Cool, another big company using WebKit, take that IE. Some people dont want to use Safari cause well, they are anti-Apple, but who is an anti-Google or both? I dont think so, I do hope more users will realize that IE is the worst browser in the planet and its time for a change, like Obama's campaign slogan.
The age of WebKit and Gecko has arrived, the time of Trident has ended .
It sounds like a huge waste of time and distraction for Google, and a great way to alienate people. Google needs to figure out what its business really is before they jump the shark.
Alienate people... how? Must a business have only one singular focus? Do you see no potential in how this might support their other businesses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist
I'm very happy that it's Webkit-based, as well. I can only assume that the Gecko rendering engine is what's wrong with Firefox; maybe some of the people who don't like Safari for some inexplicable reason, and have switched to Firefox will try it and see how incredibly, horripilatingly s...l...o...w Firefox is by comparison, and how poorly it scrolls (to name just two of its many, many annoyances.) I look forward to a Webkit majority in the not-too-distant future!
With web browsers, YMMV. I have not had your experience at all. I like Firefox for quick & easy plug-ins, no spelunking file systems to install and remove.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
I could be wrong what with all the back and forth and all the times they have changed their minds ... but has not the Mozilla dudes finally settled on *not* using WebKit? If that's the case, then the reason for this browser is the same as the reason for all Google's stuff which is the promotion of open web standards. Makes sense to me.
All browsers, especially open source browsers like FireFox should use WebKit. If FireFox is still going to do that, then this development makes no sense at all, but as long as they don't, someone has to twist their arm for the good of the web.
You should know from history of biology and technology, monocultures are BAD. It's bad enough that it's still practiced in both of those fields, there's no reason to advocate moving towards one. Everything using the same core engine? That's just an invitation to trouble. If there's a zero day hack, what do you jump to until it's fixed?
You mean exactly like Safari? And they're using a JIT JavaScript engine, exactly like Safari 4.0? And the WebKit rendering engine exactly like Safari?
I haven't heard a single thing other than pre-packaging their Gears runtime (instead of clicking to download it once) that differentiates it in any way from Safari.
Then this comic book was clearly too technically complicated for your understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga
It sounds like a huge waste of time and distraction for Google, and a great way to alienate people. Google needs to figure out what its business really is before they jump the shark.
Google Chrome = Google OS
Google is building Chrome for the same reason Apple built Safari.
Before Safari Microsoft controlled the internet on Macs.
Despite Mozilla's attempts, Microsoft still dominates the internet and has been holding it back.
Google is attempting to use it's muscle to dethrone Internet Explorer and force web standards to become standard.
It would be great if Webkit became the new open standard for browsing the web. But on market share gecko wins out.
I don't think you understand the concept of "open web standards". The whole idea behind an "open standard" is that the specifications of that standard are widely and freely available to all of the different competing parties to ensure universal interoperability, while at the same time allowing independent implementations of said standard. Thus, if all the different rendering engine implementations (Webkit, Gecko, etc) adhere to the standard (HTML 5.0) correctly, then any given webpage will look and behave exactly the same regardless of the browser used.
Also, there is no benefit to having a sole rendering engine used in all the different browsers. It would be detrimental to the future of the web, since it would limit technical innovation and new advances compared to having a diverse ecosystem where different fundamental software strategies and techniques can compete amongst each other for technical superiority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksec
Why are they not going with SquirrelFish but create yet another javascript engine V8?
Although it is producing Native Code sounds much like the Tracemonkey in Mozilla.
Since they are all open source project, why Google just not help to combine v8 and SquirrelFish together and stop reinventing the wheel. And WebKit will definately need Google's imput to help drive it faster, better, more standard compliant.
Well, as I spoke about above, it's much better to have competing forces that are able to evaluate different techniques and programming models to find the best one. And It's really not "re-inventing the wheel" since the ideas behind each project are somewhat unique. But I do agree that they could possibly collaborate and find a hybrid system that works even better than either of the individual projects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flemsha
Imagine that an Internet where you browse with the browser of your choice and everything just works. Doesn't matter if you are using Safari, Firefox, Opera, IE or Chrome (or anything else for that matter), and whether it is on Windows, OSX, Linux, Symbian or whatever your computer or device uses. I vote Outlook web access to get the first standards compliant makeover.
Who broke the Internet again?
I don't understand your point. Obviously what you are describing is great and what everyone is working towards in advocating open web standards. But if your comment is a reply to the post you quoted, I don't see the connection.
