Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Leaves Out Linux For Initial Web App Support

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the thy-fickle-heart dept.

Mozilla 403

darthcamaro writes "Guess What? Linux is not a primary platform for Mozilla. For Mozilla's upcoming Web Apps marketplace, Linux support is not part of the initial release. Some Mozilla developers simply are shrugging this off as Windows and Mac dominate the Mozilla user landscape today."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fork it, then (5, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004427)

Unlike with Internet Explorer, if the Linux community feels strongly about this, they could always do their own fork. So stop bitching and start coding.

Re:Fork it, then (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004477)

That's right Fork it! And fork them!

I'll just use another browser!

Forking summa batches!

It mighta as well, too! The spiel checker hasn't worked on Linux in many many releases.

Re:Fork it, then (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004523)

You most likely wouldn't even need to fork it, it's not like Mozilla is fundamentally opposed to the idea, they just can't justify the resources necessary for it at the moment. If you were to fully implement it with some decent code, I'm pretty sure Mozilla would be more than happy to integrate it.

Re:Fork it, then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004787)

like it would take them much of their huge budget to spin out a couple of extra releases.... booo

Re:Fork it, then (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40005015)

wow, you just don't even know enough about software development to form an opinion

Re:Fork it, then (4, Informative)

Ramin_HAL9001 (1677134) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004595)

There are like 20 forks of Firefox for Linux already, I can't even keep track of them all: Iceweasel, Seamonkey, Icecat, Swiftfox, Flock, ...

There are even more based on WebKit.

Re:Fork it, then (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004767)

Iceweasel is really just a rebranding, technically it's a fork but the code is identical to Firefox.

Re:Fork it, then (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004951)

Almost but there are extra patches added in hence why they had to rename it in the first place so yes it's a fork that's tied closely to the main branch.

Re:Fork it, then (5, Informative)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004901)

Seamonkey isn't a fork of Firefox, it's the other way around. Seamonkey is what remains of the old Mozilla suite. I'm surprised it's under active development.

Re:Fork it, then (3, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004667)

Forking is what causes forking confusion.

It makes newbies runaway from GNUlinux rather than try it, and even experienced people like me say, "I'm tired of 10 different variants of Mozilla browsers, and the desktop changing every release. I'm going back to Win or Mac OS for some multiyear stability."

Re:Fork it, then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004755)

Does choice confuse you?

Re:Fork it, then (5, Insightful)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004915)

According to Barry Schwartz (Let the spaceballs jokes begin...) it not only confuses people, it actually makes them less satisfied:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less [wikipedia.org]

One of the reasons for this is percieved "Missed Opportunities". The idea that, yeah, maybe you picked Firefox, but you have a nagging feeling that you might have been happier with IceWeasel. This makes you enjoy FireFox less, through no fault of FireFox itself.

Re:Fork it, then (4, Insightful)

Brad1138 (590148) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004965)

It reminds me a bit of the cola wars, so many different variants, there isn't room on the shelves for all of them. It is what is killing Linux as a viable alternative to Windows/Mac. For us computer geeks, it is fun to switch between variants and pick our favorite. To the average computer user it is confusing, and just more work for software developers.

Like it or not, Ubuntu is the best hope for Linux in the real world. It is becoming big enough that software companies and consumers can focus on one Linux product. If Ubuntu is just the flavor of the day and fades like Red Hat etc, I will give up hope of Linux ever really "making it" to the desktop for the average user.

Re:Fork it, then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004831)

True, I hear this daily, at least.

Re:Fork it, then (1)

Shifty0x88 (1732980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004937)

Some people like stability, which then I would tell them to get a LTS (Long Term Support) version of your favorite GNU/Linux OS (although not every OS has one)

Others like the support, some the easy of use, others just aren't technically inclined enough to get things to work if they don't work "out of the box" (out of the CD? no, no one gets linux on CD, so I guess: out of the download? Ah, I digress....)

Turnabout is fair play (1, Interesting)

DickBreath (207180) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004441)

Web and Javascript developers can leave out Mozilla for initial web application support. Chrome is looking pretty good these days.

