Mozilla Suite vs Thunderbird/Firefox

[Richard Steinfeld]

What's the practical difference between these two?
Why do two competing product lines exist from the same open-source
community?
What are the pros vs. the cons?

Richard

 

[Joe Silver]

What's the practical difference between these two?
Why do two competing product lines exist from the same open-source
community?
What are the pros vs. the cons?

Richard

I'd like to know the answer to this myself. The split between Mozilla
Suite and Firefox/Thunderbird has never made sense to me.

The primary argument I've read for favoring Firefox over Mozilla is that
the former is just a browser, whereas the latter is a suite, and some
people might not need to install a program that includes an e-mail
client if they already have an e-mail program with which they're
satisfied. However, this argument falls apart in light of the fact that
Mozilla can be installed *without* the e-mail component.

BTW, the new Netscape 8.0 does something that neither Mozilla nor
Firefox can do: It can emulate Internet Explorer page rendering, for
those sites that might not be Mozilla-compliant. I've been using
Netscape some, and it's pretty cool, albeit a bit buggy. I still tend to
use Firefox for most of my Web browsing.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Richard Steinfeld <[email protected]>

What's the practical difference between these two?

The main one is that the suite has a lot of internet apps built in
whereas Firefox is just a browser and Thunderbird just a mail and
news client. The suite has the browser, an irc client, mail and
news client, an html editor, and ftp uploading capability. I may
have left some out.

As a browser, Mozilla exposes almost every setting in its GUI,
whereas Firefox has a more streamlined GUI. I find the giant array
of GUI settings in Mozilla to be clunky, but others prefer it and
dislike the stripped-down approach of Firefox. Firefox lets users
add functionality by using third-party extensions, many of which are
unnecessary with the suite.

Why do two competing product lines exist from the same open-source
community?

A book could be written to answer that question. I'll try to answer
in a nutshell; but my take is from only one point-of-view, so take
anything I have to say about it with a grain of salt.

Netscape released the source for it's browser in 1998, and the
Mozilla project began working with it. The intent of the project
was not to provide an end-user product, but to maintain an
open-source codebase on which anybody (Netscape, really) could build
a browser. The code was a mess, though, and it was difficult to get
non-Netscape people to work on it. By the end of 1998, mozilla.org
had decided to pretty much rewrite the code from scratch.

As that work went on, Netscape did not release a browser based on it
until 2000. In the meantime, mozilla.org had to release working
browser suites so that their work could be tested. Some end users
started using them. AOL gave up on Netscape (at least temporarily)
in 2003, and the newly formed Mozilla Foundation decided finally to
promote its product for end users.

As the code rewriting and testing builds were being done, almost
anything that could have a checkbox or menu item in the GUI was
given one. Any mention of taking any of that GUI out produced
howling from whichever developers liked that bit of the GUI, so the
GUI just grew and grew. At some point, a relatively small group of
developers decided to redesign the GUI and produce a browser only
with a streamlined feel. They started a project at first called
"mozilla/browser" which eventually became Firefox.

Initial work on mozilla/browser was not done openly, and there was
(and still is) a bit of bad blood because of that. (IMO, it
couldn't have been done openly because of the outcry that would have
arisen with every decision to remove something.) To see why some
suite developers were not happy, see this early version of the
mozilla/browser faq, which makes it clear that some people are not
welcome on the team and that it's "none of their business":

<http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsblame.cgi?file=mozilla/browser/Attic/README.html&rev=1.10&root=/cvsroot>

Once the mozilla/browser team started releasing browsers, it turned
out that a lot of people liked them very much. The Mozilla
Foundation made it an official product, and eventually made it
their primary product. At some point, there were plans to fold
Firefox and Thunderbird back into the suite, but those plans were
abandoned. As it stands now, the Mozilla Foundation is dropping
development of the suite and will focus on Firefox and Thunderbird.

Development of the suite will be carried on outside of the Mozilla
Foundation umbrella, by people devoted to the suite. The Foundation
will continue to support its last version of the suite, 1.7.7, with
security updates as needed.

Whew, that's enough typing. But I should point out that Firefox
development is now done openly and transparently, but it's clear
that a small group of people get to steer its direction by making
decisions about what features and GUI to include. (And yeah, people
do howl about those decisions.)

