Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Roll Your Own Browser

Posted by timothy on from the picture-your-own-throbber dept.

davidwboswell writes "Oreillynet is running an article about how to create your own browser with Mozilla. This is a follow-up to a previous article that surveyed many of the alternate Mozilla browsers currently available including Chimera, Galeon, Phoenix and Aphrodite."

143 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. Security by JohnHegarty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's there alot of security issues with that. I wouldn't use a browser from some guy called 'bob' that i never heard of, becuase he could be sending all my credit card details back to his server.

    This is going to help the likes of the people who added all those "extras" to kazza.

    --
    Cruise TT
    1. Re:Security by DonkeyJimmy · · Score: 1

      ...there alot of security issues with that.

      hmmm, if only we had some kind of guide that would help us to write secure web applications... but where?

      --
      "Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." -Philips
    2. Re:Security by Vengie · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You or the moron who modded you up?

      What in the name of all hell are you TALKING about?

      Read the freaking article.

      And worse comes to worst, you look at the freaking source yourself.

      Jesus!

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    3. Re:Security by mnordstr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mozilla is not a web application. Slashdot is a web application...

    4. Re:Security by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 1
      Slashdot is a web application...which contains an unterminated string called "Timothy". Look for this article again in about 12 hours.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    5. Re:Security by BrookHarty · · Score: 2


      And worse comes to worst, you look at the freaking source yourself.

      Do you think Grandma can also fix bugs in the source when she finds them? There are non-programmers out there. They need to have some level of trust, and "Bob's WebBrowser and Tackle Shop" is going to be the perfect excuse for paladin.

      This is why Paladin is going to sell. Cant trust those nasty OpenSource programmers, afraid of viruses? Trust our "Microsoft Signed(TM)" programs. Gives you those nice warm fuzzies about buying things on the Internet. Feel secure about your "Trusted" OS.

      Hell, Grandma and Joe Six pack will be first in line to buy a Secure and easy to use OS with all the M$ support included.

      You arnt against Security are you? Damn terrorist.

      -
      A version of Links that does gfx - http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~clock/twibright/l inks/

    6. Re:Security by Alsee · · Score: 2

      It's there alot of security issues with that. I wouldn't use a browser from some guy called 'bob' that i never heard of, becuase he could be sending all my credit card details back to his server.

      That goes for any EXE. If you download an run a game it could patch your browser to do exactly that.

      Ironicly, since the browser is such an obvious place for a threat like that, in many cases it will be a safer than your typical download.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:Security by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      Funny, I feel safer with an unchecked download from some random hacker.
      All the M$ support included *STILL* can't get rid of Code Red.

  2. Hooray by Adam9 · · Score: 2

    Oh yay, make it eve neasier for ISPs to have their own "customized" web browser. On second thought.. this would promote Mozilla. That's good, right?

    1. Re:Hooray by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would promote the underlying technology, which is what counts in the end. However, it would now have the support of a large customer base.

      What sounds more threatening to an online store owner...thousands of pissed-off AOL and Earthlink customers who can't navigate the site due to non-compliant coding, or thousands of geeks using some relatively unknown web browser?

      --
      Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
  3. my 0.2� by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the problem is not 'rolling your own browser' the problem is. it's always the same browser. no matter how much i put around the mozilla gecko engine it still stinks because of the XUL crap it uses.

    e.g right now we are discussing how we perfectly embedd galeon 2 into gnome 2.4 but the problem is that we still get XUL widgets shown which is really annoying. the best way to have gecko embedable is to have it split up e.g. gecko as own library that you can get as source, unpack, configure && make && make install. but this is more a dream that will probably never come true. it would be cool to have a native gecko library where we can say --enable-gtk2 and it gets native gtk widgets shown whenever it renders page. but the whole mozilla cruft we are dealing with right now makes it in no way embedable. it's like tieing an egg to a hen.

    1. Re:my 0.2� by Nicopa · · Score: 2

      Crap. Current web standards *require* you render your own widgets. You are supposed to alter any aspect of them. So, designing a web browser today is really the same as designing a toolkit! You have element positioning, form widgets, styling.

    2. Re:my 0.2� by buswolley · · Score: 1
      Isn't it open source? Do something about it then.

      What!?! What have I done?

      Hmm...

      You're right.. they should do something about that thingee..there in that other thingee..

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    3. Re:my 0.2� by mnordstr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Mozilla provides its own widgets, that's what makes it so great. As a developer it's really good to know that the widgets are and look the same on any platform. That's what makes Mozilla great for embedded applications!

    4. Re:my 0.2� by DrXym · · Score: 2

      Form widgets are XUL because the CSS specs say can be stylized.

    5. Re:my 0.2� by Golias · · Score: 5, Funny
      Tonight on DIY: How to make your own browser, using only Mozila!

      Tomorrow on DIY: How to make a working automobile, starting with nothing but a brand new Nissan Maxima.

      Friday on DIY: How to make a Pizza with nothing but a phone and $15.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    6. Re:my 0.2� by dcstimm · · Score: 1

      heh you are so right, I am currently trying to "Find the source to Phoenix" which is kinda weird. Its basicly Mozilla+trunk + mozilla/browser + mozilla/toolkit (from their cvs server) then you have to enable some configure options to get phoenix. So In a sense phoenix's source is bigger than mozillas but because of the configure options it makes a smaller binary. WASTEFUL! So if you want to compile it it still takes the same amount of time mozilla does. I cant believe they have done it this way. At least with galeon2 it just links to mozilla. So you can remove galeon2 if you wanted with out touching mozillla. weird. oh well...

      --
      keanmarine.com
    7. Re:my 0.2� by DrXym · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Perhaps you can but then it's the small matter of reimplementing form widgets for every platform / GUI you wish to run Mozilla. In theory this might be possible but you run into all kinds of mess when dealing with clipping, accessibility, printing, tying GUI events to Moz and vice versa. In other words the kind of hell that drove Mozilla to XUL widgets in the first place.


      A better solution would be to hook the XUL form widgets up to the existing theme engine support in Mozilla. Then if GTK supplies a rendering engine (does it? I don't know) then it can render in the GTK style but not break the CSS standards support.

    8. Re:my 0.2� by be-fan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cross-platform similarity is only useful for a very limited range of applications. For the most part, its just annoying to users who want all their apps to look the same.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    9. Re:my 0.2� by roca · · Score: 2

      I'd like to know how to render a widget UNDER a translucent PNG using GTK or Qt (or Win32 or Carbon, for that matter).

