Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Project Hurt by Apple's Decision to use KH
Anonymous Coward writes "I Read this article from ZDNet claiming how some of the Mozilla developers were hurt by Apple's decision to use KHTML over Gecko. I can see both their points. Mozilla was made for cross-platform compatibility, and this probably adds to the bloat, however that's not what they were looking for. They wanted small and fast."
First post written in Mozilla, proving that gecko is indeed fast (and can be made small).
I don't think the Mozilla guys should take Apple's decision as anything more than Apple trying to do what's best for Apple. We users may have the luxury of using political motives in determing which software to use, but corporations have to answer to shareholders. If Apple sincerely believes they made the best choice for them, then I hope it works out well for them.
I'll continue to use Mozilla, if it makes the developers happy!
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Mozilla supports many more standards/protocols than Safari As Safari reaches this level of functionality it will get bigger and bigger.
At the end of the day though, who cares if they use Mozilla or not?
What's important is that they're dumping IE, thus freeing themselves from a dependence on Microsoft.
PS: "Bloated" or not, Mozilla runs just fine on my PC.
Would the khtml people be "hurt" if apple had used Gecho? Maybe if the Mozilla people are so injured they should look at why KHTML was chosen over Gecho and take steps to improve. Such is the beauty of competition. Maybe the mozilla people aren't aiming for what the Safari people were looking for... Maybe portablility wasn't important as size and speed to the Safari people. Apple adopting an open source browser is ultimately a very good thing, whether it be Gecho, Khtml, or some other open sourch engine.
Apple's R&D people are some of the best and their research showed which path was 'best' based on some checklist spawned from some meetings somewhere in the depths of Apple. Would we have a similar story if the KHTML kids were hurt because Apple went the other way? No. Their project is seen as less-significant. Do they have their own icon on /.? Similarly, no. For the same reason.
Send your friends messages of love at fuck-you.org
Gecko is small and fast - just mozilla is a bit bloated.
Maybe it's high time to put Apple in the back of our minds when it comes to open source development. Let's face it, they generally slow the process down (e.g., OpenOffice) or try to re-invent it (X11) and hide behind more restrictive licenses after borrowing from the wealth of open source code (...though kudos to them for their recent contribution to the Konqueror project). Let Apple take the responsibility for streamlining code to work under their platform.
And guess what, Intel was hurt by Apple's decision to use the PPC and Microsoft was hurt by Apple not licensing the NT kernel. They're a fucking business, not a charity.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Interent Explorer is still the best browser for the Mac platform. By Apple getting rid of it, its a big slap in the face for users of OSX.
Oh well, Apple is only 3% market share, so who cares anyways?
I once had a MAC. Really nice machine. But then I had to develop on a G3 Firewire MAC. It just kept churning and churning... I kept scratching my head and wondering. I installed YellowDog Linux and the churning would not stop. I replaced it with an Intel box and the churning stopped...
Apple has some great hardware, but the software end sucks. I have been to multiple conferences as a speaker and seen others struggle with their Apple boxes because the software just is not there. Apple, the x86 instruction set has won! Get with the show!
So if Apple wants to use the K-Browser, by all means all the power to them. But meanwhile I am on Linux/Windows XP and plan to continue using Mozilla. On P4 it is not slow, nor is it buggy. Mozilla 1.3Alpha is quite neat actually...
This is what competition is all about. Sometimes the competitor wins. This sort of thing makes products better in the end.
At one point, it's necessary to stop and redo everything from scratch.
It would just be easier to hire some guys to work full time on Mozilla for OSX and keep them at just enough of a distance so that Microsoft doesn't know Apple is funding them. Same would go for OpenOffice.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I mean, if the Apple folks were able to port KHTML to OpenStep^WMac OS X from that whole Linux-QT-KDE mess, it can't be that bad, can it?
Let's call it like it is -- Gecko, while a noble effort, is really a failure. It was YEARS late, and completely missed its goal (a lightweight, fast. cross-platform rendering engine). One bit of that (cross-platform) does not a success make.
I have to say, I'm absolutely impressed with Apple's Safari. It's FAST as all getout, and it's the first browser that really makes me think twice about having paid for OmniWeb. I've been using Safari daily since release and while, yes, it has some bugs, it's still better than Chimera, OW, & Mozilla combined. IE also has its rendering issues, and I detest lots of other things about it.
Safari's what a browser should be -- small, lightweight, and out of my face. The interface is slim & sleek, and, like the rest of Apple's software, lets me focus on the CONTENT rather than the delivery.
I really think that's why OSX is so wonderful -- it just stays out of my way and lets me do what I gotta do. And I have to admit, running a DVD authoring program alongside several terminal windows on a Mac (!) is still impressive to me.
Apple didn't buy NeXT. NeXT swallowed Apple whole.'
--NBVB
it might just slim down and get lighter and faster! what would they add, other than tabs, that would cause major bloat? that is the problem with the full mozilla--many features. i shouldn't say "problem" though, since i feel that it is an advantage in cases.
...and if Apple had chosen Mozilla's engine, the KHTML developers would have been "hurt." KHTML is a compact code by comparison - far easier for Apple to take and modify. What happened to the idea that choice is good? Apple is helping to turn KHTML into a more viable choice (I used Mozilla exclusively before Safari was release- I had never touched KHTML). Now there are a whole bunch of viable browsers out there. Chris
I mean come on, look at Apple's choices,
1) Use this extremely bloated, unoptimized browser or
2) Use this smaller engine that can be optimized with little effort to run like a top on our operating system.
I'm sorry but Apple is doing what any good business would do, its looking out for its own interests. But I fail to see how this hurts Mozilla. So what mac users can use another browser. COMPETITION IS GOOD. maybe this will get those Mozilla monks in gear and start making their browser SMALLER instead of adding X more features that I don't need.
Now if all the browsers would just use the same plugin models....
"If I were bound by all laws everywhere I'm sure I would have committed a capital crime somewhere."
Competition in the Open Source world? Microsoft gripes about not owning 100% of the market, too, guys. Competing projects are good. They promote diversity, and since we're all Open Source people, and we all use the same open protocols, its all interoperable.
Good to see KHTML in the commercial spotlight, and not just Mozilla. I'm typing this in Mozilla, which I sear by and tell all my friends about, but KHTML is good, too.
Bah, what do I know. i'm just a user
Theonlyuse of monkeys is to testthings onthem.Some peoplemay say"Hey That'scruel!"and myresponse is"I don't like monkeys
I understand that mozilla might have some hurt feelings, but lets focus. Apple had specific needs and they chose what they thought was the best solution. Mozilla is doing something a bit different (multiplatform).
In the end this is a bit of a win for Mozilla and all open source software.
1. It is a high profile (if low distribution) browser based on an open source core. This is a good thing for open source projects in general.
2. Competition in the open source browser arena is not a bad thing. I predict that both browsers will get better as a result or some good natured competition.
3. Apple is not anti-Mozilla, they just decided to use a different rending engine for Safari.
4. Chimera (Mozilla based) is still a better browser than Safari on MacOS X.
It should be noted that Mike Shaver's (formerly of Netscape, still of Mozilla) comments were, as he points out, taken horribly out of context in the ZDNet article.
I question not so much the free software crowd's love of Mozilla, as the hate for KHTML. Why hate this _other_ free and excellent library for web rendering?
Apple made a perfectly valid choice, and contributed their changes back to the free software community. Yet another great free software project now benefits from Apple, at IE/Microsoft's expense of market share on Mac desktops.
Don't draw any conclusions you don't have to. I love Mozilla, too, but Apple made a decision, and one which even most Mozilla developers feel was a valid technical choice, even if it wasn't the one they themselves would have made.
What exactly did Apple do wrong again?
---
Drew Streib, dtype.org
Safari is a little over 3MB, Mozilla...well, you know if you're reading this. Chimera is great, and OS X already has a good mail client. The choice is obvious to me, K being so lightweight. Safari flies, had it been gecko people would just say "Why not continue using Chimera?". I think it was a good move. Now if I could only afford Stebe's new tiny laptop.
Safari weighs in at 7.2 megs, Mozilla is 38.3 megs.
Safari has a ton of room to grow before it achieves Mozilla's mammoth size.
Regardless of this, Safari is far more than halfway done.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
They don't care about portability, since they are a single platform. Thus, Gecko's advantages there offered nothing. They explained their choice in terms of speed and the size and structure of the code. Probably part of the issue was whether they felt they could dive in and code away immediately. Mozilla, arguably, is a little large for that.
Mozilla was made for cross-platform compatibility, and this probably adds to the bloat, however that's not what they were looking for. They wanted small and fast.
Isn't IBM pushing for a Java UI approach that uses of *native* GUI widgets if available? (I don't remember the acronym off hand.) There have been many complaints about emulated widgets, including speed and not fitting "local" OS customs.
It seems that this is yet anothre push to use native widgets rather than emulations. Perhaps emulated widgets is a dying idea (or hardware has not caught up yet).
Table-ized A.I.
I'm sorry, but there's a reason why I personally stick with Opera and IE (IE for IE "only" pages, and for /. just for the irony) and why I'm willing to _pay_ for well made software. Mozilla hurt Mozilla by being too little (or too much when viewing the codebase!) too late. Mozilla based browsers have improved dramatically, but IMHO they are still sub-par. Although Safari has some missing features, for an initial release it looks very promising. From what I've seen, if I ever get a Mac I may be very tempted to use Safari over Opera. Of course, Opera should then sue Apple for levereging their monopoly on PowerPC desktops and pushing Opera out of their market :-).
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
.. is that you get to choose which product best suits your needs. Unfortunately, that also means that someone doesn't get picked. Get over it, and make a better product. Maybe you'll get picked the next time around.
Uhm, the iPod is available for PC, and not because of great urging, but because it was a good business decision.
...a platform developer that really cares if a browser is cross-platform...
The point of HTML is that it is cross-platform, once you have a good app on your platform to view it (preferably adhereing to certain standards), what more do you need?
...you got the title wrong. It should read:
"ZDNet trolls for more page hits yet again - film at 11."
When I think of small and fast, I think of IE. It's a much smaller download than mozilla and it runs great.
IE on mac OS X just as good if not better than the windows version. It's good to finally see IE running well on a unix operating system.
Stanley Feinbaum, professional journalist and master debater! God bless the USA!
Apple hurt Mozilla? The only thing that hurt Mozilla was Mozilla. And for the most part, the Mozilla developers know that already.
"Editors," indeed.
I was a bit surprised Apple developed a browser, and with Open Source code, but when I read it wasn't using Gecko I was even more surprised.
However, seems like the KDE folks have done a great job here, so congrats to them. The Mozilla folks shouldn't feel "hurt", this should motivate them to improve what is already a really good browser.
The competition is not only IE, but more stuff is showing up all the time. That's great, competition in the browser arena is back. For a moment I tought we'd be stuck with IE forever!
- sigs are for wimps.
http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6565
Which is why they should have used Mozilla. It's both Free and free (unlike most of KDE). I wonder if this choice of their reflects a fundamental change at Apple--are they in bed with Microsoft now?
I'm using kde 3.1 rc6. Konqueror is simply better and faster than mozilla. Also, konqueror is more modular and the code is more simple than mozilla.
Mozilla and Netscape seems to think that it is suffisent to have some evangelists. For me Apple had do the right choice of considering code before listening evangelist. Mozilla is simply too slow, to complex to be interresting !
No where in the article does it support the claim that "Mozilla hurt by Apple blast " or "Mozilla Project Hurt by Apple's Decision to use KH". How about "Apple chooses KH over Mozilla's Gecko". What's wrong with telling the truth?
If Apple had used Gecko instead, they would be reproducing work that is already done in Chimera. They obviously wanted something of their own that they could make a huge announcement about. They also wanted to make it as small and fast as possible. So the decision to use khtml makes sense.
Above all else, Apple is a control freak... whether it's over their OS or their hardware or whatever runs on their OS, they want to have complete domination over it.
Apple is hurting the entire free world by doing this. They are causing market fragmentation in the browser arena. Many fine companies in democratic countries will suffer..
When you buy Apple, you're supporting terrorism!
Apple was probably enticed by the fact that it is a smaller codebase, and thus giving Apple more "ownership" (in the creative sense) of the project.
Mozilla is a lot more mature, feature-wise, and Apple was probably looking for a clean slate. They just want a stripped-down rendering engine, and the interface is all theirs.
Q: You said this was designed to be cross-platform. Where's the mac version?
A: Designed to be cross-platform doesn't mean we offer a build on every platform, it just means the code itself works anywhere. We don't officially offer Phoenix for Mac, but some people have already begun experimenting with mac versions (see this page). We may consider officially releasing Phoenix for Mac in the future, but we want to focus on Windows and Linux for now.
I seriously dig the Phoenix project. Mozilla is way too big and way more than I would ever use. Phoenix is just right (and getting better with every release).
Unfortunately for Mozilla, Phoenix isn't mature enough yet to be Mac's choice of browser. Give it a year or so and we'll probably see a Mac version of Phoenix which will rival Safari in speed and size.
Applications
Mozilla hurt by Apple blast
By Paul Festa
Special to ZDNet News
January 14, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
AOL Time Warner's Mozilla project is facing new questions about quality after Apple Computer's release of a browser based on rival open-source code.
Apple last week unveiled its own browser, called Safari. The company said it was based on the KHTML rendering engine that is the core of Konqueror, an open-source file manager and Web browser for the K Desktop Environment (KDE).
In an e-mail congratulating KHTML engineers on their work and its selection by Apple, Safari's engineering manager touted the technology over Mozilla and its rendering engine, Gecko.
"When we were evaluating technologies over a year ago, KHTML and KJS stood out," Safari Engineering Manager Don Melton wrote. (KJS is KDE's JavaScript interpreter.) "Not only were they the basis of an excellent, modern and standards-compliant Web browser, they were also less than 140,000 lines of code. The size of your code and ease of development within that code made it a better choice for us than other open-source projects."
Despite its diplomatic tone and anonymous reference, Mozilla veterans read between the lines of Melton's message.
In a Web log, Mozilla founder and former evangelist Jamie Zawinski said Apple is bad-mouthing Mozilla.
