What is Digg?62 Comments
- protocolor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25come on, you have to admit: making a 50 minute video blog all alone at home on the concerns for the future direction of a web browser and the foundation behind it is kind of nerdy.
- Fergy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26I think this guy really has a point. If people start to make web pages with these rich proprietary tools from Sun, Microsoft and Adobe you start to make web pages that need a closed plugin and the webbrowser becomes irrelevant. This was not a big problem with flash789 because it couldn't really replace a web page and because of the limitations of flash like not being search-able and bad integration with the webbrowser. I think they will mostly fix these problems with their new rich web plugins.
Mozilla should work together with as much people as they can to make an open platform for the new rich web with support for video/audio/webcam(youtube), animation(games). Mozilla should help create the same great tools that Sun, Microsoft and Adobe provide. Mozilla doesn't have to do this alone.
A lot of people should be interested in an open platform for the rich web. - unluckier, on 10/11/2007, -5/+25Can somebody please post a synopsis here? Why do people feel the need to make a video about stuff that can nicely live in a bulleted list?
- idioteque1025, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23if you have to put video in the title, maybe that should be a sign that you should post this in the video section...
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+25The biggest hurdle that Mozilla needs to do is go back to making Firefox not suck.
The browser is a resource hog. I'll have 4 or 5 tabs open and it's using 130MB RAM. That's kinda ridiculous.
Plus the way it renders pages is horrible. For example, digg comments. Let's say a page with 1000 comments on it is only, what, 50k? It takes *forever* to load in the browser because it's rendering it as it comes through. That's bad. Considering I can download 50k images in the blink of an eye, loading a page of comments should take just as long. - mstoneburner, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21I'm seconding this. I'm sick of so many videos on the internet, especially when they're about things that are more properly read about than viewed. This proliferation of unnecessary videos makes it difficult to access the information people are trying to get across when one is browsing in a working environment. It's a lot easier to read a story while working than to view a video on the same subject. What's more, video is bandwidth intensive. It's great that the web is fast enough to be able to stream video now, but that doesn't mean every damn thing needs to be a video.
- IbnDigg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Former College lecturer here, quit two years back.
Current crop of students are stuck without dreamweaver/frontpage and can't code plain HTML for love nor money. - najdorf, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13Video was too loooooooong. Make your point before we fall asleep.
- Tredici, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11Well, the video section isn't necessarily occupied by people interested in the web and technology, more those looking for kids with freaky spiders in his ear.
- mabhatter, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7but these guys want to OWN the web platform.. media is the future and proprietary is the way to get multimedia and financials on the web. Big companies don't want to know how the web works... and they don't want to actually hire the staff that knows either. They want to buy a package, pay for a service and have it work. Look how many people flock to Adobe Flash for video... nobody could agree on the constant format war online... so Adobe swooped in with "one true way"... my main point is that I have LEGAL, easy online video on Linux and firefox NOW... Sure it can be done with free tools, but there's no DRM so nobody with money will use it for their content, and nobody making tools will use free codex over ones they can rent to developers...
Open standards companies like Mozilla, opera, apple need to smack down NOW. To the USERS it will all be free (like beer) anyway. W3C and WHATAG need to get together an make a web application platform that's similar to the old "terminal emulators" in terms of connection but uses pretty web page graphics. - F399SF, on 10/11/2007, -0/+650 bloody minutes? Good Lord.
- salazr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6This is the guy who got SpreadFirefox started, not to mention the NY Times AD.
- monkeywizard, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11I second that. I don't know WTF they did, but I noticed it got much slower over the years compared to past versions. Kinda makes me sad.
The only thing I have open now is digg and it's using 87 megs of ram. - mrskaggs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8http://www.viddler.com/explore/factoryjoe/videos/1/
- Dracos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I find it amazing that someone who seems so "in the loop" regarding all things Mozilla completely overlooks XULRunner. If Mozilla has any chance of changing from a browser vendor to a web platform/services vendor, XULRunner is how they have to do it. Last I heard, Firefox 3 was going to be built on top of it.
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/XULRunner
They could also make Thunderbird less of a red headed stepchild and actually put some marketing effort behind it.
IE7 may have caught up on user-facing features, but its standards support still blows goats for quarters. Browsers should be a commodity, but that can only happen if every browser has exemplary standards support. Firefox, Opera, and Safari all sit at 93% or better, while IE7 lags behind at 56%. No one cut Netscape4 as much slack in 1998-2001 as they do for IE7 now. It's absurd. - DrDabbles, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Now that I've watched about 15 minutes and then just read the rest of the points...there are like two good points in the entire thing.
