Showing posts with label Mozilla. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mozilla. Show all posts

An early look at Firefox 3.5

There was a time when Firefox was the Web browser for the cool kids who knew their tech. Most would still agree that it's better than Internet Explorer, but that's damning it with faint praise. Over the last year or so, Firefox has become better known in tech savvy circles for its relatively poor performance and mediocre memory management. Chrome's insane speed and Internet Explorer 8's overall improvement have also dinged Firefox's reputation. But now, Firefox 3.5 is almost ready to go. Does it have what it takes?
##CONTINUE##
I downloaded the latest beta, Firefox 3.5 beta 4, to find out for myself. I used it on two different PCs. The first was my workhouse Windows XP SP3 system, and the other was my Fedora 10 computer. The XP box was a Dell Inspiron 530S with a 2.2-GHz Intel Pentium E2200 dual-core processor, 4GBs of RAM, a 500GB SATA drive and an Integrated Intel 3100 GMA (Graphics Media Accelerator). For Fedora, I used a Gateway GT5622 desktop with a 1.8GHz Intel Pentium E2160 dual-core CPU, 3GBs of RAM, a 400GB SATA drive, and an Intel 950 GMA.

On both systems, installing the browser took no more than five minutes. Once installed, I found that my two must-have Firefox extensions the Google Toolbar and XMarks were both working.

However, on Windows, I found that two other extensions were DOA. These were the AVG Safe Search 8.5 malware detector and the Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant 1.0. I wasn't too surprised by either one. The AVG program has had issues with other versions of Firefox and the .NET Framework program has always been a pain.

I should also note that, unlike Google Chrome, Firefox has a mature family of extensions. I really like Chrome a lot, but it's still taking baby steps when it comes to using extensions for added functionality.

Where Chrome still zooms by Firefox is when it comes to rendering speed. That's especially true when it comes to JavaScript-heavy pages. Firefox 3.5's TraceMonkey JavaScript rendering engine is much faster than what you'll find in the Firefox 3.0 series and Internet Explorer doesn't belong in the performance conversation.

Still Chrome 2.0's V8 JavaScript engine beats TraceMonkey handily. Using the SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark on the XP system, Firefox 3.5 was almost twice as slow as Chrome 2.0 at the benchmark with a recorded time of 1,225.6-millisecond to Chrome 2.0's 704.0. If speed is what matters the most to you, Chrome is the browser for you.

On the other hand, after running Firefox for days and with multiple windows and tabs, I found that on both Windows and Linux, Firefox is finally not hogging memory. Even with the debugging code that must be in a beta, I found that Firefox is no longer leaking memory. That's good for both the browser's stability and its security.

I also noticed that Firefox has borrowed several nice improvements from Chrome. For example, it uses DNS (Domain Name System) pre-fetching so that when you click on a link you'll get to its page a bit faster.

The new Firefox also has some nice features of its own. It now supports embedded Ogg and WAV video and audio format without the need for a helper program. It also far better privacy settings so you can use your own, or any other, computer without leaving any traces behind of what you've been doing.

All-in-all, I found this beta to be a real step up from Firefox 3.0.x. Still, I find myself wishing that I could have a Firefox with Chrome's speed or Chrome that works on multiple operating systems and with Firefox's abundance of extensions. If you're already a confirmed Firefox user though you'll want to switch over to Firefox 3.5 as soon as the final version comes out. Look for it sometime in mid to late June.

-----------------------------
BY Cyber Cynic
Source:COMPUTERWORLD

Copyright © 1994 - 2009 Computerworld Inc. All rights reserved.

What Mozilla and Opera are saying about Windows 7, IE8

A Financial Times story today raised new concerns about the potential for Microsoft's Windows 7 Release Candidate to give Internet Explorer 8 an unfair advantage over Firefox, Opera and other rival browsers, because of Microsoft's recommended installation instructions for the preliminary version of the operating system.
##CONTINUE##
But as I looked into the situation today, executives with Opera Software and Firefox maker Mozilla downplayed that specific issue and said they remain more concerned about Microsoft's distribution of Internet Explorer through the automatic updating mechanism in existing Windows versions.