    10. Re:my 0.2� by Negatyfus · · Score: 1

      I actually like having my Mozilla look exactly the same on Linux and Windows. Why would I want Mozilla to look exactly like all the other Windows applications? What's the gain? I suppose I'm not one of those lusers that panic whenever they see a pop-up window saying: 'WARNING! Your computer is currenting broadcasting an IP address, which gives hackers a way to begin hacking your computer!' or an expert on GUI's, but still. It has never bothered me. Windows bothered me when I came from DOS, because everything looked the same. Didn't like it at all. Oh, the humanity. I'm ranting. Please, carry on intelligently.

    11. Re:my 0.2� by orangesquid · · Score: 2

      How come nobody *ever* mentions skipstone? It, in my opinion, is better than galeon because it lacks the gnome cruft (especially frustrating on machines where gnome isn't installed, and since galeon requires many pieces of it, you're eating up loads of disk space for just a browser)

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    12. Re:my 0.2� by Negatyfus · · Score: 1

      I don't see the problem in having an application use different widgets than your desktop environment or some other applications. I mean... come on.

      "Oh my God! There's this... weird blue button with curved edges on my screen! What do I do?! What do I do?! It's nothing like my square gray button!"

      I don't even find it ugly. It doesn't decrease my productivity. It makes for a nice diversion where everything looks boring and exactly the same otherwise. XUL isn't that slow on my (relatively out-dated) P3-800 machine, Mozilla isn't that bloated... What's everyone screaming about? This has been going on for years, when higher-level programming languages became popular. Face it, assembly is so passe...

    13. Re:my 0.2� by roca · · Score: 2

      > A better solution would be to hook the XUL form
      > widgets up to the existing theme engine support
      > in Mozilla.

      That is, in fact, exactly what we are doing. Sometime reasonably soon we should have all XUL and HTML widgets rendered using the platform theme.

      On WinXP we already use the WinXP theme to render XUL widgets. There are some problems with GTK themes that are holding things up for GTK.
      http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id= 142334
      is the bug for turning on GTK theme support in XUL.

    14. Re:my 0.2� by be-fan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because consistancy is important in asthetics. I'd really hate to see what you're house looks like...

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    15. Re:my 0.2� by be-fan · · Score: 2

      I have a question. Do your curtains match your sheets? Do your pants match your shirt? Asthetics is important to a majority of the world's population. Consistancy is an important part of asthetics.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    16. Re:my 0.2� by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yeah, great for develoopers, a total nightmare for GUI designers, users, and usability experts.

      *sigh* when will programers ever learn...

    17. Re:my 0.2� by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Because consistancy is important in asthetics. I'd really hate to see what you're house looks like...

      Not just that, but consistantly is very important in design and usability.

      When grandma just gets the hang of all the widgets on OS-Whatever, then fires up Mozilla, only to be greated by a set of widgets she has never seen before, how do you think she's going to react? She probably won't understand it, and close it.

    18. Re:my 0.2� by jez_f · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this were true then why does M$ insist on messing about with the UI every time there is an OS upgrade. Win 3.1 was consistant (though V different from Win 3) 9x/NT were consistant but different, so we had to get used to a new UI and then XP is all different again. To my knowlege /bin is still in the same place it allways has been. If you wrote a XUL app it would be the same accross all platforms so people will not get confused when you upgrade or change the backend. Anyway if you really want I am sure there is a mozilla skin that makes it look like IE. Personaly I think XUL has a lot of potential. I have only looked into it, but it is next on my list of skills to learn.

    19. Re:my 0.2� by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2
      If this were true then why does M$ insist on messing about with the UI every time there is an OS upgrade.

      It's MS. Since when has MS been the hallmark of anything good?

      On the other had, look at Mac OS, The only dramatic change came about in OS X, which is an entirly new OS.
      And if you've ever used OS X, you see that there is a big focus on consistancy in GUI between apps.

    20. Re:my 0.2� by rycamor · · Score: 2

      I understand the desire to streamline, and get XUL out of the browser's own interface.

      However, I also see the promise that XUL has for application developers. It's a dream for distributed applications, especially for corporate intranet stuff.

      So, my question is: even if you remove XUL from the browser UI, as with Galeon, will the Gecko rendering engine still render XUL that I might want to load via HTTP?

      If so, I see this as a Good Thing: we can have a hundred different browsers, but each will correctly render complex GUI widgets, which are a mess to handle with DHTML/Javascript, and each of which can be queried and updated at will. Sounds like a perfect answer to .NET on the client side.

      Anyone with a little more knowledge who can clarify things here?

      Thanks.

    21. Re:my 0.2� by rycamor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm with you all the way ;-). I personally think XUL is a great thing (shows great promise for distributed apps in general).

      Mozilla performs just fine on my PII 600 (Win2K), my AMD 550 (Win98) and my Celeron 500 (Slackware). Phoenix (lite Mozilla) performs even better, beats IE hands down.

      And I think the skinnable thing is a perfect way to have a little fun, and relieve the gray boredom of computing. My wife (not a computer geek) loves Mozilla. Everyone I know who is not a computer whiz still thinks Mozilla is great when I show them.

      What kills me is this elitist "no fun" attitude I see programmers so often take: as if the interface always needs to be so dumbed down that it's just made for Granny, and there can _never_ be even the slightest deviation from the standardized desktop. Well, if it's only good for Granny, then it's no good to anyone else. People are complex. No one I know is "Granny". My mother is probably the most technophobic person I know, and even she can handle the concept that a button might look a little different. I personally think different things _should_ look different (a little line I stole from Larry Wall).

      And anyway, if you want a browser for Granny, XUL is the perfect way to roll an ultra-simple layout, with big typeface, etc... Granny is hardly the one who is going to care if a widget takes an extra half second to pop up.

    22. Re:my 0.2� by Negatyfus · · Score: 1

      I don't care about my curtains and sheets. I always wear black. I hate the majority of the world's population. Consistency really isn't a big deal for me.

    23. Re:my 0.2� by Negatyfus · · Score: 1

      So what if I use KDE and Mozilla would use all-native GTK widgets? Oh God! My consistency! It's... gone!

    24. Re:my 0.2� by orangesquid · · Score: 1

      No, that's my point---skipstone has very, very few dependencies, compared to Galeon.