"Translated through a de-weaselizer, (Melton's e-mail) says: 'Even though some of us used to work on Mozilla, we have to admit that the Mozilla code is a gigantic, bloated mess, not to mention slow, and with an internal API so flamboyantly baroque that frankly we can't even comprehend where to begin,'" Zawinski wrote.
One Mozilla staff member called KHTML selection an understandable if not foregone conclusion, given Mozilla's technical problems.
"I guess I'm supposed to be mortally offended--or at least embarrassed--that they went with KHTML instead of our Gecko engine, but I'm having trouble working up the indignation," wrote Mike Shaver in a Web log posting. "We've all known forever that Gecko missed its 'small-and-lean' target by an area code, and we've been slogging back towards the goal, dragging our profilers and benchmarks behind us, for years."
Shaver, who left Netscape three years ago but retained his position on the small Mozilla staff, said that in Apple's shoes he might have made a similar decision.
"If I had to write a new browser, and I was going to have to touch the layout code in a serious way, I would think about Mozilla alternatives," Shaver wrote. "I really, really hope that Mozilla will learn from Safari/KHTML, because they've done a lot of great work in about a tenth of the code."
Mitchell Baker, who goes by the title of chief lizard wrangler at Mozilla, defended the Mozilla project against technical gripes in a prepared statement. "Gecko offers crossplatform capabilities, leading standards support as well as a full feature set and tested compatibility on the Web," she said.
"Gecko's speedy crossplatform nature is important to maintaining a Web to which all users have access regardless of their platform," she added. "Gecko is already embedded and distributed in real-world applications from Red Hat, IBM, OEone, Netscape and CompuServe, and we look forward to the upcoming releases of Gecko-based products that are currently in development."
Slow progress
Mozilla has faced criticism before over the pace of its development efforts, which were originally conceived as the Web community's best chance to challenge the dominance of Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Mozilla 1.0 was released last year, after long delays that effectively allowed Microsoft to cement its lead.
AOL Time Warner's Netscape division issued Netscape 6--its first browser based on the Mozilla code--to poor reviews, but a subsequent update answered many of the critics. Netscape Communications is Mozilla's corporate sponsor.
Mozilla and Netscape have both seen small gains in market share, appearing in the market alongside an independent entry from Norway's Opera Software. None has significantly challenged Microsoft's lead, however, which remains well above 90 percent, according to a recent survey.
Apple's browser is unlikely to alter the market-share picture, but is still a significant entry into the field. Although it caters to a small group of users, it could help Apple wean itself from its reliance on Microsoft's IE and create new software services. Apple's vote also carries significant weight in software circles as a result of its development of several highly-regarded applications for its Macintosh personal computers, particularly its iTunes and iPhoto multimedia tools.
Melton's e-mail detailed the Safari team's deep roots in the Mozilla project. Melton helped launch Mozilla in 1998. Safari engineer David Hyatt launched Chimera, a version of Mozilla for Mac OS X.
Asked to elaborate on its rejection of Mozilla, Apple went out of its way to minimize its dissatisfaction with the technology it bypassed.
"The Gecko engine is fairly well-regarded engine," said Chris Bourdon, product marketing manager for Mac OS X. "It isn't to say that there is anything poor about Gecko or Mozilla. The Safari team just felt KHTML was a better code base from which they could build a browser."
Bourdon said Safari engineers looked at size, speed and compatibility in choosing KHTML. In addition to Mozilla, Apple also considered building its own browser from scratch.
Bourdon said the fact KHTML's small size--140,000 lines of code--let Apple build a browser that is a svelte 3 MB in size. He compared that with Netscape's more than 17 MB, though that includes an e-mail reader and other peripheral applications.
Untying browser knots
Apple, which embarked on its browser project in order to free itself further from dependence on Microsoft and its Internet Explorer browser, may have balked at using Mozilla because of its ties to AOL Time Warner. The media giant's Netscape unit funds and staffs Mozilla's nonvolunteer positions.
Though shared enmity with Microsoft has made Apple's relations with AOL Time Warner comparatively warm, the question remains whether Apple would want to trade in its browser reliance on the world's largest technology company for that of the world's largest media and technology company.
Apple and analysts alike insisted that technical, rather than political, considerations were the real reason behind Apple's choice.
"Every discussion I had with them had more to do with the quality and size of the kernel and what they could do with it," said Tim Bajarin, an analyst at Creative Strategies in San Jose, Calif. "My suspicion is the real goal was to just try to work with what they considered the best technology that they could build on. And they did a heck of a lot of research."
Since Safari's release last week, Web developers have been trying the browser out and discovering bugs in its rendering capabilities and standards compliance. That's only to be expected from the first public beta of a browser, and Safari's Hyatt has been maintaining a Web log detailing some of the more prominent problems and their resolutions.
While Mozilla has long carried the torch of standards compliance, standards advocates called the new prominence of its open-source competitor a boon for Web standards.
"The two projects have had very different histories and goals--some very much in line with our stance, and some that may have served to detract attention away from their implementing standards as well as we'd like," said Steven Champeon, a member of the Web Standards Project and chief technology officer of Hesketh.com. "But in the long run, as long as the number of highly standards-compliant browsers continues to grow, and we can see some great competition out there, everyone wins."
One Web developer cheered Apple's decision, and agreed with the company's comparative evaluation of the two open-source browsers.
KHTML is "very fast, doesn't have nearly the bloat of Mozilla, and does most of what I need," said Alex Russell, a Web application developer for SecurePipe and a lead developer for netWindows. "The Mozilla rendering engine isn't slow, but at the same time it has emphasized crossplatform correctness over speed, while KTHML has taken a slightly more expedient approach of shooting for a smaller feature set, getting it right, and then making things fast."
Much as I admire the Mozilla project, the guys behind Konqueror deserve much more recognition than they seem to recieve (at least on /., where it's all Mozilla,Mozilla,Mozilla). They're a much smaller group of developers who have put together a great browser for KDE, so why the hell shouldn't they have a success story of their own?!
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
i was excited when safari came out. kept refreshing apples site during the keynote speech until it showed up for download and might have been the first one to download and install it.
a week later not only did i stop using it, i trashed it. after using chemira i have to say that safari just wasnt the next big thing.
----
12" ibook, G3 700, 640MB RAM, 20GB HD
The only decent mozilla was the win32 version, the lin32 version sucks, and its ugly, slow and HAS UGLY GTK widgets.
KHTML is so much nicer, im using it now because it is fast, has scrollbar color support (!) and the 3.1 version of konqueror has tab support thats much better than mozillas. I threw mozilla in the trash along time ago, it can't beat khtml, and Im proud with Apple to tell them the truth, MOZILLA SUCKS!
Then again, I guess that requires more work then just using an already-existing codebase that's fast. *shrugs* Just a thought, I guess. :)
I like my women how I like my sugar.. granulated.
Damn, I would have had first post if I wasn't using Mozilla.
Mozilla is great, but the kHTML project is also good and definitely worthy competition to Gecko. The competition, and even a rivalry to some extent, will cause make developers for both projects work harder to maintain "an edge." Just as the competition between KDE and Gnome promotes a better windowing environment, hopefully this competition will improve the rendering capabilities of open-source browsers.
Mozilla is the best browser for me.
No other offers so much features PERIODE
Um, these goals aren't necessarily mutually exclusive (*cough* Opera *cough*). Perhaps, KHTML is simply better designed and better written. Personally, I think the KHTML team did the right thing by adding layers of functionality in each release rather than trying to get everything in there at once.
Do one thing and do it well. Then add features, if you must. =/
I doubt that I've ever had anything good to say about Apple before, but good for them for this move, and I think in the long run it will be the best thing for Mozilla too. By bringing another browser to the arena, and one that seriously challanges IE even more than Mozilla, it can only help Mozilla by reducing IE's monopoly hold. And giving Mozilla some performance targets to shoot for will not be a bad thing either.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
So Mac users are especially prone to want tabbed browsing, as Mozilla products offer.
I started using Chimera a few days before Safari beta was released. I really like Safari, but in just those few days I was utterly hooked by the tabs of Chimera.
Until Safari supports tabs, I'm sticking with Chimera. I doubt I'm alone.
One thing to note, though... ALL Mac browsers now kick Microsoft's ass. Bye, bye IE-piece-of-crap. In any event, it is an awesome twist to see the Mac browser market so vitalized.
And I should probably fine-tune my sarcasm detectors before hitting the submit-button. Now where's the "delete post" button :/
-- The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Oh well. At least I'll have something to gripe about when I'm an old man. "Back in my day..."
Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
Ziff Davis wants you to jump on this -- and visit thier site. DON'T DO IT!
That said, Apple and Apple's staff can choose what they wish or what fits the task. If they decide later to use Gecko for something else, ZD will no doubt run a "Apple uses Mozilla -- KDE developers miffed!" or some such garbage.
The important thing is that open source is becoming more and more important on the user end -- not just on the server side.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Have you been living in a cave for the past few years? They eschew standards? Mac OS X has a windowing system based on PDF, OpenGL integrated at a very low level in the operating system, XML-formatted preferences for every single app and system setting, an ultra-compliant Java2 VM, and an open source foundation with a BSD UNIX personality. It's getting very, very difficult to find new technologies in OS X that are proprietary, and you're complaining that they used one open source rendering engine instead of another? What kind of warped view of the world do you have?
I wonder if this choice of their reflects a fundamental change at Apple--are they in bed with Microsoft now?
Sheesh, dude, if you're going to put that little effort into your trolls, don't bother. If they were going to be in bed with Microsoft, I think they would continue using IE.
Try more of an anti-GNU slant instead.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
-jfedor
Other Lizard Wranglers that deserve a voice in this. To be honest these guys are the ones I listen to when it comes to Mozilla.
alsa
Blizzard
mpt
Why should JWZ be quoted about a project he bailed on years ago? jwz is entertaining when he whines, it's the only reason I can think of.
"think of it as evolution in action"
let's take apart your argument, slashdot take-down style:
Apple has never valued cross-platform compatibility except at great urging.
never is a strong word in my books-- what do you call bluetooth, 802.11, firwire, opengl, xml, and usb? refusal to embrace and push for open standards? if anything, apple is the measure of computer industry these days.
From the days of proprietary Apple-only hardware and the squelching of would-be competitors, to the modern day with the refusal to port Aqua and launching the iPod for Macs only.
computers are what apple sells and they stay in business by selling their machines, not other peoples'. the licencing of apple hardware was flawed from the beginning and handcuffed apple into killing the program because of abuse. porting aqua to other platforms would be the end of apple-- remember, they are a hardware complany, not a software company. aqua sells macs, not the other way around. so do ipods. apple builds incentive to buy their hardware, why give those incentives to other platform users?
the integration of an X server in the latest release is definitely the exception to the rule.
pal, you have so missed the boat in your post that i think you should take a step back from this fud. x server is merely the tip of the iceberg of what has been the "exception to the rule". os x is on the cutting edge of the open source / corporate relationship, existing on open standard freebsd and countless other non-proprietary formats. if the other favourite popular target of slashdot could be mentioned this favourably, we wouldn't be here.
just my two cents.
Just look at the available binaries here: http://www.kde.org/download.html
Irix and Solaris is supported. I'm sure that KDE runs fine on FreeBSD an others Unixes.
Free Software has again helpped a proprietary company. But maybe this will be good for Freedom, ultimately, as more companies realize that they can benefit when "their" software is Free.
The fact that KHTML is Free software let Apple quickly and easily break free from a hold that MS had them in. They tried bundling the OmniWeb browser, but that was clearly inferior to MS IE...
Right now Apple is tripping over themselves to get AppleWorks good enough to replace the need for MS Office. Maybe Open Office will soon help here (Apple has focused on making X11 apps more seemlessly integrated with OSX).
If Apple, Dell, HP, etc, collaborated with Free Software projects more, they could remove the need for users to get certain software from MS. That, in turn, would allow them to chart their own paths in terms of their wares and give them the opportunity to team up with others who are threatened by MS.
Soon, Apple will turn to FreeSoftware for Ogg code.
Apple's costs for distributing their free (beer) value-add-software packages are making them consider (and actually) charge for their "i" crap. (see http://www.thinksecret.com/news/freeiapps.html) FreeNet would go a long way to help them spread out their bandwidth. If only they gave us the right to redistribute their code. And hell, why not let us improve the code too, and give it away for free.
By far the most important aspect of this is that web sites will tend to be written for accepted standards rather than IE. Mozilla, KHTML and everybody else gain by this and should be happy. Everything else is just a matter of ego. In the end Apple's move is a victory for open source and open standards.
"Translated through a de-weaselizer, (Melton's e-mail) says: 'Even though some of us used to work on Mozilla, we have to admit that the Mozilla code is a gigantic, bloated mess, not to mention slow, and with an internal API so flamboyantly baroque that frankly we can't even comprehend where to begin,'" Zawinski wrote.
Well, no offense, but is Melton wrong?
I mean, download the source for both and look at the difference. The sheer volume of Mozilla is overwhelming even for the experienced programmers.
There has been an enormous effort gone into Mozilla and it shows, but I think it still has a way to go.
And I love this quote:
"Gecko is already embedded and distributed in real-world applications from Red Hat, IBM, OEone, Netscape and CompuServe, and we look forward to the upcoming releases of Gecko-based products that are currently in development."
Yes, and of course KHTML is not used in the "real" world.
There has been a lengthy discussion on MozillaZine here
It seems that Apple's problem was more that there was more stripping that needed to be done with Gecko before they got down to the foundation and could start building their own browser. This seems to be a common concern, that Mozilla includes too much stuff to be very useful as a working base, and thus the popularity of things such as Phoenix, whose sole goal is to remove features from Mozilla.
If this is indeed the case, perhaps Gecko would benefit from being packaged and maintained separately from Mozilla, as a rendering engine but not a browser. In other words, something only useful for application developers. Even conceptually, rendering HTML != browser. Suppose you're rendering to postscript, for example? This might even benefit Mozilla, buy keeping the project more modular. (Although it's pretty modular already, but not down to the core.)
The above is spoken with next to no knowledge of the intricacies of the Mozilla codebase, so flame gently.
And of course, one can assume that soon Safari will be the default browser with OS X, with IE being relegated to an also-installed, or hopefully totally gone.
P.S. Found that link on MacRumors. I changed the ?ref= for them to show Slashdot traffic.
