MozillaZine

CNET News.com Opines on Apple's Choice of KHTML

Tuesday January 14th, 2003

CNET News.com has an article about Apple's choice of KHTML over Gecko for its Safari browser. Featuring a variety of quotes from many high profile figures, the article goes as far as to call the decision a "snub" — a claim that Apple's spokesperson refuses to corroborate.

Update! Mike Shaver isn't too happy about being quoted out of context and Chris Blizzard also has some choice words about the article. MozillaZine founder Chris Nelson isn't quite so subtle. There's also a discussion at Slashdot.


#1 Only html and js for Apple?

by oliversl

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 11:46 AM

Reply to this message

It seems that Apple needed only html/css and js for its new browser.<br> Maybe thats why they choosed khtml, since Mozilla has much more to offer.<br> I know this is a delicate subject, so I will stop typing now :-) <br>

#2 Yep

by pbreit

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 12:06 PM

Reply to this message

"It seems that Apple needed only html/css and js"

What else does *anyone* need from a *browser*?

#7 Re: Yep

by TheK <kl@3dots.de>

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 12:34 PM

Reply to this message

XML?

#22 Re: Yep

by rtvkuijk

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 5:25 PM

Reply to this message

CSS 1,2, (3?), DOM 1, 2, XSL, XHTML, SSL/TLS

#38 Re: Re: Yep

by kiwisurfer <james.pole@paradise.net.nz>

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 9:40 PM

Reply to this message

KHTML has support for CSS1/2 and SSL/TLS. And I think KHTML also has some support for DOM 1/2 and XHTML.

- James

#75 Re: Yep

by bamm <bamm@gabriana.com>

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 11:32 PM

Reply to this message

We should distinguish between standards support and standards compliance. KHTML does support CSS1/2 and DOM1 but their level of compliance to the standards is way behind Gecko. However, Apple's choice of KHTML is good for open source because their contribution to the KHTML code will only make it better. This means that Konqueror will finally display my validating site correctly.

#3 Safari developers' backgrounds

by sethf

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 12:07 PM

Reply to this message

Finally, an article that fairly (if incompletely) mentions the backgrounds of the Safari team.

Dave Hyatt (I mention him first, as he is more tied to the Mozillazine community) was a Netscape employee and (to the best of my knowledge) remains actively involved with the Mozilla codebase through development of Gecko, Chimera, and Phoenix. Up until last Tuesday's announcement, I had assumed (along with much of the world) that his employment by Apple and his continuing work meant that a Gecko-based browser was being produced by Apple. Up until KHTML appeared on Jobs' Keynote slides, I was expecting the next word to be "Mozilla" (or Gecko).

Add to this the fact that the rest of the Safari team (including former Netscape employee Melton) hails from Eazel (whose Nautilus was heavily dependent on Gecko) and it's impossible to say that Gecko was never considered. Each and every member of the Safari team has *extensive* experience with Gecko. Why would this team (of all browser developers) pass Gecko by in favor of KHTML if they didn't believe that KHTML was a better fit (note: not necessarily better) for the goals of Safari?

KHTML will no doubt improve as a result of this partnership. It may eventually be a competitor in all senses to Gecko, but as long as the goals of each project are different, there will be a place for both. If nothing else, competition between the engines (fully supporting standards, correctly) will prevent stagnation and promote innovation and will end up making the world a better place for web developers.

#9 Re: Safari developers' backgrounds

by pbreit

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 1:03 PM

Reply to this message

Also interesting is that Eazel was Gnome (and KHTML is the competing KDE). They either must have really like the KTHML code or the KHTML license.

#44 Is "prefs" the JScript Script File?

by DeepFreeze3

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 2:27 AM

Reply to this message

I've heard one of these guys runs a web site called Mozilla Blubber, which sole purpose is to bash Mozilla and the community that surrounds it. It seems that the guy didn't leave Netscape "voluntarily," (as in he was fired), and that he's done everything that he can to try and get back at them. Apparently, one of the ways he came up with was signing up with Apple to create Safari, a potential rival to Gecko-based browsers. What a loser.

#96 Re: Mozilla Blubber

by schapel

Wednesday April 2nd, 2003 9:55 PM

Reply to this message

Except that "Mozilla Blubber" freely admits that he is not a developer. He uses Opera 7 for Windows, and doesn't seem to have any connection to Safari or Apple whatsoever. There is no Safari conspiracy.

#4 Feature set

by KiaserZohsay <kiaser_zohsay@hotmail.com>

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 12:07 PM

Reply to this message

Quoting Alex Russell.

> "The Mozilla rendering engine isn't slow, but at the same time > it has emphasized crossplatform correctness over speed, while > KTHML has taken a slightly more expedient approach of shooting > for a smaller feature set, getting it right, and then making things fast."

KHTML has a smaller feature set then. So what does Gecko do that KHTML doesn't do?

kz

#6 Re: Feature set

by turi

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 12:29 PM

Reply to this message

XML, XSLT, MathML, MNG, Title attribute in tooltip, Tabs and more.

#12 Re: Re: Feature set

by macpeep

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 1:30 PM

Reply to this message

Tabs are not a feature of Gecko. It's a feature of the user interface.

#61 Safari...

by Catfish_Man

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 9:40 AM

Reply to this message

...now has basic XML support (see Hyatt's weblog).

#8 Re: Re: "So ask bonsai."

by jgraham

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 12:47 PM

Reply to this message

XBL, XUL...

#10 Re: Re: Re: "So ask bonsai."

by macpeep

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 1:25 PM

Reply to this message

"XBL, XUL..."

Do you think end users really miss these features? Are they really crucial for your mom in deciding if she wants to use Safari or Mozilla? Why would Safari even neex XBL and XUL? It uses a native Mac OS X user interface that looks and feels exactly like the rest of the apps. Creating such an interface (or MFC on Windows) is completely trivial. The benfit of XUL is mostly that it allows cross platform applications to be done more easily. If you're just writing for one OS, there's no reason for you to use it.