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    25. Re:my 0.2� by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      Because consistancy is important in asthetics. I'd really hate to see what you're house looks like...
      Hmmmm. The kitchen looks like the bedroom looks like the bathroom??? Or is it kitchens look like kitchens, bedrooms look like bedrooms, and bathrooms look like bathrooms? Seems like aesthetics demands that form and function not be too far separated from each other.
      The question is which consistancy is more important, the application across systems or the applications that are on a system.

  4. How to name your browser by tmark · · Score: 2, Funny

    In a followup, Richard Stallman indicated that if you use Emacs or any of a laundry list of utilities in modifying said Mozilla, the resulting browser name must be prefixed with 'GNU'.

  5. dreaming of centralized cookies and bookmarks by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On OS X and Linux (and occasionaly FreeBSD) I've used: Mac Explorer, Chimera, OmniWeb, Mozilla, Konquerer, Lynx, and now playing with Phoenix..

    If only they could share bookmarks, cookie preferences, and site passwords. Across machines! Securely! Is anybody working on this? Is LDAP the answer?

    1. Re:dreaming of centralized cookies and bookmarks by bytesmythe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is the same issue as the "roaming profile" problem.

      It would seem that the easiest way to implement something like this would be to have a small (probably USB-based) device like one of those USB keyring "drives" that you use to store this kind of basic information. Then have a standard in which different systems (KDE, Gnome, Windows, browsers, email clients, etc.) will check for the device and try to load preferences from it.

      Since you could encrypt the information on the device and require a password to access it, it would be fairly secure, plus you don't have to trust someone else's distributed network.

      --
      bytesmythe
      Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
      -- Scott Meyer
    2. Re:dreaming of centralized cookies and bookmarks by Nicopa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, the ansert for that question is a little known protocol called ACAP, which is designed for remote profiles, profile sharing. e.g. In ACAP a client can register for dynamic updates, so all open applications dynamically change their settings at the same time!

    3. Re:dreaming of centralized cookies and bookmarks by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Informative

      And here is a link: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/acap/

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    4. Re:dreaming of centralized cookies and bookmarks by GMontag · · Score: 2

      Umm, in Netscape 7.0 under "Bookmarks" it has a menue item called "Imported IE Favorites" that contains all of the "Favorite Places" that I have bookmarked in my IE Browser on the same machine.

      might want to try that, or even share the bookmark files/folders/directories of each machine across a network.

      BTW, I found this N7.0 feature by accident, not trying to sound like some browser expert kuz I ain't.

      --
      Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
    5. Re:dreaming of centralized cookies and bookmarks by digidave · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, all we need is some kind of centralized login system to do this. It could hold all of our browser data, credit card number, etc to make browsing the web easier.

      Now all we need to find is a company that wants to write software to control all online transactions, profide centralized login and store our private information.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    6. Re:dreaming of centralized cookies and bookmarks by reaper20 · · Score: 2

      You're dreaming of Bug 124029.

    7. Re:dreaming of centralized cookies and bookmarks by diamondc · · Score: 1

      I suppose someone could just write a bookmarks/cookies server which would listen on a port, and when you open up your webbrowser, the browser would retrieve all the information.

      --
      "I keep looking in the want-ads under 'revolutionary' but there don't seem to be any listings.. "
    8. Re:dreaming of centralized cookies and bookmarks by BroadbandBradley · · Score: 3, Informative

      go and see ZillaVilla.com for information about roaming profiles and a list of bugs on Bugzilla that are related. Roaming profiles don't work YET, but hopefully will soon.

      --
      "The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
    9. Re:dreaming of centralized cookies and bookmarks by plover · · Score: 2
      Hey, we just had this discussion!

      The resolution was syncml.org, a protocol and spec for universal syncing of data. I bet bookmarks are in there if you look hard enough.

      --
      John
    10. Re:dreaming of centralized cookies and bookmarks by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      I do NOT want my /. login and my credit card info to ever be stored in the same place.

  6. Aphrodite by kalidasa · · Score: 2

    It's a shame development on Aphrodite has slowed to a crawl. Have you seen the Sullivan skin? It would really look good on my iBook.

    1. Re:Aphrodite by mrseigen · · Score: 1

      To tell you the truth I haven't heard of it before now. I might download and run it when I get back to my main machine, though. The site isn't very specific about what (other than skins) is different from normal Moz.

    2. Re:Aphrodite by kalidasa · · Score: 2

      That's largely because it dates back to the day when skins weren't properly integrated with Mozilla. The main differences now are in skins and menu, and the total recall engine.

    3. Re:Aphrodite by Kircle · · Score: 1

      To tell you the truth I haven't heard of it before now.

      Aphrodite came about because the original modern theme was just plain dog ugly. On the other hand, the current modern theme is actually pretty good, so people aren't nearly as excited about Aphrodite as when it was first started.

      --

      -- Kircle

    4. Re:Aphrodite by thales · · Score: 2

      Aphrodite Development slowed down because of the constantly changing APIs while Mozilla was being developed. It was rewritten several times without adding any new features just to keep up with the APIs. Right now Aphrodite is on hold because the primary developer (Me) has picked up a free lance job in addition to his day job. 16 to 18 days don't leave much time for Aphrodite, and of course software you are being paid to work on takes precedance over free software like Aphrodite. I'm hoping to resume development on Aphrodite later this year when the project I'm working on ships.
      Thales aka John Dobbins

      --
      Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
  7. Rejected submission. You bastards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    2002-09-25 15:02:41 Hackers Fuck with Mozilla, Get Baby Browsers (articles,news) (rejected)

    1. Re:Rejected submission. You bastards. by $ArgonLil · · Score: 1

      I hate it when people are so immature. Anyways, Aphrodite is a shame, it was so nice. Anyways, lall the DEvs listed on www.mozilla.org seem to be dead, except for Chimera and maybe to more. This article is a little weird, but may help. Kudos to them.

  8. Phoenix rocks by bytor4232 · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    I am running Phoenix right now, release 0.1. For such a low release number, it sure is stable. I was able to play Java games with the Java plugin for Mozilla at Yahoo Games, as well as look at several heavy flash sites with the Mozilla Shockwave Flash plugin. It did crash twice at Geddy Lee's solo album site, and at ST:10 site. To be completely honest, those sites crash sometimes with Galeon and Mozilla with the same plugin, so I dont actually think its Phoenix's fault, and the sites didnt crash every time with Phoenix either.

    All in all, Phoenix is a great little browser especially for a 0.1 release. However if you do use it, it may crash at heavy sites such as Shockwave based sites. Very impressive for a 0.1 release. I'm loving it.

