I know that sometimes some features are more complicated to implement in
one OS than others, but if we want to keep the Linux users happy and
avoid them to think their OS is a second class OS for mozilla, we should
take care of these things.
Mailing all mozillians about testing marketplace before having support
under Linux is not good, most community members use Linux as their main
OS (including myself) and most of them would love to test apps and help.
I just want to add that I can totally understand that Linux support is
not ready yet, but let's take care of communication and explain why to
the future testers and/or link to the work in progress bug
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744193>. We don't want
people to feel undervalued just because they/we use Linux.
I happen to be lurking on this list, but it's not really a good place to discuss this... I only read it by chance. However, since I'm here, I'll give you my $.02:
Linux support for apps is a nice to have because most of our users are not running Linux. I think we're supportive and absolutely willing to accept patches to make something work on Linux, but it's just not something that affects the 80% (I don't think it's even 10%, though I don't have any data handy). By definition, this is a nice to have, not a stop-ship feature.
Remember that we are making software for a lot of people, and staff and community are actually a tiny slice of the userbase. I know it's hard, but we need to focus on the userbase at large, not on us.
Dan
On May 8, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Rubén Martín <nukea...@mozilla-hispano.org> wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Daniel Mills <thun...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Linux support for apps is a nice to have because most of our users are not
> running Linux. I think we're supportive and absolutely willing to accept
> patches to make something work on Linux, but it's just not something that
> affects the 80% (I don't think it's even 10%, though I don't have any data
> handy). By definition, this is a nice to have, not a stop-ship feature.
> Remember that we are making software for a lot of people, and staff and
> community are actually a tiny slice of the userbase. I know it's hard, but
> we need to focus on the userbase at large, not on us.
Don't have number either but I guess among "influencers" (the ones we are
going to need to help drive users and developers out of closed but well
established ecosystems) Linux share is more significant, not to mention the
very vocal open source community which is very Linux centric.
I also think these are marketing rather than technical concerns.
> Linux support for apps is a nice to have because most of our users are not running Linux. I think we're supportive and absolutely willing to accept patches to make something work on Linux, but it's just not something that affects the 80% (I don't think it's even 10%, though I don't have any data handy). By definition, this is a nice to have, not a stop-ship feature.
> Remember that we are making software for a lot of people, and staff and community are actually a tiny slice of the userbase. I know it's hard, but we need to focus on the userbase at large, not on us.
Then I think it not a good idea, Linux it's been a P1 OS always and one
of the reasons we have a big community of enthusiasts is due Linux users.
Linux is not another platform, it's the platform which shares our values
about being open and the reason most people gets involved with mozilla,
because they believe in libre software and in the open web. Not
supporting linux is not supporting a big group of people that empowers
mozilla, and not supporting them/us is not supporting mozilla.
From my point of view if we are lack of resources for linux (both
volunteers and paid staff), let's get more employees working on it or do
a call for help to the community, it shouldn't be that hard.
I choose marketing mailing list because is where most people interested
in how we communicate or the result of our actions are, what mailing
list do you suggest we have both technical and non-technical people?
Le mercredi 9 mai 2012 02:12:00 UTC+2, Daniel Mills a écrit :
> Linux support for apps is a nice to have because most of our users are not running Linux. I think we're supportive and absolutely willing to accept patches to make something work on Linux, but it's just not something that affects the 80% (I don't think it's even 10%, though I don't have any data handy). By definition, this is a nice to have, not a stop-ship feature.
I can’t believe I’m reading this. o_O
Are you saying that the Marketplace is unsupported on Linux because it has little market share? Then why do we even bother having Linux versions of Firefox at all??
There must be a *big* misunderstanding here. I must be missing something obvious.
