3 ms·
The other browsers have been moving too slowly in their update cycles and it is starting to show. The difference this time is that WebKit is open source.
by jorangreef 15y ago
The other browsers have been moving too slowly in their update cycles and it is starting to show. The difference this time is that WebKit is open source.
- exterm 15y agoHave you even read the linked article? using -webkit- prefixes but not the -o- and -moz- counterparts is just very bad CSS and has nothing to do with slow update circles anywhere.
- jorangreef 15y agoI have read the linked article. There is a root cause that is deeper than "just very bad CSS".
- robin_reala 15y agoMozilla have a 6 weekly update cycle.
- jorangreef 15y agoYes, that's too slow.
- samth 15y ago6 weeks is exactly the same update cycle as Chrome, and much faster than Safari (or Mobile Safari, or the Android Browser).
- jorangreef 15y agoYou're right. 6 week release cycles for Firefox are as of April 2011, Chrome has been at it for longer. There are problems with the release cycle for Firefox, it's not as seamless, and the numbers are not as good: http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/12/06/comparing-chrome-and-firefox-automated-updates-study/ http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/12/06/comparing-chrome-and-fir... In terms of what is delivered in each update, Chrome is ahead. For instance, IndexedDB in Firefox at one stage was an order of magnitude slower than Chrome for several months and this may still be the case, Mozilla's implementation being based on SQLite, with Chrome on LevelDB. There is the dubious history of WebSQL, and the FileSystem API. Many of the new useful CSS features have taken far longer in Firefox. And then there is the similar rendering across WebKit browsers. Firefox renders some things like line-height completely differently.
- robin_reala 15y agoMozilla know that their updates aren’t as seamless and have been working hard to make them so. Completely silent updates land in Firefox 12 I believe (3 months time).