When Kurt Skuen (Guy who wrote AtheOS) was looking for a browser engine for AtheOS, he looked at both KHTML and Gecko. In the end, he chose KHTML because it was easier to port than Gecko. That even included writing Qt2.x wrappers around the AtheOS GUI (Not easy, as Qt is not thread safe, while AtheOS is inherently multi threaded).
Kurt was able to port KHTML in about two months or so. I'm barly surprised that Apple chose KHTML over Gecko (Have you even tried to read the docs regarding embedable Gecko? Just look at the list of dependencies!)
Over the last year or so I've seen Apple taking more from the OSS than giving back. Taking developers, using OSS good name as advertising motto (OSX: 'Based on Unix')...etc. Somehow I'm not surprised that all this comes from the company that has proprietary OS _and_ proprietary Hardware.
Nope, article said it wrong, I was just lying down.
Live life to the fullest. It's not that life is short, but that you are dead for so long.
I personally don't see Apple supporting Khtml that detrimental to Mozilla. Maybe a little disheartening but not detrimental. . .
I think another viable browser that is W3C compliant (like the Khtml) gaurantees that more web sites follow W3C standards rather than IE's. That's good for all browsers(except IE).
The payoff for pushing for standards is that *everyone* benefits as long as they stick to said standards, and Mozilla's efforts seem to be working in that regard.
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
troll. refusal to port aqua? that is about as stupid of a comment as saying that MS refuses to port Luna...just becasue you like an interface you can't get pissy becasue you can not run it on your hardware.
and how is KHTML proprietary? it is GPL, infact all the changes to the code are going to be resubmited to the KHTML project....good news for konq....and if you did not know, Apple wants to sell computers....if you find the iPod as cool as you seem to by your statement, then buy a Mac!! (Apple does have a windows version but it does not work on the mac.)
you are just a whiny little bitch that likes the stuff apple has developed but want it without choosing to use apple hardware.....hell if you could use it on a PC you would be bitching becasue it was not free I bet.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Are you saying there is no value in a complete system.
Hardware built for the software and software built for the hardware.
IE an RS/6000 running AIX or a SPARC running Solaris ?
With a Mac the entire user experience is considered, This is something no one else in the desktop market can seriously claim.
Apple's might be more of an investment initially but, when you ask it to do something it somehow always 'Just works'.
Look at it another way... Apple may benefit simply by virtue of having multiple browsers on the market.
For the longest time, Netscape owned the browser market, and set the standards. That was OK for Apple, except that the Mac version of Navigator lagged behind the Windows version, particularly with Java implementation. Then MS came along, and there was a "standards battle" between IE and Navigator; MS was so determined to win that they even wrote a better version of IE for Mac than for Windows. IE has emerged on top and, true to form, MS is now trying to move the standards to favor IE on Windows with things like ActiveX controls. Netscape/Mozilla has been and continues to be holding their own, without assistance from Apple. Apple's support of KHTML instantly puts a new rendering engine on millions of computers and lessens MS's grip on the web (albeit slightly), because IE for Mac will not be the default browser anymore on Macs (I'm assuming).
The best thing that could happen right now in the browser wars is not for Apple to jump into the IE/Mozilla fray, but to stir a rivalry between two open source browsers, KHTML and Mozilla. Get these to browsers to compete on features, and put MS back into the position of being a follower rather than a leader.
Linux-QT-KDE mess,
Why is this a mess?
Ive been a linux user for over a year, and when you want more than just a toy desktop, kde is the better option, when you figure out kdes vast advanced options, you will just see how SHITTY mozilla is.
KHTML is faster, smaller, has more support for stuff and its excellent use throughout kde makes it a better choice, and Apple knew it.
The Dinosaurs became exticnt in favour of smaller, more adapable mammals.
This sounds like a Junior High newspaper's bimbo social reporter trying to whip up a story about the lonely & hurt mystery-meatball-serving lunch lady watching students flock to the Friday Pizza Alternative. ZD really needs to get back on their meds.
It's easy to make up & spread cool- and credible-sounding stuff. Finding & checking hard facts is hard work.
I'm quite happy that Apple chose something other than Gecko, even though I love using the current Mozilla browser, and think that the current core is fairly good. The reason is that it means that web developers will hopefully start to notice that there are lots more users who ARENT IE or Netscape 4.x, and thus start using the actual standards, rather than the abominations that IE and Netscape 4.x implement.
C'mon, Apple, it's 2003. The Mozilla-spoofing stunt was stupid when Microsoft first did it back in the Stone Age of '95-'96. Just come out and label yourself "KHTML/2.1 [en] (MacOS X)/Safari 1.0" or something similar. With all the high-quality spec-compliant browsers currently available, any serious website that is still sniffing for "Mozilla" is doing itself a disservice. There's no reason for it anymore.
Code to specs and trust the browser to do something sensible with it. If it doesn't, the user will upgrade, which is a good thing.
Constitutionally Correct
It is a toss up between him and MozillaQuest for who can spout the biggest load of bullshit about the browser. Personally I wonder what the hell Mozilla or Netscape did to these guys in the first place that they've carried such a chip on their shoulder about the project ever since.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Apple had better take extraordinary effort to make their new browser IE compatible. Like it or not most people use IE and most web sites are optimized for it. While many web developers will be willing to test their pages on IE/Mozilla/Opera how many are going to be willing to get a Mac to test this new browser?
I was a switcher before switching was cool. I have used Mozilla since somewhere in the .9 range. I have used Opera for Windows for a few years. I have used OmniWeb and iCab on Mac.
My honest opinion is that Chimera is better than the other Mac browsers - but will have stiff competition from Safari.
There are things that I like from Safari that I would like to see in Chimera. Like some of the interface elements - like the progress bar or snap back... And there are things from Chimera that I would like to see in Safari - like tabs and better cookie management and popup management. I would like both to offer flash filtering the same as chimera/mozilla do image filtering.
All in all I think the other browsers can learn from Safari - and Apple can learn from the success of the open source Chimera. Currently - I still prefer Chimera, the latest builds have so far been extremely stable, fast, and usable. Thank you Chimera Dev....
If I am not mistaken, KHTML now runs on Linux, Atheos and now Mac OS X. That's not bad for code that is supposedly "not portable".
Blizzard is nothing but a political double-talker, his propaganda laden piece is exhausting. It's sad to see developers reduced to this.
/.
He knocks KHTML several times, supposedly because Mozilla renders web pages so much better and KHTML sucks or so he has heard. I have been using KHTML for several years as my only browser and I can say that he couldn't be further from the truth.
On the other hand I constantly hear (ha!) of rendering screw ups by Mozilla. Just the other day a friend showed me how Mozilla completely distorted the rendering of fonts on
Blizzard says Mozilla renders not only the webpage but the whole user interface of the browser. I'm sorry, but I never heard of a dumber excuse for incompetence.
Another thing you've got to remember is that Blizzard is a Red Hat/GNOME partisan. That should put it in context.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Anything that hurts IE helps Mozilla. Even if they picked KHTML, it's better for Mozilla to be #2 in a 3 man race than #2 in a two man race.
BTW - I just switched to Mozilla from IE and I think it's freaking fantastic.
It was Trolltech who ported QT to MacOSX [trolltech.com]. In my opinion, Apple's work is trivial and we'll probably be seeing more KDE apps being released by Apple.
Safari does not use QT for MacOS X.
Why would you care if the program looks the same across all platforms? Who benefits from this other than developers? I want my programs to look and behave like every other program (without having to apply a skin, which is only a half-assed fix),
Why are we using xpcom considering the huge bloat/threading issues on non-win32?
Why do the signatures on our api make almost no sense to outsiders?
Why do we compare our performance almost exclusively to IE?
If Apple wont use our code because it's too big, do we have any real chance of being used on small devices?
Why are we still using xul now that we ifdef out platform-specific ui code?
I'm sure there are more questions that someone more knowledgable than I am can come up with, but these are questions that haven't been taken very seriously up to now, because there has not been a high-profile alternative to gecko.
I've been using mozilla/phoenix for several years (I've even submitted a few patches), and I think it's an absolutely amazing peice of software, but it *is* huge and hard to understand. It is hard to recognize the size and complexity for what it is without a highly visible comparison like khtml.
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
Exactly. Everybody here seems to be using the excuse that mozilla is cross-platform, and can expect to be bloated. Well khtml works across unix/x, linux/framebuffer, and now osx as well. it's based on qt, which works on windows just fine. The Safari developers even noted how easy it was to port (all they basically did was sit it on top of a small framework that was a substitute for the kde-specific bits).
The QT toolkit is one of the reasons this can be done in an efficient, easily understandable way. It's a great toolkit, and it's a shame the mozilla project decided to ignore it in favour of gtk/xul/javascript/etc.
I wouldn't go that far. It's a very useful, very standards-compliant, cross-platform rendering engine. The fact that somewhere along the line the project fell prey to creeping featuritis doesn't change this.
On the other hand, this usenet post sums up how I feel about the whole thing.
4. Chimera (Mozilla based) is still a better browser than Safari on MacOS X.
I've been using Chimera nearly exclusively for months. The Dec. 20 release (vers. 0.6 + a few features) is the nicest so far. What a development curve in the past year compared to the much older Opera and iCab!
I think it's interesting that Chimera is related to NS and Mozilla (Gecko) yet is soooo much cleaner and faster. Unfortunately it gets tarred with the same brush by people who haven't used it much.
Chimera's a lot more Aqua than Safari, too! I think Safari is stunningly ugly for an Apple product.
I agree and don't see why both open source projects can't continue. Competition is not just healthier than bloated monopoly, it's essential when we don't even know precisely what we're after. And our shared mission must be to kill IE, or at least beat it back....
Why did they not talk (assuming they did not) with Opera to use their tech for the web browser? It rocks, its TINY and v.7 is standards compliant and its fast. I use it daily and it has some great features for web developers.
An optimist believes we live in the best world possible; a pessimist fears this is true.
I wrote to Darin Adler, BTW, and he says (my paraphrase!) that the infection of Qt MOC keywords in the Safari code is well contained. They don't use Qt underneath.
It worked fine for me the first 4 times I ran it. Now even after reinstalling, and applying the latest patch from Software Update, I get an "Unexpected Exit" crash every time it starts up. For me its an 8.6MB crash generator.
here
Snippets:
Jobs said the browser was "based on standards", "works with any Web site", has much-improved performance over IE (page-loading speed is "three times faster", JavaScript performs twice as fast and it launches "40% faster" - comparisons to Netscape 7.0 shows similar performance gains on the Macintosh platform)
Apple [...] has today sent all changes, along with a detailed changelog, to the KHTML developers.
Also:
Mail from Safari team to KHTML devs
and Dirk Muellers response
-- With more than 200 comments this is apparently a big thing to the KDE community
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
I agree, but I think we can extend that to say "multiple Open Source browsers on the market." I think Apple adopting and improving on KHTML helps the KHTML guys, which makes them a better competitor to Mozilla. The same way a M$ monopoly is harmful to the industry, a monopoly by one Open Source browser, IMHO, is also not a good thing. So at the end, I think this will help everybody, not just Apple.
---
Open Source Shirts
Mozilla team does a great job.
I dont care what people on this thread think.
Mozilla is good fast ( yes, it is ) browser.
Instead of trolling how much better MSIE/Opera/MSHTML/KHTML may be you should perhaps appreciate how much time and code was put in mozilla. It is by far the most stable browser i have ever used, has rich control set ( where is the popup control IE users? ), adheres to the standards, has clean interface, tabs, etc.
Yes, before 1.x it was rather edgy. If you have tried it back then and made up your opinion for all the releases - well, perhaps you should check out mozilla.org again.
I guess you haven't tryed Chimera, it is not skinable, but use Mac OS X native widgets, a big plus, and Gecko. I guess a big reason for no Phoenix Mac port now is Chimera itself.
It took like a year to release, and before then you had to use 3rd party hacks to get it to work.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
It's OK to not understand the difference between a GUI toolkit and an HTML rendering engine. You do, however, look pretty stupid when you make prognostications as if you were an expert when you don't know what you're talking about.
They eschew standards much better than they used to but many of features in the iApps (iDisk, iCal, iTunes etc.) and .mac initiative still smack of proprietary lock-in in one form or another.
Chimera 0.6 (Navigator)
21.4 MB (21,743,324 bytes) Dec 20,2002.
Safari
7.2 MB (6,928,478 bytes) Jan 11, 2003
Chimera is ONLY the browser and bug feedback.
I'm typing this in Mozilla, which I sear by...
Must be on a Titanium Powerbook.
The way I see it. The more browsers out there the better. The battle is not what engine gets used, but rather, having enough browsers out there that *aren't* IE so that the stupid web designers would get off their lazy asses and author HTML properly (ie. follow the W3C recommendations? Duh? Isn't that what they're there for?) So that EVERYONE! can view their pages! No more 'IE only' crappy pages. That's my hope anyways.
:)
PS Yeah, I know. Long run-on sentance. What can you do?
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
What could possibly be wrong with Chimera?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Apple didn't use QT in Safari. They used KWQ (Quack). That's a wrapper layer, that passes QT stuff onto the ObjC/Cocoa layer. So while Apple may indeed use other KDE stuff (though I don't know what else they would want), it won't be a boon to Trolltech, as they don't have to pay the trolls a dime.
I agree with other posters - this can only be a good thing.. Going from an IE-only world to a Mozilla-only world is not the goal - going to a world where there are multiple competing browsers (or O/S's), and they *must* maintain compatibility in order to keep their market share is the goal.
Mozilla has become the poster child of open source development for reasons I can't understand. The progress has been horribly slow, the code has gotten a reputation for being unweildy, the UI has spawned more examples of things not to do than good features (except using window tabs, like the majority of text editors under Windows), and in the end it's not even turning out to be that great of a browser. None of this is surprising, and criticisms of the project are easy to find, so no one needs any more from me.
What I don't understand is why Mozilla is viciously defended as some kind of open source sacred cow. It's just like discussions about the X Window System, which are usually split between people who think it's a steaming pile and people who insist that it's been around for so long that we can't get rid of it (and they almost always use the "you can run it over a network" argument as a basis for why X needs to stay).
iDisk uses WebDAV. iCal uses standard calendar formats. iTunes uses MP3. Explain how that represents "proprietary lock-in"?
Genuine question: what is ^W?
On my system, ^H is backspace.
Follow me
man ... Not a single comment here is seeing the alternative side of things -- it may be too bad for Mozilla, but way to go KHTML! I mean, the fact is, Apple could have just as easily allocated resources to develop their own proprietary software, but they're choosing the KDE guys' stuff.
That's pretty significant, and deserves a pat on the back -- not a bunch of whining about why another group was turned away.
I've used Konqueror and Mozilla quite routinely and I eventually got frustrated with pages not rendering properly in Konqueror. So I've been using Mozilla for most of my browsing since then. I've found that it works quite well for all but the most IE-centric web pages. Perhaps the latest version of Konqueror is better, but I'm pretty happy with how Mozilla does.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
/me raises hand.
I'm just asking because I did not, in any way, get that Mozilla was hurt by a new browser that didn't use their engine. What the hell? The mozilla developers don't seem to care at all. Why should they? Competition is good.
I actually got a totally different spin out of the article. What I read several times in there amounted to "we don't care that KHTML doesn't always work right, because it was easy to use". Not exactly the sort of rationalization that I go in for.
I'm typing this in Mozilla, which I sear by...
I suppose that dragon thing would be a great cooking tool if you could stop him from burning/crushing your house...
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Also look at the proposal for creating a gecko [aka "GRE"] RPM in bug 103291 at http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103291
I'm using Mozilla to post this and I find it a wonderful standards compliant browser.
However, I've tried on occasion to download the source distribution and frankly I find it far too heavy (abstract, complex) for casual development. Guerilla development won't work for Mozilla; it has degenerated into long term trench warfare for anyone with the stamina for it. I applaud you Mozilla developers, but am not made of the same stuff.
I remember once coming across some C++ portability standards made up by the Mozilla team about 5 years ago. They were relevant to portability back then, but I think things have progressed some over the years. Many of those problems with different platforms have disappeared with release of the ANSI/ISO C++ standard and the work that's gone into modern compilers.
Personally, I think the Mozilla team ought to be unleased to begin Mozilla 2.0 from scratch, based on everything they know so far, and not be shackled to weird platforms from the early 1990s. Let the Moz 1.* tree address the needs of those using old platforms - the standards compliance should keep them humming for years to come.
The Moz 1.* development has progressed admirably, especially if, like me, you've worked in baroque plumbing factories of code, then you can doubly appreciate the accomplishments of the Moz developers.
But it's high time for them to start from a clean slate, just as the Safari folks have.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
They edited down Mike Shaver's posting:
;)
"We've all known forever that Gecko missed its 'small-and-lean' target by an area code, and we've been slogging back towards the goal, dragging our profilers and benchmarks behind us, for years... WE'RE DOOMED! WE'RE DOOMED! ALL IS LOST! APPLE DIDN'T GIVE US THE RECOGNITION WE DESERVE! WE'LL NEVER FIX ALL OF MOZILLA'S BUGS! SCREW YOU GUYS, I'M GOING HOME!"
Because, you know, Mozilla developers are in it for the fame, fortune, money, women, and beer.
OK! Gecko supports more standards! Gecko is fast (enough)! Gecko is portable!
So... make a Gecko based webcore replacement. Apple has given us a slick framework to implement in order to drive Safari's backend. We can already patch and update our KHTML based webcore... if Gecko would be better, use it. You still get the slick Apple GUI. Right?
I think (WARNING: dumbass user demanding major architectural changes) Chimera should make their Gecko variety use the WebCore framework design, so that their backend would be pluggable with Apple's. Then we could end this argument. There'd be no argument.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
We should be comparing to Chimera, which is the OS X version of the trimmed-down Mozilla-based browser. My copy is about 21M.
I think apple made their decision to use the khtml engine primarily based on what they thought the mac user base would benefit the most from. Mac users already have a kick-ass browser based on gecko -- chimera. To make another gecko based browser for the Mac would have been (-1 Redundant). To take chimera and work to improve it would have been an option, but I think apple knows that Chimera has gotten this good without their help, and will continue to get better without them. The work that apple has done has given the users a second kick-ass browser that is based on a completely different rendering engine. This has the welcome side-effect of encouraging website developers to code to the standards, and not one particular implementation. I think it was a really smart move on apple's part (and I was a bit surprised when Jobs announced what they based it on) but as a Mac user, I couldn't be happier with the way the browser situation has been shaping up lately.
It's fair to say apple has a long history of bucking trends and using non-standard technologies. This is not to say that they always adopted closed tech, but shouldn't thinking different mean being different?
In the last 5 years however, apple has made the switch to nearly all standard and open tech, even the stuff that they develop in-house. Note firewire, darwin & rendezvous.
I'd imagine that for apple ( besides lean & mean) a big selling point for KHTML over Mozilla is that mozilla makes a point of being "omniplatform", while KDE stuff is really designed for unix. They get to be open and standard, but still keep their work from benefiting windows. It's the smarter move.
Its worth noting that when Atheos (nifty OS, not a unix clone, dead now) needed a browser the author evaluated KHTML and Mozilla and decided KHTML was far easier to port, then proceeded to do it in a week or so.
The crude abstract of this article implies KHTML is not cross platform. History says otherwise.
<soapbox> - you do not need to agree
Personally, I think Mozilla has set free software back about two years. Alternative browser development came to a standstill when netscape released the code. After all, we were all going to have a fast, lean, free, standards compliant browser as soon as they got it compiled. Then came the slips, the rewrites, the bloat, and the delusions of grandeur.
Is there KHTML based browser for windows a-la Phoenix? Dare to compare size and "bloatness"
Thanks in advance
When the F- did Apple start worrying about bloated applications??? .
OS X is gargantuous itself, another 30 megs aren't going to hurt it.
Ah, F- em
nidump passwd
Ok, I had to respond to this and say "Whaaaaa?!?!?"
So I buy an iPod. I get Windows software for it. Now I buy a Mac, and for whatever reason decide to use the Windows version of the software on a platform that supports it natively...
I guess what they say about Mac users is, erm, true. ;)
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
<sarcasm>Yep, that sure does "smack of proprietary lock-in".</sarcasm>
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
Delete's the current word. Like control+backspace in Windows..
Another great reason Apple chose KHTML: if they stuck with Gecko, you'd basically have a choice of two options for browsing the web. And Microsoft has most of the browsing market right now. Gecko would always be "that other browser that Macs & AOLers use." The more market share IE has, the more Microsoft can reinterpret "standards" as they see fit.
By choosing KHTML, Apple has agressively opened the browser market back up. Gecko already has legs and is finding its way into other software & embedded devices. Rather than pick this popular alternative to IE, Apple is now propping up a THIRD viable option. This gives much more competition to IE and ultimately forces developers to stick to standards. In effect, they're actually thumbing their nose at Microsoft in yet another way, saying "you can't control the web, because we've just created even more viable alternatives."
bottom line is more choices. That benefits all customers...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
http://mog.online.fr/SafariNoBrush.dmg
There, all gone.
Mozilla has been my browser of choice for about a year now. On Linux, and on Mac OS X.
On my Powerbook G4 550Mhz (whoo hoo, speed demon, I know numbers are subjective) Mozilla takes a good 15-30 seconds to load. Some days, that's too frickin long. I don't need Mozilla's mail/news reader because I like Mail and I don't like the news reader (too slow for me, I do miss Outlook Express)
Safari has a window up and is downloading a page in less than a few seconds.
If I could get two features out of mozilla and on Safri I'd be set.
I want:
1) Master Password feature. That has to be one of the best things I've seen in a browser for some time.
2) Tabbed Browsing.
Other than that, I use safari for everything at the moment. It's a lean mean browser.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Apple is too small a company, so don't get bent out of shape because they won't use the Mozilla rendering engine. Visionaries developed Mozilla apple just likes eyecandy and round computers. They don't care about the future and they have no vision what so ever. They ripped off Xerox and made rectangle computers which looked like crap. Mozilla is a platform that will take over everything, because it's compatible with everything. Embedded apps and even having the browser as the GIU will win over all. Screw apple, I won't pay $3000 for a machine that is half ass in performance compared to a $1000 Intel machine. Good looking or not, apple just don't really ever get it.
It's a decent browser but it's always going to be slower & bulkier than other browsers that are tweaked tightly for a specific platform.
Some peopel equate open source and open standards to FREE. Well its not !
Ahh.... socialism will never die for some people
That is simply wrong, I have used many "Windows" iPods with my Mac. It works fine.
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
By having multiple HTML rendering implementations, the actual HTML specification becomes more important, because it is harder for web page developers to "cheat" by checking their HTML code in simplistic manner, by viewing their pages in a small number of browser programs.
By having at least Gecko, IE and KTHML rendering code out there, real HTML validation might be used more -- like at
http://validator.w3.org/
So, at least to me it seems like Apple's use of KHTML is a very good thing.
But after taking a look at WebCore and reading the latest ADC news bulliten mentioning an upcoming WebCore SDK, its a little more clear what is going on.
Basically apple has wrapped an objective-c++ interface around khtml, which developers will soon be using to integrate web rendering into their apps with unprecedented ease... and i dont think anyone can argue that an apple-designed API will be easier to imbedd in os x apps than gecko.
If apple were just interested in building a browser, then Gecko may have been a better choice. But because Gecko is meant to be the basis of an entire platform, it has a whole lot of stuff that will make it tricky to tightly integrate with OS X as a core component of the system, since OS X already has its own ways of doing things (for example i dont think apple is thrilled with the prospect of xul which cannot help but violate the human interaface guidelines. But theres lots of purely technical points too.)
This is really, really interesting to see this though. 2 years ago some people were getting worried that alternative OS users would be unable to browse the web by this time, but today we've got 2 OS standards compliant rendering that beat the pants off IE in speed, correctness, and to top it off, cost.
And despite the technical problems with Mozilla, people are still able to crank out excellent, lean, fast browsers such as Chimera and Phoenix, and other applications for embedded devices, etc.
Mozilla has become a platform, and KHTML has become the lean, fast rendering engine Mozilla was originally going to be.
Cheers
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Apple is getting beat up about how it's machines aren't keeping up hardware-wise....
On top of that the main browser on the system, IE, isn't well optimized, and is not MS's priority.
Apple says to itself, "We need a FAST browser, now!"
Their selection shows me that they valued speed over anthing else when choosing technology for this project. Looks like a good decision for them at this point, and now khtml will benefit also.
Wins all around, and I still love mozilla!
#6495ED - cornflower blue
Yes, this will be flamebait. Mod me down, I don't care. I'm at the bottom of the rung anyway.
QUIT YER WHINING!! Stop crying foul, and focus on your project! So Apple decided to use kHTML as the rendering engine instead of Gecko. So what? How does that impact the Mozilla project? Make it better than Safari! I'm sorry that the decision injured your geek pride, but if you cry foul every time a company doesn't use your sacred works, then you get destracted from the mission of finishing the product.
Short version: FOCUS ON THE JOB!!
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
First of all, congratulations on your highly buzzword-compliant post. Second of all, thank you for all of the unexpressed value judgments you inferred from my hasty note. For instance, that I was "complaining" and even have a "warped view of the world." Your skills of psychologically insight are clearly well-developed.
Unfortunately, I fail to see how much of this is at all relevant to my post. The key word was "cross-platform compatibility." Is MacOS X's windowing system, with all of its use of standards, actually cross-platform compatible? No. Are the apps (and their preference files) compatible? No.
The UNIX underpinning, on the other hand, does allow them to borrow quite a few things from other platforms, but I have not seen anything new that Apple has actually contributed back to the "open-source community" or whatever you want to call it. If I'm missing anything about how opening the source to Darwin is a great benefit, I welcome an explanation; it should be clear that I'm hardly a close follower of Apple and their products.
Am I on the right site, did someone just mention competition HURTING an OSS project. No, competition is healthy, normal, and wholesome. Could this be Apples start of using their proprietary hardware to push their OS and then using their OS to push their browser product. I think antitrust allegations will start soon.
...tell Phoenix that its windows only. It is working just fine on NetBSD.
It deletes a word.
the firm ware of the windows iPod(the one sold by apple) is diffrent that that of the one sold for the mac....so OSX filters out the windows iPods.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
It's Geico! Honestly, I keep getting all these calls from you people. Go away!
Well, I'll hand it to Slashdot readers, they really do have the ability to get inside the author's head. Especially all those mods who divined that my parent post must be flamebait because it suggested Apple had certain traits which might not be considered good by some people. Boy, have I ever learned my lesson. Why, I just took out a loan for $5,000 so I could buy a brand spanking new Macintosh computer with the superb open source operating system MacOS X. After all, with the help of this fine young man, I have learned that i am just a whiny little bitch that likes the stuff apple has developed.
Erase last word
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
Not sure how Apple's decision to release a KHTML browser really hurts Mozilla. Especially when you consider the default browser in Mac OS X has been Internet Explorer so far (hopefully to change when Safari gets out of beta?). If anything, it should serve as incentive to improve Mozilla.
Personally, I still prefer Mozilla on Mac OS X to Safari, but as Safari becomes more full featured, we'll see how they compare. There's one particularly annoying problem with Mozilla on Mac OS X (acknowledged in the release notes, but I don't think yet, as a "bug"):
I do use Mozilla on Mac OS X fairly regularly, but until this problem is fixed, Chimera is my favorite browser. Runs on a UFS volume, cocoa, decidedly un-bloated.
And all of the above have visible menus and buttons that tie in to .mac, to buy CDs / airline tickets / hotels / movie tickets through Apple partners, to listen to their radio stations, to sync with an iPod etc. So they use open standards to direct people to their proprietary services - so what?
Your post becomes even more relevant when you consider the fact that so many web-developers, particularly the 'artistic' kind use Macs. Not that I'm a Mac zealot, far from it, but I'm just stating facts. So many web designers switching to $NOT_IE will really help kill IEs total dominance. If not in numbers, in the hearts and minds of developers.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I think people here should remember that Apple was looking at pre-Mozilla 1.0 when they first evaluated Mozilla. Since then, the Phoenix team has proven that you can strip out some of the bloat of Mozilla to get a fast and lightweight browser (3MB for Safari vs 5-6MB for Phoenix).
Mozilla was intended to be able to render itself (XUL) as well as be a mail reader, online chat tool, and web page composer. It was also intended to be a cross platform web browser and GUI development tool. Of course it is not small - that was not entirely the goal (OEOne and other application developers would have no use for Mozilla if it only rendered web pages).
