Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 1st Apr 2011 21:14 UTC
Internet & Networking "Camino - the Gecko-based browser with a native Cocoa user interface - is considering switching its underlying rendering engine to WebKit. Developer Stuart Morgan announced the proposed change this week after Mozilla effectively put an end to the project that supported embedding Gecko into other software. While the team is still putting the finishing touches on a long overdue 2.1 update, which would finally bring rendering parity with Firefox 3.6, the small group is looking to recruit help to make the transition happen."
Order by: Score:
Might look at it again.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 1st Apr 2011 21:25 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, I dropped Camino when it fell behind. It really didn't feel safe running older versions of the gecko renderer. I would consider using it again with webkit. Although, chrome works just fine for now and is available in every platform I use on a daily basis.

Its the old consistency within an environment vs consistency across platforms conundrum.

Reply Score: 3

April 1st
by areimann on Fri 1st Apr 2011 23:02 UTC
areimann
Member since:
2006-06-12

News on April Fools day.... how reliable?

Reply Score: 2

RE: April 1st
by RichterKuato on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 01:05 UTC in reply to "April 1st"
RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14
RE[2]: April 1st
by dacresni on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 01:35 UTC in reply to "RE: April 1st"
dacresni Member since:
2009-08-26

but what will I run on my imac g5? its 2.0Ghz and no up to date browser in sight! What is the point of the gecko rendering engine if nothing can be built around it?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: April 1st
by kaiwai on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 01:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: April 1st"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

but what will I run on my imac g5? its 2.0Ghz and no up to date browser in sight! What is the point of the gecko rendering engine if nothing can be built around it?


Hang on, you have a iMac over 5 years old and you expect all and sundry to bend over backwards to support you and your out of date computer? colour me confused but why should they support you?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: April 1st
by 0brad0 on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 03:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: April 1st"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Hang on, you have a iMac over 5 years old and you expect all and sundry to bend over backwards to support you and your out of date computer? colour me confused but why should they support you?


This is one such problem with relying on closed source operating systems and software.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: April 1st
by kaiwai on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: April 1st"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

This is one such problem with relying on closed source operating systems and software.


As an end user you're faced with two options; a half finished for ever promised to be completed and ready for the desktop operating system (Linux) or you can cough up the cash, live a life of ease and be ready to upgrade every 5 years (Windows/Mac OS X). Btw, there is nothing stopping said person from installing Ubuntu if they wanted any more than if their x86 ran Windows horribly and decided to go with some alternative operating system.

For me I work shitty hours and I am quite happy to pay the premium to have a system that works when I want it to - if you want to play around with your computer and fiddle endlessly to save a few dollars then all power to you - fill your boots. For me and many others we can't be fucked being given endless promises and never delivering, or systems that are half finished and half baked with individual software projects that are pretty much abandon-ware.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: April 1st
by anda_skoa on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: April 1st"
anda_skoa Member since:
2005-07-07

if you want to play around with your computer and fiddle endlessly to save a few dollars then all power to you


You know, I usually up-vote comments by you because I not only find their content agreeable but usually also quite insightful.

But this one is a cheap shot way below your usual level of communications.

Most people use Linux (or *BSD, OpenSolaris, etc) because they like it and feel that their needs are best addresses by their operating system of choice.

Saving a few bucks might be a nice bonus on the side. Heck, most of these users will actually have paid for one of the other two options in order to get the hardware they wanted to work with.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: April 1st
by trev on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 18:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: April 1st"
trev Member since:
2006-11-22

Have you tried Linux in the past few years? Most people I install it for think it's more complete and "fully baked" than Windows. I moved several family members from Windows to Linux due to malware, virus protection (yes they can be as bad as the malware). Their skill ranges from fairly advanced to almost computer illiterate but none of them ever touch the CLI. Support time has been cut to a small fraction and reliability significantly improved. All of them say they are very happy and none have asked to go back. Within 1-2 years they usually request I remove the windows partition (I usually install dual boot to ease the transition).

I've been using Linux on the desktop for 10 years now and run my networking/systems/web devel company through it. IMO Linux is and has been ready for the desktop for years, it's just not for everyone. Some apps require Windows since they only exist on win or win/mac. For these home users Linux is not a great fit (corporations have more ways around a few win apps than most home users). For the average home user (browser, email, IM, social apps, music, office) Windows IMO is not a good fit for all the reasons I use Linux and more. I Can't complain about the steady stream of cheap or free 2 year old windows computers that I rehab for friends and family because they got infected though so it all works out.