On 9 mai, 02:12, Daniel Mills <thun...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Hey buddy! ;)
> I happen to be lurking on this list, but it's not really a good place to discuss this... I only read it by chance. However, since I'm here, I'll give you my $.02:
> Linux support for apps is a nice to have because most of our users are not running Linux. I think we're supportive and absolutely willing to accept patches to make something work on Linux, but it's just not something that affects the 80% (I don't think it's even 10%, though I don't have any data handy). By definition, this is a nice to have, not a stop-ship feature.
> Remember that we are making software for a lot of people, and staff and community are actually a tiny slice of the userbase. I know it's hard, but we need to focus on the userbase at large, not on us.
> Dan
Hi Dan,
We call it "Open" Web because the web page does not care if I run
Linux, Windows or Mac. Mozilla has always made sure that the Web
remains open to all, even those that are not Apple or Windows
customers. It would be easier to only support Windows and Mac for
Firefox, it would even be easier to only support Windows and drop Mac
as well, our market share would probably not be that impacted. But I
believe that we make decisions not only for the potential user base we
can ship a product to like any regular dotcom company that would only
target the profitable market, but also (and hopefully foremost)
because we are following the Mozilla Mission and its Manifesto. Don't
you think that there is a problem in telling that we are building a
marketplace that is built on the Open Web but closed to our own
volunteer community? We wouldn't support Linux on our own marketplace
while our new flagship product, B2G is based on a Linux kernel? We
wouldn't support Linux when even Chrome has a marketplace that is open
today to Linux users? That just doesn't make sense to me and I hope
this decision will be revised.
I can understand your frustration in our launching the Marketplace without Linux support. As you heard, Marco Castelluccio is working on the Web Runtime (WebRT) for Linux as we speak.
Unfortunately, we need to start getting feedback about the Marketplace now if we are going to meet our Kilimanjaro goals of making the Marketplace awesome for B2G. Given our finite engineering resources and schedule, we decided to make the announcement to Mozillians before WebRT for Linux was finished.
I'd be happy to try to answer any other questions, but I'll be on PTO for a week. Likely others on this list can chime in, too.
yours,
-Bill Walker, engineering manager, Mozilla Labs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rubén Martín" <nukea...@mozilla-hispano.org>
To: "marketing" <market...@lists.mozilla.org>
Cc: apps-feedb...@mozilla.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 1:09:13 PM
Subject: About Linux support at marketplace
Hello,
I know that sometimes some features are more complicated to implement in
one OS than others, but if we want to keep the Linux users happy and
avoid them to think their OS is a second class OS for mozilla, we should
take care of these things.
Mailing all mozillians about testing marketplace before having support
under Linux is not good, most community members use Linux as their main
OS (including myself) and most of them would love to test apps and help.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Bill Walker <bwal...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Rubén,
> Thanks for your interest in the Marketplace!
> I can understand your frustration in our launching the Marketplace without Linux support. As you heard, Marco Castelluccio is working on the Web Runtime (WebRT) for Linux as we speak.
> Unfortunately, we need to start getting feedback about the Marketplace now if we are going to meet our Kilimanjaro goals of making the Marketplace awesome for B2G. Given our finite engineering resources and schedule, we decided to make the announcement to Mozillians before WebRT for Linux was finished.
> I'd be happy to try to answer any other questions, but I'll be on PTO for a week. Likely others on this list can chime in, too.
> yours,
Hi Everyone,
I agree with Rubén Martin. IMHO is very, very, very sad that
MozillaLabs team has chosen Windows and OSX as the initial supported
platform, putting Linux support on the queue. I think is a very bad
signal either for the Market and for our volunteers. I hope this
decision will be revisited.
If the problem is related with resources or budget for the project,
I'm sure the organization can do an extra effort to correct this
decission.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Rodrigo Garcia <r...@firefox.cl> wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> I agree with Rubén Martin. IMHO is very, very, very sad that
> MozillaLabs team has chosen Windows and OSX as the initial supported
> platform, putting Linux support on the queue.
Did you even read the post you just replied to?
Linux WebRT support is ongoing.
