Instant Messaging in Mozilla 92
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.
Does anyone here READ the docs? (Score:1)
"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)
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.)
Page removed!!! (Score:1)
I want to die peacefully in my sleep as my grandfather did...
What ever happened to... (Score:1)
..."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.
Ignorance is strength (Score:1)
``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.
This was JWZ's idea, actually. (Score:2)
--
hope this means no more AOL IM (Score:1)
I kinda wonder... (Score:1)
> 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)
Emacs is Run-Time Modular (Score:1)
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.
Not Very Reasonable (Score:1)
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.
That's the Future (Score:1)
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.
spare us (Score:1)
Oliver Soell, MCSE
oliver@spam!grandmas.org
hope this means no more AOL IM (Score:1)
Gnus [gnus.org]. The king of newsreaders.
--
W.A.S.T.E.
I kinda wonder... (Score:1)
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)
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.
How About This For a Feature? (Score:1)
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)
Please, no (Score:1)
Log
Thank you... (Score:1)
Isn't it? (Score:1)
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...
Question (Score:1)
The desktop should be the portal (Score:1)
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.
slashdot luddites (Score:2)
It's YOUR project (Score:3)
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.
Mozilla (what else)? (Score:2)
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!
Is this necessary now? (Score:1)
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
hope this means no more AOL IM (Score:1)
But thats putting it bluntly
slashdot luddites (Score:1)
Go Mnemonic - The alternative to the alternative. (Score:1)
slashdot luddites (Score:2)
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
Not Very Reasonable ... but (Score:1)
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... (Score:1)
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.
XPDessert_topping and XUFloorwax (Score:1)
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.
AOL controlled? Huh? (Score:1)
How About This For a Feature? (Score:1)
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...
Please, no (Score:1)
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.
Please, no (Score:1)
that I'd like to see Mozilla support the latest versions of HTML and CSS, as well as XML and XSL.
Because Mozilla is controlled by AOL. (Score:1)
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.
AOL controlled? Huh? (Score:1)
Perhaps because they bought Mirabalis, the largest IRC utilities vendor last year...
Who wants to use their web browser as IRC client? (Score:1)
So is this going to delay Mozilla longer? Or can we just plug this in later?
hope this means no more AOL IM (Score:1)
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
Agent under Linux - not without a dial-up (Score:1)
I don't know if I'm missing some configurations with WINE or what, but its just frustrating.
8Complex
Re: (Score:1)
A reasonable reason. (Score:1)
And, of course, once you do that
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
----
Browser with chat DOES make sense. (Score:1)
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.)
Modularization? (Score:1)
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...
--
It's not bloat (Score:1)
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
Both Microsoft and Netscape are doing it (Score:1)
Just my 2 cents.
--
Joshua Curtis
Lancaster Co. Linux Users Group
Microsoft Style (Score:1)
"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"
---
Why? (Score:1)
Emacs (Score:1)
Agent under Linux (Score:1)
I want to cry. (Score:1)
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"
Mozilla. It's not just a browser anymore! (Score:1)
anyway, that is my opinion, and yes it is probably wrong!
The desktop should be the portal (Score:1)
And now we see why... (Score:1)
-Brian
And now we see why... (Score:1)
-Brian
But then again... (Score:1)
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.
Please read up before posting invective. (Score:1)
hope this means no more AOL IM (Score:1)
If it is, then why has netscape pulld the page? (Score:1)
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!!
corrections :-( (Score:1)
/relly need better spelling
small problem (Score:1)
IRC != ICQ
Pity. You had such a nice conspiracy going...
--
aim (Score:1)
*cough cough* BLOATWARE *cough cough*... (Score:1)
I want to cry. (Score:1)
Bloat (Score:2)
The desktop should be the portal (Score:1)
oh yea another chating program (Score:1)
Microsoft Style (Score:1)
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.