Firefox OS 1.3
developer.mozilla.org
developer.mozilla.org
Also according to Mozilla there are several Nexus phones that can run FFOS [2]
[1] http://shop.geeksphone.com/es/moviles/9-revolution.html
[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox_OS/Phones#Firefo...
Right now the least expensive phone you can buy right now that FirefoxOS definitely works on (that I am aware of) is the ZTE Open.
There isn't any official effort from Mozilla to port to existing devices that I know of, but there is a porting guide if you want to get your hands dirty: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox_OS/Porting
I know that existing Android ROM hacking communities have made some progress too, but I personally use a phone that explicitly supports FirefoxOS (Geeksphone Keon) which I am pretty happy with. I'll probably switch to the new reference device (the Flame) once it is available, although I'm really interested in the $25 Spreadtrum model too.
New features in apps and some other big changes (like the use of async panning and zooming in the graphics stack) are not covered in this document.
I guess we'll have more user-oriented release notes soon.
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/01/upgrading-your-zte-open-to...
2# this is not marketed as a substitute to iPhone or even Android. It's mean for people that can't afford high end phones. People that if the choice is a $25 phone without contacts sync or a $100 phone with sync they will take the former.
3# A lot of people are working hard on this project improving it every day. Dismissing it like that for a quite minor thing, yes minor, seems quite childish to me.
It also doesn't help to refer to that very legitimate feature request as "childish", especially when it involves core functionality that's very critical to many users.
As the alternative to the evil empire of corporations for all types of users, including average people.
My mom (she's 78) is on Linux since 2006 or so. Moved from Windows to Mac and then to Linux. Never had an issue.
The key is what the user expects. If you approach Linux wanting a seamless transition from Windows, you'll be frustrated. Everything makes sense, but it's different. Your software won't run. If you approach Linux without expecting it to be like Windows, you'll be happy. The average user overestimates how much they know about computing and bring their own baggage. That baggage holds them down. They want to download Nero to burn a CD. They want to download Firefox from the firefox.org website. The whole idea of a package manager is completely alien to the average user (or was, until the advent of the app store).
Please add your vote to the issue.
The features that are being shipped in Firefox are ones that are stable in the draft spec and not expected to change. At the point of spec stability, these features need to be actually tested in broader distribution to help find any potential compatibility corner cases, similar to the issues found with Array.prototype.values [1].
[1] http://www.esdiscuss.org/topic/array-prototype-values-breaks...
In practice vendors implement small chunks of emerging ideas, with flags to prevent the ideas reaching the stable versions being a relatively novel addition to the process made possible by rapid release schedules. The ideas become stable, ready or not, when enough people are using them that it's no longer possible to remove or amend the implementation without breaking sites and thereby annoying your user base.
I hear that the TC39 group that controls ECMAScript are planning to adjust to this reality by incrementally standardising features in the future so, perhaps, instead of "ES7" we will see specs for "ES foo", where "foo" is a specific feature. Ironically this is closer to the way that some non-web languages like Python (ignoring the 2/3 divide) work, with a series of enhancements that are adopted as they are ready, even though Python actually does have clear and meaningful versions.
Should Mozilla have been more conservative in shipping features that are actually written up in a spec on their fledgling OS? Probably, playing strictly by the rules is generally a good thing. Is this comparable to a different vendor working to ship an enormous feature which didn't even have a spec, and which the person at the centre of the controversy asked other people to help write because they had been so busy? No, not at all.
Size, influence, and power always make a difference. I have a hard time understanding how you wouldn't see this.
What's the lesson? Two wrongs make a right?
ES6 has cross-vendor support and a draft specification [1], which are not true of PNaCl or Dart. No browser vendor has stated opposition to ES6 that I'm aware of; everyone's committed to implementing it.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
You're trying to create controversy where there is none. Nobody on TC39 objects to SpiderMonkey implementing specific features with broad consensus before all of ES6 has been finalized.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Firefox_OS_Si...
FirefoxOS, Mozilla's, no VC funding.
Ubuntu, Canonical is funded by Shuttleworth.
Android was a startup once upon a time before Google bought it, but that was before iOS was out.
The only actual VC-funded entry is the one you omit, Jolla.
Dafuq.
Yes I'm aware how Arrays are just objects in JS but please stop bastardizing the Array data type even further. This is also part of ES6 so I don't blame Mozilla for implementing it.
They are not necessarily dense - there can be gaps, and any kind of relationship to a contiguous block of memory is purely at the discretion of the implementation.
I presume that your complaint is really about calling such a thing an array, because a 'keys' method is certainly not a further bastardization of what was already in the spec.