Safari uses the WebCore and WebFoundation frameworks. *THOSE* are essentially Obj-C API wrapped ports of KHTML, et al... the rendering engine of Konqueror, with some other stuff added in. Those frameworks are about 1/2 of the code in Safari, the rest is the UI that is all 100% Konqueror free.
And I said:
Quote:
They don't use 'a set of shared libraries'. HALF (1/2) of Safari's code comes from Konqueror. Even Jobs says that.
So, we agree that half of the code comes from Konqueror. Konqueror as in the component of KDE (its KHTML engine included) and not just Konqueror the browser.
Quote:
You can use those frameworks too, if you like. Omnigroup does for OmniWeb.
I know I can. They're open source under the GPL. This is nothing new.
Quote:
So. The rendering engine in Safari is based heavily on (basically *is*) the rendering engine from Konqueror, but the derivation stops there. The rest of the app is Apple's.
Yes. Which is what I'm saying. Safari *is* Konquerors KHTML and other added code + Apple's code. We agreed that half of Safari's code comes from Konqueror, which leaves another half, that, normally, came from Apple. UI, tabs, et al.
Quote:
Also, in the process of improving the K* libraries, Apple made sure to retain diff-patches along the way. The day Safari was released, the 'poor' KHTML team alone was *bombarded* with a few hundred bug fixes and improvements, all ready to be incorporated into the main project. (One of KHTML leads said he'd never seen Changelog carpet bombing before... and he was grateful for it.)
Poor KHTML team? I doubt they're 'poor'. After all they're the creators of KHTML. But, they did get the changelog and they did incorporate Apple's bugfixes into their next version of Konqueror. I believed I touched on this one as well when I said:
Quote:
Safari is based on Konqueror so much so that Apple decided to release its enhancements back to the Konqueror.
Quote:
So in that sense, Konqueror is 'based on' Apple's changes...
This is just factually not correct. There are many bugfixes that Apple contributed to the Konqueror team and they all represent a part of Konqueror's stability and power, but Konqueror was already a good, stable browser before Apple released its bug fixes. Bug fixes do *not* create a new browser. Konqueror saw some improvements from Apple contribution but it was not created by Apple bug fixes. It existed even before OS X, let alone Safari.
So, essentially, you said the same things I said in a couple of posts before, while claiming I was wrong. Interesting. What's more interesting is that, while no one has a problem claiming that OS X is UNIX-based (on an unofficial version of UNIX) and that it takes advantage of many things from UNIX or UNIX-like OS', those same people, when told that so and so in Apple's software is based on so and so in this UNIX-like system, try to convince you otherwise by all means. I find it interesting indeed. Or maybe I just don't get the delicacy of this whole thing. Could be. Could be.
Yes. Which is what I'm saying. Safari *is* Konquerors KHTML and other added code + Apple's code. We agreed that half of Safari's code comes from Konqueror, which leaves another half, that, normally, came from Apple. UI, tabs, et al.
Now you're arguing semantics... I said that Apple used the KHTML engine and NOTHING else. You argued that Safari had half of Konqueror's code and Steve Jobs said that.
Safari uses KHTML. It doesn't use a single line of code from Konqueror (seeing as it uses Qt and OS X doesn't have Qt).
So, we agree that half of the code comes from Konqueror. Konqueror as in the component of KDE (its KHTML engine included) and not just Konqueror the browser.
Yes, the half that in the form of a set of shared libraries. Which you said wasn't the case. D'oh.
Quote:
Yes. Which is what I'm saying. Safari *is* Konquerors KHTML and other added code + Apple's code. We agreed that half of Safari's code comes from Konqueror, which leaves another half, that, normally, came from Apple. UI, tabs, et al.
Safari is based on (uses) the same rendering engine as Konquerer. It is NOT 'based on' *Konqueror*. Draw a Venn diagram of it. Konquerer is not a subset of Safari, they have an intersecting region.
Quote:
Poor KHTML team? I doubt they're 'poor'. After all they're the creators of KHTML.
