Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Any plans for a Mozilla-based OS?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
p...@eelink.net  
View profile  
 More options Mar 20 2007, 1:27 pm
Newsgroups: mozilla.dev.planning
From: p...@eelink.net
Date: 20 Mar 2007 10:27:18 -0700
Local: Tues, Mar 20 2007 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: Any plans for a Mozilla-based OS?
On Mar 16, 11:01 am, emery.denuc...@gmail.com wrote:

> It seems like a waste not to have an OS that is based primarily on the
> Mozilla platform, after all, XUL is more than capable to act as the
> standard GUI as-is. I would suggest using FreeBSD for the kernel. I
> would also love to be a part of developing the shell. :)

I recommend you all think long and hard about this.  I am an Ubuntu
user on my T60 and I don't dual boot.  I love the fact that Ubuntu is
like an appliance -- all the software (pretty much anyway) comes from
a few limited repositories and has been tailored to my system.  Things
just work.  When I add an app, I always go to the same place and when
I remove an app, it's gone as far as I know (even though the install
deb stays on the disk).

Just a thin slice of upside here are this:

1) It's stable.
2) It's a single app for maintaining the software on my system.
3) It reminds me of apple in 1990 in terms of ease and simplicity.
4) Gone are the disk churn and CPU burn with Windows virus checking
and cleanup.

If Mozilla were to undertake an OS, would they use the Apple model of
supporting limited hardware so they could ensure stabilility and
features??  Or, would they strip features and drivers in an attempt to
support a broad range of hardware?  These are key decisions in any OS
approach.  I wouldn't recommend Mozilla take this on but if they did,
supporting a limited hardware set but doing it well is an approach
that has merit as the alternative of supporting all the x86 universe
seems prohibitive in terms of scope.  If there were an org to take on
an OS for a limited hardware set, Mozilla would be a great partner to
this org and that is probably the better way for this to happen.

I would rather both google and Mozilla stay out of the OS.

If Mozilla were to add a new direction, I would rather it be in voice
apps on smart phones.  I would rather the Internet messaging and
communication focus Mozilla has now extend into voice and into smart
phones.  If Mozilla is going to introduce a full OS and application
platform anywhere, I would recommend it be on a smart phone.  Imagine
a Samsung SGH-i600 which is a quad band phone with WIFI that runs all
your cellular phone voice apps + runs Skype over wifi and cellular
internet + runs the VOIP app of your choice over WIFI.  And is running
some brand of Linux/BSD so you can sync with your PC based on cron
jobs and on the fly and in the background.  Nice.  This product just
took a hunk of your cell phone bill away, gives you the ability to
make and take calls anywhere in the world where you can get wifi, and
can extend all the Mozilla application framework into the phone
space.

On top of all this is asterisk which has a role in my view if the
current PC and smart phone get on a common, open platform.

The phone has the branding and revenue potential of Firefox also which
not too many applications have.

This is where Mozilla should be looking in my view.

--


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.