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!

Firefox OS Phone on Display at LinuxFest NorthWest (Video)

timothy posted about a year ago | from the first-comes-iphone-then-comes-android-then-comes-firefox-in-a-baby-carriage dept.

Firefox 96

Jakob Perry organized the first LinuxFest Northwest when he was still a student. He got off to a good start: now LFNW has been running for 14 years, and has retained its flavor as a low-key, friendly conference. Exhibitors from Linux distributions from tiny (CrunchBang) to huge (Red Hat) were on hand for 2013, and enough speakers and topics to fill about 80 different sessions over the two days of the conference. Not all of it's about Linux per se, either: the EFF and FSF were represented, along with a BSD table, and a local astronomy group with a great name. At this year's event I ran into the first Firefox OS phone that I've had a chance to play with in person. Firefox OS integrates Linux by way of the Android kernel, but is otherwise its own beast. Ubuntu and Mozilla contributor Benjamin Kerensa was on hand to talk about what makes it tick, and to give a demo of the all-HTML5 interface.

cancel ×

96 comments

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

Introducing the new Slashdot Phone! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43603543)

Get hourly updates featuring
-Vague laws misinterpreted by engineers to be threats to privacy/civil liberties
-The latest release of every obscure Linux distro and its shortcomings compared to 10 other distros
-Factually spurious articles about the death of the IT industry.
-Philosophical flame wars about the validity of alternative energy/electric cars
-Mental masturbation regarding drones/macs/climate change
-Windows 8 trolling

Re:Introducing the new Slashdot Phone! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43603737)

Damn, nothing about 3D printers, Arduinos or Raspberry Pi?

Re:Introducing the new Slashdot Phone! (1)

Dan93 (222999) | about a year ago | (#43604537)

Damn, nothing about 3D printers, Arduinos or Raspberry Pi?

They've gotta save SOMETHING for the Slashdor Phone 2

Re:Introducing the new Slashdot Phone! (1)

tech.kyle (2800087) | about a year ago | (#43604625)

If I'm not mistaken, the PostgreSQL booth was running some demos on a RasPi and donated 8 of them to the second-day raffle. I bought $10 worth of tickets, but didn't win any.

Re:Introducing the new Slashdot Phone! (1)

tech.kyle (2800087) | about a year ago | (#43604691)

Update, it was the "Seattle Postgres Users Group" booth.

Finally, the visual proof (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43603583)

... that Mozilla/Firefox has become fat & bloated.

Re:Finally, the visual proof (1)

uncle brad (1989490) | about a year ago | (#43603837)

Quite the opposite, Mozilla/Firefox has had to become leaner and meaner to run (acceptably) on these devices.

Re:Finally, the visual proof (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | about a year ago | (#43604627)

Quite the opposite, Mozilla/Firefox has had to become leaner and meaner to run (acceptably) on these devices.

*WHOOSH*

The key is in the title of the comment.

I heard FinFisher has been passing these out all (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43603639)

over Tahrir Square.

When does 2.0 come out? (1)

master_kaos (1027308) | about a year ago | (#43603703)

My bet is next month. Got to release new versions of the phones faster than android manufacturers, right?

Re:When does 2.0 come out? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43603835)

2.0?

They should be at 15.0 by the end of the week.

Layers on layers on layers (0)

Animats (122034) | about a year ago | (#43603733)

Another layer on top of Android on top of Linux.

Mozilla needs to focus on their core business. The number of Firefox bugs fixed remains lower than the number being reported, and the internals, which date back to the Netscape era, need replacement.

Re:Layers on layers on layers (3, Insightful)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#43603759)

I don't think a phone would be very useful if all it had was the Linux kernel. You would need a userland, and using one as a base that is already established means a lot of people already know how to use and develop for the platform.

hear here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43603775)

multi-core scaling capabilities were supposedly due in 2008...still waiting...

Re:Layers on layers on layers (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43603873)

Another layer on top of Android on top of Linux.

Mozilla needs to focus on their core business. The number of Firefox bugs fixed remains lower than the number being reported, and the internals, which date back to the Netscape era, need replacement.

So, the "layers" here are 1. Kernel. 2. Userland. 3. UI. Which one of these do you consider unnecessary for the purpose?

