Comments on: Firefox 4 will push out the edges of the browser

You think Firefox 3 is cool? Pah. Mozilla's Chris Beard is working on the things that, if he has his way, will surface in the next incarnation.

[sikantis]

Wow, I just found this site, great information, good work!

[ranpha]

What's more important is to make Firefox 4 usable in the enterprise environment. You know, like centralized updates, AD integration, fine-grained control over the settings and extensions, control via Group Policy Object etc.

Prism and Weave are good (although I'm not so sure about Weave from company' standpoint) but our organization will stay with IE as long as more important features above did not exist in Firefox.

[Leria]

Those things are never going to exist in Firefox, I am sorry to say. Really, Firefox is already easily updatable, easily controllable, etc.

You are asking for too many things that the 99% of home users are not going to need, and what is the core of Firefox's market: the home user, not the business user.

I don't understand why you would need control over Firefox via Group Policy Object (whatever the hell that is).

[ranpha]

@Leria - You have not worked in a corporate environment right? If Mozilla only wants to target home users, the userbase will always be low and will never eclipse Internet Explorer. If you have 100 computers and Firefox has a new update, did it really feasible to let all of them connect to the Internet at once to download the update via autoupdater? Another question, how to install Firefox in 100 computers at once without going to each computer to run the setup? Oh... you did not know what Group Policy Object is, so I will let your ignorance slide. Without Active Directory/Group Policy Object support, Firefox will never be popular in enterprise settings. And without support in enterprise settings, Firefox usage will never be larger than Internet Explorer, ever.

Ranpha, the functionality you describe here doesn't apply well to Firefox. FF is a cross-platform application, and Active Directory and Group Policies are proprietary to a Microsoft-only platform If by AD integration you mean "single sign-on", well, you don't need the proprietary extensions of AD for that; they need only implement LDAP and Kerberos and there is the cross-platform integration. Also, FF has better fine-grained control over browser settings and extensions than IE does, and FF is also capable of central updates.

Things like AD and Group Policy integration are very proprietary to MS, and it is possible the restrictive licensing on MS software may be a barrier to complete integration with the Windows environment. Regardless, I think such platform specific features should be limited to extensions/plugins/etc whenever possible rather than being incorporated into the main product. Browsers are already too monolithic in design to be adequately secure, and with concepts like Prism it looks like Mozilla wants to evolve FF into an "application engine", eventually making the web browser as we know it just another app running atop the engine (which I thought was the original intention of the pre-FF mozilla browser, with the underlying Gecko engine and XUL and the like all providing the underpinnings of the actual browser, or other web client front ends--I guess prism extends that to offline experience too though).

[trot33]

I absolutely agree. It's really hard to even guess what might be considerations that precluded making this already in version 1.

All that would be needed from Firefox to be integrated with group policy is reading registry settings from software\policies before anything else. Insisting that this is in some global conflict with the universe and would make Firefox oh so dependent on Microsoft is simply ridiculous.

Other issues, such as deploying by group policy are already easily achievable, and there are offerings of MSI-based installations of Firefox from third parties.

[mambobananapatch]

As a non-zealot, I don't really care if Firefox "eclipses" IE, or if it dominates the market. In fact, if that's the ultimate goal, it's only a matter of time before Firefox becomes bloated and useless.

Hopefully, the goal will simply be to produce a great browser.

[Mercury23]

The one thing I liked about Firefox over IE was that it wasn't integrated into my computer's OS. That's the spooky thing about IE and ActiveX.

[Leria]

What is wrong with it being integrated into your computers OS? There isn't a problem with that anymore as long as you are SMART with ActiveX and aren't installing a plugin whenever a site, legitimate or not, tells you to unless you actually NEED that plugin.

[bc173]

Let's start with a functionality that turns a textarea into a default browser HTML editor so we can get rid of TinyMCE and similar editors that needs heavy javascript libraries and updating all the time. Loads of CMSs could benefit from that.

[FourWheelVibe]

Adobe AIR and Silverlight are not competitors. These technologies are frequently compared by the tech community however they are targeting two separate use cases. Silverlight is a competitor to Adobe Flash as it provides a browser plug-in for video and RIA's. Silverlight has no offline functionality and at this point is 100% constrained to the browser. On the flip side AIR is all about building desktop RIA's using HTML & Javascript (AJAX) or Adobe Flex/Flash. AIR allows web applications to reside on the desktop and provides offline capabilities.

