[Marketing-Public]Mozilla Design Problems

James Graham marketing-public at mozilla.org
Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:23:57 +0100

Albert Ren wrote:

> Peter wrote:
>> From: "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
>> [snip]
>>> and is difficult to install over a network".
>> Funnily enough, I had noticed how the absence of an official 
>> installer for
>> Firebird means that it is easy to install over a network!  Also, I read
>> recently somewhere (maybe Opera.com) that Opera doesn't use the system
>> registry and so it is easy to copy user settings, etc.
>> I'm guessing an equivalent to IEAK isn't about to be developed so 
>> perhaps
>> making an installer *and* zip archive (or tar for non-Windows platforms)
>> would be a good idea and make life easier for business customers? Surely
>> there's some mileage in pointing out how much easier it is to update a
>> Mozilla installation compared with Internet Explorer?
> Does anyone know if corporations find the CCK truly useful?  

I don't know, but there was a slashdot article on this topic once: 
http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/03/01/19/2239259.shtml . My 
suspiction is that CCK is very useful if you want to roll out to 
hundreds of desktops.

> I played around with the netscape CCKs and found them to be quite 
> nice, but since mozilla.org doesn't have a CCK 

Look at http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/cck/ The CCK exists but 
it's  unmaintained (the docs refer to Netscape 6.2, bonsai shows the 
last code checkin as August 2002). I believe that the Evangelmoz project 
was looking to revive the CCK, but it is desperatley in need of developers.

> I don't know if that's going to hamper the corporate push any.

Speakng of which, what are opinions on actually having a 
Mozilla-the-technology push? Can we get some people to develop some nice 
XUL apps  for example interfaces to web services like the Mozilla Amazon 
browser (http://mab.mozdev.org), rich interfaces to CMS applications 
like Blozom (http://www.blozom.com/blozom/about/) and anything else that 
is currently done using html interfaces but would benefit from a rich 
GUI, and then put demos somewhere on mozilla.org? Can we collate 
documents about using Mozilla technologies, so that people don't get the 
impression that it is /totally/ undocumented? What about XSLT 
stylesheets that will convert XUL into similar HTML? It won't always 
work, but it might in simple cases. The fact that all this technology 
was coded was responsible for some of the long years between Netscape 4 
and Netscape 6, so we should capitalise on it now that it's ready.