firefox edition?

Discuss Avant Browser. Do not post support requests, bug reports, suggestions for new or improved features, etc. here. Put those in the Help, Bug Reports, and Requests forums, respectively.

Moderators: Support Staff², Support Staff, AvantGuard, Developer

mathman
Avantic
Avantic
Posts: 939
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:03 am
Windows Version: 10 (64 bit)
Avant Version: 2016 utimate latest
Default engine: Firefox
IE Version: IE11
Skin: Crystal (may vary)

firefox edition?

Post by mathman » Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:05 pm

Current version of Firefox is 10. According to Secunia the Avant version is 9. Is this an anomaly of Secunia or is Avant not keeping up?

bksening
Fan
Fan
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:14 pm
Windows Version: XP SP3
Avant Version: 2010 build1
IE Version: 8.0

Re: firefox edition?

Post by bksening » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:01 pm

Firefox 10 was released on Jan. 31, 2012; that's 10 days ago as of this post. Obviously it will take some time and development effort to pull in the FF10 code, integrate, test, and verify everything is working for Avant.

@mathman, my question to you is: how much time needs to elapse before you consider Avant "not keeping up" ?

bigC
AvantGuard
AvantGuard
Posts: 7244
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 10:40 pm
Windows Version: 10
Avant Version: 2016 Build 1
Default engine: Firefox
IE Version: 11
Skin: Crystal
Location: New York

Re: firefox edition?

Post by bigC » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:55 pm

The pre alpha I believe is running on FF 10

mathman
Avantic
Avantic
Posts: 939
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:03 am
Windows Version: 10 (64 bit)
Avant Version: 2016 utimate latest
Default engine: Firefox
IE Version: IE11
Skin: Crystal (may vary)

Re: firefox edition?

Post by mathman » Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:00 am

bksening wrote:Firefox 10 was released on Jan. 31, 2012; that's 10 days ago as of this post. Obviously it will take some time and development effort to pull in the FF10 code, integrate, test, and verify everything is working for Avant.

@mathman, my question to you is: how much time needs to elapse before you consider Avant "not keeping up" ?
I have no idea how Avant development works, so I really can't answer your question.

In its relationship with IE I understand there is nothing much that Avant needs to do - it just accepts whatever version Microsoft puts out. From your comment I guess things are different for Firefox.

User avatar
AXEMAN
Avantic Elite
Avantic Elite
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:55 am
Windows Version: WIN 7 64 BIT
Avant Version: THE LATEST
IE Version: 9

Re: firefox edition?

Post by AXEMAN » Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:47 am

I believe that avant took the bare frame of IE then filled it with everything since then.Because in the begining it worked very well i don't know the truth but some time soon i will get it one way or another. :wtf:

mathman
Avantic
Avantic
Posts: 939
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:03 am
Windows Version: 10 (64 bit)
Avant Version: 2016 utimate latest
Default engine: Firefox
IE Version: IE11
Skin: Crystal (may vary)

Re: firefox edition?

Post by mathman » Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:15 am

AXEMAN wrote:I believe that avant took the bare frame of IE then filled it with everything since then.Because in the begining it worked very well i don't know the truth but some time soon i will get it one way or another. :wtf:
My understanding (before Avant 2012, when Orca was still separate) was that Avant was a front end for IE, whatever version that was on one's computer. Orca took the guts of Firefox and built a stand alone browser. How Avant 2012 is set up these days (with a future version including Chrome) is somewhat a mystery to me.

Crazy_John
Avant Fanatic
Avant Fanatic
Posts: 398
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:13 pm
Windows Version: W10 x64 / W7 x64
Avant Version: Avant Browser 2019 build 2
Default engine: 1ºFirefox \ 2ºChrome
IE Version: 7 and 10 but i never use it
Skin: Xito - old skins

Re: firefox edition?

Post by Crazy_John » Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:27 pm

As BigC said , the pre-alpha 118 has FF10.0

Changelog

[Update] Firefox Engine to 10.0 (released January 31, 2012)
[Update] Chrome Engine to 17.0.963.46 (released January 30, 2012)

http://forum.avantbrowser.com/viewtopic ... 36&t=30983

User avatar
AXEMAN
Avantic Elite
Avantic Elite
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:55 am
Windows Version: WIN 7 64 BIT
Avant Version: THE LATEST
IE Version: 9

Re: firefox edition?