    Besides, the spinner and name just kick serious ass.

    --
    -- 4 8 15 16 23 42
    1. Re:Phoenix rocks by cetan · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse small numbers with poor release performance. The underlying Mozilla code is from the 1.2 branch. You're running Mozilla 1.2 in a new (and fresh?) way.

      --
      In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
  9. Come back again...for a better Round by buswolley · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This article seems to be one that can't be truly discussed until people mess around with the information the article gives.

    Maybe in a few weeks /. should come back to this and then ask what people think.

    or am I totally off-base?

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    1. Re:Come back again...for a better Round by brianking · · Score: 1

      Correct. This article only really scratches the surface. I only give detail in how to load content into the browser widget and some basic navigation.

      It is really designed to give you an idea of how easy it is to get started, and as I state, the rest is up to you.

      Perhaps I will do a follow-up some time, but I have not plans to write my own browser right now! My advice ... look at the code in LXR and play around.

  10. mozilla.exe as explorer.exe by zeepers · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Right now, both mozilla.exe and explorer.exe are using about 25mb of ram on my machine. Are there any projects in the works to use mozilla as explorer? All that would be needed would be a program launcher, taskbar, and system tray system, right?

    1. Re:mozilla.exe as explorer.exe by aao-brad · · Score: 4, Informative
      Have you checked out the alternative shell scene? You can find cool alternatives for explorer all over. A mozilla-based shell would be interesting, though.

      Check out Desktopian for more info.

      --
      "What kind of chip you got in there, a Dorito?" - Weird Al Yankovic
    2. Re:mozilla.exe as explorer.exe by Suppafly · · Score: 2

      I've honestly been predicting that a future version of AOL will do just this. AOL already overwrites several system .dll's when it installs, it wouldn't be unconceivable for them to replace explorer.exe in the future. Most aol users already think that aol is their operating system anyway, and with all the mozilla projects to add X feature that really should be a separate program into mozilla its entirely possible that in the future aol will try and slide something like this in.

    3. Re:mozilla.exe as explorer.exe by rabidcow · · Score: 1
      There is MEOW, but:

      I am looking for someone to plan and organize the project with me (preferably someone with experience at Mozilla programming and cvs), and looking for people to work on the project. I will be here to provide support and organize, but won't be able to do a lot of the coding at the moment (I'm working on Mozilla and also have a programming job where I am managing the project). If you want to help, then please email me.
  11. Is excessive plurality really useful? by hobbs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it really useful to encourage more people to create more "forks" based on the gecko engine? I'm not against people playing around or doing whatever they want, but shouldn't we encourage people to consider working together more on some of these alternatives?

    It's a thin line to avoid the balloon and bloat of Mozilla while providing functionality that many desire. Many projects are doing this, but each needs more developers to seal the leaks and fix the cracks.

    1. Re:Is excessive plurality really useful? by Arcturax · · Score: 3, Informative

      At the least it will be fun watching M$ run around like crazy trying to mimic every innovation that comes along in 100 different browsers.

      It also opens the possibility for more competition, open source style. Look at the Mac for example. On Mac OS X, Chimera is taking off like a rocket among Mac users on OS X because it is fast and beautiful looking since it uses native Aqua, unlike IE 5.2 for the Mac. I for one have switched off of IE 5.2 and onto Chimera for 99% of my browsing, only suffering IE on sites that Chimera can't handle properly yet, which isn't many.

      In short, choice is good, more choice is better. Who cares what browsers people use, as long as they conform to standards and work the way they like?

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    2. Re:Is excessive plurality really useful? by catch23 · · Score: 1

      But 100 browsers isn't necessarily good for the opensource community either. Just look at how many linux distros we have already! Sure, you can create your own linux distro too, but why do we want so many? It creates confusion for the end-users and nobody will really know what improvements each individual browsers bring.

    3. Re:Is excessive plurality really useful? by aengblom · · Score: 2

      Is it really useful to encourage more people to create more "forks" based on the gecko engine? I'm not against people playing around or doing whatever they want, but shouldn't we encourage people to consider working together more on some of these alternatives?

      Be warned: I know nothing.

      Anyway, it seems that the Mozilla project is becoming pretty mature and adding/subtracting features is difficult and time consuming. Mostly because The Project is heavy on administration. I think Moz benefits greatly by encouraging many smaller high-risk ideas to be tried out away from the main project. When that idea is more refined, it should have a greater chance of sneaking back into the mothership.

      No doubt the lobbying and politics within the much larger Moz project would hamper more radical, but possibly better evolutionary changes.

      That it is a brower and not Linux is quite important. Few want to try out a new OS for couple tweaks, but a 10 MB browser doesn't strike me as very hard.

      --


      So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
    4. Re:Is excessive plurality really useful? by snowlick · · Score: 1

      only suffering IE on sites that Chimera can't handle...

      You know, a lot of sites "Chimera can't handle" are probably sites that don't conform to standards. IE is very "forgiving" as far as standards go, and people have been taking advantage of that. IMO, that is a good thing. Use what is available, right? Standards need to conform to what people want and are using. It's silly to ignore what is most popular in user-land because of outmoded standards. Like everything, they need to be updated.

      For example, I use Konqueror on this machine. To play with my cute little neopet, I have to switch to my Windows machine running IE because the Konquerorites (and others) refuse to allow extended text in alt tags. Like language, you have to update yourself to adapt to what users are doing. Otherwise, you'll end up speaking something entirely useless.

      Chris

      --
      Crystal Meth: Would you ingest somthing made from a poisonous gas and an explosive metal? You do it every day -- Salt!
    5. Re:Is excessive plurality really useful? by Shuh · · Score: 1
      Is it really useful to encourage more people to create more "forks" based on the gecko engine? I'm not against people playing around or doing whatever they want, but shouldn't we encourage people to consider working together more on some of these alternatives?
      That's because you are thinking in browser-centric terms instead of people-centric terms. Some developers (people) don't necessarily want to support and trouble-shoot a project they didn't create. But they will be happy to use Gecko to realize their own "vision" of what a browser should be.

      Think of it as kinder-garten for a new and up-coming developer base that may have more to contribute to OSS than just doing duct-work.
      It's a thin line to avoid the balloon and bloat of Mozilla while providing functionality that many desire. Many projects are doing this, but each needs more developers to seal the leaks and fix the cracks.
      And now that there is something new, fresh, and important like a fully-featured browsers and alternatives-to-Microsoft in the offing, more developers will be attracted to OSS. You see this only as a way of splitting up an established OSS developer base, but opportunity like this is actually a way of growing a new OSS developer base. You are making the mistake of seeing this as a ZSG, "Zero-Sum Game."
    6. Re:Is excessive plurality really useful? by ajs · · Score: 2

      Yes.

