Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Feb 2012 12:22 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones And even more news from Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. Mozilla has announced a partnership with Telefonica and Qualcomm, which will bring Mozilla's Boot to Gecko HTML5-based mobile interface to devices later his year. This is a huge boon for the fully open source environment.
Thread beginning with comment 508720
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Oh yes,
by deathshadow on Mon 27th Feb 2012 19:11 UTC
Member since:

Because the fat, bloated, slow gecko rendering engine that can't even manage worthwhile hardware video acceleration and if you DARE to use any of the CSS3 blending effects results in scrolling more painful than windows 3.1 on a 386 is going to be SO desirable on a mobile device.


Maybe instead of wasting time branching into platforms their codebase is completely unsuited to, they could spend some time fixing the various implementation bugs that are over a decade old? You know, like gaps in CSS2 that are teenagers? (like say... bugzilla 915?)

I'm getting a real laugh out of this nonsense of using browser engines and javascript as slower more bloated versions of ROM Basic from 30 years ago... because what low voltage low clock speed devices need is more layers of abstraction giving that 1ghz ARM the performance of 386/40 if you just got off your ass and used a *SHOCK* compiler.

Edited 2012-02-27 19:13 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Oh yes,
by Lennie on Mon 27th Feb 2012 20:22 in reply to "Oh yes,"
Lennie Member since:

It doesn't really matter much if the project itself fails or not.

One of the goals is to specify more "HTML5" APIs.

This will help improve existing and develop new APIs before they are submitted to W3C.

Having the same API on, euh... Windows Metro ? as some mobile app is better than one seperate API per device/platform/vendor.

Edit: Which also helps moving away from Flash and Silverlight which aren't even available on all platforms. Things like webcam support, including p2p webcam support.

Edited 2012-02-27 20:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Oh yes,
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 28th Feb 2012 03:53 in reply to "Oh yes,"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:

more painful than windows 3.1 on a 386

Whoah. Just hold on a sec. I ran windows 3.1 on a 386, and it was good stuff man. I think you mean Windows 95 on a 486 ... SX. That was bad news.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Oh yes,
by MOS6510 on Tue 28th Feb 2012 09:39 in reply to "RE: Oh yes,"
MOS6510 Member since:

I have an IBM 486 running Windows 3.1 in our server room. I use it as a terminal to configure hardware. Not that I really need this computer to do that, but it's more fun.

It's quite a fast system.

And Windows 3.1 on a 386 wasn't bad either. Even Windows 3.0 on a 286 was pretty decent.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Oh yes,
by zima on Sat 3rd Mar 2012 20:23 in reply to "RE: Oh yes,"
zima Member since:

My primary school got P100 16 MiB Win95, for 96-97 school year (all 5 of them ...for 13-15 person groups; not like it made much difference, because a) the curriculum was a bit silly b) even hardly followed; so those were mostly gaming machines for class ~rascals all very much like religion lessons, when you could just do some homework and such, or - in high school - play cards ;) )

A bit later, thanks to reshuffling in the administration, one more was added: some 386 with 4 MiB (IIRC) and Win 3.1 - considerably less "popular" since, well, it was without any games (perhaps the lack of CD-ROM was stopping those who installed a collection on the other, perhaps they just didn't have any which work on 386 and/or thought to be worth anything)

And so, from the peaceful exploration of Win 3.1 on that 386, I seem to clearly remember a strong impression that its ~desktop felt as snappy, if not more, as P100 Win95 machines (but perhaps the impression on the latter was also impacted by often clogged - since actually used - ball mouses)

Too bad there really wasn't anything to do - no software, no documentation, no guru around, no network (not even between those machines); boring.
Oh well, at least I quickly realized that just deleting shortcuts to games is a show-stopper for ~rascals ;) (not like I was taking advantage or smth, having only C64 at home, I think even broken by then; and those were hypothetically school lessons after all)

Reply Parent Score: 2