Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th Apr 2014 22:42 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones

Fortunately though, Mozilla keeps on trucking, and Firefox OS appears to be constantly improving. The latest version available is 1.3.0, with the latest preview being 1.4. Now, sources from China have gotten their hands on a ton of screenshots and new information regarding Firefox OS 2.0, and we must say, the UI looks quite pretty.

This looks quite good indeed.

Order by: Score:
v ...
by Hiev on Wed 9th Apr 2014 23:04 UTC
v RE: ...
by themwagency on Wed 9th Apr 2014 23:26 UTC in reply to "..."
RE[2]: ...
by ddc_ on Wed 9th Apr 2014 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

"I don't trust Mozilla, actually I uninstalled Firefox (as thousands more)


As did I. I won't support any company that capitulates the way they did simply because the CEO exercised his personal free speech.
"
I never actually liked Firefox, but this kind of comments make me want it installed. It is amazing that after all those years of social development people still call "free speech" one's attempts at controling others' bedrooms.

Score: 10

RE[3]: ...
by themwagency on Wed 9th Apr 2014 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
themwagency Member since:
2013-03-06

>"It is amazing that after all those years of social development people still call "free speech" one's attempts at controling others' bedrooms."

...or redefining the definition of marriage.

For the record, nobody was saying gays couldn't do what gays do in the bedroom.... or even have the same legal rights as married people. Marriage is a religious institution. It's redefinition is especially concerning to those of religious background. It was not about "hate" as was often implied or outright stated. It was simply an issue of definitions. Words mean things. When a group tries to change them there are ramifications for that change.

if the problem is about government's recognition of marriage then let the government stop doing so. The whole reason why the government played any involvement in the first place was to reinforce the family unit as this helps society. That is a moot point if the redefinition of marriage includes those you can't create a family naturally.

I don't want to get off track so I'm hoping you will let this side-thread about gay rights relative to christian rights end with this comment.

Edited 2014-04-09 23:57 UTC

Score: 0

RE[4]: ...
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 9th Apr 2014 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And I am exercising my right to free speech and end this particular thread right here.

Heed the warning.

Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by HappyGod on Thu 10th Apr 2014 01:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Why are you ending the thread Thom?

This is pretty much everything that I hate about what's happened to the left these days. Old skool leftist used to believe in free speech, and personal freedoms. Now it's run by people like you, who assume people are idiots, and cannot be trusted to hear controversial views.

Your version of free speech is that you can talk about anything you like as long as you agree with it.

Threatening people to end a thread on a message board is *extremely* poor form. Especially when the thread wasn't particularly heated or abusive. 'themwagency' was just expressing an opinion.

It's pathetic.

Score: 5

RE[6]: ...
by nej_simon on Thu 10th Apr 2014 06:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

Threatening people to end a thread on a message board is *extremely* poor form. Especially when the thread wasn't particularly heated or abusive. 'themwagency' was just expressing an opinion.

It's pathetic.


No, it's off topic..

Score: 3

RE[7]: ...
by HappyGod on Thu 10th Apr 2014 07:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

No, it's off topic..


First of all, I don't think it is off-topic. The article was discussing the viability of the product. Users views about the company involved are perfectly valid.

But, for arguments sake, let's say it is. That would be why we have the "off-topic" vote down option!? An enormous amount of the comments on OSNews are off-topic, and have never been given the "cease and desist" edict from above that this one got.

I can't believe anyone here seriously believes this got shut down because it was off-topic. It got censored.

Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by galvanash on Thu 10th Apr 2014 03:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

And I am exercising my right to free speech and end this particular thread right here.

Heed the warning.


Yeah, its off topic... I get it. But I think this kind of back and forth is productive. Those that called for Eich's head were wrong, and those calling to boycott Mozilla over it are wrong too.

My hope is that after it bounces around a while both sides of the issue might gain a little perspective from the flip side.

Score: 4

RE[4]: ...
by WereCatf on Thu 10th Apr 2014 02:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Marriage is a religious institution. It's redefinition is especially concerning to those of religious background. It was not about "hate" as was often implied or outright stated. It was simply an issue of definitions. Words mean things. When a group tries to change them there are ramifications for that change.