Okay, so the quotes around poor to indicate sarcasm were utterly and completely lost on you. Note to self: do not use in future, are wasted.
Quote:
This is just factually not correct.
It is *precisely* as correct as saying that "Safari is based on Konqueror". Which it isn't. Again, sarcasm. Obviously it's not a communication style you're comfortable with.
Quote:
So, essentially, you said the same things I said in a couple of posts before, while claiming I was wrong. Interesting.
*LAUGH* Uh, no. Sarcasm. No matter how you slice it the facts remain:
Safari is based on KHTML, et al
Konqueror is based on KHTML, et al
KHTML et al are a set of shared libraries
Safari is not based on Konqueror
Konqueror is not based on Safari
Your statements that Safari is based on Konqueror, or that they do *not* share a set of shared libraries are simply and utterly false.
Quote:
What's more interesting is that, while no one has a problem claiming that OS X is UNIX-based (on an unofficial version of UNIX) and that it takes advantage of many things from UNIX or UNIX-like OS', those same people, when told that so and so in Apple's software is based on so and so in this UNIX-like system, try to convince you otherwise by all means. I find it interesting indeed. Or maybe I just don't get the delicacy of this whole thing. Could be. Could be.
Wait, you almost have sarcasm there... a little more practice, and you'll get the hang of it.
It's simple logic, really. 'Based on' indicates a proper superset relationship in pretty much everyone's minds except seemingly yours. *shrug* If your axioms and definitions are flawed, then of course your conclusions will be as well.
I said that Apple used the KHTML engine and NOTHING else.
Precisely. But I'm saying they use more than just the KHTML engine. And Kickaha seems to agree that they use more than just the KHTML. And you also said that Safari uses the same engine as Konqueror, while not saying that that engine is Konqueror's own engine.
Quote:
You argued that Safari had half of Konqueror's code and Steve Jobs said that.
I don't argue this. This is a fact. Steve Jobs said it himself when he presented Safari for the first time. Look it up.
Quote:
Safari uses KHTML. It doesn't use a single line of code from Konqueror (seeing as it uses Qt and OS X doesn't have Qt).
Exactly what do you think KHTML is anyway? Isn't it a component of Konqueror and more broady KDE? How can you use KHTML and not use a single line of code from Konqueror?
Quote:
You were wrong. Admit it and move along.
I don't view this as "I'm right, you're wrong" thing. That is child business. You started the whole thing, and you still make claims you can't backup.
But anyway, screw it. Obviously we won't agree so lets just drop this whole thing and forget about it.
[quote]Yes, the half that in the form of a set of shared libraries. Which you said wasn't the case. D'oh.
Yes. D'oh. But I said it doesn't just use "a set of shared libraries" [it was never specified which ones] but the entire KHTML engine, which obviously, comes in a form of a library as do many other things in Linux and Mac OS X.
If you read the whole thing then you would get it. D'oh.
Quote:
Safari is based on (uses) the same rendering engine as Konquerer. It is NOT 'based on' *Konqueror*. Draw a Venn diagram of it. Konquerer is not a subset of Safari, they have an intersecting region.
Seems to me this thing was said many many times and no one is negating this. How 'bout you say it again maybe it'll change meaning.
Quote:
Okay, so the quotes around poor to indicate sarcasm were utterly and completely lost on you. Note to self: do not use in future, are wasted.
You're so funny I almost burst into tears. Note to you: sarcasm should be witty, not half-assed.
Quote:
It is *precisely* as correct as saying that "Safari is based on Konqueror". Which it isn't. Again, sarcasm. Obviously it's not a communication style you're comfortable with.
For a moderator you seem to use sarcasm a lot. It seems its a style you're very comfortable with. Which goes to show something, doesn't it.
Quote:
*LAUGH* Uh, no. Sarcasm. No matter how you slice it the facts remain:
Oh, sarcasm again. D'oh! Seems all you write is, refers to, or uses sarcasm. How nice.
