|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Note the common thread here

Note the common thread here

Posted Mar 17, 2010 21:13 UTC (Wed) by jmorris42 (guest, #2203)
Parent article: Applications and bundled libraries

What is the same with both Moz and Chromium is interesting. Both are highly complex packages PORTED from Windows as an afterthought.

We really have two choices, either invest the effort to create an HTML5 compatible browser for *NIX or accept the fact we are utterly dependent on a port and accept the consequences that logically follow from that. Those being we have to remember we are a parasite and thus must exert every effort to put as little strain on their resources as possible, even if it mean WE have to invest considerable effort to adapt to their alien customs and compromise our best practices and even compromise security.

And no, WebKit isn't any better. It may have started as a KDE effort but it is now an Apple project so if we grow a dependency on that we still are tied to the needs of an alien system.

But does Linux even follow the "UNIX Way" itself? No, just look at the horrors the distributions suffer keeping a stable kernel through a long term release. So lets not get get the pitchforks out at Moz or Google, the problem is a lot bigger.

What would really, really go a long way to solving the problem is if the libraries could actually get to a stable release that wouldn't require chasing the bleeding edge so much. Look through the dependencies of any major software and note how many 0.x versions of libraries they are linking against. Note the comment above from a Google dev, they aren't patching the heck out of libraries to be evil, they are mostly patching because they have to patch bugs and add needed features.

Just one thought on the notion of adopting Windows' every app carries copies of every lib habit. Forget EVER nailing down security because that would be as crazy as expecting Windows to ever be secure.

As for xulrunner, all I can say is Doh! It was pitched as a platform to build other apps with but there was never the slightest promise of the longterm stability that would be required to make it practical and by now we have enough actual history to show it ain't going to happen. Like all browser type products it is a roach motel so not updating isn't really an option and old versions aren't going to get patched. So anyone who was an early adopter can perhaps be forgiven for falling for hype but anyone still using it has to accept they are equally guilty, suck it up and either do the heavy lifting once to rebase on something else or keep up the constant churn involved with chasing the taillights. But either way, no bitchin' allowed.


to post comments

Note the common thread here

Posted Mar 17, 2010 22:38 UTC (Wed) by kov (subscriber, #7423) [Link]

You say:

"And no, WebKit isn't any better. It may have started as a KDE effort but it is now an Apple project so if we grow a dependency on that we still are tied to the needs of an alien system."

This means you're likely not really aware of what WebKit is, and how its development model works. Why do you think it is Apple's only, when Collabora, Igalia, Google, Nokia, RIM, Samsung, are all investing work on it?

What port of WebKit are you talking about? Apple ports? Google's port? GTK+, Qt, EFL, WinCE, WX, which one? The GTK+ and Qt ports are very similar to any normal GTK+ and Qt projects you'll find in your normal distribution, with API stability, and all you'd expect from a normal library.

The reason Canonical is going with the webkit branches of all software it is able to go with (Epiphany, Devhelp, Yelp, Gwibber) is because the WebKitGTK+ port does not suffer from most of the badness that was listed above, and provides API/ABI stability, being pushed by a Free Software friendly team that are mostly GNOME developers.

It's a pitty WebKitGTK+ and QtWebKit have been largely ignored by most of the articles related to this issue, though =(.

Note the common thread here

Posted Mar 18, 2010 13:26 UTC (Thu) by gerv (guest, #3376) [Link] (1 responses)

What is the same with both Moz and Chromium is interesting. Both are highly complex packages PORTED from Windows as an afterthought.

For Mozilla, that's simply not true - at least not "ported from _Windows_". All the way back to Netscape Navigator, the code has run on Linux and Unix. The port was never an afterthought. And today, if you surveyed Mozilla core developers' laptops for their preferred OS, if any came out on top, it would probably be Mac OS X. And yet no-one claims that the Linux version of Moz is "ported from Mac as an afterthought".

Gerv

Note the common thread here

Posted Mar 18, 2010 13:38 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

Windows is the _primary_ target, then; Linux/Unix targets are (very) secondary.


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds