4 ms·

Is it just me, or it is a bit hypocritical for Mozilla to be talking about the wonders of the Open Web and then embracing two very proprietary developer platfor

Is it just me, or it is a bit hypocritical for Mozilla to be talking about the wonders of the Open Web and then embracing two very proprietary developer platforms to promote Asm.js If they cared about the open web, and they cared about open source, they would be helping open source game engines like Ogre3D and Torque3D. Instead, for the sake of expedience, we see them promoting proprietary components. It was not too long ago that they were lecturing the world on the evils of proprietary video and audio.

gcp 13y ago
Is it just me, or it is a bit hypocritical for Mozilla to be talking about the wonders of the Open Web and then embracing two very proprietary developer platforms to promote Asm.js There is no contradiction here, on the contrary (heh!). Mozilla doesn't believe an Open Web precludes proprietary applications. In fact they've strongly argued that the web should be properly standardized so that it's possible for anyone, including commercial parties, to make clients for it, and that just opening up source code (ala WebKit, PNaCl, etc) does not do this hence is a bad way to achieve an open web. The point has also already been made that this makes it possible for Unity games to run on open platforms without requiring closed source blobs. they would be helping open source game engines Uh, emscripten and asm.js have been enhanced to properly port many open source engines and game libraries long before this one was announced. I'm going to guess Unity was possible because they provided engineering resources to port their own engine.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- devcpp 13y ago
  >Mozilla doesn't believe an Open Web precludes proprietary applications By definition, it must. It's a slippery slope and it's the reason Mozilla is vehemently against EME. The rest of that line sounds like nonsense to me in that context. >The point has also already been made that this makes it possible for Unity games to run on open platforms without requiring closed source blobs. Awesome, the joys of running proprietary software on Linux. Ah, why even have a FOSS OS then? Ditch it and get Windows! /s
azakai 13y ago
See my full answer on this topic here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7423703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7423703 to which I can add that we have in fact helped, and are helping, port open source game engines like Ogre3D and Torque. These things do not preclude each other. (Yes, we all have finite time, but helping all such ports is a major priority.) Also, it is not just that they do not preclude each other - they benefit each other as well. For example, you can see some pull requests from Unity developers to emscripten, those fixes and improvements then get to all the projects using it, many (most?) of which are open source. The same goes for fixing a bug that Unity hits, that bugfix benefits all other projects too.
rossmckegney 13y ago
From my experience, Mozilla supports anyone who wants to move the web forward. They've been incredibly supportive of our team, and the open source engine that we're building at Verold. The ecosystem needs commercial vendors; what's important is that they're now running on the open web rather than a closed plugin.

gcp 13y ago

Is it just me, or it is a bit hypocritical for Mozilla to be talking about the wonders of the Open Web and then embracing two very proprietary developer platforms to promote Asm.js There is no contradiction here, on the contrary (heh!). Mozilla doesn't believe an Open Web precludes proprietary applications. In fact they've strongly argued that the web should be properly standardized so that it's possible for anyone, including commercial parties, to make clients for it, and that just opening up source code (ala WebKit, PNaCl, etc) does not do this hence is a bad way to achieve an open web. The point has also already been made that this makes it possible for Unity games to run on open platforms without requiring closed source blobs. they would be helping open source game engines Uh, emscripten and asm.js have been enhanced to properly port many open source engines and game libraries long before this one was announced. I'm going to guess Unity was possible because they provided engineering resources to port their own engine.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
devcpp 13y ago
>Mozilla doesn't believe an Open Web precludes proprietary applications By definition, it must. It's a slippery slope and it's the reason Mozilla is vehemently against EME. The rest of that line sounds like nonsense to me in that context. >The point has also already been made that this makes it possible for Unity games to run on open platforms without requiring closed source blobs. Awesome, the joys of running proprietary software on Linux. Ah, why even have a FOSS OS then? Ditch it and get Windows! /s

azakai 13y ago

See my full answer on this topic here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7423703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7423703 to which I can add that we have in fact helped, and are helping, port open source game engines like Ogre3D and Torque. These things do not preclude each other. (Yes, we all have finite time, but helping all such ports is a major priority.) Also, it is not just that they do not preclude each other - they benefit each other as well. For example, you can see some pull requests from Unity developers to emscripten, those fixes and improvements then get to all the projects using it, many (most?) of which are open source. The same goes for fixing a bug that Unity hits, that bugfix benefits all other projects too.

rossmckegney 13y ago

From my experience, Mozilla supports anyone who wants to move the web forward. They've been incredibly supportive of our team, and the open source engine that we're building at Verold. The ecosystem needs commercial vendors; what's important is that they're now running on the open web rather than a closed plugin.