I think is a very bad
> signal either for the Market and for our volunteers. I hope this
> decision will be revisited.
> If the problem is related with resources or budget for the project,
> I'm sure the organization can do an extra effort to correct this
> decission.
Has it occurred to you that it's possible that Mozilla actually can't do
this? Has it occurred to you that Mozilla is possibly already in overdrive
what with Rapid Release, B2G, launching the *beta* of the Marketplace, and
other things?
Mozilla doesn't have infinite resources.
Think of it this way: there would be a certain amount of time before WebRT
was on Linux. Mozilla could choose to launch it then, or it could launch it
earlier and get valuable feedback. There's no reason to deny Windows and OS
X users the ability to test it, and there's strong advantages in that
Mozilla can get feedback earlier and stay on track for the Kilimanjaro
event.
A people-centered system will enable users to identify themselves to
websites and apps on their own terms*; to take their apps easily
from one OS to another;* to disclose only what they want about
themselves in proportion to the value they receive.
If we want to meet that requirement we will need to do tablets and linux.
I think the problem here is problem one of not having a deep enough understanding of how we will do *any* of the OS integration for these requirements:
The other requirements appear to be largely cross platform.
Its always been easier to find windows and mac knowledgable people to figure out the OS integration parts. We just need to find the right engineer to figure out these requirements for Linux and Tablets, and as the last line indicates iOS. That will be an even tougher integration job.
Any ideas on people that could step up to figure out these areas on those platforms? I think this goes beyond thunder's suggestion of "patches accepted" to more like "patches highly desired and sought after!" Eventually we will want this work done, so lets find the right module owner to start tackling it now.
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Bill Walker<bwal...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> Rubén,
>> Thanks for your interest in the Marketplace!
>> I can understand your frustration in our launching the Marketplace without Linux support. As you heard, Marco Castelluccio is working on the Web Runtime (WebRT) for Linux as we speak.
>> Unfortunately, we need to start getting feedback about the Marketplace now if we are going to meet our Kilimanjaro goals of making the Marketplace awesome for B2G. Given our finite engineering resources and schedule, we decided to make the announcement to Mozillians before WebRT for Linux was finished.
>> I'd be happy to try to answer any other questions, but I'll be on PTO for a week. Likely others on this list can chime in, too.
>> yours,
> Hi Everyone,
> I agree with Rubén Martin. IMHO is very, very, very sad that
> MozillaLabs team has chosen Windows and OSX as the initial supported
> platform, putting Linux support on the queue. I think is a very bad
> signal either for the Market and for our volunteers. I hope this
> decision will be revisited.
> If the problem is related with resources or budget for the project,
> I'm sure the organization can do an extra effort to correct this
> decission.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Alex Jordan <alexander3223...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Rodrigo Garcia <r...@firefox.cl> wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>> I agree with Rubén Martin. IMHO is very, very, very sad that
>> MozillaLabs team has chosen Windows and OSX as the initial supported
>> platform, putting Linux support on the queue.
> Did you even read the post you just replied to?
> Linux WebRT support is ongoing.
Alex,
Thanks for the heads-up. Of course I read it.
> I think is a very bad
>> signal either for the Market and for our volunteers. I hope this
>> decision will be revisited.
>> If the problem is related with resources or budget for the project,
>> I'm sure the organization can do an extra effort to correct this
>> decission.
> Has it occurred to you that it's possible that Mozilla actually can't do
> this? Has it occurred to you that Mozilla is possibly already in overdrive
> what with Rapid Release, B2G, launching the *beta* of the Marketplace, and
> other things?
Beside ironies, I'm sure there are powerful reasons to take this
decision. My point, and seems the concerns of other people who wrote
also through this tread, is the impact this on the media and users.
> Mozilla doesn't have infinite resources.
Nobody has said that.