Had Phoenix been around when Apple was looking at browsers, they may well have just made a Phoenix based browser for OS X branded by Apple. But at the time Apple was looking at OSS HTML engines, it was unclear how much work it would take to get Gecko/Mozilla down to the size Phoenix has now gotten it to now (due to the complexity of Mozilla's code, you can't just take a quick glance and see what needs to be done). It was also very clear that KDE already had a nice little rendering engine, even if it wasn't quite as far along.
So Apple's decision to use KHTML isn't a surprise given their goals and the circumstances at the time. What is nice about all of this is that we'll end up with two very nice rendering engines and browsers out of the deal - Apple will make improvements to KHTMLs rendering of real web pages, and Phoenix will continue to give us a lightweight Gecko browser (which already renders very nicely). Everyone but Microsoft wins. How can Slashdot not love that!?
Safari weighs in at 7.2 megs, Mozilla is 38.3 megs.
Safari has a ton of room to grow before it achieves Mozilla's mammoth size.
But how big is Phoenix? 8 megs. Phoenix supports soo much more than Safari, and it's not much larger.
The issue is the gecko engine, not Mozilla.
You know, I think this is going to be like the "X is slow" argument - utterly full of it, but never goes away.
OS X is chocka with proprietary tech. Oh and no, using XML for preferences doesn't make it suddenly not proprietary, the next version of IIS uses XML config files too. Is IIS not a proprietary web server?
Anyway, if it's so hard to find proprietary stuff, where can I find the implementations of Carbon and Cocoa (the bulk of the platform). Yes, I know about GNUstep. What about the artwork?
If MacOS isn't proprietary, where is the PC port?
Why do Apple insist on STILL using Sorensen for all the videos on their website? And considering it's being given away for free anyway, what did they have to lose by making Safari free software?
The "MacOS is open" line is really getting quite old.
Then what's the phoenix-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz file doing up there?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
By not promoting IE on the Mac platform, it may reduce the pressure for web site designers to create sites that only work well or even *correctly* on IE.
And not just by resisting os-specific active content, like activeX controls, but browser specific D/HTML and javascript features that work correctly on only one browser.
In fact, the college I go to uses, for its on-line registration, such a site; this site refuses to allow me to sign on for on-line classes in Mozilla. However, Konqueror can render the page well enough so that I don't have to get on the phone to add classes or view my schedule.
As an aside, the team which designed the web page were very incompetent (to give credit where credit is due, Unisys was one of the companies doing the contracting; other parties responsible for this fiasco will not be named because no one else responsible has attacked the free software movement). These same people also destroyed the computer database of students who were to receive financial aid when transferring it to the new system, forcing each and every student who wanted finanacial aid to completely resubmit any and all paperwork.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Let me start by saying that I greatly admire the Mozilla project, in fact I am typing this message from Phoenix.
Now, KHTML was chosen over Gecko for purely practical reasons. It was smaller, faster and easier to integrate with OS X. As posters have already mentioned, Safari is not a cross-platform project, so it does not need all the extra code that guarantees Gecko works on every OS under the sun.
I would guess that the Mozilla project would have had an uneasy relationship with Safari should they have chosen the Gecko renderer. Look at the mozilla website. It says, "Mozilla is an open-source web browser and toolkit." Note "and toolkit". Mozilla's ambitions are far beyond a simple web browser. Mozilla is aiming for a complete web-based cross platform environment, "the web is the OS". This would all be extra baggage for the web browser. KHTML is just a web-rendering component of a conventional GUI (KDE) and thus fits in better with the ethos of the apple desktop environment.
and KHTML is part of KDE.
God, why I am I saying this? Is it that important to my life to spend time typing out inconsiquential facts for random people over the internet? I need a life...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Apple 'gives back' good products at good prices. Sorry it isnt free as in speech as GNU people want, but its what they 'contribute'.
Apple is full of people who have families, and deserve to be paid for their hard work, despite whether you think they should or not.
If you dont want other people using code, DONT RELEASE IT.
Alternative browser development came to a standstill when netscape released the code.
Years from now, when documentaries are written and case studies developed I think we will see many eyes looking at that moment. It didn't come to a standstill, it took off very quickly and then something wierd happened. I remember it well...
Netscape opens the code, and in the Gtk v KDE flame wars two teams take to porting the code to their framework. the problem? It was built off of Motif, a non-free gui toolkit.
With the swiftness of the Open Source community, all of a sudden we had three "almost there" choices for a completely free Netscape. Seemingly just as quickly all were abandoned by the freedom offered by this software movement.
QT-Mozilla and the subsequent KMozilla (if I remember right) was finished in a month by porting it to the QT toolkit of the day. Not to be outdone GTK-Mozilla announced that whatever they could do, we could do better and a sole programmer began the effort, with a few joining later.
Back at the ranch, JWZ felt that it would have be far easier to pound out the last few details in "Lesstif" and link off of that. The Lesstif people were very close to binary compatibility with version 1 of Motif.
Then for all the work going on it then it seems to have run out of steam. As far as I know (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), lesstif still can't dynamically link to netscape, GTK was abandoned, and the KDE people abandoned Netscape code entirely.
So why it those three easiest paths were abandoned so quickly is the stuff that PBS is made of, and I'll probably never know until someone takes it up.
I've been using Thoth ever since it came out, and there are also: Tin (a few different ones or compile your own), NewsWatcher X, MT-Newswatcher, Hogwasher, MacSOUP and Halime.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I dumped Mozilla on OSX for Chimera, and I was happy. Last week, I dumped Chimera for Safari, and I'm happier.
I only use one platform at a time. While I'm waiting for Mozilla to do something, should I find solace in its cross-platform abilities?
Cross-platform code maymake life simpler for coders, but what does it bring to the user?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
...While we're talking about Mozilla, are there any experts out there who knows how to fool a web server into thinking I'm using MSIE or something else? There is a web site I'm required to use that only uses Netscape or MSIE with 128bit encryption... the problem is that even when I got Netscape installed, it didn't work. I need to fool this site into thinking I'm using MSIE as it appears to be the only browser it supports.
It's actually quite important for Apple to have a browser that's small and fast. One of the primary complaints about OS X (and MacOS 9 for that matter) is that the speed of all the web browsers is terrible. On OS X, this has quite a bit to do with the Aqua windowing engine: it's pretty and technically amazing, but it's pretty slow a lot of the time.
:)
The previous "most-native" OS X browser, OmniWeb, was no speed demon. Safari, on first public release, creams just about everything at page rendering speed while at the same time offering all the Quartz goodies and feeling "light" to the user.
I see great things for Safari, based on a few days' using it. Sure, it's a bit unstable and is incomplete, but I was saying the same thing about Mozilla back in the day!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Actually its goal was to be useful and powerful. The fact that they thought they could also be fast and light is a common mistake amongst coders, the two arne't necessarily mutually exclusive but often are in real life.
Gecko is standards compliant, fast (no, really), supports many standards and is extremely powerful. So, it's larger than KHTML. Most importantly, it actually renders the vast majority of the web.
Apple have a problem - their machines are slow. I compiled GNOME2.2 with Galeon today, and the speed blew me away. I have never used such a fast browser. Tabs opened and rendered near instantly (I was using the paint-delay trick) and I never found myself waiting for the browser, it was just there. I'm sure other people who've used Galeon2 can corroberate this. This is not a particlarly fast machine, an Athlon 1400 I think, and Gecko hasn't been optimized for Linux as much as it has for Windows (on which it's also very fast), so this Gecko is slow BS seems to be more a Mac problem than anyhting else.
I mean, if the Galeon team can produce an insanely fast browser out of Gecko, what's stopping Apple?
Safari's what a browser should be -- small, lightweight, and out of my face. The interface is slim & sleek, and, like the rest of Apple's software, lets me focus on the CONTENT rather than the delivery.
Oh boy, that's funny. So that's why it has a textured window (that cannot be themed to something less distracting), along with all the rest of the usual Apple eyecandy - but no tabs?
Apple is all about presentation. See how all the talk here is of speed, not accuracy in actually rendering the contet? I really think that's why OSX is so wonderful -- it just stays out of my way and lets me do what I gotta do. And I have to admit, running a DVD authoring program alongside several terminal windows on a Mac (!) is still impressive to me.
Wake up mods, that's a -1 Offtopic comment.
The "MacOS is open" line is really getting quite old.
As is the bitching coming from the people who consider it to not be open enough. If Apple completely opensourced all their core technologies (i.e. Cocoa, Carbon, Aqua, etc...), they would be hurting themselves immensely. If Mac OS X was ported to Intel architecture, many people who are now lusting after Macs would not have the same incentive to purchase one.
Frankly, I'm happy with Apple's business decisions, and they're one of the few companies that I feel any loyalty to (indeed, I feel disgusted with most companies). Apple has no obligation to open source anything, but in the spirit of good will, they've decided to open source a good number of things that will not jeapordize their revenue model, and I applaud them for this.
Jesus H. Christ! How can anyone claim that khtml ist not crossplatform?
h tml
It can be used without X (kde no X = kdenox, in CVS), without unix even, as Atheos shows.
Nobody remember Konqembedded?
http://www.konqueror.org/embedded.
Also the only slight dependency is qt, which is crossplatform (Windows, Unix, OS X, embedded). As Apple [and Atheos] shows, it is easy to write wrapper to get rid of even that dependency.
Moritz
Opera is cross-platform and it's tiny. Using cross-platform as an excuse for Mozilla's bloat makes no sense. It's the general programming approach that was taken with Mozilla that is flawed.
Back at the ranch, JWZ felt that it would have be far easier to pound out the last few details in "Lesstif" and link off of that. The Lesstif people were very close to binary compatibility with version 1 of Motif.
Right, but he realized that Motif/Lesstif was disliked by OSS Developers (Free Labor), so the decision to use XP+GTK was done for purely political reasons.
Remember this was 5 years ago now. Motif was still The Standard and QT still was not open source.
apple chose khtml for its size/speed advantage, not its standards support. noone who knows would ever argues that kthml is more standards compliant than gecko, there is just too much proof otherwise:
http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/os-x-browsers.html
got drum'n'bass?
http://mp3.com/vitriolix
troll. refusal to port aqua? that is about as stupid of a comment as saying that MS refuses to port Luna...just becasue you like an interface you can't get pissy becasue you can not run it on your hardware.
You are the troll. You and your Macfriends must understand that why aqua should be ported is because in the unix camp programmers write portable code. As it is now MacOSX can run unix programs but other unixes can not run OSX programs. This is in no way because MacOSX is any better than other unixes.
Apple choosed to go teir own way with their unix spinoff making sure that porting to other OSes would be very hard.
Mac users generally don't know or care about the other unixes but it's important to understand that today unixes live in a symbios with eachother. Each of them contributing a little bit to make a great platform. Apart from MacOSX which more or less is the parasite of the unixes.
Here is his blog which talks about it.
It is only feelings of some of the programmers that were hurt. The actual Mozilla project is not affected by this. It's time to rename the article.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled program.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
apple's goal was to have the fastest browsing experience and they chose the rendering engine with that in mind. as noted, mozilla has a far larger code base, and i have heard plenty of grousing from the Chimera team about mozilla to mac issues. lastly, i have never gotten chimera to work in a stable fashion on my desktop, even though it is quite fast.
ok, really lastly, Mozilla already has one large corporate sponsor, apple didn't want to tangle with them either. aol and apple have an enemy of my enemy is my friend status right now.
who benefits?? definately Linux and mac users. mac users get a really nice fast browser (and no more of those apple slow on the web /. sour grapes posts from win users). linux users get added adoption and support, plus development improvements for KDE.
good for everyone.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
Eat at Joe's.
I don't know about him/her but I AM saying that.
This whole "Design the Hardware for the software and design the software for the hardware" argument is a myth. People believe it because that's an excuse Microsoft uses whenever systems built entirely from the HCL break down.
Troth is that you just need to build good hardware and good software and make sure the drivers work properly.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
There are already 3 variants of Gecko avaliable for MacOS X (or maybe more?), one embedded in Cocoa (Chimera) and two in Carbon (Mozilla and Netscape). So why should apple make a 4:th?? There (were) 0 variants of KHTML avaliable for MacOS X. Now there is one! More choises for Mac users! No unnecessary duplication of work, that another Cocoa frontend to Gecko for MacOS X would have been!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think that the only thing that happen was that the Mozilla people are mad that Apple is building their own castle in the sandbox. Get over it, improve whatever you have instead.
Not that I would ever want a whole extra GUI just because it is "platform independant". I don't buy into that whole ideal. I prefer IE or Konqi.
Safari renders using the WebCore framework. The WebCore framework wrapps kHTML. So, if you really want Safari to use Gecko, then you can make your own version of WebCore that wraps Gecko, and exports the same functions. In theory, then you can use Gecko in Safari. You can already replace IE with Gecko on Windows.
I'm sure Apple is hedging its bets as well as just being modular for all the good engineering reasons, so the Gecko door may not be entirely closed.
(this was all culled from various blogs in my memory, check the technotes for details).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
interesting background; keep a record of this so the documentary people can interview you :)
I never knew mozilla articles attracted so many trolls.
Guess the combination apple+mozilla competition had something to do with it.
Apple's website has a section for all the open source programs they're contributing back to the community. The url is at http://developer.apple.com/darwin/ and by my count they're hosting about a dozen different projects. Perhaps you might take a look before you comment further. The stuff that's interesting to me is OpenPlay (which challenges the DirectX franchise), Darwin Streaming Server, Rendezvous, and Webcore but your mileage may vary and you might find their contributions to CUPS to be more of interest.
It isn't like this stuff is very hidden. When they published Safari, they immediately dumped back their code changes to the kde team. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Windows = 6.1 m.
Linux = 8.7 m.
Users are hurt that Mozilla is bloated and slow-loading.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
This is not a particlarly fast machine, an Athlon 1400 I think,...
*sigh*
I must be getting old; until I read your comment, it didn't occur to me that my Pentium-III 550, a scant four years old (was not willing to spring for the 650) was anything less than blinding in its speed (hey, after a 486-66, it is!). So, just how often am I supposed to replace my machine to keep it reasonable?
