4 ms·

Why, though?

na85 8y ago
From the article: >Basilisk is primarily a reference application for development of the XUL platform it builds upon, and additionally a potential replacement for Firefox.
- hawski 8y ago
  Now I would like to know more: why XUL? How is it different than the last time? I think that this site is not yet ready for wider consumption.
  - kreetx 8y ago
    This is hn -- software-in-development fits well here :) This site? You mean this software?
    - hawski 8y ago
      I mean this site about this software. Probably both are under development. But it's hard to discuss about the software when it's description is lacking.
  - sethhochberg 8y ago
    My interpretation is that this is mostly a project for the die-hard users who lost support for niche extensions they really liked when XUL left mainstream Firefox... it reads mostly like they intend to maintain it as a time capsule. "No different from last time" is exactly the main selling feature.
    - johannes1234321 8y ago
      XUL ist not only used in browser Add-ons. There are special purpose desktop applications written using it. This is a project my former employer did some 10+ years ago, but I have seen different other such things. For some time I also used XUL as an UI library inside the browser. Quite powerful and relatively close to native UI which is important for some. https://blog.mayflower.de/64-Is-XUL-the-next-hot-topic-after-AJAX.html https://blog.mayflower.de/64-Is-XUL-the-next-hot-topic-after...
- tjoff 8y ago
  And for the longest time I thought XUL was the biggest downside of firefox. When the browser got slow not only did the render view get slow, but the "native" gui as well. Really frustrating and also contributed to the very clunky feel and a pretty ugly somewhat-native UI. It wasn't until I realized they also rendered the UI with gecko that I understood why they were having so much issues with it. Much better now thankfully.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- babypuncher 8y ago
  Good luck replacing Firefox if you're just going to ignore all the developments from the past couple of years that turned it into a good browser.
mrpippy 8y ago
Could be useful for platforms which don’t have Rust support (Mac OS X < 10.7 comes to mind)
- acjohnson55 8y ago
  What's needed from a platform to have Rust support? I pressumed Rust generated standalone binaries that would work for any given OS family.
  - pitaj 8y ago
    Standard library support
- rjsw 8y ago
  Or are not fast enough to run the Rust compiler. I'm using Firefox 52 ESR on slower systems, doesn't need Rust and can be built just using GTK2+.
  - michaelmrose 8y ago
    Alternatively use the compiled binary
    - rjsw 8y ago
      What compiled binary ?
      - michaelmrose 8y ago
        Either the one provided by Mozilla for your platform or the one your os provides. What os?
yellowapple 8y ago
It'll be great as a continuation of XUL for applications that continue to use it, one example being Conkeror.

Why, though?

na85 8y ago

From the article: >Basilisk is primarily a reference application for development of the XUL platform it builds upon, and additionally a potential replacement for Firefox.

hawski 8y ago
Now I would like to know more: why XUL? How is it different than the last time? I think that this site is not yet ready for wider consumption.
- kreetx 8y ago
  This is hn -- software-in-development fits well here :) This site? You mean this software?
  - hawski 8y ago
    I mean this site about this software. Probably both are under development. But it's hard to discuss about the software when it's description is lacking.
- sethhochberg 8y ago
  My interpretation is that this is mostly a project for the die-hard users who lost support for niche extensions they really liked when XUL left mainstream Firefox... it reads mostly like they intend to maintain it as a time capsule. "No different from last time" is exactly the main selling feature.
  - johannes1234321 8y ago
    XUL ist not only used in browser Add-ons. There are special purpose desktop applications written using it. This is a project my former employer did some 10+ years ago, but I have seen different other such things. For some time I also used XUL as an UI library inside the browser. Quite powerful and relatively close to native UI which is important for some. https://blog.mayflower.de/64-Is-XUL-the-next-hot-topic-after-AJAX.html https://blog.mayflower.de/64-Is-XUL-the-next-hot-topic-after...
tjoff 8y ago
And for the longest time I thought XUL was the biggest downside of firefox. When the browser got slow not only did the render view get slow, but the "native" gui as well. Really frustrating and also contributed to the very clunky feel and a pretty ugly somewhat-native UI. It wasn't until I realized they also rendered the UI with gecko that I understood why they were having so much issues with it. Much better now thankfully.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
babypuncher 8y ago
Good luck replacing Firefox if you're just going to ignore all the developments from the past couple of years that turned it into a good browser.

mrpippy 8y ago

Could be useful for platforms which don’t have Rust support (Mac OS X < 10.7 comes to mind)

acjohnson55 8y ago
What's needed from a platform to have Rust support? I pressumed Rust generated standalone binaries that would work for any given OS family.
- pitaj 8y ago
  Standard library support
rjsw 8y ago
Or are not fast enough to run the Rust compiler. I'm using Firefox 52 ESR on slower systems, doesn't need Rust and can be built just using GTK2+.
- michaelmrose 8y ago
  Alternatively use the compiled binary
  - rjsw 8y ago
    What compiled binary ?
    - michaelmrose 8y ago
      Either the one provided by Mozilla for your platform or the one your os provides. What os?

yellowapple 8y ago

It'll be great as a continuation of XUL for applications that continue to use it, one example being Conkeror.