What are the pros vs. the cons?

Here are a couple of pages with comparisons that may be helpful:

<http://www.wfu.edu/~yipcw/atg/moz_ff_tb/>

<http://ilias.ca/MozillavsFirefox.html>

And here's a page of end users' reasons for wanting to see the suite
continued -- most of them contrast the suite with
Firefox/Thunderbird in some way:

<http://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey:Reasons#End_Users>

 

[Richard Steinfeld]

Initial work on mozilla/browser was not done openly, and there was
(and still is) a bit of bad blood because of that. (IMO, it
couldn't have been done openly because of the outcry that would have
arisen with every decision to remove something.) To see why some
suite developers were not happy, see this early version of the
mozilla/browser faq, which makes it clear that some people are not
welcome on the team and that it's "none of their business":

<http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsblame.cgi?file=mozilla/browser/Attic/README.html&rev=1.10&root=/cvsroot>

I skimmed through this link.
Omygod -- it's like a goddamn religion. Righteous arrogance, etc. "We
won't let you into our treehouse." A real dilemma: you can't let
everyone in -- someone might ruin your sand castle. Yet, a heirarchy is
un-democratic. But this kind of infighting wrecked the Consumer
Cooperative of Berkeley; meanwhile, the Neocons take over. I'm afraid
that I don't have the answer.

I dislike Microsoft's internet programs. Detest AOL (Netscape). Guess
I'll stick with the Mozilla stuff for now.

Richard

 

[Richard Steinfeld]

I'd like to know the answer to this myself. The split between Mozilla
Suite and Firefox/Thunderbird has never made sense to me.

The primary argument I've read for favoring Firefox over Mozilla is that
the former is just a browser, whereas the latter is a suite, and some
people might not need to install a program that includes an e-mail
client if they already have an e-mail program with which they're
satisfied. However, this argument falls apart in light of the fact that
Mozilla can be installed *without* the e-mail component.

BTW, the new Netscape 8.0 does something that neither Mozilla nor
Firefox can do: It can emulate Internet Explorer page rendering, for
those sites that might not be Mozilla-compliant. I've been using
Netscape some, and it's pretty cool, albeit a bit buggy. I still tend to
use Firefox for most of my Web browsing.

I wonder if there is/will be a Firefox add-on to fix this compatibility
problem. The reason that I say this is that I've not trusted Netscape to
maintain decent manners ever since it was acquired by AOL.

I've had two computers that fired up when new with the AOL and Netscape
icons on the screen. Clicking on either of them installed an orgy of all
manner of unwanted software from their "partners." It took reformatting
the hard disk to undo all the damage. Been there: never again.

A good friend who retired from a career as an IT director once said,
"The only company I hate more than Microsoft is AOL."
In 1996, I liked the Netscape browser. That was 1996, before the
acquisition.

Well, that's my own logic. Thanks for your thoughts.

Richard

 

[Thorsten Duhn]

Hello,

BTW, the new Netscape 8.0 does something that neither Mozilla nor
Firefox can do: It can emulate Internet Explorer page rendering,
for those sites that might not be Mozilla-compliant.

this is not a emulation, Netscape uses the IE rendering engine,
which is available system wide, like many IE frontends like
Maxthon do also. The only advantage of this feature is "everything
in one place" instead of switching browsers. But how many
security flaws will be found based on this feature? One reason
using Moz/Firefox is that it is not that integrated into
operating system.

Therefore I don't believe there will be a firefox/moz addon like
Richard requested. This incompability only comes from ignorant
web developers...

Regards,
Thorsten

 

[kenneth marken]

Hello,



this is not a emulation, Netscape uses the IE rendering engine,
which is available system wide, like many IE frontends like
Maxthon do also. The only advantage of this feature is "everything
in one place" instead of switching browsers. But how many
security flaws will be found based on this feature? One reason
using Moz/Firefox is that it is not that integrated into
operating system.

Therefore I don't believe there will be a firefox/moz addon like
Richard requested. This incompability only comes from ignorant
web developers...

hmm, i kinda recall a extension for firefox that allowed one to launch
the ie render engine inside a tab. but i cant recall what it was named...

