Slashdot Mirror

OpenCL
Webkit
Bonjour
Clang
libdispatch
....
So wat is the point you are trying to prove ?

No, Google is not being sued for lying. They are being sued for purposely circumventing a privacy control via what could be called a hack. Now, you can blame Apple for the fact that this hack was possible, but do you not blame the party who purposely circumvented the mechanism? If I can find a way to circumvent your computer's security mechanism, would you only blame the OS manufacturer, or would you be upset that I broke in?

The problem is that Webkit, the engine that Safari uses, told people how to do this in a bug report. Google didnt "hack" anything, the developers placed the ability to do it in the code.

https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35824

> and consistent HTML5 adherence.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. It means things like https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78887#c8 (comment 8, in case your browser doesn't scroll down that far).

But they do have _very_ good marketing, and an excellent approach of implementing features just enough to make the simple case work and then claiming support.

That this comment got insightful mods shows just how poorly understood this whole mess is on slashdot (or perhaps that the prevailing wisdom is that "Google is evil"?).

First, blocking third party cookies is the browser's job. The site has *zero* way of knowing what that setting is. Google literally cannot respect that setting by itself, they don't have that information.

Second, the issue isn't remotely what you think it was, nor is it an "exploit" at all. Go read the actual webkit bug: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35824 Google didn't bypass anything - webkit has a special case for if you already had a cookie from the 3rd party, it would enable 3rd party cookies under the assumption that the site wouldn't set any "tracking" cookies. The whole "privacy breach" bullshit stems from the bug where if you already had a G+ cookie but not an ad cookie and you had ad tracking enabled on your account, when you encountered embedded G+ on a site the ad cookie would get set as well. This only worked because you *already* had cookies from Google, which is why Safari would accept the cookie in the first place.

Of course, anyone with any clue how cookies works knows that removing the ad cookie doesn't actually change anything - it doesn't affect the data Google gets (they already know who you are with the legitimately set cookies that triggers webkit's special case in the first place - aka, the user being logged in), and it doesn't do anything by itself. No privacy implications whatsoever, no exploits, nothing. A story was made over nothing because the people that fueled the story had no clue what they were reporting on.

Yep, Apple sure is hostile to open software.

http://www.macosforge.org/
http://www.webkit.org/ - Oh look! GPL licensed!
http://opensource.apple.com/
http://www.cups.org/

or set plugins to click-to-run

Unfortunately that doesn't help for Java applets due to a webkit limitation.

A browser shouldn't crash either even if a plugin does. Run them in a separate process,

Which Safari now does (I forget whether that was introduced in Safari 5 or earlier), and I suspect at least some other browsers do.

and better yet, run every tab in a separate process.

Which Safari doesn't do, although it does run the UI and the rendering/JavaScript stuff in a separate process (that was introduced in Safari 5.1).

I accidentally did that for people on single-core CPUs with no hardware acceleration in their browser by adding CSS3 animation to this captcha generator.

http://www.webkit.org/coding/lgpl-license.html

Really nothing more to say...

http://www.webkit.org/coding/lgpl-license.html

Yeah, so they have a copy of both the LGPL and BSD license on the web site.

http://www.webkit.org/coding/bsd-license.html

Really nothing more to say...

There's a bug in WebKit on the Mac that stops font fallback working properly.

Reported by me in Chrome, reported up the chain to Apple.

It works fine in Chrome for Linux, so it's something weird and Mac-specific Apple will probably need to fix.

"Every thing they do is so closed and exclusive. They never extended a hand to the open source community."

I'm sorry, you're terribly confused. Or a troll:

http://www.opensource.apple.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)

http://www.webkit.org/

http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/12/apple-joins-openjdk-to-open-source-mac-os-x-java-technology/

http://alac.macosforge.org/

Etc.

A.

In all your posts, you again and again bring up 2 points: Apple contributes because they have to due to the GPL. And Apple doesn't contribute that much. Your first point is rather disingenuous as Apple doesn't have to contribute to open source at all. As for the amount of code Apple contributes to WebKit, WebKit says "Apple employees have contributed the majority of work on WebKit since it became an independent project.". You seem to be confusing number of contributors with amount of contribution. Apple is one of many individuals and 30 companies that contribute, but they contribute the bulk of work.