Re:Turnabout is fair play (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004563)

What you're doing is looking pretty good to google as well. They love sniffing data

Re:Turnabout is fair play (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004997)

so does apple,facebook,microsoft,...

Re:Turnabout is fair play (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004571)

JS execution in Chrom(e/ium) is unrivalled. I have it on my Mint install at work just for accessing our JS-heavy KB/ticketing system.

Re:Turnabout is fair play (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004693)

JS execution in Chrom(e/ium) is unrivalled. I have it on my Mint install at work just for accessing our JS-heavy KB/ticketing system.

You're right. I use noscript on firefox to prevent JS and Flash from running at all.

Re:Turnabout is fair play (1)

zidium (2550286) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004847)

A sad solution to a truly depressing state of affairs!

Re:Turnabout is fair play (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004741)

Runs like shit on my 1/2 gigabyte PC. Starts out okay but after about half-an-hour, Chromium spawns 5+ processes that hog memory. It's insane.

Re:Turnabout is fair play (0)

zidium (2550286) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004857)

Too poor for even 5 year-old technology?

The world moved on.

Re:Turnabout is fair play (-1, Troll)

Shifty0x88 (1732980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004971)

hAHAHAH seriously, if you have a 1/2 a gigabyte PC, you need a new PC!!!

This is slashdot, how do you have only 512MB?!?!?!

Writing this on a system with 8GB of memory, and am thinking about getting another set. BTW I am a software developer and sometimes big projects takes a lot of memory to build

Re:Turnabout is fair play (4, Insightful)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004641)

I still have a hard time stomaching Chrome. Even looking past the fact that they don't have NoScripts, I'm very reluctant to turn yet another part of my life over to a huge corporation with a checked past when it comes to privacy issues. Mozilla may be largely in Google's pocket too, but at least they maintain some semblance of independence. I trust them a lot more than Google itself.

Re:Turnabout is fair play (2)

zidium (2550286) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004873)

You should try Comodo Dragon or Srware Iron. Both have 0 privacy problems and are direct forks of Chromium.

Re:Turnabout is fair play (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40005003)

Is it necessary? Does Chromium (not Chrome) have privacy problems?

Re:Turnabout is fair play (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004927)

Even looking past the fact that they don't have NoScripts

Why does this lie get repeated every time Chrome/Chromium is mentioned? There has been built-in script blocking for years. Javascript can be disabled and white-listed on a per-site basis. Plug-ins can be disabled and whitelisted or click-to-play. Cookies can be disabled and whitelisted. Hell, you can even disable image rendering if you want. It's all in Settings-->Content Settings.

Now stop spreading this crap.

Re:Turnabout is fair play (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40005045)

Maybe he meant adblock? Not much percentage in an advertising company allowing adverts to be blocked.

Re:Turnabout is fair play (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40005025)

There was a time on internet when Google didn't exists. 50% of all adds where about penis enlargers, at least now I get adds which are somewhat relevant to me. But I guess you just have a small dick.

Re:Turnabout is fair play (1)

Jords (826313) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004747)

Yeah - Funnily enough, even though the initially chrome wasn't available for Linux, since it's release it's been supported much better. For a long time Firefox didn't even have JIT on Linux 64bit.

Chrome crashes - especially with youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004887)

Both Google products, and they don't work together - typical Google.

Chrome crashes constantly when I try to view youtube videos on my Lunbuntu system.

Re:Turnabout is fair play (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004943)

The trouble I have with Chrome is that I can't hide much of my web trail from the all seing Google like I can with Forefox.

Useless anyway (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004455)

What's a "web app marketplace" and why would I need one anyway? There's plenty of useful software available to me in the repositories. There are plenty of websites I can browse with a regular browser. There are plenty of extensions I can use to customize my browsing experience.

Seriously, what does a "web app marketplace" have to offer that isn't already done better through one of the above resources?

Re:Useless anyway (2)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004569)

Ease of use for the lay-users.