Post by AXEMAN » Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:15 pm

Hello mathman way before Avant 2012 i mean years ago. in the avant browser your bookmarks .I use the sidebar so the bookmarksright beside them was a square with the I E on it. Well it worked very good. I don't know how avant works .But then it started getting alot of problems. I am sure you know what happened from there on. :problem: :shock:

mathman
Avantic
Avantic
Posts: 939
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:03 am
Windows Version: 10 (64 bit)
Avant Version: 2016 utimate latest
Default engine: Firefox
IE Version: IE11
Skin: Crystal (may vary)

Re: firefox edition?

Post by mathman » Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:25 am

AXEMAN wrote:Hello mathman way before Avant 2012 i mean years ago. in the avant browser your bookmarks .I use the sidebar so the bookmarksright beside them was a square with the I E on it. Well it worked very good. I don't know how avant works .But then it started getting alot of problems. I am sure you know what happened from there on. :problem: :shock:
My usual Avant usage is with the IE rendering engine (I have two computers - for XP, use IE8 - for Windows 7, use IE9).

For surfing through various forums where I want spelling errors flagged and dotted lines around previous page links, I still use Orca. Current Avant has problems with those two needs. Spelling flagged only with Firefox rendering, dotted lines reliably appearing only with IE rendering.

Jasmine
Support Staff
Support Staff
Posts: 3118
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:10 am
Windows Version: windows sp3 2003 vista win7
Avant Version: Latest release
IE Version: IE9 8 7
Location: Beijing China

Re: firefox edition?

Post by Jasmine » Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:14 am

bksening wrote:Firefox 10 was released on Jan. 31, 2012; that's 10 days ago as of this post. Obviously it will take some time and development effort to pull in the FF10 code, integrate, test, and verify everything is working for Avant.

@mathman, my question to you is: how much time needs to elapse before you consider Avant "not keeping up" ?
Avant browser 2012 can keep up to date in time, at most one day delay if the developer wants to update immediately.
Image
Please provide the following information before reporting problems:
Avant Version; System(also point out it is a 32 or 64-bit OS);IE; Memory Size; CPU Speed;
Optional: Firewall; Graphics Card

For the problems hard to replay, could you add me into your MSN or Skype list if you use either of them? The advantage is that you can let us know the situation in the first place by making some screenshots, sharing your screen or explaining the specific problems more clearly when they happen.
E-mail: Jasmine#avantbrowser.com(please repalce # with @)
MSN: dishmoon#msn.com
Skype: JasmineThunder

mbrazil
AvantGuard
AvantGuard
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:04 pm
Windows Version: 10
Avant Version: 2015 Ultimate Build 28
Default engine: Gecko (Firefox)
IE Version: 10
Skin: Monai XP
Location: Grass Valley, CA

Re: firefox edition?

Post by mbrazil » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:21 am

It's too bad Mozilla doesn't provide some sort of automatic update function for Firefox and for the Gecko engine they supply to be used with other browsers. They should be able to do this, and they should be able to ensure that updates to their engine won't cause problems for other browsers that use it. It's not adequately robust if it can't do this.

bksening
Fan
Fan
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:14 pm
Windows Version: XP SP3
Avant Version: 2010 build1
IE Version: 8.0

Re: firefox edition?

Post by bksening » Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:11 pm

mbrazil wrote:It's too bad Mozilla doesn't provide some sort of automatic update function for Firefox and for the Gecko engine they supply to be used with other browsers. They should be able to do this, and they should be able to ensure that updates to their engine won't cause problems for other browsers that use it. It's not adequately robust if it can't do this.
Unfortunately, that's a wrong and reversed thinking.