Yes it does. My first Android phone was a HTC Hero running 1.5 and that had it, as does the 2.3.3 I am running on my current Samsung phone.

No it doesn't. HTC and Samsung might have it but it isn't in the stock build of Android.

WebKit is open source and has actually had more contributions from Google than it has had from Apple.

Laughably false.
http://trac.webkit.org/
@google = 12 matches.
@apple = 92 matches.

As for example of sites which don't fit a 1024 pixel screen well try reading nested comments on Slashdot.

I'm doing it right now on an iPad. It's too wide for potrait mode. But in Landscape it fits perfectly, by default, with a perfectly readable font. No zooming or scrolling required. As I said, you have no case.

AdBlock is an installable app. I don't really see what your point is.

It's perfectly simple. The objective is to block ads. You can do that on iOS. The method is different.

Can iOS apps even set up local proxies?

It's a phone. You've lost if you expect users to modify proxy settings for the sake of blocking ads. And you've got a security hole a mile wide if apps can alter that for themselves. Have you ever heard of sandboxes? This is the kind of shit we've endured for years on PCs. Apparently some people haven't learned any better.

The iOS solution - you want to block ads, you download a browser that has built in ad-blocking. Simple enough for everyone to understand. No security risk.

The Android Market is much cheaper and more importantly you can side-load apps from anywhere, including web site downloads direct from Sourceforge.

And yet the iOS App Store has 7 times the downloads of all Android, Blackberry, Microsoft and Symbian mobile App stores added together. People don't mind paying 99c for an app that's professionally done. You get shit for free.

Apple products tend to have a few "wow" features but are otherwise extremely average.

And yet Apple products are consistently higher rated by users than the rest of the industry.

Your problem is you're a geek who's impressed by feature lists. And you're blind to usability - you think it's something that comes with feature lists.

You can always try out the Webkit Nightly

Ouch. To be fair, someone on the Chrome page pointed out that

No single opensource browser can render properly this tag properties:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=915 (12 year old!)
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50688
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3241
[let's inline Chrome's bug for slashdot's benefit: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=12094 ]

To be even fairer, IE8 from 2009 on my up-to-date Windows Seven PC has no problems rendering properly where all four OSS browsers failed.

It's such a simple logical failure too... it's a bizarre case showing that IE has some silent merits... Must be sanity-wrenching to find a bug like this prior to seeing confirmation that it's not YOUR code at fault because the once-leading browser has no issues rendering it.

I wonder how many thousands of devs around the world individually break their head per year once their corporations give the green light to move to OSS browsers, but someone notices THIS exact bug and pulls back. It's little wonder doc files and PDF distributions are so overwhelmingly prefered to HTML.

It's too vague to actually implement it without reverse-engineering WebKit first.

Seems somebody already did that for you.

Man! You are lucky tonight!

To implement this thing correctly is would require that JS have direct access to the file system, which as I understand it, aint fucking supposed to happen

Too late.

The entire notion of the browser needs to be forked out to an application shell with hard as nails security and a presentation shell and never the twain shall meet.

What a novel idea!

I'm surprised nothing was said about spatial navigation (particularly because Opera touts this as a big feature). It looks like Chrome is getting this too, though.

A user can't sue a company violating the GPL, only the copyright holder can do that. It would be up to the Webkit developers to pursue a lawsuit if they chose to.

That's usually true, though there are exceptions. However, since Google uses Webkit extensively, they've almost certainly contributed to it and therefore hold copyrights on parts of it.

WebKit is extensively Apple code. The only part that is LGPL is WebCore and JavaScriptCore. The rest was originally all Apple. With the various ports, a collaboration between parties using the BSD license has ensued. WebKit2 is Apple. All the ports from WebKit2 comply with the BSD License or they don't use it. Read the damn source code once in a while to grasp how much actual Code Apple has provided with the BSD license for the world to use. It's a helluva lot of code. The same now goes for Google. Without these two parties who are competitors in the mobile space Mozilla and Opera wouldn't have gotten off their asses to catch up. Hell, the HTML 5 spec was written by Google and Apple when they submitted it.