> Think of it this way: there would be a certain amount of time before WebRT
> was on Linux. Mozilla could choose to launch it then, or it could launch it
> earlier and get valuable feedback. There's no reason to deny Windows and OS
> X users the ability to test it, and there's strong advantages in that
> Mozilla can get feedback earlier and stay on track for the Kilimanjaro
> event.
Nobody is denying the rights of those users. The only point here is a
question and a strong suggestion of community members. We're allow to
disagree and communicate it in a proper way.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Rodrigo Garcia <r...@firefox.cl> wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Alex Jordan <alexander3223...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Rodrigo Garcia <r...@firefox.cl> wrote:
> >> Hi Everyone,
> >> I agree with Rubén Martin. IMHO is very, very, very sad that
> >> MozillaLabs team has chosen Windows and OSX as the initial supported
> >> platform, putting Linux support on the queue.
> > Did you even read the post you just replied to?
> > Linux WebRT support is ongoing.
> Alex,
> Thanks for the heads-up. Of course I read it.
> > I think is a very bad
> >> signal either for the Market and for our volunteers. I hope this
> >> decision will be revisited.
> >> If the problem is related with resources or budget for the project,
> >> I'm sure the organization can do an extra effort to correct this
> >> decission.
> > Has it occurred to you that it's possible that Mozilla actually can't do
> > this? Has it occurred to you that Mozilla is possibly already in
> overdrive
> > what with Rapid Release, B2G, launching the *beta* of the Marketplace,
> and
> > other things?
> Beside ironies, I'm sure there are powerful reasons to take this
> decision. My point, and seems the concerns of other people who wrote
> also through this tread, is the impact this on the media and users.
That's a valid concern, and one that I hadn't thought of.
I apologize.
> > Think of it this way: there would be a certain amount of time before
> WebRT
> > was on Linux. Mozilla could choose to launch it then, or it could launch
> it
> > earlier and get valuable feedback. There's no reason to deny Windows and
> OS
> > X users the ability to test it, and there's strong advantages in that
> > Mozilla can get feedback earlier and stay on track for the Kilimanjaro
> > event.
> Nobody is denying the rights of those users.
My point was that holding this back just for Linux support would be denying
the rights of Windows and OS X users to test this.
> A people-centered system will enable users to identify themselves
> to websites and apps on their own terms*; to take their apps
> easily from one OS to another;* to disclose only what they want
> about themselves in proportion to the value they receive.
> If we want to meet that requirement we will need to do tablets and linux.
Right, I agree that the vision reflects the need for tablets and linux. From the tester's perspective, I'm a little less worried about the risk of not having tablet support, as the web apps integration for android is built into fennec native and reusing some of it's functionality. Fennec native itself, can run on a tablet, so we might still be okay to get some tablet support (I'll want to confirm with it with some testing though, Aaron & Tony probably could provide more insight here).
For linux, I believe the original rationale for not going for support initially was linux's low marketshare along with added engineering resources needed for it (i.e. it doesn't get the same benefit tablet gets above). However, a recent discussion I had with a contributor turned employee (Kevin Brosnan) makes me rethink that the primary reason for supporting linux is not marketshare. A rationale like you stated above relates to openness - the user makes the decision to use apps wherever they like. Another relates to paying attention to the needs of contributors - What do they find important? Note that I know linux users also happen to be loud, so not supporting their platform could hurt us from PR perspective (e.g. blog posts bashing us). Overall, I definitely believe we need to rethink our strategy on linux based on the rationale provided.
> I think the problem here is problem one of not having a deep enough > understanding of how we will do *any* of the OS integration for these > requirements:
For linux, this is being thought about by one of our contributors, Marco. He's written up a specification of what he thinks should be done here - https://etherpad.mozilla.org/tzkVRnfvm1. Feel free to provide feedback.
> The other requirements appear to be largely cross platform.
> Its always been easier to find windows and mac knowledgable people to > figure out the OS integration parts. We just need to find the right > engineer to figure out these requirements for Linux and Tablets, and > as the last line indicates iOS. That will be an even tougher > integration job.