 

[Joe Silver]

I wonder if there is/will be a Firefox add-on to fix this compatibility
problem. The reason that I say this is that I've not trusted Netscape to
maintain decent manners ever since it was acquired by AOL.

I've had two computers that fired up when new with the AOL and Netscape
icons on the screen. Clicking on either of them installed an orgy of all
manner of unwanted software from their "partners." It took reformatting
the hard disk to undo all the damage. Been there: never again.

FWIW, Netscape 8.0 is much "cleaner" in this regard than 7.x. Still, I
can understand wanting to avoid AOL products strictly on principle.
Anyway, aside from Netscape's ability to use the IE rendering engine
(which some, including Thorsten, might regard as a liability), I'm not
aware of any other compelling reason to switch from Mozilla or Firefox
to Netscape.

 

[John Corliss]

Excellent post by »Q« and my thanks.

I skimmed through this link.
Omygod -- it's like a goddamn religion. Righteous arrogance, etc. "We
won't let you into our treehouse." A real dilemma: you can't let
everyone in -- someone might ruin your sand castle. Yet, a heirarchy is
un-democratic. But this kind of infighting wrecked the Consumer
Cooperative of Berkeley; meanwhile, the Neocons take over. I'm afraid
that I don't have the answer.

I dislike Microsoft's internet programs. Detest AOL (Netscape). Guess
I'll stick with the Mozilla stuff for now.

I agree with that totally. By the way, here's an interesting link about
how Firefox got started and how Blake Ross and Ben Goodger were pivotal
in it's development:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/firefox.html

I tried Firefox and Thunderbird and like them, but have a huge email
archive in my personal POP account. Moving them and their folder
structure to Local Folders in Mozilla so that I can install Thunderbird
and have it import them to ITS Local Folders is far too problematic and
labor intensive. This is the main reason I stick with Mozilla at this
point. Eventually though, I'll make the move.

Nvu is another reason by the way. I often save websites and modify them
in Mozilla's Composer module for easier viewing. I'm waiting for Nvu to
come out with a final version. At that point, the Mozilla modules that I
use will all have replacements and the labor involved with migrating my
email archive will be less unattractive.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

hmm, i kinda recall a extension for firefox that allowed one to
launch the ie render engine inside a tab. but i cant recall what
it was named...

I don't think there's any extension that can use the IE engine inside
Firefox. Maybe you are thinking of IEview, will pass the current
location or the selected link from Firefox to IE itself.

 

[elaich]

this is not a emulation, Netscape uses the IE rendering engine,
which is available system wide, like many IE frontends like
Maxthon do also. The only advantage of this feature is "everything
in one place" instead of switching browsers. But how many
security flaws will be found based on this feature? One reason
using Moz/Firefox is that it is not that integrated into
operating system.

In another group I read, a religious Firefox user for 4 years used IE
just once to view a site, and got a Trojan. Using the IE front end would
open one up to the same danger, even inside of Netscape. It's the engine
that's flawed, not the browser.

 

[null]

I don't think there's any extension that can use the IE engine inside
Firefox. Maybe you are thinking of IEview, will pass the current
location or the selected link from Firefox to IE itself.

Which reminds me of the new Netscape 8. I thought I'd take a look at
it, but at some point during the install it stated that it sometimes
switches over to the IE rendering engine. Install scratched

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Richard Steinfeld]

Nvu is another reason by the way. I often save websites and modify them
in Mozilla's Composer module for easier viewing. I'm waiting for Nvu to
come out with a final version. At that point, the Mozilla modules that I
use will all have replacements and the labor involved with migrating my
email archive will be less unattractive.

What's "Nvu?"

Richard

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

What's "Nvu?"

<http://www.nvu.com/faq.html>

 

[casioculture]

What's the practical difference between these two?
Why do two competing product lines exist from the same open-source
community?
What are the pros vs. the cons?

Richard

They are not competing. It's primarily historical. Mozilla suite was
what started it all in the late 1990s. Firefox/thunderbird are
relatively recent developments. There are also other gecko-based
browsers. Nothing wrong with this, I think it's good for open source
and promotes innovation.

Choose what suits you better. Personally I have both on my machine. I
use firefox for casual browsing with all the extensions I may please,
and then I use a clean installation of the mozilla suite for secure and
sensitive sites.