Nokia is going with FF. I don't know how they count devices but with the iPhone, Android and the Blackberry there are going to be a lot of WebKit-based browsers out their.
You sure? What has changed? I'm pretty sure they were using webkit.
You mean exactly like Safari? And they're using a JIT JavaScript engine, exactly like Safari 4.0? And the WebKit rendering engine exactly like Safari?
Erm no, Chrome will not use JIT, it will use their own JS Engine, the only similarities is it will have the functions that can be found in all modern browsers (IE 7 excluded). It will use the same rendering engine as Safari which is WebKit.
Its amazing how fast WebKit is growing (both computer and mobile) since the iPhone uses WebKit Mobile (I just made this name up ). Every smartphone company is now pushing to make a full-fledged web browser and their preferred rendering engine is WebKit. Sounds sweet to me.
Now if only Apple would be more serious into developing SproutCore and with the cooperation with Google (Im quite sure they can find a solution to make, SC, Gears and GWT to live together), then I will be very happy
[QUOTE=winterspan;1301223]Also, there is no benefit to having a sole rendering engine used in all the different browsers. It would be detrimental to the future of the web, since it would limit technical innovation and new advances compared to having a diverse ecosystem where different fundamental software strategies and techniques can compete amongst each other for technical superiority.
So basically what you are saying is that the fact that all automobiles use steering wheels, instead of some using wheels and some using joysticks and some using head mounted displays is detrimental to the future of the auto industry. Sometimes standards are a good thing.
You mean exactly like Safari? And they're using a JIT JavaScript engine, exactly like Safari 4.0? And the WebKit rendering engine exactly like Safari?
I haven't heard a single thing other than pre-packaging their Gears runtime (instead of clicking to download it once) that differentiates it in any way from Safari.
Then you obviously didn't read/understand the comic in it's entirety, as they explain very clearly what sets it apart from other browsers.
Also, there is no benefit to having a sole rendering engine used in all the different browsers. It would be detrimental to the future of the web, since it would limit technical innovation and new advances compared to having a diverse ecosystem where different fundamental software strategies and techniques can compete amongst each other for technical superiority.
So basically what you are saying is that the fact that all automobiles use steering wheels, instead of some using wheels and some using joysticks and some using head mounted displays is detrimental to the future of the auto industry. Sometimes standards are a good thing.
Your analogy just doesn't connect here. Since we're in lame car analogy land, then consider it using the exact same engine and transmission, regardless of the vehicle type, use and size. Safari is flexible, but everybody using the same core engine is bad for reasons I went into maybe a dozen posts back.
Erm no, Chrome will not use JIT, it will use their own JS Engine, the only similarities is it will have the functions that can be found in all modern browsers (IE 7 excluded).
JIT stands for Just In Time. It does not refer to a specific JavaScript engine; rather, it refers to a design choice for building such an engine.
So basically what you are saying is that the fact that all automobiles use steering wheels, instead of some using wheels and some using joysticks and some using head mounted displays is detrimental to the future of the auto industry. Sometimes standards are a good thing.
Your analogy is flawed.
The steering wheel is the User Interface of the car not the "rendering engine".
Cars have all kinds of engines combustion, electric, hybrid, steam, solar, etc...
But they all conform to the "road standard" of getting you from point A to point B in one piece.
Web browsers all have basically the same "steering wheel"...(URL bar, forward and back buttons) and yes that is a good thing.
Everyone who says this is to promote open web standards needs to read more carefully. This is to promote Google Gears, which is Google's competitor in the Flex/Silverlight/OpenLaszlo/etc "rich client" battle. It will essentially be divisive and make the web LESS interoperable.
Everyone who says this is to promote open web standards needs to read more carefully. This is to promote Google Gears, which is Google's competitor in the Flex/Silverlight/OpenLaszlo/etc "rich client" battle. It will essentially be divisive and make the web LESS interoperable.
The whole point of Google Gears is to make it easy for developers to create web apps that work well in ALL BROWSERS THAT SUPPORT WEB STANDARDS.
Which web browsers doesn't Google Mail work well in?
Just as long as it performs like a standard Windows app, it should be fine. And to potentially have a better Webkit-based browser in OSX and Linux will be good too.
I like Safari, but just hate how it handles pages, rather than let you by default open pages in new tabs, it requires you do hold down cmd, or else it opens in a new window, and I don't like how it handles bookmarks. And then for the Windows version, it looks somewhat ugly, has graphical issues with the UI, so in the meantime, I've dumped the Windows version completely from all my PCs.
Midori is fine, but too basic ATM, but it's a start on the Linux side, Chrome should be more feature-rich obviously.
More competition is good though, and I'm also hoping FF 3.1 really does improve it's JS speed.
Comments
Although it is producing Native Code sounds much like the Tracemonkey in Mozilla.
Since they are all open source project, why Google just not help to combine v8 and SquirrelFish together and stop reinventing the wheel.
And WebKit will definately need Google's imput to help drive it faster, better, more standard compliant.
The age of WebKit and Gecko has arrived, the time of Trident has ended
It sounds like a huge waste of time and distraction for Google, and a great way to alienate people. Google needs to figure out what its business really is before they jump the shark.
Alienate people... how? Must a business have only one singular focus? Do you see no potential in how this might support their other businesses?
I'm very happy that it's Webkit-based, as well. I can only assume that the Gecko rendering engine is what's wrong with Firefox; maybe some of the people who don't like Safari for some inexplicable reason, and have switched to Firefox will try it and see how incredibly, horripilatingly s...l...o...w Firefox is by comparison, and how poorly it scrolls (to name just two of its many, many annoyances.) I look forward to a Webkit majority in the not-too-distant future!
With web browsers, YMMV. I have not had your experience at all. I like Firefox for quick & easy plug-ins, no spelunking file systems to install and remove.
I could be wrong what with all the back and forth and all the times they have changed their minds ... but has not the Mozilla dudes finally settled on *not* using WebKit? If that's the case, then the reason for this browser is the same as the reason for all Google's stuff which is the promotion of open web standards. Makes sense to me.
All browsers, especially open source browsers like FireFox should use WebKit. If FireFox is still going to do that, then this development makes no sense at all, but as long as they don't, someone has to twist their arm for the good of the web.
You should know from history of biology and technology, monocultures are BAD. It's bad enough that it's still practiced in both of those fields, there's no reason to advocate moving towards one. Everything using the same core engine? That's just an invitation to trouble. If there's a zero day hack, what do you jump to until it's fixed?
You mean exactly like Safari? And they're using a JIT JavaScript engine, exactly like Safari 4.0? And the WebKit rendering engine exactly like Safari?
I haven't heard a single thing other than pre-packaging their Gears runtime (instead of clicking to download it once) that differentiates it in any way from Safari.
Then this comic book was clearly too technically complicated for your understanding.
It sounds like a huge waste of time and distraction for Google, and a great way to alienate people. Google needs to figure out what its business really is before they jump the shark.
Google Chrome = Google OS
Google is building Chrome for the same reason Apple built Safari.
Before Safari Microsoft controlled the internet on Macs.
Despite Mozilla's attempts, Microsoft still dominates the internet and has been holding it back.
Google is attempting to use it's muscle to dethrone Internet Explorer and force web standards to become standard.
...All browsers, especially open source browsers like FireFox should use WebKit...
You can have any flavor as long as it is vanilla.
Web standards are "standards" how you implement them is up to you.
All browsers, especially open source browsers like FireFox should meet web standards.
It doesn't matter what rendering engine they use as long we always get the same end result.
It would be great if Webkit became the new open standard for browsing the web. But on market share gecko wins out.
I don't think you understand the concept of "open web standards". The whole idea behind an "open standard" is that the specifications of that standard are widely and freely available to all of the different competing parties to ensure universal interoperability, while at the same time allowing independent implementations of said standard. Thus, if all the different rendering engine implementations (Webkit, Gecko, etc) adhere to the standard (HTML 5.0) correctly, then any given webpage will look and behave exactly the same regardless of the browser used.
Also, there is no benefit to having a sole rendering engine used in all the different browsers. It would be detrimental to the future of the web, since it would limit technical innovation and new advances compared to having a diverse ecosystem where different fundamental software strategies and techniques can compete amongst each other for technical superiority.
Why are they not going with SquirrelFish but create yet another javascript engine V8?
Although it is producing Native Code sounds much like the Tracemonkey in Mozilla.
Since they are all open source project, why Google just not help to combine v8 and SquirrelFish together and stop reinventing the wheel. And WebKit will definately need Google's imput to help drive it faster, better, more standard compliant.
Well, as I spoke about above, it's much better to have competing forces that are able to evaluate different techniques and programming models to find the best one. And It's really not "re-inventing the wheel" since the ideas behind each project are somewhat unique. But I do agree that they could possibly collaborate and find a hybrid system that works even better than either of the individual projects.
