Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: Google Replacing GTK2 With Aura In Chrome 35

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,657

    Default Google Replacing GTK2 With Aura In Chrome 35

    Phoronix: Google Replacing GTK2 With Aura In Chrome 35

    Google will finally be migrating from GTK2 to their own Aura UI code with a target of Chrome/Chromium 35...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    109

    Default

    Google created AURA as an replacement for GTK, no problem with the community. what would have happened if we had replaced "google" with "canonical"?
    Last edited by edoantonioco; 03-11-2014 at 10:26 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote 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"?
    Canonical would never support all those platforms. Canonical only rebrands software, adding minor modifications instead of attempting to work with upstream, thus creating fragmentation that they could have easily prevented.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Canonical found a use for AURA, rebrands it and attempts to label it as some brand new, never before seen, nothing even comes close to it, etc. etc. etc. software. Google would be a tough upstream to go against though.
    Last edited by Ouroboros; 03-11-2014 at 10:34 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    434

    Default

    Quote 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?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,105

    Default

    Quote 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 at 02:52 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    566

    Default

    Quote 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?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    302

    Default

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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    434

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Calinou View Post
    What about Ubuntu One?
    Oh you're right. In that case Canonical supports Windows, OS X, Android and Linux. Aura supports Windows and Chrome OS and Linux. So, by this measure alone , Canonical does support more native platforms ;-)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •