Being a software maker and mocking at a corporation that pretty much says what goes in almost all the computers in the world..

It is not funny.. I would have expected better of Asa

I don't know... Bugzilla might be easier to follow... ;-)

In a more serious thought, you can always try Burning Edge or the Mozillazine Firefox Builds forum for more "digestible" information.

Whoops... Seriously missed the point there... :-D

To make it easier for him, here is checkins within the last
10 hours: http://tinyurl.com/bszbc
week: http://tinyurl.com/8nk2r
month: http://tinyurl.com/8acpp

had to make links short

LOL
I think that this summer we will have 2 great browsers (Firefox and IE7), that's good news for anyone 8-).
And secrets won't last.
I wonder if Firefox 1.1 will be released before IE7 though. I don't trust the official roadmap.
As for CVS, don't forget to look on branches (remove HEAD from the bonsai query). I must say that if everything is really public, I don't see any great new secret coming out for Firefox 1.1, there have been very few exciting checkins to Firefox lately, IMHO

I told about this to several people, will you sue me? :)) I'll keep it secretly now, I must learn how to make Greasymonkey script which will prevent everyone from seeing it:)

"It is not funny.. I would have expected better of Asa"

Heh. Made me laugh anyway. He's just replying to Scoble in an ironic tone, which is not strange seeing that Firefox is in fact an open source project - open being the keyword there.

"I think that this summer we will have 2 great browsers (Firefox and IE7)"

I don't get it. Everyone seems to be forgetting that IE7 beta is all we're getting this summer. (Those of us using XP that is.) The final probably won't be out 'til Xmas or somesuch...

If we're comparing betas, we'll be getting Firefox 1.1 in just a couple of weeks now.

Scoble proves once again that he doesn't understand open-source. His reply to Asa obviously meant, "Firefox has secrets too." Guess what: when Mozilla says "open", they actually mean it.

Signing an NDA doesn't mean the entire project isn't transparent. I visited them and talked about IE. And yes, i signed an NDA because they do not want that some specific informations are released to early. That's something every company does - for good reasons.

Even the Mozilla Foundation did it: Remember the Spread Firefox ad campaign? Afaik part of the deal with the newspaper was to not disclose the exact price of the ad. MoFO made that deal. Is the entire project now not transparent anymore?!

What about the income of MoFo employees? The current amount of money in the Bug Bounty project? The exact number of unfixed arbitrary code execution bugs?

There are things that are secret for a reason. And those things get more when the project grows (and Microsoft is much bigger than MoFo). Please don't claim everything is transparent just because the source is open. There is a difference between data and information. Ask the KHTML developers about that... *g*

Since people are posting URLs, wiki.mozilla.org offers future plans.

Michael, Nowhere did I say that MoFo was completely transparent, nor did I say that Microsoft should be completely transparent.

Did you not read enough to get the context of this discussion or did you intentionally ignore it? We're talking about browser features here. I'm saying that allowing a few bloggers to see browser features under NDA isn't particularly transparent. Scoble is suggesting that we have secret features just like IE so we're also not transparent about our features. I'm saying that we don't have secret features and that our system doesn't really allow for secret features because that part of our system, the cvs repository, is pretty darned transparent.

Feel free to set up and knock down all the strawmen you like, but don't expect me to reply to them in the future.

- A

Hahahaha.

Oh snap!

Asa, I am aware that you disagred with scoble on the point of "secret features" (where i think you are right - mozilla is open about their features currently) and not transparency as an entire thing.

What i was trying to express is, that when an organization grows bigger more and more things - including features - become secret for several reasons (and that MoFo isn't an exception in this thing). For a closed source company inviting people to see feautures under NDA is a huge step.

I was just in oppostion to your simplification of "everything where an NDA is involved can not be transparent" (what was more a reply to your first post on scoble). But maybe i was getting you wrong and/or i wasn't able to express this in my last post. I am just getting so sick of this oversimplification in most of this browser discussion, that i somehow automaticly take opposition to a "A always automaticly lead to B" argument. Anyway, wasn't ment to offend you ;)

Michael, how is a closed source company inviting people to see features under NDA a huge step?

It seems to me no different from inviting any PC journalist, except most respected journalists won't sign NDAs, only the crappy ones. In fact, it seems exactly like they are trying to get the benefits of press without all the hastle of actually dealing with the professional press who might critique them instead of act like fanboys.

This sounds exactly like Microsoft is trying to get in on the scam the game and hardware companies have been pulling for years with so-called 'independent' websites.

You don't have secret features once they're checked in. Plans, OTOH, or even say, release schedules aren't always transparent.

In response to Asa's blog post and Scoble:

That is funny.

Asa, well, I keep hearing that Google is working on a browser that'll incorporate Firefox. I was just was wondering if there's any truth to those rumors.

But, yes, your retort was a good one! Touche!

Robert, I've heard the same rumor -- but I'm hearing it only from people who wouldn't actually know. I certainly don't have any knowlege of a Google browser that incorporates Firefox.

- A