      No wait, let me think about it <pause for a beat> YES!

      You want to have as many of these projects as you can, and then over the next few years most will be shaken out. Even now, Mozilla is feeling the pressure to work on performance. Why? Because Galeon, Konqeror, Phoenix and lynx (:) are all faster on UNIX and UNIX-like systems. This forces Mozilla to evaluate its place. Do they want to drop the browser as a reference effort and just focus on the "browser-building toolkit"? If not, they need to compete on the performance level or on some other level (e.g. bring the mailer and the browser closer together and make that interaction something worth the slow-down, which it is not right now).

      Mozilla is a great browser, and if Galeon weren't an even better one, I'd use it. Everyone wins because of this competition, just as everyone wins because KDE and GNOME have both worked so had to be at least as featureful and usable as eachother.

    7. Re:Is excessive plurality really useful? by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 2
      I think a lot of browsers are emphasizing UI elements more than Technology. I use Galeon more for its UI than its speed -- the tabbing works Just Right, and overall it pleases me.

      You can't take all the UI innovation and just put it all in one Super Browser. That will suck -- UI is about what you leave out, not just what you include. No one really knows what The Goal is for all these -- there is no clear vision of what The Most Usable browser will look like. So we have lots of people experimenting with different ideas.

    8. Re:Is excessive plurality really useful? by blibbleblobble · · Score: 2

      "Is it really useful to encourage more people to create more "forks" based on the gecko engine?"

      Example: on TheOpenCD (CD of GNU applications for windows) this was discussed: do we include Mozilla?

      Obvious answer: yes of course. Mix of NPL, MPL, GPL, so we could distribute it.

      Later answer: no. The mozilla team consider it a technology-demo for tecchies only, and do not want to support lusers trying to use it. Their answer: "please don't distribute it without putting your own branding on, or use a derivative [netscape, k-meleon, beonix...]"

      So a slashdot article to show people how to create such derivatives, with links to a book? Great.

  12. why is that... by g0st · · Score: 5, Funny

    why is it that all alternative browers sound like topless dancer names? opereta, phoenix, aphrodite..

    1. Re:why is that... by BlueGecko · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, at least on my OS X system, it might have something to do with the fact that if you type "top" in the terminal, Mozilla is always listed as having really big numbers...

    2. Re:why is that... by Dan+Crash · · Score: 2

      Would you rather use a browser called Fred? :)

      --
      He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
    3. Re:why is that... by nevershower · · Score: 1

      My text editor is called Joe ;)

      --
      Look, ma! I'm a karma whore
    4. Re:why is that... by wwwgregcom · · Score: 1

      ahh the memories, the good times, Mozilla and Gecko giving me lap dances at the club, those were the days.

      --
      What signature defines me as a person?
    5. Re:why is that... by Tony-A · · Score: 1

      Joe's Own Editor.
      Reason enough to use it. (Remember the acronym if not the name;)

  13. galeon != xul by distributed.karma · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Go check the Galeon manifesto. It does not use XUL. In fact one of the reasons Galeon was started is because they don't like the bloat of XUL.

    --

    --
    If you moderate this, then your children will be next.

    1. Re:galeon != xul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      yes right, GALEON does not use XUL but i am more refering to the GECKO part that gets embedded into galeon. the stuff you see within GALEON while browsing a webpage and the widgets you see inside is XUL. if you enable 'ask for cookie permission' then you get a XUL dialog popped up etc.. its still not perfect as we would like.

    2. Re:galeon != xul by Cardinal · · Score: 3, Informative

      if you enable 'ask for cookie permission' then you get a XUL dialog popped up etc.. its still not perfect as we would like.

      I don't know what parallel dimension you downloaded galeon from, but when I get a cookie prompt, it comes to me in a GTK dialog.

      Additionally, the widgets used by gecko for rendering forms are native, and Mozilla can be configured to use a number of different toolkits for them.

      One XUL dialog that is still in galeon, however, is the 'accept SSL certificate' dialog, so yes, galeon doesn't have a replacement for everything.

  14. Mozilla Love by dolo666 · · Score: 1

    I just love Mozilla and I think this is a great way to help create some variety on the net. A little while ago, I started looking at rolling my own with Mozilla, and it looks pretty straightforward so I might try it when I can free up some time. The only question I have is about security. Is Mozilla safe after someone else has compiled their own version, or is this cautum dilato?

    I certainly don't suggest installing a custom Mozilla browser from any porn sites!

    Does anyone know if the spyware knuckleheads have exploited this feature yet, either?

    1. Re:Mozilla Love by abdudani · · Score: 1

      yeah ! wait until M$ comes up with a buggy version of Mozilla and say .. see Mozilla is not stable

      kill mozilla like they did to java

    2. Re:Mozilla Love by Suppafly · · Score: 2

      kill mozilla like they did to java

      Kill mozilla like they killed netscape the first time.

  15. Proxy server? by __aawsxp7741 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I could imagine cookies being managed by a proxy server. If you install it locally, at least you could share them among various browsers on one platform. Privacy proxies (e.g. privoxy) already have a lot of the required functionality. You'd just have to implement an interface that alerts you when a cookie is set which your policy doesn't cover. Maybe biscuit does this properly?

    Of course, there's the problem of different users on a machine. Is it possible to run a proxy that only a single user has access to?

    Bookmarks could easily be managed through a small web app. There's a few things like this, check freshmeat.

  16. Free online book by slothdog · · Score: 5, Informative

    Also related is that O'Reilly has released "Creating Applications With Mozilla" under the OPL, and can be found in its entirety here: http://books.mozdev.org/

    (Apologies if this has been mentioned before; I did a quick search and didn't see it.)

    1. Re:Free online book by Micah · · Score: 2

      And it's a great book! I'm spending this week inhaling it and practicing the stuff.

      I submitted it as a story to Slashdot and it was rejected. :/ This book is a lot more important than most of the other recent stories on here. Mozilla has WAY more power than you ever dreamed, and this book tells you how to use it. Highly recommended.

