or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google forks WebKit with new 'Blink' rendering engine for Chrome
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google forks WebKit with new 'Blink' rendering engine for Chrome - Page 3

post #81 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


So Google has tried to exterminate Nitro and fragment JavaScript by creating V8?

 

Give them time, they'll get around to it.

 

There's no way not to see this as yet another example of Google embracing Microsoft's business strategies, with a twist, hey, it's "open". 

post #82 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

What if ... what if it were Apple that did this? What if it were Apple that declared, "Webkit has grown long in the tooth, too big, too wieldy."

I imagine there would be applause all around? Perhaps it is understandable that a company that had the nerve to walk away from the floppy, the DVD and Flash would get more benefit of the doubt, whereas a company which has contributed to computer science at a level less comprehensible to the masses would have its motives questioned forever.

I don't think there would be immediate applause. However, it is very likely that Apple would do a better job of it than Google. Apple has shown absolutely no effort to try to make the web proprietary. In fact, since the 90s, Apple has been one of the leading proponents for standards and interoperability (admittedly, in the 90s, they had no choice). Google, OTOH, has a history of bastardizing standards and stealing other people's technology. Their entire business model is based on gaining as much control of the Internet as possible.

So it's not too big a stretch to believe that it might not be as bad if Apple did it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iang1234 View Post

Which part of the Android OS are you talking about? Wikipedia says Android is licensed under Apache License 2.0 which does not require you to release the source code even though you release the binary. The kernel (Linux) on the other hand, since it is GPL, require you to release the source code once you ship the binary.

For LGPL, it's similar to GPL in the sense that you need to release the source code when you ship the binary.

I didn't say that they were required to release it. What I said is that they brag about how open and free Android is - but then decided not to release one version (until the outcry became too large). Google's concept of 'free' is very different from everyone else's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

OK, so the short version of the story seems to be this:

Google takes other people's work, changes it a bit and calls it something else to make it look like they did it all.

Deja vu anyone?

Exactly. Google wants to control the Internet.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #83 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


WebKit is not a standard. It's an engine. Forking it does not change HTML and other code it renders. Imagine having a slightly different, but better kernel for an otherwise identical OS. If you truly think this will ruin the internet then you'll need to explain why that hasn't already happening with Google removing Nitro and replacing it with their V8 engine. Where is the total destruction of all things JavaScript?

 

Seriously, if you don't think Google will use this to monopolize web developers like Microsoft did with IE, you've got an enormous blind spot... or you are just adopting a pose for the sake of argument.

 

And, no, I don't have to explain that, because the question assumes they were in a position to do that, which they weren't. Clearly, though, they are maneuvering to be in a position to be able to make it unpleasant for people to use browsers other than Chrome, just as Microsoft did with IE.

post #84 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Give them time, they'll get around to it.

There's no way not to see this as yet another example of Google embracing Microsoft's business strategies, with a twist, hey, it's "open". 
Yeah but Nitro is far superior tech in terms od speed and performance when compared with v8.
post #85 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Seriously, if you don't think Google will use this to monopolize web developers like Microsoft did with IE, you've got an enormous blind spot... or you are just adopting a pose for the sake of argument.

And, no, I don't have to explain that, because the question assumes they were in a position to do that, which they weren't. Clearly, though, they are maneuvering to be in a position to be able to make it unpleasant for people to use browsers other than Chrome, just as Microsoft did with IE.

Again, how have they monopolized JavaScript and ruined the internet with V8? If your theory olds then doing the exact same thing to the web engine as they did with the JS engine will hold true. And yet all evidence points to every engine competing with V8 becoming more competitive, browsers begin faster, and no completely breakdown of a fragmented web ensuing.

Now is V8 proof they won't do something awful this time? Absolutely not, but you (and others) claiming that Google forking the WebKit engine means imminent death and destruction with your only evidence being the adage "Google is evil" simply isn't science. It's emotion.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #86 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropys View Post

Google's plans with webkit:
1: embrace- adopt webkit
2: extend - fork
3: exterminate-?

nobody has tried that before, have they? Probably the only way to get more adoption of VP8


So Google has tried to exterminate Nitro and fragment JavaScript by creating V8?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So Google has tried to exterminate Nitro and fragment JavaScript by creating V8?

