Dear Google: Please fork WebKit

Time to fork WebKit

My wish for this year is for Google to fork WebKit. They should take the WebKit code, give it a new name, and create a separate browser engine based on that. This, I argue, would be in both Google's own interest, and in the interest of the open Web. …

What's in it for Google?

By forking WebKit and creating their own separate engine, Google would gain full control of the core of their browser on all platforms. They would not be dependent on Apple's plans, strategies or roadmaps, and would be free to do whatever they please.

And as the rivalry between Google and Apple seems to be heating up, it might be a good idea for Google to become less dependent on Apple.

What's in it for the Web?

Security

I know that "WebKit is not WebKit", but I argue, in the name of security, that fragmentation should not only be a coincidence, but actually a strategy. The fewer separate browser engines there are on the market, the fewer targets there are for malware authors, and the less money, time and resources malware authors have to spend to infest a large number of systems.

The more widely used browser engines there are on the market, the more expensive it will be to write malware which covers a large number of people. Google forking WebKit would create yet another moving target, making life even more frustrating to those who seek to exploit security flaws in browsers.

A boost to open standards

More (and more diverse) browser engines out there means that it becomes even more vital to support open standards properly. Open standards do not prevent innovation either. Browsers can build innovations on top of open Web standards, and I argue that we could see even more innovation with a proper foundation in place.

A more diverse browser market would also force more Web developers to adhere to standards because it would no longer pay off to optimize for just one or two browsers.

Buzzword alert: This would create a synergy effect where browsers would become increasingly standards-compliant, and Web sites would be written according to open Web standards to an increasing degree. Furthermore, it would be even more important for both browser vendors and Web developers to work together on open standards.

Why not?

I can't think of a lot of reasons to not fork WebKit, but there are a couple of "but"s here.

Maintenance difficulties

One reason would be the inability to maintain the fork. For example, Nokia tried to build a browser based on WebKit, but they didn't quite seem to know what they were doing. The result seemed to be that they had to scrap their work and build their browser again from a more current WebKit codebase.

However, Google definitely has the resources, brainpower and manpower to maintain their own fork (which would eventually be a completely separate engine with little in common with "Apple's" WebKit).

Against the open-source philosophy?

The concept of open-source is often seen as collaboration, and there is a genuine value in sharing the work in many cases. Indeed, our own Web developer tool, Opera Dragonfly, is an open-source project.

However, forks already exists for other open-source products. Apple's WebKit was a fork of KHTML, for example. There's no reason why one cannot support open-source as a way to develop applications, and still accept forks. I believe that a WebKit by Google fork would create competition, and move the Web along faster than if everyone was using the same codebase.

Open-source does not mean that everyone has to have the same ideas and goals.

Just Do It

In conclusion, a forked WebKit engine from Google it is in the interest of both Google itself, and the Web as a whole. Not only would Google be in complete control of its own engine, but it would be a major blow to virus and malware authors, and it would give a much-needed boost to open Web standards.

There are very few reasons why this shouldn't happen, and none of these reasons seem very compelling.

So dear Google: Please fork WebKit!

Advertisements

32 thoughts on “Dear Google: Please fork WebKit

  1. I'm wondering what it would take to begin from scratch and build a new browser engine from the ground up. :sherlock:.

  2. Opera gets what everyone else gets: A safer Web built on open standards. Open standards allow everyone to compete on more equal grounds. This is good for Opera, and for everyone else. Unless you wish to undermine competition in the market.I have argued several times that there should be more browser engines in the market:http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/07/23/web-monoculture

  3. 10 – 20 years to implement html 4.01 and css 2.1?This does not sound realistic for me.

  4. :up: Yep you could see this in about the year 2000 when IE 6 has so much market share it made for an easy target for hackers to get almost anyone on the web with one style of attack

  5. Originally posted by zoquete:

    10 – 20 years to implement html 4.01 and css 2.1?This does not sound realistic for me.

    What are you talking about, and how is it relevant to anything?Originally posted by MikeHaugland:

    Market fragmentation may be good for you guys, but it sucks a lot for web developers. They already struggle to support 3 or 4 browsers as it is.

