Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WebKitGTK+ 2.0.0 Released With Many New Features

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WebKitGTK+ 2.0.0 Released With Many New Features

    Phoronix: WebKitGTK+ 2.0.0 Released With Many New Features

    After being in development for the past two years, WebKitGTK+ 2.0.0 has been released and it defaults to their new WebKit2GTK+ API...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTM0OTI

  • #2
    Webkit gtk image scaling

    Webkit-gtk even 3 years after STILL has terrible image scaling.
    Chrome(ium) always had good image scaling.
    Firefox fixed their image scaling a while back. (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=486918)
    Yet webkit gtk has made absolutely no progress on the issue after a whole 3 years (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50703)
    At this rate it'll never be fixed and we'll be stuck with terrible image scaling for every webkit-gtk browser.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by maksml View Post
      Webkit-gtk even 3 years after STILL has terrible image scaling.
      Chrome(ium) always had good image scaling.
      Firefox fixed their image scaling a while back. (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=486918)
      Yet webkit gtk has made absolutely no progress on the issue after a whole 3 years (https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50703)
      At this rate it'll never be fixed and we'll be stuck with terrible image scaling for every webkit-gtk browser.
      Never noticed any issue's. Isn't this a little overblown?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
        Never noticed any issue's. Isn't this a little overblown?
        Look at this in a webkit-gtk based browser
        https://bug486918.bugzilla.mozilla.o....cgi?id=428179

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by maksml View Post
          Look at this in a webkit-gtk based browser
          https://bug486918.bugzilla.mozilla.o....cgi?id=428179
          I went to check, and added a screenshot to confirm we are talking about the same thing.

          Code:
          gebruiker@Delta:~$ ldd $(which midori) | grep -i webkit
          	libwebkitgtk-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libwebkitgtk-1.0.so.0 (0xb53c2000)
          That's 1.



          Left is chromium.
          Right is midori.

          That's 2.

          Hmm, I can live with that really. Why all the fuss? I mean, someone could just propose a patch to change the scaling algorithm. Or is that a 'big deal'?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Rexilion View Post
            I went to check, and added a screenshot to confirm we are talking about the same thing.

            Code:
            gebruiker@Delta:~$ ldd $(which midori) | grep -i webkit
            	libwebkitgtk-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libwebkitgtk-1.0.so.0 (0xb53c2000)
            That's 1.



            Left is chromium.
            Right is midori.

            That's 2.

            Hmm, I can live with that really. Why all the fuss? I mean, someone could just propose a patch to change the scaling algorithm. Or is that a 'big deal'?
            Why all the fuss? Are you serious?
            Go get some glasses and look again.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by maksml View Post
              Why all the fuss? Are you serious?
              Go get some glasses and look again.
              How many sites take huge images and downsample them into tiny images, though? That's just a huge waste of bandwidth.

              Obviously improving this would be nice for browsers, but it's hardly the sort of thing an average user is running into all the time.

              Comment


              • #8
                The average user, who has a less-than-fullHD screen, is running to that daily. Even fullHD screens nowadays, when the cat pictures are 16Mpix.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by curaga View Post
                  The average user, who has a less-than-fullHD screen, is running to that daily. Even fullHD screens nowadays, when the cat pictures are 16Mpix.
                  I find that hard to believe, if that statement is not a joke. 16MPix cat pictures are somewhat non-existent. Care to share some of them from your private collection to prove otherwise?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Sorry, the cat pictures of my friend are private. But are you saying you don't see larger-than-fullHD pictures often?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by curaga View Post
                      Sorry, the cat pictures of my friend are private. But are you saying you don't see larger-than-fullHD pictures often?
                      Yes, that's exactly what i'm saying. Where do you see all these images? I'm not a 4chan guy, so maybe it's important there.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Facetwitterster doesn't let you post full pictures anymore? All old-fashioned picture dumps certainly ("go to this url to see my holiday pics, straight from the cam").

                        And imageboards, yes.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by curaga View Post
                          Facetwitterster doesn't let you post full pictures anymore? All old-fashioned picture dumps certainly ("go to this url to see my holiday pics, straight from the cam").

                          And imageboards, yes.
                          Wait what??

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Haha, I see I'm becoming Q

                            Translation into long english:

                            Facebook, Twitter, Friendster, and other social notworking sites don't allow posting such images?

                            Old-fashioned image dumps stored on a http server somewhere certainly are a source of such images, as are imageboards.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by curaga View Post
                              Haha, I see I'm becoming Q

                              Translation into long english:

                              Facebook, Twitter, Friendster, and other social notworking sites don't allow posting such images?

                              Old-fashioned image dumps stored on a http server somewhere certainly are a source of such images, as are imageboards.
                              Still not convinced. But maybe its because i dont surf much.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X