Give them time, they'll get around to it.

There's no way not to see this as yet another example of Google embracing Microsoft's business strategies, with a twist, hey, it's "open". 
Sure, with javascript, Google may still be in the 'extend' phase.

I meant my original post to be funny, but there might be an element of truth to this. At the least, google is wanting to have total control of its destiny/environment.
It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
post #87 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Again, how have they monopolized JavaScript and ruined the internet with V8? If your theory olds then doing the exact same thing to the web engine as they did with the JS engine will hold true. And yet all evidence points to every engine competing with V8 becoming more competitive, browsers begin faster, and no completely breakdown of a fragmented web ensuing.

Now is V8 proof they won't do something awful this time? Absolutely not, but you (and others) claiming that Google forking the WebKit engine means imminent death and destruction with your only evidence being the adage "Google is evil" simply isn't science. It's emotion.

I don't think anyone has said that.

I've seen a lot of people say that it creates the POTENTIAL for Google to destroy the openness of the Internet - and that's certainly true.

All Google has to do is create a proprietary tag and then make it part of Adwords or the mechanism of embedding a Google search tool or map into your web page. Those tools are so widely used that the tag would become a defacto standard almost overnight - and leave all non-Google browsers as second class citizens. The potential for abuse is HUGE.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #88 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


All Google has to do is create a proprietary tag and then make it part of Adwords or the mechanism of embedding a Google search tool or map into your web page. Those tools are so widely used that the tag would become a defacto standard almost overnight - and leave all non-Google browsers as second class citizens. The potential for abuse is HUGE.

Google isn't doing this by themselves. Why not do a tiny bit of research before declaring the sky has fallen. Oh wait, nevermind. . . it's Google so you don't care. FUD is more fun.

For others that really are curious about the project facts, the details are here:

http://www.chromium.org/blink
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #89 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Again, how have they monopolized JavaScript and ruined the internet with V8? If your theory olds then doing the exact same thing to the web engine as they did with the JS engine will hold true. And yet all evidence points to every engine competing with V8 becoming more competitive, browsers begin faster, and no completely breakdown of a fragmented web ensuing.

Now is V8 proof they won't do something awful this time? Absolutely not, but you (and others) claiming that Google forking the WebKit engine means imminent death and destruction with your only evidence being the adage "Google is evil" simply isn't science. It's emotion.

 

The example isn't V8. 

 

The example is Java.

 

  • Google embraced the Java syntax and API
  • Google extended it with the Dalvik VM and Android specific APIs.
  • Google extinguished Java ME.

 

Now the objective for Android was an ecosystem where Google couldn't get cut out.  After China and Amazon Google could plainly see how Android has failed in this regard.  With Facebook it will be even more obvious.

 

For HTML5 and Javascript you can see how this pattern can be repeated:

 

  • Google embraces the HTML5 and Javascript syntax and API as the foundational elements for their ChromeOS web apps.
  • They extend these with Google specific cloud features, this time not exposed on the clients but only on their own servers so they can't get cut out of the loop.
  • The extinguish other webapp cloud ecosystems because the largest body of webapp developers are using the ChromeOS back end services that, while the API is open and the implementation is zero cost is completely google controlled because it is built on secret Google sauce that they have never released as open source and a huge body of work to replicate although Apache will probably take a crack at.

 

They will attempt to marginalize apps by touting that Chrome webapps are cross platform and you can target all mobile devices at once with one codebase that is automatically cloud enabled and sync'd.  Except maybe in China.

post #90 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Seriously, if you don't think Google will use this to monopolize web developers like Microsoft did with IE, you've got an enormous blind spot... or you are just adopting a pose for the sake of argument.

 

And, no, I don't have to explain that, because the question assumes they were in a position to do that, which they weren't. Clearly, though, they are maneuvering to be in a position to be able to make it unpleasant for people to use browsers other than Chrome, just as Microsoft did with IE.

