Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDE's KWin On Wayland Is Progressing For 5.1 Release

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    1. You DO realize that goes both ways right? Mozilla has either created, or been involved in creating, several awesome technologies that Google likes to pretend doesn't exist.
    Yeah, but at this point their javascript obsession makes them much more a hindrance than a help to the modern web. Which now has the side effect of all these groups trying to hack static typing into javascript (coffeescript, typescript, etc) instead of embracing languages like dart that were designed with it in mind from the start, or tech like PNaCl which would let you basically write in the language of your choice.

    Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    2. It's not like it's such a simple thing to implement a second API, while still keeping and updating the first. ESPECIALLY not when the second API is designed to work with compiled binaries...
    Or... they could just drop the NPAPI since PPAPI is a better API, but no then they'd have to admit that they were wrong.

    Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    3. Mozilla created JavaScript, so I guess their NIH syndrome includes that? :P (More accurately, somebody who worked for Mozilla at the time created JavaScript, and they picked it up and were the first to implement it)
    Reread what I wrote and then read what you wrote

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
      or tech like PNaCl which would let you basically write in the language of your choice.
      I really don't understand why you like PNaCL. Why wouldn't i just write a native program rather than trying to insert it into a browser? Why is it any better than Flash, Silverlight, or ActiveX, all of which were designed to do the exact same things?

      Or... they could just drop the NPAPI since PPAPI is a better API, but no then they'd have to admit that they were wrong.
      They'll probably drop NPAPI soon enough now that Chrome has, but that doesn't mean adding PPAPI isn't still a huge amount of work. What's the benefit? Is it solely to get Flash working on Linux? There are huge security implications and code audits that would have to happen for anything so invasive. Anyway, patches are welcome if you think it's so easy.
      Last edited by smitty3268; 26 August 2014, 02:17 AM.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
        I really don't understand why you like PNaCL. Why wouldn't i just write a native program rather than trying to insert it into a browser?
        Now that right there is an extremely salient question. I got a better one though: Why would you write an application in HTML5 + JS and force it into the browser as opposed to just writing a native application?

        I personally really don't get it and prefer to have my apps native, but if they're going to go to the web, and if I'm going to be forced to do anything with it I'd much rather have access to my language of choice than messing around with the horrible dev experience that is HTML and JS. At least with a native application I can just add it as another front end.

        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
        Why is it any better than Flash, Silverlight, or ActiveX, all of which were designed to do the exact same things?
        Well for starters it's fully open source, secondly it's based on LLVM so it's for all intents and purposes language independent. Third it's based on a sandboxed API as opposed to the plugin having to do that. Otherwise though you're right those all solve the same problem as PNaCl.

        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
        They'll probably drop NPAPI soon enough now that Chrome has, but that doesn't mean adding PPAPI isn't still a huge amount of work. What's the benefit? Is it solely to get Flash working on Linux? There are huge security implications and code audits that would have to happen for anything so invasive. Anyway, patches are welcome if you think it's so easy.
        I have no intention of working on a browser I don't particularly like, whose reason going back to when it was announced for not supporting it was purely politics about wanting a pluginless web and thus the patches wouldn't be accepted for anyway. If it's not already included I might take a look at it for Rekonq or Qupzilla though once they make the move to QtWebEngine though.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
          Yeah but then they'd have to be working with Google to make the web better as opposed to holding onto their NIH attitude towards anything that's not Javascript.
          I assume you actually read Mozilla dev's reason for not supporting Pepper API before making this stupid accusation right? (E.g. [1])
          ... otherwise, one can only assume you are yet-another-basement-troll that has no idea what he's talking about...

          - Gilboa
          [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=729481
          oVirt-HV1: Intel S2600C0, 2xE5-2658V2, 128GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX1080 (to-VM), Dell U3219Q.
          oVirt-HV2: Intel S2400GP2, 2xE5-2448L, 120GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX550 (to-VM).
          oVirt-HV3: Gigabyte B85M-HD3, E3-1245V3, 32GB, 4x1TB, 2x480GB SSD, GTX980 (to-VM), Dell U2711.
          Devel-2: Asus H110M-K, i5-6500, 16GB, 3x1TB + 128GB-SSD, F33.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by gilboa View Post
            I assume you actually read Mozilla dev's reason for not supporting Pepper API before making this stupid accusation right? (E.g. [1])
            ... otherwise, one can only assume you are yet-another-basement-troll that has no idea what he's talking about...

            - Gilboa
            [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=729481
            You read that yourself right? None of the posts in that bug in any way contradict but rather supports the statement that Mozilla is refusing to support PPAPI over NIH attitude and politics in favour of Javascript and a Plugin-less web, further I seem to recall that there was an official statement by Mozilla stating that they thought that Javascript and a pluginless web was the way forward not PPAPI I'd need to see if I can find it.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
              Yeah, but at this point their javascript obsession makes them much more a hindrance than a help to the modern web. Which now has the side effect of all these groups trying to hack static typing into javascript (coffeescript, typescript, etc) instead of embracing languages like dart that were designed with it in mind from the start, or tech like PNaCl which would let you basically write in the language of your choice.
              Here's the thing You claimed that Mozilla is driven by NIH syndrome which is a far cry from what you're claiming now.
              I do not claim to be an expert in matter, but as far as I can see, Mozilla's developers have a solid point:
              Google never intended or designed Pepper API with portability in mind and trying to shove it into Mozilla requires major changes to the existing, working code base with little benefit outside of Flash.
              Oh, and nothing stops Google from replacing this API in two months because they have invented some other cool technology (And to be frank, I love Google, but they have no issues throwing out existing technology every two seconds).

              You cannot possibly claim with a strait face that Mozilla's decisions are political and not technical just because they don't follow your personal preference (Like dart, hate js).

              - Gilboa
              oVirt-HV1: Intel S2600C0, 2xE5-2658V2, 128GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX1080 (to-VM), Dell U3219Q.
              oVirt-HV2: Intel S2400GP2, 2xE5-2448L, 120GB, 8x2TB, 4x480GB SSD, GTX550 (to-VM).
              oVirt-HV3: Gigabyte B85M-HD3, E3-1245V3, 32GB, 4x1TB, 2x480GB SSD, GTX980 (to-VM), Dell U2711.
              Devel-2: Asus H110M-K, i5-6500, 16GB, 3x1TB + 128GB-SSD, F33.

              Comment

              Working...
              X