No. There are two things a marriage means: one is the religious one, and the other is the legal, government - driven one. LGBT - community is seeking equality with the latter, not the former. It's certainly not our fault that both the government and the church use the same word for different things and thus you cannot lay the blame on us.

Also, the LGBT - community isn't trying to "redefine" words, they are only seeking equality in the eyes of the law. It's you who is so horribly defensive about the term "marriage" when LGBT - community at large doesn't care what the term is as long as the rights are equal. Change the legal term to something other than "marriage" and no one cares!

All this is to say, stop being so defensive about the definition of a single god damn word.

Score: 5

RE[5]: ...
by galvanash on Thu 10th Apr 2014 03:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Also, the LGBT - community isn't trying to "redefine" words, they are only seeking equality in the eyes of the law. It's you who is so horribly defensive about the term "marriage" when LGBT - community at large doesn't care what the term is as long as the rights are equal. Change the legal term to something other than "marriage" and no one cares!


It was called "Domestic Partnership". It had very nearly (although not _exactly_) the same rights, privileges, and legal definition as marriage in California, with one major exception - it was not called "marriage"... It was established in 1999, but did not become "virtually equivalent" legally to marriage until about 2003 (5 years before Prop 8)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California

Prop 8, the bill that Eich donated money to support, did not remove any of the rights, privileges, or legal definitions. What it did was strike down marriages that occurred in 2004 in San Francisco that were not established under supporting law. These were not Domestic Partnershps, they were deemed marriages - and at the time they was no supporting law to make them legal. They were defacto established by the Mayor at the time, Gaven Newsom. The Supreme Court of California had upheld those defacto marriages as legal in 2008, Prop 8 was intended to reverse this decision though a ballot initiative by popular vote.

I am posting this mostly because I'm tired of people arguing about this issue not knowing the fundamental truths involved. I am personally ALL for gay marriage, but saying things like "the term doesn't matter" is completely missing the point - the controversy is entirely about the term. Pro or against, whatever, that is EXACTLY what it is about. It is not a rights issue, it is about the term "marriage".

Someone who supported prop 8, who says they did so because they believe the term "marriage" should be reserved for it religious use, may very will be honest in saying so. They do not have to hate gays, they do not have to believe in taking away someones rights. Then again maybe they do - I can't see into Eich's heart. Just saying I don't personally believe that donating money to prop 8 automatically makes you a bigot.

All this is to say, stop being so defensive about the definition of a single god damn word.


Both sides of the issue are guilty of this - that is kinda my point... The gay community did not want domestic partnerships or civil unions - it is very much about the word marriage.

I personally think the term does matter, and should be the same either way, but my preference would be to completely divorce the concept of religious marriage with legal marriage. Make everyone get "civil union" or "domestic partnership" licenses, and let religions figure out whether or not they want to recognize same sex couples. It shouldn't even be a political issue at all in my opinion.

Score: 4

RE[6]: ...
by WereCatf on Thu 10th Apr 2014 04:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

It was called "Domestic Partnership". It had very nearly (although not _exactly_)


As I look at it, it's not recognized by the federal law. That means it's not even nearly equal.

but saying things like "the term doesn't matter" is completely missing the point - the controversy is entirely about the term. Pro or against, whatever, that is EXACTLY what it is about. It is not a rights issue, it is about the term "marriage".


Well, I suppose we hang out in different kinds of groups. The people I associate with don't care about the term being used and neither do I.

but my preference would be to completely divorce the concept of religious marriage with legal marriage.


That would be the most sane thing to do. Religion should have no play whatsoever wrt. politics and law.

Score: 4

RE[7]: ...
by galvanash on Thu 10th Apr 2014 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

"It was called "Domestic Partnership". It had very nearly (although not _exactly_)


As I look at it, it's not recognized by the federal law. That means it's not even nearly equal.
"

You have to keep the timeline in mind... Prior to June 2013 it din't matter what you called it - the US federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages - period. As such, at the time, Domestic Partnership was equivalent to marriage in the state of California.