As far as MathML or XSLT etc. goes, well, those are actually features that Safari might want, but 99.9999% of all users couldn't care less if the browser has MathML or not. They care if they can browse the web fast and without problems. If Safari does that for them, and I don't know if it does since I haven't used it, then that's all that matters for them.

Only a very small segment of all users, geeks and developers, care about standards support and 3 or 4 letter abbreviations.

#14 Re: "So ask bonsai."

by WillyWonka

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 1:42 PM

Reply to this message

The lack of xml is the biggy. It means that it can't display xhtml 1.0... it's a version behind with it's html support.

#18 Re: Re: So ask bonsai.

by tny

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 4:54 PM

Reply to this message

[WillyWonka]The lack of xml is the biggy. It means that it can't display xhtml 1.0...[/WillyWonka]

Wrong. XHTML 1.0 (specifically 1.0) can be handled by pretty much any browser that can read HTML 4.01. You don't need a parser for that. What you do need a parser for is transformations (e.g., with XSLT), and that's one of the features lacking in Safari.

#39 XSLT, etc

by vcs2600 <vcs2600@yahoo.com>

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 11:06 PM

Reply to this message

From the perspective of a platform company (Apple or Microsoft), all of the XML parser and XSLT transformation stuff would be better as OS services anyway, and should not be tied to the browser code.

Much like how Netscape's platform amibitions lead to their own miserable version of Java, Mozilla's attempt to reinvent every single wheel isn't necessary a positive.

Of course "Apple compatibility" might be much less important than "Nescape compatibility" for the modern web, so this cuts both ways.

#64 Re: XSLT, etc

by pbreit

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 1:10 PM

Reply to this message

Nicely put: "Mozilla's attempt to reinvent every single wheel"

#57 Re: Re: Re: So ask bonsai.

by WillyWonka

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 9:13 AM

Reply to this message

From what I heard when it first came out (Hyatt might have fixed it), if you serve up xhtml 1.0 with the correct mime type, Safari doesn't display it properly. If you serve it up with the html mimetype then it probably does. It's still an annoying hack. But that may have been fixed by now and if not it will probably be fixed before 1.0. I wouldn't put together hacks now.

#42 XUL, maybe

by jgraham

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 1:52 AM

Reply to this message

I really must learn to change the titles on my messages.

XUL is pretty much a Mozilla only thing, I agree. On the other hand XBL may eventually become standardised, and is really useful for doing a large class of things (I believe IE has something simmilar in concept to XBL...). Of course David Hyatt invented XBL, so...

#5 good reaction to a not all that good article

by Sander

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 12:28 PM

Reply to this message

#13 hear, hear

by joschi

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 1:32 PM

Reply to this message

exactly what i've been saying to my friends. furthermore... THIS IS A GOOD THING FOR MOZILLA. Period. Full Stop. KHTML is a much more standards compliant renderer than ie's, anything that pushes web designers towards full standards support is great news for mozilla. Mozilla now has a very very powerful ally in Apple.

#11 Why does anybody care?

by Z_God

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 1:27 PM

Reply to this message

The more browsers the better! As long as they all comform to the W3C which KHTML seems to try to do. Imagine Gecko, KHTML, Opera... all working according to the W3C. When you design a page the only thing you should do when it doesn't work correctly in one of them is report a bug (and maybe put a short temp warning on the page). If you don't like KHTML don't use it! I believe you can even use Gecko with Konqueror. What would you prefer, everyone using Gecko or having the percentages spread evenly across browsers. It is always good to have alternatives, the KHTML people probably have learned a lot from Mozilla, but the Mozilla people will probably also learn from KHTML.

#15 Yes

by jonik

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 2:15 PM

Reply to this message

My thoughts exactly.

#47 [OPEN] Competition for developers

by brokenvoice

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 4:36 AM

Reply to this message

There has always been fluctuation in the number of developers for each engine. Don't sweat that. I think it's great that KHTML was used. It's the web developers and the web users who will win in the end and that's what is important, not the egos (bruised or otherwise) of browser makers.

I prefer the Gecko engine by a mile, but I can see KHTML improving greatly (and increasing in size) over the next 6 months. As for the stuff around the engine - the browser itself - I prefer Safari even without the tabs. I think we will see a fair amount of feature-crossover before the end of 2003.

#46 Competition for developers

by abraham <abraham@dina.kvl.dk>

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 3:34 AM

Reply to this message

A likely result is that some developers who would have worked on Chimera and thus Gecko had Apple gone that way, will now instead contribute to Safari and thus KHTML. This means less work done on Gecko , and thus harm all users of Gecko based browsers. On the other hands, it is good news for users of Konquer, as its engine is likely to improve faster.

#56 Re: Why does anybody care?

by ccapeng

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 8:43 AM

Reply to this message

Can your browser have opacity effect? Both IE and Mozilla have their own proprietary spec. Apple like to have eye candy effect. Will Apple embrace this effect without W3 spec?

In the latest Netscape, there is one piece missing which make no comparsion to IE -- HTML editor in browser. The MS extension, contentEditable, make content management more powerful. I heard Mozilla is going to have it. Will KHTML have that?

You may not like those proprietary extensions; however, most users don't know. If IE can do it, but not Netscape. Then netscape is just lost.

#58 Re: Opacity

by WillyWonka

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 9:18 AM

Reply to this message

Opacity is part of CSS3 I believe. Mozilla just implemented it before the standard was finialized. It will be promoted to a standard css command eventually.

#67 Re: Re: Why does anybody care?

by pbreit

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 2:02 PM

Reply to this message

Combining a full-blown HTML editor into a browser is not a good idea. Only a small percentage of browser users actually have any interest in composing HTML and are best served with apps designed for such.

