8 ms·

The separation of "Firefox" (brand, UI, browser history, password sync, extensions, etc) from "Gecko" (an implementation of a rendering engine) seems like a goo

The separation of "Firefox" (brand, UI, browser history, password sync, extensions, etc) from "Gecko" (an implementation of a rendering engine) seems like a good idea to me, even if it was forced by Apple. Gecko stands for nothing; it's just code. Whereas the Mozilla / Firefox brand stands for things like privacy, security, etc. (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/) The Firefox/Mozilla brand shouldn't be tied to Gecko or any other specific piece of code.

hackuser 11y ago
I agree, but they still need to deliver the other things that go with the brand: End-user control, privacy, and openness and freedom (as in speech). I don't know much about Firefox for iOS: Does it live up to those expectations?
- gkoberger 11y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. And the Firefox brand will live or die accordingly. The nice thing about Mozilla is every line of code is Open Source; even the server stuff. That's my point, I'd rather that than have it depend on where Gecko can run.
- userbinator 11y ago
  End-user control, privacy, and openness and freedom (as in speech). If they really wanted to support that it seems like a great opportunity to make a Gecko version of Firefox only available for jailbroken devices, and let their userbase do the rest. But given the direction they have been heading in the past few years, it seems all their talk about "end-user control" is just clever doublespeak for Mozilla doing the controlling.
  - st3fan 11y ago
    We have iOS platform support (in progress) in the main (gecko) tree now actually. If anyone is interested in putting a WKWebView compatible API on top of that, please fork the project and submit a patch. Open source! Hack. Mix. Burn! :-)
    - cpeterso 11y ago
      Here is the meta bug for Gecko on iOS: https://bugzil.la/1163827 https://bugzil.la/1163827
  - zobzu 11y ago
    with limited resources it seems difficult to release a polished product for such a small group of people...
- joosters 11y ago
  If the settings page screenshot is anything to go by, it doesn't look like it offers much in the way of control or privacy (no cookie controls, for instance). But I haven't used it yet, judging it on a screenshot is a little unfair...
  - st3fan 11y ago
    First release. Let us know what kind of features are important to you.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      I'd like feature parity w/ Firefox for desktops or Firefox for Android, but I have no idea how realistic that is. How realistic is it? Also, can you implement the WebExtensions API? That would be a big boost, enabling all the features in FF add-ons.
Manishearth 11y ago
> Gecko stands for nothing; it's just code. Gecko is an implementation of a rendering engine with specific goals, too. Gecko has a stand on web features. Having market share means more control on new features (especially controversial ones like DRM) that get introduced to the Web. This doesn't help in that direction, which keeps the mobile web controlled largely by Apple&Google.
zmmmmm 11y ago
Can you really separate those things? They relate directly to technical aspects of the implementation that are somewhat out of their control on iOS. They could deliver FireFox today and Apple could change the rendering engine tomorrow and violate those principles and the FireFox team would have no control over it, other than to withdraw the app from the app store.
bad_user 11y ago
This is not about code, but about ability to compete. First of all I'm a convinced Firefox user, I'm typing this in Firefox and I use Firefox on my Android as well and its absence has been one of my main gripes with the iPhone. I think this is great for us Firefox users. But browsers compete primarily in speed and supported open-standards. And even though I'm not one to fall often for the average Joe fallacy, I believe on average people don't give a shit about privacy, otherwise they wouldn't be using Windows or Google Search or Facebook. Of course, that doesn't mean companies or organizations don't have a responsibility to provide privacy or security, quite the contrary. But if Firefox is just a shell that means (a) absolutely no extensions support, (b) in terms of security or privacy it will be as good or as bad as Safari Mobile is and (c) they won't be able to compete either on speed or on open standards and note that Apple is doing a shitty job in supporting new web standards lately. They were actually right to be reluctant in supporting iOS, because the only value of this Firefox is providing Sync for us existing Firefox users. Which has been Google's strategy with Chrome as well. Not bad, but lets see it for what it is.
- sspiff 11y ago
  Speed and supported standards were once how browsers competed. Now, features like Sync and a handful of extensions are what bind me to Firefox. Having Sync available on mobile, even if it doesn't use Gecko or Spidermonkey, is valuable.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    Yes, Sync is valuable for me as well. But it will have no extensions either, as those aren't allowed by Apple's policies.
    - st3fan 11y ago
      What kind of extensions would you like to use on iOS. Can you give some concrete examples of things (either existing or wishes) you would like to see?
      - 11y ago

hackuser 11y ago

I agree, but they still need to deliver the other things that go with the brand: End-user control, privacy, and openness and freedom (as in speech). I don't know much about Firefox for iOS: Does it live up to those expectations?