Right, although I actually think keeping iOS out of scope is alright to do for now, as we need to nail down the web apps UX flow correctly on one mobile operating system and being successful, before we tackle another operating system. For linux, this is probably a good opportunity to form a community around web apps integration into linux, as even today I've seen interest in this.
> Any ideas on people that could step up to figure out these areas on > those platforms? I think this goes beyond thunder's suggestion of > "patches accepted" to more like "patches highly desired and sought > after!" Eventually we will want this work done, so lets find the > right module owner to start tackling it now.
Good call. Myk Melez is looking to get a module owner defined for the web app runtime on desktop on the governance discussion thread. Let's get that defined quickly and come up with a way to get patch support both internally and externally to get support platforms such as linux. I would be more than happy to help out with promoting community involvement with this. Myk - What do you think?
> On 5/8/12 7:19 PM, Rodrigo Garcia wrote:
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Bill Walker<bwal...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>> Rubén,
>>> Thanks for your interest in the Marketplace!
>>> I can understand your frustration in our launching the Marketplace without Linux support. As you heard, Marco Castelluccio is working on the Web Runtime (WebRT) for Linux as we speak.
>>> Unfortunately, we need to start getting feedback about the Marketplace now if we are going to meet our Kilimanjaro goals of making the Marketplace awesome for B2G. Given our finite engineering resources and schedule, we decided to make the announcement to Mozillians before WebRT for Linux was finished.
>>> I'd be happy to try to answer any other questions, but I'll be on PTO for a week. Likely others on this list can chime in, too.
>>> yours,
>> Hi Everyone,
>> I agree with Rubén Martin. IMHO is very, very, very sad that
>> MozillaLabs team has chosen Windows and OSX as the initial supported
>> platform, putting Linux support on the queue. I think is a very bad
>> signal either for the Market and for our volunteers. I hope this
>> decision will be revisited.
>> If the problem is related with resources or budget for the project,
>> I'm sure the organization can do an extra effort to correct this
>> decission.
On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 4:36:35 PM UTC-4, Rubén Martín wrote:
> I just want to add that I can totally understand that Linux support is
> not ready yet, but let's take care of communication and explain why to
> the future testers and/or link to the work in progress bug
> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744193>. We don't want
> people to feel undervalued just because they/we use Linux.
I am the product manager for Apps and I wanted to address some of the concerns raised here.
First of all, I'll admit that we could have done a much better job of communicating the level of Linux support at this stage of the Apps project. Though we did call it out on the Kilimanjaro planning page and during other engineering meetings, we will be sure to keep this in mind for future communications.
Coming to the question at hand, lack of support for Linux at this stage is mainly due to two factors. 1. The technical feasibility of implementing support for Apps features in the various Linux distributions. and the resource and time constraints associated with doing so. 2. The market share of Linux desktop users.
I'd like to focus on #1 here. As you can see from the bug you link to above (and the etherpad linked to from the bug), this is a particularly hard technical problem. We don't have the right level of skills nor the time commitment required to do this justice. Which is why we are very excited about Marco's work as part of the Summer of Code project. If you or others have the skills and time to help move this forward, we'd love to get your help.
I just read chofmann's reply and his suggestion of finding the right technical help to move this forward is spot on!
On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 4:36:35 PM UTC-4, Rubén Martín wrote:
> I just want to add that I can totally understand that Linux support is
> not ready yet, but let's take care of communication and explain why to
> the future testers and/or link to the work in progress bug
> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744193>. We don't want
> people to feel undervalued just because they/we use Linux.
I am the product manager for Apps and I wanted to address some of the concerns raised here.
First of all, I'll admit that we could have done a much better job of communicating the level of Linux support at this stage of the Apps project. Though we did call it out on the Kilimanjaro planning page and during other engineering meetings, we will be sure to keep this in mind for future communications.