    2. Re:Free online book by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      so resubmit it. things eventually get filtered out of the que, or deleted by one of the que viewers. you'll have a good chance of getting on the front page if you resubmit it on a slow day (sunday) or right before mozilla 1.1a goes final or whatever.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    3. Re:Free online book by Jethro · · Score: 2
      Mozilla has WAY more power than you ever dreamed
      I believe you mean "Mozilla is more powerful than you could ever imagine!"
      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
  17. Finally a choice by notanatheist · · Score: 1

    the new CowboyNeal browser!!

  18. Anti-FSF FUD by Rupert · · Score: 2

    I think the FSF is fighting a losing battle with the whole GNU/Linux thing, but the reasons they are fighting it are a lot more valid than you imply.

    The Linux kernel is called Linux. It doesn't matter that it was edited in emacs and compiled with gcc. It's Linux.

    GNU/Linux refers to distributions. If you package Linux and GNU, in such a way that there is no option not to install the GNU part, it's a GNU/Linux distribution. There may be GNU/Linux/X distributions (maybe Lindows is a GNU/Linux/X/Wine distribution), but I am not aware of any Linux distributions that allow you the option of not installing GNU.

    --

    --
    E_NOSIG
    1. Re:Anti-FSF FUD by waynetv · · Score: 1
      The Linux kernel is called Linux. It doesn't matter that it was edited in emacs and compiled with gcc. It's Linux.
      The Linux kernel? You mean the kernel for the Linux operating system? You refer to Linux as an operating system (distribution) even while trying to point out that Linux is just the name of kernel.

      RMS would like us to say the GNU kernel is called Linux. That's the way it should be but RMS doesn't want Linux to be kernel for GNU (they want HURD) so you can't even say that.
    2. Re:Anti-FSF FUD by Rupert · · Score: 2

      You mean the kernel for the Linux operating system?

      The name of the OS is what's being debated. When I say the Linux kernel I think it's pretty clear which kernel I'm talking about.

      You refer to Linux as an operating system (distribution)

      I referred to a hypothetical Linux distribution that always installed the Linux kernel but gave you the option of whether or not you installed GNU. I don't believe one exists.

      RMS would like us to say the GNU kernel is called Linux.

      My impression is that RMS would like people to refer to GNU/Linux or GNU/HURD as appropriate when referring to the OS, and Linux or HURD when referring to the kernel. I also think he is making too big a deal out of it.

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
  19. How is this different from IE? by NineNine · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've done this several times with IE. All you gotta do is drop the COM object into a VB project. You can literally have your "own" browser in about 30 seconds. How's this any different? If anything, making your own browser with IE seems a hell of a lot easier than using Mozilla. In VB, you can do the whole thing visually, and add code behind the objects and events.

    1. Re:How is this different from IE? by snake_dad · · Score: 2

      One word: cross-platform! And open-source! Two words! Cross-platform and open-source! Free! Three words.. Who's next? :)

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    2. Re:How is this different from IE? by kalidasa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All you gotta do is drop the COM object into a VB project. You can literally have your "own" browser in about 30 seconds. How's this any different?

      Try doing that in any non-Microsoft operating system. THAT'S what's different. You can get Gecko for nearly anything.

    3. Re:How is this different from IE? by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Oh, mister fancy-smancy visual man. Just cuz its visual doesn't make it easier.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    4. Re:How is this different from IE? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

      Or even a $100, Standard Edition one.

    5. Re:How is this different from IE? by slug359 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Actually exactly the same is true for the Gecko engine, there is a COM object for it, you drop it into your VB/Delphi project and use it in 30 seconds.

      It also uses _exactly_ the same properties, methods and events, so you just change the name of the gecko control to the name of your IE control, and it works, I've done it.

    6. Re:How is this different from IE? by stratjakt · · Score: 2

      Or even any dev environment you like that has COM support.

      and the webbrowser control has been there since vb4.0, so even if you wanted to do it in vb, you wouldn't have to shell for .net.

      though you'd never convice this crowd.

      yay mozilla! you're one step closer to being IE!

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    7. Re:How is this different from IE? by Micah · · Score: 2

      Anyone know if that could work with Kylix on Linux?

    8. Re:How is this different from IE? by brettlbecker · · Score: 1

      yeah, and you end up with..... IE, which is crap. A different color crap, but crap nonetheless. And try distributing your new flavor to anyone... M$ will hunt you down. The Mozilla people HOPE you will. And that is the beauty of open-source.

      --
      "We must still have chaos within in order to be able to give birth to a dancing star." --Friedrich Nietzsche
    9. Re:How is this different from IE? by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Try doing that in any non-Microsoft operating system. THAT'S what's different. You can get Gecko for nearly anything.

      Non-MS OS's isn't a realistic concern for user products (as opposed to server products). Whether you develop for consumers or even internally for corporations, multiple OS's on the desktop is a moot point. Browsers aren't used on servers.

    10. Re:How is this different from IE? by kalidasa · · Score: 2

      Non-MS OS's isn't a realistic concern for user products (as opposed to server products). Whether you develop for consumers or even internally for corporations, multiple OS's on the desktop is a moot point. Browsers aren't used on servers.

      What do you call OS X? And last time I checked,there were a few million OS X user machines.

    11. Re:How is this different from IE? by RevAaron · · Score: 2

      But why bother? If you're using IE or Gecko as a COM object in such a manner, you're tying it exclusively to Windows. At that point, why not just use IE, which (to me) seems faster and less memory-hungry than gecko on the same machine?

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    12. Re:How is this different from IE? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      i think VB 5 or 6, i forget which, learning edition, actually has a "web browser" as a sample, complete with back, forward and home buttons.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    13. Re:How is this different from IE? by WNight · · Score: 2

      Because Gecko doesn't come with a set of compromised-level exploits every month. Because Gecko renders standards compliant HTML properly. And, just because Gecko isn't a bloated, OS-tied, piece of crap like IE. Oh, and because using Gecko lets you keep the exact rendering engine on any other platforms you may port to.

      But, other than all of those reasons you mean.

    14. Re:How is this different from IE? by WNight · · Score: 2

      IE not crap? Go to google and search for "IE Exploit". Many of those are huge holes which allow you to read and write local files.

      The only comparable hole in Mozilla was patched before 1.0 and was done quickly once discovered, unlike Microsoft's "We'll fix it when we get to it" attitude.

      Actually, handled by anyone else, IE might not be bad. It's MS that sucks. Relying on their software hurts. I suspect that by now, IE's code is as spaghetti-ish as Netscape's was before they killed it and wrote Mozilla, but because of MS's internal politics it'll never get re-written, it'll just have more and more cruft glued onto it resulting in more interesting bugs.

