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 329740
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Hmmm
by OSGuy on Tue 9th Sep 2008 13:17 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

"Gecko is now very solid and no longer lags behind WebKit"

Hmmm I am confused. I thought it was the other way around - WebKit behind Gecko. Ok, I know Webkit was started by the KDE people and then extended by Apple and Apple gave the new code back. Gecko, isn't Gecko written by the Mozilla developers? Some readers say Firefox should use WebKit - Why would you throw away their very own product rather then improve what they have? + Should they go with WebKit, they will break so many extensions - but nothing new their as pretty much with every new FF version, you need an updated extension. So we have Gecko, WebKit, Trident and the Opera one...

Edited 2008-09-09 13:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hmmm
by sorpigal on Tue 9th Sep 2008 14:10 in reply to "Hmmm"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Extensions rarely break between when Firefox is updated, it's just that FF by default refuses to install extensions that don't specifically claim conformance with its current version. Most extensions don't so much update as bump the works with number.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Hmmm
by theTSF on Thu 11th Sep 2008 19:26 in reply to "Hmmm"
theTSF Member since:
2005-09-27

Ok I am not an expert of the difference between the two rendering engines. But why would they dump their original bread and butter, for the other guys? This argument is about products in general not a bust on Gecko or Web Kit.

Well I could think of some reasons.

1. Obviously Superior. Not just better but Superior competing with it will be more work and produce so little then joining.

2. Lost public support. Much like the old Netscape. IE thwamped them so much and Netscape delayed Netscape 5 then rebranded as 6 for so long that the public impress of Netscape as the out of date browser that nothing worked.

3. To hard to maintain. Code tends of have a life cycle where there is apoint were maintenance take more effort then a new design. Even good code there comes a point where upgrading takes to many full reworks then needed. A newer system designed to do the new stuff can have a longer maintenance cycle.

4. Grumpy old developers. Often the leading edge developers end up as grumpy old developers who poo-poo any of this new stuff. You see them when ever there is a paradime shift. From Mainframe to PC, CLI to GUI, Locally run application to Web Based.... They just drag you back. Dumping the old code (and the developers as well who don't want to learn the new way) can keep you going.

5. Unity. If your primary goal is to go against Internet Explorer Unity across projects makes your point stronger.

Reply Parent Score: 1