If you'd read the links, you'd know that this is new technology being created by the Mozilla folks and being debuted in Firefox first. It's open source (as would be expected from Mozilla) and available to every other browser maker. It uses a subset of JavaScript that's specially compiled to run very fast in the optimized Firefox engine. It's still valid JavaScript, though, so it will run in other browsers, just slower. Some browsers like Chrome can't handle it and crash at the moment. There's already a feature request to add this into Chrome/Chromium. And, since it is in Firefox, it'll be in Firefox OS as well, making gaming on Firefox OS cell phones more of a possibility than it was before.

Waterfox is just Firefox built as 64-bit with some compiler switches and a name change (required by trademark guidelines). It's not a fork and there are no additional bug fixes. It has all the bugs that Firefox does when compiled as a 64-bit binary. You're far better off sticking with Firefox 32-bit which works just fine under 64-bit Windows.

Why would Mozilla invest the time and resources into a platform owned by a company that's completely hostile to competition and openness? Not to mention the small number of jailbroken iOS devices makes it a losing proposition. They could do it to prove a point, but that would be a very expensive point considering the effort to port Firefox to Objective C.

Sorry, that's not Chrome. It's Safari with a Chrome skin, just like all the other "browsers" in the app store. And, like all Safari skinned browsers, it uses the purposely slower Safari rendering mode so that mobile Safari looks better. There is one exception in the app store, and that's Opera Mini. To get around this rule, Opera has a server farm in the cloud rendering pages and JavaScript and sending the results down to the Opera Mini clients. It's inefficient and doesn't work as well as a native browser, but it's the only way to "compete" with Apple. Oh yeah, and the whole Opera Mini client is designed for dumb phones that lack the power to run a real browser.

Not sure if trolling or clueless. On the off chance you are clueless, Apple doesn't permit competing browsers in their app store. They sneakily did this by banning all interpreted code (for 'security reasons'). That means no JavaScript. And a browser is mostly useless on the modern internet without JavaScript. So, the only thing you can do with a browser on iOS is to wrap Safari in a skin. But, surprise, Apple screws you there, too, because they give you a slower engine in that mode. So, every single browser on iOS is just a Safari skin and they all run slower than Safari. Hurray for Apple's walled garden. There is one exception in the app store, and that's Opera Mini. To get around this rule, Opera has a server farm in the cloud rendering pages and JavaScript and sending the results down to the Opera Mini clients. It's inefficient and doesn't work as well as a native browser, but it's the only way to "compete" with Apple. Oh yeah, and the whole Opera Mini client is designed for dumb phones that lack the power to run a real browser.

It's a Cyanogenmod fork designed to look like iOS. It's been in violation of the GPL since its very first release. MIUI users always try and minimize the fact that it's basically illegal software.

Something is wrong with your computer. That grid works perfectly fine in 32-bit Firefox.

Most open source devs are already out of luck as GPLed code (the most popular open source license used in over 50% of open source apps) is incompatible with the iOS and Mac App Stores. Most consumers don't care as long as they get to play angry birds.

Apple is making record profits ($35 billion last quarter) and only 14.2% of those profits ($1.287 billion) came from sales of Mac hardware last quarter (all desktops and laptops). (source) The percentage of money Apple makes from desktops and laptops is getting progressively smaller each quarter. And the number of 'professionals' in those numbers is smaller still. The bottom line is that there is FAR more money to be made from consumers. To the point that professionals really don't matter to Apple's bottom line at all. Consumers, consumers, consumers. Consumers consuming music/video ($1.571 billion, up 29 percent from $1.571 billion a year earlier.) and apps ($891 million, up 28 percent from $696 million a year earlier.) on their iPads ($9.17 billion, up 52 percent from $6.046 billion a year earlier.), iPod Touches ($1.06 billion, down 20 percent from $1.325 billion a year earlier.) and iPhones ($16.425 billion, up 22 percent from $13.31 billion a year earlier.). That's where the money is. That's where nearly ALL the money is. Microsoft is seeing the same light. That's why Windows 8 is what it is. It is a 100% consumer operating system, corporations be damned. It's about setting up an ecosystem of apps, music and video across your desktop, laptop, tablet and phone. So, no, it doesn't matter if you can't install Eclipse, Mac Ports or various command-line tools on your Mac. The Mac App Store is about consumers, just like the iOS App Store. Not creators or 'professionals'. Even if you estimate that 10% of Mac's desktop/laptop hardware sales were 'professionals' (an extremely high estimate) and every single one of them abandoned Mac as a result of these changes (unlikely), that's still only $493 million. 1.4% of Apple's revenue. And that will be more than offset by another platform where Apple for all intents and purposes controls the keys to the kingdom (Mac App Store will be 95%+ of all Mac software sales in the next couple years) and makes a 30% cut of all software sales. They can ditch professionals and make a killing on consumers.

He can if he so chooses. And when he accepts contributions from others, he can ask that they sign a joint copyright assignment (ala OpenOffice.org pre-Oracle/Apache) so that he can include those in the app store version. Or he may choose to go GPL only and not pay the Apple tax, meaning no iOS version at all, and an Apple version that users will have to tick the box allowing non-Apple signed apps to run.

The next Mac OS release will block any software not signed with an Apple-approved digital certificate by default. Advanced users can go into options and untick the option. This is seen as the next step to an iOS-style lockdown of the whole OS. The first being the release of the app store (with some preferential placements of apps installed via said app store). The next step, in Mountain Lion, making it so all developers have to go through apple, pay a yearly Apple developer fee, and be approved through some process before their software is allowed to be installed by default. Likely, a later release will require app store software only by default with an advanced option to disable that.

If you'd like to go all out, you can try something like Eclipse Portable which is available in the C/C++, Java, etc variants. It's technically labeled as a Development Test but it's 'stable' and being added to the main app directory shortly. There's also a test of BlueJ Portable available which is geared towards learning. If you'd like to just try something smaller, you can always start with something like SWI-Prolog Portable. There are a number of text editors available in the Development section of the Portable App Directory a few of which can kick off compilation right in MinGW Portable for you. And, if you're so inclined, you can help out test and code some of the apps requested or tested out in the Development forums or section of the PortableApps.com site. If there's anything else that would help out budding programmers, please just let us know!

Only Opera Mini, which is a kind of pseudo-browser that offloads rendering to a server-farm in the cloud. It's designed for dumb phones (not smartphones) but was the only way to get a 'kinda of' browser around Apple's 'only Safari can interpret Javascript on the phone' restrictions.

There is a big difference between liking something on Facebook and being asked to fabricate a review of a piece of software. Liking something on Facebook is basically just you spreading the word to your friends and adding to the total number of 'likes' on Facebook. You're not doing something unseemly. If they were asking you to review it or give it a 5 star rating or something, that's an entirely different story.

As the licensing terms Apple chose to use deny access to the app store for over 50% of open source software worldwide by including language that attempts to place restrictions on software above and beyond what the contributors intend, there's really no other conclusion to come to. Apple and their lawyers know the GPL very well and were well aware of what they were doing. As to their intentions, I won't hazard a guess, but Apple's intentions are seldom honorable.