POST A COMMENT

18 Comments

Back to Article

  • gevorg - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    Will it run Android apps? Reply
  • sjael - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    " It will not have any of Android's Java libraries or stacks." - I'm guessing no.

    From what I gather, it seems to be that they've taken Android for it's hardware management, and stripped away all the front-end and rebuilt it around HTML5 instead of Java.

    I'm actually rather interested, as a web developer I've been waiting eons for a 'native' HTML5 SDK for Android. It seems strange that Google of all companies hasn't jumped on such a thing themselves yet.
    Reply
  • B3an - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    Probably because using HTML5 and JavaScript to power these things is incredibly inefficient and retarded, especially when you want to save as much power and battery as possible as well as having a smooth experience on the device. They should learn from MS or even Apple, but Mozilla would never do that as they want this to be open, but like most open software and platforms it's going to be completely inferior to proprietary alternatives as almost anything open sacrifices efficiency and performance just for the sake of being "open".

    I'm also a web dev but i know just how crap and overrated HTML5 is when it comes to real coding languages which i also use. When it comes to battery life and efficiently this OS is going to suck, in more ways than one.
    Reply
  • Hrel - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    uh...? what? "Probably because using HTML5 and JavaScript to power these things is incredibly inefficient and retarded, especially when you want to save as much power and battery as possible as well as having a smooth experience on the device"

    That true for JavaScript, but... the whole idea of HTML5 is to solve those problems. HTML5 is the future.
    Reply
  • rs2 - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    Actually he's pretty much correct. HTML5 isn't some end-all be-all technology. It adds some welcome extensions to HTML, but does not come close to approaching the full functionality of other technologies such as Flash or Silverlight (think things like bidirectional client-server RPC calls and integrated network-efficient serialization of data).

    Moreover, HTML5 still requires JavaScript to implement any sort of dynamic behavior, to make use of the fancy new <canvas> element, or to do pretty much any other non-trivial thing. The point about efficiency is well made. Very seldom do you gain efficiency by *adding* a layer of abstraction in between the application code and the hardware that it runs upon.
    Reply
  • sjael - Tuesday, November 08, 2011 - link

    Woah, that got pretty intense coming off a fairly light-hearted comment.

    I'm not saying it would be a great OS - on the contrary, it's by Mozilla so it's probably going to turn into a bloated piece of... stuff.

    Obviously HTML5 apps are never going to be as efficient as native code. However, just about all software seems to be moving towards the web/cloud and webapps, and all hardware is moving towards mobile. With all the developer support, it only makes sense to develop a mobile OS that brings webapps 'out of the browser' so to speak.

    Of course HTML5 isn't there yet, doesn't mean I can't be interested that someone is trying it. And you never know - it could spark an industry drive to make the strides necessary *to* build a viable OS around HTML5 (rather, whatever the next step is.)

    Perhaps I was mistaken in saying I wanted an HTML5 SDK for Android - I don't want to build 'real' world-changing apps with HTML5, I just want to be able to make a custom checklist or whatever without exposing all of my code to end users. :P
    Reply
  • retrospooty - Tuesday, November 08, 2011 - link

    "Woah, that got pretty intense coming off a fairly light-hearted comment."

    Welcome to Anandtech =)
    Reply
  • mghola - Thursday, January 19, 2012 - link

    The Nazi's ran a very efficient society. Point being, showing loyalty to the ones who "do it best" doesn't always leave us where we want to be. This may not be the place for a debate between proprietary and open, but I don't think you should discount the "sake of being open". Because you want your stupid android to run a little more efficient, you would yield to the eventual monopolization of all emergent technologies by masters who exploit intellectual property to own what would inevitably be developed by mankind. But hey, what do I care as long as my new iphone made by 13 year olds working 16 hours a day for 75 cents is "sick". Reply
  • mghola - Thursday, January 19, 2012 - link

    Look. Open alternatives would be better if there was more emphasis on them and the contributions to them from proprietary companies would be greater. I know many companies need licensing to make a profit, but why do we need them? Reply
  • mghola - Thursday, January 19, 2012 - link

    The real question is why can't a cutting edge alternative to html5 and javascript be developed that is open. Seems like it would be worth it for companies like mozilla to work together on. Reply
  • s44 - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    Chrome for phones? Reply
  • MonkeyPaw - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    Thus would be way more interesting if their mobile version of Firefox would crash and gang on me all the time. In fact, FF is the only desktop browser to crash on me--ever. Fans will tell me it's extensions or some other reason, but Chrome, IE, and Opera don't have these problems at all. Ever since FF went passed 3.6, it's been a rough go. I could care less how many versions come out if none of them work. Reply
  • MonkeyPaw - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    Sorry for the language fail. Phone thumbs. :( Reply
  • espaghetti - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    "- Whose hardware will you support?

    We’ll be selecting initial hardware for hackability and general availability, but we haven’t settled on that yet. A Tegra 2 device is likely to be selected, due to its support for VP8 hardware acceleration. Over time we expect that B2G will work on the majority of devices that support modern Android versions. "

    Just in case anyone else cared.
    Reply
  • wocanak - Monday, November 07, 2011 - link

    Looks like RIL got expanded to Reliance Industries Limited in "Mozilla has elected to use both the Android and Reliance Industries Limited backend to implement messaging"

    I guess you meant Android Radio Interface Layer (RIL)
    Reply
  • Daniel Egger - Tuesday, November 08, 2011 - link

    I applaud Mozilla for picking this up!

    I quite appreciate the way Palm had implemented WebOS namely by using a Linux kernel, having some basic system services all communicating via DBus and providing an abstraction layer that would allow the use of C++ components and DBus calls via HTML or rather JS code within HTML pages.

    What Palm (and later HP) didn't get right though was the performance of the whole thing which really sucks (and still does). Let's hope Mozilla can do better (and also get that nasty ressource footprint of their browser down...).
    Reply
  • greg451 - Saturday, December 10, 2011 - link

    Err, its called linux. I want fucking nothing but goddamned linux on my fucking hardware. I want hardware I can install myself. I don't give a fuck about android or chrome or any fucking thing else. I want linux running my phone and my tablet just like my fucking laptop. I refuse to be assraped by vendor lock-in and other incompatibilities and proprietary bullshit. Reply
  • mghola - Thursday, January 19, 2012 - link

    Gnome Sayin? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now