I'm not trying to condone Prop 8, fact is those who pushed for that ballot initiative tried a few others first that were extremely anti-gay rights - they didn't make the ballot fortunately... But regardless, Prop 8 was not an anti-gar rights bill - it was purely about designation, i.e. it was about use of the word marriage. That is just fact.

Edited 2014-04-10 04:29 UTC

Score: 3

RE[5]: ...
by Brendan on Thu 10th Apr 2014 04:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

No. There are two things a marriage means: one is the religious one, and the other is the legal, government - driven one. LGBT - community is seeking equality with the latter, not the former. It's certainly not our fault that both the government and the church use the same word for different things and thus you cannot lay the blame on us.


While I'd like to agree, I think you mean "married in the eyes of God" vs. "married in the eyes of the Government".

If the religious people weren't just hypocritical assholes they'd also complain about a man and women who don't believe in their God getting married by celebrants/registrars and not priests.

- Brendan

Score: 3

Comment by ddc_
by ddc_ on Wed 9th Apr 2014 23:37 UTC
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

If the link was labeled "new default theme of CyanogenMod", I wouldn't spot the fraud. (I would notice the childish look of Calendar app though.) Apparently this copycat trend in UI design is getting too far.

Score: 2

Again
by Treza on Thu 10th Apr 2014 00:22 UTC
Treza
Member since:
2006-01-11

Flat, bland, boring.
Probably for a geometrically perfect aluminium and glass parallelepipede.

Edited 2014-04-10 00:26 UTC

Score: 2

RE: Again
by judgen on Thu 10th Apr 2014 01:03 UTC in reply to "Again"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

I agree, it looks flat and dull. Come on people, soviet design philosophy got humanity into space, but it was never pretty to look at. Well, i guess you can't argue with results.

Score: 1

Interesting
by PhilPotter on Thu 10th Apr 2014 00:32 UTC
PhilPotter
Member since:
2011-06-10

I'm interested in this, particularly to level the playing field (along with Sailfish) should it become successful in a mass market sense - competition other than that from iOS and Windows would be great.

With regard to the comments above, I am tired of reading how people justify bigotry as ok because it's 'free speech', as Eich is somehow hard done by. The guy donated money to deny other people of their rights. End of. Stop defending it as somehow ok. He exercised his freedom and all freedoms have their consequence.

Score: 1

Looks pretty good.
by ronaldst on Thu 10th Apr 2014 01:19 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

In line with the industry going (Next Android release) to brighter colours. Only WP is left with its terribad palette.

Still not as good as juicy as the 1st Firefox screenshots with the cards UI.

Score: 2

Small and blurry...
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 10th Apr 2014 02:03 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

...or am I blind?

Score: 2

saving up for a geeksphone
by stabbyjones on Thu 10th Apr 2014 02:15 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

i'm putting my money down on the geeksphone revolution.

i'm bored with android and firefox actually open. (as much as a phone can possibly be.)

Score: 2

Comment by neticspace
by neticspace on Thu 10th Apr 2014 02:29 UTC
neticspace
Member since:
2009-06-09

Bring back webOS and I'll be happy.

Score: 2

v THOM
by Minuous on Thu 10th Apr 2014 04:57 UTC
RE: THOM
by p13. on Thu 10th Apr 2014 05:51 UTC in reply to "THOM"
p13. Member since:
2005-07-10

How about ... just leaving?

Score: 4

RE: THOM
by pandronic on Thu 10th Apr 2014 06:33 UTC in reply to "THOM"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Are you retarded, or something?

Score: 3

"Sources in China"
by crystall on Thu 10th Apr 2014 06:59 UTC
crystall
Member since:
2007-02-06

It's hilarious how the original article claim to have had the screenshots from internal sources as if Firefox OS development was following some sort of closed source development model à la Android/iOS.

All the new UI specifications and mocks are publicly available and have been from a while, you can find them filed under this bug on our tracker:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=930561

Score: 5

It looks
by Ultimatebadass on Thu 10th Apr 2014 08:38 UTC
Ultimatebadass
Member since:
2006-01-08

like... absolutely everything else today, riding dat "zomg t3h skeuomorphism is evil! flat is our new god!" wave of UI design.

Score: 3