Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: Google Replacing GTK2 With Aura In Chrome 35

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    438

    Default

    Quote 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.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote 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)

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    438

    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. #15
    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. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,137

    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. #17
    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. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,458

    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"?
    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.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    575

    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?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    307

    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?

Posting Permissions

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