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. Several projects are currently under development independently from the work being done on the default Mozilla browser. This variety is a huge asset because the Mozilla community doesn't have to try to create one browser that is all things to all people.
Additional projects are creating different types of alternative browsers, but instead of using Mozilla itself to create the application they use the native user interface toolkits for different platforms. These projects create stripped-down browsers that use just Gecko, Mozilla's layout engine. Because these projects use platform-specific code they work only on a specific operating system. Some examples include Chimera (http://chimera.mozdev.org) for Mac OS X, Galeon (http://galeon.sourceforge.net) for Unix, and K-Meleon (http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net) for Windows.
Chimera http://chimera.mozdev.org Galeon http://galeon.sourceforge.net K-Meleon http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net SkipStone http://www.muhri.net/skipstone Q.Bati http://qbati2.sourceforge.net
Aphrodite http://aphrodite.mozdev.org include aphrodite themes skyline http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154414 m/b http://www.blakeross.com/images/mb (screenshot) phoenix http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161041 project piglet http://mb.mozdev.org
- links to other browsers - minotaur reference??? - let 100 browsers bloom
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. -------------------------------------------------
notes others Beonex Communicator http://beonex.com/communicator/ BrowserG! http://browserg.mozdev.org Dino http://dino.mozdev.org more http://www.mozdev.org/categories/browsers.html aol and compuserve clients gecko based or mozilla based? minotaur - alternative mail client phoenix reference on the page http://www.mozilla.org/mailnews/minotaur/ http://www.deftone.com/blogzilla/archives/some_major_mozilla_ui_changes.html#comments Lot's of changes are under way for the Mozilla browser - 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 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 environment" - Project "Phoenix", "...a redesign of the Mozilla browser component, similar to Galeon, K-Meleon and Chimera, but written using the XUL user interface language and designed to be cross-platform" (via mpt's site) - The mozilla/browser project, mentioned a while ago on this site has resurfaced on mozdev. There are some screenshots, but the installable XPI is not working, yet.http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/asa/2002_08_01_asadot_archive.html#80090450 http://www.blakeross.com/archives/2002_08_11_index.html#80310485 http://www.deftone.com/blogzilla/archives/some_major_mozilla_ui_changes.html http://www.mozilla.org/mailnews/minotaur/index.html (stand-alone mail client) http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/2002_04_07_mozillian_archive.html#75279564 http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/2002_04_07_mozillian_archive.html#75307435 ------------------------------- reasons for creating alternate browsers from http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/2002_04_07_mozillian_archive.html#75307435 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 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 Mac OS X, both of which have fast friendly user switching, I'd claim that they aren't. Another example of horrid user interface is the Mozilla Preferences dialog. Again, all prefs are shoved down into the hierarchy by an extra level, because the top level must necessarily be given over to individual application branches. User interface that logically belonged in preferences has been torn out because it would have ended up too buried to be useful, e.g., the Mail/News account settings. from http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/2002_04_07_mozillian_archive.html#75279564 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 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 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 in order to keep Netscape happy. [...] You'll never see eye-to-eye, because you're not trying to produce the same browser. 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 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 people try to design the power user's dream browser, while another works on a simpler elegant user experience.