Slashdot Mirror
Phoenix 0.2 Web Browser: Lean, Mean Mozilla
GonzoJohn writes "Linux Orbit reviews the Phoenix 0.2 web browser: 'I've never been a huge fan of the Mozilla web browser. It's too big and too slow in my opinion. I like the Opera web browser a lot, but it is closed source, ad supported (for the free version) or costs money (if you want to get rid of the banner ads). Opera is almost exactly what I'm looking for in a web browser as far as features are concerned: fast, browser window tabs, mouse gesturing, and I can configure the interface a little. It has its problems, no doubt. Java and Javascript are big tripping points for it to name just a few. But speed is what I'm looking for.
Then along comes Mozilla's Phoenix web browser.
Phoenix still uses a lot of the Mozilla code. In fact, Phoenix code is based completely on Mozilla code, so the development should move rather quickly. Here is a link to a road map for what it's developers think is a close time-line for its development. Although still in heavy development, I have found Phoenix quite useable and stable even in the early 0.2 release and I continue to download the nightly release every day.'"
Well, the version number in this case is accurate: this is an 0.2 and will act like one from time to time. You can actually expect noticeable changes from day to day.
Beating on nightlys gives immediate feedback on the effects of changes made that day - catch serious bugs early. Being a tester is a way to contribute greatly to a project as Joe User. And if there's a bug that's really been annoying you, you can get the fix straight away instead of having to wait until the next full release.
I think Phoenix is doing it this way because that's how Mozilla does it - and it works very well for Mozilla - and therefore because they can (being in the Mozilla build system).
http://rocknerd.co.uk
This is hardly the first project with the goal of creating a small, quick, standards-compliant browser. I predict it will fail like the rest. The reason is simple. While it is of course true that 90% of the users of any given program will only use 10% of the features, they will all use a slightly different 10%. In the end, leaving out the 90% of features that you deem "bloat" will lose far more than the 10% of customers that you were counting on.
You can even see this in the posts that are showing up here already. People are saying, "wow, this looks great, as soon as it has x I'll switch over from Mozilla," "all it needs is y and IE is history," and "this is z away from beating Opera." But, of course, x != y != z, and the end result is a browser that is unusable for just about everyone.
What these teams don't realize is that the web is used for so many different things today that designing a small, general-purpose web browser is all but impossible. A web browser, if it is complete, is by definition a large, complex system. Microsoft and Mozilla have accepted this. It's time for the rest of us to do so as well.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I think rendering speed is directly related to content. Rendering what is essentially a text file (the MySQL manual) is a different game from rendering a page loaded with tables, forms, images, javascript, and CSS. Furthermore, rendering CSS is different from rendering nested tables and other related layout methods. I wouldn't be surprised if rendering IE javascript is different from rendering Netscape javascript.
So basically, I am sure browsers render different pages at different speeds due to the way their rendering engines work. It is kind of like the old color inkjet printers. Some of them could due full color pictures very well on the right paper, but when it came to black text they really sucked.
XHTML 1.1, 1.0 strict, CSS 1, 2, 3 strict.
Oh, you'll also need an entire quirks engine that mimics IE 5. Good luck!
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The post contains several reasons why IE sucks "it doesn't really do CSS right, it is a security nightmare" but the conclusion is "Mozilla still doesn't come close to IE".
Goddamnit, use the "quickstart" option. Your only complaint is solved.
Mozilla has so many handy features like popup-blocking, tabs and so much more than IE that it beats IE hands down.
And with such colorful language, what Bugs have you opened/fixed?
I didn't say it is bug free, stable and usable are completely different.
Stable - Doesn't crash all of the time (pretty much an opinion)
Usable - Also opinion
Bug Free - See Fantasy
> XUL is one of my least favourite inventions ever
.NET before .NET was invented. It even has a SOAP API all ready for use (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/javascript/synd/2 002/08/30/mozillasoapapi.html). Not to mention, it has already been used to develop some pretty cool stand-alone applications, such as Komodo by ActiveState.
.NET or Java.
Why does everyone keep knocking XUL. Everything I have seen about it tells me _this_ is the way I want to be developing web apps. No more screwing around with DHTML menus, and Javascript trees that don't expand/collapse properly. Yes, its not cross-browser, but it is completely cross-platform.
And its really capable of being more than just a web application framework, but a real distributed app framework. This thing is the answer to the client side of
Fire up Mozilla or Phoenix and spend some time at http://www.xulplanet.com/tutorials/xultu/ or browse the list at http://www.mozdev.org/projects.html
Also, O'Reilly has already devoted a whole section to Mozilla XUL/XPCOM development (http://www.oreillynet.com/mozilla/).
XUL/XPCOM has bindings for Perl and Python, by the way. This is one bandwagon I don't mind jumping on, personally. Much more fun than