    How about reading the part under "A boost to open standards"?

  6. Originally posted by MikeHaugland:

    Market fragmentation may be good for you guys, but it sucks a lot for web developers

    Nope, Haavard already explained it in his post. More (standards complaint) browsers mean web developers need to code more standards complaint sites, which in turn is good for all browsers (and not only the popular ones), because there isn't a defacto standard which they have to support (as in the IE6 time, if memory serves me right Opera still supports some IE only things like document.all)

  7. Originally posted by haavard:

    Opera gets what everyone else gets: A safer Web built on open standards. Open standards allow everyone to compete on more equal grounds. This is good for Opera, and for everyone else. Unless you wish to undermine competition in the market.

    Market fragmentation may be good for you guys, but it sucks a lot for web developers. They already struggle to support 3 or 4 browsers as it is. If Opera is already on the edge of not being supported by developers, what do you think would happen to it if they had to support Google's engine, which already has a higher userbase than Opera? The more fragmentation in browser engines, the more likely Opera won't get supported.

  8. Originally posted by MikeHaugland:

    The more fragmentation in browser engines, the more likely Opera won't get supported.

    When Google launched Chrome they fixed things on a service that only worked with IE or Firefox so them would work with Webkit, and that made these things to work in Opera also. (lucky?)

  9. This suggestion of yours, I LIKE it, Haavard.Wow, I'm even agreeing with PRD3 today.(echo) Browser developers and standards developers must work together. With more players on the field, shared innovation becomes more important. Consistent behavior becomes more important. And the only way to guarantee this, is making sure that new standards are POSSIBLE to be supported.Have you heard about uTorrent being blocked by neutral-party torrent trackers, because its performance is "unfairly superior"? Fragmentation should be good for standards, good for those who follow standards. I just hope that innovation won't be punished by the collective.

  10. Please, dear Google, engage in fight with Apple and lessen stress on our Desktop/Mobile/Mini/Wii engine(s).WebKit became a buzzword and web-masters going to design sites for WebKit 1st. Please, go make a loud fuss and strike web-mesters with FUD about your war with Apple, so they would fall-back to our engines.For years Opera could make its engine for embedding into 3rd party software, with or without open-sourcing. There were years an years before WebKit arrival, when developera for Win32 had to choose between buggy and heavy Trident and buggy and heavy Gecko, excluding half-baked ad hoc semi-engines. Even Opera 6 engine made for embedding into 3rd-party app could be great help then. There were requests. And it would make Opera co-installed on computer, widening userbase. But why would Opera care about anyone less moneyfull than Adobe?An even now instead of sharing Opera's engine for 3rd-party, Opera is suggesting that two major players behind WebKit go part and fight. Indeed, "as the rivalry between Google and Apple seems to be heating up" it is chanceful time for Opera to try pouring gasoline into the fire. With a good wording "just a present for both firing sides".So dear Opera: Please after all these years make PrestoKit! "which would be a completely separate engine with little in common with "Apple's" WebKit." "Just Do It"Fight the "monoculture" by spreading your engine.Dear Opera, be sincere, be consistent , not be hypocrite.

  11. Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    So dear Opera: Please after all these years make PrestoKit! "which would be a completely separate engine with little in common with "Apple's" WebKit." "Just Do It"Fight the "monoculture" by spreading your engine.Dear Opera, be sincere, be consistent , not be hypocrite.

    Are you drunk or something?Opera already has its own separate engine. It isn't using Webkit.Opera is being 100% consistent. There is no hypocrisy here on Opera's part. It's you who are either drunk or trolling.

  12. > Opera already has its own separate engine. It isn't using Webkit.can you point you finger where i say it has not and it does ?If you're are not drunk your finger would easiy point the saying, won't it.Opera has much more influence upon Presto than upon Google.If Opera was consistent, they'd meet all the so-miracly-fair goals above by making their own engine available. But they won't. They would demand that someone else does that instead.Opera is not consistent. Opera is trying to make donations from someone other's wallet, keeping their own sealed tight. That is the hypocrisy.