[Quelix]

Glad to see that Mozilla continues to think outside the bun. I loves me some Firefox. and plug-ins. and themes. and live bookmarks. so many things.

Also glad to see they're extending things in a different direction than Flock.

[DivingDancer]

Tighter integration with the desktop? Huh. Sounds like what Microsoft got sued for doing, and at the time everybody said that intergration with the desktop was a bad idea. Interesting.

Personally I'd be happy if Mozilla spent less time trying to reinvent the browser, and just cleaned up Firefox as it currently exists. It's buggy and slow, and I've gone back to IE on my Windows boxes at this point. I now only rely on Firefox on my Linux boxes.

[masinick]

Mozilla HAS been spending a LOT of time improving the browser. They have been working on the 3.0 version for quite some time - clear back to the time 1.5 and 2.0 were in Beta testing, in fact. I have tried Firefox 3.0 Beta 4 and it really is just about ready for prime time. It is FAR better than Firefox 1.5 or 2.0 or any of the bug fix updates.

[gateur]

Products are to developers what budgets are to politicians. They can never leave well enough alone until finally you have this incredibly bloated product that is no good to anyone. They should stick with the making the basic product totally sound and secure, and offer all the bloat as add-ons.
If people want the bloat, they'll add it on themselves.

[kalinko26]

To the editors

Excuse me, but I feel that the growing Firefox community disregards what the Opera browser has been doing for years in presenting innovative features like:
1/ tabbed browsing
2/ bookmarks and toolbars settings cross-platform synchronization
3/ mouse gestures in browsing
4/ saving window sessions
to name a few.

So, please refer to Opera Links as a curent basis of comparison to the Weave feuture set. Thank you!

[paoconnell]

Mercury23 has it right.

Integrating Firefox with any OS makes that OS far less secure. That's why I don't use Internet Explorer in Windows (except at work where I have no choice).

If I owned a Mac, wouldn't use Safari because it's likely to integrate with MacOS. Never mind that it's a hard to use browser...wife owns a Mac laptop. I've tried Safari and was unimpressed.

[Liebo]

It's a little funny and a little dangerous that a browser move towards the desktop is interpreted as a Microsoft-like attempt to take over computers. The article didn't even mention integration with the OS; instead, it spoke of integration with "the computer it's running on". Of course, that could be read as an unsolicited attempt to breach your operating system and step into Microsoft's long-lamented territory. But I read Prism as a platform to deliver stronger applications that can meld the personal part of the PC, the data and material the user wishes to retain on his or her machine, with the richness and dynamic evolution of web apps. In the eyes of a small businessperson, web apps face challenges like _having_ to operate in a browser, control over my data, depth and breadth of functionality within an application, to name a few. This platform may help alleviate some of those concerns and deliver stronger, more functional applications. But I digress; my point was that there are people here that see this, or any other article that includes the words "browser" and "desktop" together, as an attempt to become Microsoft v2.0. How about we just wait and see?

[Outlawdj]

I have to agree with Liebo. MS has everybody completely paranoid. They want to control the world and have a finger in everything. This is why they don't do anything well. Firefox does browsers and they do them quite well. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt until they give us a reason not to. I would appreciate an improvement to keep Firefox from getting bogged down, though. I'm one of those people who usually has many tabs and several windows open. But at least Firefox runs. The last few months IE drops with three or four tabs open. They're limping along from lame to lamer.Now if we could just get the people at Firefox to design an OS that actually works correctly. Hey, I can dream, can't I?

[DarrellRidley]

I would love to see Firefox lighter, it seems to becoming too much bloated. Don't get me wrong, I love Firefox. To those who commented earlier about sticking to IE are just not in the know! How can these people use IE when it has security issues? Stop listening to Gates and his cronies propaganda. It is just plain dumb.

[wc78]

I know everyone wants their browser to be just a browser, but what if integration with the desktop (if done carefully) is the next big innovation? Why stop at an arbitrary boundary and do no more?

Sure, not doing so might be good for *you* right now, but what if it leads to new features and essential uses that we never would have thought? Maybe desktop integration's time is now, unlike 10 years ago when Microsoft tried it, because we now have more technologically adept end users who understand Twitter and mash-ups and drive everything that is the social web.