Try to think about this in a personal way Mike. Let's say you developed an open-source software, and it gets popular and more and more people incorporate your software into their projects. Does that mean that the actions of third-party groups, which are beyond your control, who use your software, automatically increase your burden and required work, effort, testing, verification if you updated your software? Would you be obligated to "ensure" updates to your software won't cause problems to any third-parties who are using your software, and how would you know who they are, and would more such third-parties then increase your responsibility and testing required?

It just doesn't work this way, and the original software maintainer has no obligation to test the software against other third-party uses nor has any obligation to provide any updates, manually, automatically, or otherwise.

Furthermore, the robustness of the original software is within the that software itself, and does not extend to outside-of-control testing or third-party uses of that software.

The Mozilla code is allowed for anyone to view and use. It does NOT necessarily mean it is designed for the PURPOSE of expecting to be used by others (which I don't believe that is a stated purpose). Whether any third-party is successful or productive in using that code depends on the capabilities and faculties of the third party. Who knows if Avant is using and incorporating the Mozilla code correctly into Avant? Only Anderson knows that. And it is Anderson's responsibility to ensure he is using that code properly and updating in a timely fashion if he so chooses to incorporate Mozilla's open-source code into the Avant project.

mathman
Avantic
Avantic
Posts: 939
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:03 am
Windows Version: 10 (64 bit)
Avant Version: 2016 utimate latest
Default engine: Firefox
IE Version: IE11
Skin: Crystal (may vary)

Re: firefox edition?

Post by mathman » Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:46 am

Latest Secunia check indicates that the current version (23) of Avant ultimate 2012 is up to date with Firefox.

mbrazil
AvantGuard
AvantGuard
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:04 pm
Windows Version: 10
Avant Version: 2015 Ultimate Build 28
Default engine: Gecko (Firefox)
IE Version: 10
Skin: Monai XP
Location: Grass Valley, CA

Re: firefox edition?

Post by mbrazil » Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:51 pm

bksening wrote:Unfortunately, that's a wrong and reversed thinking.
First of all, you apparently read a lot into my comment that wasn't there to begin with. I didn't say or imply that Mozilla has any obligation to other parties do anything. My comment simply indicated that Mozilla could improve their products by improving their update functionality in a manner similar to that of other competing organizations.

Just because Mozilla is open-source does not mean that they are not competing with other organizations producing similar types of software. Mozilla actively promotes their software as being faster and better, and we all know that browser market share is followed closely in the industry by both commercial developers and open-source developers, as well as other groups and even end users. If Mozilla wants to maintain and enhance their software's reputation, then they ARE obligated, not to third-party developers but to themselves and end users, to ensure their software meets the challenges of competing products and of the security risks that exist in the environment in which it operates.

Mozilla distributes the Gecko layout engine as a stand-alone product whose only intended use is as a software component to be used in combination with software produced by third-party developers. A rendering engine is not a full web browser or even an end-user product. A properly designed rendering engine does nothing other than display the content of web pages. That being the case, updates to Gecko, Trident, or WebKit should not conflict with existing coding in applications that use it. If updates to Gecko, or any of the other engines, break or impair any of the functions of the software it's being used with, the engine is doing things beyond the scope of a layout engine. Any third-party developer that incorporates a layout engine into their software has the right to expect that engine to perform its intended function and to not interfere in functions beyond its defined scope (page layout). The same goes for updates to the engine.

That brings us to my original comment. How robust a layout engine is perceived to be rightly includes the manner in which updates to it are implemented and distributed. If an update to a layout engine "breaks" or causes new bugs or defects in a third-party developer's application, thus requiring them to rework their code and issue an update or a patch to their software, the layout engine is apparently doing things it shouldn't be doing. If third-party developers have to seek out, manually implement, and re-test their applications each time the engine's developers release an update, the engine is also lacking in robustness. To be perceived as truly better and/or fully robust, a layout engine should include an automatic update feature of its own, separate from the software it's incorporated into. The layout engine should "phone home" to check for updates on a regular basis and implement those updates automatically when they are security or stability updates. In the case of other types of updates, which could be considered optional, the engine should notify the end user and request permission to apply those updates. If the engine does not do this, the engine's developer is transferring part of the burden of keeping the end user's computer secure to third-party developers and to end users themselves.