  13. @the_Arioch My apologies if you are not a native english speaker but you first two paragraphs in the previous comment are so garbled as to be completely incomprehensible. :faint:.The rest of what you said, I do get your point, although you seem to miss the fact that this is Haavard's private blog and represents his private opinion, not Opera Software. :up:

  14. Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    If Opera was consistent, they'd meet all the so-miracly-fair goals above by making their own engine available. But they won't. They would demand that someone else does that instead.

    Your drunkenness is really showing.This isn't OPERA asking anyone to do anything. It's an OPERA EMPLOYEE. He isn't DEMANDING anything either, just suggesting/asking.And he isn't asking Google to make anything available. He's asking Google to fork Webkit.You really need to stop smoking that heavy stuff.

    Opera is not consistent. Opera is trying to make donations from someone other's wallet, keeping their own sealed tight. That is the hypocrisy.

    What donations from someone else's wallet is Opera trying to make?Put down those drugs please.

  15. > this is Haavard's private blog and represents his private opinion, not Opera SoftwareThat is reasonable, but it makes for few remarks.1) He is not a janitor, he is high-ranked one who really does influence the steering wheel of Opera. The strictly-private nature of open letters of such a pesons is next to mirage anyway. But you may consider it so, if you wish. Then:2) If this is his private, unrelated to Opera, open letter, why doesn't he urge Opera to do the same as he urges Google to do ? If he stands for multitude of choices and anti monoculturalism – it would still make sense to demand PrestoKit.2.1) that would not be unprecedentent. For example in 1993 one Sun employee did issued an open leter to Sun to make Solaris opensource and merge it with Novell. So Opera employee could do the same.3) If that is because he has no hope on Opera ASA and can only rely on Google's good will for advancing web in this sense, then i'd wish him find place in Google Team. Though i do not believe in this. I do not beieve he has no hope on Opera. He just does want Opera to have the fruits, rather than spent the seeds.> but you first two paragraphs…are most short. I am surely not native speaker, and i cannot see what is unclear there. Just ask. Give me chance to go into details :-)I'll try to re-state. For years Opera had a niche of fast, secure, cross-platform browser. For last years it added a niche of PDAs and phones as well. Mozilla was very heavy and not very secure. MS PocketIE… sorry for mentioning it.Now that Chrome/Chromium is out there, it is both fast and open-source and cross-patform. I also think it is quite secure, at leasy with its Iron Chrome and Comodo Dragon incarnations. Now that WebKit is there, it is found in many PDAs and phones, where it was Opera land before.// Personally i am thinking about purchasing ARM+Linux netbook or tablet, my natural browser of choice would be Opera… if it only would exist. But Chromium does exists and it is fast. I would not consider MSIE or Mozilla to leave Opera, and Safari and Konqueror are not good on Windows. Now, Chromium might really be the choice, starting with some netbook for example. I am not the statistics, but think there are a number of persons feeling Chrome hurd as a real alternative to Opera as lean and fast browser.I recently read BlackHat-EU-2010-Stone-Next-Generation-Clickjacking-slides.pdf and clickjacking wikipedia article, Opera is not considered at all. That's in the paper about security.Opera seems to fall out of interest.//With "fragmentation should not only be a coincidence, but actually a strategy" motto the natural step would be to widen Opera engine usage.The 'I know that "WebKit is not WebKit"' tells clearly that WebKit is already fragmented to enough many fractions, what's best ? The article suggest reducing fragmentation by amalgamating all the cloud into just two camps, Google-WebKit and Apple-Webkit. Two fragments instead of dozen is deframentation really.And how fast divergence would proceed ? Konqueror is still considering switching to WebKit, after years of separate deveopment of KHTML and WebKit. Seems they not gone very far. Chrome and Safari use different JS engines, no matter that Google and Apple work on same single WebKit project. Nominative divource and forking WebKit to new brand would hardly have any technological consiquences, only political ones. And even then it would take years and years of very slow divergence, hardly noticeable in next 2 years. If not want WebKit and KHTML example, think of Interbase/Firebird SQL servers. IB6 was quite years before IB7/FB2 marked a noticeabe split in compatibility.So if not technological consequences, then what ?"And as the rivalry between Google and Apple seems to be heating up,"it might be a chance to provoke full-scale war between them."it might be a good idea for Google to become less dependent on Apple." could easily say someone to some medieval king, pursuing intrigue to alienate someone of persons the king trust. Next step would be to reach Apple and point finger to the Google. "See how they turn away from you? Before it is too late, Apple should become less dependant on Google". Then again treat Google with another good advice and keep it unti landslide falls between them.The real achievment there would be FUD.What web developera now think of WebKit ? Somethign like "interesting. There are a lot of concurents in websites for MSIE. What is beyond it ? WebKit is! MacOS, Android, iPhone, iPad, Nokia, Qt, some part of Windows and Linux computers… Hmm… all are just niches but there so plaenty of them…" More so, with Android and iP*** on the march, there are good aura against WebKit, be it myth or real. Not only web deveopers, application developers who need built-in HTML engine are on the same page.Now imagine that browser war of a kind been provoked between G and A, and most of news would be on that topic, not about share of WebKit- what would devels think then ? Would they think WebKit is reliable ? Stable into future for code reusing? Wouldn't they be seduced to make a break and wait to see who has more power ? Wouldn't they fear that tomorrow someone else, for example Nokia would fight both G and A and then more and more rivalry ? Wouldn't may of them try to focus on other engines until that dogfight would be over ? And for mobile platforms "other engines" mostly mean Opera.And that would be probably the most noticeable difference, if Google and Apple would really make themselves fools to fight upon WebKit without any real reason.PS: but maybe there is really no hope on PrestoKit ? WebKit has full steam, Gecko for mobile is on the track and even if it fail with reducing requirements, mobile platforms are getting more and more power to at last bear with it. I keep recalling Watcom C++. Once a number-one compiler. Most optimising. Most cross-plaform. Most rich of 3rd-party tools. Most advertised (indirecty) as tool of choice for all the high-profile games back then (Doom, Duke Nukem, Descent, and so on). Then it lost its steam. Visual C++ became "just compiler", Intel C++ – most optimising, GCC – most cross-platform. Watcom just fall out of interest. At last they jumped into OpenSource safety pod, just like Netscape and Apache did before. But too late, who cares of OpenWatcom now? When there is WebKit with lot of docs ans code examples, who would care of using Presto in their apps now even if Opera would suddenly make it possible?

