Mozilla being intergrated into SL in the next update?

The World Wide Web in World
The future of the Second Opinion?
You may have read early reports in Clickable Culture, Slashdot or Boing Boing last weekend, but now the Opinion can confirm the news: next month's update, Second Life version 1.7, will come with an integrated web browser powered by Mozilla technology (the same open source code underlying the beloved Firefox browser). Later updates will even let Residents stream URLs on the surface of in-world objects they own, including walls, windows, and more.
"It's exciting to watch two passions of mine come together like this," Linden Lab Board of Director Mitch Kapor enthuses to the Opinion. (After all, Mitch also happens to be the chairman of the Mozilla foundation.) "It gets us that much closer to creating a metaverse that's also the next evolution of the Web."
=======================================================

Am I the only person in all of SL that finds this a disturbing trend at LL. First I had to download QuickTime in order to run and view Movies within SL. Now I see that in the next update that the Mozilla browser will be integrated into SL. Why? Because Mitch Kapor is on the Board of Directors at LL. Shall I take a good look at the Board of Directors to see the future trends of SL because it has become abundantly clear that SL is no longer in the hands of it’s residents as once promised by Philip Linden it would always be.

What is my point?
1)
I am more than happy with my current web browser. It’s IE 5.5, and most ppl have it already on their systems. I would think that it would have been easier to just integrate the changes into that program.

2)
I am angry that I am once AGAIN being forced to decide if I want to continue with SL or not. I like choice that is why I live in America. Will there be a version of SL that has IE 5.5 integrated into this new version of SL? I highly doubt it as no one from Microsoft is on the Board of Directors at LL.

3)
With Mozilla will there be pop ups? Will there be advertisements paid for by the residents of SL integrated in the Mozilla browser? Will those ads generate income for LL from the residents of SL.

The bottom line is I don’t need yet another program on my system.

Before you disagree with me what if someone from AOL was on the board of directors and we were forced to download the AOL client in order to use some of the functions in SL?

When I said that sl would become the www.3d.com a year ago, I wasn't as wrong as some in this forum thought. Yes I told you so.

So tell me why do I NEED another web browser when I am happy with the one that 95% of ppl already have on their systems?

Monopoly anyone

Catherine,

I am not a proponent of Firefox at all - in fact, generally quite the opposite. I have used it, and have never been impressed by it - I went right back to using the IE based browser I was already using before it came out. However, in this case, I have to say I understand why Firefox was chosen to be used. In order for a web browser to be used inside of another application, the browser has to have the ability to be hosted in other programs and programmed against. Internet Explorer has always been that way - it is why there are so many programs with IE integrated into it, and so many browser addons for IE. Unfortunately, IE is not fully cross platform, especially when it comes to integration. Microsoft stopped development of the Mac version of IE, and there is no version for Linux.

Firefox is also able to be integrated into other programs, and runs on multiple platforms. In order to bring much needed browser functionality into SL, it is really the only available choice that would work cross platform. There is nothing nefarious going on here - it doesn't require you to use a new browser. I imagine the installer for SL will include the componentized version of Firefox that it needs for the platform. I agree it would suck if they force everyone to individually download and install Firefox separately. I don't think anything sinister is involved.

PS - why don't you use IE 6?

So your saying that the fact that Mitch just happens to be on the board of directors has nothing to do with this decision?

I didn't say there was anything nefarious or sinister going on here.

Cat

Why is it "much needed"? I have a browser already, tyvm. If there's anything outside of SL that I *want* (and very heavy emphasis on *want*) to check out, I'll look when I want, and how I want.

If LL is doing this as an "improvement", I"d much rather see a completely stable version of SL. More build tools, less lag, more people on sims. Not more commercialism, which is where this is obviously leading.

Just because firefox will be integrated into SL it doesn't mean you'll have to use it for surfing the web outside of SL. You probably won't even know it's there. It's also an excellent browser which I've been using instead of IE for a long time. It simply has better features in my opinion.