 

I agree.  The only read I can get on this so far is that Google seems to be maneuvering to "take over" the lead of WebKit.  Because of their break-neck "caution to the wind" development cycles, the fact that they have more developers working on it in general, and the fact that Opera, and a lot of the other developers will immediately "join" their fork, they are hoping to wrest control of the standard from Apple's fingers in some way.  

 

Even though that's a bit like fighting over, well ... nothing really.  

 

The smart move (if they really have the motivations they say they have) would be to get everyone to work together.  I mean this is the first I've ever even heard that they had a problem with the pace and style of WebKit development and they are already walking out the door?  For that reason alone we should suspect their motives.  

post #91 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

For HTML5 and Javascript you can see how this pattern can be repeated:

I can't. V8 has been in use for years and the internet has fallen. What proof does anyone have that it's all going to fall if Google uses their own web engine if the same thing hasn't happened when Google uses their own JS engine?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #92 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Google isn't doing this by themselves. Why not do a tiny bit of research before declaring the sky has fallen. Oh wait, nevermind. . . it's Google so you don't care. FUD is more fun.

For others that really are curious about the project facts, the details are here:

http://www.chromium.org/blink

Woohoo! More Gatorguy obfuscation.

Google is clearly in the lead here. There is clearly the potential for massive abuse. No one has said the sky has fallen.

So what part of your post was supposed to be accurate or informative?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #93 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post


Not a coincidence at all actually:

"[blink] was widely derided as the worst HTML tag ever created and so we picked the name Blink because it kind of suits our slightly ironic taste in names. We called our browser Chrome because the whole idea was to minimize the chrome. We called our computer Pixel because we tried to make all the pixels disappear. Now, we are calling this rendering engine Blink because it doesn't support the blink tag." - Linus Upson (VP of engineering on Google’s Open Web Platform team)

see first comment there: http://readwrite.com/2013/04/03/google-announces-blink-its-own-rendering-engine-for-webkit

 

Too bad.  Way less funny when you know it's on purpose.  

post #94 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Woohoo! More Gatorguy obfuscation.

Google is clearly in the lead here. There is clearly the potential for massive abuse. No one has said the sky has fallen.

So what part of your post was supposed to be accurate or informative?

The link should be pretty informative, tho I certainly wouldn't expect you to read it. Don't let facts get in the way JR. Just carry on.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #95 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I can't. V8 has been in use for years and the internet has fallen. What proof does anyone have that it's all going to fall if Google uses their own web engine if the same thing hasn't happened when Google uses their own JS engine?

 

Now I'm really starting to think you are just arguing a side in a debate...

 

Your argument is essentially that x hasn't happened, so x+y won't happen. You know that's patently invalid reasoning, yet you cling to it to argue a point. The pieces, parts, and analogous actions have been explained to you, but you are still arguing not x yet then not x+y in the future. And there's this ridiculous call for "proof"; yes, that's right, I'm sure someone will come right by with the memo from Larry Page spelling out their strategy.

 

You aren't going to get "proof" and you know it. What you are going to get are reasoned arguments based on an analysis of what's in this for Google, what's their likely strategy, what's the end-game for them. And those reasoned arguments say that Google hasn't done anything with Javascript because the pieces aren't all in place, and the time isn't right. But, there simply isn't any point to them even having their own browser in development other than to put themselves in a position of control. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just go on funding Mozilla, since it's existence would prevent them from being shut out of platforms? Why do they even need Chrome? There's no point to Chrome/Blink/V8 if Google isn't going to eventually leverage them to their advantage. And you don't have to delve that deeply into history to see the psychological parallels between Google and Microsoft..

 

The point is that Google's past history, their corporate psychology, their previous actions in analogous circumstances (e.g., Java, above) all point to one most obvious conclusion, that the point of Chrome/Blink/V8 together is for Google to leverage them into more control of how people access information on the Internet. No other conclusion is rational.

post #96 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Now I'm really starting to think you are just arguing a side in a debate...

Your argument is essentially that x hasn't happened, so x+y won't happen. You know that's patently invalid reasoning, yet you cling to it to argue a point. The pieces, parts, and analogous actions have been explained to you, but you are still arguing not x yet then not x+y in the future. And there's this ridiculous call for "proof"; yes, that's right, I'm sure someone will come right by with the memo from Larry Page spelling out their strategy.

