What is happening to Mozilla ?

G

Greg Schmidt

And if I want to just quickly look up something on the Web, and I don't
want to read mail. (Which might be once a month.)

I do that several times a day.
I just never have warmed up to the concept foisted upon us by Microsoft
of needing one application for one thing and another, for another. When
I see this in my mind I think of IE/OE.

Never used OE, but isn't it an email/news client bundled into one?
And here we have the folks a Mozilla trying to foist the same concept
down my throat. I keep hearing at some pont down the road Moz will be
abandoned and you'll have to roll your own putting bits and pieces
together and hope for the best.

I rather like the idea that I can pick the browser that best suits me,
and the email client that best suits me, and the news reader that best
suits me. In my experience, applications are usually good at no more
than one thing. Anything else that it tries to provide lacks critical
features and feels tacked on. Note that I haven't used Moz for email,
just browsing.
When I go on the Internet, I read and save my mail, I read my
newsgroups. And, once I do this, I do my web surfing should I need to.

I think that your experience may be different from the majority, but
that could simply be because it's so different from mine, and we all
have a tendency to project ourselves onto the masses.
If I see a mailto link in a URL I like simply clicking on it and I am
instantly creating an email message. If I see a URL of interest in an
email I go instantly to the URL.

Should your word processor have a browser embedded in it, so that URLs
clicked in documents (manuals, for example) open immediately? How about
embedding a word processor (or at least word processor document viewer)
into your browser, for URLs that take you to those files?
In either case I don't have to wait for
another application to open and I don't take up more RAM by opening
another another program.

Well, you're taking up the RAM one way or another. If it's all one app,
then it's going to be a larger app. A stand-alone browser will launch
faster than a browser-email-news app will, and launch time is important
to me.
Also when I click on a mailto unlike in FF which opens Mozilla to a
Blank URL page then pops open a blank email screen (ready to create the
email). If I click on a Mailto in Mozilla it instantly goes to the blank
email page. I've set the system properly to open TB in FF for Mailto:,
But it always opens Mozilla.

That sounds like flawed implementation, not an inherent weakness of
separate apps.
So if Moz is abandoned I guess I'll have to look around for an another
all in one.

And I'll be able to scratch it from my list of browsers that I only have
installed in order to check my pages.

Please, don't feel that I'm picking you apart with all of those
comments. Your experiences are valid, I'm just providing a view of
things from someone with different experiences.

Now, for an alternative that might make us both (and many others) happy.
Browsers already support plugins for things like Flash, Acrobat, etc. I
don't see any technological reason why they couldn't also provide hooks
for email, news, and other plugins.(1)

Then, the makers of Thunderbird, Outlook, Eudora, and all the myriad
other email clients could make a plugin so that they could be used
"inside" Firefox, Opera, etc. Ditto for news readers. You would pick
the browser, email, news, and whatever other apps you liked, and they'd
all play together happily.

You could set it to load all plugins on launch, or on demand, depending
on whether you wanted it to start fast and lean, or have all
functionality instantly available on-demand.

Ideally, although this seems unlikely, the hooks would be standardized,
so that each provider would only have to write one plugin, not one for
each different browser.


(1) There's no compelling reason why it would have to be the browsers
that would provide this. However, they are perhaps best positioned to
do it, and since so many people discovered the internet through browsers
there may be a comfort factor. In fact, the more I think about it, the
more I like it. The plugins wouldn't even have to provide an interface
of any kind, they could work completely in HTML that the browser renders
(which also happens to make cross-platform plugin development easier).
If they could all agree on CSS IDs and classes to use for particular
types of things, you could even slap a personalized look-and-feel onto
all of your plugins at once by updating your local style sheet.
 
C

C A Upsdell

Phillip M. Jones said:
I just never have warmed up to the concept foisted upon us by Microsoft of
needing one application for one thing and another, for another. When I see
this in my mind I think of IE/OE.

It means that you are locked into one suite for everything. That may be
fine for some, but not for all. Some people like choice. For example,
right now I use Firefox as my browser, Eudora as my email program, and OE as
my news reader.
 
C

C A Upsdell

Greg Schmidt said:
Never used OE, but isn't it an email/news client bundled into one?

So is Thunderbird. I myself have never understood why email and newsreader
are so often put in the same package.
 
K

Kevin Scholl

Toby said:

I'm curious what you find so amusing with the previous statements, Toby.
I happen to agree with them, in terms of the remotely popular and
mainstream browsers.


--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)
 
P

Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T

Greg said:
I do that several times a day.




Never used OE, but isn't it an email/news client bundled into one?

