Messaging integration in Safe Browser

Using addons was ever the only option for me. Building them into the browser code is ridiculous. AOL era anyone? I’m surprised this thread even went in that direction. I thought it would have been obvious to most of us. Like talking about coal in the age of thorium. :yum:

If the addon malfunctions it could be terminated by the browser. Just like OS’s. We don’t build everything desired directly into the kernel. There is always a chance of crashing but modularization allows for more graceful handling. To rest with it I say. Maidsafe has tackled much greater problems. This is a nat in the grander scheme of things. :smile:

2 Likes

Personally I’d like to see just a messaging API of sorts, so that messaging is federated. So that people can build all kinds of apps that use it and talk to each-other if they like, IRC like clients, IM clients, etc.

Something like GNU social/Mastodon (in the federated sense) but for messaging.

9 Likes

Ah yes, I was just thinking of this a few days ago! We need a Matrix equivalent for SAFE for devs to use, so that we can have interoperable SAFE instant messaging clients from the very birth of the network :smiley:

1 Like

Whether messaging is done in browser or add-on or separate app, I would prefer that Maidsafe build the first version of it, rather than leave it to developers.

I want this, because I do not want there to be 100 different messaging apps that do not talk to each other. There needs to be a standard messaging format so that I can message others, without worrying about what message app they use, and they can message me, without worrying what I am using.

If Maidsafe releases the first messaging app, then other developers will have incentive to make their messaging apps compatible to it’s format, and a defacto messaging standard will be born.

15 Likes

Why not just use addons like firefox does? Or integrate modular packages like a linux distribution? People are already familiar with addons when it comes to firefox. I think what people are talking about here kind of exceeds the scope of a web browser. The way people are talking about the SAFE browser is more like a SAFE Control Center or something. I don’t think the SAFE Browser should be that. Right now it’s had the authenticator integrated which I was opposed to to start with and still think is nuts. But the way people are talking it’s like they want the browser to do everything: browse the internet, authenticate apps, message people, everything. And that’s not what a web browser does. Much better to have a stand a lone platform that integrates separate apps: Browser, authenticator, email, and the dozens of other apps that will emerge on the SAFE network. Firefox != Thunderbird != Instant messenger != Steam. These apps are all useful but they are all distinctly different. Not to mention they have their own competitors.

But if you’re going to turn your web browser into a control center then I’d suggest making the base browser as lean as possible and then adding modules to integrate the various functions. An authenticator module, email module, an IM module, a Calendar and appointment tracking module, whatever. But don’t have it all as part of the core app. Because if I get SAFEThunderbird I don’t want to get a second notification from SAFEBrowser that “You’ve got Mail.” when all I want to do is browse the bloody net.

1 Like

Oldie but goodie. Check out #15 25 Things You Might Not Know About the Internet

Edit

TECH

25 Things You Might Not Know About The Internet
The Guardian
JOHN NAUGHTON, The Guardian
Mar. 9, 2014, 4:31 PM 45,374
anonymous

  1. The importance of killer apps
    A killer application is one that makes the adoption of a technology a no-brainer. The spreadsheet was the killer app for the first Apple computer. Email was the first killer app for the Arpanet - the internet’s precursor. The web was the internet’s first killer app. Before the web - and especially before the first graphical browser, Mosaic, appeared in 1993 - almost nobody knew or cared about the internet (which had been running since 1983). But after the web appeared, suddenly people “got” it, and the rest is history.
3 Likes

I especially like the “no brainer” part. MaidSafe and most on this forum, including me, have no clue who will want to try on the SafeNet and will never know who abandoned efforts because they met an obstacle. Today, MaidSafe needs users, waaaaaaaay more than users need MaidSafe.

2 Likes

We’re past this already for gods sake. :weary: Think strategically. New tech that few understand comes along that has too many moving parts will no doubt scare off the 90% techno illiterate.

Naturally we hand hold until until notoriety reaches a tipping point and people explore “better” ways to interface with SAFEnet. You too could do things as you see fit. Just clone the repository and split the browser into modules independent of each other.

It seems to me that people are worried that this browser will be the “be all and end all”. The browser is merely the beginning. If most here are so confident about the success of SAFE why worry that all of your preferences won’t be catered to in a SAFE app laden future.

Any logical thinker can reason the need to address the bulk of the initial and future user base before appealing to us geeks. Especially when we’re self sufficient. We don’t need hand holding in most cases. Just good documentation. We can handle the rest. Grandma and uncle tom can’t. :v: :wink:

4 Likes