Re:Layers on layers on layers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43604271)

To be frank, you're talking horseshit. Not only is boot-to-gecko not part of Android, but Firefox has very few components from the Netscape era left that aren't also similarly used in other browsers. In fact Mozilla has been working extra hard to make those internals better for years now. Please catch up with the times.

Re:Layers on layers on layers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43604375)

You mean like taking away the ESC key's ability to stop network requests and GIF animations? So modern! Mozilla is squandering years of goodwill with broken release cycles, ignoring user feedback, and worst of all: shoehorning their browser into an OS.

Re: Layers on layers on layers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605197)

So don't use it. Why did you load this page about a spinoff of a project you obviously hate? Do you really have nothing else to so?

Re: Layers on layers on layers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607099)

You're new here, aren't you?

Re:Layers on layers on layers (3, Informative)

Lennie (16154) | about a year ago | (#43604949)

There is no Android in FirefoxOS.

They do support running on the same Linux kernel though, so they can make use of the same drivers that were already developed for devices that can run Android.

Actually, it has been shown FirefoxOS can run on less powerful devices than Android can.

Re:Layers on layers on layers (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year ago | (#43605019)

What's the point of it though? Why not run it like Facebook Home on top of Android and utilise the Firefox browser? At least that's as easy for users to install as any app and underneath is completely compatible with all existing Android functionality. I see no reason this would end up any different than Tizen or webOS or any of those abandoned mobile OSes. So the question is why would somebody choose this over an Android phone?

Re:Layers on layers on layers (2)

roca (43122) | about a year ago | (#43605235)

The reason not to run the Android user-space is footprint. If you use Android apps and a browser, you have two parallel platform stacks --- rendering, compositing, VM, networking, UI, etc both running on a phone at the same time. Getting rid of the Android Java stuff means you can use the Web and local HTML5-based apps at the same time with only one stack. Saves a lot of memory and simplifies the software design considerably.

Re:Layers on layers on layers (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year ago | (#43605295)

If you use Android apps and a browser, you have two parallel platform stacks --- rendering, compositing, VM, networking, UI, etc both running on a phone at the same time. Getting rid of the Android Java stuff means you can use the Web and local HTML5-based apps at the same time with only one stack. Saves a lot of memory and simplifies the software design considerably.

All that does is limit you to html apps, which is what webOS was trying to do, on Android in the end Google made the NDK available because they realized that the abstracted environment wasn't flexible enough but you can still run HTML apps. Even the first iteration of iOS was supposed to be based around web apps and that idea was abandoned, but you can still run HTML apps. So given that HTML apps can already run on any modern smartphone I still fail to see what the appeal of Firefox OS is supposed to be unless it's about just targeting the really low end.

Re:Layers on layers on layers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43608207)

So given that HTML apps can already run on any modern smartphone I still fail to see what the appeal of Firefox OS is supposed to be unless it's about just targeting the really low end.

It is about targeting the low end, but then again don't underestimate what you can do with emscripten and asm.js [mozilla.org] .

Re:Layers on layers on layers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43614997)

We should all remember the "old days" when raging thunder was the only 3d game on android, shouldn't we ?

Re:Layers on layers on layers (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year ago | (#43615775)

It is about targeting the low end, but then again don't underestimate what you can do with emscripten and asm.js [mozilla.org] .

That's a great argument for javascript and webgl - which we already have on Android and iOS - but still doesn't suggest why Firefox OS is a good idea for anybody.

Re:Layers on layers on layers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43613935)

>>> Actually, it has been shown FirefoxOS can run on less powerful devices than Android can.

Low end Android devices can do almost anything a user need except web browsing. Browsing with a low end Android is an exercise of frustration.

So, now even lower spec devices can use a browser to do *all* the tasks? I really doubt it.

Re:Layers on layers on layers (1)

Lennie (16154) | about a year ago | (#43637303)

When you get rid of everything else on the phone, but just the browser. You use less resources to view the same pages.

It's that simple.

Roadhouse. (0)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43603865)

A Firefox phone is cool.

An Apple phone is cool.

A Google Android phone is cool.

A Blackberry 10 phone is cool.

A Windows phone is not.

At this point, an IBM phone would be cooler than a Microsoft one. It has come full circle.

"Criss cross!"

"Very good, Peter!"