  16. > What donations from someone else's wallet is Opera trying to make?Efforts of Google programmers/testers/marketologs to promote G-WebKit engine against A-WebKit. Oh, sorry, to deepen fragmentation. Or you would think, it would be Opera stuff, who would do it for Google?> he isn't asking Google to make anything available. He's asking Google to fork WebkitHe asks Google to made separate one more engine. He does not want Opera to make it, neither as Opera-fork of WebKit nor as presto-based kit. Yes, it is the same – making one more engine, tearing apart and fragmenting WebKit userbase for sake of virus-makers fragmentation. Would it be done by "forking" or by "publishing" – minor technical details making no real difference.Good ol' "divide and rule" afterall.Or do you really consider having all so different Trident + Gecko + WebKit (which is not WebKit as you remember) + Presto + NetFront a monoculture ? What do YOU smoking then ?

  17. Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    He is not a janitor, he is high-ranked one

    Really? Source, please!

    If this is his private, unrelated to Opera, open letter, why doesn't he urge Opera to do the same as he urges Google to do ?

    Are you drunk? I already explained this to you: Opera already has a separate engine.

    If he stands for multitude of choices and anti monoculturalism – it would still make sense to demand PrestoKit.

    No it wouldn't. The point of this blog post is that Google should create another separate engine. Opera already has one, so Opera is already doing what the blog writes about.

    If that is because he has no hope on Opera ASA and can only rely on Google's good will for advancing web in this sense, then i'd wish him find place in Google Team. Though i do not believe in this. I do not beieve he has no hope on Opera. He just does want Opera to have the fruits, rather than spent the seeds.

    What on earth are you going on about? Are you drunk?Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    Opera seems to fall out of interest.

    What on earth are you talking about? How about trying to make sense for once?

    So if not technological consequences, then what ?

