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 329743
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Epiphany?
by Daniel Borgmann on Tue 9th Sep 2008 13:45 UTC in reply to "Epiphany?"
Daniel Borgmann
Member since:
2005-07-08

"gecko has always been more complete and more powerful than webkit and is likely to be for the decade to come."

Not long ago I thought so too, but apparently I was wrong. I just can't tell any more where Gecko might be leading in an area that actually matters to the user, so maybe it is indeed Gecko which has/had some catching up to do now.

Of course this will be one hell of a fight which certainly will benefit everyone involved, but right now I'm very impressed by WebKit (and the decisions by Google and Epiphany to adopt it make me quite happy indeed). Chrome is the first WebKit based browser I've been using extensively, and so far I absolutely love it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Epiphany?
by sorpigal on Tue 9th Sep 2008 14:13 in reply to "RE: Epiphany?"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I would say that WebKit, due to the nature of its corporate backers, is much more concerned with implementing things which Mozilla devs don't feel much urgency about. The simpler codebase also (probably) makes it easier for random people who want an enhancement to drop in some patches, though I cannot say how easy getting them committed is.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Epiphany?
by 0brad0 on Tue 9th Sep 2008 17:52 in reply to "RE[2]: Epiphany?"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

I would say that WebKit, due to the nature of its corporate backers, is much more concerned with implementing things which Mozilla devs don't feel much urgency about. The simpler codebase also (probably) makes it easier for random people who want an enhancement to drop in some patches, though I cannot say how easy getting them committed is.


Exactly, why have good standards compliance when WebKit can do it better..

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Epiphany?
by agrouf on Tue 9th Sep 2008 17:08 in reply to "RE: Epiphany?"
agrouf Member since:
2006-11-17

in my opinion, webkit is fast improving and has many advantages, like its light weigh. However, it still lacks a lot of features to replace gecko. One of the most important: accessibility. Webkit does not provide any at-spi support, as far as I know. I hope this will improve, because many people rely on at-spi to use their computer (blind people as well as motor disabled people). I can think of some other areas where webkit is not there yet, mut maybe I'm mistaken. Things move so fast that I have some troubles to keep up.

Reply Parent Score: 3