5 ms·

IMHO, 2.5 good engines are enough (webkit, blink, gecko - in the sense that webkit and blink are very similar). We just need more really good browsers which use

IMHO, 2.5 good engines are enough (webkit, blink, gecko - in the sense that webkit and blink are very similar). We just need more really good browsers which use gecko.

rafram 2y ago
WebKit and Blink aren’t very similar. There’s only a small amount of WebKit code left in Blink, and their architectures are completely different now.
- egeozcan 2y ago
  Oh, thanks for the update. I assumed it'd be an incremental departure and that things couldn't have changed so much in 12 years (given the complexity of the browser engines). Now that I've read more about the fork, I learned that the codebases were already significantly different at the time they declared it officially as a fork. Interesting, because it feels like they are very compatible when I'm testing stuff as a developer (apart from their support of new stuff obviously).
berkes 2y ago
We certainly need more really good browsers which use gecko. But for that to happen, Mozilla needs to up their effort to pull apart the components, decouple them from their own integration (firefox, thunderbird) and treat them as first-class projects, whose sole focus is to provide browser-builders and such with the components and tools to integrate the pieces. Purely technical, it's still easier to build around "chrome" components. Which is why everything from electron, via "webviews" to the oculus browser or that webview-thing in your fridge, uses chrome tech and not mozilla. Edit: in an ideal world, it would be a no-brainer for e.g. Meta to pick Mozilla components to build a browser for their VR headset. Or for VW when they develop an in-car screen. Or for an app-builder to add some web-rendering of their in-app help. But IMO this stems from a fundamental problem with Mozilla. Their cash-cow is firefox. So if they spend time and money making tech that then makes competing with firefox easier, they lose twice. So they will never truly commit to this. Even if that would, IMO, be one of the most impactful things for Mozillas' manifesto of a "free internet".
- egeozcan 2y ago
  I remember the good old times when Mozilla had a project named Chrome (yes) to (if my memory serves me correct) make building apps with gecko easier. edit: Probably misremembering, now that I searched for it. Yes "chrome" was (and still is?) used to describe the non-webview parts of the FF but apparently I totally made up the project part.
  - jraph 2y ago
    Are you thinking about XUL / XULRunner?
  - eitland 2y ago
    Was it Prism? That was a project to make it easy to make site specific browser IIRC.
    - egeozcan 2y ago
      Yes, I think it was. I think some people used it to create custom "chromes" for Gecko, hence the confusion. edit: Funny enough, the continuation project for Prism was named "Chromeless": https://github.com/mozilla/chromeless https://github.com/mozilla/chromeless
      - ksec 2y ago
        Because IIRC in old Mozilla Chrome was a project name that was the UI layer of Firefox. Chromeless basically just mean Firefox without UI for other applications to built on top.
- mnmalst 2y ago
  How would they loose? Right now people looking for a "component" are just using chrome(ium), so Mozilla does not have those "users" to begin with. If Gecko would be as usable for integration as Blink is more people would use it overall which is a net benefit for Gecko.
  - 2y ago
ArinaS 2y ago
3. Goanna exists, which is an engine forked from Gecko in 2016.
- Georgelemental 2y ago
  How many users does it have?
  - ArinaS 2y ago
    It's used by 3 browsers - Pale Moon, Basilisk and K-Meleon. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goanna_(software)&oldid=1270943119 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goanna_(software)....

IMHO, 2.5 good engines are enough (webkit, blink, gecko - in the sense that webkit and blink are very similar). We just need more really good browsers which use gecko.

rafram 2y ago

WebKit and Blink aren’t very similar. There’s only a small amount of WebKit code left in Blink, and their architectures are completely different now.

egeozcan 2y ago
Oh, thanks for the update. I assumed it'd be an incremental departure and that things couldn't have changed so much in 12 years (given the complexity of the browser engines). Now that I've read more about the fork, I learned that the codebases were already significantly different at the time they declared it officially as a fork. Interesting, because it feels like they are very compatible when I'm testing stuff as a developer (apart from their support of new stuff obviously).

berkes 2y ago

We certainly need more really good browsers which use gecko. But for that to happen, Mozilla needs to up their effort to pull apart the components, decouple them from their own integration (firefox, thunderbird) and treat them as first-class projects, whose sole focus is to provide browser-builders and such with the components and tools to integrate the pieces. Purely technical, it's still easier to build around "chrome" components. Which is why everything from electron, via "webviews" to the oculus browser or that webview-thing in your fridge, uses chrome tech and not mozilla. Edit: in an ideal world, it would be a no-brainer for e.g. Meta to pick Mozilla components to build a browser for their VR headset. Or for VW when they develop an in-car screen. Or for an app-builder to add some web-rendering of their in-app help. But IMO this stems from a fundamental problem with Mozilla. Their cash-cow is firefox. So if they spend time and money making tech that then makes competing with firefox easier, they lose twice. So they will never truly commit to this. Even if that would, IMO, be one of the most impactful things for Mozillas' manifesto of a "free internet".

egeozcan 2y ago
I remember the good old times when Mozilla had a project named Chrome (yes) to (if my memory serves me correct) make building apps with gecko easier. edit: Probably misremembering, now that I searched for it. Yes "chrome" was (and still is?) used to describe the non-webview parts of the FF but apparently I totally made up the project part.
- jraph 2y ago
  Are you thinking about XUL / XULRunner?
- eitland 2y ago
  Was it Prism? That was a project to make it easy to make site specific browser IIRC.
  - egeozcan 2y ago
    Yes, I think it was. I think some people used it to create custom "chromes" for Gecko, hence the confusion. edit: Funny enough, the continuation project for Prism was named "Chromeless": https://github.com/mozilla/chromeless https://github.com/mozilla/chromeless
    - ksec 2y ago
      Because IIRC in old Mozilla Chrome was a project name that was the UI layer of Firefox. Chromeless basically just mean Firefox without UI for other applications to built on top.
mnmalst 2y ago
How would they loose? Right now people looking for a "component" are just using chrome(ium), so Mozilla does not have those "users" to begin with. If Gecko would be as usable for integration as Blink is more people would use it overall which is a net benefit for Gecko.
- 2y ago

ArinaS 2y ago

3. Goanna exists, which is an engine forked from Gecko in 2016.

Georgelemental 2y ago
How many users does it have?
- ArinaS 2y ago
  It's used by 3 browsers - Pale Moon, Basilisk and K-Meleon. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goanna_(software)&oldid=1270943119 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goanna_(software)....