    Again, you are not making sense. Google forking webkit WOULD lead to a more fragmented market. You are just ignoring the blog post and ranting on with your ignorant nonsense.

    The real achievment there would be FUD.

    No, the real achievement is that drunk trolls pop out of the woodwork to misrepresent the blog post. You are blatantly doing your pathetic personal attacks without addressing the actual comments in the blog.

    if Google and Apple would really make themselves fools to fight upon WebKit without any real reason

    Stop this retarded nonsense. The only one taking about a "browser fight" here is you.

    He asks Google to made separate one more engine. He does not want Opera to make it, neither as Opera-fork of WebKit nor as presto-based kit.

    Stop the retarded nonsense. OPERA ALREADY HAS A SEPARATE ENGINE!

    Or do you really consider having all so different Trident + Gecko + WebKit (which is not WebKit as you remember) + Presto + NetFront a monoculture ? What do YOU smoking then ?

    Look, you need to stop drinking vodka all day. No one is claiming that there IS monoculture.

  18. Seems Haavard really only wanted to make a few concise points:1) Chrome and Safari are already different from "reference" Webkit2) The Internet needs MORE common RULES for building websites (compatibility)3) The Internet needs LESS common CODE for viewing websites (security)4) A single set of rules is more important when there are more diverse viewers5) There would be more choice and more safety for everyone

  19. Originally posted by prd3:

    Look, you need to stop drinking vodka all day.

    prd3 Be nicer to others

  20. prd3, i'm amused how focused you are on vodka. Guess you really made good acquaintance with it.>> He is not a janitor > Really?Ok, personally You might think Haavard beeing a janitor, as You choose.> Opera already has a separate engineIf you think WebKit is just engine you know nothing about WebKit and programming.Would you care to name few programs, based on Presto and targeted at mere users and not made by Opera ASA ?Would you think why there are a lot of them on WebKit and none (or almost none) on Presto ?WebKit is a kit including few engines, not an engine.BTW, don't slam the open door, i mentioned Presto few times in the 1st post here. Which you seems failed to read through.Or you just does not understand the word "Presto" and aint trained to use Google for self-education?> I already explained this to you: Opera already has a separate engine.> Stop the retarded nonsense. OPERA ALREADY HAS A SEPARATE ENGINE!When you finish with describing vodka experiences, please do point with your straight finger where had i told Opera using WebKit. I ask you the 2nd time, 1st time you've hidden away, ok i'd repeat. Either you can point at it, or you are just a liar bravely fighting lies of your own cooking. So please, take some time to back up your words.> What on earth are you talking about?I am taking about fast growing adoption of WebKit among programmers/programs and hence fast growing share of WebKit-based programs, and hence interest from webmasters. You did not know about it? i am not surprised.> Google forking webkit WOULD lead to a more fragmented marketHow can 2 versions of WebKit be more fragmented than dozen of those existing right now? Think what you're saying.Anyway, making PrestoKit would be order of magnitude more fragmented than adding one more WebKit version to dozens of already existing.> Google should create another separate engine.Create or fork ? This difference is harder to grasp than glass of vodka vs two of those. But i hope, if you'd make an effort (when you're sober, of course) you would make it!And you did not answered, would it be Opera who'd pay to employees, who would "create another separate engine" for Google and then re-write Google's programs for using it ? Or would it be personaly you, prd3 ?> Opera is already doingReally ? Then tell me where can i download it and embed it into my own program and get ful docum,entation about this embedding? Do not mix up the public kit and closed engine, it is more complex subject than mixing vodka and beer and you need to understand it before speaking of it.> your pathetic personal attacks…claims someone saint, who only capable of ranting about vodka.Doctor, cure yourself 1st, if it is not beyond the cure yet.> The only one taking about a "browser fight"Or, indeed. I do *talk*. To prevent it. Some other just hope for it and keep their mouths sealed.Originally posted by prd3:

    No one is claiming that there IS monoculture.