Quote:
Safari is based on KHTML, et al
Konqueror is based on KHTML, et al
KHTML et al are a set of shared libraries
Safari is not based on Konqueror
Konqueror is not based on Safari
You forgot one: KHTML = KDE = Konqueror-developed-engine.
Quote:
Your statements that Safari is based on Konqueror, or that they do *not* share a set of shared libraries are simply and utterly false.
Read a little better sarcastic boy. You might learn something.
I said they don't just share a set of libraries (that could be anything), but the entire rendering engine.
Quote:
Wait, you almost have sarcasm there... a little more practice, and you'll get the hang of it.
Just by reading you I'll master it. All you write seems to be sarcasm so no better teacher then you.
Quote:
It's simple logic, really. 'Based on' indicates a proper superset relationship in pretty much everyone's minds except seemingly yours. *shrug* If your axioms and definitions are flawed, then of course your conclusions will be as well.
Yes, of course. And you seem to have all of the correct conclusions in everything [while repeating what I've said numerous times, but anyway!] Sarcasm, right? Right.
p.s. now I understand what PC people mean by 'Mac fanatic'. Dang.
p.p.s. no more replies to you either. exercise your skills on sarcasm on someone else that actually thinks they're worth something.
And Kickaha seems to agree that they use more than just the KHTML.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
Quote:
And you also said that Safari uses the same engine as Konqueror, while not saying that that engine is Konqueror's own engine.
So because Konqueror uses Qt, any other app that also uses Qt is based on Konqueror?? Um, no. KHTML is a library that Konqueror uses, nothing more.
Quote:
Exactly what do you think KHTML is anyway? Isn't it a component of Konqueror and more broady KDE? How can you use KHTML and not use a single line of code from Konqueror?
Comments
Originally posted by Kickaha
Sorry, Gene, but you're wrong on this one.
Safari uses the WebCore and WebFoundation frameworks. *THOSE* are essentially Obj-C API wrapped ports of KHTML, et al... the rendering engine of Konqueror, with some other stuff added in. Those frameworks are about 1/2 of the code in Safari, the rest is the UI that is all 100% Konqueror free.
And I said:
They don't use 'a set of shared libraries'. HALF (1/2) of Safari's code comes from Konqueror. Even Jobs says that.
So, we agree that half of the code comes from Konqueror. Konqueror as in the component of KDE (its KHTML engine included) and not just Konqueror the browser.
You can use those frameworks too, if you like. Omnigroup does for OmniWeb.
I know I can. They're open source under the GPL. This is nothing new.
So. The rendering engine in Safari is based heavily on (basically *is*) the rendering engine from Konqueror, but the derivation stops there. The rest of the app is Apple's.
Yes. Which is what I'm saying. Safari *is* Konquerors KHTML and other added code + Apple's code. We agreed that half of Safari's code comes from Konqueror, which leaves another half, that, normally, came from Apple. UI, tabs, et al.
Also, in the process of improving the K* libraries, Apple made sure to retain diff-patches along the way. The day Safari was released, the 'poor' KHTML team alone was *bombarded* with a few hundred bug fixes and improvements, all ready to be incorporated into the main project. (One of KHTML leads said he'd never seen Changelog carpet bombing before... and he was grateful for it.)
Poor KHTML team? I doubt they're 'poor'. After all they're the creators of KHTML. But, they did get the changelog and they did incorporate Apple's bugfixes into their next version of Konqueror. I believed I touched on this one as well when I said:
Safari is based on Konqueror so much so that Apple decided to release its enhancements back to the Konqueror.
So in that sense, Konqueror is 'based on' Apple's changes...
This is just factually not correct. There are many bugfixes that Apple contributed to the Konqueror team and they all represent a part of Konqueror's stability and power, but Konqueror was already a good, stable browser before Apple released its bug fixes. Bug fixes do *not* create a new browser. Konqueror saw some improvements from Apple contribution but it was not created by Apple bug fixes. It existed even before OS X, let alone Safari.
So, essentially, you said the same things I said in a couple of posts before, while claiming I was wrong. Interesting. What's more interesting is that, while no one has a problem claiming that OS X is UNIX-based (on an unofficial version of UNIX) and that it takes advantage of many things from UNIX or UNIX-like OS', those same people, when told that so and so in Apple's software is based on so and so in this UNIX-like system, try to convince you otherwise by all means. I find it interesting indeed. Or maybe I just don't get the delicacy of this whole thing. Could be. Could be.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yes. Which is what I'm saying. Safari *is* Konquerors KHTML and other added code + Apple's code. We agreed that half of Safari's code comes from Konqueror, which leaves another half, that, normally, came from Apple. UI, tabs, et al.
Now you're arguing semantics... I said that Apple used the KHTML engine and NOTHING else. You argued that Safari had half of Konqueror's code and Steve Jobs said that.
Safari uses KHTML. It doesn't use a single line of code from Konqueror (seeing as it uses Qt and OS X doesn't have Qt).
You were wrong. Admit it and move along.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
So, we agree that half of the code comes from Konqueror. Konqueror as in the component of KDE (its KHTML engine included) and not just Konqueror the browser.
Yes, the half that in the form of a set of shared libraries. Which you said wasn't the case. D'oh.
Yes. Which is what I'm saying. Safari *is* Konquerors KHTML and other added code + Apple's code. We agreed that half of Safari's code comes from Konqueror, which leaves another half, that, normally, came from Apple. UI, tabs, et al.
Safari is based on (uses) the same rendering engine as Konquerer. It is NOT 'based on' *Konqueror*. Draw a Venn diagram of it. Konquerer is not a subset of Safari, they have an intersecting region.
Poor KHTML team? I doubt they're 'poor'. After all they're the creators of KHTML.
Okay, so the quotes around poor to indicate sarcasm were utterly and completely lost on you. Note to self: do not use in future, are wasted.
This is just factually not correct.
It is *precisely* as correct as saying that "Safari is based on Konqueror". Which it isn't. Again, sarcasm. Obviously it's not a communication style you're comfortable with.
So, essentially, you said the same things I said in a couple of posts before, while claiming I was wrong. Interesting.
*LAUGH* Uh, no. Sarcasm. No matter how you slice it the facts remain:
Safari is based on KHTML, et al
Konqueror is based on KHTML, et al
KHTML et al are a set of shared libraries
Safari is not based on Konqueror
Konqueror is not based on Safari
Your statements that Safari is based on Konqueror, or that they do *not* share a set of shared libraries are simply and utterly false.
What's more interesting is that, while no one has a problem claiming that OS X is UNIX-based (on an unofficial version of UNIX) and that it takes advantage of many things from UNIX or UNIX-like OS', those same people, when told that so and so in Apple's software is based on so and so in this UNIX-like system, try to convince you otherwise by all means. I find it interesting indeed. Or maybe I just don't get the delicacy of this whole thing. Could be. Could be.
Wait, you almost have sarcasm there... a little more practice, and you'll get the hang of it.
It's simple logic, really. 'Based on' indicates a proper superset relationship in pretty much everyone's minds except seemingly yours. *shrug* If your axioms and definitions are flawed, then of course your conclusions will be as well.
Originally posted by mikef
[B]Now you're arguing semantics...
You think?
I said that Apple used the KHTML engine and NOTHING else.
Precisely. But I'm saying they use more than just the KHTML engine. And Kickaha seems to agree that they use more than just the KHTML. And you also said that Safari uses the same engine as Konqueror, while not saying that that engine is Konqueror's own engine.
You argued that Safari had half of Konqueror's code and Steve Jobs said that.
I don't argue this. This is a fact. Steve Jobs said it himself when he presented Safari for the first time. Look it up.
Safari uses KHTML. It doesn't use a single line of code from Konqueror (seeing as it uses Qt and OS X doesn't have Qt).
