4 ms·

I don't see how Firefox OS is necessarily any more open than Android is. Firefox OS still has a very centralized, limited-access organization behind it. This or

I don't see how Firefox OS is necessarily any more open than Android is. Firefox OS still has a very centralized, limited-access organization behind it. This organization basically completely controls the development of Firefox OS. In practice, the wider community doesn't really have any say over the functionality that's supported, or the direction that's taken. This has become pretty apparent with desktop Firefox, for instance. There have been many poorly-thought-out decisions foisted upon its users lately, without them having any say. This has accelerated since Firefox 4 was released. Just look at the one from today about removing the ability to easily disable JavaScript in Firefox 23, for example. I don't see things being any different with Firefox OS, and I don't consider this to be a form of "openness". The same goes for JavaScript. In practice, it really isn't more "open" than C, or C++, or Java, or Objective-C, or C#. Unless you're part of certain teams at a very small number of organizations, you're not going to have any influence at all on JavaScript. This is very different than the situation with, say, Python, where unaffiliated individuals can actually make a difference. But I wasn't even referring to standards when it comes to JavaScript. That's peripheral to the lack of choice that exists under Firefox OS. It's not a very "open" platform when the only language you can practically use is JavaScript. Android gives us the option of using Java, or using C and C++ via the NDK, for example. That's far more choice than we have under Firefox OS. Maybe my comment was harsh, but we are discussing reality here, not some academic fantasy. The evidence just isn't there to back up Firefox OS being more "open", or even practical in any way.

Yoric 13y ago
You seem to misunderstand how Mozilla works. Of course non-Mozilla devs can contribute code and new features that haven't been specifically ordered by a "centralized, limited-access organization". This happens all the time. Add to that the fact that every repository is public, that commits are visible in real-time rather than through opaque code-drops, and you get a project that's as open as it goes. I won't discuss the openness of JavaScript vs. that of other languages, since this doesn't seem to be the purpose of your message. Yes, JavaScript is the only way to get code executed on FirefoxOS. However, considerable steps are being taken by both Mozilla and third-parties to ensure that this does not limit (too much) your choices. These days, dozens of languages can be compiled to JavaScript, directly [1] or indirectly [2], including C, C++, Objective-C, Java, C# or Python. That doesn't mean that all your applications can be ported immediately to FirefoxOS, as you'll need some library support that may or may not be available for the platform, but it's hardly limiting. As for your "academic fantasy" paragraph, well, let's just politely ignore that trollbait. Caveat: I'm a Mozillian. [1] https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-lang... [2] https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/wiki https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/wiki
MatthewPhillips 13y ago
> I don't see how Firefox OS is necessarily any more open than Android is. Firefox OS still has a very centralized, limited-access organization behind it. This organization basically completely controls the development of Firefox OS. In practice, the wider community doesn't really have any say over the functionality that's supported, or the direction that's taken. You couldn't be more wrong. Firefox OS is developed in the open, on GitHub. You can submit pull requests. Others have. They've been accepted. FFOS is implementing a very cool text selection concept that came from the community, for example. Android is developed behind close doors. Only release versions are opened sourced. Android does not accept patches from non-Google employees. > Android gives us the option of using Java, or using C and C++ via the NDK, for example. That's far more choice than we have under Firefox OS. On FF you have the option of using any language that compiles to JavaScript, which has all of the same API capabilities as JS. This is not true on Android, where every attempt to port a JVM language to Davlik has failed (thus far).
- Steko 13y ago
  At the end of the day isn't forked Android both open and better than Firefox OS?
- tmzt 13y ago
  Google does accept patches for Android from third parties, but they must go through a process that isn't exactly obvious to those third parties. I believe there is also a contributor license agreement required, but that is becoming standard practice for things including the Linux kernel. I base this on statements made in the #android IRC channel in the past by Google developers working on Android. As for FirefoxOS, is it possible for a user to install XPIs or XPCOM components on their own handset? I can understand why limitations would be placed on third-party applications obtained through a web service, but not why owners of devices could not install additional components.
  - Yoric 13y ago
    > Google does accept patches for Android from third parties, but they must go through a process that isn't exactly obvious to those third parties. I believe there is also a contributor license agreement required, but that is becoming standard practice for things including the Linux kernel. I confirm that Mozilla has fixed a number of bugs and/or performance issues in Android. In fact, if my memory serves, Chrome for Android simply couldn't load without our patches :) However, if my memory serves, getting these patches accepted has proved pretty difficult. I'm not the author of the patches, so I couldn't tell you why. > As for FirefoxOS, is it possible for a user to install XPIs or XPCOM components on their own handset? I can understand why limitations would be placed on third-party applications obtained through a web service, but not why owners of devices could not install additional components. Well, given that XPCOM components have 100% access to the file system, hardware, etc. and can easily brick a phone, we didn't really spend time making that footgun user-friendly. So you can easily add an XPCOM component, but only if you build an image of FirefoxOS yourself. Not too hard to do, just probably not the answer you hoped for.