AtheOS is not "dead", since the author quit, there has been a group of developers that have been working on it for about 6 months (not just that Bill Hayden linux-atheos hack). The fork is called "Syllable." They've released a few new versions and are working on the web browser. Interestingly enough, the khtml port has been very difficult to maintain and they are abandoning it in favor of a gecko port.
http://syllable.sf.net
that's precisely what they did with their darwin operating system, available here
if you poke around a bit, you'll also find rendezvous and quicktime streaming server available for download, as well as the significant changes made to khtml and kjs (called "webcore" and "javascriptcore" on apple's site) ? this all rather puts the lie to your statement that apple doesn't give back to the community
note that apple was not compelled to release any of this, but rather, they chose to do so
i thought, therefore i was...
Contributed nothing to the open source community? What about the recent enhancements to KHTML? What about the enhancement to Zero Config a.k.a Rendevous? I'm sure there are others.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
quite the load of shit!
This is a bogus test (moderate me down as you want you fuckers) but Safari has not yet fully implemented all the features that are in KHTML especially as related to XML.
This is because KHTML uses the Qt XML API and safari does not.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
I don't understand the negative spin of the article. KHTML is just as deserving of support as Gecko... and we should all be cheering this as a boost to free software in general. If we can have two strong rendering engines, that's far better than one -- and this decision can only help to drive KHTML forward. Gecko, for its part, already has plenty of momentum behind it without Apple.
I've always been impressed with Konqueror. It was my main browser for a long time -- after Netscape 4.7, and before Mozilla 1.0. I moved on to Mozilla for a variety of reasons -- but if Konqueror keeps progressing like this, who knows what I'll use in the future? I like having a choice, anyway.
I was particularly impressed when I saw KHTML ported to AtheOS (which is a lot lighter than KDE).
Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Not only haven't you read the article, but on top of that you are talking out of your asses. Do you have the slightest idea what KHTML actually is? Hint: it's not Konqueror. It's a rendering engine just like Gecko is. I'm browsing at +5, and two thirds of the posts compare KHTML and Mozilla. Apples and oranges, anyone? Apple didn't have to port all that KDE/Qt POS because it's not there in the first place. The problem with mozilla is that Gecko is too coupled with Mozilla itself. If you can't read code, look at Galeon for evidence: notice all those very non GTK+ stuff popping up at random? Apple of course does not want Mozilla, they want the rendering engine and KHTML is the fruit that's hanging lowest. That doesn't make it the best fruit, just the easiest one to pick. Have you used Konqueror and Mozilla lately? Can you say, with a straight face, that Konqueror has a better rendering engine than Mozilla's?
If Apple didn't have much problem to port it to Cocoa, it shouldn't be so hard to port it to GNUStep, should it?
If is do-able I would LOVE to see that... a fast, lean environment with a fast, lean browser.
This is the HTTP_USER_AGENT of Safari if anyone is interested: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/48 (like Gecko) Safari/48
I wonder why it says "like Gecko"?
I still think that organisations (organizations for the Yanks) who develop web standards (such as the W3C) should make free cross platform libraries available. So Netcape, Mozilla, Internet Explorer, etc. all produce the same output, have the same standards compliance and render pages exactly the same. Only the GUI and some additional features can be different.
Since this is not likely to happen, I will have to settle for my favourite (favorite for the Yanks) browser, Mozilla. Pity how at work all we have to develop for is Internet Explorer.
Darn, whey Hemos had to abbreviated KHTML to KH? It's not like the headline was too long or something.
Anyhow, the same article appeared at C|Net. Is it normal?
Posting from Safari...
Now Apple has a reason to push the HTML tool vendors into being more standards-compliant. The IE-specific crap has got to go.
One browser is tyranny. Two browsers is war. Many browsers are freedom
Maybe this is dumb to say, since I can probably run something similar under KDE, but is it expected that someone will pump out a version of Safari to run on my Red Hat box? Then I could compare it. I can't afford a Mac. ;-)
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
Multiple instances would go back to having to cycle through all applications instead of just browsing windows, which is probably moot since while they may or may not add tabs they probably won't remove multiple windows. Also, you only have no alternative if you must use tabs, not if you prefer tabs.
;) In that case, tabs would be a hinderance compared to glancing right or left.
I will agree that tabs can be useful and in all honesty if they were in a browser I was using there would be instances where I would use them. However, I generally have a couple of overlapping windows so I can keep track of which ones have finished loading, though that probably has more to do with my modem speed then anything else.
And just in case the tabs do say whether a page has finished loading, I will clarify that while using a modem I don't really care if all of the page loads, just what I want to see.
Personally, what I'd prefer to either of these solutions is a key-combination that would pop up a list of open windows with name, site, %loaded, if it is still loading, etc.. It would allow arrow navigation to select, close or refresh. Yes, that's pretty radical, but I do find the window menu limiting. I just don't want ten tabs that would either shrink to unreadable or use up way too much real estate on my monitor.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Bloat? *cough* Galeon works just fine on my mother's Pentium 166! And at times it feels faster than Netscape 4 on the same machine. I couldn't believe my freaking eyes!
Agreed, Mozilla in itself is pretty huge, but as Galeon (and Phoenix, I've been told) show, there's a nice little rendering engine in Mozilla screaming to get out.
And you can't blame Mozilla for "delusions of grandeur" if it really is a good browser. Misunderstood, perhaps. =)
Those aren't Aqua widgets you're looking at in Chimera. Those are Mozilla's own widgets merely themed to look like Aqua. Chimera may be faster than IE, but the widget's it uses are still slower than native Aqua widgets (and they don't support all the cool things that good Cocoa widgets support, like spell checking).
All editorial writers ever do is come down from the hill after the battle is over and shoot the wounded.
You can easily change the Safari theme from brushed metal Aqua to standard Aqua with a couple of clicks in Interface Builder. You could also use one of the Unsanity haxies.
Come on now... it works for something like iTunes, but for god's sake, a browser!?!?!?
I can't be the only one thinking this can I ?? probably... good thing I have my flame retardant vest on.
I run the computers of a Mac-based company. We use Microsoft Explorer, Entourage, Word, PowerPoint, and Excel.
The great majority of our support resources go to dealing with endless stream of problems caused by crappy Microsoft programming.
As our company moves to OS X, we're investigating the possibility of completely freeing ourselves of all Microsoft products.
Apple has already obviated the need for Entourage (with iCal, Mail (which still needs a bit of help) and Addressbook). They've now made something that kicks IE's butt. And lest ye forget, they also made Keynote, which kicks PowerPoint's ass.
So that just leaves Word and Excel. There are now several offerings in the wings that may replace these. The best hope is OpenOffice, but unfortunately the OS X project is going a little slowly. But word is that Apple is working on a complete re-work of AppleWorks. Then there's also Thinkfree Office, Mariner, and RagTime. But I'm hoping that Apple will provide the whole solution.
It could be that Apple is trying to kill off all dependence on MS crap. Oh, how wonderful that would be.
Then consider that they're also replacing expensive MS-based servers with very inexpensive OS X Server (unlimited users, and it's free with purchase of Xserve, or free as open-source Darwin code), which has very robust unix services combined with easy-to-use admin tools.
Apple is challenging MS on ALL fronts. Won't that be a surprise when major enterprises realize that they can save millions of dollars every year by using a single-source hardware vendor. Afterall, MS is a singlesource software vendor. Better to SS the hardware, where Apple makes top-rated products, and use open-source softweare.
POAD, Microsoft!!!!
for miss quoting them.
At least thats the impression I'm given from browsing their blogs.
Actually, this is pretty easy to envision in a tabbed interface.
Right now, Safari has a blue bar that fills up in the same space as the address bar. So you can lolok in one place to see what's loading and how far it has loaded. with tabs, you could just have the tab fill up with a blue bar. There, problem solved.
This is developers./. ...anyone wanna do that? ;-)
P.S. BTW, in Chimera, the tabs currently say "Loading..." then switch to the title when loaded. Thoght that feature seems a little buggy.
Chimera doesn't use XUL. The first line of the Chimera page reads "Chimera is a browser for Mac OS X that has a Cocoa user interface, and embeds the Gecko layout engine."
Well, that is the point, I think. Some people love tabs, so its nice to at least have the option. Its not like anyone has to use them if they dont want to.
I fail to see how Apple is wanting to have "complete domination" over everything. Apple contributes to many open source projects.
o c
Some current Apple open source projects are:
Darwin
Streaming Server
CDSA
CUPS
Open Directory
OpenPlay
Rendezvous
WebCore
HeaderD
I'm not picking on you, I'm just assuming you're not aware. Check it out for your self:
http://www.opensource.apple.com/
Current releases of Mozilla use GTK, IIRC.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Okay well if you had watched the last 4 keynotes (which you obviously didn't) you would agree they have tremendous vision. I would also say your assertion they are too small a company to affect the industry or create standards is completely absurd. Hello!!! (Wi-Fi, 802.11g, Firewire, Firewire 2, DVD-R, Quicktime, digital hub apps, etc.) All Apple inventions or firsts that led the industry and have since made a lasting impact. You don't like there computers, fine. Please don't denegrate Slashdot again with your profound ignorance.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
That would of been Kurt. Anyway, the browser in question is ABrowse of which I'm now the maintainer and lead developer (found here). We've evaluated gecko verse khtml and everyone wants gecko. It renders more pages correctly. However as a lazy, ;), developer I'm sticking with khtml for now. It just makes more sense for syllable/atheos which is also c++. Our port of KHTML is rather crufty but still ingenious. Kurt remapped qt widgets to our native kit, set the appropriate browser callbacks and somehow got everything up and running. I took over about a month ago and have only gone through about 10% of the actual khtml code (although we do now have tabbed browsing :). I think the thing for Apple was the just the plain size of such a porting job to a non already ported platform. From my work on ABrowse I couldn't possibly imagine porting gecko, especially since we do not rely on an X, gtk or any of that stuff gecko wants to compile.
Just thought I'd chime in...
- Shawn
ps - Atheos is not quite dead. If interested check out Syllable at the link above. Syllable is very much so alive and progress has speeded up over the atheos days.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
The whole point of the article, by those M$ whores at ZDnet, is to say that Mozilla sucks. What total crap. Mozilla rocks. Tabbs, anti-popup, and yes it is fast, generally quicker than IE on Windoze 2000 because it does not have to handle so much advert garbage and spyware. Konquror is nice too and I'm happy that Apple is going to use their work.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
" The QT toolkit is one of the reasons this can be done in an efficient, easily understandable way. It's a great toolkit, and it's a shame the mozilla project decided to ignore it in favour of gtk/xul/javascript/etc."
And was QT cross-platform at the time the decisions about xul were being made? Did it run on non-x86 platforms at the time? What about now? What about the license at the time?
It always easier in hindsight to chastise anyone's decision, especially when you're not the one who has to make it. The gtk thing has nothing to do with the core Mozilla project, and QT isn't a replacement for Javascript. Totally different problem domains.
Phoenix, which is based on stripped Mozilla code, is only 6 or 8 MB (larger uncompressed though). This is for the Windows and Linux versions respectively. It looks nice too.
People over-exagerate Mozilla's size. Yes, it's big. That's why I don't use it. I use Phoenix instead. By 1.0, I'm willing to bet that Phoenix is the size of Safari. It's still only halfway there.
Apparently the fact that Paul Festa linked here from his CNET article is going to reduce my Livejournal to the unadulterated depths of uselessness that the Slashdot forums have pioneered, so I guess I'll just turn off comments until the newbie shitstorm blows on by.
I'm not interested in your opinion. I'm not interested in explaining to you how you've completely missed the point of my post. I just don't care.
Thank you, drive through.
Someone else must have written that, as it looks like the kind of thing Slashdot trolls write, you know, "Slazdot sucks!" and it makes him look like an arogent shit. That's not the way I imagine someone who could found a huge project like Mozilla and organize all of the people who worked on it. If Mozilla is not targeted at "newbies", who is it for?
Wait a minute, I think I see it - the same people dumping troll posts on Slashdot also work for ZDnet. M$ whoring does not get lower than that - abuse of all possible contenders. Note that the article does not say anything good about Safari or KDE, it just heaps abuse on Mozilla. Up yours, ZDnet, Mozilla rocks so hard it even makes your site bearble by turning off all the adverts and pop ups.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Current releases of Mozilla use GTK, IIRC.
I may have spoken to shortly, I meant GTK-Mozilla. I have no idea how much GTK mozilla uses, but its very small if anything. A GTK version of Mozilla is called Galeon, and is being ported to GTK2 right now. I only hope that Evolution has as much speed up as Galeon did moving over to GTK2.
This may get modded down. But here is my observation during last 5 yrs of Linux / Opensource world.
./LinuxLover
*gnome + mozilla crowd craves attention*
Cases in point.
- I remember when Gnome started there was constant gloating about how it is 'free all the way' as oppossed to KDE based on QT. KDE worked silently to form QT-Foundation which guranteed QT's availablilty.
Also when KDE released 2.0 Gnome was under pressure to rush to 1.2(was it?) release, if I remember correctly.
- mozilla was very vocal about how their 'super' browser will end the dominant IE and provide a viable browser on all platforms. (In my opinion they are there feature wise, but performance/looks is another issue).
While KDE group said 'we are working on a simple File Manager + Browser'. And when Konq came out, wham, it was so awesome (and worked!) evey one liked it.
Don't get me wrong. I use Konq and Mozilla. Konq still chokes on some sites. But for most of the sites I visit work fine and that is good enough for me.
I also use Evolution as my email client and I also like Gnome.
So at the end, in my opinion KDE stands out as a 'silent winner' while Mozilla crowd is screaming, 'we are cool'.
I know I am stearotyping a lot of developers in all the projects I mentioned here. But that is my observation.
In my opinion, completeness and correctness are more important goals for a rendering module than size and speed.
.cgi pulling from a local database running off the local apache. Now imagine you are using finder and 6 of the folders are really HTML; the browser has instantely render the 6 .gifs, and then when the person clicks instantly render an entire page of HTML. Once you cut the download part out speed of the engine will make a big difference.
