Epiphany browser continues to get worse and worse
in [Debian]
|
From: Andrew Malcolmson on 19 Apr 2010 21:10 On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Stephen Powell <zlinuxman(a)wowway.com> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:59:29 -0400 (EDT), Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 2010-04-17 21:32, Stephen Powell wrote: >>> >>> Why did they switch from gecko to webkit anyway? It was working so well. >>> I still use it in Lenny. But not in Squeeze. Not anymore. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins > > Maybe I'm slow, Ron, but I don't follow you. The above link appears to > give the origins of webkit, but I didn't see anything there about why > epiphany-browser decided to switch from gecko, which was working well, > to webkit, which has apparently caused a lot of problems. Couldn't say why they switched, but I find pages in Epiphany 2.29 in Squeeze look vivid compared with the Gecko version. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/x2xae6dd7d31004191801sc0df1854ud3e83e7984ae2b27(a)mail.gmail.com
From: Ron Johnson on 19 Apr 2010 21:30 On 2010-04-19 19:53, Stephen Powell wrote: > On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 22:59:29 -0400 (EDT), Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 2010-04-17 21:32, Stephen Powell wrote: >>> Why did they switch from gecko to webkit anyway? It was working so well. >>> I still use it in Lenny. But not in Squeeze. Not anymore. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins > > Maybe I'm slow, Ron, but I don't follow you. The above link appears to > give the origins of webkit, but I didn't see anything there about why > epiphany-browser decided to switch from gecko, which was working well, > to webkit, which has apparently caused a lot of problems. > Apple's reason: "allowed easier development than other technologies by virtue of being small (fewer than 140,000 lines of code), cleanly designed and standards compliant." I'm betting they though to themselves, "If it's good enough for Apple, it's good enough for us..." As for problems in Webkit, I'd say that *one* of the reasons why gecko is so bloated is all of the edge cases and idiosyncrasies of html, js, flash, etc, etc that have built up in the code over the years. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BCD026E.2030605(a)cox.net
From: Stephen Powell on 19 Apr 2010 21:50 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:25:02 -0400 (EDT), Ron Johnson wrote: > On 2010-04-19 19:53, Stephen Powell wrote: >> Maybe I'm slow, Ron, but I don't follow you. The above link appears to >> give the origins of webkit, but I didn't see anything there about why >> epiphany-browser decided to switch from gecko, which was working well, >> to webkit, which has apparently caused a lot of problems. > > Apple's reason: > "allowed easier development than other technologies by virtue > of being small (fewer than 140,000 lines of code), cleanly > designed and standards compliant." > > I'm betting they though to themselves, "If it's good enough for > Apple, it's good enough for us..." > > As for problems in Webkit, I'd say that *one* of the reasons why > gecko is so bloated is all of the edge cases and idiosyncrasies of > html, js, flash, etc, etc that have built up in the code over the years. Hmm. Well, if they were going to design a brand new browser from scratch today, you make a good case for webkit. But they already had a browser that was working well with gecko. Why switch now? It's a lot of pain for very little gain, it seems to me. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2017422646.157145.1271727625361.JavaMail.root(a)md01.wow.synacor.com
From: Stephen Powell on 19 Apr 2010 22:10 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:01:41 -0400 (EDT), Andrew Malcolmson wrote: > Couldn't say why they switched, but I find pages in Epiphany 2.29 in > Squeeze look vivid compared with the Gecko version. I have switched back and forth between epiphany and iceweasel several times, on the same computer and monitor, and I have not noticed any difference in image quality between iceweasel, which is based on gecko (xulrunner-1.9.1) and epiphany-browser, which is based on webkit (libwebkit-1.0-2). -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1137023388.158078.1271728834477.JavaMail.root(a)md01.wow.synacor.com
From: Ron Johnson on 19 Apr 2010 22:30
On 2010-04-19 20:40, Stephen Powell wrote: [snip] > > Hmm. Well, if they were going to design a brand new browser from scratch > today, you make a good case for webkit. But they already had a browser > that was working well with gecko. Why switch now? It's a lot of pain > for very little gain, it seems to me. > Why do women buy new clothes every year when their existing clothes are completely functional? Why do geeks buy new kit when their exiting kit is still usable? -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4BCD0FC0.3040507(a)cox.net |