Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

General discussion and chat (archived)
User avatar
Marcus
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 182
Joined: 2016-09-23, 11:58

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by Marcus » 2017-03-11, 18:59

Thanks for the answer.

CharmCityCrab

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by CharmCityCrab » 2017-03-12, 08:00

Moonchild wrote:that all depends on how the other team responds... IF they respond, to begin with.
(FTR, the SeaMonkey council has been sent an e-mail asking about their thoughts on cooperation, but no reply so far.)
I'm glad to hear that Pale Moon is reaching out. With three somewhat similar projects out there that all have basically said they need developers, it seems like a Pale Moon/Thunderbird/SeaMonkey alliance would mean less need for developers on each project to repeat the same basic development tasks indepedently, thereby freeing up developer time for each project even if the overall number of developers remains constant.

Additionally, if SeaMonkey and Thunderbird are sticking to XUL, or are potentially willing to, there is the possibility of a unified AMO that gives add-on developers a "one stop shop" for designing and uploading their add-ons, promising less work on their part to access a higher number of potential users culmulatively than each project alone offers.

There is also potential for crossbranding that would increase name recognition for all three products (i.e. recipocoral links, "SeaMonkey powered by Pale Moon and Thunderbird", etc.).

Some projects like FossaMail could even be dropped entirely as part of such an alliance, with any unique features that exist folded into Thunderbird or made available as a Thunderbird add-on. I would imagine that Thunderbird would start to transition to the Pale Moon core rather than Servo, which negates FossaMail's reason for existance.

This could be a win for all three projects, their developers, and their users.
There honestly are no other "teams" that would help the browser corner, since there are no other products around that have actually forked Mozilla or built independently on it (The Firefox rebuilds out there like cyberfox and waterfox etc. really don't count for that)
I think when it comes to non-fork independent variations of Firefox like Cyberfox and Waterfox, the upside is not their code or non-existent development map, but the developers and users of the applications. Sure, they may just each be maintained by one or two guys who don't have the expertise that MoonChild and his top people have, but they probably know enough to be able to *help* Pale Moon's existing team in some way if they know enough about coding and working with Mozilla type browser projects to even repackage Firefox to the perhaps somewhat minimal extent that they do. Bringing abroad as many developers as possible rightly seems like a high priority for Pale Moon- that in the long run is the road to giving it the best chance to continue to provide the best possible experience to users and to stat compatible with an increasingly complex world wide web.

Having more users of course would give Pale Moon more leverage on getting websites to play ball with browser engines that aren't Webkit/Blink based, and of course attract more developers and add-ons in a nice feedback loop.

Of course, unlike with Thunderbird and SeaMonkey, where it's obvious what to do with the basic branding (Pale Moon is the browser, Thunderbird is the email client, and SeaMonkey is the all-in-one suite- perhaps with crossreferences to each other in their websites and in branding "subtitles", and a shared AMO, perhaps not, depending how close the cooperation is and what can be negotiated), bringing in the remnants of Cyberfox (Which has announced it is tentatively planning to shutdown in the next year or so) and Waterfox creates a less clear situation.

I guess with Cyberfox and Waterfox, the idea would be to get ahold of their websites, "hire" their developers, and then simply wind down development on each browser to where they update to Pale Moon at some point through their own internal update mechanisms in the software itself (Maybe after a few transition updates to smooth the way) and redirect the websites to Pale Moon's site. Any unique features or user interface things that may exist in those two browsers could be incorporated into Pale Moon as options, or be made available as Pale Moon extensions.

The question would be if it makes sense to go forward under that scenario with a Cyberfox and a Waterfox that are Pale Moon but labeled as Cyberfox and Waterfox (perhaps "Powered By Pale Moon"), maybe with a few things preconfigured differently and their own logos, or just have everything be Pale Moon ultimately browser wise (Whereas with TB and SM, its obvious that they'd keep their primary branding as its better known and they actually are different types of software than Pale Moon and need their own names). I think from a purely ulitarian perspective, it'd be best to transition CF and WF them to Pale Moon, so that there is ultimately one browser to maintain and one browser brand to grow. That gives Pale Moon a more visible marketshare rather than it looking like several separate smaller browsers. However, developers of other projects and their users likely have attachment to their brands, which might have to be acknowledged in some way long-term to get an agreement and retain as many users as possible.

Obviously, Thunderbird and Seamonkey are the bigger fish that cooperation with or even a merger with behind the scenes would help Pale Moon more. It'd also help out Thunderbird and SeaMonkey a great deal. Stuff like Cyberfox and Waterfox isn't as big of a deal and would almost only make sense on a straight forward aquisition or re-direct basis, but I would think are not *so* inconsequential as to not be worth doing if their developers are interested.
Last edited by CharmCityCrab on 2017-03-12, 08:06, edited 1 time in total.

