[Project_owners] Clarification for a SeaMonkey User
mab at faser.net
Tue Sep 16 02:44:03 EDT 2003
At 18.31 15/09/2003, you wrote:
>There is no Killer feature in Mozilla that gives IE users a reason to change.
>Mozilla as a platform is another story. If the Mozilla platform had a wide
>range of applications in addition to just the birds, something similar to
>KDE or Gnome, that could run on any system and could be bundled on a
>single CD, then Windows users would have far more reasons to install the
>package, but that isn't going to happen as long as the Mozilla Foundation
>remains fixated on the birds ignoring the people who want to use the
>Mozilla platform to extend the usability of the birds as well as creating
IMHO there is no way to move general users from IE to Mozilla. They don't
care of extra Mozilla feature and Mozilla has lost the browser battle.
That's a fact.
Changing the name of the browser was not a good choice. I see every day a
lot of people confused about these "new" FB browser. When I have to talk
to a customer and I want to propose to develop an intranet in XUL that
works only in Mozilla, they look me strange. I have to reassure them saying
that Mozilla is Netscape! If I say Netscape I have more chance, saying
Mozilla is more difficult, saying Firebirds is impossible. I think that FB
would not be publicized until it is finished. Otherwise I have to say that
NS is dead, Mozilla is going to dead and the Firebirds release is the 0.6.
From my developer point of view, my concern about the transition is that I
have to check the extension in 2 browsers and I don't know when FB will be
released and if my extensions will still work.
Anyway I thinks that not everything is lost. I think the only chance is to
leverage on developers side. If developers can find a good enviroment to
code applications, the users will move too. The easiest target are web
developers instead of desktop developers. I don't belive too much at
Mozilla as a desktop platform like a JVM.
Now XPFE is so close to be the perfect toolkit to develop web based
applications. Everyday a lot of web developers are fighting with DHTML to
make web browser applications similar to the desktop one because customers
ask for complex applications that can be loaded from a browser and that can
I think XUL is so close to be a Nirvana for web developers, but XUL need
more attentions about remote applications. I mean the possibility to load
<!ENTITY> from a relative URL and not only from chrome, the ability to use
XMLHttpRequest() with simpler security policy, better web services
implementation, improvement in the xul widgets like the ability to edit
tree etc etc.
I know people who tried to use XUL and liked it, but for these limitations
and for the lack of clear documentations (xul planet is not enought they
ask for something like the PHP Manual) they move away and they are going to
Flash MX or to Java Web Start. Do you see the new Flash MX with AS 2 (JS 2)
and Macromedia Central? They talk about Rich Client Applications.
They are trying to do what Mozilla/XUL can do today with only some
Maybe this post is a little OT, but my main concern is that we are wasting
resource when we just have a complete suite and we have to produce "only"
an API and good documentations to help programmers.
More information about the Project_owners