As for Quicktime integration, the reason there is a simple one. LL didn't have to lisence it in order to integrate it which means they don't have to pay licensing fees in order to use it. I wish they'd used something else because I think quicktime is a buggy piece of crap but I can certainly understand why they chose it.

I don't see anything nefarious going on here.

A) I don't have to use it.

B) you won't know its there.

------------------
A) but I do have to download it, and it will take up my disk space. I disagree with the need for that on my system.

B) realy I won't? I already know its coming, so your wrong about that.

Cat

I dont see this as a crime either Chip I see this as one hand washing the other again at LL. Ebay, Quicktime, Modzilla. to name 3.

So when will AOL be investing? or better yet EA. I mean realy I hate to be called nieve or anything, so lets just put our cards on the table shall we.

I don't think it had anything at all to do with the decision - there really is no viable alternative for them to use at this point.

Cat, do you worry about where other components of SL come from, like ogg file support? The streaming sound engine? OpenGL? They're just components. The Mozilla engine is no different. It's a component. It's not Firefox. It's not going to install a new complete browser on your system for use outside of SL.

No choice? There was no way in this world for them to intergrate IE capabilities into SL? Absolutly none? Did they even try? How do you know they had zero choice Cristiano are you on the Board of Directors? Do you have the inside scoop on this? What are you basing this information on? Fact or heresay?

Catherine,

Would you object if they developed their own inhouse browser that was used in the client? You would still have to download it to be able to use SL.? If the browser functionality is being used by SL, then it is part of SL and is required. Saying that it is taking up your disk space is no different than any other part of the software taking up disk space. Whether it is 1 meg or 5 megs ,Firefox or developed internally is irrelevant if it is being used for funcitonality in the software.

On a side note, I do think that if the tables were turned, and users did not have IE on their system and had to install it to continue to run SL, there would be similar complaints in the reverse.

Catherine, reread my original post. Microsoft discountinued development of the Mac version if Internet Explorer. If SL were Windows only, IE would have been an obvious choice, but there is also a Mac client and I doubt they would want to write completely different browser support code for each platform - along with the forthcoming Linux client. Firefox is available for all three platforms equally.

As far as having the inside scoop, nope - I am just using my brain and stating the obvious, Catherine instead of looking for wild conspiracy theories to explain why they chose Firefox.

Thank you - that is the point I was trying to get at. One question that does remain is if you will have to download Firefox separately, like we did Quicktime. If that is the case, it does make the situation a little different than the OGG/Open GL support.

Hi,
I can understand why Mozilla was chosen also because of the cross platform issues.

I'm not fond of Mozilla myself. I've used Mozilla years ago (including firefox) and I am not all that impressed. People react to fads and I never understand why some of them jump on bandwagons like Linux (Where BSD is really a better alternative - it's been around longer, more stable etc. Yahoo uses BSD I believe) and Firefox, the latest rage that baecame really popular when corporate sponsored gag inducing shows like G4TechTv started pushing it when Opera is far and away a better browser ... that hardly anyone uses.

Just like 24 is the best show on television that hardly anyone watches. Just becuse something is Open Source is not a reason to go nuts over it. BSD is open source also.

As far as IE 5.5 or IE 6.0 is concerned? I hate all version of IE. Unfortunately, on some occassions I have to use IE. Microsoft has so dominated everything in the computer industry that many sites have their pages written to work with IE. IE does NOT conform to the standards set forth by the he World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) so consequently, in several instances my favorite browser Opera (which is W3C) compliant coughs and sputters when it gets to a site geared for IE. For example I can't view any documentation with even the remotest amount of accuracy in style and content from Microsoft WITHOUT using IE. They do that on purpose to FORCE me into using IE on their site. All in all only about 5% of the sites I frequent have issues with Opera.

Catherine, as far as I can tell no one is forcing you to use anything. You don't have a browser in world now that you can use do you? So what do you do when you need to go and check out a link? Probably the same thing I do (with the exception of the browser I use) I go to the window where my Opera Browser is and open a new tab (I LOVE, SIMPLY LOVE the tabbed browsing feature... just love it, plus the killer zoom feature) and look at the link.

