1: <h1>Let a Hundred Browsers Bloom</h1>
3: <p>Because Mozilla can be used to create any sort of application, there's no reason why it can't be used to create different types of browsers.
4: Several projects are currently under development independently from the work being done on the default Mozilla browser. This variety is a huge
5: asset because the Mozilla community doesn't have to try to create one browser that is all things to all people.
8: <h2>Who is the Target Audience?</h2>
11: <li>aol users for netscape 7?
12: <li>power users for the mozilla developers
13: <li>no one browser can fit...
17: <h2>Gecko Based Browsers</h2>
19: <p>Additional projects are creating different types of alternative browsers, but instead of using Mozilla itself to create the application they use
20: the native user interface toolkits for different platforms. These projects create stripped-down browsers that use just Gecko, Mozilla's layout
21: engine. Because these projects use platform-specific code they work only on a specific operating system. Some examples include Chimera
22: (http://chimera.mozdev.org) for Mac OS X, Galeon (http://galeon.sourceforge.net) for Unix, and K-Meleon (http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net) for
26: Chimera http://chimera.mozdev.org
27: Galeon http://galeon.sourceforge.net
28: K-Meleon http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net
29: SkipStone http://www.muhri.net/skipstone
30: Q.Bati http://qbati2.sourceforge.net
34: <h2>XUL Based Browsers</h2>
36: <p>A few of these projects are working on improving the basic Mozilla browser interface. One of the first Mozilla applications, Aphrodite
37: (http://aphrodite.mozdev.org), has an interface designed and created by members of the Mozilla community. Another project called m/b (short for
38: mozilla/browser) addresses shortcomings that some people see with the default browser interface. In many ways, these projects are similar to
40: look of the browser.
43: Aphrodite http://aphrodite.mozdev.org
44: include aphrodite themes
45: skyline http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154414
46: m/b http://www.blakeross.com/images/mb (screenshot)
47: phoenix http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161041
48: project piglet http://mb.mozdev.org
55: - links to other browsers
56: - minotaur reference???
57: - let 100 browsers bloom
60: <p>If you think of a type of browser that is needed but that is not being developed right now, use Mozilla to create your own browser.
71: Beonex Communicator http://beonex.com/communicator/
72: BrowserG! http://browserg.mozdev.org
73: Dino http://dino.mozdev.org
74: more http://www.mozdev.org/categories/browsers.html
79: aol and compuserve clients gecko based or mozilla based?
82: minotaur - alternative mail client
83: phoenix reference on the page
90: Lot's of changes are under way for the Mozilla browser
93: - The "Skyline" project, which is a version of Mozilla is being worked on internally at Netscape, "is a short-term project to build a working
94: prototype of a new web client that provides for the daily needs of novice-intermediate users, is fun to use, and really shines in a broadband
97: - Project "Phoenix", "...a redesign of the Mozilla browser component, similar to Galeon, K-Meleon and Chimera, but written using the XUL user
98: interface language and designed to be cross-platform" (via mpt's site)
100: - The mozilla/browser project, mentioned a while ago on this site has resurfaced on mozdev. There are some screenshots, but the installable
101: XPI is not working, yet.
109: http://www.mozilla.org/mailnews/minotaur/index.html (stand-alone mail client)
119: reasons for creating alternate browsers
121: from http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/2002_04_07_mozillian_archive.html#75307435
123: In some cases features that are of more obvious benefit to one app end up affecting the design of all the apps. For example, profiles are of far
124: more use to mail than they are to a browser. Are profiles even really necessary if you were designing just a browser? In this era of Windows XP and
125: Mac OS X, both of which have fast friendly user switching, I'd claim that they aren't.
127: Another example of horrid user interface is the Mozilla Preferences dialog. Again, all prefs are shoved down into the hierarchy by an extra level,
128: because the top level must necessarily be given over to individual application branches. User interface that logically belonged in preferences has
129: been torn out because it would have ended up too buried to be useful, e.g., the Mail/News account settings.
131: from http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/2002_04_07_mozillian_archive.html#75279564
133: The end result of these colliding forces is Mozilla 1.0, a lumbering beast of an application suite that boasts a bewildering array of features
134: supplied by contributors whose respective agendas are inevitably at odds. What's even worse is that none of the warring factions is happy with the
135: end result. Mozilla ends up with geek features like the Links Toolbar that make Netscape unhappy, and Mozilla ends up with a lousy toolbar design
136: in order to keep Netscape happy. [...] You'll never see eye-to-eye, because you're not trying to produce the same browser.
138: The only real solution I see to this problem is for Mozilla to escape the one-browser mold. After Mozilla 1.0, Mozilla.org should relinquish
139: control of its flagship application to Netscape and strike out on its own with new browser projects that are truly innovative. Let one group of
140: people try to design the power user's dream browser, while another works on a simpler elegant user experience.