What I Love about Mozilla(mihneadb.net)
mihneadb.net
What I Love about Mozilla
http://www.mihneadb.net/post/what-i-love-about-mozilla/
11 comments
I wish the article did not so freely mix The Web and The Internet. Laymen may not understand the difference, but surely Mozilla employees do.
Indeed, the intention was to make it easier to follow for everybody. Maybe I made a mistake :).
Also, I'm not a Mozilla employee.
Thanks for the feedback!
I found this to be inspirational!
I have being a Mac user since System 6 on a little Apple II. I started my development career on 4D a mac only database back in 90's. And I have being a Web/Database Developer ever since and I am really grateful for what apple has provided me so far.
I always found Apple and Steve Job to be inspirational and have always supported Mac even when no one around me used them, because I do find that company to be true to their words
"Think Different"
That inspiration has now gone to Mozilla! Apple still makes great products, but it has already lost it's soul and it hasn't found a new one yet! (Revisit, Steve Job, Stanford Speech please!)
This is not apple's fault. This usually happen with company that had a super charismatic and powerful leader and when that leader leaves or die that leaves a big gap in the company.
“We need leaders who can lead in any situation,
What we need now is for everyone in the company willing to take leadership. Like this intern at Mozilla.
So thanks Mihnea.
I have being a Mac user since System 6 on a little Apple II. I started my development career on 4D a mac only database back in 90's. And I have being a Web/Database Developer ever since and I am really grateful for what apple has provided me so far.
I always found Apple and Steve Job to be inspirational and have always supported Mac even when no one around me used them, because I do find that company to be true to their words
"Think Different"
That inspiration has now gone to Mozilla! Apple still makes great products, but it has already lost it's soul and it hasn't found a new one yet! (Revisit, Steve Job, Stanford Speech please!)
This is not apple's fault. This usually happen with company that had a super charismatic and powerful leader and when that leader leaves or die that leaves a big gap in the company.
“We need leaders who can lead in any situation,
with or without positional authority,
with or without formally allocated decision rights,
with or without designated followers,
with or without an approved set of traits
and characteristics,
and often in conditions in which there is no
agreement as to what the right answer is.”
(Granger, 2009)What we need now is for everyone in the company willing to take leadership. Like this intern at Mozilla.
So thanks Mihnea.
Thanks for the kind words! I would say Mozilla is in good hands and it seems to me that it's getting better and better.
I still find it odd that the "mission" collides with the origins of the name "mozilla" standing for mosaic killer.
Mozilla public name was renamed to netscape and introduced support for the dreaded frames it strated the trend of stupid user-agent sniffing which then lead internet explorer to pretend to be mozilla and then came the browser wars. Not exactly in tunes with the "mission".
Mozilla public name was renamed to netscape and introduced support for the dreaded frames it strated the trend of stupid user-agent sniffing which then lead internet explorer to pretend to be mozilla and then came the browser wars. Not exactly in tunes with the "mission".
Probably not a brilliant branding exercise to intimate you're a dinosaur out-the-gate, either.
'We're the Rosetta Stone of cutting edge tech! Rawr! Rarw? Rarw.'
'We're the Rosetta Stone of cutting edge tech! Rawr! Rarw? Rarw.'
It's in London, so I know it will only be of interest to a minority of HN users, but the Mozilla Festival takes place at the end of this month:
http://mozillafestival.org/
It promises to be a fantastic conference. They have a couple of interesting talk tracks like "Look Who's Watching" on surveillance on the internet, as well as more traditional tech topics.
Even better, tickets are only £40 (£3 for under 18s) and it takes place over a weekend. So it should be accessible to nearly everyone.
http://mozillafestival.org/
It promises to be a fantastic conference. They have a couple of interesting talk tracks like "Look Who's Watching" on surveillance on the internet, as well as more traditional tech topics.
Even better, tickets are only £40 (£3 for under 18s) and it takes place over a weekend. So it should be accessible to nearly everyone.
I really like Mozilla too. A key differentiator from other online companies is that they aren't trying to track your every online move and you feel you can trust them on important issues like privacy (unlike some companies who I won't mention).
With the amount of Mozilla intern related HN posts I'm seeing lately, I'm really considering pursuing full time employment there after graduation. Working for an organization that has a mission bigger than maximizing profitability is really attractive.