"It isn't a Windows 7 problem; it's the IE update getting pushed automatically through Windows update, and then the choices being written in a way that will tend to drive people back to IE," said John Lilly, Mozilla chief executive, via email this afternoon.

Mozilla and Opera contend that Internet Explorer is a product in its own right, and that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to use Windows to give its browser an edge over competing programs. Microsoft has long contended that Internet Explorer is an integral component of Windows, so it's proper to push out upgrades through the same Automatic Updates mechanism used to distribute security patches.

The issue is which browser is set as the default. Microsoft says that the Automatic Updates process provides clear ways for users to keep Firefox, Opera or another browser as their default even after the new Internet Explorer is downloaded. At the same time, the process also provides those users opportunities to switch away from another browser to Internet Explorer.

"Users continue to have complete control over IE8 settings and behavior throughout the first-run experience and ongoing use," wrote Eric Hebenstreit, IE lead program manager, in a blog post last week. "For example, if IE is not the default browser in Windows, the option to change this setting is presented in a wizard that runs the first time IE8 is launched."

Hakon Wium Lie, Opera's chief technology officer, nonetheless cited problems with the process. "Most users who don’t reads the small print and just choose express update will reset their choice of browser," he said via phone this afternoon.

Responded a Microsoft spokesman via email today: "Microsoft never overrides browser defaults; the user is informed and consents. If you are upgrading to Internet Explorer 8 and use the Express Settings, the user will see that there are several pre-defined settings, many of which are optimized for safety and reliability, including Internet Explorer 8 selected as your default browser."

Users can unselect Internet Explorer 8 as part of that process, but Opera contends that many people won't notice or take the time.

As for the Windows 7 Release Candidate, the Financial Times said the problem centers on Microsoft's recommendation that people testing it make a clean installation, starting from scratch rather than upgrading and preserving existing programs. Reported the FT:

Microsoft's rivals claimed PC users who upgrading their machines to the new operating system have Microsoft's own IE8 set as their default browser, even if they were previously using a different company's software. ... However, Microsoft indicated that this only applied to the recommended method of installing the test version of Windows 7, and was unrelated to the experience most users would have when the new operating system is officially released.

Opera's Lie said the company does object to Windows 7, but it's essentially same objection it has against existing versions of Windows. Opera contends that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to bundle Internet Explorer in the operating system.

Acting on a complaint by Opera, the European Commission in January issued a statement of objections giving "the preliminary view that the inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows since 1996 has violated European competition law."

Microsoft disagrees and responded to that preliminary finding last month, seeking a hearing.

-----------------------------
BY Todd Bishop
Source:TechFlash

Todd Bishop is co-founder and managing editor of TechFlash. He has covered Microsoft and the technology industry for more than five years, most recently as a daily newspaper reporter and blogger based in Seattle.

Google, Mozilla Back 3-D Acceleration Web Standard

The Khronos Group will lead development of an open, royalty-free standard for presenting accelerated 3-D graphics online.
##CONTINUE##
In an effort to address one of the last major deficiencies of the Web browser as a platform for application delivery, a consortium of tech companies that includes Adobe (NSDQ: ADBE), AMD (NYSE: AMD), Apple, Google (NSDQ: GOOG), IBM (NYSE: IBM), and Intel (NSDQ: INTC) on Tuesday announced an effort to develop an open, royalty-free standard for presenting accelerated 3-D graphics online.

Prompted by a proposal from Mozilla, the Khronos Group said it has created a working group called "Accelerated 3D on the Web." Mozilla has offered to chair the group, which is open to any interested company that joins Khronos.

The Khronos Group has helped develop a variety of graphics standards, including OpenGL, OpenGL ES, OpenCL, OpenMAX, OpenVG, OpenSL ES, OpenKODE, and Collada. The consortium includes most of the major computer technology companies, with the notable exception of Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT), which left the OpenGL standards group in 2003 to focus on DirectX, its own set of graphics APIs.