Fast forward to 7:45 for the actual phone demo (4, Informative)

theurge14 (820596) | about a year ago | (#43603869)

Demo isn't really a demo, he doesn't open up anything or scroll much, just shows off a bunch of icons.

Re:Fast forward to 7:45 for the actual phone demo (1)

dpak1170 (2645165) | about a year ago | (#43604113)

Whats the point of a demo without showing the actual phone capability. It was more of a sales call lol.

Re:Fast forward to 7:45 for the actual phone demo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43604167)

If they would've been showing this off, I might've hung around their table. Because their buttons and pens just weren't enough to keep me around. Oh, they were giving away two t-shirts - 1 each day (Wowser!). Yet others were giving away t-shirts galore from their stacks. I expected so much more outa Mozilla. Oh sorry, did I digress?

Re:Fast forward to 7:45 for the actual phone demo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43604379)

Reply to self

Well, my bad. Apparently, as according to BK's website, he was showing off the phone. Huh, guess I was missed out. But back to the cheezed out swag...

Thank You!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43604731)

I was 2 minutes in when I saw your post. Thank you so much for saving so much of my time.

My thoughts:

  • Why does Mozilla have this fatty and is equally fat sister representing them?
    What's the point of this phone? It looks like an Android skin, is that what it is?
    If it's a separate OS, are the apps unique to the OS or are they just Android apps?
    The shown app store looked pretty barren. Will this thing require apps to be ported?
    Is that all there is to this OS? A desktop skin, seemingly for Android?
    Why?
    Whatever.

They Can't Even Manage the Browser Project... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43603933)

Frankly I don't trust anything Mozilla is involved in... They can't even manage their browser work in a professional way, how are they going to support development of an OS implementation? Arbitrarily changing features, removing features, breaking third-party tools, introducing memory leaks and bugs with no effort to remedy them; they have no regard for the user community.

At least with the browser, the only cost is one's time. Imagine actually paying for hardware that depends on the support of these guys. Your phone would end-up in the trash eventually. No thanks.

Re: They Can't Even Manage the Browser Project... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605213)

So it's just like any other project. Got it.

I hope it will become available in europe (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43604055)

A phone that isn't tied to Microsoft or Google or Apple is a GOOD thing.
Yes maybe the hardware won't be able to compete with the iphone, the galaxy 4 or winphone but on the other hand you sure as hell won't have google/microsoft/apple right up your ass tracking your every move.
Remember for those companies, the phone is not the product being sold (although you pay a hefty price to buy it), you're the product being sold. So anything that trumps this vicious circle is good.
I'll give firefox phone a chance, even though I have a galaxy s3.

Re:I hope it will become available in europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43604641)

It has been reported that the initial launch markets for Firefox Phones will mostly be in South America and Eastern Europe.

Re:I hope it will become available in europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605619)

A phone that isn't tied to Microsoft or Google or Apple is a GOOD thing.
Yes maybe the hardware won't be able to compete with the iphone, the galaxy 4 or winphone but on the other hand you sure as hell won't have google/microsoft/apple right up your ass tracking your every move.

Mozilla is almost entirely funded by Google, removing ties to Google cuts funding to Mozilla.

Re:I hope it will become available in europe (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about a year ago | (#43606203)

Google doesn't negatively influence Mozilla in any way, though. And Firefox's usage of Google as a default search engine makes them a nice amount of money (Apple has an agreement as well).

Competing in the mobile market won't suddenly cut funding. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Re:I hope it will become available in europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43606579)

Google doesn't negatively influence Mozilla in any way, though.

you just continue to trust that, mozilla exists at the whim of google thanks to their confidential agreement [mozilla.org] , it's utter stupidity to ignorantly trust that they are just acting in your best interests. would you be equally happy if microsoft signed a confidential agreement to fund mozilla?

Competing in the mobile market won't suddenly cut funding. Let's not pretend otherwise.

yeah let's not pretend google is a corporation existing to make money...oh wait! so don't be so naive.

ohh this is what internet people look like (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43604209)

grotesquely obese- this why I have never been to great at internet stuff.

tattoo (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year ago | (#43604479)

I don't object to the idea of getting a tattoo but really, a product logo? That's going to look really dumb in 10 years when he's tired of ubuntu, they go under or change their logo.

Re:tattoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605149)

As someone who has some unpopular logo tattoos I can tell you that we mostly don't give a fuck what you think we "look" like. I've never regretted any of my ink and it's been nearly 20 years.
 
So go fuck yourself, cunttard.

Re:tattoo (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year ago | (#43608245)

True, it's probably not an issue if you live in your mom's basement.

Re:tattoo (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about a year ago | (#43606213)

What about the nostalgia factor? The original logo, etc.

I wouldn't tatoo myself ANYTHING but I don't see how that is bad...

Re:tattoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607277)

He already doesn't have that. It's a tattoo of the new logo.

Re:tattoo (1)

ci13urn (1653273) | about a year ago | (#43611079)

Obviously you don't know what tattooing is about for some people. Many people are not doing it for fashion, but as a merit badge or mile marker in life. Ben has contributed a lot of his time and energy to the Ubuntu community in Portland, OR; organizing parties to package installers for version releases as well as bug hunting events, which I am sure he doesn't get paid to do. So that tattoo is much more than a logo to him... in 10 years he'll look at that tattoo and think, that was awesome.

Re:tattoo (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year ago | (#43613555)

i'm not saying he doesn't have a good reason to think that's a good idea but really, turning yourself into a billboard is a bit silly. I suspect the people defending him would feel different if he was a Jersey shore jock with a Louie Vuitton tattoo but it's pretty much the same thing.

Re:tattoo (1)

ci13urn (1653273) | about a year ago | (#43715755)

Ha! Maybe if he worked/lived Louie Vuitton...

Re:tattoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43620549)

So that tattoo is much more than a logo to him... in 10 years he'll look at that tattoo and think, that was awesome.

Assuming he makes it 10 more years, with all that weight! I'm not trying to knock the guy, as he's obviously smart, involved, and enthusiastic. Why don't such smart and enthusiastic people take better care of themselves, so that they can live longer and thus remain more involved in the things they enjoy and are passionate about? It's logical is it not, and tech types are supposed to be strongly logical thinkers right? I'm not talking about trying to live forever, into dementia ages, 80, 90 or 100 years, but just remaining healthy into middle age would be an improvement!

Actually ran pretty slick (5, Informative)

tech.kyle (2800087) | about a year ago | (#43604659)

I got to play with it there. I didn't know I was holding something newsworthy. As a Galaxy S3 (with CM10.1) user, I thought it ran very well considering it was on what appeared to be some older mid-range hardware. Everything seemed quite smooth and snappy.

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (1, Interesting)

Lennie (16154) | about a year ago | (#43605031)

That is the whole point of FirefoxOS, get rid of all the extra layers and pretty much only run a rendering engine on top of a Linux kernel (exceptions are things like: wpasupplicant).

It has been shown that FirefoxOS can use less resources than Android that way.

Which is good because their target market is not the first world countries, but countries like Brazil, Mexico, Poland, Spain. Where smartphones are not as widespread (in Spain and Poland it might be certain parts of the country or markets), mostly because of the price of the phone itself. Prices may drop, but especially parts like touchscreens are very expensive and will probably remain that way.

Because this is a new market for smartphones, FirefoxOS actually has a chance of getting a proper share of the market in those countries.

FirefoxOS might be a little less flashy than the first-world competitors, but they pretty much have no marketshare in those countries anyway. And will probably not have much of a marketshare any time soon.

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year ago | (#43605125)

That is the whole point of FirefoxOS, get rid of all the extra layers and pretty much only run a rendering engine on top of a Linux kernel (exceptions are things like: wpasupplicant).

What extra layers?

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (1)

roca (43122) | about a year ago | (#43605245)

Android's entire Java stack --- Dalvik, SurfaceFlinger, stuff like that.

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year ago | (#43605431)

That doesn't really save you much, given that you can write with the NDK or write web apps you can mostly avoid Dalvik if you want to anyway, but it's still there if you need/want it, limiting to html apps seems pretty silly outside of targeting the extreme low end of devices.

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (1)

kllrnohj (2626947) | about a year ago | (#43605609)

Android's entire Java stack --- Dalvik, SurfaceFlinger, stuff like that.

SurfaceFlinger is still there, it's why you can see shit on the screen at all. You can't remove that layer. You can *replace* it, but you can't remove it. And good luck finding a replacement for SurfaceFlinger that is lighter and faster than SurfaceFlinger.