So, yes, "the robustness of the original software is within the that software itself." The original software we're actually talking about is the layout engine. As long as the third-party developer does not make any modifications to the layout engine's code, that developer has the right to expect the engine to behave in certain, widely-accepted ways. This includes updates that do not require rework of the applications the engine is used with. The robustness of a layout engine most certainly DOES include third-party uses of that software, since that is the only intended purpose of a stand-alone rendering engine. It IS designed for the purpose of being used by others. What other purpose could it possibly serve, since it cannot do anything at all when not combined with other software?

Finally, any security risks to end-user's computers that are the result of code contained in the layout engine are NOT Anderson's responsibility. If Mozilla becomes aware of a security risk, it is entirely their responsibility to update their product, the Gecko engine, and to ensure that all users of their product are at least made aware of the security update and how to obtain it. In the case of Avant, Anderson bears no responsibility for oversights or errors that result in security vulnerabilities in any of the three rendering engines. His only responsibility in this respect is to replace the previous version of the engine with the new one when he becomes aware that a security update has been implemented. As I said originally, it's too bad Mozilla and all other organizations/companies that develop and distribute rendering engines don't implement automatic updating so that they are not passing the responsibility for keeping end user's computers secure on to third-party developers and end users themselves.

I stand by what I said originally. Any wrong and reversed thinking was on your part.

bksening
Fan
Fan
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:14 pm
Windows Version: XP SP3
Avant Version: 2010 build1
IE Version: 8.0

Re: firefox edition?

Post by bksening » Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:06 am

Yes, Mike, I'm sure you stand by what you said originally, and you gave lots of reasons to back it up. Unfortunately, all your reasons are just as reversed as your original statement, and you are still as wrong as before.
mbrazil wrote: If Mozilla wants to maintain and enhance their software's reputation, then they ARE obligated, not to third-party developers but to themselves and end users, to ensure their software meets the challenges of competing products and of the security risks that exist in the environment in which it operates.
This is the only thing you are correct about. Mozilla is only obligated to themselves and their own users.
mbrazil wrote: Mozilla distributes the Gecko layout engine as a stand-alone product whose only intended use is as a software component to be used in combination with software produced by third-party developers.
Wrong. Gecko is by intention only developed for Mozilla's use. Other third-parties may also choose to use it if they want, but there is NO intention of Gecko being made for them.
mbrazil wrote:updates to Gecko, Trident, or WebKit should not conflict with existing coding in applications that use it.
From an ideal software development standpoint, yes.
mbrazil wrote:If updates to Gecko, or any of the other engines, break or impair any of the functions of the software it's being used with, the engine is doing things beyond the scope of a layout engine.
Certainly not that simple. No and wrong. Most likely it's because the third-party using software is not able to handle the changes. But updates to the engines have NO obligation to not break third-party using software.
mbrazil wrote:Any third-party developer that incorporates a layout engine into their software has the right to expect that engine to perform its intended function and to not interfere in functions beyond its defined scope (page layout). The same goes for updates to the engine.
Absolutely wrong. Third-party developers and software have NO rights to expect anything from the software they choose to use. Once you understand this fundamental concept, you will see why your thinking is all reversed.
mbrazil wrote:How robust a layout engine is perceived to be rightly includes the manner in which updates to it are implemented and distributed. If an update to a layout engine "breaks" or causes new bugs or defects in a third-party developer's application, thus requiring them to rework their code and issue an update or a patch to their software, the layout engine is apparently doing things it shouldn't be doing. If third-party developers have to seek out, manually implement, and re-test their applications each time the engine's developers release an update, the engine is also lacking in robustness.
No it does not. Robustness of the layout engine is within its layout functionality only, not in how it updates, and certainly NOT in how its updates affects third-party software.
mbrazil wrote:To be perceived as truly better and/or fully robust, a layout engine should include an automatic update feature of its own, separate from the software it's incorporated into. The layout engine should "phone home" to check for updates on a regular basis and implement those updates automatically when they are security or stability updates. In the case of other types of updates, which could be considered optional, the engine should notify the end user and request permission to apply those updates.
Yes, that's all nice to have. But since when did a software need to do this to be considered a "layout engine"? If a layout engine software does not auto-check for updates, does it stop becoming a layout engine?
mbrazil wrote:If the engine does not do this, the engine's developer is transferring part of the burden of keeping the end user's computer secure to third-party developers and to end users themselves.
If a third-party software wishes to use the layout engine code, YES the burden most definitely is with the third-party developer use whatever methods he may wish to update users of his third-party software.
mbrazil wrote:As long as the third-party developer does not make any modifications to the layout engine's code, that developer has the right to expect the engine to behave in certain, widely-accepted ways. This includes updates that do not require rework of the applications the engine is used with.
Again, absolutely wrong. Third-party developers and software have NO rights to expect anything from the software they choose to use.
mbrazil wrote:The robustness of a layout engine most certainly DOES include third-party uses of that software, since that is the only intended purpose of a stand-alone rendering engine. It IS designed for the purpose of being used by others. What other purpose could it possibly serve, since it cannot do anything at all when not combined with other software?
No, robustness does NOT include third-party uses of the software.
No, the intended use and purpose of Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine is only for Mozilla itself, and NOT by design to be used by others.
mbrazil wrote:any security risks to end-user's computers that are the result of code contained in the layout engine are NOT Anderson's responsibility ..... In the case of Avant, Anderson bears no responsibility for oversights or errors that result in security vulnerabilities in any of the three rendering engines. His only responsibility in this respect is to replace the previous version of the engine with the new one when he becomes aware that a security update has been implemented.
Anderson is not (directly at least) responsible for security risks in used software components, although any such risks do AFFECT the users of HIS software product. But I did say that the robustness of Anderson's software product depends on how well he is incorporating Mozilla's rendering engine code. And it IS Anderson's responsibility on how he chooses to provide updates to HIS software REGARDLESS of any updates of any software component he may have used.
mbrazil wrote:If Mozilla becomes aware of a security risk, it is entirely their responsibility to update their product, the Gecko engine, and to ensure that all users of their product are at least made aware of the security update and how to obtain it.
That is correct. But take note that users of their products means DIRECT users of Mozilla's own software, eg. Firefox and SeaMonkey. This does NOT include third-party users. All Mozilla can do is just make a public annoucement about such updates. Again, one basic problem is that Mozilla has no method to know who are all the third-party users, and besides is NOT obligated to auto-update third-parties anyway.
mbrazil wrote:As I said originally, it's too bad Mozilla and all other organizations/companies that develop and distribute rendering engines don't implement automatic updating so that they are not passing the responsibility for keeping end user's computers secure on to third-party developers and end users themselves.
Not directly bad, no. Mozilla has no obligation to include auto-updating as part of the rendering engine. YES, the responsibility of keeping up to date with the software components, security updates or otherwise, ALWAYS rests with the third-party users.

User avatar
AXEMAN
Avantic Elite
Avantic Elite
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:55 am
Windows Version: WIN 7 64 BIT
Avant Version: THE LATEST
IE Version: 9

Re: firefox edition?

Post by AXEMAN » Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:18 pm

wow man this software is FREE to everyone and thats that

AbelAbel
Avant Fanatic
Avant Fanatic
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:11 am
Windows Version: win7
Avant Version: 2012 beta 8
IE Version: ie9

Re: firefox edition?

Post by AbelAbel » Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:17 am

This is a wonderful debate competition

mbrazil
AvantGuard
AvantGuard
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:04 pm
Windows Version: 10
Avant Version: 2015 Ultimate Build 28
Default engine: Gecko (Firefox)
IE Version: 10
Skin: Monai XP
Location: Grass Valley, CA

Re: firefox edition?

Post by mbrazil » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:27 am

bksening wrote:you are still as wrong as before.
I guess that, in the end, we'll have to agree to disagree about the topics here and about which viewpoint is right or wrong (actually, both viewpoints are valid as opinions, but no laws or other binding regulations exist yet to validate or nullify either one). I approach this issue from the side of users (and for the purposes of this discussion, that includes third-party developers). My approach is based on the real world, not on theory. You appear to approach this issue entirely from the side of the engine developers at the expense of end-user security and ease-of-use. We're all familiar with the phrase, "the customer is always right." In this case, end users and third-party developers that employ these engines are both customers. Try putting yourself in the shoes of end users and third-party developers and see if you still think the engine developers should stick their heads in the sand and deny any need for improved update functionality.

