Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google Replacing GTK2 With Aura In Chrome 35

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by Alejandro Nova View Post
    Whoever labeled this release "unstable" is a liar. Chrome 35 with Aura is faster and more stable than Chrome 34 with GTK2. Also, you may see hardware decoding enabled, but you require a strict set of conditions (hardware decoding is via VAAPI/VDPAU, so only works on NVIDIA proprietary, Intel free, and AMD free. Also, you need a very recent release of Mesa to make it happen, and disabling the GPU blacklist is mandatory).
    i can comfirm, i have enabled every thing with the word accelerated on about://flags and its.. just... AWESOME!
    the only issu i see so far is that if you use system borders on ubuntu the colors dont match on the theme besides that no issue so far.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Alejandro Nova View Post
      Damn edit time limit. Just read the new CLA and I get that you are indeed right. Now you only allow relicensing, but you keep those rights. However, this policy only applies from 2011 on. Correcting.

      http://www.canonical.com/static/file...-CLA-ANY-I.pdf
      You're still wrong. From the link you quote:

      You retain ownership of the Copyright in Your
      Contribution and have the same rights to use or license the
      Contribution which You would have had without entering
      into the Agreement.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Alejandro Nova View Post

        This commit has landed. Now, if you disable the GPU blacklist, you get video decoding acceleration, within the limitations of your system.

        https://codereview.chromium.org/176883018/
        So do unstable builds have this commit in already? (just trying to confirm)

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Ouroboros View Post
          Canonical would never support all those platforms.
          You're comparing apples to oranges. Canonical doesn't have any cross platform native applications, so why would they need to support multiple platforms?

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by chrisb View Post
            You're comparing apples to oranges. Canonical doesn't have any cross platform native applications, so why would they need to support multiple platforms?
            I was replying to edoantonioco, who asked "what would have happened if we had replaced "google" with "canonical"?"

            I was simply trying to say that Canonical wouldn't support as many platforms if they were the original AURA developers, nor would they actually use their resources to create a project from scratch in the first place when they can just rebrand others', make small modifications and call it their own.

            Canonical solution = Fork, rebrand, make small modifications, advertise as being significantly superior to the original in every way.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by chrisb View Post
              You're comparing apples to oranges. Canonical doesn't have any cross platform native applications, so why would they need to support multiple platforms?
              How about we switch Canonical's name with Microsoft. There would be thousands of people lining up to chant Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

              Google is only doing something to a single application, one which they have made from scratch (well, minus the webkit stuff) without major 3rd party contributions. Canonical, on the other hand, controls an entire distribution and all the applications it ships with. And most of those are from 3rd parties. So i really don't see the comparison here at all. That's the apples and oranges.
              Last edited by smitty3268; 03-12-2014, 02:52 AM.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                How about we switch Canonical's name with Microsoft. There would be thousands of people lining up to chant Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

                Google is only doing something to a single application, one which they have made from scratch (well, minus the webkit stuff) without major 3rd party contributions. Canonical, on the other hand, controls an entire distribution and all the applications it ships with. And most of those are from 3rd parties. So i really don't see the comparison here at all. That's the apples and oranges.
                Well, this isn't true. They've used the webkit browser engine, and in a browser the browser engine is definitely the most difficult part to write (indeed no one writes new browser engines, even Apple didn't do their own thing and used KHTML. Only recently Mozilla has started Servo, but it's still in its early stages). So you can't say they've written it from scrath.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by edoantonioco View Post
                  Google created AURA as an replacement for GTK, no problem with the community. what would have happened if we had replaced "google" with "canonical"?
                  So what? It's not like we don't already have a zillion toolkits. As long as Canonical's hypothetical toolkit worked well in all environments (not just Canonical's own), it'd be just fine. A bit pointless, but fine.

                  This is what I hate about diehard ubuntu fanboys. The constant passive-agressiveness, the persecution complex, the need to turn every conversation into Canonical and how everyone supposedly persecutes them... "wah wah wah! everyone hates canonical! why does nobody UNDERSTAND mark's great vision!"

                  You're all like a bunch of whiny emo hipster kids.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by chrisb View Post
                    You're comparing apples to oranges. Canonical doesn't have any cross platform native applications, so why would they need to support multiple platforms?
                    What about Ubuntu One?

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      I've read plenty of complaints already regarding the new toolkit. What does Aura even do that neither GTK nor Qt couldn't do?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X