The Khronos Group said it will look at ways to expose OpenGL (a cross-platform graphics API) and OpenGL ES 2.0 (a pared-down version of OpenGL for graphics on embedded devices) within ECMAScript, of which JavaScript is a dialect.

What that means is that applications that require advanced graphics will look better and run more quickly inside Web browsers. As the proposed standard takes shape, applications running in browsers will become more competitive with applications running locally in terms of graphic sophistication. But improved graphics won't do much for responsiveness issues arising from network bandwidth limitations and latency.

In a statement, Google engineering director Matt Papakipos expressed his company's support for the plan. "With more and more content moving to the Web and JavaScript getting faster every day, the time is right to create an open, general-purpose API for accelerated 3-D graphics on the Web," he said. "Google looks forward to offering its expertise in graphics and Web development to this discussion."

Like Mozilla, Google is eager to see the browser become a better framework for application delivery. It recently introduced a Web site called Chrome Experiments to show off what can be done with JavaScript.

In a blog post on Tuesday, Mozilla's graphics team lead Vladimir Vukicevic also expressed enthusiasm for the Khronos plan. "Web applications already have access to features that have traditionally been reserved for desktop apps, including being able to work while offline, storing data locally, multiple choices for 2-D graphics, and native audio and video support," he said. "Adding 3-D to this mix ensures that current Web apps can experiment with new user experiences, while also enabling new classes of Web applications."

Vukicevic stressed that it's important to begin working on this standard now because most desktop computers and the latest crop of smartphones include hardware-acceleration support. Hammering out the standard now will enable Web developers to take advantage of the capabilities of emerging hardware.

Chris Blizzard, Mozilla's director of evangelism, said that he expects the new graphics capabilities would be integrated into the Firefox browser that follows the release of Firefox 3.5, which is what the current Firefox 3.1 beta 3 should become. Firefox 3.5 is expected to be officially released in the second quarter of this year.

-----------------------------
BY Thomas Claburn
Source:InformationWeek

Copyright © 2009 United Business Media LLC, All rights reserved.

Mozilla moves ahead with mobile Firefox

Mozilla has been working for years on creating a handset version of its successful Firefox desktop browser. In April last year, however, it said it was making a fresh effort at moving Firefox onto phones and other handheld devices, naming the project 'Fennec'.
##CONTINUE##
The results of that work have been made available as an alpha release for Nokia's N800-series of tablets with Maemo mobile Linux. The upcoming browser, however, will also be aimed at other platforms.

ZDNet Asia's sister site ZDNet UK caught up with Mozilla's head of mobile business, Jay Sullivan, last month at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona to discuss the progress and trajectory of the Firefox Web browser for handsets.

Q: Where is Mozilla with its mobile browser so far?
Sullivan: We have had two alpha releases on Nokia's Maemo tablets and will have a beta on that soon. We put out a first milestone [in February]--it's the first time we've got all the code together in one place. We also kicked off a [Symbian] Series 60 port two months ago, and hopefully that will be in beta by the end of the year.

What precisely is the browser's name? Is it Fennec or Firefox Mobile?
Fennec is the project code name. The end-user product name will be Firefox, not Firefox Mobile. The goal is to bring a full Web experience to the handset. Anything that implies 'trimmed down' is to be avoided.

Surely the mobile version of Firefox will have to be trimmed down from the desktop version, though?
If you look at the main pillars of what Firefox is about, there are certain key attributes. There are things like the 'awesome bar' [the URL bar that also acts as a search bar]. We will also be the first mobile browser that supports add-ons--add-ons will be a huge part of the experience, and of course security too.

Another pillar will be support for Web developers. People want to use HTML, Javascript and CSS, but they will also be able to access the camera, accelerometer, location and so on.

It sounds like it will end up as more than a browser.
If people want a nice simple browser then that's fine, but they can also get add-ons.

Are you working with the Symbian and Windows Mobile teams in terms of porting Firefox to those platforms?
We have talked a lot with Symbian, and are helping them think about open source. With Windows Mobile, you're not going to get a lot of help from the vendor in question. We have many [code] contributors from within Nokia.