I think you missed the point. I wasn't trying to invoke some kind of pissing contest about who contributed more code. The point is that if Apple has violated the LGPL by failing to release source of any part of Webkit, any of the other copyright holders of any Webkit code could potentially sue Apple for copyright infringement. It's extremely unlikely it would come to that, but the fact remains that just because Apple has contributed a lot to the project doesn't mean they can ignore the copyright licenses of other contributors.

Nobody seems to have been clear on what is supposed to be published but isn't. The WebKit source has had checkins as recently as 2 minutes ago, so it doesn't look like Apple have stopped publishing the source to me.

Forgive the line numbers, I grabbed it from the webkit Trac

Here's the license.

1
2 Copyright (C) 2005, 2006, 2007 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
3
4 Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
5 modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
6 are met:
7
8 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
9 notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
10 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
11 notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
12 documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
13 3. Neither the name of Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") nor the names of
14 its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
15 from this software without specific prior written permission.
16
17 THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY APPLE AND ITS CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY
18 EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
19 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
20 DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL APPLE OR ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
21 DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
22 (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
23 LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
24 ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
25 (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
26 THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
27
28

In other words, "We'll release the source when we're damn well good and ready."

performance measurement: In the whitepaper, as per my recollection, Chrome was the client for all of the measurements that we did.

Since top sites have more resources than most sites, on average more than 6 per host, and since Chrome has a low connection limit and had blocking problems preventing parallel loads (since there's no data on the metrics there's no way to know what webkit bugs were present) the results are then far less impressive. In fact, these performance numbers are pretty much meaningless, wouldn't you agree?

They are perfectly meaningful. If you don't like our findings, the most productive thing to do is to create an experiment that shows something better!

HTTPs fault handling is terrible, actually. When you're sending a request and you don't receive the response, you don't know if the request was processed or not. This is particularly fun for non-idempotent transactions like say.. charging your credit card. SPDY includes mechanisms for telling the client (assuming the connection wasn't broken) that the server rejected the request

What? When do you "not receive a response" for a request and it isn't a broken connection? If the server rejected a request then you get back an error status right? In any case charging your card twice is not a failing in HTTP, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I have a hard time taking this point seriously, but maybe I don't understand HTTP well enough to understand your point.

I'm one of the people who maintain the servers which terminate all of these HTTP connections, and yes, when rebooting servers, when loadbalancing switches for whatever reason, etc. the request gets lost. It is preferable for a server to signal to the rest of the network (including any connected clients with idle connections) that it is going away. Since HTTP offers no mechanism to push any notification to the client, a server can either close the connection (and possibly thus swallow a request), or attempt to serve all requests until it goes away later (and the connection is closed). It ends up being the same-- the HTTP server has no mechanism to tell a client that it is going away and resolve the race.

In any case, you're talking about doing http-pipelining plus response reordering.

That's right, and you didn't respond to the fact that a connection problem would leave only one resource partially transferred instead of several, so I assume you accept that.

I think you're over simplifying. Certainly that is one of many possible scenarios. Another possible scenario is that it is also possible that you successfully transferred zero items using pipelining since the first element was large (or the server had significant think time), whereas SPDY successfully transfers N-1 items out of N. Making an experiment and testing against real-world behaviors is the best way to say whether or not it works. The possible state space is very large.
In any case if you decide to use HTTP-pipelining like semantics with SPDY, you can. If you decide that there are higher priority items you'd like to receive, you signal the server that and it responds appropriately by preempting the low priority streams and/or interleaving the responses as per its heuristics.

How would you handle the following scenario: User opens video in one tab, creates another in which he or she looks up the Dow Jones index for the day. The video is still being displayed in the other tab. You have a head-of-line blocking issue. How do you deal with it?

That's incredibly contrived. You almost certainly wouldn't be serving videos from the same host as stock data so it would be a separate connection. Problem solved. You also probably wouldn't want the video streamed

performance measurement: In the whitepaper, as per my recollection, Chrome was the client for all of the measurements that we did.

Since top sites have more resources than most sites, on average more than 6 per host, and since Chrome has a low connection limit and had blocking problems preventing parallel loads (since there's no data on the metrics there's no way to know what webkit bugs were present) the results are then far less impressive. In fact, these performance numbers are pretty much meaningless, wouldn't you agree?

