Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet Businesses Programming Apple IT Technology

Firefox Ported to Mac OS X for Intel 94

Posted by Hemos from the already-underway dept.
daria42 writes "Mozilla Firefox has been ported to Mac OS X for Intel, with the assistance of Apple who provided some preliminary patches. Mozilla foundation employee Josh Aas write on his blog that while the patches were out of date by the time Apple sent them to him, they were still useful. "The Apple patches were extremely valuable because they did a lot of work for us and at least pointed us right to many of the problem areas instead of us having to figure out what we need to do," he wrote."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox Ported to Mac OS X for Intel More

Firefox Ported to Mac OS X for Intel

Comments Filter:

  • Cynical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spectrum- ( 158197 ) <gsmitheidwNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday July 04, 2005 @08:18AM (#12978747)
    Maybe i'm being cynical but it seems very much in Apple's interests to ensure that a vast quantity of popular software will work on their OS on the Intel platform.

    It says more about basic commerce than support for Open Source software or the Mozilla Foundation etc.

    • Re:Cynical (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Leroy_Brown242 ( 683141 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @08:31AM (#12978808) Homepage Journal
      It says a lot about how far FireFox has come too.

      Not just a niche browser, but big enough Apple itself is lending a hand.

      Congrats, Firefox!

      • Re:Cynical (Score:5, Interesting)

        by cowscows ( 103644 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @11:40AM (#12979811) Journal
        Double interesting because Apple also makes their own browser. Safari is free as well, but still, FireFox is a direct competitor to one of Apple's own applications. Yet Apple still sees the value in helping them out.

        • Re:Cynical (Score:5, Informative)

          by 1110110001 ( 569602 ) <(slashdot-0904) (at) (nedt.at)> on Monday July 04, 2005 @02:50PM (#12980780)
          I guess it's because Safari is not that important. It's just a webbrowser. The important part is webkit. It can be used for more than just a browser. I.e. Dashboard or Editors or even the history of AdiumX.

          And many webdevelopers have a Mac. With Firefox and Opera you've to important cross platform browser. They know how important choice is and they know every Mac user uses webkit - the don't have to use Safari.

          b4n
          • While firefox is great, I still think they should address the memory leak bug before porting it so many places. Does anyone else see their CPU skyrocket to 100% on certain websites?

            • I have to restart Firefox every day because of the CPU usage for opening a new tab.

              And I've installed Flashblock, because most flash animations and the flash plugin are written so bad, that it needs 100% CPU. I'm still waiting for the new flash plugin, which was promised last autumn. Maybe on Macintel Macromedia can make it not suck.

              b4n
            • A lot of memory / resource leaks have been fixed since 1.0 came out; when the 1.1 beta comes out in the next few weeks, you might give it a whirl and see if it's any better for you.
        • Very good point.

        • Re:Cynical (Score:3, Insightful)

          by NaugaHunter ( 639364 )
          Double interesting because Apple also makes their own browser. Safari is free as well, but still, FireFox is a direct competitor to one of Apple's own applications. Yet Apple still sees the value in helping them out.

          But, they know that Firefox is a cross-platform browser with growing support that is helping to pressure sites into being standards-compliant beyond just loading in Exploder. Since Mac I.E. hasn't been updated since OS X Beta, this is a Good Thing for all Mac users. Realistically speaking,

          • Re:Cynical (Score:3, Informative)

            by mr100percent ( 57156 ) *
            That's not entirely true, they patched it through Puma, and EOLed it around Jaguar time I think, whenever Safari was released.
        • If it is possible to run Windows on an Intel based Mac, FireFox is also a direct competitor to Internet Explorer.
      • I wish I could see what is so great about Firefox. Maybe my build (v. 1.0.4 in debian unstable) is bad? When I use it, it seems like an immature version of Mozilla that might be ready in say a year. Is that its appeal?

