Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mozilla Developer Experimenting With Firefox UI In HTML

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Metacomment

    Reading all the comments I m beginning to wonder if FF is not a stealthy Apache.org project: every little bit of FF has it's own name.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by alexvoda View Post
      Could you please elaborate what you mean by that? How would this program be different from regular firefox on android?
      It would not have the responsiveness of a sloth on barbiturates.

      Chrome is much faster than FF on my home PC (i7 3820/32GB/HD7970/25Mb inet).

      Chrome is much faster than FF on my phones (Samsung S4, Sony Xperia Z Ultra).

      I only use FF on PCs because AdBlock and Noscript work better on FF than Chrome.

      (And I do allow ads on Phoronix)

      Comment


      • #43
        I use both Firefox and Chrome but Firefox on Linux has one small advantage and that's Pipelight. It's my understanding that Pipelight no longer works in Chrome due to the removal of NPAPI plugin support from Chrome Linux. Pipelight supports like 17 Windows browser plugins but most usefully supports Silverlight 5, Adobe Shockwave (for 3D flash games), and Unity3D. Sure, very few sites use these plugins but it's nice to have them when you run across them.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by zanny View Post
          These kinds of browsers already exist in the Qt world, like Rekonq or Qupzilla. The problem is that they don't have the addon infrastructure Firefox has, and a lot of the new top heavy web features like webrtc are complex monstrosities these browsers don't implement either.
          I see a lot of words with a lot of claims, but no facts.

          Rekonq, along with Qupzilla are both junk. They don't hold a candle to GNOME Web's Epiphany.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by uid313 View Post
            This seems like a horribly bad idea.

            Just imagine how much websites can break out of that sandbox and mess with the browser and read everything.

            Just imagine how dumb it not to separate the content from the client.
            XUL already makes use of the DOM which JavaScript can read so if that were remotely possible it would already have been done.

            Comment


            • #46
              nice example of full html apps are some M$ apps on Windows 8

              nice example of full html apps are some M$ apps on Windows 8
              Email client, Weather, Calendar,.....

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by hoohoo View Post
                Reading all the comments I m beginning to wonder if FF is not a stealthy Apache.org project: every little bit of FF has it's own name.
                This is because many, many parts of Firefox started off as individual research projects by Mozilla team members. XUL itself started off as a separate library that was supposed to make interface-programming super easy for anybody that wanted it, but a couple years ago was simply merged into the Gecko codebase (I can't remember why). The names just carry over when they're merged *shrug*

                Comment


                • #48
                  Way to make the browser UI even heavier. That's exactly where users needed their cycles to go /s.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by curaga View Post
                    Way to make the browser UI even heavier. That's exactly where users needed their cycles to go /s.
                    They already use a markup language to define the UI, switching to HTML won't make it 'heavier'.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by psychoticmeow View Post
                      They already use a markup language to define the UI, switching to HTML won't make it 'heavier'.
                      Well, assuming Mozilla's HTML renderer and JS interpreter aren't dog slow but if they are, that'd be a problem in its own right

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X