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."
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
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
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."
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
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?
FWIW, Gecko (Mozilla's HTML layout engine) is supposedly reasonably lean; Mozilla itself is more bloated due to featuritis (although, many of the features are cool, from JavaScript debugger to the whole UI framework that seamlessly ties C, C++ and JavaScript). However that's not so much a side-effect as a design decision; architecture is ambitious and feature list (too?) sizable.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
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. =/
They're hurt but they're not bitter, and they don't hold a grudge. But come on, it still hurts.
Sometimes, hurt is all they feel.
-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"
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.
"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.
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.
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!)
Chimera is 20.6 megs.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
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....
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.
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?
I don't hate KHTML, I should point out.
I use KDE 3 on my box, and I use Mozilla as my browser, because Konqueror is a piece of shit. I would use IE before Konqueror, if technical capability was my first priority (it's not, so never fear, I'd use Konqueror). I DO use Konqeror from time to time. For example, when I read email in Kmail, I can either copy a link to the clipboard and paste it in mozilla or I can just click it and see the link in konqueror. I usually click it and see the link in Konqueror, becuase Konqueror loads a lot faster. After they start running, I find Konqueror "feels" slow, although I haven't exactly done any benchmarking.
Suffice it to say, using both Mozilla and Konqueror side by side in KDE3, I find Mozilla to be a superior browser.
If Apple can make Konqueror better, then I would prefer to use Konqueror over Mozilla, just because it's well-integrated into my desktop of choice. Obviously, as much as I dislike Konqueror, I like KDE.
What exactly did Apple do wrong again?
Maybe they should've called it GNU/Safari? Seriously, I don't think they've done anything wrong.
I'd also like to point out as a Mozilla embedder that Mozilla hasn't exactly become cross-platform in the way that I'd define it. When you embed Mozilla on a UNIX platform, you have to link to GTK, because you have to pass a GTK widget to the rendering engine. This is not cross-platform, in my opinion. SUre, it works great on Windows, but you have to give it a HWND there, and there are other toolkits besides the winAPI. (Admittedly you should use the winAPI on Windows, the reason is self-evident) But how can I make a native Qt-based Mozilla if I have to link to GTK? Simple, I can't. With all the other cross-platform toolkits available for UNIX (and for Linux, of course) then it seems like Mozilla has ignored the others in favor of their own favorite widget set.
IMHO, instead of taking a widget pointer, they should take a rectangle of some sort instead, and let the embedder embed it first into their library, and THEN into their application. They could still provide handlers for winAPI and for GTK if they prefer, but those of us who want to use different toolkits under UNIX could embed Mozilla into our preferred toolkit without having to link to GTK.
Like what I said? You might like my music
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
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).
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.
The Mozilla 1.2.1 installer and/or ZIP Win32 download is about 12MB with no option to use a stub installer.
Here's a stub installer for Mozilla 1.2.1 (214 KB).
-jfedor
Some peopel equate open source and open standards to FREE. Well its not !
Ahh.... socialism will never die for some people
What makes a browser is not how well it renders good sites (which of course it should do anyway) but how well it renders bad sites. Huge swathes of the web are made up of gnarly, shitty, broken HTML, frame abuse, CSS, images and Javascript. Browsers that balk at that are bad browsers irrespective of their code size.
Now to concentrate on Chimera (since Mozilla also includes mail/news clients, HTML editor, JS debugger, DOM inspector, Cookie manager IRC etc.). Is is slower? Not noticeably as far as I can tell (I'm using it right now) and it runs fine for me on my crappy 450Mhz Mac. Is it less Mac-ish? Nope, in fact Chimera is probably more compliant with UI guidelines than brushed metal Safari. Could it be made smaller? Probably yes since so far Chimera has brought its own socket code, portable runtime library, image decoders, network decoders etc.. so at least some of these could be dumped in favour of the system equivalents (though it might impact stability or performance).
So aside from the hurdle of download size, what matters at the end of the day is which is a better browser. Apple had better put out a browser which has a decent browsing experience or they're going to be clobbered. Both browser engines will improve over time, but IMHO Safari has a long way to go yet before it is remotely comparable in terms of sheer quality or stability.
Ain't nothing wrong with Chimera. In fact, I have both Safari and Chimera happily sitting side-by-side on my dock, right next to the IE icon.
I've been happily using Chimera since the 0.5 days and it sure has come a long way in that time. Safari pulled off an impressive first appearance and is perfectly functional as-is.
I dumped IE like a hot rock after Chimera 0.6.0 was released, since that was when Chimera hit "good enough" status. Safari also meets the "good enough" threshold in my case and it gets more use than Chimera because it's faster. That's not to say I am not annoyed by Safari (or Chimera) sometimes. Tabbed browsing is neat and all, but I have a dual-headed workstation and have little need for it with my workflow.
There's no reason not to have TWO browsers and be happy. I enjoy watching the incremental development of these things, with Slashdot being a geek site, I would have assumed people here would like it as well. No need for a jihad over which open-source version is better, or which open-source version adoption by a corporation is more "politically correct". Just because MS has a closed-source monopoly on browsers, does not make it right for Mozilla to have an open-source monopoly either.
Use whatever you want and be happy. Browsers aren't fashion statements fer crissakes.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
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.
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.
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.
I agree there is a case for not rendering XHTML properly or other well-formed content but while HTML exists browsers have got to grin and render it even if it does taste like shit.
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.
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
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
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!!!!
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
Not yet but see this thread where someone has started porting the Webcore to Windows.
-chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
So think of it all this way, now we have two mature open source browser projects, instead of one really advanced one, and a bunch of others with no chance of catching up.
I normally agree with what you post, but I'm going to have to disagree here.
I've attempted to get involved in the Mozilla project multiple times, and I still don't understand how pretty much anything in their browser works.
I've been interested in KHTML for a week, and I have a very solid understanding of the renderer and the basic flow of information. I already see how the "final 20%" will be implemented without becoming hackish like Gecko feels.
I think KHTML has Gecko beat for engineering simplicity by about a mile, I do hope Gecko continues to improve, but it's no where near what KHTML is like now. I think one of the Mozilla engineers said it best (this is misquoted since google can't find the quote I'm looking for) "There are a handful of people who understand Gecko in the world", KHTML on the other hand just has that "clean code" feel to it, all the way through.
I live in a giant bucket.
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
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Funny enough, it's not! There's a separate 'acknowledgements' sub-menu.
Lars Knoll, et al. ( khtml ) Copyright © 1997 Martin Jones ; Copyright © 1998, 1999 Torben Weis ; Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2002 Waldo Bastian ; Copyright © 1998-2000 Lars Knoll ; Copyright © 1999, 2001 Antti Koivisto ; Copyright © 1999-2001 Harri Porten ; Copyright © 2000 Simon Hausmann ; Copyright © 2000, 2001 Dirk Mueller ; Copyright © 2000, 2001 Peter Kelly ; Copyright © 2000 Daniel Molkentin ; Copyright © 2000 Stefan Schimanski
Then follows a copy of the GPL & the Harri Porten & Univ. of Cambridge acknowledgements. It really doesn't get much better. And remember - since Steve returned to Apple, *no* internal developers are allowed put their names to any application.
(Disclaimer: I'm a developer @ Apple but I'm speaking just for myself)
Alison
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein