Firefox 46.0 Is Ready To Ship, GTK3 Support Appears Finally Baked

[uid313]

This automatically means Wayland support, right?

Unfortunately no, Mozilla still makes calls to X. But hopefully that will be soon be fixed.
Now that GTK3 has landed, the big hurdle towards Wayland support has been resolved.

Now we need some #ifdef and such in the code to conditionally call X only running on X.

[Creak]

Maybe but native GTK 3 application works fine on my system. But still GTK 3 is shity! Firefox should move to qt :/.

Nice troll...

[TheRealBecks]

Use Chrome for that stuff

Thank you... for answering the imaginary question 'What can I use instead of Firefox under Linux when I want to watch Netflix?"

[bug77]

Nice troll...

He may be trolling, but Qt IS available on more platforms than GTK: https://www.wikivs.com/wiki/GTK_vs_Qt#Portability (most of the platforms where only Qt is available are niche, but Android and iOS aren't)
Also, while some migrate from GTK to Qt, no one seems to be going the other way: https://www.wikivs.com/wiki/GTK_vs_Qt#Ported_projects

As for Firefox, they barely have the resources to work on e10s, suggesting they should switch toolkits is tongue in cheek, at best.

[Akka]

He may be trolling, but Qt IS available on more platforms than GTK: https://www.wikivs.com/wiki/GTK_vs_Qt#Portability (most of the platforms where only Qt is available are niche, but Android and iOS aren't)
Also, while some migrate from GTK to Qt, no one seems to be going the other way: https://www.wikivs.com/wiki/GTK_vs_Qt#Ported_projects

As for Firefox, they barely have the resources to work on e10s, suggesting they should switch toolkits is tongue in cheek, at best.

Pointless as firefox is using the native toolkit on every platform for the integration work. Using Qt is a good way to lose every osx user. Also I think a nokia dev wrote somewhere they trashed the qt port of firefox becouse qt is not suitable for this sort of use. They needed to expose internals of qt they did not want to expose.

[bug77]

Pointless as firefox is using the native toolkit on every platform for the integration work. Using Qt is a good way to lose every osx user. Also I think a nokia dev wrote somewhere they trashed the qt port of firefox becouse qt is not suitable for this sort of use. They needed to expose internals of qt they did not want to expose.

Well, there are browsers that use Qt (Rekonq is actually quite capable), so I'm not sure why they found Qt unsuitable. Either way, this discussion is purely academic: Mozilla already has browser.html. Which means they are at least considering moving from GTK, but they have their own path which does not include Qt.
And why are you saying moving to Qt would mean losing OS X users?

[dragonn]

Nice troll...

Why troll? GTK3 is going strange ways and breaking stuff in an non-major version is just irresponsible.

[bkor]

Why troll? GTK3 is going strange ways and breaking stuff in an non-major version is just irresponsible.

GTK+3.x is focussing on guaranteeing stability on CSS classes. As announced before GTK+3.0.0 was released and announced many times after that. Since GTK+ 3.20.0 the various CSS classes are documented.

That's why you're trolling. The changes were announced and expected. They were made to improve things and all that effort led to a much improved situation for 3.20.0.

[bug77]

GTK+3.x is focussing on guaranteeing stability on CSS classes. As announced before GTK+3.0.0 was released and announced many times after that. Since GTK+ 3.20.0 the various CSS classes are documented.

That's why you're trolling. The changes were announced and expected. They were made to improve things and all that effort led to a much improved situation for 3.20.0.

Well, you have a funny definition of "guaranteeing stability". Taking 3.0 through 3.20 to reach a solution that is scheduled to break again in 4.0 doesn't exactly define stability in my book. In fact, there aren't many projects I can think of that routinely break backwards compatibility on minor releases. Planned or not.

Edit: I'm not bashing GTK+ in any way here. I just have a problem when I see "GTK+" and "stability" in the same phrase.

[duby229]

Well, you have a funny definition of "guaranteeing stability". Taking 3.0 through 3.20 to reach a solution that is scheduled to break again in 4.0 doesn't exactly define stability in my book. In fact, there aren't many projects I can think of that routinely break backwards compatibility on minor releases. Planned or not.

Edit: I'm not bashing GTK+ in any way here. I just have a problem when I see "GTK+" and "stability" in the same phrase.

I definitely agree here. The GTK devs broke it on purpose at least a dozen times. There is no way in hell it can be called stable. I can post links to really pissed of forum posts where GTK broke because ignorant GTK devs don't care at all.

They don't care about you!