Comments on: building the complete browser for everyone everywhere

By: raka

raka — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:35:21 +0000

There’s just no comparison, subjectively or otherwise. Webkit is so far behihnd in too many areas to even matter. If the big boys want to fight it out let them but that has no bearing on a choice of engine to use. The smart developer will choose Moz hands down. Webkit aka baby KHTML is all Apple, and well whose going to trust them, especially on Windows. All their Windows rhetoric and now you want to use Webkit as a browser engine for Windows?!

Anyway, went to the WebKit page and there’s zero embedding documentation for developers, so what’s all the fuss about anyway? Where’s the beef?! So bascially we have Moz willing to OS their code with plenty of docs help and and then we have Apple$ and MS$, you decide.

By: man

man — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:30:31 +0000

Excellent to hear more about the browser scene in the mobile arena.

Also liked the ReCaptcha on the site :-) we all doing our bit translating stuff :-)

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:58:27 +0000

Alberto: check out GOM

By: blizzard

blizzard — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:27:00 +0000

And I don’t think we’re scared of WebKit. That’s not really the right way to think of how I think about WebKit anyway. In general, WK has been good for the web. A second rendering engine that helps chip away at Microsoft’s market share, even if it’s largely embodied in a proprietary browser, is good. But too many people feel like Gecko and WebKit are somehow the same. They are not. The models are different, they contain different sets of software, the projects operate at different scales and with different motivations. It’s important to point that out from time to time.

By: blizzard

blizzard — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:24:33 +0000

Ice67 -

I think that your assertion assumes that we act like a normal business. We don’t. We’re an open source project and we happen to have a non-profit company as a mechanism to operate in the business world. We would still be doing the same thing that we are today even if there wasn’t any ad-related revenue. It’s just a mechanism for us.

By: Ice67

Ice67 — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:22:22 +0000

there is no such thing as a “neutral stance” when your income and growth is tied to mozilla ad-revenue. You need Mozilla to succeeed and others to fail or your very income will be peril.

By: us uahwhdjs

us uahwhdjs — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:14:59 +0000

You guys must be really scared of WebKit to launch into this fudparade

By: Anand Kumria

Anand Kumria — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:01:28 +0000

I think one thing you have dismissed, is that while Apple may have a lot of contributors, there are a lot of other folks involved who have commit and review control.

http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKit%20Team

By: blizzard

blizzard — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:25:37 +0000

Jos -

We call out to native libraries all the time. See XPCOM.

By: oliver

oliver — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:37:32 +0000

While I think that FF3 is one of the best browsers available today, I also think it still sucks heavily in many areas (mainly UI speed and stability as visible problems, and probably “code that is difficult to learn and maintain” in the background). So my hope is rather that Webkit will become good enough to allow building a new browser (or several competing browsers) that has the really good usability of FF3 but is fast and stable and easy to maintain…
Honestly, FF is a nice application, but it doesn’t seem to offer usable “building blocks” to for making own applications. Webkit OTOH seems to become a reasonable small building block which does one single task and does it well.