HTTPs fault handling is terrible, actually. When you're sending a request and you don't receive the response, you don't know if the request was processed or not. This is particularly fun for non-idempotent transactions like say.. charging your credit card. SPDY includes mechanisms for telling the client (assuming the connection wasn't broken) that the server rejected the request

What? When do you "not receive a response" for a request and it isn't a broken connection? If the server rejected a request then you get back an error status right? In any case charging your card twice is not a failing in HTTP, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I have a hard time taking this point seriously, but maybe I don't understand HTTP well enough to understand your point.

In any case, you're talking about doing http-pipelining plus response reordering.

That's right, and you didn't respond to the fact that a connection problem would leave only one resource partially transferred instead of several, so I assume you accept that.

How would you handle the following scenario: User opens video in one tab, creates another in which he or she looks up the Dow Jones index for the day. The video is still being displayed in the other tab. You have a head-of-line blocking issue. How do you deal with it?

That's incredibly contrived. You almost certainly wouldn't be serving videos from the same host as stock data so it would be a separate connection. Problem solved. You also probably wouldn't want the video streamed over HTTPS because, why would you? You can tell the client not to reuse the streaming connection so that it can open a new one (not take up a per-host of the keep-alive slots). I mean I understand that Google Chrome has had problems with per-host connection limits exacerbated by things like gmail that keep connections open and that they WontFix... but since it doesn't seem to affect other browsers creating a new protocol doesn't seem the right way to fix it.

To turn the tables, how would you handle the situation in SPDY of a user requesting a GiB of data and there's several megabytes floating around in the network. Then they make a request for a 1k resource, but it can't be received until the whole amount already sent is read in, and if there are dropped packets this can add several round trips before the 1k finally arrives. With plain HTTP, the 1k request goes through another connection and is unaffected... it can take a different route and won't be held up by the already sent data.

I don't want to wait 2 RTTs before I get my content. I'm impatient. I want it now! :)

Perhaps you should use Firefox 4 or IE 9 then? /jk...

I'd suggest taking the open sourced code that we've provided and implementing your solution. You can then run the same battery of tests against your solution that we've done (in the lab) for SPDY.

I see. So it sounds like basically you didn't test an HTTP pipeline with reordering. This seems like a pretty big omission in doing basic research for creating a new protocol like this.

WebKit was only reopened for Apple to receive development and testing from other companies and organizations. Going over the logs it seems that Google submits more changesets than Apple does these days. WebKit was not a contribution from Apple; the move was purely motive-based.

Apple and open source reminds me of this: http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/. "We value openness as a company...."

Looks like things will improve with OSX 10.7. Webkit2 should bring some of Chrome's innovations to Safari.

There's an interesting interview with two "Mac hackers" on Heise.

They tested Chrome 11 and Firefox 4 and IE9 (all development versions) but not the development version of Safari: WebKit.

It lets me do whatever I want?
Cool, please link to the iOS source so I may build my own kernel for my future iphone.

Are you a mobile engineer? No? Then why should anyone trust you to compile the firmware of a cellular phone network device?

Here is some source from iOS:

http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/ios-40/

If you want to contribute to not only the future of iOS but all platforms that use webkit, contact the guys over at:

http://webkit.org/

What makes you think it would cost that much? It's not like Apple is re-developing Apache and all the other open source software they use. They reuse a lot of code written by others where as MS can really only rely on themselves.

That also brings up the question that if the software is subsidised so much then the hardware is much cheaper so if Apple can maintain such high quality hardware then why can't others for the same cost?

Are you under the mistaken impression that the majority of open source software is written by unpaid volunteers on their own free time? Really? Are you that ignorant/naive? Apple makes use of open source projects which they also "contribute" to. Open source software may be offered as free source code but it costs money to develop. Do you enjoy using things like WebOS, Android webkit browsers or Chrome? Without the forking of KHTML into webkit and the continued maintenance of webkit by paid Apple employees, none of those things that I mentioned would exist today. There are a number of open source projects started by Apple from internal code which they decided to open up and a number of other projects which Apple contributes to heavily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launchd

http://launchd.macosforge.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonjour_(software)

http://bonjour.macosforge.org/

http://dss.macosforge.org/

http://webkit.org/

I don't know if you are speaking out of ignorance or just deliberately trolling but you do not seem to understand the costs and value of software development. As a software developer with over a decade of development experience of in house software development, I have some idea of how much software development costs but you apparently think that open source writes itself and that people write it for free on their own time. Some smaller projects do work that way but the majority of them are funded directly by companies that make use of them.

Webkit nightly here:

http://nightly.webkit.org/

Firefox nightly here:

http://nightly.mozilla.org/

Mozilla has image-rendering: -moz-crisp-edges;
IE has -ms-interpolation-mode: nearest-neighbor;
Chrome has an open bug about it and it's in discussion on the w3 mailing list
How come Opera isn't an early implementer of this?

Safari is a supported browser on Snow Leopard *after* you open Terminal and run a command line to set a flag in the (normally not seen) configuration file. Totally obvious - NOT.

WebGL is not part of the standard Safari on Snow Leopard. It's still in beta and you have to grab the nightly builds, THEN set the default com.apple.Safari WebKitWebGLEnabled to YES.

You're on the cutting edge man, don't expect it to be automatic just yet. If you take a look at the WebGL spec that I linked you'll see that it says "Working Draft", not a released spec. WebGL is not yet ready for the masses who don't know how to set a hidden default.

Why, then, not enlighten us with this information?

Send me teh codz?

Actually it doesn't even work in the standard Safari. It looks like you have to also down load the nightly build from webkit.org and then run "defaults write com.apple.Safari WebKitWebGLEnabled -bool YES"

So I should apologize to Apple in *this* case

The bodybrowser page links you to http://khronos.org/webgl/wiki/Getting_a_WebGL_Implementation which gives you WebGL information and, for Safari, links you to http://nightly.webkit.org/

WebKit is Open Source, including the right to redistribute binaries and source, and *it* supports H.264.

How does WebKit support H.264? Is the decoder in the source tree of WebKit itself (not necessarily Safari or Chrome), or does it rely on operating system components? According to this page, it relies on QuickTime on Mac and Windows, and the Linux version relies on gstreamer. Ubuntu does not ship the H.264 decoder for gstreamer in the default install, and it presents a scary legal notice (to the effect "if you live in the USA click Cancel") when installing it from the repository.

WebKit is Open Source, including the right to redistribute binaries and source, and *it* supports H.264.

How does WebKit support H.264? Is the decoder in the source tree of WebKit itself (not necessarily Safari or Chrome), or does it rely on operating system components? According to this page, it relies on QuickTime on Mac and Windows, and the Linux version relies on gstreamer. Ubuntu does not ship the H.264 decoder for gstreamer in the default install, and it presents a scary legal notice (to the effect "if you live in the USA click Cancel") when installing it from the repository.

the result of this select query is .... (insert beavis voice from B+B) "uh uhuh huh chrome runs javascript 10 ms faster huh huhuhuh"

Chrome used to be faster, but isn't anymore. Firefox 4 beats Chrome on the Kraken and SunSpider benchmarks. See Mozilla's http://arewefastyet.com for some charts. Firefox 4 doesn't yet beat Chrome on Google's own V8 benchmark. I imagine Firefox 4 will close the gap to Chrome a bit more on V8 before it is released.

I just benchmarked the new IE9 beta ( I am loving the new look :) )

Hardware Information:
Core 2 duo e5300 @ 2,6GhZ,XFX ATI Radeon 4770 512 MB DDR5, 2x2 GB A-DATA@800MhZ, Gigabyte Ep45 UD3P mobo, WD Black 640 GB

Software information:

Windows 7 Ultimate x64,
started programs during benchmark: Skype, MS OneNote, BitDefender 2011, about 20 IE9 tabs