Exactly what do you think KHTML is anyway? Isn't it a component of Konqueror and more broady KDE? How can you use KHTML and not use a single line of code from Konqueror?
You were wrong. Admit it and move along.
I don't view this as "I'm right, you're wrong" thing. That is child business. You started the whole thing, and you still make claims you can't backup.
But anyway, screw it. Obviously we won't agree so lets just drop this whole thing and forget about it.
No more replies from me.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Doubt it'll happen.
How brave.
[quote]Yes, the half that in the form of a set of shared libraries. Which you said wasn't the case. D'oh.
Yes. D'oh. But I said it doesn't just use "a set of shared libraries" [it was never specified which ones] but the entire KHTML engine, which obviously, comes in a form of a library as do many other things in Linux and Mac OS X.
If you read the whole thing then you would get it. D'oh.
Safari is based on (uses) the same rendering engine as Konquerer. It is NOT 'based on' *Konqueror*. Draw a Venn diagram of it. Konquerer is not a subset of Safari, they have an intersecting region.
Seems to me this thing was said many many times and no one is negating this. How 'bout you say it again maybe it'll change meaning.
Okay, so the quotes around poor to indicate sarcasm were utterly and completely lost on you. Note to self: do not use in future, are wasted.
You're so funny I almost burst into tears. Note to you: sarcasm should be witty, not half-assed.
It is *precisely* as correct as saying that "Safari is based on Konqueror". Which it isn't. Again, sarcasm. Obviously it's not a communication style you're comfortable with.
For a moderator you seem to use sarcasm a lot. It seems its a style you're very comfortable with. Which goes to show something, doesn't it.
*LAUGH* Uh, no. Sarcasm. No matter how you slice it the facts remain:
Oh, sarcasm again. D'oh! Seems all you write is, refers to, or uses sarcasm. How nice.
Safari is based on KHTML, et al
Konqueror is based on KHTML, et al
KHTML et al are a set of shared libraries
Safari is not based on Konqueror
Konqueror is not based on Safari
You forgot one: KHTML = KDE = Konqueror-developed-engine.
Your statements that Safari is based on Konqueror, or that they do *not* share a set of shared libraries are simply and utterly false.
Read a little better sarcastic boy. You might learn something.
I said they don't just share a set of libraries (that could be anything), but the entire rendering engine.
Wait, you almost have sarcasm there... a little more practice, and you'll get the hang of it.
Just by reading you I'll master it. All you write seems to be sarcasm so no better teacher then you.
It's simple logic, really. 'Based on' indicates a proper superset relationship in pretty much everyone's minds except seemingly yours. *shrug* If your axioms and definitions are flawed, then of course your conclusions will be as well.
Yes, of course. And you seem to have all of the correct conclusions in everything [while repeating what I've said numerous times, but anyway!] Sarcasm, right? Right.
p.s. now I understand what PC people mean by 'Mac fanatic'. Dang.
p.p.s. no more replies to you either. exercise your skills on sarcasm on someone else that actually thinks they're worth something.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
And Kickaha seems to agree that they use more than just the KHTML.
Please don't put words in my mouth.
And you also said that Safari uses the same engine as Konqueror, while not saying that that engine is Konqueror's own engine.
So because Konqueror uses Qt, any other app that also uses Qt is based on Konqueror?? Um, no. KHTML is a library that Konqueror uses, nothing more.
Exactly what do you think KHTML is anyway? Isn't it a component of Konqueror and more broady KDE? How can you use KHTML and not use a single line of code from Konqueror?
See above. KHTML is part of the KDE developer architecture, not part of the Konqueror project. Don't believe me? http://developer.kde.org/documentati...deqt/kde3arch/
KHTML is not 'part of' Konqueror. Any app can use it.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
How brave.
Naw, you made it a sucker bet.
You forgot one: KHTML = KDE = Konqueror-developed-engine.
http://www.kde.org/ : K Desktop Environment. This may be part of your misunderstanding.