I think you may be thinking too small in terms of 1-2 browsers looking at webpages having access to tons of memory and processing speed. What about something like Active Desktop where (in theory) you might icons pulling from browsers; text being displayed using a real time
I think Active Desktop is a great idea. I'd love to have different types of folders on my system which display information in different ways. Have text editable fields where I could leave various sticky notes. Have virtual files (which are CGI links...). I guess it is probably possible but under the current version of Windows its too much of a pain to set this up. OTOH Apple's speciality is making things that are cool but a pain into things that are cool and easy.
Consider Apple's direction:
a) A very fast 3D engine
b) A very fast display system that can support complex video and sound
c) A fast browser
That sounding to me like the building blocks for active desktop done right.
On Lawn wrote,
"Then for all the work going on it then it seems to have run out of steam. As far as I know (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), lesstif still can't dynamically link to netscape, GTK was abandoned, and the KDE people abandoned Netscape code entirely."
GTK was abonded because Gnome moved on to GTK2. Galeon2 is being actively developed. I use it on my system.
But the question is: should you have to?
Almost everyone recognizes that the brushed metal theme is ugly. So why is apple insisting on it? Annoying their userbase, as usual?
That would just ruin my day!
Mozilla 1.2b is 38 megs on OS X. Sorry if that pisses you off, but it's a fact.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Yeah, meep meep meep. Denegrate Slashdot? I think it's already Degenerated with mac users. Go to apple.slashdot.com where you belong, you sound worse than the linux freaks that frequent the main site.
As many people have pointed out, there are several ways to disable this. My personal choice has been demetallifizer, as it will globally fix all cocoa applications.
(Of course, it crosses my mind that brushed aluminum applications are incredibly ugly...as mac applications go. They still tend to look and behave better than any X11 applications.)
I'm hurt that Apple decided not to use the Lynx rendering engine. *sniff*
(Oh, wait, I don't give a shit what they used as long as it works well. Back to doing something useful with my time.)
Howso? I only vaguely remember the mac clones, but I thought the reason they were canceled was that there purpose was to increase mac's marketshare of computers sold and the only thing they did was take away from apple's share of macs sold. I don't know much about the clones and am curious what kind of abuse was occurring and besides what I mentioned how was the licencing flawed? Or are you talking about something besides the clones?
Competition is good, whatever you choose to use. Apple has it's own reasons for choosing KHTML, and hopefully this will motivate the mozilla developers to compete directly or develop its own niche.
Truthfully when I heard Apple was coming out with a browser, I wanted to see what it was like. Slight Problem being I don't have a Mac, so pictures will have to do for now. Oh well, hopefully they'll work with the KDE Developers so there'll be a decent Linux version (although apple will probably keep it to themselves).
"Chastise? Read my post again. I said it was a shame they didn't use something that was already available, cheap, and proven."
XUL is the future, because it brings GUI's closer to the masses. Such a claim can't be made about QT or GTK. Someone had to step into the future.
BTW there's more to the QPL,GPL issue than money.
Lets see:
Chimera: A fantastic, impracticable plan or desire: bubble, castle in the air, dream, fantasy, illusion, pipe dream, rainbow.
Dave Hyatt (for I think it was he, forgive me if I am wrong) said that Chimera was named thus because of the the UNHOLY alliance between the gecko codebase, and Mac OS Xs' Cocoa, object frameworks.
The fact is, and the Mozilla team will agree, that Gecko is a hopelessly over-engineered piece of technology (a little like Quartz). It wasn't built to be 'cross-platform', it was built to be THE platform and with this in mind the engineers of it have turned it into an overcomplicated device.
This does not deny that geko is a fine machine, it is complete, fast and effective.. BUT it is fat, and messy.
When OmniGroup decided to adopt the JS engine from the Mozilla project, they found they had bit off an awful lot to chew.. saying that great areas of it were un-threadsafe and integrating it with OSXs' object frameworks was a nightmare.
Contrast with KHTML.. it is extremely lightweight (if far less complete than Gecko) is more modular and it's hooks outward to the host are more prevelant (Gecko wants to BE the platform remember)
I had no Idea Apple would do this, and was suprised when they used KHTML, but that is probably because I knew little of it.. in fact talk of Apple working on a browser worried me.. because I assumed they would try to use Gecko.. it would have been like banging a square peg into a round hole had they tried to do it.
I'm not taking away from Chimera, they gave the Mac community something great, but look at it.. it's integration with Aqua is roughshod and bizarre, it never 'feels' right.. now look at what Apple have done with KHTML.. it is natural, looks right (like OmniWeb) and works like a dream.
Safari has a -long- way to go, and the bloat will occur (that last 20% of standards to support will add another 50% of code, I'll bet) but now It is, far and away the benchmark in OSX browsing, and I feel it will be for some time.
The crude abstract of this article implies KHTML is not cross platform. History says otherwise.
I don't know why people keep saying KHTML isn't cross platform. It runs on 18 different platforms that I am aware of. Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, AIX, OS/2, etc., and i386, m68, Sparc, Alpha, etc. And don't forget the embedded palmtops! It's underlying Qt library is the world's premier crossplatform GUI library.
But frankly, Apple isn't in the business of supplying browsers for the Windows platform, so who cares?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Almost everyone recognizes that the brushed metal theme is ugly. So why is apple insisting on it? Annoying their userbase, as usual? I really like the brushed metal theme. The only problem I can see with it is that it makes app slightly inconsistent between each other. At least you can use this rather than develop your own theme that will create total inconsistency with your app and the rest of the OS.
--meh--
sections of XSLT, Xpath, & SVG...
I know there are outstanding bugs on all of them
--meh--
Last time I checked, GUIs were already available for the masses.
Yes, and why should it have been a project that was originally slated to be a browser suite? Why should it have been a project where a long time out of the market was liable to kill it?
There's nothing particularly revolutionary about xul, it's handy, and it leverages existing technologies fairly well. Virtually killing mozilla to get it doesn't seem worth it.
As I said, it's a shame they didn't use something that was already available, cheap, and proven.
Mozilla may be an excellent browser now, and so are its spawnings, but it wasnt necessarily so when Apple had to choose long ago which code to base their browser off of.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
It is important to consider when they had to decide which codebase to choose. Over a year ago means mozilla version less than .9.8, and while that version was already usable it was very obvious that it still needed a lot of work. I don't know the state KHTML was in at that time, but its main advantage is the smaller codebase. It's a very sound decision to keep the project overseeable and manageable. Had they used the mozilla-code they'd had to invest much more into the development, they might still depend on (parts of) the mozilla development, and it'd probably have taken much longer. The benefits of using the mozilla-codebase don't outweigh these costs considering that all apple wanted was a standalone-browser.
Over all the ruckus about HTML vs. mozilla aparently nobody noticed that Apple based their browser on an open source project and decided against doing it closed-source on their own. I think that's great news.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
Troth is that you just need to build good hardware and good software and make sure the drivers work properly.
So the fact that limited hardware has nothing to do with it? Even with hardware companies developing thier drivers for windows, they still have to hope they will work with countless configurations. Apple's limited hardware can allow them the luxury of testing drivers with all hardware configurations.
I'm not that optimistic, the web designers still have to cater to the masses. As long as IE dominates the market, I don't see any big changes.
"Get back to work, you aren't getting paid to believe in the power of your dreams." - no idea where this came from, but seemed appropriate.
Your Rights Online Articles are a great way to burn Karma! I lost 35 points in two days!
I guess I'll name it the YuRO Diet!
Heres a link! YuRO details!
The trick is to post anything not cynical.
Slashdot seems to just mod ANYTHING in ANYWAY!
Ps, IN SOVIET RUSSIA 3.Profit pours hot grits on all your base! Natalie Portman!
Because it's Linux.
While my intial experiences with Safari have been very good...what I need and what I believe a lot of Mac people need is a browser I can use at home, at work, at play so to speak. Mozilla fills this need and then some. Of course it's not difficult to shift between browsers, but the feature set and wins to use different ones must be quite substantial. So I'll use Mozilla...it's home now...I can use it on my PC, use it on my Mac...it does the job and I'm comfortable.
Why not start froms scratch, and code Mozilla only to work in *nix? Windows will be getting DRM tech which may not allow Mozilla to run as fast as it could, (Who knows MS might even make code to cause problems with Mozilla like they did to their competitors in the 80s). Plus, IE will always have the advantage of integration with Windows. If Mozilla could get superior under *nix, AOL/Netscape could switch away from Windows entirely along with millions of people.
We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Mozilla, using XPFE, is a "cross-platform development framework".(Creating Applications With Mozilla, published by O'Reilly)
The Mozilla suite (browser, mail client, news reader, etc.) is a collection of XPFE applications. As more documentation and examples become available expect to see many more cross platform applications which rely on the Mozilla framework.
Safari is very fast, but it is just a browser. Unfortunately Mozilla on the Mac blows chunks at the moment. It's a sluggish Carbon application that doesn't look too good. Use fink to install Mozilla for X11 and try running it rootless under Apple's new Quartz enhanced build of XFree86. It goes off like a frog in a sock.
1. OSX becomes real and functional
2. Netscape, Mozilla, IE are all OK but not great
3. Omniweb appears, it is beautiful, the interface is pure cocoa, the security, and ad blocking feautures are second to none.
4. Chimara is spawned from Mozilla, the interface is just as nice as Omniweb, CSS support is much better, Speed is much better, but it is hard to give up the cool ad blocking of Omniweb. (suddenly I am using 2 browsers one for everyday and one for problem sites) tabbed browsing rocks
5. Safari beta is released, the interface is better yet, it is even faster, no tabs, basic ad blocking only
6. What to do what to do? I pray to the great goddess Eris and write a script that randomly picks for me each time I want to launch a browser. HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
What happened at that point is that the code base was abandoned, which allowed the Mozilla project to start in earnest. Of course, completely rewriting Netscape with a new license is not a trivial task. People were bemoaning Mozilla for taking so long to write their code as IE became the dominant browser.
What people do not realize is that free software devlopment takes time; people often times aren't getting paid to do the work and there is a strong attitude it is better to do it right slowly than to do it wrong quickly. As long as the software project is not abadoned, the software will eventually have a 1.0 release. It took Mozilla about four years to come out with a 1.0 release; this is remarkably fast in the free software world. As just one comparison, the GNU project was started in 1983; there was not a usable Unix system using 100% free software until about 1992 or so. Technically, the GNU project is still not complete after 20 years.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
It is not about what the web dev uses, it is about what the public is using on their boxes. It is a fact that the vast majority of computers used to surf the net come preloaded with Windoews & IE. I don't like it but don't give to much credit to 'web developers' as being able to dseign for anything other than the the majority view.
Greg
In my experience with macs over the years i feel this is a mix-bagged situation. On one hand, us apple die-hards get more support for our UNIX environment. However I think apple is turning cheek on the open-source world, but then agian it is at Steve Job's descretion... - GotM
Don't you realise, MHz are the only thing that matters
Do you remember seeing all of those ads for Mac clones in magazines? You could really only find them in the Mac magazines. VERY aggressive campaigns to get you to buy a Power Computing Mac instead of an Apple Mac. They offered side by side spec comparisons and boldly emphasized their slightly lower price.
This is all understandable, but I think Apple had gotten into this partially because they were fighting such an uphill battle trying to market the Mac to PC users all by themselves. Then when the program started, they didn't see UMAX, Motorola or (especially) Power Computing doing much to help. The competitors seemed to have the initial goal of getting their Mac clone operations started by cannabalizing what little remained of Apple's already dwindling revenue stream. Actually, I think I remember seeing Motorola ads in the non-computer press. Kudos to them for trying to grow the pie.
It would have been great for everyone if Apple could have survived long enought to benefit from it, but they really couldn't have.
I'm not an insider, but this is my guess at what the poster meant by "abuse" based on my recollection. The whole experience seemed so ugly. If only Apple wouldn't have hired such lousy CEO's. Gil Amelio and others are still making money off of their time spent there, and they nearly brought the company to it's knees by not putting the necessary emphasis on building exciting looking products. Steve makes it look so easy.
Mozilla hurt by Apple blast
By Paul Festa
Special to ZDNet News
January 14, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-980498.html
AOL Time Warner's Mozilla project is facing new questions about quality after Apple Computer's release of a browser based on rival open-source code.
Apple last week unveiled its own browser, called Safari. The company said it was based on the KHTML rendering engine that is the core of Konqueror, an open-source file manager and Web browser for the K Desktop Environment (KDE).
In an e-mail congratulating KHTML engineers on their work and its selection by Apple, Safari's engineering manager touted the technology over Mozilla and its rendering engine, Gecko.
"When we were evaluating technologies over a year ago, KHTML and KJS stood out," Safari Engineering Manager Don Melton wrote. (KJS is KDE's JavaScript interpreter.) "Not only were they the basis of an excellent, modern and standards-compliant Web browser, they were also less than 140,000 lines of code. The size of your code and ease of development within that code made it a better choice for us than other open-source projects."
Despite its diplomatic tone and anonymous reference, Mozilla veterans read between the lines of Melton's message.
In a Web log, Mozilla founder and former evangelist Jamie Zawinski said Apple is bad-mouthing Mozilla.
"Translated through a de-weaselizer, (Melton's e-mail) says: 'Even though some of us used to work on Mozilla, we have to admit that the Mozilla code is a gigantic, bloated mess, not to mention slow, and with an internal API so flamboyantly baroque that frankly we can't even comprehend where to begin,'" Zawinski wrote.
One Mozilla staff member called KHTML selection an understandable if not foregone conclusion, given Mozilla's technical problems.
"I guess I'm supposed to be mortally offended--or at least embarrassed--that they went with KHTML instead of our Gecko engine, but I'm having trouble working up the indignation," wrote Mike Shaver in a Web log posting. "We've all known forever that Gecko missed its 'small-and-lean' target by an area code, and we've been slogging back towards the goal, dragging our profilers and benchmarks behind us, for years."
Shaver, who left Netscape three years ago but retained his position on the small Mozilla staff, said that in Apple's shoes he might have made a similar decision.
"If I had to write a new browser, and I was going to have to touch the layout code in a serious way, I would think about Mozilla alternatives," Shaver wrote. "I really, really hope that Mozilla will learn from Safari/KHTML, because they've done a lot of great work in about a tenth of the code."
Mitchell Baker, who goes by the title of chief lizard wrangler at Mozilla, defended the Mozilla project against technical gripes in a prepared statement. "Gecko offers crossplatform capabilities, leading standards support as well as a full feature set and tested compatibility on the Web," she said.
