In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon P. Lucy) wrote:
> >I think Mozilla-the-browser has to major problems:
> >1) Other Internet apps are tied to the browser
>
> I'd dispute that, that's only true if you want it to be.
Should Illustrator be built into Photoshop? What if the user wants to
use FreeHand? Should Word be built into Photoshop? After all, some users
of Photoshop also use Word and the two apps share some UI toolkit needs.
Even Microsoft hasn't combined IE and OE in the same app although those
apps share some back end libraries.
> >2) The front end isn't native
>
> If that's really a problem for you then why are you involved at
> all?
That's a good question.
Mozilla-the-browser has back end capabilities or potential back end
capabilitites that are of intrest to me. I'm still hoping that one day
an attitude shift will enable Mozilla's back end technology to be used
through an FE at least as good as the FEs of IE 5 for Mac and iCab.
Also, on Solaris I use Mozilla as my primary browser. The Solaris
version works better than the Mac version and the GUI doesn't feel as
out-of-place on Solaris.
> But it also promises the generation of applications very cheaply that
> are to a degree far greater than any other competitive method highly XP.
I agree that easy XPness is attractive from the developer point of view.
However, from the user point of view XPness isn't cool, if the XP UI
isn't as good as or better than the UIs of browsers that have native UIs.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.clinet.fi/~henris/
