[Project_owners] Tech-review Longhorn vs. Mozilla
mirzmaster at rogers.com
Thu Dec 4 11:01:59 EST 2003
Well, you can't on the one hand say the articles provides good insight
on Mozilla and its upcoming competitor(s), yet on the other hand
criticise the article for comparing Mozilla to Longhorn :)
I agree that Mozilla and Longhorn are two very different applications
with two very different roles. Despite that, there are some glaring
similarities. Developing UIs with XML-based languages is a relatively
new concept and is only now entering the mainstream. Microsoft's muscle
behind Avalon is evidence enough. What the article establishes though
is that Avalon is in many ways similar to Mozilla, the pioneer into
XML-based User Interfaces, and imho does acknowledge that Mozilla and
Longhorn are overall two different beasts.
On 04/12/2003 10:25 AM, Percy Cabello wrote:
>I agree! I had the exact same feeling. Why could somebody think about comparing
>an OS as a whole to Mozilla? how can Longhorn file system management could
>possibly compare to Mozilla's? It is like saying Windows Scripting Host is not
>as good as Longhorn.
>Anyway the article is a heads up and provides a good insight on Mozilla app
>framework and coming competitor.
>--- David Fraser <davidf at sjsoft.com> wrote:
>>Benjamin Bock wrote:
>>>I just read this Article and thought it is quite interesting:
>>>What do you experts think about this?
>>>Thanks for your opinions :-)
>>I also read the article, it's an interesting idea to compare the two,
>>but the author makes some basic mistakes.
>>A lot of the similarities he finds are fairly surface-level. For
>>example, the "Window in XML" - obviously if you have a very simple
>>window, coded in XML, two different ways of doing it are going to look
>>look that different.
>>The real differences in APIs are much more complex.
>>He's comparing an operating system to an application platform, and he
>>sometimes makes significant errors in doing so.
>> "the vector-based rendering engine underneath Avalon, which is far
>>more extensive and flexible than the raster-based one inside Mozilla."
>>I think if the things you comparing are like apples and oranges, and
>>then you find some surface similarities, and then go on to find deeper
>>differences, you haven't really concluded anything or shown anything,
>>you need to do a much more in-depth intelligent analysis to do that.
>>Project_owners mailing list
>>Project_owners at mozdev.org
>Project_owners mailing list
>Project_owners at mozdev.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Project_owners