    • Re:Cynical (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sgant ( 178166 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @08:54AM (#12978901) Homepage Journal
      But, you say that like it's a bad thing. I see it as a good thing.

      Companies can't win. People complain all the time about how a company doesn't "support developers or even care about their platform". But when a company does something like this in "lending a hand" people say it's just them wanting more money instead of supporting Open Source etc etc. I mean, you just can't win!
      • One wins by doing what they do because they want to, not because other people whine about it. Cynics will always be, but good deeds last forever in the hearts of those who were helped.

    • Re:Cynical (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yeah, so?

      You may support Open Source more than they do, but they did the work. So the story is about them, not you. BTW, have you considered that supporting Open Source (if you can't code) might involve not responding to contributions with bitching?

    • That's some pretty mild cynicism. If I felt like being cynical, I would predict that Apple doesn't care enough about their customers to ensure that there will native software for Mactel.

    • Re:Cynical (Score:3, Informative)

      by reallocate ( 142797 )
      Of course, it is about commerce. No reason to be cynical. It is not immoral to work in your own best interest.
    • I think the more important question is whether or not IE5 will be ported to the OSX/Intel platform.
      • I wouldn't blame Apple for dropping IE completely if Microsoft doesn't cough up a less-than-ancient version for them this time around.
        • Haven't they dropped it already? I thought it wasn't included in panther.

          • Re:Cynical (Score:3, Interesting)

            by bursch-X ( 458146 )
            It was in Panther, but when I did a clean install with Tiger it was gone.

            This is a Good Thing(TM), IE Mac was neat at the time (it was much more standard compliant than its Windows counterpart), but now it has grown dusty and is causing too much trouble with CSS and it's too much hassle to support anyway.

      • Re:Cynical (Score:3, Informative)

        by bjohnson ( 3225 )
        No it won't. Microsoft dropped all IE development for the Mac when Safari came out.

  • Big News: (Score:5, Funny)

    by AkaXakA ( 695610 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @08:20AM (#12978759) Homepage
    A large, but cross-platform program with lean (mostly) platform independant code has been ported to Yet Another Platform(tm)!

    Anyway, cudos to Apple for pointing Josh into the right direction.

    • Re:Big News: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MoonFog ( 586818 )
      Well, this news is somewhat special since the creator of the proprietary operating system (who also make a competing browser (yesyes, I know they use OSS there as well)) contributed to the development process.

  • c'mon, submitters...! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 04, 2005 @08:52AM (#12978896)

    Could we please stop linking to worthless ZDNet already?

    Here's [mozillazine.org] the original weblog post. Much more informative. And you don't need to worry about slashdotting it either, Mozillazine is quite used to us by now, what with an average of hitting the slashdot frontpage about once a week.

    Some background on Josh, btw, while I'm waiting for my timeout to be able to post again to expire: he was hired by the Mozilla Foundation [mozillazine.org] specifically to work on making Firefox better for the Mac.

    Dammit, how long do I have to wait to post as AC three times in a row??? 17 minutes already. Geeze... It's easier to karma-whore than to just try and post some useful things.

  • Firefox on Intel-Based Unix for quite some time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hubertf ( 124995 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @09:16AM (#12979008) Homepage Journal
    After Firefox runs on Intel-based BSD-systems (NetBSD, ...) for quite a while, I wonder what the big obstacles were that prevented FF from working. Or was this GUI-only?

    - Hubert

  • Microsoft and Firefox .. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Gopal.V ( 532678 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @09:34AM (#12979087) Homepage Journal
    Even Microsoft wants FireFox to run well on Longhorn [slashdot.org] . Is it any surprise that everyone wants their latest hyped product to run FireFox ?.

    This is like the age old - does it play ogg yet ? check in that feature check list. Apple is really more interested in supporting what feeds the Apple is Cool vibe.

