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."
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.
...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
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.
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.
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 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.
.. 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.
...you got the title wrong. It should read:
"ZDNet trolls for more page hits yet again - film at 11."
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
And just how is the community supposed to exclude Apple? Open source software is open for anyone to use, including any company. Besides Apple has contributed code back to the KHTML project. Just what will it take to please you whinny ungrateful open sourcers?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
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
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 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."
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.
Another note is how does it really hurt mozilla.
Good point.... I'd wager that Apple moving away from IE will help push the alternative browsers along. Less people will think "I *have* to use IE to view the web sites I visit" and there will be more people investigating Netscape again, as well as Mozilla, Opera, etc.
I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
<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.
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
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."
IE compatibility isn't important. You may not realize this, but the W3C defines web compatibility. As long as Apple implements for the W3C, it doesn't matter who uses their browser.
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?More to the point, why would anyone need to? I do web development. I test against the W3C implementation. I don't care what browser you use. It doesn't matter. All you need is a W3C compliant browser.
You don't know what borwser I use, and you shouldn't care. I may have written my own. But even if I have, you don't have to get a copy of it to make sure that it works. You just have to make sure that you test against the W3C implementation.
Oh yeah, and anyone who tests against a specific browser and not an standard is a loser ;)
-BrentYour 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 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"
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.
That's odd. I read: "We decided it will be easier to make Khtml work right, than to make the Gecko code easier to use/integrate" Which is not a rationalization, but a simple balancing of time/cost factors.
-chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
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