    Ooohhh… it is hard to fail reading, yes? And knowing how to search text on the page is realy ungraspabe concept to you, yes?Okay, here for you, special reading: Originally posted by haavard:

    I have argued several times that there should be more browser engines in the market:http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/07/23/web-monoculture

  21. Arioch: The Opera Devices SDK has been used in many products for many years. It is not as freely available as the Webkit sources, but it is mature and has a number of specialized features. Opera's engines have been used in GPS devices, dashboard computers, Nintendo game systems, the new generation of internet-connected televisions and so forth.http://www.opera.com/devices/

  22. Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    >> He is not a janitor > Really?Ok, personally You might think Haavard beeing a janitor, as You choose.

    You dishonestly removed the last part of your post — the one I asked about: "he is high-ranked one". And indeed, it turns out that you got that wrong too. Is there anything you won't get wrong?Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    If you think WebKit is just engine

    This is just a red herring. Stop trying to change the subject.Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    How can 2 versions of WebKit be more fragmented than dozen of those existing right now?

    Google forking Webkit won't remove all those other version of Webkit. Christ.Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    Anyway, making PrestoKit would be order of magnitude more fragmented than adding one more WebKit version to dozens of already existing.

    What is "PrestoKit" supposed to mean?Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    I am taking about fast growing adoption of WebKit among programmers/programs and hence fast growing share of WebKit-based programs

    And you completely failed to get the fact that Opera is getting more users and business customers as well? Christ.Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    Create or fork ?

    Create a new separate engine over time by forking Webkit. How can you not have gotten that by now?Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    And you did not answered, would it be Opera who'd pay to employees, who would "create another separate engine" for Google and then re-write Google's programs for using it ?

    Are you drunk or something? Google would fund this themselves, and Google's programs wouldn't need to be rewritten. They would evolve along with the engine.Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    Okay, here for you, special reading:

    "There should be more engines" does not equal "there is monoculture". Fail.

  23. Originally posted by hellspork:

    Opera's engines have been used in GPS devices, dashboard computers, Nintendo game systems, the new generation of internet-connected televisions and so forth.

    Yes, Nintendo Wii. That one, vastly rumoured and (the ony) mentioned at the link, you've posted. I can't say how its users do use it, i expect they use only some share of internet: Nintendo-related services and game sites. Okay, that is well-known example of course. I wonder is there some statistics of Wii users split to countries, how many of them payed that $5 fee (after mid-2009 it is free, but i guess since 2007 Wii users made their minds if they wished to pay for Wii Internet channel, those who installed it only after it became free just do not need internet on Wii). May be it is vastly used in some countries and ignored in another.GPS devices would hardly used for anything but pathfinding (including hotels/fastfood lookups near the road), so for most websites they are non-existent. Afterall that means that the very GPS device is to have internet connection. Either via netbook (with its own browser) or via cell-phone (ditto), downplaying this feature even more.Dashboard computers – you mean those, embedded into the cars? then same as above.Next-gen TV's a probably of more interest, but currently i think more usual would be to have ip-tv STB, like WesternDigital's WD TV. Clearly, when Next-gen TV's would be able of playing movies on USB flash, SD-card, Wi-Fi NAS – then having internet in them would be natural. But then in future they woud have not only Opera, but some other engines, including WebKit, standalone or the one in Adobe AIR-like platforms. Would Opera provide better services than Adobe and alike ? who knows. How fast those Next-gen's would spread substituting already purchased conventional HD panels and el-cheapo just-TV boxes and such? Who knows. Maybe in decade in would realy converge. Like there was phones and PDA's and now smartphones predated PDAs to almost non-existence. Fair chance, in decade there would not be mere TV, nor media player STBs (like WD TV and many others), nor nettops, all be amalgamated into one hdtv/iptv/media/www combo panel. Then next-gen-TV browsers would became visible share. As of today though, one can hardly find charts of browsers shares except for desktop/notebooks browsers and smartphones browsers. Can you tell me how much users share do surf with TV-sets, and what the browsers' shares are among them? It is not easy to find, i think the share is so ghostly minimal that no one just cares to get statistics. However, for future TV-vendors there might be a temptation to stick with WebKit, if they would consider it both Apple-backed (so no problems with iTunes, #1 music e-shop and movies shop as well) and Google-backed (Picasa, YouTube, mail, chat). "Divide and Rule" makes sense here as well.

