20463 - [RFE] The return of the browser-only build

Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 13760

(SeaMonkey :: General, enhancement, P3)

Description

[scott]

Netscape Navigator 4.08 marked the last time we were able to download a
browser-only version.  Now we are up to 4.7 (soon 4.71).  I would hope that with
the modularity of Mozilla (and therefore, Netscape Communicator 5.0) we would
once again be able to download a version that included JUST the browser.  No
mail, no newsgroups, no composer, no IRC, no plugins, no extras.

I realize that to browse, certain components of Composer are necessary.  Very
well, so those necessary components (and ONLY those parts of Composer) would get
included.  Same with any other similar dependency.  But the point is, there is a
very large user base who wants this.  They've been asking for it ever since
4.08.  Many people already have other applications they use for all those other
tasks.  For them, it's a waste to have all that extra stuff on their hard
drive.  And just imagine how incredibly small this browser-only build would
be. Even the 5.5MB current size of the Mozilla build can take 30 mins or more to
download with a 33.6K modem.  Who knows, maybe it'd even fit on a 3.5" floppy :)

There's been a lot of discussion about this on the newsgroups for quite some
time.  I can't seem to ever remember seeing a definitive response from anyone
intimite with the development team providing any insight as to
Mozilla/Netscape's intentions concerning a browser-only build.  So I figured it
was due time for a formal RFE, where people could see where things stood instead
of always being told, "Sure, you can have a browser-only build.  Just download
the source and do it yourself!".  This isn't helpful for end-users who maybe
aren't even using the pre-release builds and just want to know that when the
final version comes out, they can get a compact, browser-only version.

I realize it probably isn't practical to start spinning such builds until late
in the development cycle (probably late betas, right before final release).
That is fine.  I, like so many others, just want to know what the official word
is on this.  Thanks. :)

Comment 1

[Matthew Tuck [:CodeMachine]]

I believe the plan is eventually to allow application components like this.  I
don't think we need to restrict this to browser only builds.  MailNews-only
builds and Editor-only builds are just as valid, given the right architecture.

For a start prefs will need to support adding extra panels, as well as changing
what appears in the auto-startup section.  The Tasks/Communicator/Whatever menu
will also need to show the correct components.

Preferably, this would involve plugging in application components, but that is a
little harder than straight XUL.

Adding deps on extendible prefs RFEs.

Comment 2

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

Matty, scott (the reporter),
at least Mailnews is already completely pluggable, *including* the prefs.
Compile with --disable-mail-news (on Unix, dunno about other architectures).
Editor "pluggabitity" broke sometime, the browsers edit boxes don't work w/o the
editor. This *has* to be resolved by the editor team and will be -- there're
other appliances like Handys and Settop boxes, which *need* a small footprint.

I don't know it well, but I think, the plan is to use XPInstall to download and
install additional components.

scott (the reporter),
it is important, that we have the source. There's so much interest in a lean
browser - even if Netscape wouldn't be willing to give that option for
Navigator, somebody else would do it for Mozilla.

Matty,
because of Mailnews prefs beind pluggable, existance of 6064 confuses me a bit.
Please check the validity of the dependencies, as they may discourage fixing of
this bug.

Comment 3

[Matthew Tuck [:CodeMachine]]

Well I'm not exactly sure what this all equates to at the code level, and I've
yet to look exactly at the build options.  I will try to do so shortly.

One thing that this report is not about, but what the other bugs might be about,
is the ability to plug in application components after deployment or even
runtime, whereas what you describe is a compile time build option.

Comment 4

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

Yes, this is the reason for XPInstall. See bug #20637 and others. Marking
INVALID.

Comment 5

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

It's really a DUPLICATE of 13760. Sorry.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 13760 ***

Comment 6

[Matthew Tuck [:CodeMachine]]

Not really, because the original report had nothing to do with that, but thems
the breaks.

Comment 7

[scott]

I'm not sure I agree that this is a duplicate of 13760.  As a user of both IE
and Quicktime's install procedures, I discovered a huge uproar (which I
joined) at this type of installation process.  Not that it's a bad idea by
itself, but that if it's the ONLY way, it's a bad idea.  MS calls it "Active
Setup".  There were large groups upset at both MS and Apple for not offering a
"download-only, no install" option.  Last I knew, MS gave in and offered it with
later versions of IE, and Apple did the same with Quicktime (although both
options were buried and not obvious).

There will always be a need to be able to download the components in a
stand-alone form that you can then install from at a later time.  A company with
multiple machines, for example.  Or perhaps to download on one machine and
install on another that doesn't have a working internet connection (yet).  Or to
dl it on a system with a fast connection to install on a system with a slow one.
And so on.

I'll give in with it being a dupe of 13760 if the option is made and made
CLEARLY for just downloading Communicator/Mozilla with the selected components,
without installing.  That way we can make it available on our network for
installation by anyone, put it on CD-R, etc.

Comment 8

[Ben Bucksch (:BenB)]

scott, I completely agree with you. I even extend it with the call after a
simple ftp download option, that doesn't require XPInstall on the downloading
maschine.

However, this is not in the scope of this bug. If you file a new bug about your
request, please cc me.

Comment 9

[Jeremy Misavage]

Bug 13760 is pretty much the same as this one, marking as VERIFIED.