An easy way to get started is "Bugs Ahoy", a Bugzilla search engine that lets you search by programming language and feature area among bugs tagged as "good first bug" with a Mozilla mentor's contact info:
http://www.joshmatthews.net/bugsahoy/?unowned=1
http://www.joshmatthews.net/bugsahoy/?unowned=1
Thank you for this link. I wanted to help Mozilla for quite some time but didn't know where to start, this should simplify things a lot.
We're waiting for you :)
Ideally, the best place is irc.mozilla.org, channel #introduction.
Ideally, the best place is irc.mozilla.org, channel #introduction.
Again, thanks for this. I've intended to get involved but never got around to figuring out how. Having this run across my screen motivated me to get a nick registered, and say hello in the channel.
Same here.
I'm willing to use my next "funemployed" round for getting involved. Maybe even writing my master thesis on a mozilla project.
I really like how the employees can work from everywhere, also it doesn't have the touch of selling your soul, because they help the world with their work.
They have a great work environment and a good culture, if the nature of the projects is a fit for your personal style. If you thrive in more team-oriented environments it may be rough for you - Mozilla runs more like a big open source project with salaries.
Mozilla folk were very positive and welcoming when I made (minor) contributions to the Core code. The whole code was easy to set up and run on my system too. Just go for it and start contributing!
This is a great place to start:
http://www.mozilla.org/contribute/
You should really check it out. Try contributing on a few easy bugs, get an idea about the people involved!
this is honestly not a "crystallization" of ideas about why the author likes mozilla, it's just restating mozilla's core goals that cab be found on its homepage
I'm just starting out on this road, so this is what I see right now. I'm sure my thoughts will become more nuanced and elaborated in time. Thanks for the feedback!
Not a great article, but totally correct. Mozilla and Wikimedia are the two most ethical big entities in the internet world.
There's also the Internet Archive which is much older than atleast Wikipedia and is often, in my opinion, under appreciated.
Indeed, Archive.org is superb!
:) I'm learning! Thanks.
What didn't you like?
Wonder what Mozilla's stance is about W3C approving DRM for HTMl5...
I am not empowered to speak for Mozilla.
But personally, I'm kinda sick of people referring to the EME draft as "DRM for HTML5", since... well, that isn't what it is. Five minutes with the EME draft would clear up that misconception.
But personally, I'm kinda sick of people referring to the EME draft as "DRM for HTML5", since... well, that isn't what it is. Five minutes with the EME draft would clear up that misconception.
Look, I've read the entire proposal, and it's obviously DRM for HTML5 video. It has specific error codes for standard DRM restrictions like "A hardware configuration change caused a content protection error" and "There is no available output device with the required characteristics for the content protection system" (no HDCP, no playback) and "The Key System could not be installed or updated".
It's designed to support a license server, an (unspecified, naturally) mechanism for the CDM to decrypt keys from the license server and store them internally, a (CDM-specific, i.e. unspecified) mechanism for the CDM to attest that it's deleted keys, and all the other parts of DRM.
The BBC have demanded that HTML5 EME be robust enough DRM that accessing content through unauthorised software is a criminal offense here in the UK, and the W3C spent some time on that too (though it's not mentioned in the standard itself).
It's basically a way of allowing DRM-based sites to claim to be 100% standards-based. It doesn't even provide much interoperability benefit over every DRM provider writing their own DRM API for HTML5 video; sites still need a bunch of DRM-scheme-specific glue code between the web server and license server, and the same with CDM and browser vendors on the client end. They don't even standardize the codecs and containers used - there's a couple of optional, non-normative container encryption schemes, but DRM schemes don't have to support either, so sites may (and probably will) have to encode and store multiple copies of each video to support different DRM schemes. It's less fucking standardised and interorperable than satellite pay TV!
It's designed to support a license server, an (unspecified, naturally) mechanism for the CDM to decrypt keys from the license server and store them internally, a (CDM-specific, i.e. unspecified) mechanism for the CDM to attest that it's deleted keys, and all the other parts of DRM.
The BBC have demanded that HTML5 EME be robust enough DRM that accessing content through unauthorised software is a criminal offense here in the UK, and the W3C spent some time on that too (though it's not mentioned in the standard itself).
It's basically a way of allowing DRM-based sites to claim to be 100% standards-based. It doesn't even provide much interoperability benefit over every DRM provider writing their own DRM API for HTML5 video; sites still need a bunch of DRM-scheme-specific glue code between the web server and license server, and the same with CDM and browser vendors on the client end. They don't even standardize the codecs and containers used - there's a couple of optional, non-normative container encryption schemes, but DRM schemes don't have to support either, so sites may (and probably will) have to encode and store multiple copies of each video to support different DRM schemes. It's less fucking standardised and interorperable than satellite pay TV!