You aren't going to get "proof" and you know it. What you are going to get are reasoned arguments based on an analysis of what's in this for Google, what's their likely strategy, what's the end-game for them. And those reasoned arguments say that Google hasn't done anything with Javascript because the pieces aren't all in place, and the time isn't right. But, there simply isn't any point to them even having their own browser in development other than to put themselves in a position of control. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just go on funding Mozilla, since it's existence would prevent them from being shut out of platforms? Why do they even need Chrome? There's no point to Chrome/Blink/V8 if Google isn't going to eventually leverage them to their advantage. And you don't have to delve that deeply into history to see the psychological parallels between Google and Microsoft..

The point is that Google's past history, their corporate psychology, their previous actions in analogous circumstances (e.g., Java, above) all point to one most obvious conclusion, that the point of Chrome/Blink/V8 together is for Google to leverage them into more control of how people access information on the Internet. No other conclusion is rational.

I'm arguing a point of reason. Google may do something with their fork that developers don't like but the claims here are that they will simply because they aren't using what comes in WebKit. As I've shown that is erroneous as it's been years since Chrome has been out and the internet hasn't crumbled because they are using a different JS engine. Your argument that all change under Google is bad is in no objective. Any position you have on the matter simply breaks down by failing to even consider any impartiality on the matter. I've covered the negative consequences, have you covered the positive?

Are you forgetting the LGPL license? If anyone in the history of this engine has done anything questionable it's Apple as they worked on their fork for years without releasing any modifications back to KHTML. When Google starts to do then you can say there is a problem forming, but until such time claiming that Google will destroy the internet despite proof the contrary just sounds asinine.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #97 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm arguing a point of reason. Google may do something with their fork that developers don't like but the claims here are that they will simply because they aren't using what comes in WebKit.

Not at all. Most of the claims are just what you agreed to - that Google COULD mess up the openness of the Internet with their own fork of Webkit. I don't see anyone saying that they absolutely WILL.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #98 of 134

Webkit is actually more than a Browser engine. It can serve a lot of more purposes like rendering HMTL in email clients or embed web code in native apps.

 

I assume that Google's claim that they can drop 4,5 million lines of code are based on eliminating the code for interacting with the DOM through C, C++, and Objective C (and not just Java Script). 

Beside some nice integration features Blink will in this case also loose features like type-checking and AOT-compiling possible with those languages e.g. via LLVM.

 

My current take is that Blink is the result of the desire to move from an app centric way to use web services to a browser only model. 

This makes sense if you just want to make a sleek and fast browser and at a first glance this seems to strengthen the free internet.

Looking at Chrome OS that might not be the full story because the latter brings up it's own proprietary app format with native code integration.

 

The problem here is that Google might tweak their services and apps in the future in a way that their functionality or third party integration will be limited on anything other than Chrome or Chrome OS.  

I hope I'm not right, but this smells like a political move.

post #99 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcorby23 View Post

Split already happened long time ago, very little of Google's commits got into Safari (and more generally WebKit2) anyway. So, this is really no big deal for Webkit. What is the big deal is that Webkit now have virtually no presence on Windows. 
 

And Blink has absolutely no presence on iOS. If Google wants to continue to offer Chrome on iOS they will need to implement it through Webkit.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #100 of 134

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Mozilla is doing a from-scratch rewrite of their engine as well, in collaboration with Samsung...

post #101 of 134
I think I mentioned it a couple days ago. "Rust" is the new programming language. For now it's still webkit altho I don't think Mozilla mentions it in the press release. At some point I think I read the plan is to move away from it just as Google is.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #102 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Seriously, if you don't think Google will use this to monopolize web developers like Microsoft did with IE, you've got an enormous blind spot... or you are just adopting a pose for the sake of argument.

 

And, no, I don't have to explain that, because the question assumes they were in a position to do that, which they weren't. Clearly, though, they are maneuvering to be in a position to be able to make it unpleasant for people to use browsers other than Chrome, just as Microsoft did with IE.

 

I concur. By the way, hat's off to your self-control. And you're right. If circumstantial evidence can be admissible in a court of law, so can it certainly be in the court of public opinion.
 
