Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 17th Dec 2009 22:16 UTC
Mac OS X Late last night (CET), we reported on the story that the VLC project needed more developers for the Mac version of this popular video player, or else the Mac variant may disappear. Just about every website out there reported on this issue, but it turns out it all got a bit exaggerated (on the internet? Surely you jest...). We spoke to VLC developer Pierre d'Herbemont to clarify the issue, and they've also put up a wiki page about the so-called demise of the Mac version of VLC. He also detailed what, exactly, they meant by "Apple is blocking us".
Thread beginning with comment 400275
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Qt4 Interface?
by unapersson on Fri 18th Dec 2009 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Qt4 Interface?"
unapersson
Member since:
2005-07-19

Note to people who seem a bit confused: Firefox was not a rewrite of Mozilla. It was a strip-down and streamlining of Mozilla. The stupid mistake was in throwing out so much of Netscape's mature and tested code back in 1998 and 1999... long before Phoenix/Firefox.


It was mature and tested but struggled to support CSS. Even the earliest buggiest betas of Mozilla and Netscape 6 had superior CSS support to IE6. The rendering engine was solid, most of the problems came with the decision to render the UI with XUL rather that sticking the new rendering engine in a more conservative UI.

They could have released Netscape 5 based on the Netscape 4 codebase, an alpha did appear at one point and it was an improvement on 4, but it could have done little more than keep the Netscape brand limping along.

They still did not have Microsoft's ability to stick their browser on every windows desktop which is the thing that really unseated Netscape. If it wasn't for that they could have kept with 4 until 5 was ready. Netscape might have had 80% of the market at one point, but that was a large percentage of a much smaller market.

It also would not have moved web standards forward at all, just created another browser to support with kludges.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Qt4 Interface?
by sbergman27 on Fri 18th Dec 2009 16:54 in reply to "RE[5]: Qt4 Interface?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

It was mature and tested but struggled to support CSS. Even the earliest buggiest betas of Mozilla and Netscape 6 had superior CSS support to IE6. The rendering engine was solid, most of the problems came with the decision to render the UI with XUL rather that sticking the new rendering engine in a more conservative UI.

Well... and the networking code and all the other stuff they decided to replace. The number one priority should have been to finish Raptor/Gecko and get it out in a usable release no matter how much they disapproved of the code quality of the rest of the code-base.

If the current code base for FF had been closed and was released for the first time, today, to a new generation of OSS developers, I'll bet they'd look at it and say "Yuck! This is just awful! We've got to rewrite this mess from scratch!". And when they came out with their first barely functional release, people would oooh and ahhh about how small and efficient and clean the new code-base was... and in several years we'd have something that was usable, well-tested, huge, and "a mess".

Edited 2009-12-18 17:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2