Terryphi

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by Terryphi » 2017-03-12, 08:03

I was pleasantly surprised to see that Firefox 52 works at all the sites I regularly visit despite the loss of plugins other than Flash and Widevine CDM.

User avatar
LimboSlam
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1029
Joined: 2014-06-09, 04:43
Location: USA

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by LimboSlam » 2017-03-12, 20:42

I also want to bring in K-Meleon. This project is falling behind greatly (curretnly, they're stuck on v31 ESR of Gecko and have been for awhile) and no word of RC2 or 3 which improves their re-base on Gecko v38; I believe the developer is facing a difficult time moving his project forward because their team is much smaller. Well, I think it would be best if they somehow re-based their engine off of ours and continue development based-off Goanna, considering we're the closes match of Gecko v38 (modified, of course, to fit Goanna) that is still providing a customizable/versatile UI.

Anyways, that's my thought. Please way in if I'm wrongly informed, I would love to this project flourish.
With Pale Moon by my side, surfing the web is quite enjoyable and takes my headaches away! :)
God is not punishing you, He is preparing you. Trust His plan, not your pain.#‎TrentShelton #‎RehabTime

GreenGeek

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by GreenGeek » 2017-03-12, 22:21

Cyberfox is shutting down (stopping with last 52ESR), so most likely it is not worth discussing. K-meleon would have nothing to offer the PM community, and would probably just be an additional strain to support any special requests they might have. Waterfox is continuing some way, details TBA with next release due any day. A Waterfox based on PM would not make sense to me; they're already fairly similar when using CTR on WF. The only real benefit would be if they work together on one browser. Personally I will most likely give up on SeaMonkey and would not be interested in a SeaMonkey/PM/Thunderbird suite, but to those who want it, go for it. On the other hand, I would like to see SM devs and users help with PM without changing it into a copy of their current product.

CharmCityCrab

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by CharmCityCrab » 2017-03-13, 01:11

GreenGeek wrote:Cyberfox is shutting down (stopping with last 52ESR), so most likely it is not worth discussing.
What if we could funnel all those users into Pale Moon by having their software update mechanism upgrade to Pale Moon (Or have a few transitional updates to eventually hit that point), and having the website redirect people to the Pale Moon websites? It seems like in a way, Cyberfox shutting down makes it even more of an opportunity for Pale Moon rather than making it something not worth discussing. They've got a bunch of users who are looking for a place to go. Pale Moon could give them one. Yes, Pale Moon already will be doing that regardless (Giving them a potential place to go), but I would think that you'd get a far greater uptake if Cyberfox were to upgrade directly to Pale Moon and forward it's website and stuff and people just suddenly were using Pale Moon with all their bookmarks intact simply by Cyberfox upgrading into Pale Moon, versus people having to become aware of Pale Moon's existence somehow, deciding to use it, downloading it, and manually trying to import a profile, etc.. If nothing is done, most of those Cyberfox users will likely just become Firefox or Chrome users- some will come over to Pale Moon- but you could double or triple the percentage if Pale Moon just basically became the next Cyberfox update versus something people have to seek out.

It's not a joint development opportunity, but it is an opportunity.

GreenGeek

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by GreenGeek » 2017-03-13, 01:46

Sounds like a nightmare. Who's going to support all those users whining about things that not working the same as in Cyberfox? I thought the topic was more development support not increasing usage stats.

User avatar
LimboSlam
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1029
Joined: 2014-06-09, 04:43
Location: USA

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by LimboSlam » 2017-03-13, 07:53

Good news (we can only hope), Waterfox "plans to get funding for a startup to fork the last working version of Firefox with XUL/XPCOM to create a new browser out of it." It "would have its own release cycle, which would be similar to Firefox's 1 to Firefox's 3.6 release cycle (less but larger releases). That new browser would use C++ and not Rust as the core language."

See here: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/03/13/water ... e-browser/.
With Pale Moon by my side, surfing the web is quite enjoyable and takes my headaches away! :)
God is not punishing you, He is preparing you. Trust His plan, not your pain.#‎TrentShelton #‎RehabTime

tuxman

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by tuxman » 2017-03-13, 08:51

Yay, another Firefox fork. :coffee:

While I can surely find the "C++ instead of Rust" approach appealing, I fail to see why they think more diversity would help the struggling ecosystem.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35478
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by Moonchild » 2017-03-13, 08:54

LimboSlam wrote:Good news (we can only hope), Waterfox "plans to get funding for a startup to fork the last working version of Firefox with XUL/XPCOM to create a new browser out of it." It "would have its own release cycle, which would be similar to Firefox's 1 to Firefox's 3.6 release cycle (less but larger releases). That new browser would use C++ and not Rust as the core language."