Easy, seamless, and proprietarily-tweaked, privileged access, away from the prying eyes of 'public interest' and competing business models, to the Google consumption 'experience'. That is the overarching objective here.Therefore, a constant flow of exclusive content towards their socio-economic experiments needs be channelled...unmediated...from the net.
 
And for that very purpose, they need to pry the overwhelming majority of developers loose from the Apps economy, and 'incite' a significant churn towards a 'YouTube-Google Plus-Google Maps-Google Docs-etc' WebApp economy. YouTube especially; it leverages the net like no other service can and shall do so in the foreseeable future. I can envision a YouTube-powered platform that, if left unchecked before it can take-off, can earn Google's paycheck by itself through any potential 'ad'-versity.
 
YouTube stands out as Google's trump card in the platform war. Easy money and a power grab if they manage a critical mass of developer migration. The ball's in Apple's court to tell a credible story to developers in a compelling video format. The great AppStore story has proven that iOS as a thriving platform can only be built on interest-driven solidarity. Contrary to the Google's dynamics, iOS demands active and equal participation from all around to be successful. Genitor...Apple, Developers, End Users, trapped in a breathing matrix of creativity. All elements are vitally essential. Democracy.
post #103 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm arguing a point of reason. ...

 

You're really not. Exactly what's in it for Google to do all this not to be leveraging it to their advantage? If you can't answer that question, your argument crumbles to dust.

 

Quote:
Google may do something with their fork that developers don't like but the claims here are that they will simply because they aren't using what comes in WebKit. As I've shown that is erroneous as it's been years since Chrome has been out and the internet hasn't crumbled because they are using a different JS engine. Your argument that all change under Google is bad is in no objective. Any position you have on the matter simply breaks down by failing to even consider any impartiality on the matter. I've covered the negative consequences, have you covered the positive?

Are you forgetting the LGPL license? If anyone in the history of this engine has done anything questionable it's Apple as they worked on their fork for years without releasing any modifications back to KHTML. When Google starts to do then you can say there is a problem forming, but until such time claiming that Google will destroy the internet despite proof the contrary just sounds asinine.

 

This is all straw man stuff.

post #104 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think I mentioned it a couple days ago. "Rust" is the new programming language. For now it's still webkit altho I don't think Mozilla mentions it in the press release. At some point I think I read the plan is to move away from it just as Google is.

Rust is replacing C++ in the browser code, the language it runs will still be Javascript.

 

And Mozilla has never used Webkit (except on iOS), they have their own engine, Gecko.  Gecko is going to be replaced by the new engine, Servo I believe it's called.  

 

On a side note, Opera is going to be following Google, and continuing to base their new browser on Chromium, and they'll also move to Blink.

post #105 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Mozilla is doing a from-scratch rewrite of their engine as well, in collaboration with Samsung...

 

Well, they know the cash flow from Google will soon dry up, so they need to get into bed with someone, or they might as well go home.

post #106 of 134

Also, these conspiracies about Google wanting to 'control' the web are silly.  Google has released more open source projects than any corporation of it's size that I'm aware of, and has consistently pushed open source solutions over proprietary ones.  They've had plenty of opportunities to 'control' the web, to lock users in to proprietary solutions, etc...  And so far, they haven't.  No reason to think they're all of a sudden going to turn into Microsoft.  

 

Google's strategy of course revolves around managing and delivering information, and making the web faster.  Faster web = more ad interaction = more revenues for Google = more Sergey Brin projects like Glass (sometimes I think the ultimate goal for Google is simply to be a funding vehicle for silly stuff nerds want to build)...

post #107 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

You're really not. Exactly what's in it for Google to do all this not to be leveraging it to their advantage? If you can't answer that question, your argument crumbles to dust.

So you think they'd spend the time and money to make the engine better a goal of making the effort and cost advantageous? Talk about a straw man! Clearly the entire point of this is so they can leverage the advantages that can arise just as Apple leverages the advantages from forking KHTML and making their own ARM designs, and just as how Google has taken advantage by making V8 instead of using Nitro.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #108 of 134

Apple should have created an Open Browser Alliance which stipulated that members couldn't bundle web browsers with their products if they contained a forked version of WebKit.  Oh wait...

