The biggest challenge they will face is trying to get third party software developers to
actually go out of their way to make it compatible. Something countless programs
already fail to do for the OS X which already has a notable market-share.
Even if they skip the PC OS altogether and go straight for phones and tablets they will once
against the same problem and then on top of it they will have to convince major manufactures to risk making phones and tablets with their OS and with how things are today I do not see anyone taking such a risk.
As much as I like Mozilla and I have for many years now, as I type this using Firefox I regretfully say this is a bad idea and should not be pursued.
If Mozilla wants a good piece of market they need to come out with a full version of a 64-bit Firefox browser and not just BETAs. Google/Chrome doesn't have this, Apple/Safari doesn't have this, and Opera doesn't have this. Microsoft does, though.
[citation][nom]remainz[/nom]Mozilla Firefox = Netscape Navigator It was good for a while but sorry and goodbye[/citation]
You obviously haven't really used Firefox for a long period of time have you? Been by their side since 2004 and has been my main browser ever since then.
In my days of using Netscape on my school computers many many years ago, I preferred IE. On the Macs, I only remember using Netscape. Now, I barely even touch IE. Used IE for Windows Update for XP, but that was about it. Rarely ever came across a page that didn't render properly in FF, but there were a few that would only render properly in IE. Also those few ActiveX sites, that I haven't come across in I can't tell you how long. There was (and still is) an add-on for FF called IE Tab if you didn't want to touch IE with a 10 foot pole.
The only thing I would find this new OS useful would be to distributer firefox in-the-box with the new OS, as to secure firefox to a much greater extend. You install firefox, which does install the OS (being as small as possible), then install firefox in it, being completely encrypted and isolated from the original OS it was installed within. For a Windows user, it would be marvell.
I know there is already such a solution, gut it is way too big to be a real competition kicker and it is not made by mozilla themselves.
I believe that a cloud OS for phones would be the cause of that phone's demise. You don't get 3G data wherever you have phone signal, and if you are out of your home network's range, you don't get any signal. Waiting for a phone to load all the OS components for a few minutes on EDGE is a dismal prospect, as is having a useless brick in case you're out of your network's coverage.
This would not work even in the rest of the world, because people that travel will need to pay for connectivity (roaming, etc) just to be able to boot their phones. With the current (and likely near-future) business model of wireless providers everywhere, this design would be stillborn.
I think Gruener missed this point. If anything, a phone still needs to have an OS that resides entirely on the phone, not in the cloud.
OTOH, if Mozilla comes out with an OS that is able to unify/run applications from different markets, and that OS is compatible with a wide variety of hardware, that would be something I would install on my phone in a blink of an eye. So, yes, we need such an OS, again despite what the author thinks. Granted, the AppStore will still be off-limits, just because it requires registering via another program (iTunes) that will detect the hardware and deny access, but with compatibility for alternative markets, that should not be missed too much.
I use FF daily and I believe they are capable of pulling something like this. I also have a few old(er) smartphones laying around that I could use for testing such an OS. I also know for a fact that there is a huge community of developers and coders out there waiting to jump on every opportunity, just like they did with Android, iOS and others.
I had been a long time Firefox user (2005-09), used chrome for windows 7 till recently, but pleased to increase my firefox usage with ver 4++, and now on 6 beta 3. Chrome is adding nothing but ver. nos. In fact, the only thing that it is good at is loading on click. It is still the fastest when other processes are being run. Although firefox does load slowly in these situations, it performs as well as chrome when up. The interface is much better, pdf opening is better than chrome, downloads are more reliable (lesser interruptions and errors).
oh come on now folks, a little creativity goes along way here
if indeed Mozilla does decided to make an OS it sure as hell isn't going be pitching against windows and such likes, it would be a light weight streamlined purpose built OS, id imagine for the deployment of an OS within an OS, virtualising windows with windows is a pig on resources especially if your going to be using it only for a specific task, if that task can be performed by a light weight OS customized for that particular task you going eat up far less resources, and in fact the most ideal situation for this is web browsing, virtualising an OS just for web browsing would allow you to tie the browser directly into the OS kernel giving a serious speed boost and the virtualisation would add a layer of security
sure your not going be shifting large quantities of your OS but when your up against the big guns, it's better to find the niche market and exploit that rather then take the big guns head on, with enough traction you could well dig out a small corner for yourself.
And for those who decry the idea of having to code specific apps for such an OS, the same can be said for firefox and yet it has a loyal and substantial add on catalog, and ultimately thats all that this OS needs, add ons
[citation][nom]RazberyBandit[/nom]This sure does read a lot more like an opinion piece than a factual article.[/citation]
That's because it was written by Wolfgang Gruener. I've never seen anything else from him. I envision the origin of each of his articles like so... "What're the tech headlines today? Hmm... Oh, Mozilla's working on an OS! Well, let's see - I'll just sit here and think about it for a while, then I'll write what purports to be an authoritative piece of journalism, but is actually based entirely on my own conjecture rather than genuine understanding of the industry. Tom's always lets me get away with that!"
Mozilla is not Google or Microsoft. They don't have the money to do this sort of thing. They are scrambling to keep up in the browser market, so I doubt they have the resources to develop an OS. Even if they do make something worthwhile, they still have to convince phone companies and ultimately users to buy it, and that would be a major uphill battle.
Having this news item both bolded and with the red arrow is redundant. It is like the designers couldn't decide which was better, and then used both. Using both is worse than either by themselves. Less is the new more.
The dont need apps par se, just a dedicated site with games aka facebook. If they can build their own site and pull every flash game under the sun into it they should be fine. The internet gives access to everything nearly, its just a case of bringing it all together.