People have gotten used to using "Apps" all over the place, and expect them to be all neatly collected in one area for them to browse.

Re:Useless anyway (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004753)

That's what repositories are for. Re-inventing the wheel to do that within every app is, well, retarded. Adobe on windows, anyone?

Grandparent is correct. This is rather useless on a platform such as linux that does software management the right way.

Re:Useless anyway (2)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004931)

Your point being? OP makes no referance for it being on Linux, just that it's "useless".

This is being rolled out on Macs and Windows.

An 87 year old grandmother is not going to know what all these new-fangled "repositories" are. Nor will she Google around and search a dozen sites for a plugin she is wanting.
She does know that her phone has an App store where she can get games and apps, and now here on her computer's browser is something also named App Marketplace, so that must be where she is supposed to go to get Apps here.

What Apple, Microsoft, Google, and now Mozilla are doing is called Marketing.

Re:Useless anyway (1)

Shifty0x88 (1732980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40005013)

yes they are making repos but for lusers, but it just makes it that much easier to get software you want.

Also I don't like just downloading random plug-ins and exes from websites, because most of the time I don't trust them.

Re:Useless anyway (4, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004573)

"Seriously, what does a "web app marketplace" have to offer that isn't already done better through one of the above resources?"

A way for Mozilla foundation to have direct access to your wallet.

Re:Useless anyway (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004771)

But...but...they're non-profit! User-driven! Innovative! Exclamation marks! [mozilla.org] I mean...that's what they told me just now [mozilla.org] ...so they can't really be influenced by any tech giants with mobile phone and tablet interests or anything [pcmag.com] .

Re:Useless anyway (2)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40005011)

"Non-profit" is not a synonym for "never needs revenue".

Re:Useless anyway (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004791)

Ding ding ding! Winner!

Re:Useless anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004599)

All true. But it's about the signal it gives. I couldn't care less either, but on `CEO level` this is a smack in the face for desktop linux and the sentiment news stories like this create feeds the opinion of the less geek minds.

Re:Useless anyway (4, Insightful)

metalgamer84 (1916754) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004601)

Welcome to to the tablet/smartphone age, where everything is an app. Apps on your tablet, apps on your phone, apps on your desktop, apps on your laptop. "Software" is no more, "apps" are the future...or something like that. I despise this market shift of the last four or five years of everything needs to be mobilized as an app so no matter if you are on a tablet, smartphone or laptop/desktop everything is an app.

Apps have a place, I guess, on phones and tablets. Keep that crap off of my machines that I actually use for productivity(laptop/desktop).

Re:Useless anyway (1)

lfacchinelli (2639789) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004635)

A few weeks ago, a bunch of Firefox developer came here to talk about this new "marketplace" And one of the crowd asked exactly the same question. They said a bunch of rubbish things. It will suck ..

Re:Useless anyway (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004639)

Seriously, what does a "web app marketplace" have to offer that isn't already done better through one of the above resources?

Monetize that, so you get to pay for noscript, adblock plus, etc. I'm thinking this is not going to turn out well.

For years I've been waiting for chrome to have addons as good as FF. Maybe being forced to pay will be the big push.

Re:Useless anyway (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004807)

What it does is funnel web hits through the market place instead of directly to your own web site. Instead of people coming to your web site, then clicking on a link to get to your app (thereby also seeing other apps you may have on offer) - they go to the app store, and "install" the app on their machine...thereby bypassing your site.

That means that the application marketplace owner scores advertising revenue - and you lose it.

These things are evil. The web doesn't need them - search engines can search for and find web sites where apps are on offer. No more middle-men are required.

Web apps in themselves are portable - why the heck the engine that offers you the chance to "install" them isn't is beyond me.

Re:Useless anyway (1)

hendridm (302246) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004883)

Seriously, what does a "web app marketplace" have to offer that isn't already done better through one of the above resources?

Agreed. I need a fucking web browser. Does it still do that? Great.

How about focusing on making it run faster?

Re:Useless anyway (4, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004891)

How else are you going to leverage your cloudsourced synergies and focus your thinkspaces across the board going forward?