  24. Well, you can look at several other places in the Opera web site.http://www.opera.com/press/releases/http://www.opera.com/business/solutions/devices/http://www.opera.com/business/customers/http://www.opera.com/business/partners/On GPS, the Opera Devices engine does everything graphical (the visible map and all menu items). Mini-style compression is available for the GPS unit to download updates for maps, and perform live searches for area business and services.They have been an STB and IPTV platform for years. Currently they have direct deals with companies that supply the hardware used to build such devices; a "complete solution" that can be ready to ship by the time the hardware's built.http://www.opera.com/company/investors/The new platform reduces in-house engineering and increases potential for volume licenses. Lower entry cost lures more customers, and if a product is popular Opera benefits from the volume license rate. This is why Opera does so much testing on Linux, and supports non-x86 CPUs.

  25. prd3> Are you drunk or something?Oh, you still can't look outside of personal ranting and your interest in alcoholic beverages. I wonder why you mean of arguing as a kind of trolling.prd3> You dishonestly removedSo you, the liar who twice accused me of speaking rubbish i never did, now is complaining about dishonesty. "This is pathetic and sardonic"Truely it turns to be dull to go on arguing with a kind that you act (hope that modus operandi is not your modus vivendi in real life).prd3> Stop trying to change the subject.Back you words. Care to prove what is and what is not the subject and why. Your comfort of arguing is not enough to accuse me of changing subject.prd3> Google forking Webkit won't remove all those other version of Webkit. Christ.Oooh, so you consider dozen and dozen-plus-one a big difference, worth to raise one's voice as the public open letter?But how can you say so sure that none of dozen would quit? Mantain their own patchset means to get new version of WebKit and embracign its new/fixed features and sometimes fixing patches to be compatible. If Apple and Google would part, then new Apple code would not apear in G-WebKit, same way in A-WebKit would be no new Google code. If some of the dozen need both features added by Google and added by Apple, they would not be able to choose on and only one of post-fork WebKit's as their base. Then – stay with obsolete version or quit. That of course woud not happen fast, but the hypothetical positive effects of fork would not either.Besides, you are not required to put Your signature after each sentence.> What is "PrestoKit" supposed to mean?A kit, helping 3rd-party developers to embed/use Presto in their applications, with manuals and bunch of how-to's, code samples, helping forums, etc, etc. As it was mentioned in post #20 above.> And you completely failed to get the fact that Opera is getting more users and business customers as well? Christ.Can you show me how much that is with browsers shares pie-charts ?Besides, you are not required to put Your signature after each sentence.> Create a new separate engine over time by forking Webkit. oh, like i told above #21. May 2010, 21:55, with examples of KHTML and SQL server. Though i'd like to pull out 2 years FB/IB example: that server, ofter opensourcing, was rewritten completely, 100% of code, that accelerated diverging. And KHTML/WebKit is still close enough, that KHTML native browser can just use WebKit instead http://kde.org/applications/internet/konqueror/ Years and Years would before hypothetical A-WebKit and G-WebKit would become realyl different incompatible projects and they will move apart much slower than KHTML and WebKit.> Google would fund this themselvesQ.E.D. Opera employee is suggesting Google to start the process, that Googe will fund.Both Google and rest-of-WebKit would now have more work to do (read: to dupicate work of each other, rather than share as they do now), and the fuinding party would be Google.BTW, if Google would really became sold on this proposal, then probably Apple, Qt, Nokia and others can just save their funds and just copy into WebKit everything Google would roll out in their fork. Not bad prospect, really. Mmm, prd3, i hope you're not of Apple financial departments 😉

  26. Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    That is reasonable, but it makes for few remarks.1) He is not a janitor, he is high-ranked one who really does influence the steering wheel of Opera. The strictly-private nature of open letters of such a pesons is next to mirage anyway.