Coming to the question at hand, lack of support for Linux at this stage is mainly due to two factors. 1. The technical feasibility of implementing support for Apps features in the various Linux distributions. and the resource and time constraints associated with doing so. 2. The market share of Linux desktop users.
I'd like to focus on #1 here. As you can see from the bug you link to above (and the etherpad linked to from the bug), this is a particularly hard technical problem. We don't have the right level of skills nor the time commitment required to do this justice. Which is why we are very excited about Marco's work as part of the Summer of Code project. If you or others have the skills and time to help move this forward, we'd love to get your help.
I just read chofmann's reply and his suggestion of finding the right technical help to move this forward is spot on!
I don't know who handles PR related with Engineering decisions, but I
would suggest this should be addressed in a blog post to explain to
the market this decision in terms doesn't hurt the image of openness
and neutrality of Mozilla. IMHO Chris and Jason details puts, the
things in a good perspective. Thanks!
Also, I think this has been a great exercise about communication
between the community and the employees.
> A people-centered system will enable users to identify themselves to
> websites and apps on their own terms; to take their apps easily from one OS
> to another; to disclose only what they want about themselves in proportion
> to the value they receive.
> If we want to meet that requirement we will need to do tablets and linux.
> Right, I agree that the vision reflects the need for tablets and linux. From
> the tester's perspective, I'm a little less worried about the risk of not
> having tablet support, as the web apps integration for android is built into
> fennec native and reusing some of it's functionality. Fennec native itself,
> can run on a tablet, so we might still be okay to get some tablet support
> (I'll want to confirm with it with some testing though, Aaron & Tony
> probably could provide more insight here).
> For linux, I believe the original rationale for not going for support
> initially was linux's low marketshare along with added engineering resources
> needed for it (i.e. it doesn't get the same benefit tablet gets above).
> However, a recent discussion I had with a contributor turned employee (Kevin
> Brosnan) makes me rethink that the primary reason for supporting linux is
> not marketshare. A rationale like you stated above relates to openness - the
> user makes the decision to use apps wherever they like. Another relates to
> paying attention to the needs of contributors - What do they find important?
> Note that I know linux users also happen to be loud, so not supporting their
> platform could hurt us from PR perspective (e.g. blog posts bashing us).
> Overall, I definitely believe we need to rethink our strategy on linux based
> on the rationale provided.
> I think the problem here is problem one of not having a deep enough
> understanding of how we will do *any* of the OS integration for these
> requirements:
> For linux, this is being thought about by one of our contributors, Marco.
> He's written up a specification of what he thinks should be done here -
> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/tzkVRnfvm1. Feel free to provide feedback.
> P1: Launch from native standard launch points (start menu, dock, start page,
> Home Screen etc.)
> P1: Launch in chromeless window, outside the browser application (bug
> 740586) (bug 743917)
> The other requirements appear to be largely cross platform.
> Its always been easier to find windows and mac knowledgable people to figure
> out the OS integration parts. We just need to find the right engineer to
> figure out these requirements for Linux and Tablets, and as the last line
> indicates iOS. That will be an even tougher integration job.
> Right, although I actually think keeping iOS out of scope is alright to do
> for now, as we need to nail down the web apps UX flow correctly on one
> mobile operating system and being successful, before we tackle another
> operating system. For linux, this is probably a good opportunity to form a
> community around web apps integration into linux, as even today I've seen
> interest in this.
> Any ideas on people that could step up to figure out these areas on those
> platforms? I think this goes beyond thunder's suggestion of "patches
> accepted" to more like "patches highly desired and sought after!"
> Eventually we will want this work done, so lets find the right module owner
> to start tackling it now.
> Good call. Myk Melez is looking to get a module owner defined for the web
> app runtime on desktop on the governance discussion thread. Let's get that
> defined quickly and come up with a way to get patch support both internally
> and externally to get support platforms such as linux. I would be more than
> happy to help out with promoting community involvement with this. Myk - What
> do you think?
