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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
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:
"[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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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".
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.
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.
Exactly. Google wants to control the Internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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.
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?
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcorby23
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.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Mozilla is doing a from-scratch rewrite of their engine as well, in collaboration with Samsung...