 
Reply
 
Reply
post #109 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I can't. V8 has been in use for years and the internet has fallen. What proof does anyone have that it's all going to fall if Google uses their own web engine if the same thing hasn't happened when Google uses their own JS engine?

 

It's in that post.  The problem isn't V8 or Blink itself as technologies any more than Dalvik is a problem as a technology.  It's Google's strategic need to make sure they can't get cut out of the loop and the way to do that is to extend V8 and Blink and Chrome so that the client side stuff is open but it AND the standards are tailored for Google's back end services.

 

Forking WebKit is simply one of many precursors to making this happen just like forking Java was for Android on the path to extinguishing Java ME as a mobile platform.

 

You can't say "but Google has never done this before because they didn't do it with V8" when they explicitly did it with Java and Android.  That they haven't done it with V8 or perhaps haven't done it with VP8 isn't a compelling rejoinder.  Especially if you add in their VP8 efforts to derail H.264 in favor of a standard THEY control.

post #110 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

See all the green on the right side? The 42% of devs will be gone. A good chunk of the 27% other will follow (because Google is the darling of open source for some unknown reason). All the opera devs will not join webkit but Blink.

Speed forward will be slower and "competition" will mean deliberately introduced incompatibilities.

Google was more than willing to attempt to fork the web with VP8 and they're going to try again both through code in Blink and through the standards body by ramming VP8 down everyone's throats via WebRTC as mandatory to implement.

It doesn't sound like they want to diverge away from Webkit:

"In the short term, Blink will bring little change for web developers... Throughout this transition, we’ll collaborate closely with other browser vendors to move the web forward and preserve the compatibility that made it a successful ecosystem. In that spirit, we’ve set strong guidelines for new features that emphasize standards, interoperability, conformance testing and transparency."

http://blog.chromium.org/2013/04/blink-rendering-engine-for-chromium.html

How much further development does the webkit rendering engine need that will involve breaking compatibility? Architectural changes for security and processing shouldn't affect how the engine interprets web pages. VP8 and WebRTC support is in Chrome already - forced adoption won't be any more than it is now.

It's going to be open source too so if they make huge improvements that are incompatible, the webkit team can integrate the improvements if they are worth it. Like I say, I don't see that they'd need to make all that many changes to how it decodes web layouts to make it wildly incompatible with Webkit. They both have to follow W3C standards.

I don't think it's a positive move for Webkit because of the developer split but it shouldn't matter much. If it becomes detrimental to Webkit browsers, worst case, Apple can fork Blink and bring them level.
post #111 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I don't think it's a positive move for Webkit because of the developer split but it shouldn't matter much. If it becomes detrimental to Webkit browsers, worst case, Apple can fork Blink and bring them level.

 

Perhaps, but not the portions of Blink that support server side extensions for Chrome web apps.  

post #112 of 134
Fair enough: Amazon and Facebook and Samsung will all stick forks in Android; Google does it to Webkit. But Google is an honorable co and so it will be open ... no matter what.
post #113 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stef View Post

Fair enough: Amazon and Facebook and Samsung will all stick forks in Android; Google does it to Webkit. But Google is an honorable co and so it will be open ... no matter what.

 

The difference is mostly in the licensing.  Enough of Webkit is GPL'd that we'll always have access to the core of it. 

 

Everything that makes Android what it is, is Apache licensed (not a copyleft license), so Amazon and Facebook can essentially turn it into a proprietary OS, with proprietary hardware drivers and such. 

 

Browsers can be installed on any platform (well, Firefox, Chrome and Opera can anyway), all are offered for free and comply with W3C standards, so it isn't as big a deal. 

post #114 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamieLeSouef View Post

To all you 'apparent' web devs; suck it up!

Seriously, part of your job is cross browser testing. This is a great thing to drive innovation in the space we work. A monopoly stifles inovation and webkit was drawing close to that.

Very keen to see what google does with Blink and what features it brings to desktop and mobile (both iOS and Android)

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEhhhhhhhhhh WRONG.

 

HTML5 is supposed to be cross platform so you only need to write code ONCE. That's what standards are for.