Yoric 13y ago

You seem to misunderstand how Mozilla works. Of course non-Mozilla devs can contribute code and new features that haven't been specifically ordered by a "centralized, limited-access organization". This happens all the time. Add to that the fact that every repository is public, that commits are visible in real-time rather than through opaque code-drops, and you get a project that's as open as it goes. I won't discuss the openness of JavaScript vs. that of other languages, since this doesn't seem to be the purpose of your message. Yes, JavaScript is the only way to get code executed on FirefoxOS. However, considerable steps are being taken by both Mozilla and third-parties to ensure that this does not limit (too much) your choices. These days, dozens of languages can be compiled to JavaScript, directly [1] or indirectly [2], including C, C++, Objective-C, Java, C# or Python. That doesn't mean that all your applications can be ported immediately to FirefoxOS, as you'll need some library support that may or may not be available for the platform, but it's hardly limiting. As for your "academic fantasy" paragraph, well, let's just politely ignore that trollbait. Caveat: I'm a Mozillian. [1] https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-languages-that-compile-to-JS https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/wiki/List-of-lang... [2] https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/wiki https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/wiki

MatthewPhillips 13y ago

> I don't see how Firefox OS is necessarily any more open than Android is. Firefox OS still has a very centralized, limited-access organization behind it. This organization basically completely controls the development of Firefox OS. In practice, the wider community doesn't really have any say over the functionality that's supported, or the direction that's taken. You couldn't be more wrong. Firefox OS is developed in the open, on GitHub. You can submit pull requests. Others have. They've been accepted. FFOS is implementing a very cool text selection concept that came from the community, for example. Android is developed behind close doors. Only release versions are opened sourced. Android does not accept patches from non-Google employees. > Android gives us the option of using Java, or using C and C++ via the NDK, for example. That's far more choice than we have under Firefox OS. On FF you have the option of using any language that compiles to JavaScript, which has all of the same API capabilities as JS. This is not true on Android, where every attempt to port a JVM language to Davlik has failed (thus far).

Steko 13y ago
At the end of the day isn't forked Android both open and better than Firefox OS?
tmzt 13y ago
Google does accept patches for Android from third parties, but they must go through a process that isn't exactly obvious to those third parties. I believe there is also a contributor license agreement required, but that is becoming standard practice for things including the Linux kernel. I base this on statements made in the #android IRC channel in the past by Google developers working on Android. As for FirefoxOS, is it possible for a user to install XPIs or XPCOM components on their own handset? I can understand why limitations would be placed on third-party applications obtained through a web service, but not why owners of devices could not install additional components.
- Yoric 13y ago
  > Google does accept patches for Android from third parties, but they must go through a process that isn't exactly obvious to those third parties. I believe there is also a contributor license agreement required, but that is becoming standard practice for things including the Linux kernel. I confirm that Mozilla has fixed a number of bugs and/or performance issues in Android. In fact, if my memory serves, Chrome for Android simply couldn't load without our patches :) However, if my memory serves, getting these patches accepted has proved pretty difficult. I'm not the author of the patches, so I couldn't tell you why. > As for FirefoxOS, is it possible for a user to install XPIs or XPCOM components on their own handset? I can understand why limitations would be placed on third-party applications obtained through a web service, but not why owners of devices could not install additional components. Well, given that XPCOM components have 100% access to the file system, hardware, etc. and can easily brick a phone, we didn't really spend time making that footgun user-friendly. So you can easily add an XPCOM component, but only if you build an image of FirefoxOS yourself. Not too hard to do, just probably not the answer you hoped for.