I probably won't download the mozilla engine (if that is an option) so I'll do a work around. I'll browse links just like I do now. It's no biggie. I have 70 Gig to spare the Mozilla engine if it has to be downloaded is really nothing at least to me.

As far as integreating IE into SL that would be disasterous. Anyone who still uses IE as their main browser lives dangerously and has IMHO their head in the sand. IE is full of security holes and a host of really lousy functionality issues. Why use a really second rate browser as your main browser? Even if you don't agree with me about Opera (give it a try and perhaps you will fall in "love" with it too. They have a great support forum) there are still other alternative browsers.

Regards,
wizzie

Having HTML/web browser capabilities in SL has been one of the most requested features since beta. It allows for much richer text support in SL, beyond the crappy notecard support we have now. This will help to allow much deeper content in SL - the text support has always been extremely weak, which makes SL limited for educational purposes and for a lot of other uses that the web is ideal for. There are a lot of very good reasons to integrate a browser into the client. It will allow for the creation of more dynamic hybrid web pages that interact with the SL client (for example, browsing the auction listings in world, classified ads, etc.. and those pages being able to interact with the UI). I could go on and on about the benefits adding a browser to SL will bring - but I won't. I am just very happy that they finally are.

Hmm. Yes that's a huge plus. Does that mean you can create a notecard with HTML and (hopefully CSS) styling? That would be a huge benefit and if you were teaching a class you could have sylabus' and diagrams on line that could be viewed in world? That would be pretty good.

my entire point is do we look at the board of directors to see what we will be subjected to use next? seems to me its more than a little obvious that the trends set in sl have little to do with the clients and more to do with the board of directors now.

I understand the need for a cross platform browser, with the new updates. I just disagree with the way they are going about things. I'm sorry you dont find that abundantly clear by now.

I would prefer a choice as to what I download on my system and what I don't. It would be nice to be given a choice of what is installed on my system. BUT as always it seems my only choice is download what we say or leave. That is not a choice IMO.

So why are we intergrating the WWW into sl? I already can rez a cube and link it to a website. Why do I need to have a web site in world? What is the point of that? Other than a non static billboard system.

Given the choice I'm not sure at this point I even want that in my world. I don't realy see the benifits over the lag it would cause. How will this new intergration affect the stabliity of the sl client?

Cat

Thank you Chip, that is one of the huge questions I had. That is somewhat of a relief. The way that I read it it seemed that was in fact the case.

Cat

Internet Explorer >

uh oh.

While I am convinced by Cristiano's explanations, I wouldn't characterize the connection between being on the board of directors and choosing Mozilla as being a "wild conspiracy theory," by any means.

coco

You know what Cristiano it's realy difficult to have an adult discussion with you when your remarks are so snarky. I too used my brain to see the obvious as I saw it. I have gotten the impression from you on more than a dozen occasions that unless my opinion agrees with yours im a dumb ass. Again I disagree with you and your assumptions.

So would you finaly answer my question. "If it your opinion that the fact that Mitch is on the Board of Directors, had absoulutly nothing to do with this decision?"

I'm also going to state the obvious here once again "stop putting words in my mouth cristiano, the only person creating drama here is you. there is no conspiracy theory, there is nothing "sinister" those are your words not mine.

The fact that LL chooses their path based on the board of directors and not their clients needs, I find that very disturbing. I dont give a flying fuck if they are open about it or not, it's being done and it SUCKS. That my dear is a fucking FACT.

Cat

The full install of Firefox is 14mb (or the equivelant of 1-3 mp3 files). Even if people have to download and install it, so what? You don't have to use it or make it your default browser or have a shortcut on your desktop. It'll just sit there in the program files folder minding its own business. It's not obtrusive at all. It's really nothing to be concerned about, and if people can't spare 14mb of space then that's not really LL's problem.

Chip where you getting this information from? It's very useful. Thank you.

Yes. Mitch Kapor doesn't make Mozilla suited to integration in other projects, Mozilla's design does. The only real alternative from a developer's point of view is the Konqueror engine, used in Konqueror and Safari. Mozilla's renderer, Gecko, is far easier to integrate and appears to have far less infighting between the original project leaders and the corporate developers that use it. Konqueror seems to have some problems, even if its codebase were suitable.