Imagine that an Internet where you browse with the browser of your choice and everything just works. Doesn't matter if you are using Safari, Firefox, Opera, IE or Chrome (or anything else for that matter), and whether it is on Windows, OSX, Linux, Symbian or whatever your computer or device uses. I vote Outlook web access to get the first standards compliant makeover.
Who broke the Internet again?
I don't understand your point. Obviously what you are describing is great and what everyone is working towards in advocating open web standards. But if your comment is a reply to the post you quoted, I don't see the connection.
It's just cracking me up...
Nokia is going with FF. I don't know how they count devices but with the iPhone, Android and the Blackberry there are going to be a lot of WebKit-based browsers out their.
You sure? What has changed? I'm pretty sure they were using webkit.
You mean exactly like Safari? And they're using a JIT JavaScript engine, exactly like Safari 4.0? And the WebKit rendering engine exactly like Safari?
Erm no, Chrome will not use JIT, it will use their own JS Engine, the only similarities is it will have the functions that can be found in all modern browsers (IE 7 excluded). It will use the same rendering engine as Safari which is WebKit.
Its amazing how fast WebKit is growing (both computer and mobile) since the iPhone uses WebKit Mobile (I just made this name up
Now if only Apple would be more serious into developing SproutCore and with the cooperation with Google (Im quite sure they can find a solution to make, SC, Gears and GWT to live together), then I will be very happy
WebKit has Safari, Android, Google Chrome, and now RiM's BB. Nokia is going with FF.
Actually, Nokia were the first company to put WebKit on a cell phone and their roadmap hasn't changed as far as I know.
So basically what you are saying is that the fact that all automobiles use steering wheels, instead of some using wheels and some using joysticks and some using head mounted displays is detrimental to the future of the auto industry.
You mean exactly like Safari? And they're using a JIT JavaScript engine, exactly like Safari 4.0? And the WebKit rendering engine exactly like Safari?
I haven't heard a single thing other than pre-packaging their Gears runtime (instead of clicking to download it once) that differentiates it in any way from Safari.
Then you obviously didn't read/understand the comic in it's entirety, as they explain very clearly what sets it apart from other browsers.
Also, there is no benefit to having a sole rendering engine used in all the different browsers. It would be detrimental to the future of the web, since it would limit technical innovation and new advances compared to having a diverse ecosystem where different fundamental software strategies and techniques can compete amongst each other for technical superiority.
So basically what you are saying is that the fact that all automobiles use steering wheels, instead of some using wheels and some using joysticks and some using head mounted displays is detrimental to the future of the auto industry.
Your analogy just doesn't connect here. Since we're in lame car analogy land, then consider it using the exact same engine and transmission, regardless of the vehicle type, use and size. Safari is flexible, but everybody using the same core engine is bad for reasons I went into maybe a dozen posts back.
Erm no, Chrome will not use JIT, it will use their own JS Engine, the only similarities is it will have the functions that can be found in all modern browsers (IE 7 excluded).
JIT stands for Just In Time. It does not refer to a specific JavaScript engine; rather, it refers to a design choice for building such an engine.
Amorya
So basically what you are saying is that the fact that all automobiles use steering wheels, instead of some using wheels and some using joysticks and some using head mounted displays is detrimental to the future of the auto industry.
Your analogy is flawed.
The steering wheel is the User Interface of the car not the "rendering engine".
Cars have all kinds of engines combustion, electric, hybrid, steam, solar, etc...
But they all conform to the "road standard" of getting you from point A to point B in one piece.
Web browsers all have basically the same "steering wheel"...(URL bar, forward and back buttons) and yes that is a good thing.
Everyone who says this is to promote open web standards needs to read more carefully. This is to promote Google Gears, which is Google's competitor in the Flex/Silverlight/OpenLaszlo/etc "rich client" battle. It will essentially be divisive and make the web LESS interoperable.
The whole point of Google Gears is to make it easy for developers to create web apps that work well in ALL BROWSERS THAT SUPPORT WEB STANDARDS.
Which web browsers doesn't Google Mail work well in?
I like Safari, but just hate how it handles pages, rather than let you by default open pages in new tabs, it requires you do hold down cmd, or else it opens in a new window, and I don't like how it handles bookmarks. And then for the Windows version, it looks somewhat ugly, has graphical issues with the UI, so in the meantime, I've dumped the Windows version completely from all my PCs.
Midori is fine, but too basic ATM, but it's a start on the Linux side, Chrome should be more feature-rich obviously.
More competition is good though, and I'm also hoping FF 3.1 really does improve it's JS speed.