Innovation has its cost. You can't always develop stuff only for the lab. Sometimes, you just have to put it out there and see where the users take it and go with them. Part of the excitement is that you'll never know exactly what you're going to get. What you learn and what you end up with from that can be very good things.

[tmessu]

Innovation is good and desktop integration might be the next big thing but everything just can not and should not be integrated into a single product. As every piece of software has a tendency to grow the least Mozilla should do is to provide a lightweight basic browser alternative without all the bells and whistles.
Still, from the Mozillas point of view, forcing all current Firefox users use the new features is just so efficient method to spread them. That makes me a little pessimistic about that 'Litefox' ever appearing.

[smulla26]

With all these active x viruses and keyloggers is it a good idea to have more plugins that messup your browser case in point i just got the verizon ad with a video pop up and I cant even close under firefox Is it really a good idea to integrate everything in one place so hackers could have a field day on my pc or laptop I honestly do not think so.
Heck that is why I'm afraid to get Windows livecare yeah i beta tested it but one of the reasons I hated it is because it was tightly integrated. If I use one tool for everything I lose the advantage of having one tool that performs well since there is no competition. Like buying satellite receivers from Direct TV and Dishnetwork instead of RCA making anymore brands. Well I'm not a big fan of monopoly.

[frakme]

non-news. this is nothing new.

bill gates said the same "blur the edges between the browser and OS" years ago. look what it got him: class action suits, trade violations, and lots and lots of unhappy users. and IE still sucks ballz.

sometimes a browser should just be a browser. how about making it better instead of adding more bloated features? for example: pass the acid 3 test, change the "-moz-border-radius" css code to the css 3 valid "border-radius" -- AND MAKE THEM LOOK GOOD! i could go on.

better is better than "more features." there's a whole lot of things in this world with tons of features but truly suck. there are very few things that simply work, work right, and work right dependably every time.

better rocks. features suck.

[pilep]

Is Firefox has Microsoft Permissions?

How long does Microsoft grant you use of Firefox? 30 days,60,93days? After reading The Truth about Linux I get very scared. The Firefoxes are questionable. I really don't want all work to be payed to Microsoft as Firefoxes probably has many of the Microsoft Intelectual Property inside. I don't see sticker on it like -Intel Inside". But it uses Internet Explore. It must. How can it not? The Firefoxes must break into IE pipes to download the internets from the worldweb and the gopher. If I reboot it after 30 days, am I still libel for infringment and accessory? Will they come after me? I don't want to get sued. I don't have enought money to pay for defense. I just want to see the internets.

[ebubba]

What in the world? I don't get what you are asking? Microsoft has nothing to do with Firefox. Firefox is not trail software. You can use it free forever. There is no MS IP inside of firefox. Firefox is an open source project. It does not use Internet Explorer. Both IE and any other browser use the internet protocols. Which Microsoft does not own.

I have no idea what your link is about either. It looks like it was written by a 2nd grader. I can't even figure out what you are trying to say? You don't like Firefox? You don't Like Microsoft? You don't like Linux? SO you like Microsoft (that link is a pro Microsoft link) All you want is "The Internets" I had no idea there was more than 1 internet. Its not Internets its internet.

And "Is Firefox has Microsoft Permissions?" What???? The grammar on that is terrible. I don't even know what that is saying? Should it read "Does Firefox have Microsoft Permission?" The answer is, they don't need their permission. They are 3rd party software, they don't answer to Microsoft.

[edebiyat]

better rocks. features suck.
thanks for cnet...(K)

http://www.edebiyathocasi.com

[CrisMcConkey]

I am more interested in have compatibility with Quicktime Streaming media (RTSP, from Darwin Streaming Server) restored than any new whistles and bells. The incompatibility started with Firefox3 on day one of its release, but actually stretched back further in the development onn the way to FF3. I tried to find a regression range where if worked before and didn't worked after. Once I discovered that it went all the way back and that the fault was with the framework that FF3 is built upon, interest on the part of the Mozill development team seemed to evaporate. See my bug report: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472015

Now I'm wondering about FF4 development. Is there some way to check now, or are those of us who use quicktime streaming media going to be ignored?