And no browser runs on top of dalvik anyway (browser UIs might run on top of dalvik, but the engine itself does not), so removing that doesn't get you anything.

Re: Actually ran pretty slick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605253)

Dalvik? IDK maybe it has a simpler interface that isn't as heavy.

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605419)

That's one goal. I'm actually more excited about their other goal: develop enough web APIs so everything you could possibly want to do in a smartphone app can be done in an HTML5 app (since, after all, FirefoxOS smartphone apps are HTML5 apps). By pushing for common adoption of those APIs, there's a vision for a future where smartphone apps are cross-platform. I'm probably being overly optimistic here, but I wish them luck.

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (1)

Lennie (16154) | about a year ago | (#43637263)

Yes, that is the great advantage of FirefoxOS, even if the project fails, we'll have a lot more standards at W3C which allow HTML5-apps to do all kinds of things HTML5 wasn't able to do before.

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605463)

Spain not a first world country? Are you serious?

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43606889)

As someone who has visited there and a great many other places: yes, it is not a developed country.

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (1)

kllrnohj (2626947) | about a year ago | (#43605601)

That is the whole point of FirefoxOS, get rid of all the extra layers and pretty much only run a rendering engine on top of a Linux kernel (exceptions are things like: wpasupplicant).

FirefoxOS runs *on top of* Android, it *adds* layers, not removes them. And the very few "layers" that are actually removed (dalvik) are replaced with *slower* layers (JavaScript)

It has been shown that FirefoxOS can use less resources than Android that way.

No it hasn't. And if FirefoxOS with the insanely inefficient and not in the same universe as lightweight HTML5/CSS/JavaScript can use fewer resources than a lightened Java runtime with a specialized rendering pipeline I will be shocked. If that happens either Google is incompetent or Mozilla employs actual wizards.

Seriously people, stop with the "lightweight HTML5" bullshit. HTML is the heaviest, slowest layout & rendering pipeline that exists in widespread usage bar none. Slowest devices (smartphones) + slowest layout & rendering technology ("web technology") != fast, lightweight device.

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (1)

caspy7 (117545) | about a year ago | (#43606067)

That is the whole point of FirefoxOS, get rid of all the extra layers and pretty much only run a rendering engine on top of a Linux kernel (exceptions are things like: wpasupplicant).

FirefoxOS runs *on top of* Android, it *adds* layers, not removes them. And the very few "layers" that are actually removed (dalvik) are replaced with *slower* layers (JavaScript)

Why are you correcting him when he was right? Did you bother to look it up? FxOS is running on a Linux kernel the same as Android. It is not running on top of Android. You said that it does not remove layers and then immediately cited a layer that was removed.
Here is an overview of the Android architecture, can you tell me which layers *didn't* get removed? (I'll give you a hint, there's only one)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Android-System-Architecture.svg [wikipedia.org]

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (1)

kllrnohj (2626947) | about a year ago | (#43606247)

Why are you correcting him when he was right? Did you bother to look it up? FxOS is running on a Linux kernel the same as Android. It is not running on top of Android. You said that it does not remove layers and then immediately cited a layer that was removed.
Here is an overview of the Android architecture, can you tell me which layers *didn't* get removed? (I'll give you a hint, there's only one)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Android-System-Architecture.svg [wikipedia.org]

I'm correcting him because he is wrong, just like you are. FxOS runs on top of Android's userspace. It literally boots Android, then launches Firefox. This is not a "both run on the Linux kernel" thing, especially since FxOS doesn't run directly on the kernel to begin with. No, FxOS is instead just a native Android application, compiled against Android's userspace.

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43606559)

Where exactly (and what exactly do you call) Android userspace: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox_OS/Platform/Architecture ? Sure, they use Android kernel patches, but that's not what you meant, right?

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (1)

kllrnohj (2626947) | about a year ago | (#43606999)

The entire "Gonk" layer is actually just Android. Complete with all the typical Android services - SurfaceFlinger, InputFlinger, AudioFlinger, etc...

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year ago | (#43606655)

No, FxOS is instead just a native Android application, compiled against Android's userspace.

I thought it had it's own userspace running on the Android kernel with Android drivers, or are you saying that Gonk wraps up the entire Android system with Gecko and Gaia sitting on top of that?