Edit: I just realised that I'm replying to someone other than the author.
Hi, I'm the guy who logged the bug that used the words "HTML5 DRM". [1] That was, of course, a bit of a simplification. However, for a number of reasons, EME is bad for the following reasons:
1. A key distribution mechanism for only playback and for one element indicates that this is the first stage in wanting to apply this sort of rubbish to the rest of the standard
2. EME requires a CDM. While there is a well defined interface to the CDM, the CDM itself is a binary blob that won't be documented, might use OS specific features (e.g. The DRM system of the OS), and will need to be built for each individual browser and potentially operating system.
3. The EME draft is specific to encrypted playback. This is to allow Hollywood and others the ability to produce walled content. It's somewhat obtuse to say that EME will be used for anything other than implementing a DRM system. So far, the only CDM implemented is Google's Widevine DRM for Chrome only. I believe that Microsoft have something waiting in the wings, along with Netflix.
For that matter - let's look at the case where a specific DRM system is not used, and an encrypted key is sent to the CDM, which just decrypts the content. How is that not a form of DRM?
The post gives the following as to why Mozilla is great:
1. The Web should be open: The Internet is a public source of information that must be open to and accessible to anybody around the world.
2. The Web should be interoperable: People should not be locked in to an ecosystem and they should be able to use the technology they prefer to access the Internet.
3. The Web should be ours: People should have the ability to shape the Internet experience and be able to contribute with content without requiring permission from a central entity.
How is enabling Encrypted Media Extensions for the sole purpose of only preventing the playback of video and audio of the web enabling any of those important pillars of Mozilla's raisin d'être?
1. See previous HN submission here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6493510
Hi, I'm the guy who logged the bug that used the words "HTML5 DRM". [1] That was, of course, a bit of a simplification. However, for a number of reasons, EME is bad for the following reasons:
1. A key distribution mechanism for only playback and for one element indicates that this is the first stage in wanting to apply this sort of rubbish to the rest of the standard
2. EME requires a CDM. While there is a well defined interface to the CDM, the CDM itself is a binary blob that won't be documented, might use OS specific features (e.g. The DRM system of the OS), and will need to be built for each individual browser and potentially operating system.
3. The EME draft is specific to encrypted playback. This is to allow Hollywood and others the ability to produce walled content. It's somewhat obtuse to say that EME will be used for anything other than implementing a DRM system. So far, the only CDM implemented is Google's Widevine DRM for Chrome only. I believe that Microsoft have something waiting in the wings, along with Netflix.
For that matter - let's look at the case where a specific DRM system is not used, and an encrypted key is sent to the CDM, which just decrypts the content. How is that not a form of DRM?
The post gives the following as to why Mozilla is great:
1. The Web should be open: The Internet is a public source of information that must be open to and accessible to anybody around the world.
2. The Web should be interoperable: People should not be locked in to an ecosystem and they should be able to use the technology they prefer to access the Internet.
3. The Web should be ours: People should have the ability to shape the Internet experience and be able to contribute with content without requiring permission from a central entity.
How is enabling Encrypted Media Extensions for the sole purpose of only preventing the playback of video and audio of the web enabling any of those important pillars of Mozilla's raisin d'être?
1. See previous HN submission here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6493510
Last I heard, Google's Widevine EME wasn't just restricted to Chrome, it was restricted to ChromeOS running on official Chromebooks that are in locked-down mode so that the user can't run any of their own code. It's not just DRM, it's really restrictive DRM compared to what it's replacing.
"will need to be built for each individual browser
and potentially operating system."
It may not be named this but you got to admit. It could be used for this. Which reverses the idea of the Internet being open to all users.
it's yet another plugin api , so yes it is DRM for HTML5 ,since that's its only purpose.
Check out https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6493510, "Mozilla bug 923590: Pledge never to implement HTML5 DRM"
1) The web should be open should not mean that you can not create an app that is able to stream videos with different kinds.
2) It creates too main-stream web browsers. A non-profit organization should be encouraging browsing new experiments.
2) It creates too main-stream web browsers. A non-profit organization should be encouraging browsing new experiments.
"The Web should be ours: People should have the ability to shape the Internet experience and be able to contribute with content without requiring permission from a central entity."
