Why use camino instead of firefox

And there's nothing about the UI that feels glaringly non-native anymore props to the skinning team. So I don't see much point in Camino continuing. I preferred Safari as my main browser and Camino for sites that required the Gecko engine. Electrolysis will result in pages being handled in their own process, separate from the browser UI process.

As a result, embedding the Gecko rendering engine in an application would involve spawning and communicating with the process in the same manner as Firefox.

In other words, previous embedding code will be obsolete, so there really isn't a point in supporting it. It makes more sense to finish Electrolysis development, then rework the embedding code after the fact. Once upon a time, I loved Camino and used it regularly. The reality is that the dedicated and tireless, but ultimately small-ish dev team behind the project was unable to maintain feature parity with better-funded projects in a way that adversely impacted Camino's utility.

There were simply too many things HTML 5, fast rendering, extension architecture that negatively differentiated Camino from Safari, Firefox, and Chrome leaving out Opera, since it's quite a different browser from the others. A few years ago, when Safari was pretty much awful, Firefox lacked good integration with the OS X UI, and Chrome didn't even exist, Camino was clearly -- at least to me -- the best option.

It's really amazing to me that a niche browser was so much better than some of its much richer siblings for so long. Sadly, I think that time has ended. I can sympathize with an individual developer choosing to stop work on this, but it is a bad strategic decision for Mozilla as a whole. One of the big strengths for WebKit was that it was easy to embedded, so many people did so and as a result you ended up with many more contributors, with more diverse goals. It works well on a large number of devices, architectures and operating systems.

Had Mozilla put more emphasis on embedability early on their mobile ports would probably be a lot further along by now. Last edited by pavon on Fri Apr 01, pm. It is hard to find reasons to use these small browsers unless you really hate Safari, Firefox, Chrome and Opera or have technical problems with the four of them.

It's often said that these are great times for browser competition, true, but the companies behind the browsers are still mammoths, Apple, Google, Microsoft with IE9 on windows, and Mozilla is the current giant of the browser wars and well financed. Maybe they could try to compete against Opera, but if they are going to use webkit, then they become the direct competition of other dwarfs like OmniWeb.

I hope they keep it going regardless of which rendering engine they settle on, for nostalgia if nothing else. As I recall, though, at one point a couple years ago a key player said they wished they has transitioned to Webkit a long time ago. I would like to give a shout out to iCab on the iPad.

It's the only workable iPad 1 solution I've found for doing full screen sharing of web pages over the component output cable. All the other web browsers that I've tried which purported to have this feature lacked some other critical feature like HTTPS support, frame support, cookie support, really just bizarre omissions. I haven't found any features compelling enough for me to want to use, let alone buy, any browser other than Safari, on the Mac.

Listen to these cool songs by Maren Ord! Damian Posts: Joined: Sep Fri 24th pm. Posted Oct Tue 26th pm Zulithe wrote Posted Oct Tue 26th pm Here's a really, really high-level summary. For more detail, read old threads in this forum or just wait for the holy war that this thread is, unfortunately, likely to become. In addition, all three have various interface differences that some people swear by and others can't stand.

It's purely a matter of personal preference. Posted Oct Tue 26th pm I like camino better than Safari beause it is faster. It's that simple. It's a combination of the speed of firefox and the native OS X feel of Safari.

Posted Oct Tue 26th pm smorgan wrote: - Firefox has extensions and the most flexibility, but uses controls that don't look native and has the least OS integration. Most people working on Firefox for mac are the ones who do Camino and they have no plans to do any such thing as they value the integration of the OS very much. Further more integrating FF more won't be really possible as everything done os FF has to be cross platfrom, which means you just can't create OS specific features.

Posted Oct Tue 26th pm I've just tried going back to Firefox for a couple of days, but back with Camino now. My views: 1. Firefox seemed faster at first. However, I'm convinced it used more CPU power and memory - it seemed to slow down after a while.

Firefox plugins are nice. Yet I think most are not used much, and their features could be put in Camino easily.

Camino debuted in March , but goes back a year earlier, when its forerunner, Chimera, was released. The last update , Camino 2. Mozilla, for example, retired Firefox for OS X Firefox 21 is the current version of Mozilla's browser.

User profile for user: Tom Graves Tom Graves. Oct 14, PM in response to julesj66 In response to julesj66 Camino is a native Cocoa program, which means it is a native OS X program and will recognize the Services menu. Firefox is not. Both are based on Mozilla. Firefox tends to come out with updates more often.

Firefox has tons of themes and extensions so that you can customize the browser and add features. They are both excellent browsers. I tend to favor Firefox, partly because of the extensions, and partly because there is something in some of Camino's renderings that I don't like - but this is purely a subjective call. I mostly go back and forth between Safari and Firefox - these are my favorite browsers. User profile for user: Pink Panther Pink Panther. Curious to know why you prefer Firefox rather than Safari?