Look at ARM providing intellectual property, up to Texas Instruments making chipsets--there are a lot of partnerships in mobile and we encourage them to get involved. Nokia and ARM employees checking the code helps improve Fennec.

How about Opera? Their mobile browser is a serious competitor, and they address various segments from low-to-mid-range phones--or 'featurephones'--to smartphones. How will mobile Firefox compare?
We're relatively high-end--we don't have a 'mini' type of product. Today's featurephones aren't a great fit for us, but today's smartphones are tomorrow's featurephones.

We'll be successful at the grassroots social interaction that gets people to download [the mobile version of Firefox]. As with the desktop version, we use community evangelism instead of advertising. Localization is another factor--people are volunteering all over the world to localize it.

Which mobile platforms will you target?
Windows Mobile, Maemo, Symbian and LiMo. The iPhone forbids it. The BlackBerry platform is basically a Java environment that they expose to application developers, and we're not written in Java, so that's tricky. The same is true for Android, so you won't see our mobile browser on Android for the moment.

-----------------------------
BY David Meyer
Source:ZDNet

Copyright © 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.

The chaos theory of organization

One of the fundamental questions that economists have wrestled with in the past century is this: If markets are so efficient, then why do we have firms? Theoretically, entrepreneurs should be able to buy and sell labour and expertise in the marketplace wherever and whenever they need it, just as they do with goods. Instead, large companies, even with all their incumbent levels of bureaucracy and inefficiency, have flourished. In the 1937 paper "The Nature of the Firm," Ronald Coase (who would later win the Nobel Prize in economics) argued that firms thrive in our system because transaction costs in the marketplace are so high. It takes time and money to find the right people, negotiate with them, and organize them to do a job. So, cost-wise, having an established organization at the ready is almost always superior to setting one up ad hoc every time you need one.
##CONTINUE##
Almost always superior.

According to Coase, if a firm gets too big or tries to do too many things, management costs spiral out of control and the firm loses its advantage over smaller competitors. The corollary is also true: If it suddenly becomes cheaper to find and organize people on the fly, firms would become largely irrelevant.

In Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, author Clay Shirky argues that we are now living in the age of "ridiculously easy group-forming" (a phrase he credits to Canadian social software expert Seb Paquet). Thanks to the increasingly social nature of Internet technologies, it has never been easier to bring people together for a common purpose. If Coase's theory holds, this shift will have profound implications for companies of every size. In fact, Shirky, a well-known technology consultant and NYU professor, believes we are on the verge of an epochal shift, when the economic repercussions of new social technologies will start to reshape the world and the way we do business.

As an example of this, consider Firefox, the upstart web browser that has been steadily eating into the market share of Microsoft's Internet Explorer. In 2003, Microsoft won what appeared to be a decisive victory in the web browser war when AOL announced that it would be indefinitely suspending development on the Netscape browser. The browser had been Microsoft's only serious competition. Even so, by 2002, Internet Explorer held an estimated 95% share of the web browser market. No company in its right mind would invest serious money to compete against that.

Mozilla, the creators of Firefox, might have been in its right mind, but you couldn't really call it a company. The Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organization. AOL helped launch it as a way of ridding itself of Netscape, along with the community of developers who had donated their time in the fanciful hope of creating an alternative to Internet Explorer. AOL contributed a couple of million dollars to the project, along with some hardware, mostly as a token gesture. Mitchell Baker, the former Netscape legal counsel, was so dedicated to the project that she decided to join Mozilla as a volunteer.

And look at the browser wars today: Mozilla's Firefox now has more than 100 million users worldwide and recently held more than 20% of the market share; it regularly bests Internet Explorer in independent reviews of speed, security and features; the organization even generated revenues of more than $75 million (U.S.) in 2007. What Mozilla really needed to succeed, it turns out, was to be free of traditional corporate hierarchies and inefficiencies, and to really empower the loosely knit community of developers who contributed to the project.

Baker is collecting a salary again. But as the CEO of Mozilla Corp. (the title she prefers is "Chief Lizard Wrangler" ), she describes her role not as head of a company but as the co-ordinator and motivator of a group effort. "Mozilla builds software," she recently told a group at Stanford University, "but we also build communities of people who build software and share a particular vision for what the future of the Internet should look like." The development of Firefox is an open-source effort, with Mozilla's staff working in co-ordination with a community of passionate volunteers. In this structure, talented developers contribute to the project in any way they wish-they don't have to wait to be assigned to a particular problem by some manager. Even if a developer has only one good idea, he or she can still contribute to the project. By comparison, it would make little sense for Microsoft to hire a developer who has only one decent idea. For Mozilla, this ability is a real economic advantage.

Mozilla is not unique. Groups of like-minded volunteers gather on the Internet every day to tackle large projects outside of traditional corporate structures. Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia) and Linux (an open-source operating system) are common examples of this.

Given the flexibility, passion and pure economic advantages of these projects, it's hard to see them failing any time soon, but nor are they likely to appear among the Fortune 500. Their revenue models tend to be haphazard: Linux companies sell support, Wikipedia solicits donations, and the fact that Mozilla makes money at all is almost accidental. (One feature of Firefox is a box in the top right corner of the screen that makes searching the Internet easier. Google pays Mozilla to direct people to its search engine, and this accounts for nearly 90% of the foundation's revenue.) The real story, however, is not how much money these projects make; it's how much of a loss they represent to traditional firms they are competing against. In Ronald Reagan's first inaugural address, he famously stated that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Substitute "traditional corporations" for "government" in that phrase and you start to get a handle on what the world could look like in the age of ridiculously easy group-forming.

In the Internet age, it's possible for a firm with no formal staff-or even a CEO-to best a giant like Microsoft.

Could this signal the end of companies as we know them?

The fact that upstarts like Mozilla make money at all is almost accidental.

But the real story is not in their profits; it's how much of a loss they represent to the traditional companies they compete against.

-----------------------------
BY KEN HUNT
Source:ReportonBusiness.com

© Copyright 2009 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Downturn will slow Mozilla's growth

John Lilly glimpsed the World Wide Web as a graduate student back in 1992, when he saw a demonstration at Stanford University by Tim Berners-Lee, the English computer scientist who had recently invented it.

"Yeah, yeah, I get it, click, click," he remembers thinking as Berners-Lee showed how he could jump from hyperlink to hyperlink through a series of Web pages that otherwise were blank. Sitting in the back of the room, Lilly fell asleep.
##CONTINUE##

Now, in a conference room at Mozilla's headquarters, looking over the green hills in Mountain View, he calls the Web "the fundamental innovation of our lives."

As Mozilla's CEO, his livelihood depends on it. To a large extent, the Web's health also depends on the health of Mozilla and its nonprofit parent, the Mozilla Foundation, which was founded in 2003 with a $2 million pledge from AOL to keep the Web open and free for the public's benefit.

Lilly expects Mozilla will feel the effects of the recession. It earns most of its revenue from an agreement with Google, which pays royalties to Mozilla for generating search traffic. And, it will grow more slowly than it would have in a good year.

"We'll probably tend to hire a little later in the year and watch revenue closely," he said.

But it will grow, and free food - "the chief currency of tech projects," according to Lilly - is not being cut.

Last month, according to Net Applications, market share for Mozilla's Firefox browser rose to more than 20 percent, a jump that the ratings service attributed to the U.S. elections, Thanksgiving and November's extra weekend days.

People who use Firefox tend to do so at home, and in November they had more time to surf the Web.

Downloads of Firefox jumped again this month after Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which still dominates the market, suffered one of its worst security flaws ever - a hole that allowed hackers to steal data off users' machines for more than a week before Microsoft issued an emergency patch.

"Mozilla has become an essential part of the ecology of the Internet," said Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Stanford who worked with Lilly on a project to get President-elect Barack Obama's transition team to communicate more openly with the public.

That project, called open-government.us, was Lilly's idea, Lessig said. "Mozilla is a uniquely successful case of a critical bit of Web infrastructure becoming a viable community and a successful nonprofit that was able to fund itself and eventually others."

