[NTLUG:Discuss] Firefox vs Mozilla

[Chris Cox]

Burton Strauss wrote:
> Both use the same html rendering engine, Gecko.  Other browsers do too - the
> other major Linux rendering engine is KHTML.
> 
> As Mozilla grew more and more features, there was a {desire, need, push} for
> a lighter weight pure browser, hence Firefox.  So it's probably nicer to say
> that Firefox is what Mozilla was once-upon-a-time.
> 
> While both use Gecko, some things I've read indicate that Firefox uses a
> frozen copy of Gecko, not a shared copy that might be installed by other
> tools.  Thus they SHOULD co-exist, but I haven't tried it extensively.
> YMMV.
> 

There is certainly some confusion around the word "light".  Both are
pretty heavyweight resource wise.  There is an illusion with Mozilla
that it is too bloated... and to an extent that might be true, but
Firefox is not a light weight consumer of resources either.

Firefox is designed to have a more pluggable architecture.. but it's
lacking maturity.  Eventually we'll all be running Firefox and
possibly Thunderbird (those of us who use both the browser and mail
parts of Mozilla).

They do coexist just fine.  Mozilla still has features that Firefox
lacks... and the opposite is also true just because of the broader
audience created by the Firefox hype.  If you are a Mozilla user,
I'd take a look at Firefox... but there's not an immediate need
to move, though probably need to move within the next 6-10 mos.

With the current state of Firefox/Thuderbird, it's a move I'm
not looking forward to.  But I know it will get better.