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (1)

kllrnohj (2626947) | about a year ago | (#43607031)

Gonk is Android in a literal sense. When you build FxOS the first step is actually downloading and building AOSP, as that's the "gonk" layer. It uses repo and lunch and the rest of the Android build chain as well.

Here's the manifest file for the FxOS emulator build: https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/b2g-manifest/blob/master/emulator.xml [github.com]

You can see plain as day it's pulling in a huge amount of Android code, including the framework.

Not that this is a bad thing, this is the point of open source. Just that the claims that FxOS is somehow lighter than Android is horseshit, because it sits on top of Android.

Re:Actually ran pretty slick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607353)

it doesnt run dalvik and it doesnt need the NDK. so, it's lighter, technically.

Tracking? (1)

IMightB (533307) | about a year ago | (#43605063)

Is it going to spy on/track everything you do and report back to it's corporate overlords like iOS and android?

Re:Tracking? (4, Informative)

caspy7 (117545) | about a year ago | (#43606233)

From what I've seen (the non-profit) Mozilla is probably one of the most trustworthy organizations on the net. Protecting users is a part of their mission and they've historically gone out of their way to make sure user info is protected and is not monetized.
As an example, Firefox Sync (which is actually open & could be implemented on any device or browser) encrypts bookmarks and passwords with extremely high encryption on your device before sending it to the server. The key is only stored on your device such that even if a governing body forced Mozilla to give up your data they still could not decrypt it.
Recently they've become very unpopular in some circles (ok, just one primarily) by choosing to block third-party cookies from sites you've never visited. This prevents tracking cookies from ad companies (following you and your activities around the net).

So as far as phone makers, I'd put them at the bottom of the list of folks I'm concerned about tracking me.

Re:Tracking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43606529)

Dude they are funded almost solely by Google, you can guarantee data mining is on their list, if data mining was something i were concerned about i wouldn't be trusting any of these corporations much less one funded by a company that makes almost all of its cash through data mining.

Re:Tracking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607361)

Principle 4 of the Mozilla Manifesto 1.0 [lizardwrangler.com] :
"Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and cannot be treated as optional."

Re:Tracking? (1)

dzfoo (772245) | about a year ago | (#43608051)

Yet, they were vehemently opposed to Microsoft's strategy of blocking third-party cookies by default, and wrote some sort of manifesto on how "user choice" meant letting advertisers fleece those naive enough to not know how to change the default.

        dZ.

Re:Tracking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43608269)

That would be because Microsoft's strategy was designed to make DNT worthless. DNT is voluntary, therefore for it to work you have to make it acceptable to advertisers, if DNT is on by default (rather than unset), then there will be many people who may not object might leave it on anyway, and obviously advertisers will decide the DNT setting is worthless for deciding whether a user cares about being tracked and just ignore it. What is the point of DNT if it doesn't necessarily reflect what the user wants? If you want something like DNT to be enabled by default then you need to have it backed up by laws forcing advertisers to obey it. You might disagree with my reasoning here, but it is a perfectly valid point of view for Mozilla to take.

Re:Tracking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616025)

Which is just bullshit corporate doublespeak, they are funded by Google who is funded by ad revenues, having DNT on by default cuts into their revenue stream and thus they compromise their principles:
"Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and cannot be treated as optional."

The *fact* is it is in their interest in terms of corporate funding from Google to allow advertisers to track users and thus for DNT to be off. Whether tracking users is a good or bad or indifferent thing is irrelevant but Mozilla's stance on this issue is clearly motivated by their corporate interests.

Re:Tracking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607423)

Google does NOT fund Mozilla.

Mozilla gets money becuase an agreement for the default search engine, but that doesn't change Mozilla values as a non-profit.

http://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto.en.html

There are a lot of Mozilla initiatives (such as Do not track, block thrird party cookies) that Google doesn't share at all.

Re:Tracking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616045)

Google does NOT fund Mozilla.

bullshit, 85%+ of Mozilla's funding [wikipedia.org] comes from Google.

Mozilla gets money becuase an agreement for the default search engine, but that doesn't change Mozilla values as a non-profit.

could you link to the terms of that agreement? oh no you can't because it's all confidential.

Re:Tracking? (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | about a year ago | (#43606239)

does Firefox do that? Do you know what Mozilla stands for? Research that and you'll have your answer.