I think you're really missing the point on why they're doing this. You see a hamhanded and obvious attempt for Linden to make more money at the expense of its users. I see... a web browser... and that's a good thing. The web isn't just ads and porn -- this is an excellent way to improve SL. Seriously. I don't care about reading a website within SL. I have another monitor for that. For some people, being able to read help files or the forums (heh, well, maybe not these forums) without having to switch windows would be useful. And then again, perhaps not. That's not even why the Mozilla integration is important; being able to view external web pages in SL is actually secondary to its most useful function: the ability to communicate with scripts and with the outside world.

Example 1: A poker game.
Take a seat at a table, and buy some chips. Wait for the next hand to start. When your cards are dealt, you click them face down on the table and they appear in a small window, for your eyes only. Click the cards you wish to discard, and they're replaced accordingly.

Example 2: A clothing store.
Today, vendors are a pain in the ass. Selling things in individual boxes is easy enough, but it's a hassle too. With an integrated browser window, a visitor could enter the store, click on a vendor, and see a smooth-scrolling (and only visible to THEM) list of clothing. There would be no massive framerate problem for surrounding land, and a web-based vendor is far easier to use than in-world controls, and capable of displaying all the designer's wares at once.
It would even be far easier for clothing designers to produce "demo" clothing. Currently, designers must choose between a seperate box containing special demo versions and being down not only one prim, but also having to use another texture, or having to use a vendor, which can be inconvenient from the designer's perspective, and can be nigh impossible for a customer.

Example 3: Street signs.
Suppose Sim X has an urban theme. One common item in such a setting is the street sign. Currently, one would have to upload seperate textures for each sign, which takes a while to download. Come 1.8, in the second phase of Mozilla integration, you could have ONE sign graphic, and just draw text over each one once it was downloaded. It wouldn't affect client framerates, but in a city sim with perhaps a dozen streets, it would cut back on the amount of data necessary to download.

Example 4: Scoreboards.
Say I have a game. Maybe something like Pokemon, maybe a racing game. Mini-golf, anyone? Regardless, it's something someone can "win" at. Currently, the only way to quickly draw text on a prim surface is by using XyText. (Personally, I like XyText, and even managed to make some suggestions when Xylor was originally writing it, but this is much better.) With Mozilla's text-on-a-prim feature, the scoring script could very quickly redraw all players' names, their scores, even pre-arranged icons next to their faces.
The only information sent to the client would be the new name: "Foo Weber", rather than having to update the texture for every two characters.

Yeah, but this isn't really the same thing. For one, Mozilla isn't a commerical project. Mitch Kapor doesn't take home a hefty bonus for signing up yet another mark. So far as I know, the Linden developers have been interested in integrating Mozilla since BETA, well before Mitch was around. I know I talked to Phoenix Linden about it once upon a time.

Second, you're not being forced to download Mozilla, you're being forced to download Second Life, containing some Mozilla code. From the end-user perspective, it will look exactly the same until you decide to use it.

Further, some kind of poorly-planned AOL cross-promotion wouldn't actually improve SL in any way. Increased control over the UI will. If someone wants to surf to some spammy porn site, that's their perogative. Personally, I'm planning on using integrated Mozilla for more productive purposes.

Catherine I now understand that mozilla will not be a full browser installed on my system, Chip was kind enough to explain that in great detail. So that point is settled.

I honestly hope that it is an addition to SL for the greater good. It was my assumption threw the article that it would just be a browser not much else.

LL needs to do a better job of explaining what the capibilities of their updates are for. What other uses of the browser are there in your opinion?

To be honest I enjoy seeing a 3D version of things within sl I don't see this new feature replacing them. I think it would be a shame if it did to be honest. It's one thing to see a couch its another to sit on it. It's on thing to see Cubey's planes its another to test drive them.

I see the commercial value in this but the artistic one escapes me...Hmmm a art show Maybe

Cat