> -chofmann
> On 5/8/12 7:19 PM, Rodrigo Garcia wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Bill Walker <bwal...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Rubén,
> Thanks for your interest in the Marketplace!
> I can understand your frustration in our launching the Marketplace without
> Linux support. As you heard, Marco Castelluccio is working on the Web
> Runtime (WebRT) for Linux as we speak.
> Unfortunately, we need to start getting feedback about the Marketplace now
> if we are going to meet our Kilimanjaro goals of making the Marketplace
> awesome for B2G. Given our finite engineering resources and schedule, we
> decided to make the announcement to Mozillians before WebRT for Linux was
> finished.
> I'd be happy to try to answer any other questions, but I'll be on PTO for a
> week. Likely others on this list can chime in, too.
> yours,
> Hi Everyone,
> I agree with Rubén Martin. IMHO is very, very, very sad that
> MozillaLabs team has chosen Windows and OSX as the initial supported
> platform, putting Linux support on the queue. I think is a very bad
> signal either for the Market and for our volunteers. I hope this
> decision will be revisited.
> If the problem is related with resources or budget for the project,
> I'm sure the organization can do an extra effort to correct this
> decission.
On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 12:02:43 AM UTC-4, Jason Smith wrote:
> > Its always been easier to find windows and mac knowledgable people to > > figure out the OS integration parts. We just need to find the right > > engineer to figure out these requirements for Linux and Tablets, and > > as the last line indicates iOS. That will be an even tougher > > integration job.
> Right, although I actually think keeping iOS out of scope is alright to > do for now, as we need to nail down the web apps UX flow correctly on > one mobile operating system and being successful, before we tackle > another operating system. For linux, this is probably a good opportunity > to form a community around web apps integration into linux, as even > today I've seen interest in this.
I second the call to get more community contributions for apps integration on linux. That said, I'd also not view Linux support as being too different from the lack of iOS support you mention above. We have picked *one* mobile OS to support for a new product and we have picked *two* desktop OSs to support that same new product. I'd encourage you to not look at this as a feature of Firefox, but rather to look at this is a new product (Apps and more specifically, WebRT) we are bringing to the market. We need to start somewhere.
On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 12:02:43 AM UTC-4, Jason Smith wrote:
> > Its always been easier to find windows and mac knowledgable people to > > figure out the OS integration parts. We just need to find the right > > engineer to figure out these requirements for Linux and Tablets, and > > as the last line indicates iOS. That will be an even tougher > > integration job.
> Right, although I actually think keeping iOS out of scope is alright to > do for now, as we need to nail down the web apps UX flow correctly on > one mobile operating system and being successful, before we tackle > another operating system. For linux, this is probably a good opportunity > to form a community around web apps integration into linux, as even > today I've seen interest in this.
I second the call to get more community contributions for apps integration on linux. That said, I'd also not view Linux support as being too different from the lack of iOS support you mention above. We have picked *one* mobile OS to support for a new product and we have picked *two* desktop OSs to support that same new product. I'd encourage you to not look at this as a feature of Firefox, but rather to look at this is a new product (Apps and more specifically, WebRT) we are bringing to the market. We need to start somewhere.
> Le mercredi 9 mai 2012 02:12:00 UTC+2, Daniel Mills a écrit :
>> Linux support for apps is a nice to have because most of our users
>> are not running Linux. I think we're supportive and absolutely
>> willing to accept patches to make something work on Linux, but it's
>> just not something that affects the 80% (I don't think it's even
>> 10%, though I don't have any data handy). By definition, this is a
>> nice to have, not a stop-ship feature.
> I can’t believe I’m reading this. o_O
> Are you saying that the Marketplace is unsupported on Linux because
> it has little market share? Then why do we even bother having Linux
> versions of Firefox at all??