If you're wondering why it prefer Linux to Windows on the desktop, the reasons are numerous but here are a few highlights:
1. All software loaded from one central, trusted authority instead of downloading from numerous vendors that I know nothing about.
2. Updates every 1.5 years that for the most part just work (MUCH better than any windows upgrade I've ever done). In addition there is no reason not to upgrade since cost is not a factor this also makes support much easier.
3. Moving data from one machine to another or from one HDD to another is trivial (just copy over /home).
4. No malware and a proper security implementation. Windows is still trying to get down the feel of proper user with sudo privileges but their getting closer.
5. No playing around with crappy activation and tracking of licenses for each and every program I install (yes since I work in IT everything is legit, this is WORLDS easier to do on a Linux system).
6. Power! Plain and simple I do a lot on my laptop (usually have 30+ instances of things open across 6 virtual desktops). I've never come close to doing things like this on Windows without it bogging down significantly. I should say thought that Vista always felt bogged to me most of the time and I haven't used win7. Additionally, I use the CLI to accomplish a lot of things not possible / easily doable on Windows. The average users doesn't need this most of the time but they do slowly start using more and more power when it is there for the taking making them more efficient and capable.

I hope this gives you an idea why some of us think Linux is better for most home users. Add to that the fact that it saves a lot of money over the life of the machine (no license to buy, free to upgrade until the hardware is insufficient, considerable savings on support costs) on top of the things listed above. Who knows maybe you'll give a recent distro a spin and know more about it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: April 1st
by nt_jerkface on Sun 3rd Apr 2011 18:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: April 1st"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I try Linux every year.

I recently tried Arch and would definitely use it on the server over Debian or Fedora. I'd describe it as an ideal midpoint between FreeBSD and Slackware. But would I use it on the desktop? No. Would I leave it on a relative's desktop? God no.

Linux on the desktop is not fail-safe or upgrade-safe. There is not a single distro that could have been trusted for a 4 year period. They all break something eventually. You can leave a user with a frozen system but then their software will become dated. The only Linux you should be leaving with a relative is Android.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: April 1st
by Soulbender on Sun 3rd Apr 2011 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: April 1st"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

For me and many others we can't be fucked being given endless promises and never delivering, or systems that are half finished and half baked with individual software projects that are pretty much abandon-ware.


Amen brother. That's exactly why I don't use Windows.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: April 1st
by chekr on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 06:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: April 1st"
chekr Member since:
2005-11-05

"but what will I run on my imac g5? its 2.0Ghz and no up to date browser in sight! What is the point of the gecko rendering engine if nothing can be built around it?


Hang on, you have a iMac over 5 years old and you expect all and sundry to bend over backwards to support you and your out of date computer? colour me confused but why should they support you?
"


Well his/her machine obviously still serves its purpose...so what if it is five years old?

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: April 1st
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 06:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: April 1st"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"but what will I run on my imac g5? its 2.0Ghz and no up to date browser in sight! What is the point of the gecko rendering engine if nothing can be built around it?


Hang on, you have a iMac over 5 years old and you expect all and sundry to bend over backwards to support you and your out of date computer? colour me confused but why should they support you?
"

A 5 year old machine is out of date? So much for the Mac lasts longer bullshit, I suppose.

Funny. I have a Pentium 4 machine from 2002 serving as my media centre, running Windows 7. It does full HD without a hitch.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: April 1st
by Neolander on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 11:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: April 1st"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

This "macs last longer" thing hasn't applied to Apple laptops (at least 13" MBPs) since the first Unibody releases, as far as I can tell ;) Don't know about their desktop offering, though.

Edited 2011-04-02 11:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: April 1st
by draburn on Sun 3rd Apr 2011 08:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: April 1st"
draburn Member since:
2010-03-05

Well, I own a first gen macbook 13" (bought the day they were available). The screen broke, just because my dog pulled the audio cable and it fell to the ground. It has been my media centre since then, running 24/7 without any further issues.

When the first one broke (nov 2008), I got an unibody (the 13" was not labeled pro yet). It is my main computer, and I've never had any problem with it...

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: April 1st
by MacMan on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 13:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: April 1st"
MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19

My server is a 1999 vintage G3 running Tiger. Put in a SATA card while back, now has 4 1.5 TB drives (still have a 20G as a boot drive as it won't boot off SATA). Also added gigabit ethernet card.

Its a server, so there's no need for anything faster than a G3.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: April 1st
by kaiwai on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: April 1st"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

A 5 year old machine is out of date? So much for the Mac lasts longer bullshit, I suppose.


A 5 year old machine *IS* old. Does it still operate? sure but expecting developers to continue supporting a ever decreasing potential user base is just being ludicrous.

Funny. I have a Pentium 4 machine from 2002 serving as my media centre, running Windows 7. It does full HD without a hitch.


And there has been a architecture transition equal to that of the the PPC to x86 that occurred in the Mac world - really? nice to see you're ignoring the context in which the whole matter is being discussed. Why consider the matter of a architecture change when you can fly off the handle whining about how I 'don't get it'.

