I think I mentioned it a couple days ago. "Rust" is the new programming language. For [B]now[/B] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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)...
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.
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...
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...).
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85
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.
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)...
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stef
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamieLeSouef
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.
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...).
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/
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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…
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolfactor
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.