gkoberger 11y ago
Maybe, maybe not. And the Firefox brand will live or die accordingly. The nice thing about Mozilla is every line of code is Open Source; even the server stuff. That's my point, I'd rather that than have it depend on where Gecko can run.
userbinator 11y ago
End-user control, privacy, and openness and freedom (as in speech). If they really wanted to support that it seems like a great opportunity to make a Gecko version of Firefox only available for jailbroken devices, and let their userbase do the rest. But given the direction they have been heading in the past few years, it seems all their talk about "end-user control" is just clever doublespeak for Mozilla doing the controlling.
- st3fan 11y ago
  We have iOS platform support (in progress) in the main (gecko) tree now actually. If anyone is interested in putting a WKWebView compatible API on top of that, please fork the project and submit a patch. Open source! Hack. Mix. Burn! :-)
  - cpeterso 11y ago
    Here is the meta bug for Gecko on iOS: https://bugzil.la/1163827 https://bugzil.la/1163827
- zobzu 11y ago
  with limited resources it seems difficult to release a polished product for such a small group of people...
joosters 11y ago
If the settings page screenshot is anything to go by, it doesn't look like it offers much in the way of control or privacy (no cookie controls, for instance). But I haven't used it yet, judging it on a screenshot is a little unfair...
- st3fan 11y ago
  First release. Let us know what kind of features are important to you.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    I'd like feature parity w/ Firefox for desktops or Firefox for Android, but I have no idea how realistic that is. How realistic is it? Also, can you implement the WebExtensions API? That would be a big boost, enabling all the features in FF add-ons.

Manishearth 11y ago

> Gecko stands for nothing; it's just code. Gecko is an implementation of a rendering engine with specific goals, too. Gecko has a stand on web features. Having market share means more control on new features (especially controversial ones like DRM) that get introduced to the Web. This doesn't help in that direction, which keeps the mobile web controlled largely by Apple&Google.

zmmmmm 11y ago

Can you really separate those things? They relate directly to technical aspects of the implementation that are somewhat out of their control on iOS. They could deliver FireFox today and Apple could change the rendering engine tomorrow and violate those principles and the FireFox team would have no control over it, other than to withdraw the app from the app store.

bad_user 11y ago

This is not about code, but about ability to compete. First of all I'm a convinced Firefox user, I'm typing this in Firefox and I use Firefox on my Android as well and its absence has been one of my main gripes with the iPhone. I think this is great for us Firefox users. But browsers compete primarily in speed and supported open-standards. And even though I'm not one to fall often for the average Joe fallacy, I believe on average people don't give a shit about privacy, otherwise they wouldn't be using Windows or Google Search or Facebook. Of course, that doesn't mean companies or organizations don't have a responsibility to provide privacy or security, quite the contrary. But if Firefox is just a shell that means (a) absolutely no extensions support, (b) in terms of security or privacy it will be as good or as bad as Safari Mobile is and (c) they won't be able to compete either on speed or on open standards and note that Apple is doing a shitty job in supporting new web standards lately. They were actually right to be reluctant in supporting iOS, because the only value of this Firefox is providing Sync for us existing Firefox users. Which has been Google's strategy with Chrome as well. Not bad, but lets see it for what it is.

sspiff 11y ago
Speed and supported standards were once how browsers competed. Now, features like Sync and a handful of extensions are what bind me to Firefox. Having Sync available on mobile, even if it doesn't use Gecko or Spidermonkey, is valuable.
- bad_user 11y ago
  Yes, Sync is valuable for me as well. But it will have no extensions either, as those aren't allowed by Apple's policies.
  - st3fan 11y ago
    What kind of extensions would you like to use on iOS. Can you give some concrete examples of things (either existing or wishes) you would like to see?
    - 11y ago