Adding automatic updating is a strong trend in the software industry for all types of software. As long as the end user is given the option of enabling or disabling this capability, it is likely to become the norm rather than the exception, if it hasn't already. Automatic updating improves security for all users, even those who disable it, since it reduces the spread of malware overall. Absolving the developers of layout engines from the market pressure to add automatic updating is a disservice to everyone.

In the real world, no one but the developers care which of them is responsible for making the software more secure and more user-friendly. Users are only interested in results. Developers that attempt to pass those responsibilities on to others can only hurt themselves and end users.

End-user perception of a software product is, in the end, what makes it a success or a failure. If a situation existed where Gecko was the only layout engine that did not implement some kind of automatic-update function, it's likely that end users' perceptions of all products using the Gecko engine would be negative compared to those using other engines, and this would impact Gecko's success. Mozilla would still have no obligation to implement similar capabilities, but their market share would most likely decrease, and their reputation would suffer.

From the Mozilla Gecko FAQ (https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Gecko_FAQ):

"How can other companies and organizations use Gecko?

Because Gecko is small, lightweight, and open source, other companies and organizations can easily reuse it. Many hardware vendors are creating devices with network access and wish to include web browsing functionality. Likewise, many software developers want to include Web browsing capability in their applications, but don't want to independently develop browser software. These developers can pick and choose the browser components they want from among those that Gecko offers, and package these components alongside their own within their finished products."

You seem to interpret this as Mozilla saying they don't intentionally offer the Gecko engine for use by third-party developers, but I can't see how you'd come to that conclusion. To me, this statement is obvious proof that Mozilla is intentionally making the Gecko engine available as a separate package for use by other companies and organizations to combine with their browsers and other software. Whether their original intent was to develop it just for their own use or for both uses is immaterial. They obviously support it for that use now, and that's all that matters.
bksening wrote:Certainly not that simple. No and wrong. Most likely it's because the third-party using software is not able to handle the changes. But updates to the engines have NO obligation to not break third-party using software.
You keep stressing obligations, while the subject is actually what works best for all involved parties. It doesn't matter whether the engine developer thinks it's their obligation, somebody else's obligation, or no one's obligation. If a third-party developer is using an engine just for its page-layout capabilities, and an update to that engine adversely affects something other than page layout, the engine developer, while not obligated to fix the problem, IS responsible for it. If the engine includes capabilities beyond the scope of page layout, and the third-party developer IS using those capabilities, then the responsibility for the problem is shared by both developers, but it is the third-party developer who ends up having to fix it if he/she wishes their software to continue to be well perceived by users, regardless of how the problem came into existence.
bksening wrote:Absolutely wrong. Third-party developers and software have NO rights to expect anything from the software they choose to use. Once you understand this fundamental concept, you will see why your thinking is all reversed.
Once again, you choose the side of the engine developer at the expense of all other parties. You appear to object to the word "rights," so let's phrase it another way. Third-party developers and the end users are free to expect the engine developer to do whatever it takes to make the software they develop and maintain work reliably and provide good security. If this doesn't happen, third-party developers and the end users are free to criticize the engine developer and to look elsewhere for a product that suits their needs. The only rules here are are those created by the market, and in this case, the market comprises third-party developers and end users. You may dislike the rules that the market, in effect, defines, but they become valid nonetheless.