    Behind all the cool design and fancy colors, Apple is still an opaque black box. Their essential motto could be termed as you don't need to know - which is very attractive to the layman user , but abhorrent to a true computer engineer.
    • Of course.
      They want it to be able to use the features in Longhorn, meaning they won't be able to add those into the Mac, BSD and Linux versions.
      Giving us more reason to switch.
    • Behind all the cool design and fancy colors, Apple is still an opaque black box. Their essential motto could be termed as you don't need to know - which is very attractive to the layman user , but abhorrent to a true computer engineer.

      So explain to me how Apple is special in this regard? Microsoft is the same way.

    • Re:Microsoft and Firefox .. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GaryPatterson ( 852699 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @10:39AM (#12979412)
      I wonder about these sort of posts.

      The core of OS X is open sourced. You can download it and look through the code, if you like. If you want to know, you can.

      The hardware is hardly anything magical, despite the advertising. It's just about all standard stuff - ATA, DDR RAM, HyperTransport, PCI, PCI Express, USB, FireWire and so on. If you want to know, it's pretty simple to find out.

      But if you want to change these things, you're in the black box world. But that wasn't your complaint, and I don't see many people who care about hacking inside their computer. A few geeks maybe (and I'm one, to some degree) but most people want to sit down, turn it on and use the thing. They don't want to pull it apart, recompile the OS, overclock the CPU or any other arcane process.

      Apple's philosophy would be better put as "We're making it easier for you" rather than "You don't need to know." As we all learned in computer programming, hiding complexity is a *good thing* as it simplifies the processes that build upon it. Apple hide complexity, and don't try to appeal to all people.

      Want a truly free OS? Go Linux.
      Want an OS that covers about 90% of the market? Go Windows.
      Want an OS that looks cool and seems fairly easy to get to grips with? Go Mac OS X.

      Want an OS that is all things to all people? There is no such beast. Apple gives it a shot with Darwin, OS X, Aqua, Java, Unix development and porting, OS X development, a slew of 'big' apps and even some games. But will it appeal to everyone, from Slashdot to grandmothers?

      Never.
      • > The core of OS X is open sourced. You can download it and look through the code, if you like.

        Depends on what you call "core". Darwin is BSD. Apple didn't open-source it - they took opensource code and used it. Not that there's anything wrong with it - but to say Apple opensourced Darwin is just not fair. I'd suggest you look before OS X to get an idea of how apple deals with tech docs about their products. Tell me - do you have any idea how Aqua draws translucent windows or how their window manag

        • Re:Microsoft and Firefox .. (Score:5, Informative)

          by mattkime ( 8466 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:26PM (#12980051)
          um, actually apple has released the darwin code - its fully open source - they didn't steal, they gave back

          http://developer.apple.com/darwin/ [apple.com]

        • Depends on what you call "core". Darwin is BSD. Apple didn't open-source it - they took opensource code and used it.

          His exact words are: The core of OS X is open sourced.
          Not: apple wrote something and released the code for it.

          Nowhere does he claim that it was closed before apple got it or implied that they were the origin of the code. You inferred it all on your own.

          Have a look at the apple's firmware [apple.com]. Have you any idea about what partition system an apple box would use (so that

        • Re:Microsoft and Firefox .. (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          The Apple open firmware is fully documented, as is the language it can execute (forth). Just do a google search. You'll even find games that you can execute and play from the OF. Try that with a IBM (clone) BIOS chip :P.

          "do you have any idea how Aqua draws translucent windows or how their window manager works ?."

          Why do you want to know, you can include all these effects in your app with XCode or whatever you use instead of having to write your own. Sure, it is closed source so you can't copy the code, is

        • Re:Microsoft and Firefox .. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by moof1138 ( 215921 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @05:09PM (#12981356)
          >Depends on what you call "core". Darwin is BSD. Apple didn't open-source it - they took opensource code and used it.

