I have a big ask of you (question is connected with: http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/tags/xpcom/).
Two parts:
First: question if there is possible (using XPCOM or other Mozilla Plugin) get connection to USB.

Second: Im looking for any contact like e-mail ICQ or Skype to you couse of my problems with implementation XPCOM.

IMO this is a great use of XULRunner! I needed just this type of application to try to get ride of IE in a company Intranet. The issue is not allowing the user to surf the web because of security issues and to keep the support calls lower for non-technical users. And yes, I can (and did because I came across this too late for my client.) lock down IE but that was using a lot of registry settings and then it still is not a complete solution. I would have rather suggested using this.

Thanks, this is GREAT little example of what XULRunner can do.

OK, Alright, but thats the thing. This doesn’t seem like a good demo/experiment to show off XULRunner with. If you’re just adding a separate process to the mix, and mimicking the exact same experience and interface as a general web browser, it seems more confusing than interesting.

I liked your XUL Explorer better. Why not integrate the MDC references better with the editing process. That would be cool.

Some of the Apollo demos showed Google maps integration with your local address book, and merging your music library with flickr and wikipedia. Maybe not as practical and down to earth as keeping gmail up when your browser crashes, but it shows off the possibilites, and gets you thinking,

pd - I don’t see it as anti-web, but rather better web application user experience. FUEL is getting reviewed for landing on the trunk. It can be viewed using http://mxr.mozilla.org/fuel/source.

Nick - I’ll try to get that fixed in the next version. Thanks.

pn - Good idea. I do think the browser could be made to work better with webapps. A separate browser, like WebRunner, is not the only solution.

enefekt - WebRunner is just an experiment, not a strategy or even a product. Web Runner *is* built on XULRunner. Part of WebRunner’s experiment is to show how XULRunner apps can be used in place of Apollo apps.

therealpete - Yep, that is how I added popup support to this version.

of course point it to your own browser xul file.

I thought this is what XULRunner was for? Use XUL to create a richer UI. Take advantage of the whole Mozilla platform. Is just slamming an app into a separate process worth the trouble unless it adds some significant value-add?

And I think “Site Specific Browser” is not the best name either. We’re talking about applications here right? Not websites. And we’re talking about interacting with the application, not “browsing”.

Ideally there would be room for all of these things, but it would be nice to see some clearer communication from Mozilla about what their strategy is for some of these endeavors. Especially with tough competition soon to be coming from one of the “adversaries” Adobe Apollo.

I have profiles in Firefox for some websites (gmail, google reader…) and launch them with “-no-remote -P someprofile” command line arguments (I have shortcuts for these in my desktop). This gives me possibility to use normal Firefox extensions and inline spell checking. Unfortunately links open in same window, but I don’t mind that much. I also use modified firesomething extension (modified so that it installs with firefox 2 also) in these profiles to change the title of the window to Gmail or something.

Maybe this is a bit harder to use than webrunner (I don’t know, I haven’t checked webrunner), but it gives me same possibilities as webrunner currently.

I get an XML error trying to download attachments from gmail.

I’d like each window to have it’s own session. It would be really useful to have multiple gmail windows open to multiple accounts.