See here: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/03/13/water ... e-browser/.
Interesting. It's exactly what I had planned to do if things would go the way they are going, with the difference that I'd also take the opportunity to fix a number of long-standing bugs in the browser that Mozilla couldn't be bothered to do (which Pale Moon has fixed). There is simply a need for such a browser. But the Waterfox maintainer had better make a solid promise to maintain and port/fix security issues in that case.

The problem I think I already see is that it will take the very latest XUL version of Firefox (56), meaning some things have already been completely cut from it in preparation to the move to Rust. He'll have to undo that if he wants to make it a real contender. He should also consider using Visual Studio and not Clang for that one.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

mgagnonlv
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 266
Joined: 2013-03-05, 02:06
Location: Canada

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by mgagnonlv » 2017-03-13, 13:22

I'm not sure that the plan to "hire" (i.e. put under the same roof) developers from Cyberfox, Waterfox, Thuderbird and Seamonkey would work. Great idea in principle, but most likely to fail in practice. From a user's point of view, Thunderbird succeeded to maintain itself, and apart from a few irritants, I would suggest it mostly needs a new roof. As for other variants, I think it might be wiser to look at concepts that should be borrowed from them rather than individuals. Let the individuals decide by themselves whether or not they want to work on a new and improved Pale Moon, because that's what will happen anyways.

Speaking of concepts that should be imported, here are a few examples that would make Pale Moon a more user-friendly browser that would reach beyond the "geek" clientele:
– Language management. Cyberfox had introduced in the last few years it's "Language Manager" extension and has recently incorporated it in the browser itself. Download the English version, open "Tools –> Options", select a new language and Cyberfox restarts automatically with the new language pack and the general.useragent.locale string updated automatically.

– Updated Options dialog. Considering the number of custom settings that need to be updated manually, there should be an easier way to do it. For instance, there could be an entire new panel where user-agent strings could be customized.
Michel Gagnon
Montréal (Québec, Canada)

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2017-03-13, 13:40

Guys.. While I am not the most popular person atm.. I need to remind you to not go crazy with your expectations and predictions. Things will unfold how they unfold.. Whatever happens I am and you can be reasonably sure that Pale Moon will remain Pale Moon. Keep that in mind.

That being said, if things land correctly and a brave new world can be established it need not be super centralized. It could work (perhaps better) if there was just a high degree of cross-cooperation and if push came to shove then one group or another could make a change locally or revert a change from elsewhere.. It does not need to mean that everyone must use the exact same source repository but a hell of a lot (more than one would think) could be shared.. Pull requests made.. things being proven in one project before others accepted it. You know, Open Source development. Development that isn't a slave to one all powerful corporate agenda.

If you guys want me to elaborate more let me know.. Otherwise sit tight and keep watching.. Either way it will be interesting to see what happens.

kizo07

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by kizo07 » 2017-03-13, 15:59

Off-topic:
Since Mozilla and Firefox are not actually 'my table', but since I have a big respect for author of this thread...whose achieved a lot in relatively short time, successfully acknowledged the problem, addressed it, and resolved it...that's something worth feeling good about.
Time is very valuable and it should be always used to achieve optimum results and I believe it should not be played around with.

Since we value everybody here equal, so, my 'contribution' to OP is that everybody here have some good points. Even 'Sun-Glasses', whose wasn't just of one most popular persons here, shows now that he had some good points too anyway...

Let me finish. Remove self-doubt by looking at the facts.
Think positive thoughts about yourself. ;)

CharmCityCrab

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by CharmCityCrab » 2017-03-13, 23:28

LimboSlam wrote:Good news (we can only hope), Waterfox "plans to get funding for a startup to fork the last working version of Firefox with XUL/XPCOM to create a new browser out of it." It "would have its own release cycle, which would be similar to Firefox's 1 to Firefox's 3.6 release cycle (less but larger releases). That new browser would use C++ and not Rust as the core language."

See here: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/03/13/water ... e-browser/.
I would be interesting in seeing how the Waterfox developer thinks his project will differ from Pale Moon over the long term. If he is truly presenting a different vision, then it makes sense to approach it the way he's approaching it and have two separate browsers (Although there could still be room for cooperation in specific eras where the existing code is similar and specific areas where they want to go in similar directions). However, if he's doing the same thing, and the difference is just branding and at which point each browser decided to fork from Firefox, it might make more sense to merge the projects.