          Not exactly. NextStep was based on BSD, but it was based on the Mach kernel, and they diverged from the BSDs in many significant ways as the OS moved forward from NextStep through OpenStep to Mac OS X Server 1.x. With OS X as they opened Darwin they did a lot of merging with Free/Open/NetBSD after that to get up to speed with current libraries and make things more standardized. But when they Open Sourced Darwin it was very much it's own OS unlike any other in many respects and (for better and for worse) and chock-full of proprietary bits (unique kernel interfaces, device drivers, filesystem drivers, et al.)

          >Tell me - do you have any idea how Aqua draws translucent windows or how their window manager works ?

          Actually Apple does cover a lot of info about how the window manager works, how it composites shadowing, how the back buffering works, etc. to the degree that a developer writing code that uses the WM would need to know to write an app correctly, and the Apple devs on the mailing lists have been pretty good about helping out in the less well documented areas (in my experience). If there is something in particular you are looking for that isn't documented there are channels you can turn to, some free (lists), some not (ADC).

          >Have you any idea about what partition system an apple box would use (so that you can dual boot Linux) ?
          man pdisk
          OF is an open standard, and setting boot params is well documented. The move to Intel makes things more mysterious, but I am sure they they are not with their implementation so that side isn't documented yet, and we can only specualate where they are headed.

          >You miss my point completely. My point was that Apple has always been about proprietary magic.
          I think you overstate your case. I really think Apple is a conglomerate of different engineering teams with different technical and marketing decisions dictating how open they could be. At WWDC I have talked to a number of Apple engineers working on various parts of the system who would like to open that are currently closed, and they have given various accounts as to why they haven't, some technical, some marketing driven. Also, don't forget that Apple does license some hardware and software from other parties that make it impossible for them to be totally open even if they wanted to be.

        • Have a look at the apple's firmware. Have you any idea about what partition system an apple box would use (so that you can dual boot Linux) ?. They just mention that it is different - that's all.

          Way back in 97, long before apple was as open about things as they are now, and back when mkLinux was still being updated, I just used the partitioner that came with the Linux disks.

          Of course, if you wanted to know more about the firmware, you might first start by actually googling "open firmware" given that that
        • I'm not positive Apple took all opensource code to make OS X. They took the Mach microkernel, hired its creator, Avi Tevanian, and integrated it in. Was that open source?

          Apple opensourced their changes, and put them into the tree, like the KHTML for example. You can therefore say that Apple opensourced Darwin's kernel or whatever.
      • no PCI Express in macs yet....only PCI-X (yes, they're different)
    • Apple is still an opaque black box. Their essential motto could be termed as you don't need to know - which is very attractive to the layman user , but abhorrent to a true computer engineer.

      I agree with the other poster. Given that the core of the operating system is open source and some UNIX conventionalities are followed (but hidden from users who don't know how to find them), such as /etc, /usr, etc, I'd say that Apple's motto could be stated as, "You don't have to know, and if you don't understand wh
    • abhorrent to a true computer engineer

      What are you? A 12 year old who sits in the basement who is trying to imagine what "computer engineers" do, and inadvertently made up some completely wrong bullshit?

      Or, are you a 12 year old who sits in his basement who is trying to imagine the difference between Mac OS X and Linux, and inadverntely made up some completely wrong bullshit?
    • Even Microsoft wants FireFox to run well on Longhorn . Is it any surprise that everyone wants their latest hyped product to run FireFox?. This is like the age old - does it play ogg yet ?

      I dub thee, the newest troll-inventor for Slashdot!

      "Yes, but does it run Firefox? (tm)"
    • I am curious, do you hate 'sudo'?

  • Safari (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Winterblink ( 575267 )
    This is not only great news for Mozilla, but excellent news for Safari, which draws a lot of technology from Mozilla.

    My personal preference is actually Safari. I've tried all of the browsers available for OS X, and found the features Safari has to be pretty compelling. The ability to toggle on secure browsing (no cookies, caching, etc) is nifty, and all the little hooks into other OS X software really adds to the usefulness of it all.

    • Re:Safari (Score:3, Insightful)

      by GaryPatterson ( 852699 )
      It *would* be great news for Safari, if Apple hadn't already ported it, and if it wasn't based on KHTML.

