Talk:Firefox OS

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as High-importance).

Linux High‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mozilla (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mozilla, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MozillaWikipedia:WikiProject MozillaTemplate:WikiProject MozillaMozilla articles

Inaccuracy

This page lists the ″Latest unstable release″ as 3.0pre7. This is not accurate, the latest prerelease versions are 1.0.1 and 1.1 (which are in fact listed in the Release History section of this very page). When I look at the page's code it specifies latest_preview_version for the 3.0pre7 value — this refers to the version of the Firefox OS *simulator* (which recently hit 3.0), not the OS itself. (Also, does someone seriously want to bother updating this from pre3 to pre4 every week or two?) I'm not updating this problem because I don't yet understand how this system works. Despite the label that's displayed, the word ″unstable″ does not seem to appear anywhere in the underlying code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspy7 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the version number. Thanks for pointing that out. Boogie314 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The video about the '3d' phone wasn't the announcement. It was just a mockup of 'what the future could look like'.

Lemma

The developers named it Boot to Gecko, not Boot 2 Gecko.[1][2] The official abbreviation is B2G, that's why some media got the name wrong. Even if Mozilla would call it Boot 2 Gecko, WP:MOSTM says Avoid using special characters that are ⋯ simply substitute for English words. Arguably 2 is a special character here, because it doesn't mean a number.--88.73.7.207 (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of being bold, done. Gijs Kruitbosch (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the "Device information" menu on my FirefoxOS telephone: "Software: Boot2Gecko 1.2.0.0-prerelease" 176.11.118.48 (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other platforms

I originally got the impression that, although this was for mobile devices, the project also catered for low powered netbooks (CE devices). Is this not the case ? Or is this a possible offshot in the derivatives to come in subsequent cycles ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.16.4.192 (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the FAQ:

How is this different from Chrome OS?

We’re aiming at mobile/tablet devices rather than a notebook form factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.66.56.238 (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, im not sure if this is the right place... Will this Firefox B2G OS from Mozilla thing ever be able to be booted on a usual notebook/netbook/desktop pc without windows? through bios, as a lightweight speedy alternative OS? Or is this irrelevant since smartphones use bios too? I admit I have not much knowledge about these things... - Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.194.80.230 (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The plan is that you will be able to run Firefox OS on Windows, Mac OSX and Linux. Since it's just web APIs, your normal browser will be able to handle the complete OS when the APIs becomes standard. Right now, only Firefox browser can run [GAIA], which is the top layer of Firefox OS. Diggan (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been ported to the Raspberry Pi: http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/tag/oleg-romashin --Dia^ (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do u plan to run Firefox OS or atleast Firefox OS Apps on Android, iOS, WindowsPhone8 and Blackberry? Would this be with or without Gaia and Gonk?

Outdated

What with the recent announcement about Deutsche Telekom and Telefonica, the demos at the Mobile World Congress, etc., this page is out of date. I added a disclaimer and don't currently have time to update it myself. Please, be bold! Gijs Kruitbosch (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section about the MWC announcement and demo with press releases and press citations, still under History. Pretty good IMO, so I removed the {{update}} tag -- Skierpage (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion about fragmentation

"Firefox OS also faces the problem of platform fragmentation, which makes it difficult for the developer to target his application for the latest and greatest APIs available in the platform, but rather build applications using legacy, deprecated APIs as carriers and OEMs may not push the updates to the end users, an example may be Android Gingerbread based low-end devices being sold in 2013, though it was released long back in 2010.^[1]."

I deleted this bit. It seems to contradict itself. Fragmentation is the idea of a different app on every platform. So actually, while it may be ideal to make an app for every platform based on its own strengths, THAT is fragmentation. If there's another word for Firefox OS's problem, feel free to change and re-add it in, but let's not confuse people by calling it fragmentation, which is the problem of iOS, Android, etc, since a single company's apps are 'fragmented' away from each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.4 (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually platform fragmentation is the idea that the same platform fragments due to different versions of the same API are introduced. It was used as an argument in favor of iOS since Apple controlled which phones got updated versus the Android model of staggered release depending on when a vendor bothers to update their phone. Clearly it didn't prevent Android from succeeding though. The article cited in the part you deleted speaks of vendor-specific branding so it doesn't even say what the part claimed it did.

I realize this is quite off-topic since you already deleted it. 62.78.209.227 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/german-company-offers-to-white-label-firefox-os-for-carriers-2013036/

Opinionated?

Parts of this article seem to be written like an opinion piece: "Looking at Firefox OS from common users perspective, it does not solve any of the android pain points."