Here's a good analogy that may help you visualize this. Suppose Goodyear produces a tire that Chevy uses on its cars. Goodyear then makes a change to its manufacturing process for that tire to improve its reliability, but unfortunately, in the process of implementing the change, the tire's inner diameter is slightly increased. As a result of the slight increase in the inner diameter, the tires sometimes slip slightly on the wheels, causing friction and heat buildup, and the tires go on fire as a result. It's pretty clear that it's not Chevy's responsibility or obligation to increase the size of the wheels so that the "improved" tires fit correctly. Goodyear would be responsible to fix the problem and to replace all the defective tires, including those on Chevy owners' cars. If Goodyear decides not to replace the defective tires and says it's Chevy's responsibility, Chevy will notify the owners of the cars it sold (the end users) that the problem is caused by Goodyear's tires, and Chevy will probably stop buying tires from Goodyear. The public will form a negative opinion of Goodyear's tires, and they will also stop buying Goodyear products. If Goodyear continues to pass the buck and doesn't offer to replace the tires, public perception of their products and of Goodyear itself will decline, and Goodyear will probably end up going bankrupt. Substitute Avant for Chevy, layout engine for tires, and Mozilla for Goodyear. Mozilla is an org, not a company, so the analogy breaks down a bit at that point, but Mozilla does want and need to maintain a positive reputation to continue to exist, as do the other engine developers.
bksening wrote:No it does not. Robustness of the layout engine is within its layout functionality only, not in how it updates, and certainly NOT in how its updates affects third-party software.

Definition of robust as applied to software (http://www.linfo.org/robust.html):

"The word robust, when used with regard to computer software, refers to an operating system or other program that performs well not only under ordinary conditions but also under unusual conditions that stress its designers' assumptions."

The way robust is commonly used to describe software includes not only its specific purpose, but how complete it is in meeting users' needs. Narrowly restricting the definition of robust when using it to describe a layout engine such that you exclude its ability to fulfill all of the users' needs may serve to support your argument, but it does nothing to satisfy those needs. Once again, it is the end users' perception of whether the engine is adequately robust that counts in the end.
bksening wrote:Yes, that's all nice to have. But since when did a software need to do this to be considered a "layout engine"? If a layout engine software does not auto-check for updates, does it stop becoming a layout engine?
It becomes a layout engine that does not fully satisfy the needs of end users.
bksening wrote:If a third-party software wishes to use the layout engine code, YES the burden most definitely is with the third-party developer use whatever methods he may wish to update users of his third-party software.
Yes, the burden to implement updates to his own software for users remains with the third-party developer. You are implying that the burden for applying updates to the layout engine should also be born by and implemented by the third-party developer, even when his software remains unchanged, and the only thing that's been updated or modified is the layout engine. That is the way it's done now, but this is a disservice to the third-party developer and the end user by the engine developer.
bksening wrote:Again, absolutely wrong. Third-party developers and software have NO rights to expect anything from the software they choose to use.
Two words: web standards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards http://www.webstandards.org/
bksening wrote:No, robustness does NOT include third-party uses of the software.
No, the intended use and purpose of Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine is only for Mozilla itself, and NOT by design to be used by others.
Asked and answered. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Gecko_FAQ

"How can other companies and organizations use Gecko?

Because Gecko is small, lightweight, and open source, other companies and organizations can easily reuse it"
bksening wrote:Anderson is not (directly at least) responsible for security risks in used software components, although any such risks do AFFECT the users of HIS software product. But I did say that the robustness of Anderson's software product depends on how well he is incorporating Mozilla's rendering engine code. And it IS Anderson's responsibility on how he chooses to provide updates to HIS software REGARDLESS of any updates of any software component he may have used.
If a security risk exists in one of the layout engines Anderson uses in Avant, it is the engine developer's responsibility to eliminate that risk, not Anderson's. As it now stands, Anderson must redistribute Avant, including the layout engines from other developers, whenever one of those engine developers resolves a security risk in their engine. Just as it is Anderson's responsibility to provide updates to his software to all that use it, it is the engine developer's responsibility to provide updates to their software to all that use it. How those updates are provided is the developer's choice, in both cases. How these software products are perceived by end users is the choice of the end users. The customer is always right, even when they're wrong.
bksening wrote:That is correct. But take note that users of their products means DIRECT users of Mozilla's own software, eg. Firefox and SeaMonkey. This does NOT include third-party users. All Mozilla can do is just make a public annoucement about such updates. Again, one basic problem is that Mozilla has no method to know who are all the third-party users, and besides is NOT obligated to auto-update third-parties anyway.
Wrong. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Gecko_FAQ

"How can other companies and organizations use Gecko?