      If they ever get Palladium working they'll have to face that the biggest threat to user security (which isn't their main focus, security *from* users is...) is IE and they'll probably start only rendering web pages signed by trusted coders or something to avoid fixing it. Chuckle.

  20. Still doesn't fix the "frontpage problem" by Vengie · · Score: 3, Informative

    I hate to be the one to point this out -- I am a big mozilla fan (3 Cheers for optimoz!!) but the real problems lie in the crappy html output of Microsoft Frontpage. Besides...has anyone seen volano chat (http://www.volano.com) in _any browser other than ie_ work properly? (Chatrooms dont scroll, etc) In fact, volanochat didnt even work properly on IE for OSX until Jaguar. *sigh*

    We need a mozilla-esque frontpage replacement. GNU/Dreamweaver anyone? ;)

    --
    When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
    1. Re:Still doesn't fix the "frontpage problem" by phatlipmojo · · Score: 1

      We need a mozilla-esque frontpage replacement.

      What, like Amaya?

      --

      Nice things are nicer than nasty ones.
    2. Re:Still doesn't fix the "frontpage problem" by stratjakt · · Score: 2

      So it's frontpages fault that mozilla can't display the html it generates?

      Maybe the mozilla team could get off their high horses and work with the rest of the world.

      Is something a standard because W3 or the Mozilla guys say so? Or because 90% of browsers on peoples machines say so? Like it or not, you have to face facts sometimes.

      Making mozilla compatible with real life websites is its best hope for the future.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:Still doesn't fix the "frontpage problem" by roukounas · · Score: 1
      We need a mozilla-esque frontpage replacement. GNU/Dreamweaver anyone? ;)

      I am not sure if this is what you wish for, but Quanta looks very promising.

      (Yeah yeah, it is a KDE app and all that but it still impressive)

    4. Re:Still doesn't fix the "frontpage problem" by bogie · · Score: 2

      "So it's frontpages fault that mozilla can't display the html it generates?"

      In a word, Yes.

      If Mozilla were to code for every quirk that is IE specific, they would be recreating IE, and who wants to do that? You also even if you wanted to can't do this on a crossplatform level, because IE isn't a truely crossplatform browser.

      "Making mozilla compatible with real life websites is its best hope for the future"

      Somehow I think Mozilla is doing just fine. Warping an Internet browser to fit Microsoft's vision of the web is what IE is for, you'll excuse Mozilla if they don't want to contribute to a Microsoft only web.

      It sounds to me like you should just stick to using IE, you'll be a lot happier.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    5. Re:Still doesn't fix the "frontpage problem" by bunratty · · Score: 2
      Is something a standard because W3... say so?
      Yes! You've got it!

      Many people make a big deal that these standards are called "recommendations," but this is semantic quibbling. It's like saying that you don't believe in the theory of relativity because it's only a "theory."

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  21. What's Microsoft up to? Roll your own IE. by Embedded+Geek · · Score: 2
    I'm working on a Win CE project these days and have found it a pretty interesting environment to work in (and, yes, I'm a long time MS basher so I find that tough to say that). The fact is that, at least in the CE world, Internet Explorer is modular.

    Platform builder comes with an application called "IESample" which is basically a frame you can tweek to roll your own version of IE. With a few hours of work, I found it pretty easy to modify the beast to match some custom requirements we had to change the page being viewed when an outside stimulus was activated. You can take a look here to see the IE interfaces exposed.

    Again, this is entirely in the CE world. I can not speak to embedded XP or the desktop.

    PS - Several months ago, I was in a week long CE training class. I was amazed that on the day I learned about rolling a version of IE, I clicked on the TV and saw it in the news. An MS exec was testifying in front of congress (the senate?) about how IE was not modular in any way shape or form. Then one of the committee members brought up CE. A shame the news didn't report the exec's reaction...

    --

    "Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."

  22. although I'm sure there are others.. by MoceanWorker · · Score: 1

    K-Meleon is one of my personal favorite Mozilla browsers.. small, fast, stable.. but sadly no work has been put into it for a year now..

    --


    "The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins
  23. ah yes, altering the aspects ... by Unordained · · Score: 1

    which is why setting style='border: 1px solid gray;' works on ... text boxes and textareas ... but not on checkboxes or drop-downs. wonderful. any other things about styling you'd like to mention? i would -love- for all browsers to actually stylize widgets correctly. but they don't. and my users ask me why it is the checkboxes don't look like the text box. or why the drop-down looks funny. or why the textarea, under mozilla, only does word-wrapping if you specify the number of columns, rather than (as you would expect to do) just specify a width, in pixels ...

    yes. i love widgets. i love how they all work alike.

    1. Re:ah yes, altering the aspects ... by Nicopa · · Score: 2

      Don't shift the point. Both Mozilla and Explorer do things with their form control widgets that are imposible to do with the Windows provided ones. So both need to implement their own toolkits.

  24. Just use LWP::UserAgent by Fastball · · Score: 2

    All anybody needs are the headers anyway. Right?

  25. Will you fight O'Reilly? by GuyMannDude · · Score: 2

    Yeah, well I'd like to see you go on the O'Reilly Factor and make that case against Bill O'Reilly yourself! He'll eat you alive! It's one thing to rant here on slashdot but when you're face to face with one of the most hard-hitting no-hold-barred talk show hosts on TV today, you'll find yourself at a loss for words!

    Oh wait...

    GMD

    --
    watch this
  26. Are you talking about.,.. by Steveftoth · · Score: 1

    Do you mean IE?

    Oh that was a low blow.

  27. To the rescue! by Dirtside · · Score: 2
    "...many of the alternate Mozilla browsers currently available including Chimera, Galeon, Phoenix and Aphrodite."
    Does this sound like a team of superheroes to anyone else?
    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    1. Re:To the rescue! by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1


      Chimera sounds more like the evil-bad guy that tries to flush the world-super-hero's Aphrodite, Phoenix and Galeon :)

      --
      --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  28. Atlantis Screenshots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    Atlantis is the name of a Lightweight full GNOME 2 implemented Webbrowser using GTKHTML2. The binary is around 60kb and maybe it will become a Konqueror like Webbrowser alternative for GNOME 2. Personally I think that this is the better solution on the long run for a GNOME 2 Webbrowser since it doesn't depend on Mozilla at all (look at the pain with the Mozilla GTK+ 2 port that we all are waiting for like mad). But I am not sure if I should continue working on it. Interested people may visit irc.gimp.org #atlantis and we can discuss about it.