Well you can, but; its like having a root canal trying to. you have to
go round and round through a maze trying to figure out how to setup news
servers and groups. and is almost as complex to go to newsgroups to read.

Really, its a email client with News reading tacked on after a fashion.

-------------------------snip-------------------------



--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112-1809 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:p[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://vpea.exis.net>
 
P

Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T

Greg Schmidt wrote:
-------------------------snip-------------------------
Then, the makers of Thunderbird, Outlook, Eudora, and all the myriad
other email clients could make a plugin so that they could be used
"inside" Firefox, Opera, etc. Ditto for news readers. You would pick
the browser, email, news, and whatever other apps you liked, and they'd
all play together happily.

You could set it to load all plugins on launch, or on demand, depending
on whether you wanted it to start fast and lean, or have all
functionality instantly available on-demand.

Ideally, although this seems unlikely, the hooks would be standardized,
so that each provider would only have to write one plugin, not one for
each different browser.


(1) There's no compelling reason why it would have to be the browsers
that would provide this. However, they are perhaps best positioned to
do it, and since so many people discovered the internet through browsers
there may be a comfort factor. In fact, the more I think about it, the
more I like it. The plugins wouldn't even have to provide an interface
of any kind, they could work completely in HTML that the browser renders
(which also happens to make cross-platform plugin development easier).
If they could all agree on CSS IDs and classes to use for particular
types of things, you could even slap a personalized look-and-feel onto
all of your plugins at once by updating your local style sheet.

The likelihood of Eudora, or Outlook to create plug in to work with
T-Bird; is as about likely as my being able to put on Ruby shoes, click
my heels twice and instantly be on Pluto.

Eudora, and Outlook see T-bird/FF as competition. They are not going to
create something to work with competition.

TB should be setup so that if you a URL it opens FF automatically.
And a Preferences in FF should be written that it opens TB, and not
Mozilla. (or for that matter Eudora, or Outlook [not express], or
Entourage.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112-1809 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:p[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://vpea.exis.net>
 
P

Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T

C said:
So is Thunderbird. I myself have never understood why email and newsreader
are so often put in the same package.

I've tried items like Eudora, and YA-News. Its just too complex and
doesn't work like I want it to.

Its just so easy to use Mozilla's(or for that matter TB) Mail/NewsReader
if one would try it a while.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112-1809 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:p[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://vpea.exis.net>
 
D

Dylan Parry

Phillip said:
I just never have warmed up to the concept foisted upon us by Microsoft
of needing one application for one thing and another, for another. When
I see this in my mind I think of IE/OE.

You have it the wrong way round! Microsoft usually try to make software
that does everything and fails miserably at it all. For example
Publisher, which is a poor DTP package and a lousy Webdesign program,
but attempts to do both.

IM(NS)HO it's better to have individual programs that do different
things so that you don't get tied into using a whole suite and find
yourself liking bits and hating others.

It's more of an OSS thing really to have individual programs that do
just one thing and nothing else; like FF is just a browser, sendmail
just sends mail, locate just finds files and so on. This is a good thing :)
 
C

C A Upsdell

Phillip M. Jones said:
I've tried items like Eudora, and YA-News. Its just too complex and
doesn't work like I want it to.

Its just so easy to use Mozilla's(or for that matter TB) Mail/NewsReader
if one would try it a while.

I depend on features of Eudora that Thunderbird lacks, e.g. rules/filters
with multiple wildcard conditions: at least I think TB lacks them ... it is
hard to tell because the TB documentation is so pathetic.
 
G

Greg Schmidt

Greg Schmidt wrote:
-------------------------snip-------------------------
The likelihood of Eudora, or Outlook to create plug in to work with
T-Bird; is as about likely as my being able to put on Ruby shoes, click
my heels twice and instantly be on Pluto.

If there was an open standard that defined how an email client plugs in
to a browser, Eudora wouldn't be working with FF specifically, it would
be working with any browser that implements the standard. Rather like
how POP3 and SMTP are open standards (okay, those are protocols, not
plugins, but the concept is the key here), so you can pick the email
client you want, and the email server you want, and they can work
together; you don't have to use MS Exchange Server if you want to use
Outlook, or vice versa.

The benefit I'm thinking of is that everyone can get the integrated
experience without having to sacrifice features. Right now, if you want
it all-in-one, then you have to do without certain functionality. As CA
wrote upthread:
I depend on [...] rules/filters with multiple wildcard conditions
So in that situation, the choice is made to sacrifice the convenience of
an integrated application. With standardized plugins, you can get both.