    Ah, I get it now. prd3 couldn't properly read that line. You wanted to say: "Haavard is not a janitor, he is an important person at Opera. Even his personal opinion affects how people see his employer." Even so, please respect that Haavard is not trying to cause trouble for Opera ASA.On the topic of forking, the opinion is that companies as large as Apple and Google should have the freedom to make special improvements that benefit their customers. They should not need to wait for the normal Webkit approval process. If an idea is good and/or feasible, projects may still share any open code at their own pace. The two children of Webkit would become more different over time.http://www.opera.com/business/solutions/devices/evalkit/Opera has a full program of documents and tools, available to anyone who is serious about building a custom version of the program. Opera has just announced a new tablet-PC browser software, to be explained in detail at a convention in early June. For an example of special uses, ASUS included a touch-enabled version of Opera with EeeTop PCs. Another is the custom dashboard computer in Ford trucks built for commercial use. Opera has some of the best hardware/OS support, and some of the best development tools.For that matter, Opera's Mobile and Mini browsers are good enough to be preinstalled on many Android phones. The maker PAID Opera for something better than mobile Webkit. AT&T paid Opera to help design the ATT.NET browser. Nintendo paid for browsers on Wii, DS, DSi, DSi XL.PS: If you are fighting with prd3, please do not respond to that person here. This is (mostly) not a place to trade personal insults.

  27. Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    So you, the liar who twice accused me of speaking rubbish i never did, now is complaining about dishonesty. "This is pathetic and sardonic"

    I didn't just accuse you. You made yet another false statement, and I called you on it. And still you kept lying.Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    Care to prove what is and what is not the subject and why.

    The topic here is that Google is asked to fork Webkit.Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    Oooh, so you consider dozen and dozen-plus-one a big difference, worth to raise one's voice as the public open letter?

    If you can't tell the difference between using Webkit as it is, and forking it and moving it in a different direction, that's your problem.Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    If Apple and Google would part, then new Apple code would not apear in G-WebKit, same way in A-WebKit would be no new Google code. If some of the dozen need both features added by Google and added by Apple, they would not be able to choose on and only one of post-fork WebKit's as their base.

    So what? Then they would have to choose the one they need, just like they will need to choose from the engines that exist today.You are pathetically arguing that there should be no choice because choice is bad and causes you to have to choose! Wow.Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    A kit, helping 3rd-party developers to embed/use Presto in their applications, with manuals and bunch of how-to's, code samples, helping forums, etc, etc.

    Stop changing the subject. The blog is clearly referring to Webkit as a browser engine. The blog is not asking Google to "help 3rd party developers embed/use Webkit", but to fork Webkit.Again: No one is asking Google to help 3rd party developers embed Webkit. Google is being asked to fork Webkit for their own use.And besides, Opera already helps 3rd party developers embed/use Presto, while there is no official support organization for Webkit if you want to do the same thing with that.Your ignorance is astounding.Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    Can you show me how much that is with browsers shares pie-charts ?

    Stop trying to change the subject. This is not about pie charts.Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    Years and Years would before hypothetical A-WebKit and G-WebKit would become realyl different incompatible projects and they will move apart much slower than KHTML and WebKit.

    That's just pure speculation. The fact is that in terms of capabilities, KHTML and Webkit are quite different already. So different, in fact, that the KDE team decided to use Webkit instead.Originally posted by the_Arioch:

    Q.E.D. Opera employee is suggesting Google to start the process, that Googe will fund.

    Google already funds their own browser development. Nothing would change. And in fact, Google is already doing stuff differently, such as the multi-process thing. You are pathetically and dishonestly throwing out red herrings.

    BTW, if Google would really became sold on this proposal, then probably Apple, Qt, Nokia and others can just save their funds and just copy into WebKit everything Google would roll out in their fork.

    In other words, they would allow Google to control their browser engine. Just like Google lets Apple control theirs today. That would be good for Google.

  28. Originally posted by hellspork:

    You wanted to say: "Haavard is not a janitor, he is an important person at Opera.

    No, he wanted to say: "he is high-ranked one who really does influence the steering wheel of Opera"Someone with a high rank is further up in the system. A manager.Someone "influencing the steering wheel" is part of the decision process about where Opera is headed. A manager.Also notice how he dishonestly ignores your point about how Opera is used by all sorts of companies in all sorts of devices, and tries to change the subject again.

Comments are closed.