Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Jun 2009 09:56 UTC, submitted by adkilla
Mozilla & Gecko clones Firefox 3.5RC1 has been released. "Firefox 3.5 (Release Candidate) is based on the Gecko 1.9.1 rendering platform, which has been under development for the past year. Firefox 3.5 offers many changes over the previous version, supporting new web technologies, improving performance and ease of use, and adding new features for users."
Thread beginning with comment 369513
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"My only complain is that Firefox uses only Gtk in Linux. I'd like to see a Firefox version with Qt because I use KDE.

Actually, my biggest complaint is that Firefox is *not* pure GTK... it's XULrunner/GTK, and that wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't slow as a slug. The slimy, gooey kind. A Qt version would certainly be nice for those people who use KDE or prefer Qt applications, but I can live without it. Right now, I think speeding up the GUI is more important than porting it to another platform. It just locks up for several seconds at a time, all the time... especially when navigating the menus and opening or closing tabs.
"

Obviously you haven't been running Firefox 3.5 on Linux then.

I'm running it on Fedora 11 (KDE4) right now. Nice and fast (quite comparable to Chrome) and not a sign of a lockup. Way quicker than any version of IE on any version of Windows.

Having said that, a native Qt GUI frontend would be a most welcome improvement.

Edited 2009-06-20 13:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

SirYes Member since:
2007-03-12

Having said that, a native Qt GUI frontend would be a most welcome improvement.


You may be right, but what about Firefox extensions? They are in fact a mix of JavaScript - for code, and XUL - for user interface (as every Gecko-based application). So a line of thinking:

* What is the chance said Qt port would NOT break existing Firefox extensions?
* Why build Firefox atop Qt, when there is already WebKit support for rendering HTML in Qt?

It's much harder to port existing browser like Firefox than create a new one from scratch, using existing Qt components, see: QtWeb - http://www.qtweb.net/

Reply Parent Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Having said that, a native Qt GUI frontend would be a most welcome improvement.


You may be right, but what about Firefox extensions? They are in fact a mix of JavaScript - for code, and XUL - for user interface (as every Gecko-based application). So a line of thinking:

* What is the chance said Qt port would NOT break existing Firefox extensions?
* Why build Firefox atop Qt, when there is already WebKit support for rendering HTML in Qt?

It's much harder to port existing browser like Firefox than create a new one from scratch, using existing Qt components, see: QtWeb - http://www.qtweb.net/
"

Perhaps a combination XULrunner (for Firefox extensions) with a Qt interface (for file dialogs, icons, toolbars and scrollbars, etc) with a webkit backend?

Best of all worlds?

Other than that, we might have to wait for Google Chrome, even if it is a pain to have to pipe it through privoxy.

Nah. GTK applications run well enough under KDE, so hang it, stick with Firefox as it is I suppose.

Edited 2009-06-20 14:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Qt sucks. Firefox is well advised to stay the hell away from it.


How so?

Without any evidence of actual suckage in your post, and considering that both Qt and Qt Creator are licensed under LGPL3 and available for all platforms, and also given that GTK+ is difficult to work with, one suspects you of trolling here, but you may have an actual point behind your comment so ... pray tell, what would it be?

Reply Parent Score: 3