While we're at it, let's define a standard for how message-processing
plugins can work with email clients, so that you can use whatever
collection of sorting rule, spam filter, virus checking or other plugins
you want. If you use McAfee, you don't have to use one of their
supported email clients.
Eudora, and Outlook see T-bird/FF as competition. They are not going to
create something to work with competition.

It actually would be in Eudora and MS's best interests to implement
this, because then they could transparently replace TB as the email
client for FF. MS might even gain some browser share back in the form
of people who went to Mozilla largely for an integrated web/email
client. FF/TB don't lose by implementing it, because they're non-profit
anyway, and all about improving the user experience, which this would
do.
TB should be setup so that if you a URL it opens FF automatically.
And a Preferences in FF should be written that it opens TB, and not
Mozilla. (or for that matter Eudora, or Outlook [not express], or
Entourage.

The problem with doing it that way is that different applications have
different ways of launching. For example, if I were to use Mozilla as
my email client but Opera as my browser, what command line should be
given to Mozilla to get it to start in "compose email" mode? (I
actually did run into a problem very similar to this once.) Opera can't
be expected to know how to start every email client out there, and users
shouldn't have to manually configure command line arguments. With a
standardized plugin architecture, how apps launch each other is inherent
in the design.
 
T

Toby Inkster

Kevin said:
I'm curious what you find so amusing with the previous statements, Toby.
I happen to agree with them, in terms of the remotely popular and
mainstream browsers.

Opera is smaller (memory footprint, required disk space and installer
download size) and faster. Admittedly, on my current computer (dual 1GHz,
512MB RAM) the speed difference is only just noticeable. On my older
machine (single 400Mhz processor, 256MB RAM) it was very significant.

Opera has better HTML and CSS compliance. For example, Opera supports
*all* of CSS 2.1. Firefox OTOH has several glaring ommissions, such as CSS
counters, run-in headings, inline blocks, inline tables and so on. CSS
counters in particular have been supported in Opera since version 5.10 and
are very useful.

Turning from CSS to HTML, Opera has better support of the <link> element
(though there is an extension for Firefox to correct this).

In fairness to Firefox and other Gecko-based browsers, they tend beat
Opera on DOM and ECMAScript compliance and various other things, but (so
far) speed and compliance to CSS and HTML standards are two areas in
which Opera cannot be beaten.
 
T

Toby Inkster

Greg said:
Rather like how POP3 and SMTP are open standards (okay, those are
protocols, not plugins, but the concept is the key here), so you can
pick the email client you want, and the email server you want, and they
can work together; you don't have to use MS Exchange Server if you want
to use Outlook, or vice versa.

Exchange and Outlook are a bad example if you want to demonstrate
different programs communicating using an open standard!

In a typical corporate environment, Exchange and Outlook communicate using
Microsoft's MAPI protocol. If you replace Outlook with a standard
POP3/SMTP client you'll miss out on the calendar, contacts, tasks, notes,
journal, "Out Of Office", etc.
 
K

Kevin Scholl

Toby said:
Opera is smaller (memory footprint, required disk space and installer
download size) and faster. Admittedly, on my current computer (dual 1GHz,
512MB RAM) the speed difference is only just noticeable. On my older
machine (single 400Mhz processor, 256MB RAM) it was very significant.

Opera has better HTML and CSS compliance. For example, Opera supports
*all* of CSS 2.1. Firefox OTOH has several glaring ommissions, such as CSS
counters, run-in headings, inline blocks, inline tables and so on. CSS
counters in particular have been supported in Opera since version 5.10 and
are very useful.

Turning from CSS to HTML, Opera has better support of the <link> element
(though there is an extension for Firefox to correct this).

In fairness to Firefox and other Gecko-based browsers, they tend beat
Opera on DOM and ECMAScript compliance and various other things, but (so
far) speed and compliance to CSS and HTML standards are two areas in
which Opera cannot be beaten.

As I've not delved deep enough into the CSS 2.1 functionality you
mention, I can't really comment on it, so I'll assume you are correct. I
do know, though, that with regard to the majority of CSS that is being
used today,

However, I would argue the speed issue, as I've yet to compare head to
head on any system where Opera was any faster. YMMV, of course.

I would also agree on your assessment of DOM and scripting aspects.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)
 
K

kchayka

Toby said:
Turning from CSS to HTML, Opera has better support of the <link> element
(though there is an extension for Firefox to correct this).

I think mozilla has better <link> support than Opera does. Opera only
supports a handful of link types, anything not in that very short list
is ignored altogether, "section" for example.

At least mozilla lumps any miscellaneous link types under a general
document/other category so they are still accessible. My only beef with
mozilla is that its link bar isn't accessible via keyboard. :(

Note that I'm referring to the mozilla suite, not FF.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top