> There must be a *big* misunderstanding here. I must be missing
> something obvious.
Two things, but maybe they are not obvious:
Linux is a P3 for this initial release. Linux support will come. I'm disappointed too, but I find it very hard to disagree with the prioritisation: if you want to test at volume or to make the product credible in the market, Linux is unfortunately not a priority. It's 1-3% of the desktop market depending on the country.
You might argue that a prioritisation like this will only perpetuate that situation...but when the Web wins, Linux wins. Even if you disagree with the prioritisation for the initial release, you presumably agree with the vision?
There's certainly no inconsistency with having supported Linux builds of Firefox.
Patrick
-- Patrick Finch
Mozilla
pfi...@mozilla.com
Mobile: +46 768 444 833
IM: patrick.fi...@gmail.com
Thanks for all the replies. I think we all agree on this first release
problem, it's OK not having Linux support if there are still some problems
to solve and it should be explained to the community.
What it worries me the most is not being sure about webapps on Linux for
beta or stable marketplace release, reading bugs and wiki is not clear, I
don't mind having a delay for this first closed release, but I really do
for the first public one and of course for the final stable.
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2012 4:36:35 PM UTC-4, Rubén Martín wrote:
>> I just want to add that I can totally understand that Linux support is
>> not ready yet, but let's take care of communication and explain why to
>> the future testers and/or link to the work in progress bug
>> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=744193>. We don't want
>> people to feel undervalued just because they/we use Linux.
> I am the product manager for Apps and I wanted to address some of the concerns raised here.
> First of all, I'll admit that we could have done a much better job of communicating the level of Linux support at this stage of the Apps project. Though we did call it out on the Kilimanjaro planning page and during other engineering meetings, we will be sure to keep this in mind for future communications.
> Coming to the question at hand, lack of support for Linux at this stage is mainly due to two factors.
> 1. The technical feasibility of implementing support for Apps features in the various Linux distributions. and the resource and time constraints associated with doing so.
I would suggest starting by CCing to this bug our own Linux developers and our distro packagers for Firefox/Thunderbird for at least Redhat, Debian and Ubuntu
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Patrick Finch <pfi...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Linux is a P3 for this initial release. Linux support will come. I'm
> disappointed too, but I find it very hard to disagree with the
> prioritisation: if you want to test at volume or to make the product
> credible in the market, Linux is unfortunately not a priority. It's 1-3%
> of the desktop market depending on the country.
I only hope the "lots of influencers use Linux" side of the argument has
been well weighted, as we are going to need as much traction as possible
here. At the very least, when going public maybe we can offer a set date on
when Linux support might be expected.
> I'd like to focus on #1 here. As you can see from the bug you link to above (and the etherpad linked to from the bug), this is a particularly hard technical problem. We don't have the right level of skills nor the time commitment required to do this justice. Which is why we are very excited about Marco's work as part of the Summer of Code project. If you or others have the skills and time to help move this forward, we'd love to get your help.
> I just read chofmann's reply and his suggestion of finding the right technical help to move this forward is spot on!
> Regards,
> Ragavan
There are two things that are needed as part of that plan. First is to make as much of the code cross platform as possible, and to have a good definition of the platform specific pieces. Maybe these should be added as requirements for that feature or that section of the planning doc should be broken down in that way. That would probably make it a lot more clear for developers and testers on Windows Mac and Android as well.
Having a good definition of the what the platform specific pieces look like on Windows, Mac, and Android look like will allow linux hackers to follow along and "translate" the requirements for that platform (same for tablet and iOS as well).
Are there other pieces that are intended to be platform specific other than these two that I listed?
Can we get someone to go though the other bugs that are on file to make sure that those are all going to be cross platform parts of the code?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=740586 has been made into an Android bug. Is the plan for this to also be supported on "Desktop OSes"? If so we probably need to spin off other bugs for Widows, Mac, and Linux, etc....