"Gecko's speedy crossplatform nature is important to maintaining a Web to which all users have access regardless of their platform," she added. "Gecko is already embedded and distributed in real-world applications from Red Hat, IBM, OEone, Netscape and CompuServe, and we look forward to the upcoming releases of Gecko-based products that are currently in development."
Slow progress
Mozilla has faced criticism before over the pace of its development efforts, which were originally conceived as the Web community's best chance to challenge the dominance of Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Mozilla 1.0 was released last year, after long delays that effectively allowed Microsoft to cement its lead.
AOL Time Warner's Netscape division issued Netscape 6--its first browser based on the Mozilla code--to poor reviews, but a subsequent update answered many of the critics. Netscape Communications is Mozilla's corporate sponsor.
Mozilla and Netscape have both seen small gains in market share, appearing in the market alongside an independent entry from Norway's Opera Software. None has significantly challenged Microsoft's lead, however, which remains well above 90 percent, according to a recent survey.
Apple's browser is unlikely to alter the market-share picture, but is still a significant entry into the field. Although it caters to a small group of users, it could help Apple wean itself from its reliance on Microsoft's IE and create new software services. Apple's vote also carries significant weight in software circles as a result of its development of several highly-regarded applications for its Macintosh personal computers, particularly its iTunes and iPhoto multimedia tools.
Melton's e-mail detailed the Safari team's deep roots in the Mozilla project. Melton helped launch Mozilla in 1998. Safari engineer David Hyatt launched Chimera, a version of Mozilla for Mac OS X.
Asked to elaborate on its rejection of Mozilla, Apple went out of its way to minimize its dissatisfaction with the technology it bypassed.
"The Gecko engine is fairly well-regarded engine," said Chris Bourdon, product marketing manager for Mac OS X. "It isn't to say that there is anything poor about Gecko or Mozilla. The Safari team just felt KHTML was a better code base from which they could build a browser."
Bourdon said Safari engineers looked at size, speed and compatibility in choosing KHTML. In addition to Mozilla, Apple also considered building its own browser from scratch.
Bourdon said the fact KHTML's small size--140,000 lines of code--let Apple build a browser that is a svelte 3 MB in size. He compared that with Netscape's more than 17 MB, though that includes an e-mail reader and other peripheral applications.
Untying browser knots
Apple, which embarked on its browser project in order to free itself further from dependence on Microsoft and its Internet Explorer browser, may have balked at using Mozilla because of its ties to AOL Time Warner. The media giant's Netscape unit funds and staffs Mozilla's nonvolunteer positions.
Though shared enmity with Microsoft has made Apple's relations with AOL Time Warner comparatively warm, the question remains whether Apple would want to trade in its browser reliance on the world's largest technology company for that of the world's largest media and technology company.
Apple and analysts alike insisted that technical, rather than political, considerations were the real reason behind Apple's choice.
"Every discussion I had with them had more to do with the quality and size of the kernel and what they could do with it," said Tim Bajarin, an analyst at Creative Strategies in San Jose, Calif. "My suspicion is the real goal was to just try to work with what they considered the best technology that they could build on. And they did a heck of a lot of research."
Since Safari's release last week, Web developers have been trying the browser out and discovering bugs in its rendering capabilities and standards compliance. That's only to be expected from the first public beta of a browser, and Safari's Hyatt has been maintaining a Web log detailing some of the more prominent problems and their resolutions.
While Mozilla has long carried the torch of standards compliance, standards advocates called the new prominence of its open-source competitor a boon for Web standards.
"The two projects have had very different histories and goals--some very much in line with our stance, and some that may have served to detract attention away from their implementing standards as well as we'd like," said Steven Champeon, a member of the Web Standards Project and chief technology officer of Hesketh.com. "But in the long run, as long as the number of highly standards-compliant browsers continues to grow, and we can see some great competition out there, everyone wins."
One Web developer cheered Apple's decision, and agreed with the company's comparative evaluation of the two open-source browsers.
KHTML is "very fast, doesn't have nearly the bloat of Mozilla, and does most of what I need," said Alex Russell, a Web application developer for SecurePipe and a lead developer for netWindows. "The Mozilla rendering engine isn't slow, but at the same time it has emphasized crossplatform correctness over speed, while KTHML has taken a slightly more expedient approach of shooting for a smaller feature set, getting it right, and then making things fast."
When I first got Chimera referred from an enthusiastic email, I was sorely disappointed. The latest version didn't lure me back either, I ended up dumping it as well. It didn't run any faster than Mozilla nor IE. I hate IE but it was the only thing that would run speedily on my 500mhz ibook, but I chose to bear Mozilla's slow loading because overall it's a better browser.
Now I'm using Safari and cannot believe the speed the pages load. I always thought it was because of my slow processor or because the notebook was so outdated but it doesn't seem to be the case. Kudos to the Safari team, there's finally an alternative that is actually fast and good.
- You can use it in proprietary apps: Qt is availiable in a proprietary edition. Apple couldn't really hack Gtk+ to point to Carbon, Classic or Cocoa (NeXTStep/OpenStep) without having to send the changes back to the FSF (and with MacOS X and Darwin on non-GPL compliant (BSD?) licenses, it wouldn't be legal to do that anyway
- Qt can be styled a bit: A problem that dooms GNOME (and it's prequisites: Gtk, Pango etc.) is because of a lack of Desktop intergration, especially in the styling area (e.g, A KDE theme maker can specify both Window decorations and Widget style in the same theme, but GNOME (therefore Gtk+, Sawfish etc.) theme makers have to do without
I don't explicitly belive that MacOS(/X) ports of Mozilla use Gtk (Windows and Unix ones do, but Unix uses xlib along with Gtk) (can someone from Mozilla.org confirm this). One problem with Mozilla is:AtheOS dead? Try Syllable
I'm a mac web developer.
I have 8 web browsers installed on my workstation. I test on all of them. The idea that we all use IE primarily is naiive. IE is the most painful to test for because it won't let you run the carbon and classic versions concurrently...they make you quit one, launch the other, test, quit...repeat ad nausuem. You can run Netscape/Mozilla for OS X and NN 4.7x at the same time. I tend to have Opera, Omniweb, Mozilla, NN 4.7 and IE OS X running concurrently. I fix the bugs, then IE OS 9 is an afterthought. Sometimes I ignore it for quite some time and just give the site a good once over.
Seriously...with that kind of roster of browsers for OS X (substitute chimera for mozilla proper on the user end)...IE really is the redheadded stepchild. It's opie with a mean streak. Jerry Lewis with 'roid rage.
I've been wanting to test for Konquerer for quite some time. I just don't have the time to get KDE working rootless on my Mac so I can do it concurrently with the other browsers. With Safari, I can now test in the same rendering engine.
So the advantage is not a move from IE (the only carbon browser in a world of native cocoa...a kludgy hodgepodge of obsolete frameworks and evil that no mac developer worth their salt could love)...it's being able to test for Konquerer without having to be a grey-bearded unix admin of lore to do so.
Just change your preferences for text/html in the file associations and put your favorite browser on top of the list. Then kmail will open the links in your emails with that browser.
Moritz
>A GTK version of Mozilla is called Galeon, and is being ported to GTK2 right now.
Galeon has been ported over to gtk2 already. Although it is currently flagged as a development version, it runs even better than any previous Galeon, I've been using it as my sole browser for a couple of months. RPMs are available from various places, including Mandrake Cooker, or you can build your own easily enough if you've got a recent GNOME2 version.
>Technically, the GNU project is still not complete after 20 years.
Yes it is, you even have two flavours GNU/Linux (GNU
with a Linux kernel), or GNU/Hurd (GNU with a vapourware kernel).
May I quote him too?:
Update:, Jan 14: Apparently the fact that Paul Festa linked here from his CNET article is going to reduce my Livejournal to the unadulterated depths of uselessness that the Slashdot forums have pioneered, so I guess I'll just turn off comments until the newbie shitstorm blows on by.
I'm not interested in your opinion. I'm not interested in explaining to you how you've completely missed the point of my post. I just don't care.
Thank you, drive through.
____
Registered Opera 7 user, k-lined from irc.mozilla.org with some fake reason.
I'd say, burn my karma too, mozilla fanatics, I just don't fucking care too...
Ilgaz
Well, there is a big difference in this case... Netscape's programmers were getting paid to work on Mozilla full-time.
Personally, I believe it was mostly because of feature bloat. It seems that they stuffed in every feature under the sun, then it took them a long time to get all those features working well, with each other, and so on.
Even in the opinion of the Mozilla developer in the article, only now are they starting to go back to get Mozilla cleaned-up, up to speed, and bug-free
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Omniweb can improve their browser using all things apple have did with khtml, the same applies to mozilla too, if you think in improvements and better quality everybody wins. I think someday this will a BIG Open Source Community against the anti-standards and proprietary formats, you know of who im talking about.
Really, I was honestly wondering what the poster of the parent to my post thought was wrong with Chimera.
Damn, I've gotta say, it sure is a good time to be a non-MS operating system user. Whatever else is still lacking(on OS X, I can't think of anything), we've got the web browser covered. ;-)
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Psst, people, we're talking about Gecko vs. khtml here,
not Mozilla vs. Konqueror.
Gecko *is* bloated, but when you think of "Mozilla features",
you're probably not thinking about the factors that made
Gecko bloated.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
I wasn't talking about bloat really... Rather, I was talking about the unessential crap they were wasting their time on.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
They were going for Source compatability binary compatability was never a real goal.
You also missed out on one of the biggest fuckups, ESR goes into netscape to speak with everyone and they ask him do we release a working netscape, or one that we've put a lot of time into and think will be releasable soon showing yet again his stunning lack of clue he gets them to dump 10s of thousands of lines of non-working development level code that doesn't help anyone for years.
ustr: Managed string API with ave. 44% overhead over strdup(), for 0-20B
They were going for Source compatability binary compatability was never a real goal.
Good point. I would be very interested in if anyone ever did get Netscape to compile with lesstif.
ESR goes into netscape to speak with everyone and they ask him do we release a working netscape, or one that we've put a lot of time into and think will be releasable soon showing yet again his stunning lack of clue
Ahh yes, the exciting time of snake oil salesmen and carpet baggers.
Every three years is pretty standard. The usual progression is: the first year is wonderful; the second usable; the third painful. Anything past three years old is masochism IMHO. Technology simply moves too fast, and bloat continues.
Note, though, that you needn't replace your box; simply upgrade the motherboard and/or CPU. As you get the money, install more RAM or another hard drive. A computer should be an organism, not something plucked off of a shelf.
Another note: if you're using a Unix box, this is less important, esp. if you limit yourself to more traditional applications such as emacs, mutt, slrn, nethack &c. Any modern machine is more than fast enough to run them. It's stuff like GNOME and KDE which eat resources--but even they seem to be slimming of late.
XUL is an obscene word!
By that logic, Windows should only crash on big name machines after you upgrade the hardware.
IBM, Dell etc... test thoroghly every configuration they sell. It still crashes long before any hardware device fails.
This is just an excuse because MS makes broken OSs and dosn't open enogh info for better drivers.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Every three years is pretty standard.
Hooray! A serious answer. I feared that getting modded as Funny ruined my chances of anyone taking me seriously.
Three years, eh? No escape from the upgrade treadmill. Oh, well. So it goes.
Another note: if you're using a Unix box, this is less important, esp. if you limit yourself to more traditional applications such as emacs, mutt, slrn, nethack &c. Any modern machine is more than fast enough to run them. It's stuff like GNOME and KDE which eat resources--but even they seem to be slimming of late.
Wow, I thought I was the only one who ever used "&c."
I've been dual-booting for a year or so, and at this point, Windows is just for games. It would've taken a long time to wean myself from it, but an accident with fdisk sort of caused a "cold turkey" effect.
I've been leery of upgrading to GNOME 2 specifically because of the bloat factor. Sort of defensively, I've been moving toward more text-based software. If GNUCash had an ncurses front-end, I might be able to ditch X altogether.
By that logic, Windows should only crash on big name machines after you upgrade the hardware.
If IBM, Dell etc had complete control over hardware and software then this would be the case.
Back to the "design hardware for the software and software for the hardware". If Apple isn't doing this, they are fools. And if they are, then it isn't a myth and would have an impact on the stability of thier systems.
Melton sends a message to the KHTML guys, which doesn't mention Gecko at all, and Zawinski goes off like some chick on a "so you think I'm fat?" kick.
Maybe he's just touchy because he knows that netscape is the only company that ever got beaten on quality by microsquish.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Please? :)
Now we see what your REAL argument is.
Look. Mac OS X is not "just another unix". It has been built on a unix foundation, but has evolved into entirely something more then that. OS X can run OS X native apps. It can run app packages. It can run recompiled and native unix apps. It can run X11 apps. It can run java apps. It can run Mac OS Classic apps. It can run windows apps (via emulation). All of this can be done side-by-side, with little (if any) user distiction.
Your problem is not with apple not making everything open source, your problem is that apple created a "unix" which in your mind, doesn't play nice with other *nixes. That's NOT what Apple intended to do. The primary reason for going with the foundation they did was to add stablity and modern OS concepts to the foundation of the Mac OS. NOT to just create another unix. Though it has a unix foundation, OS X was primarily designed for MAC users, not *nix users. (It is only now that *nix users are finding that they really like the OS for *nix.)
What people don't understand I think, and one of the things that makes OS X really unique in my mind, is the near perfect blend of *nix, command line, hard core hacking side of the OS with the user-friendly, easy using, consumer side. That's what you get when you marage something like the Mac OS with unix (which in philosophy, seem at complete opposite ends of the spectrum.)
In short, treating OS X as "just another unix" is shortsighted. Apple CAN'T just abandon all their development and go completely open source (due to the "mac" side.) As well, they can't make everything propriatary (due to the unix side). What they have to do is what they've done, develop great solutions which attempt to use as many open source technologies as possible. And contribute as much as possible back to the community, so long as it doesn't distrupt their bottom line. What I believe is what they're doing, and doing well.
Let me be clear. Aple just designs beter stuff and make it work togather.
Linux on Aple hardware is more stable than OS9.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
This whole "Design the Hardware for the software and design the software for the hardware" argument is a myth.
Aple just designs beter stuff and make it work togather.
You appear to be contradicting yourself.