<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> I think we need to look at the browser situation from a different angle. Perhaps a browser tightly integrated into gnome and used for Internet surfing may be a bad idea. Aren't the biggest problems related to MS, security, and stability the fact that the browser is synonymous with the UI? Now while I understand that these problems aren't exactly the same, but what's to stop it from going in that direction? Personally, I like the fact that my browsing experience is separated from the desktop, and I use Firefox on win32 because I don't have to worry about the browser bringing down the desktop. I think it would be more beneficial to have a small footprint html rendering engine built into the UI for simple tasks (help, external calls, etc..), and leave the full-on Internet surfing to a dedicated browser. Besides, what good is it to have two main gtk browsers based on the same rendering engine? It leads to forked ideas and halved resources, as well as less acceptance. <br> Mozilla was the standard, but the project team did say that Mozilla should not be used as a browser. Mozilla was just to be a base, and since Firefox was their choice for the frontend of the engine, it is fitting that we should support it as the default. As for choice, does that mean that <b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>every<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> browser be installed by default? Choices are only truly made once there is an understanding, and for new users, we should point them in the direction of the biggest acceptance, as well as where the majority of the support lies. <br> <br> Rick Stout </body> </html>