Because Gecko is small, lightweight, and open source, other companies and organizations can easily reuse it"
bksening wrote:Mozilla has no obligation to include auto-updating as part of the rendering engine. YES, the responsibility of keeping up to date with the software components, security updates or otherwise, ALWAYS rests with the third-party users.
That is true. However, since the general trend in software development is towards automatic updating, any developer that ignores this trend and the market demand for this functionality does so at his/her own peril. It is becoming common knowledge that every insecure computer on the internet is a hazard to all of us, not just to the users of those computers. Malware has gone from being a nuisance to being a major source of criminal activity, and it is now a rapidly developing national security risk. Automatic security updating would go a long way towards eliminating these threats.

There are a couple of other issues mixed up in this that we haven't addressed:

Do you apply these same rules you're inventing to Microsoft as well as to Mozilla and webkit.org, or are these special priveleges only provided to open-source developers?

Whose axe are you grinding?

mbrazil
AvantGuard
AvantGuard
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:04 pm
Windows Version: 10
Avant Version: 2015 Ultimate Build 28
Default engine: Gecko (Firefox)
IE Version: 10
Skin: Monai XP
Location: Grass Valley, CA

Re: firefox edition?

Post by mbrazil » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:29 am

AbelAbel wrote:This is a wonderful debate competition
I'm glad you're enjoying it. :D

bksening
Fan
Fan
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 4:14 pm
Windows Version: XP SP3
Avant Version: 2010 build1
IE Version: 8.0

Re: firefox edition?

Post by bksening » Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:18 am

mbrazil wrote:It's too bad Mozilla doesn't provide some sort of automatic update function for Firefox and for the Gecko engine they supply to be used with other browsers. They should be able to do this, and they should be able to ensure that updates to their engine won't cause problems for other browsers that use it. It's not adequately robust if it can't do this.
Looking back at your original post, and I see more of your lack of understanding and wrong thinking that has led you to incorrectly understand and imagine what you think are nebulous "web standards" or expectations.

Firstly, some information for you regarding Firefox (that is the entire browser software, NOT just the rendering engine). Of course, FF currently does auto-check and can auto-install updates, if the user allows this setting. But Mozilla IS currently planning and developing auto-SILENT-updates, which will install the latest version of Firefox (entire browser) without asking the user. Many web reports speculate this may be ready by FF v.12. You can find out more from:
http://www.google.com/search?q=firefox+silent+updates

But NO-one is expecting nor are there any "standards" by any dreaming of auto-updating of just the rendering engine component. And certainly NO-one is expecting, neither end-users nor third-party developers, that a third-party software that uses Gecko can have just the rendering component auto-update. Understand the difference between that and auto-update of the entire software eg. auto-update of Firefox?

Mike, you are entirely wrong that "[Mozilla] should be able to [auto update Firefox and the Gecko engine], and they should be able to ensure that updates to their engine won't cause problems for other browsers that use it." In fact, Mozilla should NOT be able to do this, especially if the rendering engine has been incorporated into another third-party browser, and especially if so, Mozilla should NOT be able to ensure their updates won't cause problems to third-party software using it.

Your belief that Mozilla "should be able" to do so demonstrates your out of touch with the real world and what should or should not be possible with software development and component reuse. Unfortunately, what you describe above should NOT be possible for Mozilla. You are certainly free to express your desire and criticize and spout away, but you certainly would not be the reference on what Mozilla should be able to do.

This is especially true since the Gecko rendering engine is NOT by design intended for third-parties; Gecko is developed intended for use by Mozilla. Third-parties are allowed and have the ability to further use Gecko, but that does NOT mean Gecko is developed intended for their use. Understand the difference?

So don't bother trying to subtly malign Mozilla by incorrectly tying Gecko's robustness with some vague concept of auto-update the rendering engine. The rendering engine component is NOT expected to auto-update, and its robustness has nothing to do what you said.

Post Reply