I really think the biggest issue that faces Pale Moon and now maybe Waterfox and such going forward is that the whole web is going to be designed for Blink/Webkit, and maybe whatever engine Edge uses. Any non-corporate smaller browser with a different web engine is going to need marketshare to force websites to acknowledge them and give them useable versions of their sites. Also, it's obviously very hard for these smaller browsers to keep current with smaller numbers of developers and such, and their own add-on infrastructure. Telling add-on providers to please provide one version of their add-on for Pale Moon and another for Waterfox is not going to give either a strong ecosystem.

Obviously people have the right to, and will, do what they want to do, but it seems like a separate Waterfox is a waste when those developers and users could united with Pale Moon. In a few years, there is a better chance that a single project will be a viable alternative with marketshare above 1% than that *either* of two smaller groups doing similar things will exist. This is an uphill battle and it makes sense to unite as many people as can be united, IMO.

New Tobin Paradigm

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by New Tobin Paradigm » 2017-03-14, 05:18

CharmCityCrab wrote: I would be interesting in seeing how the Waterfox developer thinks his project will differ from Pale Moon over the long term.
Well.. It will be based on the Firefox Application code and UX as it is today. Where as Pale Moon's last Application code was based on Firefox how it was UX wise.
CharmCityCrab wrote:If he is truly presenting a different vision, then it makes sense to approach it the way he's approaching it and have two separate browsers (Although there could still be room for cooperation in specific eras where the existing code is similar and specific areas where they want to go in similar directions).
Obviously, they are gonna cater to current Waterfox users and current Firefox users of today who want all that current day Australis Firefox offers. Where as Pale Moon caters to a reasonable extent to former Firefox users of long standing.
CharmCityCrab wrote:However, if he's doing the same thing, and the difference is just branding and at which point each browser decided to fork from Firefox, it might make more sense to merge the projects.
See above.
CharmCityCrab wrote:I really think the biggest issue that faces Pale Moon and now maybe Waterfox and such going forward is that the whole web is going to be designed for Blink/Webkit, and maybe whatever engine Edge uses. Any non-corporate smaller browser with a different web engine is going to need marketshare to force websites to acknowledge them and give them useable versions of their sites. Also, it's obviously very hard for these smaller browsers to keep current with smaller numbers of developers and such, and their own add-on infrastructure. Telling add-on providers to please provide one version of their add-on for Pale Moon and another for Waterfox is not going to give either a strong ecosystem.
So the same damn problem we already had.. Oh well. If it was up to me, and I would like to remind everyone it isn't, I would wait and see how this progresses out before the Pale Moon project makes any sort of decisions.. As this Project can continue on regardless of what anyone else is doing.. See my previous post.

Additionally, don't forget with the exception of Jetpack (possible but jesus christ..) cross-codebase extensions using Mozilla technologies is totally a thing and fairly easy to accommodate. So separate versions thing doesn't hold much water.
CharmCityCrab wrote:Obviously people have the right to, and will, do what they want to do, but it seems like a separate Waterfox is a waste when those developers and users could united with Pale Moon. In a few years, there is a better chance that a single project will be a viable alternative with marketshare above 1% than that *either* of two smaller groups doing similar things will exist. This is an uphill battle and it makes sense to unite as many people as can be united, IMO.
CharmCityCrab.. You need a primer or maybe a refresher course on the difference between Platform and Application code and their relationship in a mozilla-style codebase. Go checkout the early Tycho threads or come to IRC I would be glad to accomidate you. Also, you really should read my previous post as well.

That all being said.. I do have my own vision of a possible future.. Anyone who may remember Sonic CD can consider it the Good Future. I am sure many are already aware of some aspects of a so-called Bad Future.. However, I will leave that for another post. Unless someone really wants it. I simply don't want to type it this second.

Jenerous

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by Jenerous » 2017-03-15, 15:13

huh that's sad. esp that most people won't know any better apart from chrome

chalee

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by chalee » 2017-03-15, 17:10

a week ago i would thought this thread could be a joke, but: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1345661

:o :roll: :!:


User avatar
Marcus
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 182
Joined: 2016-09-23, 11:58

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by Marcus » 2017-03-15, 21:51

In order to support faster refactoring of the browser code, we are trying to stop exposing the browser internals
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a step away from open source?

Thehandyman1957

Re: Mozilla described the plan to destroy Firefox in detail

Unread post by Thehandyman1957 » 2017-03-16, 00:48

Marcus wrote:
In order to support faster refactoring of the browser code, we are trying to stop exposing the browser internals
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a step away from open source?
No, this just means that they don't want add on code having access to changing anything in the core browser.

In simpler terms: You used to be able to change almost anything in the browser with a add on. Now it's going to be like putting on a coat.

Locked