--Vivainio (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This "info" has been deleted several times before; a persistent editor keeps reintroducing it. Mind matrix 15:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this point is related will just add here that I think the "Criticisms" section lacks sufficent objectivity and references and has a conversational tone to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.229.195 (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've added attribution from the references, to help clarify the former WP:Weasel wording of "...some analysts say...", "...concerns have been raised...", etc. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"proprietary systems such as Apple's iOS, Google's Android, and Microsoft's Windows Phone"

So, FirefoxOS isn't "proprietary"? Why? Why is Android "proprietary"? Logictheo (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Android's article I think I can understand this "Android is developed in private by Google until the latest changes and updates are ready to be released, at which point the source code is made available publicly.". Is that why it is proprietary and Firefox OS is not? Thank you in advance. Logictheo (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of firefox phones released

Can someone please add a section for list of firefoxOS phones released and their details. Eg. ZTE Open 170.74.56.79 (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A list of devices with specs and OS versions is available here. Release dates are harder to come by. Gabriele.svelto (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Competes with"

"As such, it competes with..."

This article sounds as if Firefox OS were right up with the big players and threatening iOS in market share, although it only exists in an extremely narrow niche and no "mainstream" customer knows or cares about it. Edit: Those who do know want to "quit phones forever":

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/firefox-os-review/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.245.145 (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Unix(-like)?

At bottom of page it is categorized as such but not in article (in Infobox). I content it is not (and others webOS?). It's an interesting case of being based on the Linux kernel (that is multitalking, provides processes etc.) but all apps in the OS are in JavaScript, right? I'm not sure how multithreading (and processes?) are handled in JavaScript and while it might use processes (Electrolysis not finished?) behind the scenes I do not see that that should matter. What makes an OS, Unix or Unix-like? I would say pipelines (using IPC) and fork and other things not(?) in Firefox OS. No Linux/Unix syscalls available by design? While I'm at it, I want Firefox to NOT multitask. I believe on Android and I guess this OS it does. Anyone know how to get that (non-focus tabs to suspend by default) in the desktop? comp.arch (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The init process in Gonk handles mounting the required file systems and spawns system services. After that, it stays around to serve as a process manager. This is quite similar to init on other UNIX-like operating systems."[3] This implies that the developers think of the OS as Unix-like (as it *is* at that level; Linux kernel-based). But isn't it for sure not Linux/API compatible at the app level? There is some shell but can it be accessed by installing a Web-app? In developer mode, if it's available? E.g. competing browsers could not be installed (by design)? Except by heavy porting to asm.js? comp.arch (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ARMv6/Raspberry Pi support (no longer?)

"again in 2013 running on Raspberry Pi.[12]" - is this appropriate for the lead. Not sure if this was a "prototype" or how well or officially supported it was (I suspect not). Now I see that ARMv6 support is no more in the browser. I put the ref for ARMv6 on that page (but not here). Probably it should be taken out. Probably ESR release still has the support for some months. Then even if some version worked, that one will in a sense but not be maintained and will get unsecure. I assume all references should be deleted or at least not emphasized (in lead eg.). comp.arch (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basic information missing needed for article.

What is the minimum system requirements for Firefox OS to run acceptably. The article says that there is/was work on a 128 mb version, but what speed of processor? The slowest phone has 800 MHz processor. Has the system been ported to low end desktops? This really is fundamental technical information that needs to be include in the article. Nodekeeper (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jolla, Tizen as competitors

Why is Jolla mentioned, but Tizen is not? --Ysangkok (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did Firefox tell people to F**k-you?

Over the years, Firefox seems to have become ever more child-like. Now they are telling their users and supporters to FoxYeah!. Given that a number of insulted users have told Firefox to Fox-You, could there be a section about tactics use to boost profile and sales? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.235.8 (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loosing key people and Android "compatibility"

I'm not sure about if appropriate here (but would be in some Mozilla article, and probably already there..) to say something in this article about Gal (the CTO) or somebody else leaving, but maybe something else from the article. See here:

http://www.cnet.com/news/firefox-os-in-flux-as-mozilla-loses-technology-chief-to-startup/

Losing longtime executives could unsettle Mozilla's effort to build a more open alternative to Android and iOS. But the project has already been in major flux: Mozilla CEO Chris Beard is trying to retool Firefox OS with a focus on features people will desire, backing away from its earlier push to power supercheap $25 smartphones, which wasn't working. And in a statement to CNET, Beard indicated that it's not a coincidence Gong is pursuing his current plans outside Mozilla.

"In the course of resetting our Firefox OS strategy, we looked at our management team and saw we needed to make a change," Beard said of Gong's departure. Gong declined to comment for this story.

[Not strictly Android compatibility, so also doesn't fit here (in some way)?:] http://www.cnet.com/news/how-mozillas-firefox-os-may-enlist-android-apps-to-its-cause/ comp.arch (talk) 13:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time Passes, "Maturity" Happens

"This is the indication that Firefox OS is getting mature with the passage of time."

Really. Aside from my brother-in-law, can anyone give me an example of something that doesn't "nature" with the passage of time, for better or worse? I realize a lot of non-English speakers prefer to edit English-language pages, but can't we at least try to make some sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpolhemus (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Firefox OS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/german-company-offers-to-white-label-firefox-os-for-carriers-2013036/

[1]