#16 Safari "toggle" option between KHTML and Gecko?

by DJGM2002

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 3:15 PM

Reply to this message

What if Apple offered a version of Safari that users can toggle between KHTML and Gecko . . . ?

#19 Re: Safari "toggle" option between KHTML and Gecko?

by tny

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 4:58 PM

Reply to this message

Six geeks would use it. The rest of the people who'd care would do what I do: have multiple browsers in their dock.

#33 Correct me if I'm wrong . . .

by DJGM2002

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 7:19 PM

Reply to this message

Didn't NeoPlanet offer something similar to toggle between IE and Gecko engine

#69 Re: Re: Safari "toggle" option between KHTML and Gecko?

by pbreit

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 2:05 PM

Reply to this message

Offering a toggle between KHTML and Gecko makes no sense at all.

No, the rest of the people would have one browser in their docks.

#20 Never

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 4:59 PM

Reply to this message

Apple won't offer a choice like this; they don't offer choice with anything. They've taken Unix, which allows all sorts of different themes, and made it one-theme only. I think they do this to avoid confusing their users. It just won't happen.

#66 Re: Never

by robdogg

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 1:43 PM

Reply to this message

>>They've taken Unix, which allows all sorts of different themes, and made it one-theme only

Unix as an OS doesn't offer any themes. They've taken kernel and wrote a UI on top of it. Oh, iirc, there are 2 themes (the aqua and one less flashy).

#17 This story's showing up everywhere...

by marmoset

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 4:36 PM

Reply to this message

This morning I saw the story on c|Net and wrote the following blog entry, before it started getting reactions on Slashdot and here and Ars Technical and everywhere else. After a day's worth of reactions, I don't need to change a word.

"Yr. Humble Narrator wonders: is there an official term for when a technology reporter assembles a news story simply by excerpting a bunch of weblogs and supplying a bit of connecting text? I read this story at cNet, thinking perhaps there was some new information about Apple/Mozilla relations, only to find out that it was just a summary of a bunch of weblog entries I'd already read last week.

At this point, when I want to see how the technology world is reacting to a story, I don't go to c|net or ZDnet or anyplace like that, I go to Blogdex and Daypop. I get to see the opinions faster, and I get to read them unmediated and not dumbed-down. Besides, c|Net and ZDNet have strong financial interests in the current technology status quo -- you'd never find them linking to anything that might scare their advertisers like Clay Shirky's eye-opening essay from last week."

#41 Re: This story's showing up everywhere...

by peterlairo <Peter@Lairo.com>

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 1:49 AM

Reply to this message

> you'd never find them linking to anything that might scare their advertisers > like Clay Shirky's eye-opening essay from last week."

Care to provide a link to that "eye-opening essay"?

#55 Re: Re: This story's showing up everywhere...

by marmoset

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 8:36 AM

Reply to this message

> Care to provide a link to that "eye-opening essay"?

Sure:

Clay Shirky: ZapMail and the Telecommunications Industry

<http://shirky.com/writings/zapmail.html>

#21 Introspective...

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 5:06 PM

Reply to this message

After reading Alex Russell's take on the matter, I've come to realize one thing. Apple decided that they wanted to go with a platform-specific solution. That solution of course has much less code overhead. Mozilla and Gecko render the same on all major platforms, but that includes a lot of code overhead. What they have done, though, is lock themselves out of other platforms. Sure, their Mac users will be able to use Safari and all of the platform-specific uses of it, but Windows users won't. If Apple had decided to try and bring in users from other platforms into their "i" apps, they'd have chosen Gecko. Instead, they're choosing to force users to use Mac OS if they want to use "i" apps. I, for one, won't.

If you ask me, Apple has just locked out users from all other platforms from using their "i" apps, and that will mean many, many less people will use them, because the world isn't going to go to Mac OS tomorrow. Even Microsoft was bright enough to allow their Windows Media Player to be licensed to other OSs, because they want to have it on as many platforms, and used by as many users, as possible. Apple just wants to make everyone buy Macs and use Mac OS, and it just isn't going to happen.

Good luck, Apple!

#23 RE: Introspective...

by thelem

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 5:40 PM

Reply to this message

Thats like saying that Microsoft should make Paint or the XP CD burner available on Mac. The i apps are part of mac os.

You say microsoft have released WMP on different platforms, and Apple has done exactly the same with Quicktime.

#30 Ha

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 6:11 PM

Reply to this message

That's nonsense. Paint sucks, firstly. Microsoft has hardly updated it in years. If the "i" apps are part of Mac OS, why is iPod now available for Windows? And QuickTime?

#40 Wrong

by darinf <darinf@usa.net>

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 12:13 AM

Reply to this message

<< why is iPod now available for Windows? >>

Because that's not an iApp, that's an iHardware device

<< And QuickTime? >>

Because that's not an iApp. That's QuickTime, it's xplat existence was there way before Jobs and OS X.

#49 hmm

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 5:22 AM

Reply to this message

iPod includes software, no? Is that software not an "i" app?

#65 Nope

by PaulB <pbergsag@home.com>

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 1:28 PM

Reply to this message

The software to run iPOD for the Mac is iTunes which isn't available for Windows. I forget which app Apple choose to include for the iPOD for Windpws. but it was another one which already existed for Windows.

#68 Re: Nope

by mozzmike <mikeweezer@interair.com.br>

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 2:03 PM

Reply to this message

I think it's Musicmatch Jukebox - but you're absolutely right, iTunes *is* an iApp and it wasn't ported at all, so this isn't an inconsistency in their strategy.