Honest question: Why?
No other network is supposed to be "ours". Roads, telephones, mobile networks and so on. Why is the internet supposed to be different and special?
I mean, yes, as a Utopian ideal, but realistically, I dont see how long term that flies. I cant help thinking that up till now we have been lucky and spoiled, but in the end, everything gets controlled and regulated.
Honest question: Why?
No other network is supposed to be "ours". Roads, telephones, mobile networks and so on. Why is the internet supposed to be different and special?
I mean, yes, as a Utopian ideal, but realistically, I dont see how long term that flies. I cant help thinking that up till now we have been lucky and spoiled, but in the end, everything gets controlled and regulated.
Because it works really well in the long term if it's ours. It means that innovation can come from many more people than if it were a regulated network. And that's not just a possibility, that has actually happened lots of times.
A possible contribution is "write a search engine", and see where Google is today.
A possible contribution is "write a search engine", and see where Google is today.
It means that innovation can come from many more people
Like democracy, the purpose is not "efficiency" but epistimology. By opening up, we have the potential to get betting understanding of the world and tools to explore it. Granted, that brings risks (of abuse). But there are more abuses that those who seek to contol it will ultimately commit if for no other reason than the temptation (NSA, classic example).
Like democracy, the purpose is not "efficiency" but epistimology. By opening up, we have the potential to get betting understanding of the world and tools to explore it. Granted, that brings risks (of abuse). But there are more abuses that those who seek to contol it will ultimately commit if for no other reason than the temptation (NSA, classic example).
I don't think roads, telephones and mobile networks are an apt comparison -- it's more about the freedom of making your content freely available, rather than the actual physical network.
A better comparison might be the ability to distribute your own newsletter or pamphlets on the street. You can buy a domain name and a hosting provider and have your own personal page to share, whether it be funny cat pictures for your family, a personal blog, a venue for your own artistic endeavours, or political dissent.
Why should it be regulated who gets to put their own mark on "the web"?
A better comparison might be the ability to distribute your own newsletter or pamphlets on the street. You can buy a domain name and a hosting provider and have your own personal page to share, whether it be funny cat pictures for your family, a personal blog, a venue for your own artistic endeavours, or political dissent.
Why should it be regulated who gets to put their own mark on "the web"?
Because freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And being regulated does not mean lack of control or any kind of censorship. Network neutrality written in law is regulation. And I like it.
But roads and other infrastructure are ours. You can not ban someone from using those.
Huh? Try driving without proper ID in an 'unfit' vehicle.
Yes, bot nobody can ban you from roads because you are black or woman. At least in civilized part of world.
> No other network is supposed to be "ours". Roads, telephones, mobile networks and so on.
It may not be your opinion that they are supposed to be "ours", but the opinion that they are or should be is certainly fairly common, though the idea of what it means for them to be "ours" vary from an acceptance of current regulatory regimes to a wanting extensive decentralisation of control.
But the internet is special in this respect in that it currently is still reasonably outside of the control of both governments and private entities. That is not just due to history but also due to the nature of the network: It is a "meta network" layered on top of a bunch of physical networks, but that can be layered on top of "anything" that can move packets from one addressable note to another. It takes a lot to enforce control if you at the same time want people to be able to exchange information: Unless you are going to do complicated cryptoanalysis of every single packet passing through the system, people can establish their own new layers on top.
Tor, for example, is just an early precursor to what we can expect to see popping up, since experimenting with layering is so easy (you can set up your own "proto VPN" with a few dozen lines of shell script on many OS's), and people have incentives to avoid control.
It may not be your opinion that they are supposed to be "ours", but the opinion that they are or should be is certainly fairly common, though the idea of what it means for them to be "ours" vary from an acceptance of current regulatory regimes to a wanting extensive decentralisation of control.
But the internet is special in this respect in that it currently is still reasonably outside of the control of both governments and private entities. That is not just due to history but also due to the nature of the network: It is a "meta network" layered on top of a bunch of physical networks, but that can be layered on top of "anything" that can move packets from one addressable note to another. It takes a lot to enforce control if you at the same time want people to be able to exchange information: Unless you are going to do complicated cryptoanalysis of every single packet passing through the system, people can establish their own new layers on top.
Tor, for example, is just an early precursor to what we can expect to see popping up, since experimenting with layering is so easy (you can set up your own "proto VPN" with a few dozen lines of shell script on many OS's), and people have incentives to avoid control.