If he wishes to continue to use it then all power to him but don't expect software vendors to support him any more than than Adobe ceasing to provide PPC versions of their software simply because the demand isn't there (or the demand is so weak it can't justify the extra engineering expense).

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: April 1st
by nt_jerkface on Sun 3rd Apr 2011 18:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: April 1st"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I still haven't seen a P4 fail.

Damn things run hot as hell but they just keep ticking.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: April 1st
by 0brad0 on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 03:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: April 1st"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

but what will I run on my imac g5? its 2.0Ghz and no up to date browser in sight! What is the point of the gecko rendering engine if nothing can be built around it?


Huh? I'm using Firefox 3.6 / 4 on such a system. Those are not up to date enough?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: April 1st
by 0brad0 on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 03:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: April 1st"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

"but what will I run on my imac g5? its 2.0Ghz and no up to date browser in sight! What is the point of the gecko rendering engine if nothing can be built around it?


Huh? I'm using Firefox 3.6 / 4 on such a system. Those are not up to date enough?
"

There is also Safari 5 and Opera 10.6. All of these are "up to date" browsers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: April 1st
by churlish_Helmut on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 08:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: April 1st"
churlish_Helmut Member since:
2010-04-12

The Problem is, that a G5 is a PowerPC Processor, and Mozilla 4 and Opera (above 10.1) doesnt support PPCs, becuse new JS Engines have something like Assemblercode in it (I heard something like this)

So, Opera 10.5 is the newest Browser for G5 User... Except for TenFourFox, which is maybe a project for you (And for me, i am using a G4 )

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: April 1st
by 0brad0 on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: April 1st"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

The Problem is, that a G5 is a PowerPC Processor, and Mozilla 4 and Opera (above 10.1) doesnt support PPCs, becuse new JS Engines have something like Assemblercode in it (I heard something like this)

So, Opera 10.5 is the newest Browser for G5 User... Except for TenFourFox, which is maybe a project for you (And for me, i am using a G4 )


LOL. You contradict yourself in your own post. Opera up to 10.6 supports PPC. TenFourFox is for everybody that wants Firefox 4 on PPC and that's what you get. So you have a choice of at least 3 major modern browsers. And the problem is? Oh wait... nothing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: April 1st
by tyrione on Sun 3rd Apr 2011 01:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: April 1st"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"but what will I run on my imac g5? its 2.0Ghz and no up to date browser in sight! What is the point of the gecko rendering engine if nothing can be built around it?


Huh? I'm using Firefox 3.6 / 4 on such a system. Those are not up to date enough?
"

I'm not understanding either how come they aren't running Safari latest on his PPC box. Hell, I'm running WebKit Nightly on my PPC PowerBook G4 15 right now.

What I don't get is the new Javascript Engine for it, and WebGL for sure is not working.

Reply Score: 2

I hate April Fools
by kriston on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 03:55 UTC
kriston
Member since:
2007-04-11

I hate April Fools. I just don't bother browsing.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I hate April Fools
by 0brad0 on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 04:05 UTC in reply to "I hate April Fools"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

I hate April Fools. I just don't bother browsing.


That might be the case but this post has nothing to do with April Fools.

Reply Score: 2

What's the point?
by MacMan on Sat 2nd Apr 2011 12:49 UTC
MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

Camino was interesting because it used the Firefox rendering engine in a native UI?

So how is Camino supposed to be any better, let alone different from Safari? How about Chrome?

Furthermore, the UI on Mac Firefox 4 is actually OK.

So, the Mac has at least 2 well supported WebKit browsers: Safari and Chrome, and Firefox UI no longer sucks. Whats the point of Camino?

Reply Score: 3

RE: What's the point?
by Ruahine on Mon 4th Apr 2011 02:46 UTC in reply to "What's the point?"
Ruahine Member since:
2005-07-07

I'm a Camino user of 8 or 9 years. It's been my primary browser that whole time. After hearing this news I decided to spend some time with some other browsers to identify an alternative that meets my needs.

What I found was this: Camino has just the right amount of minimalism for my needs. It doesn't have any features (or almost) that I don't use, but I don't feel I'm lacking any features. Other browsers were either too minimalistic (to the point that I found dealing with bookmarks a hassle), or just bloated.

It's sad that the Camino project has wained over the years, with more devs leaving than joining. But that's the nature of open source projects: they depend on momentum. And Mozilla's decision that Gecko belongs inside Firefox is almost like the final nail in the coffin. Ironically, Camino has been using Gecko longer than Firefox has.

Ramble over.

Reply Score: 1

Sensationalistic Titling
by caspy7 on Sun 3rd Apr 2011 00:41 UTC
caspy7
Member since:
2009-04-17

Another "win" for sensationalistic titling.

Reply Score: 1