Re:Tracking? (1)

dzfoo (772245) | about a year ago | (#43608083)

The Mozilla Foundation is desperately looking for new ways of acquiring revenue that does not depend on large grants by fickle corporations. Especially when their core competency is being made largely irrelevant by those grantors. Guess the fastest, most common--and apparently very easy to justify morally--way to monetize user access on the Web?

Come on, guess...

Re:Tracking? (1)

PuZZleDucK (2478702) | about a year ago | (#43606387)

Short answer: "No!"

Long answer: "You do know what Firefox is right?"

And now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43605541)

... they will drop support for Firefox? Oh wait, looking at the huge pile of bugs in Firefox they didn't give support anyway. They just pile up things like the new download icon or the incoming Australis "I wanna be Chrome" theme.

And the broken plug-ins? "Yell to developer". And the slow/crappy JS? "Web sites are old skool!" And the flaws? "We need to have the same number as Chrome, if it crash you 'putter use LINUX! An YOU must get used of it in our way. Thank you for download our beta software"

No thanks, if they cannot deliver a decent Web browser less an OS.

Non Flash video link for MPlayer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43606653)

The video can be viewed without Adobe Flash via MPlayer (and probably other players also).

rtmp://82.166.201.222 app=ondemand?_fcs_vhost=cp76677.edgefcs.net playpath=mp4:s/djc3FiYjq8O8kBbUvwx19oDMM_WZqnJ8/DOcJ-FxaFrRg4gtDEwOjE2ZDowazsfBG

Hope it fails (1)

readingaccount (2909349) | about a year ago | (#43606737)

The last thing we need is another mobile operating system. We already have iOS, Android and Windows Mobile, and it's hard enough to get cross-platform support for apps at times, much less having a fourth or fifth entry in the market.

Nothing against the Firefox folks, but just as in Linux, there are problems with having too much choice.

Re:Hope it fails (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43606909)

You are such a fucking idiot. Fucking learn to read. FFOS is built on making HTML 5 apps. A-FUCK-ING-STAN-DARD.

Re:Hope it fails (1)

readingaccount (2909349) | about a year ago | (#43607109)

Do you really need to use profanity to make your point, coward?

Re:Hope it fails (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607375)

That AC does have a point. The exact same webapps that run on Android via mobile Firefox run on FirefoxOS.

Re:Hope it fails (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43609023)

That AC does have a point. The exact same webapps that run on Android via mobile Firefox run on FirefoxOS.

But none provide same richness of the browser plugins you get with Firefox. It's needed to raise the bar and make mobile browsers more cabable than their very limited capability today is. That will not change as long as there is no other option, where you can install ADB+, Ghostery etc. Once people realise that it's just ploy of platform makers to force users suck all those obtrusive ads we see today. Platform makers Apple & Google care more about the right of advetisers than needs of the users, which actually proves the long debated case that users aren't the customers any more. Instead they are the product platform makers are selling to advertisers, which are the real customers of platform makers.

ac

Re:Hope it fails (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43616373)

so why bother with FirefoxOS then?

Re:Hope it fails (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43608333)

Do you have a problem with competition? Competition is the capitalist way. If Firefox OS fails to achieve traction I'm sure Mozilla will pull the plug on it. Personally I'd like an alternative to Android, one that isn't owned by Microsoft or Apple.

Re:Hope it fails (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43609607)

The last thing we need is another mobile operating system.

Yes, you're right, *you* should be appointed as the lord high overseer of mobile OSs, decide precisely how many there should be and be given the power to stop any new ones and their confusing new concepts being made.
Choice is bad.

Re:Hope it fails (1)

readingaccount (2909349) | about a year ago | (#43616097)

Precisely! I'm glad someone understands my position.

I know you're being sarcastic but yes, choice is bad (see the infamous TED video about the illusion of choice). Diluting things over too many options makes things more complicated for users. Better to have a small handful of strong options which are still having to compete with other, making the whole set stronger over time. New concepts can always be introduced within that small set of options.

Fat people in the US of A (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43607257)

I'm surprised that they got the right T-Shirt sizes for that guy and lady.

I wonder (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year ago | (#43608029)

I wonder if FirefoxOS can look up the definition of Balkanization.


/runs away

bad video player (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43618929)

Why does this ugly video player start playing by itself couple of seconds after I pause it?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?