#71 If anyone thinks this is simply an attempt to ...

by PaulB <pbergsag@home.com>

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 2:18 PM

Reply to this message

Make users of Macs use only Apple software, I believe they are wrong. Apple is simply doing the smart thing here when it writes a bunch of software programs for the Mac. Where would some of the iAPPS come from if Apple did not write them. Sure there are apps for Windows that can replace most of the iAPPS but before the iAPPS were written where were the corresponding apps for the MacIntosh? Name one program written for the Mac that can replace iTunes, iPhoto. All the possibilities were either poorly crafted ports of Windows apps (which left out features or worked poorly) or did not exist. Now Apple produces Safari and its claimed that they are doing this because they want every Mac user to only use Apple software?? A year ago Apple took a look at IE for the Mac. It was crap, and even failed to function well on sites written specifically for IE. IE Mac!=IEWindows. A year ago there was an alternative browser for the Mac, namely Netscape (or if you will Mozilla). But this was not a good choice a year ago. Chimera was only in infancy, and Mozilla for OS X was in transition from the CFM build to the MachO build. It was uncertian if the MachO build would succeed. The MachO build has been a success, and has increased the speed of Mozilla on the Mac by about 20%. Since Apple only desired a browser they could have offered to assist with the Chimera project. I wish they had. But thier choice IMHO was much better.

Here is why I believe Apple's choice to write Safari was better than going with Gecko. A year ago amny web pages did not work well with most browsers other than IE. Standards compliance was needed to stem the tide of the webs dependency on IE and Windows. To a certian degree Mozilla has done a lot to improve standards on the web. (Today I rarely encounter a site Mozilla chokes on.) Apple, I believe, knew that Mozilla would always strive towards standards compliance. But Mozilla is only a small force in the grand scheme. To further incourage the use of standards on the web, thus insuring the Mac remained a viable internet tool, Apple could have joined the Mozilla project. or better yet promote another project KTHML. Without Apple, Mozilla would produce a fine Mac browser. Without Apples help KHTML's standard's compliance was uncertian.

I believe Apple felt it was important to do its best to promote standards compliance on the Web. If Apple joined the Mozilla project, the effort to promote standards would not be as great as if it went with KHTML. Why? With KHTML users from the Linux community, not already using Mozilla, would have a standards complient browser. In the long run this move would do more to keep the Web standards complient than if apple had gone with Mozilla.

BTW I would not be surprized if in the future Apple included two browsers with its operating system. Back in the days of System 7/8 both Netscape and IE were included on the instalation disks. The other day I tried out Composer to put up a simple Web page with my Mac. Composer worked well for that purpose. If Apple felt it wanted toinclude a suite of Internet apps alongside Safari and iMail, Mozilla would be a good choice.

Apple has not snubed Gecko. Apple does not want Mac users to only use Apple software. Apple want people to use the Mac and OS X. The Web needs to be fully accessible to Mac users or this goal will not be achievable. ThWeb needs to be encouraged to follow standards. I believe Apple saw that by supporting an alternative to Gecko was the most likely means to accomplish this goal.

#25 Re: Perspective...

by schapel

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 5:46 PM

Reply to this message

Duh! Apple's always been a hardware company. Their main business is selling personal computers. They also make software for their computers to encourage users to buy their computers. They've been in business over 25 years and have consistently been among the top personal computer makers, so I would hesitate before calling their business decisions into question!!! ;-)

#28 Right

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 6:02 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, among the "top" computer makers eh? Apple is a niche market and always will be, especially given their current movements. Windows PCs have over 90 percent of the PC market; saying Apple has a spot among the top players in that market is just silly. Dell, IBM, Gateway, HP (and Compaq) all completely DWARF Apple in sales. They are NOT a top player, and haven't been since the 1980s. Sorry.

#27 Re: Introspective...

by pbreit

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 5:58 PM

Reply to this message

I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion based on Apple's selection of KHTML for Safari. I won't be surprised to see standalone KHTML-based browsers for *nix and Windows soon. Users want native interfaces and high performance. Witness Chimera.

And not only has Apple made QuickTime cross platform, it's open sourced the server!

#29 Witness Chimera, eh?

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 6:09 PM

Reply to this message

Chimera is based on Gecko, which is cross-platform. KHTML is not. If it becomes so, it will get much bigger code-wise, period, and it will then suffer the same setbacks that Gecko does.

Quicktime and iPod are exceptions that don't make sense with Apple's "Mac OS only" stance. This is only proof that Apple is all over the place strategy-wise. They make Quicktime XP and iPod, but none of the other "i" services? Sorry, I see this as a strategy that doesn't make sense, especially if they want people to use their services; that is, the 90+ percent of people who DON'T use Mac hardware. Proprietary hardware hasn't worked for Apple, nor did it work for Commodore. They were within inches of bankruptcy until Microsoft partnered with them for the sole reason that they wanted to show there was some shred of competition during their antitrust trial.

I just don't think anything Apple does makes sense. They're squandering their position as #2 in the OS market, and I'll bet they'll lose it soon as a result. Just MHO.

#31 loopy

by marmoset

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 6:26 PM

Reply to this message

How is KHTML not cross-platform? It was PORTED to OSX, for crying out loud. I am _sure_ someone will do a Windows browser that wraps KHTML, it's just a matter of when.

#34 Ooh

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 7:20 PM

Reply to this message

KHTML being ported to OS X is NOT a big deal. Bueller? Bueller? OS X is based on Free BSD, which is Unix. KHTML is written for Linux, which is Unix. Windows is NOT Unix.

#35 and aparently...

by joschi

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 8:49 PM

Reply to this message

and aparently it took them a year to port it. or at least a year to make a product based on it.

#45 Re: Ooh

by james

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 3:11 AM

Reply to this message

Umm ...

The windowing system on OS X is _very_ different to X11 (as found on most unix systems), so a port would be non trivial. On the other hand, a port ot Windows would probably be a lot easier, since the Qt toolkit (which all KDE apps are based on) is available for both X11 and Win32 (although you need to pay for the Win32 version).

From the information made available, the bulk of the OS X port of HTML is in the implementation of a subset of Qt.