1) Firefox used to mean innovation and cutting edge. Now it doesn't. Fix that.
2) Firefox should be used as a platform/framework more often. Mozilla should pimp FF for that use.
Where I disagree strongly is the projects like OLPC or some box based on FF and WiFi. Starving people don't need the internet. They need food and water. Just dropping the internet in a town doesn't make an economy spring up. AIDS won't be cured on MySpace. Give these people HELP, not bandwidth.
I dunno. He's still long winded about every point he makes. Still boring to listen to. But good for him. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6The bullet points would have been sufficient.
- Rayza, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8tl;dw
- victorycig, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Wow, that's the first time I've seen comments and tags displayed in the video navigator bar like that. Great idea.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7That's not true everywhere. I had to do it for a class (code HTML and CSS). And I can make a website using only free tools. Anybody can.
- Teague, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I have very little invested in Mozilla or the furthering of Mozilla as a brand, and ***** if I care about browsers, but this guy is good at what he does with this kind of thing. I'm engaged in his whole schpeel, I find myself agreeing with his points when I understand them, and he speaks eloquently without being pretentious about it.
Sometimes you've gotta stop and give someone a little respect for being able to communicate on camera when most of the more vocal web voices are hiding behind Arial. Good work, sir. - v3locity, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I started using Opera because I don't like Firefox anymore. Opera has its own issues as well, but I have 8 tabs open and its using 81MB of RAM.
- ronin691, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I disagree. Proprietary plug-ins are not required and the web IS still open. Start with valid mark-up ( http://validator.w3.org ) then add semantic functionality using microformats ( http://microformats.org ). I just read this article about FireFox 3.0 which describes where its headed:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/mozilla_and_future_of_the_browser.php
Use plain old CSS for presentation and void using Flash, Java sandbox, or whatever proprietary plug-ins if at all possible. - IbnDigg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5a bit like your rant about his rant :)
- chess007, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5 "The browser is a resource hog. I'll have 4 or 5 tabs open and it's using 130MB RAM. That's kinda ridiculous.
Plus the way it renders pages is horrible. For example, digg comments. Let's say a page with 1000 comments on it is only, what, 50k? It takes *forever* to load in the browser because it's rendering it as it comes through. That's bad."
If there's a comment page with that many comments it usually freezes for me... I wish digg had an option to only display 50 comments, then there would be a link to comments page 2, etc. - JamesWilson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6They have been working with people.. see tamarin...
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tamarin/ - CrackedTech, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6This guy has a point but that was one of the most rambling, incoherent (at times) and disconnected things I've ever listened to. I understand the point that this guy is trying to make but it's almost impossible to dig it out of all the nonsensical crap and constant ums that he throws out every 20 seconds. He could have gotten his point across easily in 15-20mins and it would have been much more concise and persuasive.
- Burmask, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3But Mozilla does not have a business model.
- Jumangi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Give me a break. This guy makes it sound like Firefox is about to totally crash and burn if they don't listen to him...give it a rest guy and go get a freaking life.
- SocialPoison, on 10/11/2007, -1/+48 tabs open and it's "only" at 85k... not sure what you're running. Maybe you should install noscript or something? Or do you have 30 plugins?
*shrug*
FF is a bit bloated, but all in all it's an impressive piece of software. And everyone is very quick to forget what most were using the browse the web before Firefox: IE 5.5/6. You didn't even have tabbed browsing in those days, unless you were one of the people who'd heard of Opera at that point (in which case you were probably using it :P) - mirunit, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I would say one of the biggest problems is memory usage, there have been times where firefox.exe hits ~500mb memory usage.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Awesome, you completely miss the point and start complaining about FireFox's memory usage. Good Job."
Your post is nonsensical.
I didn't miss any point. I stated a hurdle they need to overcome is the memory usage. And it's 100% valid because EVERYONE who uses the browser has the problem and it hasn't been addressed yet.
"ps. Who cares how much RAM it uses - what, are you short on memory or something?
Hahaha, wow. That is probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen anyone type. God forbid someone programs something right, huh? GTFO.
Oh, and in case anyone wants to know what I'm talking about when it comes to rendering, try loading this page (56.7k) : http://digg.com/politics/DHS_You_ll_take_a_national_ID_and_you_ll_like_it
Now you know what I'm talking about. - tony23, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2How about actually paying attention, and maybe even being helpful, to NON-tech-geek users?