 

We try and progress new technologies to make it bette for EVERYONE and companies like Google, with an ulterior motive, are making it tough. It says something when a large company like Opera who is a major developer of the HTML5 standard has ditched their own rendering engine in favour of WebKit. It says something when every web browser on smartphones uses WebKit except now Android is on so many phones Google are wanting to fork WebKit to their own rendering engine.

 

I don't think it will affect web developers too much. If we use standard based HTML5 and it doesn't work on Blink it's going to be more of a problem for Google than Webkit because Apple is still going to develop Webkit because it's in their best interests so we are still going to have the best browser.

 

This is just a political move by Google that will either work for them or blow up in their face.

post #115 of 134
Quote:

Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe 

It says something when a large company like Opera who is a major developer of the HTML5 standard has ditched their own rendering engine in favour of WebKit.

 

Opera is moving to Blink.  They're sticking with Chromium's stack (Webkit/Blink, V8, etc...).

post #116 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post

Rust is replacing C++ in the browser code, the language it runs will still be Javascript.

And Mozilla has never used Webkit (except on iOS), they have their own engine, Gecko.  Gecko is going to be replaced by the new engine, Servo I believe it's called.  

On a side note, Opera is going to be following Google, and continuing to base their new browser on Chromium, and they'll also move to Blink.

OOOPS! You're absolutely correct about Gecko. Word is that Servo is apparently webkit for the moment unless I'm misreading which is entirely possible as I ain't no coder. It's been one heck of a day so far, with confusion flowing from two customers at once.
http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/03/mozilla-samsung-team-up-to-take-on-webkits-mobile-browser-dominance/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #117 of 134
Anyone who thinks Opera is a large corporation needs to do some research on what large is and what it is not.
post #118 of 134
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
There is no reason to expect Google to alter WebKit in ways that do not support the modern and future web.
 

Right, they'll just alter WebKit in ways that support THEIR idea—and their idea alone—of what the "modern" and "future" web is… 

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #119 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Right, they'll just alter WebKit in ways that support THEIR idea—and their idea alone—of what the "modern" and "future" web is… 

From the Chromium developer blog on Blink:

What's stopping Chrome from shipping proprietary features?
Our goal is to drive innovation and improve the compatible, open web platform, not to add a ton of features and break compatibility with other browsers. We're introducing strong developer-facing policies on adding new features, the use of vendor prefixes, and when a feature should be considered stable enough to ship. This codifies our policy on thoughtfully augmenting the platform, and as transparency is a core principle of Blink, we hope this process is equally visible to you. The Chromium Feature Dashboard we recently introduced offers a view of the standards and implementation status of many of our implemented and planned features.

Please feel free to watch the development of Blink via Gitiles, follow along on the blink-dev mailing list, and join #blink on Freenode.

We know that the introduction of a new rendering engine can have significant implications for the web. In the coming months we hope to earn the respect of the broader open web community by letting our actions speak louder than words."
http://www.chromium.org/blink/developer-faq
http://www.chromium.org/blink#new-features

EDIT: You've seemed relatively quiet lately TS. Hope all is OK.
Edited by Gatorguy - 4/4/13 at 5:48pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #120 of 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolfactor View Post


Thanks for the link to the Blink info. Your subtle hint to read before commenting is taken. hahaha. It was very informative, and feels like WebKit will benefit from the work that Blink does. There can be a sharing of advances in both directions. Blink gives the Google engineers the freedom to make major changes. But my concern about WebKit's base of developers suddenly being halved in size is worrying still.

 

With Google being a driving force in WebKit development, but having to get consensus and approval from the rest of the crew that doesn't have the same vision as them- it makes sense for Google to go off on their own.  Now they can do whatever they want- for better or worse.  If it is better and people start adopting it, the remaining WebKit dev's will have to get on their toes and compete.  If they don't they'll become obsolete and that will just indicate they weren't contributing much and really were just stifling progress on Webkit more than anything.  If Google is wrong, Blink won't gain traction and all their current efforts to drive Webkit in the 'blink' direction will have been avoided.   Win/win for webkit as I see it and do or die for blink.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Google forks WebKit with new 'Blink' rendering engine for Chrome