#36 Why?

by googolplex

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 8:51 PM

Reply to this message

Why does it need to be cross-platform? As long as they make a browser that is good and standards compliant can't you be happy?

BTW the idea of their iApps and services is to attract people to the mac platform. If they gave them to windows users why would windows users buy a mac?

Quicktime is on windows because they want people to use it. If it isn't widely used then there is no point to it. Their iApps don't need to be standard.

You really need a good dose of logic.

#48 and iPod?

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 5:19 AM

Reply to this message

Your argument seems to neglect the fact that iPod has a Windows version.

#52 Your argument

by googolplex

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 8:23 AM

Reply to this message

Your argument seems to neglect that I had a whole bunch of other good points. Obviously you don't have answers to them.

The iPod is something different. Its not a mac and its not software.

There is no point in talking about things like this with people like you. You don't care to listen and be open minded. All you care about is your personal vendetta against Apple.

The number one sign of a Troll is when they realise the other person has a better argument they don't respond to it and just troll in another way.

I'm not going to feed the troll anymore.

#62 NOT

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 12:23 PM

Reply to this message

By your description of a troll, I'm not one. Why? Because I DON'T think you have a better argument. You've just helped prove my point that Apple's strategy has no real cohesion one way or another. The fact is, the company could be trying to take on Microsoft as the #1 OS vendor and aren't. Instead, they're wasting money and resources developing a FREE software product. It's ludicrous.

What they should do is get rid of their obsession with proprietary hardware. It's stupid, because it inflates the cost. If they had any sense at all they'd port OS X to other processors. Instead, they hire developers to make a new browser. Yawn.

#77 Re: NOT

by rtepp

Thursday January 16th, 2003 3:40 AM

Reply to this message

If it's not broken - don't go fixin' it!

The entire Apple strategy IS working!

What Apple has done is that they provide personal computers as home appliances - just the same as You would by Audio systems from Sony or fridges and electric ovens from Electrolux.

For that they need to provide more than just a hardware - they need to provide nessesary software, so that the hardware would be usable. And frankly - nowadays the personal computer hardware can be hardly called useable if it does not ship with some kind of software for viewing/browsing html...

Now You might want to argue that Apple and Mac could do better by transforming from HW profider to Software provider - besides being totally offtopic in this thread You are also implying that Apple should abandon it's quite loyal userbase for unceartain acceptance in the wider audience of population who propably allready has a preferrence for some other product they have been using for years that does exactly the same and hardly even consideres the alternatives?

#82 Amiga

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Thursday January 16th, 2003 3:49 PM

Reply to this message

Sorry, I just don't see it working like you say. I read a story yesterday at CNET about how Apple's starting to suffer financially. I'm looking at this from a perspective of following Amiga Inc. on its journey; they've come up with a strategy much like you mention, but it's two-fold. There is (already out) the Amiga One PPC machine, Amiga OS 4 (the Amiga OS ported to the PPC).

But on top of that, they've chosen an OS (intent) that's heavily Java-based and cross platform to build new apps on - and that OS is like under 5MB! That's innovation. Microsoft was impressed enough to make a deal with Amiga to have its apps on Microsoft phones, PDAs, and other devices (including PCs) and Amiga Inc. is the only company Microsoft is allowing to take over the entire screen.

You put that together with their hardware strategy (which licenses the hardware specs out to other companies), and then look at Mac. They've used Unix PPC, which is slow, but stable, and they're still refusing to do anything but have proprietary, over-priced (compared to PC) hardware, which is the strategy that helped kill Amiga (Commodore).

Once all hardware is fast, and it is, the only thing that differentiates Mac hardware is style - and a higher price. And very little differentiates Mac OS from other forms of Unix, except having less choice than Linux folk have about what software to use. It just doesn't seem to be a killer combination.

I really do like Mac OS X; it's the first decent OS Mac has ever had. But it just doesn't Jazz me enough to buy a Mac. I have a Tablet PC now, and as far as I know there's nothing similar in the Mac environment. It just seems to me they're stuck back in the 1980s when proprietary hardware was all the rage.

And I don't like Steve Jobs. He makes silly decisions - like spending money on a new Web browser when people could care less about what browser they use as long as it works and renders pages properly.

Anyway, that's my 10 cents, I guess.

#83 ludicrous

by pbreit

Thursday January 16th, 2003 5:25 PM

Reply to this message

This post makes no sense at all. The author makes far too many wildly inaccurate statements to list all of them.

"very little differentiates Mac OS from other forms of Unix"

Even an Apple-hater would totally disagree.

"Safari = silly decision"

In fact, likely the best money Apple has spent in recent memory. Firstly, not a lot of money was spent. Secondly, current MacOS browsers compare unfavorably to Windows browser(s). Thirdly, with the web browser being perhaps the most used app by a significant majority of computer users, it makes sense for Apple to step in there.

I'm sure Apple (and it's $4 billion in cash) are shaking in their boots about Amiga.

#90 There you go

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Friday January 17th, 2003 8:58 AM

Reply to this message

This is one reason, I suppose, that I don't like Apple. I guess Apple and Mac users have never gotten along. The nice thing for Amiga fans is that the Amiga of the day always nuked the Apple of the day. Such will be the case with the AmigaOne, regardless of how many sell the system will put the current Macs to shame. Hmm, lets see, my Amiga boots in three seconds; hmm, that stupid smiley face is still on the Mac's screen! Let's wait another 10 years for the bloated-ass OS to boot.

I honestly don't care if Apple's shaking in their boots or not; they've chosen to limit themselves to one hardware solution and there's no real sign of their apps being on any of the new devices I see on the market today. New Amiga apps can run on ANY platform.

$4 billion, eh? Ooooooh, I bet the real OEMs of the world (Sun, Dell, HP) are yawning as we speak.