Re:Useless anyway (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004959)

It's not for you, it's for the developers. Who can make cross-platform apps with less pain. Which means you will find some excellent software there. Take a look at Chrome's marketplace to get an idea.

Linux Abandoned (2)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004463)

Linux abandoned
For more lucrative bet
As classic straight razor
For lame new Gilette
Burma Shave

Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004465)

Yep, Chrome works pretty well on Ubuntu.

w/e, chrome is fine, its Mozilla's loss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004479)

On w/e version of linux I have been on, since chrome came out I have pretty much relegated firefox to backup...

Chrome / Chromium (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004487)

Runs pretty nicely in Linux. It's a good deal faster than FF anyway.

Re:Chrome / Chromium (3, Informative)

AltF4ToWin (1976486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004543)

And the marketplace works. Not that I or anyone in the known universe uses it. But at least it works.

Re:Chrome / Chromium (1)

meow27 (1526173) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004703)

[citation needed]

i've frequently found FF and chromium to be fairly competitive when executing the sunspider bench. sometimes FF is faster, sometimes chromium

with pgo, chromium has never been FF though,

Re:Chrome / Chromium (1)

zidium (2550286) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004995)

First, all of my anecdotal experiences differ, strongly, from your's. Chrome always seems to beat Firefox by several multiples, if not an order of magnitude.

Second, benchmarks smenchmarks... I'm much more interested in how snappy the user experience in Chrome is compared to Firefox (which feels like molasses) and how I can close every single tab and reclaim nearly 90% of the used memory.

Re:Chrome / Chromium (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004719)

To be fair, Chrome was initially Windows-only. The Linux and OS X ports were released months later.

Yo0 Fail It. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004545)

Re:Yo0 Fail It. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004623)

Try harder please

What? (5, Insightful)

Corson (746347) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004557)

I thought that Web App = platform independence? If it's not not then what's the point of developing Web Apps?

Re:What? (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004631)

THIS. Any features the Web App would have would be dependent on the browser (in this case Firefox) not the host OS*

*unless you want to count the possibility of h.264 encoding being relied on the OS.

Moderate parent up. (1)

Kludge (13653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004819)

Subject says it all

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004865)

I thought that Web App = platform independence?

You thought wrong.

Web apps == (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004869)

The whole point of web apps is to tie you to an online service, make your data less secure, and lose your privacy so that you become a marketing unit on their business plan.

And the 2nd point of web apps, or perhaps not a point but an effect nevertheless, is to try to make you forget what decent Human Interfaces on native apps used to look like, so that you don't mind using an in-browser GUI that is more primitive and less responsive than anything we had in the 80's, and badly designed to boot because webbies have no clue about HI ergonomics.

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

EMN13 (11493) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004933)

In other shocking news, different platforms requiring different implementations of this rather non-critical feature don't get the feature exactly simultaneously. And here I was hoping they'd have quantum entangled programmers whose coding is either both done or not done.

This isn't a story.

Meh... (2, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004565)

Chrome works better anyways, most guys I know that use linux are using Chrome and it's app store.

Mozilla has become a also ran lately, they need to get their focus back if they want to get back in the race.

Re:Meh... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004587)

I use chromium and chrome at times, but does anyone actually use the app store?

As far as I can tell it is just a bunch of bookmarks. Totally pointless.

Re:Meh... (1)

bleedingsamurai (2539410) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004637)

I use it to grab adblock+ but that is about it.

Re:Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004839)

Chrome works better anyways, most guys I know that use linux are using Chrome and it's app store.

Chrome is not an app store; it's a browser that has an app store. Its app store is quite mature, thanks to Google.

A matter of share: 85%, 12%, and 2.5% (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004591)

Pretty obvious.
85+ for Windows
12% for Mac OS
2.5% for GNUlinux

Re:A matter of share: 85%, 12%, and 2.5% (3, Interesting)

hendridm (302246) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004929)

It would be interesting to see what % of Mozilla code is developed on each platform.