      I like Safari too!

  • Ah, gotta love ZDNet commentrary... (Score:4, Informative)

    by R.Mo_Robert ( 737913 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @11:12AM (#12979647)

    You'll have fresh native copies of Firefox and [competing Mozilla-based Mac browser] Camino for your shiny new Intel Macs when or soon after they come out."

    I wouldn't exactly call Camino "competing," unless you'd also say the same of the suite. They're both Mozilla projects; it's not like Camino is made by some competitor. Camino would have less of a reason to exist if Firefox behaved more natively, but, while it's improved, you can still tell that it's not quite there yet (e.g., buttons and other controls on Web page forms and probably even more things that I don't realize coming from a Windows background).

  • Is it faster?! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by solios ( 53048 ) on Monday July 04, 2005 @12:40PM (#12980127) Homepage
    I have a 2.2 ghz AMD box on my desk, and a 2x2ghz G5. The AMD has a gig of ram and Win2k, the G5 has 2g ram and OS X 10.4.

    Firefox HAULS ASS on the Win32 box. It's visibly slower on OS X - the UI is sluggish, and rendering isn't nearly as snappy, using current versions of both. But mostly, the UI is sluggish.

    I'm no coder, but the hows and the whys of it are, I'm sure, fairly easy to explain. Here's hoping!

    • Re:Is it faster?! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 )
      It's a fair comparison, but at the same time it also really isn't. Lemme explain what I mean.

      Mac OS X is a BSD-variant, making it technically a UNIX-compatible OS. While people argue that this makes it better for porting Apps from Linux to Mac OS X, it's not always the case.

      It's especially not the case with the Mozilla toolkit. For some reason, I've found that *all* XUL toolkit-based programs run like molassas on Mac OS X. There's still a lot of work to be done in this area especially.

      A more fair comp
    • Firefox is simply fastest on Windows, period.

      HOWEVER... the latest nightly builds (from the development branch that will eventually become Firefox 1.1) are much faster than the official 1.0.4 you are probably currently using. Also, if you have a newer G4 (PowerPC 744x/745x series... 1GHz or better "G4+") or a G5 you can grab an optimized build for even more performance.

      Grab the G4 version here:
      http://homepage.mac.com/krmathis/ [mac.com]

      Grab the G5 version here:
      http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=2565 [mozillazine.org]
    • Firefox is also considrably slower on Linux / GTK than it is on Windows. So slow, in fact, that it can take 10+ seconds of 100% CPU usage on my Athlon 64 system with 1GB of DDR to render a long Slashdot comments page.

      That's outrageous. Yet no one seems to believe me. Give it a try - it happens on Ubuntu, Fedora, and other distros.

      • Re:Is it faster?! (Score:3, Informative)

        by BenjyD ( 316700 )
        Try downloading the firefox installer from mozilla.org and using that version. The version in Ubuntu seems to have been screwed up somehow - I think it's the GNOME integration they added or something. The mozilla.org version is much faster on my system, and has much better font rendering.

    • Re:Is it faster?! (Score:4, Informative)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Tuesday July 05, 2005 @05:20PM (#12988906) Homepage Journal
      Mac OS X is the red-headed stepchild of Mozilla development. They know they have to take care of it, but it sometimes seems like they don't really want to.

      For instance, Mozilla still uses QuickDraw for text rendering, which isn't accelerated by Quartz Extreme. There are bugs in the tab implementation which allow plugins to draw on the wrong tabs and steal keypresses from other pages. Finder comments and other features from Netscape Navigator 4 still haven't caught up. Etc. etc. etc.

      This isn't to denigrate the "patches-welcome" approach, but to point out the focus of the Mozilla community, which isn't Mac OS X.
    • Go edit your system resources and add 0.0.1 to the version number string.

      That ought to make it feel snappier.

Slashdot Top Deals

Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse

Close