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=483517 - localzuk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I did a bit of web site programming and design in my degree and we had to make use of a normal text editor (ok, not textpad - I used jedit as we were also doing Java) but it really threw some of the guys who did 'web design' to top up their incomes. They struggled with basic html and css was completely alien to them - I've never seen so many table designs in such a short period of time!
- moreminimal, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3> God... this thing is long. I'm watching it all, but man this guy is totally clueless about what hardcore techs want.
Well, Chris isn't a developer, and I don't think he's talking what "hardcore techs" want (though he's a geek's geek). He's talking about ways to make sure Firefox remains relevant for users five years from now. We're crawling with browsers, and they're all variations on the same theme. IE 8 will catch Firefox, just as IE 3 caught Netscape.
So what's next? What will take Firefox to the next level? Certainly not more features ... - VinceNoir, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Yeah. Whatever.
Nitpick 1: He mentioned Twitter. Twitter is for dorks.
Nitpick 2: Did he REALLY need a video to do this? Frankly I think video is overused by people like this guy.
Nitpick 3: Pump up the volume dude. I had to turn my headphones way up to hear him. Learn to use the media you're trying to push.
Nitpick 4: The web will NEVER be an application development platform. If you wind up using the browser to push an application development platform, you're an idiot.
Nitpick 5: The "dark ages"? What? 1991? That's ***** ridiculous. Sure, technology moves fast, but get a realistic perspective. This is NOT about competition. This is about getting things right. Frankly I'd wait for the GNU Hurd kernel before I'd by into this crap.
God... this thing is long. I'm watching it all, but man this guy is totally clueless about what hardcore techs want. - chowda, on 10/11/2007, -7/+9Why does someone say this every time someone is passionate about something?
Great, you belittled his concern and the importance this has to many people.. congrats. - thailand1972, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5I'm also finding it's a CPU hog too. Quite frequently FF is bouncing between 20-90% of my CPU usage (2.1Ghz) and I'm not doing anything. And my laptop is clean of spyware etc.
- beltzner, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2There are a couple of good comments and counterpoints available that people should read as well:
http://annezelenka.com/2007/05/chris-messina-firefox-and-the-curse-of-expert-ennui
and
http://shaver.off.net/diary/2007/05/10/the-high-cost-of-some-free-tools/ - cbreaker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I don't know about FireFox being innovation. They added some things to the browser experience like tabs and built-in search with the ability to make your own plug-ins. It's good stuff, for sure. But on the web rendering side of things, it seems FireFox has just tried to keep in line with standards best it can.
There's an old adage: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't see the need to change the firefox interface very much. Adding anything more could clutter it. Just because they haven't had the need to make any major UI changes doesn't mean they're somehow falling behind.
I think they could probably do more with creating a "platform" perhaps, but the web is already a platform and a powerful one. If a web site developer can't make websites with javascript and CSS these days and not use Flash or Java, then there's a problem with that developer. - honds, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@rayt5
I agree. I code web applications professional as a Software Engineer. I rarely use tools other than Vi (OSS text editor available on all Linux machines) through SSH to the server. Sure tools help but XHTML, CSS, JavaScript, XML and even Adobe Flex can all be coded by hand for free. Just like we (read: people like me) did a decade ago before all these fancy tools existed. - DrDabbles, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Hah! Chris! Oh man. I went to school with him. Hahaha. Come a long way since the West High Web Club. A kinda forgettable kid, though.
- Jordan117, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"Things were better before the Structuring and the Levels."
/xkcd - opinionation, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4ummm.
- NWVG, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Great video, but the site is getting a little slow. Direct mirror here:
http://reimaginememories.com/fileserver1/functions.php?m=get&fileKey=821ee93caff9732f77a60d5996873e49&userId=20 - mutatron, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@najdorf,
Or better yet, type it out. I can't be watching videos at work, it messes up our phones. - Kimera, on 10/11/2007, -6/+6If you care so little for web browsers, don't use one and make the world a better place. Quit wasting our time and stop being so ignorant.
- Drakensteel, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I dunno, I useually just use IE. Not a big fan of it but pretty mcuh everything works fine on it (Ive been to a few things firefox didn't like).
Dosn't make a big difference to me. - achacha, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0This is the reason we had a .com crash, maybe one decent idea and rest are garbage that was tried by netscape, aol, excite, etc... all failed because on paper they sounded good and in practice they weren't. This guy is clueless.
- SirBotchness, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2yea cause web browsers are the problem, good lord, you act as if you can't be satisfied with your web browsing experience. there could be a browser the spit money out of your computer and you would still bitch about it. Find something else to be this passionate about.
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is