discussions you are still complaining at mozilla about bloat and delays, you should be blaming yourself instead!!
  • You got a point ... etc etc

    /relly need better spelling

  • IRC != ICQ

    Pity. You had such a nice conspiracy going...

    --

  • does anyone have technical info on aim - is it purely text based, i.e. can anyone implement their own clone of it etc....
  • I'd kinda like to see them get the web browser and mail-reading setup working first... and make it FAST... not add more semi-useless stuff until after the other stuff works.
  • More features == more bloat == more delay == more bugs. BTW have the bus error crashes and DNS hangs been fixed? I think what I really want is lynx with tables, frames and graphics.
  • And I thought Mozilla would allow us to have have a clean, fast, debloated browser. Does anyone know if will it be possible to leave Java, Javascript, and all the useless chrome (i.e. drag and drop support, chat, addressbook etc) out when compiling? I dislike the idea of having an all-in-one application -- stand-alone, highly specialized applications seem to be much better.
  • In my opinion Mozilla should just be a browser. If a generic IRC client has to be integrated, it should be done once and for all and in the desktop. What makes a browser more special than a calculator when it comes to chatting?
  • oh yeah yet another way for me to be contacted i already got about 50 different ways of being contacted why not another

  • the browser will still be the core though, from what I've seen everything else will be plug(in/out)able.

    I think the problem is that they're listening to people's requests (horror of horrors) in the developer newsgroups. There have been a few requests for an IRC client.

    I don't think there's any choice but to do a news/mail reader either. Since the functionality is in there already in Netscape 4 people who use that functionality are going to want it in 5. The rest of us can just use the vanilla browser. Microsoft would have a good propaganda tool with the great unwashed with a netscape 5 that "can't even do email", those who aren't really going to care how standards compliant the gecko layout engine is.

Slashdot Top Deals

/earth: file system full.

Close