Re:A matter of share: 85%, 12%, and 2.5% (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40005029)

What's up with all the GNUtards?!

I use Gentoo with clang (instead of GCC) and go OUT OF MY WAY to avoid the GPL (I restrict the license via make.conf, actually, and have to unmask anything I want to explicitly install), just to avoid the thought of using "GNU/Linux". I use *Linux*, but if the GNUtards keep it up, I'll seriously consider swapping to the FreeBSD kernel.

gtfo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004611)

And when i think I was a big supporter.... hah.... time to change the browsers .

pathetic (4, Interesting)

AntEater (16627) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004613)

"...shrugging this off as Windows and Mac dominate the Mozilla user landscape today."

And that is a big part of why Windows and Mac continue to dominate the landscape. The Linux versions of many apps tend to be second rate. Then the developers look at it and say "see, nobody really wanted it on that platform anyway."

That's a pretty sad statement for an open project to make.

Re:pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004675)

Not only that, Firefox/Mozilla pretty much 'came' from Linux. Back in the day, it was the Linux people using it, Windows share was tiny. Now that the scale has reversed, the Linux community gets 'shoved to the side' like that.

It hurts kinda, really.

Re:pathetic (3, Insightful)

EMN13 (11493) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004967)

It's also a fictional summary designed to grab your attention rather than represent the truth.

Re:pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004989)

The Linux versions of many apps tend to be second rate. Then the developers look at it and say "see, nobody really wanted it on that platform anyway."

What the hell? Did you just pull some fake quotes out of your ass? You make it sound as if someone said that in the FA.

It was predictable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004627)

Because, probably, under Windows and Mac there's no problem to install applications...

For Micr^M^M^M^M Mozilla developers should be too much sadomasochist to ask to implement some nice sandboxing functions to Microsoft and Apple
developers.

GSoC Project for Open Web Apps support on Linux (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004633)

There's a GSoC project about Open Web Apps support for Linux: https://wiki.mozilla.org/SummerOfCode/2012/LinuxNativeWebApps

Walked into this one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004655)

They walked into the rake and then pretended everything is normal. Now, that raise rake to the power of Slashdot, and see what happens. Mozilla will find out soon enough, maybe?

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004677)

Why would someone want to install a web app natively rather then use, ya know, a properly written native app? How can a web app even be native, I sure hope this isn't a step in the activeX direction.

Web apps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004739)

As in, things that run from a web browser and have no care about the underlying OS?
You serious?

Apparently Mozilla missed the Standards Meeting.
These aren't web apps at all. If they were, the browser should be able to run them if the browser itself works on the OS in question.
So is Firefox working on Linux or not?

These are the Web Apps, Mozilla [w3.org]
What the hell are you doing that somehow makes them broken?

Glad I went away from that mess. Mozilla don't know left from blue anymore.

on-board intel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004759)

Currently using Google Chrome on Linux Mint to read this article.
- Loads faster than Firefox
- Updates to the browser are provided in a .DEB file, easy to install
- Angry Birds works great ;)

I use Firefox to:
- Download videos from Youtube
- Only when a website is incompatible with Chrome
- or Compatibility testing

Chrome's app store has serious compatibility issues with Linux, specifically games like Bastion, which require WebGL to work properly. For the Dell on-board Intel graphics supplied with my machine, WebGL works out-of-the-box with Windows 7. Linux Mint + WebGL will likely never work with this graphics card. For this reason, I completely understand why Mozilla Foundation is making the decision to leave out Linux initially.

-Tres

Re:on-board intel? (1)

Skuto (171945) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004835)

Updates to the browser are provided in a .DEB file, easy to install

At least in Ubuntu you get Firefox updates automatically. Clearly easier than getting .deb files.

What's actually going on here . . . (0)

InvisibleClergy (1430277) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004761)

...is probably a combination of the fact that Linux doesn't have a huge userbase, and the fact that the Mozilla foundation thinks it can just shunt this work over to the F/OSS community. After all, GNU/Linux devs are significantly more likely to work on making something compatible with the OS than Windows or Mac devs.

