MozillaZine

Mozilla as a High-Level, Easy-to-Use Desktop Linux GUI Application Development System

Tuesday January 20th, 2004

Adam Hauner sent us to a link to a LinuxWorld article in which Nigel McFarlane argues that Mozilla is the natural choice for high-level desktop Linux GUI application development. More controversially, McFarlane goes on to claim that application frameworks such as Mozilla are now more critical to the success of open source than the Linux kernel.


#1 XUL vs XAML

by Jugalator

Tuesday January 20th, 2004 5:34 AM

Reply to this message

I can't read the article since I'm not a subscriber, but I have a feeling he's saying that Mozilla's XUL can be useful for general GUI development? I then came to think about Microsoft's coming XAML language to be used for the Longhorn GUI. It's interesting how two technologies like these might get common in the future. Microsoft seem to be thinking about doing something similar to what Mozilla does with XUL.

<http://longhorn.msdn.micr…erviews/about%20xaml.aspx>

#3 Re: XUL vs XAML

by d4mo

Tuesday January 20th, 2004 6:41 AM

Reply to this message

The key part here is that Moz may be an "Easy-to-Use" destop gui, in the same direction that microsoft is going.... BUT... until the opensource community come up with a IDE that can compete with VS.Net (JBuilder and Eclipse, as IDE's go, don't come close IMHO), it wont be an "Easy-to-Dev-for" desktop gui. Or AS easy.

I only briefly looked into XUL programming, binding XUL events to javascript and XPCOM seems, compared to C# and VS.Net a little messy, and perhaps more difficult to debug the MS's solution. Do correct me if I am wrong (it's an opinion anyway!).

#2 Google News is carrying the story

by theuiguy

Tuesday January 20th, 2004 6:34 AM

Reply to this message

Move Over Kernel Hackers, It's Mozilla Time <http://www.linuxworld.com/story/39203.htm?DE=1>

#4 Luxor: The "Linux Kernel" for Desktop Apps

by geraldb

Tuesday January 20th, 2004 7:52 AM

Reply to this message

Nigel McFarlane is not breaking any new ground. May I point out my two year old VanX talk slides titled "Luxor: The 'Linux Kernel' for Desktop Apps - Uniting XUL, SVG, HTML, Velocity, Web Start, XSL/T, Python and more" online @ <http://luxor-xul.sourcefo…vanx-jul-2002/slides.html>

Also allow me to note that XUL isn't going anywhere as long as it's tied to Mozilla. For more info about alternative XUL "kernels"/players/browsers/runtime check out the XUL Alliance site online @ <http://xul.sourceforge.net>

#6 please

by beastie

Tuesday January 20th, 2004 10:24 AM

Reply to this message

Just shut up already.

#8 Re: Luxor: The "Linux Kernel" for Desktop Apps

by MrNerdHair <ultimatetechie2000@yahoo.com>

Tuesday January 20th, 2004 6:12 PM

Reply to this message

Um? This is a MOZILLA site. Don't bash moz.

#10 Mozilla can't go it alone

by geraldb

Wednesday January 21st, 2004 12:32 AM

Reply to this message

> Um? This is a MOZILLA site. Don't bash moz.

Just to get the story straight. I do *not* bash moz. If I may quote from the Luxor front page: "Mozilla is a phantastic piece of software." All I'm saying is that Mozilla can't go it alone. Open source is all about working together. It's more than just dumping your source code into a CVS repository. Thriving open source projects also need enlightened leaders. So far, unfortunately, the Mozilla XUL story shows that the Mozilla leaders are still stuck in their old Netscape/AOL Time Warner state-of mind. Who, for example, leads the Mozilla XUL project/initiative? Is there anyone who cares?

#9 WTF?

by MrNerdHair <ultimatetechie2000@yahoo.com>

Tuesday January 20th, 2004 6:31 PM

Reply to this message

Um? This is a MOZILLA site. Don't bash moz.

#5 Yeah, HomeBase

by benmhall <bhall@moses.penguinpowered.com>

Tuesday January 20th, 2004 7:59 AM

Reply to this message

Isn't this what OEOne's HomeBase is? I bought it, it's a great idea, but is _very_ slow.

#7 Xul is not a cmplete widget set

by fedetxf

Tuesday January 20th, 2004 12:55 PM

Reply to this message

I once read a Xul paper that said it was not intended to be a complete widget set. I can't find the reference, but I guess it's true, isn't it? Can I make any swing or gtk or qt UI just with xul?

#11 XUL Is By Definition Extensible

by geraldb

Wednesday January 21st, 2004 12:36 AM

Reply to this message

> I once read a Xul paper that said it was not intended to be a complete widget set. I can't find the reference, but I guess it's true, isn't > it? Can I make any swing or gtk or qt UI just with xul?

Yes, it's true. Mozilla XUL is not intended as a complete widget set. It's just used to build the Mozilla UI. That's it. Everything else is an afterthought. If you want to use XUL (XML UI Language) to build Swing, Gtk, Swt, Qt apps I invite you to check out the XUL Alliance site that lists alternative XUL runtimes/players/motors/browsers online @ <http://xul.sourceforge.net>