Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla - From Browser to Desktop Environment?

Posted by Cliff on from the gecko-promotion dept.

An anonymous reader asks: "A while ago OEone released a thingy called Penzilla which was basically a Mozilla desktop environment like GNOME or KDE. Everything was written in either DHTML or XUL and ran within the Gecko engine. Recently a new project, Robin was released that is basically a desktop running within Mozilla using XUL as well. There is NetWindows that attempts something similar for more interactive web applications. What advantages would a 100% Mozilla engine desktop hold and what are the disadvantages compared to much more complex environments such as GNOME or KDE? Is a Mozilla desktop possibly more elegant or efficient for the typical user? Is the XUL runtime environment more robust than troublesome C/C++ widgets? It seems like most applications could make the transition as the growing collection of Firebird extensions like ChatZilla and Gnusto and have shown."

4 of 68 comments (clear)

  1. Let's see... by perlchild · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Microsoft doesn't need to explain why it's system is better with the browser integrated into everything, everyone takes it as fact(or debunks it at myth)
    Why treat mozilla differently?

    No seriously, I imagine the goal is that since mozilla is cross-platform and has a bunch of nifty features, a full-blown desktop written in it would be able to compete with java's desktop system for thin clients and similar ideas(probably with great success, as while Mozilla itself is fairly large, it's also quite a capable system, and fairly self-contained).

    It has many features modern thin clients would need or at the very least, like to have(software updates downloaded from the web, ssl/tls based security, multiple user profiles), it supports most "thin clients" activities except for document production(by itself: the ibm-related announcement on slashdot today, about a web-available office suite makes that a non-issue) With the proper XUL environment available, you have almost an os-toolkit, themable/skinnable for those so enclined... What more could you want? (Yes you need an OS under it, but at least, you're not limited to the choice of any particular one)

  2. Re:unnecessary by MacJedi · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It fell apart, because "each tool" has to work with every other tool in existance.
    You make it sound like this is impossible to achieve. All that you need is a well defined API. What do traditional unix command line tools all have in common and use to communicate with eachother with? STDIN, STDOUT and STDERR!

    Sure, for GUIs you need a bit more: copy and paste and drag and drop, and maybe something along the lines of Mac OS X's "Services" but I don't think the unix "each tool does one thing well" paradigm is doomed to failure.

    --
    2^5
  3. your desktop might already be a browser by kendoka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the sense that your Windows desktop is just an explorer window that doesn't have a bar at the top, you already have a browser as your interface in that the windows are all capable of hosting HTML.

    I think with Win95 OSR2, a lot of the UI was rewritten. I remember hearing that help was redone as HTML, and at least some of those extended views we see in 2000 and XP is done in HTML. Anyone remember Active Desktop? My take on it was it was just one or more MSHTML controls hosted in the explorer window. Neat idea, didn't really serve a purpose... That was always my take on the can't seperate ie and windows arguement - they used the MSHTML control in a lot of different things...

  4. browser-based, opensrc, application alternatives by dan_bethe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This article discusses a new browser-based spreadsheet application in testing, just announced today on the OSCom mailing list. It also discusses browser-based open source applicaton alternatives in general.