What I am referring to is the lack of 'add-on' support. Clearly it uses the Mac resources much better than FF, but there are so many things it cannot do that are handled by plugins/add-ons in FF.
That is where the lack of support shows up, IMHO.
And the way it handles blocking javascript is the most blatant example. Actually, the way it does it is exactly the way every other browser does it, by default. Exclude everything or enable everything. The first method destroys the usefulness of many sites because they use javascript instead of more standards compatible techniques. Since the user simply sees the broken site, s/he may be tempted to turn js back on. But that takes one back to all the vulnerabilities that is present in js! Again, that is what ever browser I know of is designed, not just Camino.
But FF, with add-ons like NoScript, provides the user with the ability to selectively turn on only the javascripts that are needed/wanted on a
per-site basis. In other words, it's an 'opt IN' method. True, Camino can effectlively mimic this behavior
if the user is willing to manually edit the 'pref' file. But that will require quite a lot of quiting and restarting Camino. Not a very useful way when surfing the internet, IMHO.
Same methods are used for Flash as far as I know. Again, this is handled by an add-on in FF. Adblocking? Somewhat easier in Camino but not nearly as comprehensive as in FF with add-ons.
My point is that while Mozilla allows this kind of plug-in capability in FF, it apparently cannot or is not used in Camino. Or it is capable but there are no developers willing/able to provide any plug-ins. The result is a fast, Mac based browser that is no more customizable than Safari, and, in fact, not as well supported as Safari. All of which I suggest is because of the smaller market segment of Macs, which is then divided among FF, Opera, Safari and Camino ( and others? ).
Being 'more Mac like' is not the same as being better or equal to something.