    Here are SCREENSHOTS Click on Atlantis for Screenshots.

  29. All I want is a Tk Gecko widget by davie · · Score: 1

    That's all I have to say about that.

    --
    slashdot broke my sig
  30. speed by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

    if you are looking for speed, look no further than phoenix.

    --
    I hate sigs.
    1. Re:speed by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      its only an 0.1 release, its pretty speedy for only a 0.1 beta, itll get faster don't worry :)

      --
      I hate sigs.
  31. Re:What's Microsoft up to? Roll your own IE. by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

    I remember when M$ visual basic came with the stuff to create your own webbrowser, 75K compiled, and you had a basic html browser, no table support, but it did render basic formated text.
    When I'm stuck using IE only sites, I use an IE enhancer, Crazy Browser, provides tabs, and other security features that I turn off (cookie/popups/etc), but its free and fills the missing functions.

  32. Gecko API is designed that way by iamr00t · · Score: 1

    It's designed to have same methods as IE component, so it would be easy to port your app to gecko.
    That's at least what i read a year ago somewhere...

    In fact, winamp3 beta could switch between two.

  33. A real miracle by rlwhite · · Score: 1

    Saturday on DIY: How to make a cheap, stable, secure, user-friendly operating system from Microsoft Windows.

    1. Re:A real miracle by hcgtv · · Score: 1

      Sunday, how to read code

  34. Actually, there is a Linux OS that's not GNU/Linux by smcv · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the FAQ for "Revol", a distribution of Linux suitable for use on a Psion Revo (a.k.a. Diamond Mako) electronic organiser:

    • Shouldnt this be called GNU/Linux?

      Actually, no. The argument for GNU/Linux is that most linux systems are a modified version of the GNU system which has been around for longer than linux has. However, Revol uses embedded versions of the standard parts of the operating system normally provided by GNU tools (uclibc instead of glibc, busybox instead of the GNU fileutils etc). So Revol is a non-GNU linux system.

  35. Proposed name for this new wonder by zenst · · Score: 1

    As a roll your own browser based upon mozila it should be called MoRizla or MaRizla - a smokingly fast web browser by any standards.

  36. lizard featured on the cover of the oreilly book by solferino · · Score: 2

    the lizard featured on the cover of the oreilly book advertised off to the side of this article is a frill-necked lizard

    native to that land of weird and wonderful animals, terra australis

    and this lizard is one little terror australis - have a look at some of the pictures on this page

  37. what can I learn from the article? by axxackall · · Score: 1
    This article provides a survey of most currently available Mozilla browsers, so you can try them out and find the one that works best for you.

    It's exactly what I need, let's scroll down looking for any useful info.

    Other Gecko-based browsers include SkipStone and Q.Bati.

    This article was not supposed to be a bookmark list - it's supposed to be "survey", remember? Where is any comparison of SkipStone or Q.Bati to Galeon and K-Meleon?

    Other XUL-based custom browsers include Project Piglet, MercurySpider, and Dino.

    Again, why to mention it here if you don't compare?

    Drawing two groups, XUL and native-toolkit based, is the only thing I can learn from the article. For everything else I should try download every mentioned browser and try myself.

    By the way, as a bookmark list the article is also far from being complete.

    It missed Mozilla Kiosk - "a kiosk style browser".

    It missed Nareau - a collaboration web-based framework.

    And it missed many other interesting projects from mozdev.

    --

    Less is more !
  38. Let me tell you something... by cr0sh · · Score: 2

    At my day job I code in VB - and I have played with XUL in Mozilla. The one nice thing Mozilla/XUL has over IE/VB is that the dev environment is the browser - really, you only need Mozilla, a text editor (I prefer NEdit, but vi will work fine too) - and that's it! I don't have to buy some insanely costly VB IDE system in order to code up my application (and really, when you couple XUL with PHP on Apache, and add MySQL for the backend - you are talking web applications). It's cheap! It's Free! It's Open! What the hell more could I ask for? To be anally raped by Bill?

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  39. Look to Windows for an Answer by OffTheRack · · Score: 1

    The opportunity to cobble together a fully functional custom web browser with minimal effort has been available to COM and VB programmers in Windows since at least 1996. However, I don't see many IE clones floating around.

    Seems to me there is not much demand for that kind of thing. Instead I suspect there will be a diminishment of browsers over time. (e.g., Konqerer, Opera ... etc will die the slow "market share" death that mature markets seem to develop.)

    1. Re:Look to Windows for an Answer by Shuh · · Score: 1
      The opportunity to cobble together a fully functional custom web browser with minimal effort has been available to COM and VB programmers in Windows since at least 1996. However, I don't see many IE clones floating around.
      I view anything Microsoft does (even extinsible stuff) as a tar-Bush. The tar-bush will grow and develop quickly, but nothing will grow in its shadow on the tar-stained ground.
    2. Re:Look to Windows for an Answer by Tony-A · · Score: 2

      Gotta disagree.
      The key is to cobble together a usefully different functional custom web browser with minimal effort. The fundamentals must be in place or you wind up with a big mess.
      For the slow "market share" death that mature markets seem to develop, what about all the wierd basic 4-function calculators? The market's mature when you choose a browser based on the color of its icon.

  40. Joe Six Pack by Vengie · · Score: 2

    .....Paladin? I hope joe six pack refers to abdominal muscles and not beer, because if you're that stupid, you better be cute.

    --
    When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
  41. Re:Actually, there is a Linux OS that's not GNU/Li by Rupert · · Score: 2

    There you go then. I can't speak for RMS, but that sounds OK to me.

    --

    --
    E_NOSIG
  42. Follow the Abi example by psicE · · Score: 2

    My two favorite open source projects are Mozilla and AbiWord. Both use cross-platform graphics libraries. The difference is in how they're executed.

    AbiWord uses wrappers to compile its XP libraries into native widgets, for platforms as diverse as Win32, GTK/GNOME, QNX, and BeOS. Mozilla, instead, uses those same libraries, but uses XUL widgets; they look the same on any platform, but completely inconsistent with the platform they're on.

    Moz should follow Abi's example. Eschew in-browser themes, and just use a wrapper to convert at compile-time to native widgets.

  43. Scissors, Paper, Stone by Tony-A · · Score: 2

    That kind of game, there is no ONE right answer.