Apple nearly went bankrupt until Microsoft infused them with cash in the late 1990s, and they only did that so that the one remaining competitor wouldn't die during their antitrust trial and prove the government right. I personally just think they're squandering their one chance not to go the way of Commodore, but that's just me.

And if they hired Hyatt as a developer, I wouldn't call his salary "not a lot of money". I don't know what it is, but I'm sure it's big. Then you start adding marketing, Web site space, etc., etc., not to mention R & D, I still think it's just a waste. If you don't agree, oh well.

#32 Re: Re: Introspective...

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 7:09 PM

Reply to this message

"I won't be surprised to see standalone KHTML-based browsers for *nix and Windows soon."

KHTML was in a standalone *nix browser long before it was in Safari. Konqueror is _the_ KHTML-based browser.

--Asa

#37 KHTML == Konqueror

by mbokil

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 9:05 PM

Reply to this message

Everyone is making such a big fuss about KHTML. That browser engine has been kicking around for awhile. I tried to use it several times to browse the web but sites with the latest CSS rendered poorly. Don't be fooled by all the hype. KHTML may launch faster because it is a smaller codebase but it doesn't have all the CSS and CSS2 features that Gecko supports.

A lot of people are using Mozilla and Mozilla Mail now more as a platform and like all the apps that come with it. If you don't like the bloat then use Phoenix.

#51 KHTML Standards Support

by schapel

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 7:42 AM

Reply to this message

"KHTML may launch faster because it is a smaller codebase but it doesn't have all the CSS and CSS2 features that Gecko supports."

Yes, *currently* KHTML doesn't support nearly as many standards as Opera 7 or Mozilla. But the Safari team is quickly adding support for the most used features that KHTML doesn't support yet. Take a look at Dave Hyatt's weblog <http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/> for the major bugs fixed or features added nearly every working day. And by the time they support all the standards that Mozilla does, the engine should still be cleaner, simpler, and smaller than Gecko.

#54 Re: KHTML Standards Support

by mbokil

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 8:35 AM

Reply to this message

"And by the time they support all the standards that Mozilla does, the engine should still be cleaner, simpler, and smaller than Gecko."

You don't know this for certain; this is just speculation. Mozilla also has plans to streamline the Layout engine I have seen developers kicking around some plans to reduce the bloat in certain sections of Gecko. For me KHTML doesn't have these features now which I need in a browser so I can't count on planned features. If and when those features are available I will have to reevaluate Konqueror.

#73 Re: Re: KHTML Standards Support

by schapel

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 3:40 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla developers all seem to agree that the KHTML code is cleaner and simpler than the corresponding Mozilla code. Cleaner, simpler code will tend to be smaller and faster, and easier to modify to add features or optimize if needed. You are right -- KHTML could suddenly become a tangled mess of code with all kinds of unnecessary complexity -- but I'll but it won't! ;-)

#72 the fuuutttuuurrreee

by joschi

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 3:32 PM

Reply to this message

i hear that in future releases of mozilla gecko will be able to render 3d movies from still images and do that really cool sci-fi image enhance trick on images on webpages. it will also give your computer the ability to fly.... come on, of course khtml will get better as time goes on, as will opera, gecko, etc. the only true way to compare two pieces of software is to compare them *now* ... comparing the cyber future of a product is useless. mozilla is the most standards compliant browser out there AFAIK.

#43 Right!! It just won't work

by DeepFreeze3

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 2:21 AM

Reply to this message

Exactly. This is nothing more than an attempt by Stevie & his buddies to try and force Apple computer users to use only stuff from Apple. It won't work. This guy is shooting himself in the foot.

#63 Thanks

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 12:29 PM

Reply to this message

It's nice to see that someone agrees with me; let me guess, you're not an Apple fanatic?

#70 Re: Introspective...

by robdogg

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 2:06 PM

Reply to this message

You are not a developer, are you?

>>Apple decided that they wanted to go with a platform-specific solution.

The only thing they borrowed is KHTML, which is an rendering engine, nothing less, nothing more. The only thing that binds it to KDE is the QT widget rendering, which can (and has been) easily replaced because it is a separate layer. So to say that KHTML was chosen because Apple wanted a platform-specific solution is uninformed at best. KHTML is probably present on as many platforms as Moz: Linux, Mac, *BSD, Windows (through Cygwin, but so what), AtheOS, Unixes of all sorts, etc... It is obvious that they wanted a smaller footprint, fast startup time and, maybe, not having to compete with Netscape and Mozilla using the same engine.

Just in the same manner Gecko is just a rendering engine. Contrary to popular opinion, it doesn't include XUL and several other 3 letter acronyms that are being thrown around here.

#24 Paul Festa is a REAL piece of work!! :-(

by DeepFreeze3

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 5:43 PM

Reply to this message

I loved what this guy wrote about that phoney baloney News.com article. This Paul Festa is a piece of work. Isn't this the same guy the poo-pooed Netscape 7's release? I couldn't believe that so-called "objective" article when I read it for the first time. Chis is right. This guy is nothing more than a miserable, sniveling sycophantic, one-sided, biased half-wit who is anti-Mozilla, and doesn't have the balls to admit it.

If anybody wants to write to this weasel & tell him what you think of his one-sided, biased ways, here's his e-mail address:

<paulf@cnet.com>

#26 Re: Paul Festa is a REAL piece of work!! :-(

by mbokil

Tuesday January 14th, 2003 5:57 PM

Reply to this message

Yah, I wouldn't be suprised if he got a bonus paycheck from M$ for wriiting that lopsided article.

#50 Divide and Conquer

by wvw

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 7:12 AM

Reply to this message

It's their descision, can' t blame them, but I think Microsoft is happy with this.

