Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Firefox Mobile... h.264 is not your main issue. (Score 1) 249

by kbrosnan (#39421123) Attached to: Mozilla To Support H.264
There is a big difference when you build a browser around a phone and building a browser from the ground up on a diverse set of phones. Our early work on boot2gecko is showing a large difference between running Linux with a Dalvik vm and then a browser with a JS vm and just running Linux with a browser and a JS vm. That being said we are in the middle of a major rewrite of Firefox mobile with a Java front end. See my reply to the grandparent of this thread for details.

Comment: Re:Firefox Mobile... h.264 is not your main issue. (Score 2) 249

by kbrosnan (#39421053) Attached to: Mozilla To Support H.264

We are working on a Java front end for Firefox mobile. Performance on devices that were marginal at running XUL Firefox mobile is much improved. There were a couple design decisions that made Firefox mobile slow to startup. First it was a testbed for Firefox multiprocess work. Secondly shipping as a full NDK app as complex as Firefox could not compete with Java app startup time due to library unpacking. This was exacerbated on phones that had a poor filesystem such as the Galaxy S.

If you want to give the Java native version a try it can be downloaded from http://nightly.mozilla.org/ It will require you to enable installing of non-market apps on your phone.

Comment: Re:Still no Flash in mobile ... (Score 4, Interesting) 364

by kbrosnan (#38897755) Attached to: Firefox 10 Released

This is working fairly well on Nightly and Aurora. On Beta (11) soon.

Adding Flash to Firefox was a considerable amount of work. Adobe and Google rather drastically re-wrote NPAPI. The only documentation on how Flash worked on Android is the Android source. This work represents several hundred person hours to get it working.

TBH Flash support is in the current release version has a pref for flash on 2.2 and 2.3 but the experience is rather poor, hence it being disabled with no UI to enable it. about:config change plugin.disable to false. Judge Flash progress against the Nighty or Aurora builds. The Beta 10 or release 10 builds are not representative of the Flash experience for 11+.

Comment: Re:Arch Linux: what's the differentiating factor? (Score 1) 103

by kbrosnan (#38735056) Attached to: Package Signing Comes To Pacman and Arch Linux
Debian tends to have large and historical patches that make large upstream patckages fit the Debain way. For example I'm takling about packages such as OOo/LibreOffice, Apache httpd, Mozilla Firefox, etc. Arch goes in the other direction, make as few changes to the upstream package as possible.

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas

Working...