So basically, the Mozilla foundation is giving GNU/Linux a big "fuck you" because "someone will implement the functionality for free EVENTUALLY".

Re:What's actually going on here . . . (1)

Skuto (171945) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004877)

Mozilla is a community project with only a part of the actual contributors being paid devs. They are indeed paid to work on stuff where the open source community is less interested in, like Windows integration. So yes, this is probably indeed what is happening, but you make it sound like it's a bad thing, by calling it a "fuck you" whereas its more of an "I know you can do it better anyway".

That said, I suspect this one is due to technical reasons, like there being much more desktop environment fragmentation which makes integrating something like this a mess on Linux.

And? (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004773)

I'm using Chrome on Linux and only rarely dust off FF.

The question is not if this was a good policy decision, the question is whether anyone will notice.

Re:And? (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004961)

As much as I dislike being left behind for the first version, pleople forget that the same happens on Google side, Google Talk plugin, Drive client, even the initial version of Chrome where Windows and Mac only, We are always left behind by Google, There is no Drive sync client for Linux yet (but it will come).

Bad move (2)

denn1s (1517951) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004795)

Terrible move on mozilla's side, even if most of their end-users are mac/windows based clients a good part of us web developers use linux. I least I know I ain't developing a thing for the store as long as there is no linux support, not because I don't want to but because debugging would be too hard over a virtual machine or whatever.

So, how do you install an application on "Linux" (1, Insightful)

Skuto (171945) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004813)

So please tell me, how does one generically "install" an application on "Linux"?

It's silly to complain about Linux not being supported when Linux itself doesn't support the basic concept. It will probably be up to the distribution vendors like Ubuntu to customize this for their own desktop environment.

Re:So, how do you install an application on "Linux (1)

daid303 (843777) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004957)

Tell me the same for MacOS and Windows please?

Re:So, how do you install an application on "Linux (2)

BanHammor (2587175) | more than 2 years ago | (#40005019)

Select the file to install with your mouse, doubleclick. Works in pretty much any desktop distribution. Also, if you want it to work in any distribution, make an archive with static-linked compiled files. Skype has done that, so can you.

because most of our users are not running Linux, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004821)

"Linux support for apps is a nice to have because most of our users are not running Linux,"

Classic PHB type mentality. Even fewer now, making it even more true. Oh, and the friends and families of this Linux user (who mostly run Windows, but want support and advice) are about to change to Chrome...

... Has anyone actually bothered to RTFM (#744193) (1)

gilboad (986599) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004855)

Nothing in the linked bug report suggests that Linux is being mis-threated and/or ignored.

- Gilboa

Re:... Has anyone actually bothered to RTFM (#7441 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40005039)

Marco Castelluccio 2012-04-10 14:38:23 PDT

Support native installation of Web Apps on Linux.

Comment 1 Jason Smith [:jsmith] 2012-04-10 15:03:50 PDT

This is not targeted for the first release of web apps integration into desktop.

Biting the hand that feeds you. (2)

Severus Snape (2376318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004897)

A lot of the people who contribute to Mozilla do so because of their their belief in libre software in which they found through the Linux. Linux isn't just enother platform, it is much more valuable to the Mozilla, their foolish if they can't see that.

Firefox is bloated - Use Chromium (2)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | more than 2 years ago | (#40004921)

I sort of understand why Mozilla have done this - they're only talking about the "App marketplace" not development of the browser itself - they are trying to raise funds for Firefox development by selling apps. (I assume).

That's how I understand it, then again I stopped using Firefox last year and switched to Chromium - the open-source version of Chrome - they are also forks of Chromium designed to remove all sorts of tracking code too.

Most people I know have switched away from Firefox and are using Chrome or Chromium instead.

The best thing about Chrome/Chromium is they are part of the "webkit family" which means wider support and consistent HTML5 adherence.

Firefox is feeling a bit dated anyway - All I can say is "Good Luck with that" Mozilla!

whats mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40004975)

oh right that communicator 4 free give by netscrape that they have turned into an abomination of late....
what version then on now 400?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?