#79 Re: Divide and Conquer

by arielb

Thursday January 16th, 2003 3:53 AM

Reply to this message

Absolutely. It's hard enough sites to work with mozilla. Does anyone think web developers will work to ensure their sites with something that only runs on mac and linux? Mozilla is the best choice because of its wide range of standard support, real world website support and platform support. I'll reconsider when Apple comes out with Safari for Windows but I'm not holding my breath

#80 Re: Re: Divide and Conquer

by marmoset

Thursday January 16th, 2003 8:17 AM

Reply to this message

Why the heck would Apple write Safari for Windows? That makes less than no sense. Will someone embed KHTML on the Windows platform? Probably. Will that someone be Apple? Not unless they're sprinkling crack rocks on their Cheerios.

#53 Yellow journalism in America

by jvlb

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 8:32 AM

Reply to this message

In the late 1800's the term "yellow journalism" was coined to describe the lurid and sensationalist reporting in the competing New York newspapers of tycoons Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst. The stain of yellow journalism has since ingrained itself into the very fabric of American news reporting. Mr. Festa is simply one of a host of modern-day exponents of this fetid corruption.

The yellow journalism in Hearst's publications is often pointed to as a major instigator of the Spanish-American War. Let us hope the dust-up over Safari/KHTML/Mozilla doesn't reach such proportions. Put simply, YJ is a fact of life; deal with it, then milk it.

Nothing will get more people interested in trying different browsers than a big media blitz on the "controversy". People won't know they need standards unless they're given a reason. Imagine the impact of the headline, "Stone-cold Steve Austin battles the Rock over CSS2-compliance in Linux-compatible browsers." Just milk it. That's what Festa's doing, so do it better.

#59 take the best...

by mistfink

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 9:27 AM

Reply to this message

So, after all what has been said - why not take the best of both worlds, it is open source - isn't it? Developers of KHTML and Mozilla should work together, they could learn from each other. Parts from KHTML work should flow into Mozilla and parts of Mozilla should be used in KHTML.... things could be so easy....

#60 did mozilla count how many ppl told ...

by billi_kid

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 9:31 AM

Reply to this message

make it fast and small... but there is very big heads which dosn't listen....

#74 It's been fun watching some of you react...

by dickhead

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 7:49 PM

Reply to this message

I knew that there would be a lot of bitching and moaning in the Mozilla community about Apples decision when I first heard the news. I feared that there would be lots of lame excuses, and that some of you would badmouth KHTML and Apple. I was essentially proved right.

I swear, if some of you guys only had spent less than half the amount of time concentrating on making Gecko better, as you do hyping the latest version of Mozilla, spreading FUD and disparaging other browsers (especially Konqueror and Opera) then /maybe/ Apple would have choose Gecko.

I have to ask: Why do some of you feel the need to do this, constantly? Because you're not fooling anyone. You're only lying to *yourselves*. I mean, really, you're acting like a bunch of deranged sect members. In many ways no better than trolls hired by Microsoft to pollute the web with idiotic comments...

The truth is that Apple chose KHTML because it is in many ways better than Gecko, and some of you morons can't deal with that fact (simply because you're sad little Mozilla fanboys). Your reaction is even more moronic when you consider the fact that KHTML is standards based and even more open sourced than Mozilla. (MPL isn't compatible with the GPL -- LGPL is.)

You guys are just sad...

#78 Re: It's been fun watching some of you react...

by arielb

Thursday January 16th, 2003 3:46 AM

Reply to this message

if you cared about GPL so much then you wouldn't use Apple products in the first place

#84 Re: Re: It's been fun watching some of you react...

by dickhead

Thursday January 16th, 2003 6:38 PM

Reply to this message

More misguided anti-Apple attitudes. Thanks for proving me right -- again. First of all: What makes you think I use Apple products? Secondly, Apple have honored the LGPL as well as made a lot of bug fixes and enhancements on KHTML. They have posted a very descriptive change log, and there's even talk about joint development. So why should I complain about Apple? This is not bad for free software. The only complaints I've seen are from the Mozilla fanboys, like you, who are pissed off because Apple didn't choose Gecko.

#81 Re: It's been fun watching some of you react...

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday January 16th, 2003 10:07 AM

Reply to this message

"Your reaction is even more moronic when you consider the fact that KHTML is standards based and even more open sourced than Mozilla. (MPL isn't compatible with the GPL -- LGPL is.) "

Actually most of Mozilla is tri-licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL which means that you can use it under the terms of any of those three licenses giving consumers even more choice about how they use the code than any of the three licenses alone. You're clearly not well enough informed to comment on these issues and doing so both confuses others and discredits you.

--Asa

#85 Re: Re: It's been fun watching some of you react...

by dickhead

Thursday January 16th, 2003 6:49 PM

Reply to this message

"Actually most of Mozilla is tri-licensed MPL/GPL/LGPL which means that you can use it under the terms of any of those three licenses giving consumers even more choice about how they use the code than any of the three licenses alone."

It doesn't really matter if /some/ parts are tri-licensed. KHTML is still more open source, just like I said. And you started your half-assed relicensing efforts over *two years* ago, and Mozilla is nevertheless *still* incompatible with the GPL. I'm not surprised though, you guys seem to be inherently slow, and unable to do anything right. The complete opposite is true for the KDE project. No surprise Apple choose KHTML, it's not weighed down by a project with obvious architectural problems, no foresight, and crappy software engineering. They know what they are doing -- you don't.

"You're clearly not well enough informed to comment on these issues and doing so both confuses others and discredits you."

Bullshit.

#86 Jenny?

by Kommet

Thursday January 16th, 2003 9:44 PM

Reply to this message

You sound like someone Netscape fired a while back...

Now, repeat after me: "Ooooooooommmmmmmm. Oooooooooommmmmmm. I willllllllllllll spendmytime doingproductivethings insteadofpickingfights withMozilladeveloperssssssss....."

Calming, yes?

#87 Welcome to the Mozilla zealot la-la land...

by dickhead

Thursday January 16th, 2003 11:24 PM

Reply to this message

...where everyone who criticises the Mozilla project is a sacked Netscape employee, or has a hidden agenda!

Hate to burst your bubble, but I'm not "Jenny". (I don't even know who she is.) However, your reply illustrates my point. The crazed sect mentality is indeed alive and well in the Mozilla community. I wonder why this kind of lunacy runs rampant here, but not on KDE Dot News... No, wait... actually, I don't. But by all means, keep up the good work at driving away everyone but the Mozilla zealots! It will only make Mozilla worse. See if I care.

#92 Re: Re: Re: It's been fun watching some of you rea

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday January 17th, 2003 12:41 PM

Reply to this message

"It doesn't really matter if /some/ parts are tri-licensed. KHTML is still more open source, just like I said. "

That's just a rediculous statement. How is KHTML "more open source"? How are you measuring open sourceness? What score does Gecko get and what score does KHTML get? The overwhelming majority of Mozilla is tri-licensed. Not only is the MPL an OSI approved license <http://www.opensource.org/licenses/> but Mozilla is also available under the terms of the older GPL and LGPL licenses for people wanting to use Mozilla code in projects where the MPL would otherwise be incompatible.

"You guys seem inherently slow..."

When was Konqueror development started? How long did it take them to get what they have today, which doesn't support nearly as much of the w3c standards or the real web as Gecko. NGLayout (later called Gecko) replaced the old Mozilla rendering engine on Oct 8th, 1998 <http://www.mozillazine.or…talkback.html?article=129> . It looks like the move from KHTMLW to KHTML happened on Nov 7, 1998 <http://lists.kde.org/?l=k…;m=91048263807972&w=2> . That sounds to me like they were about 1 month behind Gecko in getting KHTML officially integrated. So the two engines are probably about the same age and Gecko has all kinds of features (support for the standards and the existing web) that KHTML doesn't have. How does that make Gecko development "inherently slow" and "the complete opposite is true for the KDE project"?

"No surprise Apple choose KHTML, it's not weighed down by a project with obvious architectural problems, no foresight, and crappy software engineering. They know what they are doing -- you don't. "

This statement places you clearly in the troll catagory and any further discussion with you would be a waste of time.

--Asa

#94 You reap what you sow

by dickhead

Sunday January 19th, 2003 12:28 AM

Reply to this message

"This statement places you clearly in the troll catagory and any further discussion with you would be a waste of time."

Maybe I am... There are lots of Mozilla fanboys -- and even contributors <http://mpt.phrasewise.com/> nowadays -- that do little else, but spread FUD and disparage everything that is not Mozilla. Well, get this: You reap what you sow, assholes! There are a lot of us that are fed up with your constant *bullshit*. Why the hell shouldn't we, the offended, throw the same shit back at you?

#88 See what I mean?

by DeepFreeze3

Friday January 17th, 2003 2:07 AM

Reply to this message

And to think some people get on my case for defending the Mozilla community? SIGH!!

Let's face it: This Safari browser was started by a bunch of disgruntled ex-Netscape employees who can't get over the fact that they were fired, and they thought the best way to get back at their former employer was to create another browser. Funny, how you can only use it on Apple computers. It's also funny how Steve Jobs is telling a bunch of lies about how much better his new browser is. Really? Unlike Mozilla, Safari doesn't have tabbed browsing. It also does a pathetic job of rendering web pages. Those people over at the Konqueor project obviously flunked a bunch of computer programming classes, because it look like they don't know what the hell they're doing. Safari is Mozilla's bitch. One who should bow down to his master. He is the king. ;-)

#89 Sad = Steve Jobs

by DeepFreeze3

Friday January 17th, 2003 2:28 AM

Reply to this message

Who has to disparage Opera? With it's cluttered interface, poor support of open standards and it's butt ugly appearance, it does a great job of doing that all by itself (Paying $39 for something that doesn't work? Not a great idea!!) And, actually, we could care less about what Steve Jobs does. If he wants to create a browser for the Apple computer, and claim that it's the best thing that's ever been invented for it, we could care less. Don't expect us to look the other way, though, when he starts shooting his mouth & lies about how much better Safari is compared to Mozilla. Holding bogus demostrations? Posting false information on Apple's web site? Coming up with false charts claiming to "prove" what he's saying? Pathetic wouldn't even begin do describe it. Lame would be a better description. If it's anybody who's sad, it's Steve Jobs & those disgruntled ex-Netscape employees who're behind this so-called "great" project called Safari. Far from being "open source," it's nothing more than an attempt to force Apple computer users to use his stuff. Won't work (Talk to Microsoft. They know ALL about it).

#95 Account Disabled.

by kerz <jason@mozillazine.org>

Sunday January 19th, 2003 7:36 PM

Reply to this message

Your account has been disabled, feel free to sign up with a different name, that's not offensive.

jason

#76 Some people do not seem to get it

by johann_p

Wednesday January 15th, 2003 11:53 PM

Reply to this message

The good thing is that Apple had a choice. To have two opensource browser engines available is wonderful and Apple's choice will surely give the KHTML engine a boost, making it better over time. Apple decided and took KHTML. Instead of bitching about this it would be a lot wiser to maybe draw conclusions and find out where Gecko needs improvement.

#91 Re: Some people do not seem to get it

by pbreit

Friday January 17th, 2003 9:57 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla has a choice, too! Considering that in real-world usage, Safari standards compliance *appears* to match Mozilla, in fact *does* match IE and performs notably better than both, a very good case could be made for Mozilla to replace Gecko with KHTML.

#93 Re: Still some people do not seem to get it

by schapel

Friday January 17th, 2003 2:41 PM

Reply to this message

But replacing the Gecko engine with the KHTML engine would reduce choice, not increase it. Besides, it would be much more complicated than just a replacement, because KHTML has a different API and is not cross-platform. We need Mozilla just like it is with the highly standards compliant open-source Gecko engine.