Mozilla is unusual in the business world, a delicate balance of around 200 employees and tens of thousands of volunteers who work on Mozilla's software all over the world, in more than 60 languages, because they want to.

All code is open source, which means it's free, published and openly debated, with any changes returned to the community. More than 1,000 volunteers contribute code.

Revenue at the end of last year was $75 million, up 12 percent from 2006, and net assets rose to $82 million, up 29 percent. However, expenses were up sharply as well - to $33 million, a 40 percent jump - because Mozilla is hiring.

Lilly expects to add 50 to 100 people next year and about the same number in 2010. Mozilla has increased its recruiting from universities because more students now are looking for socially meaningful work, he said.

Lilly was recruited to Mozilla by his predecessor, Mitchell Baker, who chairs the Mozilla Foundation's board. Baker said she noticed when she and Lilly attended board meetings together at the Open Source Applications Foundation, a nonprofit started by Mitch Kapor, that Lilly knew how to ask probing but graceful questions.

"John knew a lot that I didn't," she said. "He had a sense for what was working, where there were holes and how to think about things. He's a master at running Mozilla."

Lilly took some arrows in the back when he arrived at Mozilla, according to Kapor, a longtime friend of Lilly's who also is on the Mozilla Foundation board. His previous job was at a startup he founded, Reactivity, which was later sold to Cisco, and his background made him suspect, Kapor said - "the stereotype of the clueless suit."

Lilly remembers the uproar he caused when he proposed that Mozilla get its own e-mail server instead of forwarding e-mails to people's homes. "People yelled at me online like crazy - 'We're techies, we can put up our own Web server!' - and I said, 'Yeah, but we haven't,' " he said. "I think of myself as a super-nerd. To be viewed as a suit is a switch for me."

Over time, however, even though he gets impatient, Lilly earned trust at Mozilla, Kapor said, and he's brought to the organization a for-profit discipline that Kapor thinks is another reason for Firefox's market share gains.

"Firefox 3 (released in June) is good, it met its goals and people like it," Kapor said. "(John) is helping Mozilla build an engineering team that can execute faster and still keep faith with the larger global community."

Lilly admits that he faces challenges. Mozilla helped revive fierce competition in the browser market, and Microsoft, Apple and Google are all out to win it.

Despite becoming a competitor recently with its Chrome browser, Google supplied more than 88 percent of Mozilla's revenue last year through an agreement that gives Mozilla royalties for including a Google search box in the Firefox browser. That agreement expires in 2011, and some of those Google funds are being audited by the Internal Revenue Service, which questioned their tax status.

Lilly said Mozilla must find more ways to make money, although he won't say how that's going to happen.

Still, Mozilla is one of the few organizations in Silicon Valley that's adding employees. Lilly said the mobile Web and video will be very important, as will several projects from Mozilla Labs - among them Ubiquity, which is creating new user interfaces, and Weave, which is trying to give people more control over their personal information.

"We need to enable hundreds or thousands of experiments around the world to figure out what works," he said.

Despite the pressure, Lilly has managed to live a balanced life, which Kapor calls a rare accomplishment in the driven world of Silicon Valley CEOs.

Lilly keeps a micro-blog on Twitter and a blog on behalf of his 3-year-old so the boy's grandparents can know how he's doing. At Mozilla, he answers his own phone.

In general, CEOs get too much credit, he said, and too little credit goes to everybody else. He said he finds working at Mozilla humbling - especially when he's traveling and people see the orange Firefox stickers on his luggage and tell him they use the browser - and he feels lucky to have his job.

The series: During the last two weeks of the year, The Chronicle Business staff is running a series of profiles on prominent business leaders in the Bay Area who are managing their way through the severe economic downturn.

John Lilly

Age: 37

Title: CEO of Mozilla Corp.

Most recent book read: "What I Talk About When I Talk About Running," by Haruki Murakami

Favorite quote: "Nobody knows anything" (William Goldman), because it takes a beginner's mind to be successful.

-----------------------------
BY Deborah Gage, Chronicle Staff Writer - dgage@sfchronicle.com
Source:SFGate
 

Copyright 2008-2009 Daily IT News | Contact Us