Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Mozilla Project Hurt by Apple's Decision to use KH

Posted by Hemos on Tue Jan 14, 2003 01:43 PM
from the the-battle-rages-on dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2
  • Pride of Authorship (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tealover (187148) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:48PM (#5082338)
    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!

    • Strategic Decision (Score:5, Insightful)

      by artemis67 (93453) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @02:17PM (#5082553) Homepage
      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.
      [ Parent ]
      • competition (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ryochiji (453715) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:03PM (#5082669) Homepage
        >Apple may benefit simply by virtue of having multiple browsers on the market.

        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.

        [ Parent ]
      • Bump the parent by Archfeld (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:22PM
      • by autopr0n (534291) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:40PM (#5083012) Homepage Journal
        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.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Strategic Decision by rseuhs (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @07:04PM
      • Re:Strategic Decision by catwh0re (Score:3) Tuesday January 14 2003, @07:18PM
      • one could argue by hswerdfe (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @09:16PM
      • Re:Strategic Decision by henben (Score:2) Wednesday January 15 2003, @05:48AM
    • Re:Pride of Authorship by On Lawn (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @02:24PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Browsers .... by GuruOfTheMac (Score:1) Wednesday January 15 2003, @01:23AM
    • Re:Pride of Authorship by Dave2 Wickham (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:34PM
    • Re:Pride of Authorship by Airline_Sickness_Bag (Score:1) Wednesday January 15 2003, @11:07AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:48PM (#5082339)
    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.
  • chimera! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by simpl3x (238301) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:48PM (#5082342)
    at least they didn't compete and crush the competition! chimera is still rather nice! multiple platforms--gecko--mmake for better competition!
  • Mozilla Lite? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Gunfighter (1944) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:48PM (#5082346) Homepage
    Why not use phoenix or some similar project w/out the bloat of the full-blown Mozilla?

    -- Gun

    P.S. First post
    • Re:Mozilla Lite? by iggymanz (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @02:56PM
    • Re:Mozilla Lite? by jaavaaguru (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @02:58PM
    • Re:Mozilla Lite? by ChristTrekker (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:01PM
    • Re:Mozilla Lite? by mbbac (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:07PM
    • Re:Mozilla Lite? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bhsx (458600) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:25PM (#5082886)
      Because it wasn't Mozilla or Konqueror we're talking about. It's Gecko vs. KHTML, the rendering engines that each project uses, respectively. Phoenix uses Gecko, and it was Gecko they rejected for KHTML. A better question might be...
      "Why haven't the Gecko-based projects, such as Phoenix, looked at KHTML?"
      The answer there may be that it's not as cross-platform-ready as Gecko is; but most likely the answer is more along the lines of "What's KHTML?" due to Mozilla's high exposure.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Mozilla Lite? by d2003xx (Score:1) Wednesday January 15 2003, @04:36AM
    • Re:Mozilla Lite? by evilviper (Score:2) Wednesday January 15 2003, @07:47AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Oh boo hoo... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by npietraniec (519210) <npietran&resistive,net> on Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:48PM (#5082347) Homepage
    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.
    • Re:Oh boo hoo... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @02:03PM
    • Re:Oh boo hoo... by kin_korn_karn (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:14PM
    • Re:Oh boo hoo... - AtheOS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by victim (30647) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:17PM (#5082825) Homepage
      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.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Oh boo hoo... - AtheOS (Score:5, Interesting)

        by On Lawn (1073) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:54PM (#5083129) Homepage Journal
        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.
        [ Parent ]
      • by Moritz Moeller - Her (3704) <mmh@@@gmx...net> on Tuesday January 14 2003, @04:12PM (#5083232)
        Jesus H. Christ! How can anyone claim that khtml ist not crossplatform?

        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.h tml

        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.
        [ Parent ]
      • AtheOS Lives On... by tankrshr77 (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @04:48PM
      • Re:Oh boo hoo... - AtheOS by WWWWolf (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @05:36PM
      • Re:Oh boo hoo... - AtheOS by powerlinekid (Score:3) Tuesday January 14 2003, @06:19PM
      • Re:Oh boo hoo... - AtheOS by Arandir (Score:3) Tuesday January 14 2003, @09:02PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Oh boo hoo... by *xpenguin* (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:33PM
    • Re:Oh boo hoo... by BZ (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @06:54PM
    • What the hell is Zawinski's problem, anyway? by jcr (Score:2) Friday January 17 2003, @07:49AM
    • Re:Oh boo hoo... by bluGill (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @04:07PM
    • Why don't I use active desktop? by jbolden (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @07:10PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Best tool for the job (Score:5, Interesting)

    by boinger (4618) <boinger.fuck-you@org> on Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:49PM (#5082351) Homepage
    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.
  • Gecko by Karamchand (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:49PM
    • Re:Gecko by jcr (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @07:03PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • abandon ship by spongebobsquarepants (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:49PM
    • Re:abandon ship (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NDPTAL85 (260093) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:03PM (#5082661)
      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?
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:abandon ship by spongebobsquarepants (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:32PM
        • Re:abandon ship by NDPTAL85 (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @04:29PM
          • Re:abandon ship by spongebobsquarepants (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @05:17PM
            • Re:abandon ship by NDPTAL85 (Score:2) Wednesday January 15 2003, @01:26PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • ship shape by infinite jester (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @04:50PM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:abandon ship by ubernostrum (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @05:20PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • oh well no shit by tps12 (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:50PM
  • Why the bloat? by Pig Hogger (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:51PM
    • Re:Why the bloat? by entrox (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:57PM
      • doh by entrox (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @02:02PM
    • Re:Why the bloat? by Doomdark (Score:3) Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:59PM
    • Re:Why the bloat? by MikeBabcock (Score:2) Thursday January 16 2003, @04:01AM
  • Why does Apple even bother with their own? by ShatteredDream (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:51PM
  • by nbvb (32836) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:52PM (#5082380) Journal
    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
  • KHTML developers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chennes (263526) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:52PM (#5082383) Homepage
    ...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
  • And this is a Surprise, Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by arakon (97351) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:52PM (#5082384) Homepage
    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....
  • Oh, no! Horror of Horrors! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Garridan (597129) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:52PM (#5082387)
    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.
  • mozilla by Guipo (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:53PM
    • Re:mozilla by The Bungi (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @02:20PM
      • Re:mozilla by jfedor (Score:3) Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:21PM
        • Re:mozilla by The Bungi (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:25PM
      • Re:mozilla by gorilla (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:48PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:mozilla (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PunchMonkey (261983) <mike@2bit.net> on Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:19PM (#5082832) Homepage
      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.
      [ Parent ]
    • Safari is faster. by OS24Ever (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:23PM
  • No... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mkoz (323688) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:53PM (#5082390)
    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.
    • Re:No... by nbvb (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @01:57PM
      • Re:No... by mkoz (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @02:02PM
        • Re:No... by nbvb (Score:3) Tuesday January 14 2003, @02:10PM
          • Re:No... by chicks.net (Score:1) Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:07PM
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • Re:No... by madmancarman (Score:2) Tuesday January 14 2003, @09:54PM
    • Chimera, yes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MacAndrew (463832) on Tuesday January 14 2003, @03:02PM (#5082650) Homepage
      4. Chimera (Mozilla based) is still a better browser than Safari on MacOS X.

      I've been using Chimera [mozilla.org] 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....
      [ Parent ]