Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Sep 2008 11:15 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones With the recent surge in WebKit adoption, many have stated to question the usefulness of Mozilla's Gecko browsing engine, claiming that WebKit is far superior. Some even go as far as saying that Firefox should ditch Gecko in favour of WebKit. Ars Technica's Ryan Paul explains why that is utter, utter bogus. "From a technical perspective, Gecko is now very solid and no longer lags behind WebKit. A testament to the rate at which Gecko has been improving is its newfound viability in the mobile space, where it was practically considered a nonstarter not too long ago. Mozilla clearly has the resources, developer expertise, and community support to take Gecko anywhere that WebKit can go."
Thread beginning with comment 329724
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Epiphany?
by joekiser on Tue 9th Sep 2008 12:10 UTC in reply to "Epiphany?"
joekiser
Member since:
2005-06-30

Back in April, the development team decided that only Webkit would be supported in future releases:

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/epiphany-list/2008-April/msg00000.ht...

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Epiphany?
by agrouf on Tue 9th Sep 2008 12:21 in reply to "RE: Epiphany?"
agrouf Member since:
2006-11-17

My bad, I didn't know that. I can see why they want to use webkit in Epiphany (size and that they use the same technologies as GNOME). I don't believe gecko has any less momemtum though. It's still the most used web engine in the world (except maybe that of IE, but we'll never know what web engine they use).

Edited 2008-09-09 12:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Epiphany?
by jjezabek on Tue 9th Sep 2008 12:43 in reply to "RE[2]: Epiphany?"
jjezabek Member since:
2005-08-07

I can see why they want to use webkit in Epiphany (size and that they use the same technologies as GNOME).

Precisely which technologies are you talking about?

It's still the most used web engine in the world (except maybe that of IE, but we'll never know what web engine they use).

They use an engine they call Trident, more officially known as MSHTML. It can easily be used by programs needing HTML rendering and documentation is also readily available. Of course you cannot get the source code, but honestly - have you ever made any use of Webkit/Gecko (simple unpacking does not count as using)? Of course there are people who need the source code, but 99.9% of users and 90% of developers do not.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Epiphany?
by sbergman27 on Tue 9th Sep 2008 14:40 in reply to "RE: Epiphany?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Mozilla made a huge bet on XUL and xpcomm many years ago... and today they have to point out the few and little known applications which actually make any use of them, outside of Firefox itself... where they admit that using them too heavily was one of their biggest mistakes.

Regarding the article point about Gecko having the potential to be as lean and mean as webkit... the Minimo guys have been trying for years to slim Gecko down and have gotten nowhere.

Gecko is a great browser core for the late 1990s. Webkit is a great browser core for today. To a great extent, Gecko is a victim of its huge, complex, and now crufty code base.

To those people who say that "choice is good". You're darned right! Shortly after "Mozilla Foundation" spawned "Mozilla Corp" the Mozilla guys felt complacent enough to treat Linux distros as second class citizens, making the preparation of security updates as difficult as possible and enforcing nitpicky trademark restrictions which compelled distros to jump through ridiculous hoops like calling their browser "Ice Weasel".

Now there is a choice, and developers are leaving (or avoiding) Gecko in droves. KDE has always used KHTML, kissing cousin of Webkit. Epiphany is moving exclusively to WebKit just as fast as they can. (The move will be complete by 2.26, but is quite usable today.) Google gave Gecko the brush off in favor of webkit. Minimo has close to zero penetration of the embedded market. Now mozilla Corp says it wants to make Firefox integrate better with Linux. How the mighty have fallen. And I cannot say that I am saddened by it.

I wonder how many weeks it will take Chrome to pass up Firefox over at W3Schools?

Edited 2008-09-09 14:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Epiphany?
by rycamor on Tue 9th Sep 2008 15:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Epiphany?"
rycamor Member since:
2005-07-18

Mozilla made a huge bet on XUL and xpcomm many years ago... and today they have to point out the few and little known applications which actually make any use of them, outside of Firefox itself... where they admit that using them too heavily was one of their biggest mistakes.


I'm curious; where have they admitted this?

And as for "few and little known applications", you DO realize that every one of the many popular Firefox extensions happens to be a XUL application. Even if XUL/XPComm's usefulness were limited to this alone, I would say it has been worthwhile. It is something that Webkit and MSHTML cannot even touch.

And, there are actually many, many XUL applications in use as we speak. I personally did a fairly major corporate touchscreen application using it. XUL is a very good choice for corporate "intranet" applications where the company need simply specify the browser for all desktops to use and rich GUI apps can be run directly over HTTP. And XUL/Javascript is way, way ahead of HTML/Ajax.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: Epiphany?
by -oblio- on Tue 9th Sep 2008 19:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Epiphany?"
-oblio- Member since:
2008-05-27

"I wonder how many weeks it will take Chrome to pass up Firefox over at W3Schools? "

Between 104 and 208, if not more. Do you think that Mozilla got there by accident? And do you think that browser market penetration is that easy?

Netscape, Opera, Firefox have all tried desperately to pry 1-2% from IE's market share. Guess which one was successful, and became the "standards' tractor"?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Epiphany?
by Valhalla on Tue 9th Sep 2008 20:30 in reply to "RE[2]: Epiphany?"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

I liked chrome, rough around the edges as it is. best part was the noticably faster javascript engine, I guess that Danish company Google hired to write the new javascript wm knew what they were doing. I also like Firefox, it's currently my browser of choice and I will stick to it as long as it gives me the best browsing experience (of which the actual rendering engine being used is only a small part), not out of any brand loyalty (of which I have none).

But you do strike me as overzelous in your haste to predict the annihilation of Firefox due to Chrome. In fact it comes off as wishful thinking, which looking at your posts seems to be due to anger at Mozilla. Like others have said, healthy competition is the best possible situation for the end user (and advancement browsing technology/experience in overall). I've said before that I want IE to lose more market share, but preferably NOT to Firefox since we need more competition. No matter if you prefer IE, Firefox, Chrome or Opera etc, the appearance of a new strong competitor will force the rest to produce a better product which means every preference wins.

sbergman27 wrote:
-"...the Mozilla guys felt complacent enough to treat Linux distros as second class citizens"
Chrome doesn't even build on Linux as of yet (speaking of second class citizens). As long as Windows has ~90% market share the focus will be on that platform.

sbergman27 wrote:
-"...and enforcing nitpicky trademark restrictions which compelled distros to jump through ridiculous hoops like calling their browser "Ice Weasel"."
This makes perfect sense to me. There should be a clear distincion between official/unofficial builds, are you saying Google will allow third party builds naming their browser Chrome (or whatever the official name will be when released)?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Epiphany?
by mksoft on Tue 9th Sep 2008 21:43 in reply to "RE[2]: Epiphany?"
mksoft Member since:
2006-02-25

I wonder how many weeks it will take Chrome to pass up Firefox over at W3Schools?


Could take a long time. W3Schools is visited by web developers. For many of those the equation is simple:

no firebug = no deal

Reply Parent Score: 1