Fluid makes site specific browsers easy

This also means any web developer can now easily write a mac os x application without having to learn new programming etc.

For social-networking sites, Flock is a good contender.

I really wish there was 10.4 support. I use Prism quite a bit and have been waiting for a Webkit spinoff.

Hmm, I want to use this (Basecamp), but I get a “Permission denied” error whenever I try to create a browser with it. Console.app tells me it's trying to create the app in /Applications. I only use administrative permissions when I absolutely have to (I just let Mac OS X elevate when necessary), so I don't have write access to system-wide directories by default.

Hopefully the save location will get fixed in an update :)

I have a web application I made for the security division of http://bentlyenterprises.com worldwide. We use parental controls to block all other websites on the users computer, but this would be a great way to visually lock users into one link - easier to train, simpler to manage. For my usage it would make sense - not a 100% need for sure, but it would make sense to have a dock icon that launches a single app, which is really a web app, for all the security login computers.

"If it crashes, I restart it and resume the session."

Which in Gmail and many, many other apps means "Brings me back to the homepage" or login screen or something else equally useless.

Back in the old Netscape 3/Win95 days, I could actually start multiple instances of Netscape. Not just opening a new window--I'd be running a whole other copy of the program. (I didn't have a second copy of the executable--I'd just double-click the desktop shortcut again to launch another instance. Like having 5 copies of Notepad running.) One instance would crash and I'd lose those windows but not the others.

#16: I use Firefox and I generally have a lot of windows open at once. If it crashes, I restart it and resume the session. It reopens all of my windows and I'm back to where I was.

But thank you Brian for explaining the reasons why people would want it. I can imagine it would be useful for holding data URLs to use when you don't have internet access.

Mat, thanks for the Fluid shoutout! Glad you (and anyone else) found it interesting.

To address those questioning Fluid's purpose.... Fluid will *not* be for everyone... if you are not a webapp junkie, then it's not for you. Also, if it initially doesn't sound like something you would want, it's also probably not for you. And that's totally cool.

But for those of us who do complete some important tasks on the web that are completely different in nature than just regular browsing (like webmail, document/spreadsheet creation, chattting [gtalk, campfire]), the concept of SSBs is actually really cool. So my goal is to make Fluid a good SSB implementation for those folks. It's got a way to go, but it's getting there.

thanks to all who checked it out.

Why not open browser windows? Because ALL browsers crash.

And often. How often does your whole system crash? How annoying is it to open seven apps at once and reposition them so you can work again?

You can tell the age of the people answering these questions. Anyone who actually uses the web, instead of surfs CNN, can see the wealth of possibilities this provides into stable and efficient computing. So many online applications are wonderful and this makes them functionally practical.

Grr.

For those who just don't see why this exists, here are a few of the reasons:
- for those who are easily distracted, single-site browsers don't make it easy to visit other sites--i.e., no bookmarks, no links toolbar... not even a location bar!
- you can hide this app--say, your email--and not have all your other browser windows hidden.
- your app (email, whatever) has its own Dock icon and shows up when you switch with command-tab
- isolates crashes. an email crash won't kill all your other open windows; if the browser crashes while visiting any random site, you won't lose your "work" window
- Basically, this is for browser-based apps which, other than the fact that they run in a browser, could/should be standalone apps.
- here's the original article from the first (afaik) guy to make a dedicated browser for GMail: http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/?p=44
"Every time I check mail, I’m diving right into the world’s biggest time-sink. My email isn’t usually a waste of my time, but all the windows I’ve left floating around, my bookmarks bar, or a quick Google search are. These are the things that eat up afternoons, and webmail is a gateway to that distraction. Browsers have lots of features that I don’t need to use GMail: bookmarks, back & forward buttons, a search field, page history, a location bar, and on and on... I wrote a separate web browser just for GMail. All it does is load GMail in a nice big window and duck out of your way. No location bar. And no bookmarks. It says: ``Go ahead and follow that link your friend (or bug tracker) sent you, but to check BoingBoing, you’re going to have to go over to Safari. Maybe you’ll decide to go back to work instead.'' "