Slashdot Mirror
Firefox's Effect On Other Browsers
An anonymous reader points out an interview with Mozilla's "evangelist," Christopher Blizzard, regarding the future of Firefox and how it affects other browsers. It's an Austrian site, so forgive the comma abuse. From derStandard:
"It's sort of interesting though, part of our strategy is to make sure, that we continue making change and the indirect effect of this is that Microsoft continues to have to do releases, because if we get so far ahead that we're able to drive the platform they are not able to keep up and keep their users. I mean, we have this joke which says 'Internet Explorer 7 is the best release we ever did,' because they would not have done it, if we would have not built Firefox. And the same is true for Apple, they are doing a lot to keep up with us. Safari 3.1 is a good example, as far as we see it, the only reason they did this release was that Firefox 3 would come out and have Javascript speed which would be twice as fast as theirs, cause that's how it was before. So by pushing other people to make releases we can go on our mission to make sure the web stays healthy."
While Firefox may have inspired the release of IE 7 and pushed Apple to jump into the fray with a Windows release of Safari, it is also true that FF 2 was not all that it should have been and just maybe IE 7 and Safari pushed Mozilla hard enough to really ace FF 3 which it seems that they have done.
As a software developer who once loathed the idea of having to code for multiple browsers, I have now accepted that there will be differences and have learned to deal with it and promise to stop whining.
I applaud the browser race and hope that they continue to leapfrog each other for a long time to come.
is that Firefox has been driven (to a large extent) by Opera.
Credit where credit is due, please.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Before the ad-supported Opera, however, people just used the evaluation version.
Money was never what stopped Opera's adoption.
What did stop its adoption is an interesting question, though. It has been a great browser for as long as I can remember - which I think goes back to version 3.something. I used it to test my websites, because Opera was much more picky and standards-compliant than the others. I also used it for my own browsing, because Opera was faster and offered a slew of useful features that other browsers lacked (tons of keyboard shortcuts and tabs being the main ones). Yet, I have never seen Opera at far above 1% in global browser market share stats.
Part of it is undoubtedly inertia. A lot of people will just use what comes with their system, which is probably some version of Internet Explorer or Safari, and perhaps Firefox (and, back in the day, Netscape). Part of it may also be explained by the multitude of websites that have been broken in ways that made them not work with Opera. If you use a lot of such websites, having to switch browsers constantly quickly gets old.
Myself, I stopped using Opera because of stability issues on Linux. Those might have been resolved now, but, nowadays, I run only open-source software on my main system. I am not about to make an exception for Opera; I am satisfied with Konqueror.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I have a problem with pop-under windows. They "reappeared" recently, and I'm using FF exclusively. Unfortunately I can't tell if my switch from FF2 to FF3 was the reason, but it was around the time. Is this a known bug? I know I can try to figure out the domains of the sites appearing in those unwanted windows, but I'd be more interested in a general solution. BTW, I have "block pop up windows" activated in the settings, with a few exceptions.
IE7, quicker than Firefox? In every test I've read Firefox is a lot faster both at rendering and executing javascript. And it's really a pain using IE7 as even on a modern computer opening a new tab takes forever (at least compared to firefox).
Erik Dalén
KHTML provided the HTML and XML parsing engine, the DOM tree exports, the CSS parsing engine, the layout engine.
Source? All indications are that Apple wrote their own DOM, and that their CSS parsing is not KHTML's (which was one of the problems in adapting changes back to KHTML years back). They also certainly wrote the SVG support, which KHTML lacked.
That means that WebCore is a derivative of a pair of LGPL'd products.
No. WebCore does not contain KJS code. That's JSCore. WebCore contains LGPL'd libraries from KHTML, but it contains libraries that are not part of KHTML as well. JSCore contains LGPL'd libraries from KJS.
Further, since WebKit is, apparently, a derivative of WebCore
No. WebKit is a wrapper, providing API-level access to WebCore and JSCore, as well as integrating the debugging unit (starts with a D...). It is not a derivative work for the purposes of the LGPL.
Note: IIRC, WebKit and WebCore are parallel products - one isn't built on top of the other, but one was forked from the other.
No. WebCore is a component of WebKit.
> One of the great things that FF team did was to allow huge volumes of customization...but allowing the add-ons and creating an environment where they could be created made FF much more than a web browser.
Please, give credit where it is due. The concept of UI extensions derives from Netscape's plans for a skinnable Navigator 5, which led to the development of XUL - developed, you will note, by Netscape, not the Mozilla Foundation.
In-window plug-ins are today's implementation of NPAPI, again developed by Netscape.
Nothing is created from a vacuum ( well, except perhaps the entire Universe ).
I totally agree that Linux use of plain text files in the "/etc" directory is a far superior solution. However I'd also like to see all the user level config files that currently go into the various "~/.prog_name" folders collected into something like a "~/etc" directory.
Obviously to hide it during "normal" use you could name it "~/.etc" but I do think that it would be more consistent and far tidier to have all the user level config files in their own subdirectory.
Mind you having said that I'd prefer the directories were called "/settings" and ~/.settings" but I suppose 50 years of *NIX cruft precludes this !
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
Sure, that's funny. But according to the statistics linked in this comment IE7 is among the slowest browsers around:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=621353&cid=24285613
I also tried opening 10 tabs in FF3 and IE7 on an Athlon XP 3200+ with 1.5GB ram. In FF3 it took 2 seconds, in IE7 it took 27 seconds.
Funny huh?
Erik Dalén