MozillaZine

New Favorites Plug-in for K-Meleon

Tuesday January 21st, 2003

Joe Elwell writes: "The original light weight Mozilla based browser K-Meleon released a new Favorites plugin late last week. It boasts faster loading speed and new sorting options. Here's hoping that means a K-Meleon .8 is right around the corner."


#1 K-Meleon Not Dead Either

by thelem

Tuesday January 21st, 2003 3:14 PM

Reply to this message

nt

#5 Re: K-Meleon Not Dead Either

by MozSaidAloha

Tuesday January 21st, 2003 7:44 PM

Reply to this message

I can assure you the K-M dev team is working hard on making a kickass browser!

#2 hmmm

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Tuesday January 21st, 2003 3:43 PM

Reply to this message

I wonder how this compares to KHTML-based browsers?

#3 k-meleon/chimera

by pbreit

Tuesday January 21st, 2003 3:49 PM

Reply to this message

k-meleon is going the Chimera way and implementing a native interface and widgets (vs. Phoenix with XUL) which I think is the right appraoch. With Phoenix waning, perhaps k-meleon will pick up some resources which would be a good thing.

KHTML still appears to value performance and footprint over standards compliance which I think is a better weighting since that's more what users care about. The last 10% of standards compliance is of little interest to the vast majority.

#4 Re: k-meleon/chimera

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Tuesday January 21st, 2003 7:30 PM

Reply to this message

"KHTML still appears to value performance and footprint over standards compliance which I think is a better weighting since that's more what users care about. The last 10% of standards compliance is of little interest to the vast majority."

They're not touching the rendering engine. They have nothing to do with standards compliance. They're reusing the rendering engine developed by mozilla.org which does have standards compliance as a goal. But if they really did care about footprint and performance they would be hacking on the rendering engine becuase it's the most heavy-weight component there is. I don't understand what you were trying to communicate with your comment. That these guys are making Gecko lighter and faster? They're not. That they're not interested in standards support? Then why are they using gecko and not mshtml which would be even easier for them to embed in a windows app.

--Asa

#6 reference

by pbreit

Tuesday January 21st, 2003 10:47 PM

Reply to this message

The KHTML comment was referring to "I wonder how this compares to KHTML-based browsers?".

#10 Re: Re: k-meleon/chimera

by ndebord

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 4:43 PM

Reply to this message

Asa,

Don't understand your context here. I run Netscape 7.01, Mozilla 1.2.1, IE5.5 and K-Meleon 0.7. (I would run Opera, but it is standards-deficient, imo).

KM opens in 7 seconds IE opens in 17 Moz and Netscape open in 22 seconds.

Without running a stopwatch, KM loads pages much faster. This with a 56k modem and a point which should be moot in the next few years as everyone moves to some kind of broadband.

N

#11 Re: Re: k-meleon/chimera

by jelwell

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 5:18 PM

Reply to this message

KHTML is NOT KMeleon. I think the original poster is talking about KHTML which is the rendering engine behind konqueror and Apple's new browser, Safari. So the poster is right when he says, "KHTML still appears to value performance and footprint over standards compliance which I think is a better weighting since that's more what users care about."

It would not be fair, or even remotely accurate to say, "They're reusing the rendering engine developed by mozilla.org which does have standards compliance as a goal." when referring to KHTML.

KHTML does indeed touch the rendering engine, it is it's own rendering engine and has no relationship to Gecko or Mozilla.org's rendering engine.

Joseph Elwell.

#12 Re: Re: k-meleon/chimera

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Saturday January 25th, 2003 2:06 PM

Reply to this message

Oops, I didn't notice the switch to talking about KHTML. I thought we were still talking about K-Meleon. I misread ""KHTML still appears to value performance and footprint over standards compliance which I think is a better weighting since that's more what users care about. " and my response was talking about K-Meleon developers, not KHTML developers. My response was trying to state that K-Meleon developers aren't doing anything about the rendering performance and footprint since they're simply using the existing Gecko which does happen to have a large number of Mozilla developers working on footprint and performance every day. Gecko is Mozilla's largest component and the area that needs the most performance and footprint work.

If K-meleon really, really cares about performance and footprint above all else then why aren't they embedding mshtml since they're windows only and mshtml would give them some more performance and smaller footprint? The answer is probably that they think Gecko is better. I agree with them and applaud their choice. I think it's much better. How is it better? It supports a lot more than mshtml and it supports that much more _correctly_ and across a dozen platforms identically. Doing that takes a larger and in some places slower engine. Doing more work simply takes more time, more memory and more cpu. We could decided that images aren't worth supporting in Gecko just like MS has decided certain w3c standards aren't worth supporting in mshtml. If we didn't support images I'll bet our rendering would be considerably faster than that of IE. But peformance isn't the only goal of this project and standards support plus support for the millions of non-standard pages is a major goal that in a lot of cases takes precedent over performance. If that wasn't the case then we could stop rendering images and <H1>s and fixed-position divs or whatever might buy us some performance.

The k-meleon developers clearly care about more than speed and performance. They could have gone with mshtml as a rendering component and they didn't. I think that's great and have always wished them nothing but the best of luck in developing a successful gecko-based product (just like I have for OEOne, ActiveState, Galeon, Beonex, and any of the other not-mozilla.org sponsored projects). If they make something that appeals to a lot of users they will have helped put more Gecko user agents on the web and that's good for standards, good for the web, and good for mozilla.org.

--Asa

#7 Dead projects walking...

by robdogg

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 10:35 AM

Reply to this message

There isn't a better way to dispel rumours about death of phoenix, chimera, etc... than to release a new version. Are there any timelines for release of these projects?

#8 Not so dead...

by amutch

Wednesday January 22nd, 2003 9:36 PM

Reply to this message

K-Meleon development is alive and active. In addition to the updates noted here, we are working on an update to our 0.7 release that will include updated plugins with more functionality as well as support for a global history using the new embed_lite.dll. Stop by our web site for more details.

#13 Re: Not so dead...

by thebeast

Friday February 7th, 2003 12:37 AM

Reply to this message

I am looking forward to this. Will you up the maximum amount of network connections (the defaul seem to be 4?)

#9 Re: Dead projects walking...

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday January 23rd, 2003 12:48 AM

Reply to this message

"There isn't a better way to dispel rumours about death of phoenix, chimera, etc... than to release a new version."

Latest Chimera (released today) <http://komodo.mozilla.org…ra/nightly/2003-01-22-04/> Latest Phoenix (released today) <http://komodo.mozilla.org…htly/2003-01-22-08-trunk/>

--Asa

#18 sesli chat seslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet

by admiraal

Friday July 3rd, 2009 5:05 AM

Reply to this message

<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet

#19 sesli chat seslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet

by admiraal

Friday July 3rd, 2009 5:07 AM

Reply to this message

<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet<http://www.herkessohbette.com> sesli chat sesli sohbet kameral&#305; sohbet