Results

Sun Spider:
http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider-results.html?%7B%223d-cube%22:%5B19,18,18,18,18%5D,%223d-morph%22:%5B25,23,24,24,23%5D,%223d-raytrace%22:%5B19,19,19,19,20%5D,%22access-binary-trees%22:%5B6,6,6,6,6%5D,%22access-fannkuch%22:%5B13,14,12,13,13%5D,%22access-nbody%22:%5B20,21,20,20,20%5D,%22access-nsieve%22:%5B3,3,3,3,3%5D,%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:%5B2,2,2,2,2%5D,%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:%5B6,5,5,6,5%5D,%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:%5B4,4,4,4,5%5D,%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:%5B11,11,10,11,11%5D,%22controlflow-recursive%22:%5B3,3,3,2,3%5D,%22crypto-aes%22:%5B8,8,8,8,9%5D,%22crypto-md5%22:%5B6,6,6,6,7%5D,%22crypto-sha1%22:%5B8,7,7,7,7%5D,%22date-format-tofte%22:%5B24,23,24,24,24%5D,%22date-format-xparb%22:%5B24,24,24,27,24%5D,%22math-cordic%22:%5B1,1,1,1,1%5D,%22math-partial-sums%22:%5B22,21,21,22,21%5D,%22math-spectral-norm%22:%5B11,11,11,11,11%5D,%22regexp-dna%22:%5B26,25,25,24,24%5D,%22string-base64%22:%5B8,9,9,8,8%5D,%22string-fasta%22:%5B24,24,23,23,23%5D,%22string-tagcloud%22:%5B34,33,34,33,63%5D,%22string-unpack-code%22:%5B39,39,39,38,39%5D,%22string-validate-input%22:%5B22,22,22,22,22%5D%7D

Kraken

No results, it waited for about 10 minutes, but the test just stops at one point and starts all overa again, just like in a loop.

PeaceKeeper

2521 Points
Rendering 2197
Social Networking 1309
Complex Graphics 6245
Data 5317
DOM Operations 1811
Text Parsing 3681

A quick run of Sunspider performance results

http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider-results.html?%7B%223d-cube%22:%5B16,16,16,16,16%5D,%223d-morph%22:%5B21,21,21,21,21%5D,%223d-raytrace%22:%5B16,16,16,16,16%5D,%22access-binary-trees%22:%5B5,5,5,5,5%5D,%22access-fannkuch%22:%5B10,11,11,11,11%5D,%22access-nbody%22:%5B17,17,17,17,18%5D,%22access-nsieve%22:%5B3,3,3,3,3%5D,%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:%5B1,1,1,1,1%5D,%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:%5B4,4,5,4,5%5D,%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:%5B3,3,3,3,3%5D,%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:%5B9,9,9,9,9%5D,%22controlflow-recursive%22:%5B2,2,2,2,2%5D,%22crypto-aes%22:%5B7,7,7,7,7%5D,%22crypto-md5%22:%5B5,5,5,5,6%5D,%22crypto-sha1%22:%5B6,6,6,6,6%5D,%22date-format-tofte%22:%5B18,18,18,19,19%5D,%22date-format-xparb%22:%5B20,21,20,20,20%5D,%22math-cordic%22:%5B1,1,1,1,1%5D,%22math-partial-sums%22:%5B18,18,18,19,19%5D,%22math-spectral-norm%22:%5B10,10,10,10,10%5D,%22regexp-dna%22:%5B18,18,18,18,18%5D,%22string-base64%22:%5B7,7,7,7,7%5D,%22string-fasta%22:%5B22,22,22,22,21%5D,%22string-tagcloud%22:%5B30,30,30,30,30%5D,%22string-unpack-code%22:%5B32,32,32,32,32%5D,%22string-validate-input%22:%5B17,17,17,17,17%5D%7D

I just benchmarked the new IE9 beta ( I am loving the new look :) )

Hardware Information:
Core 2 duo e5300 @ 2,6GhZ,XFX ATI Radeon 4770 512 MB DDR5, 2x2 GB A-DATA@800MhZ, Gigabyte Ep45 UD3P mobo, WD Black 640 GB

Software information:

Windows 7 Ultimate x64,
started programs during benchmark: Skype, MS OneNote, BitDefender 2011, about 20 IE9 tabs

Results

Sun Spider:
http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider-results.html?%7B%223d-cube%22:%5B19,18,18,18,18%5D,%223d-morph%22:%5B25,23,24,24,23%5D,%223d-raytrace%22:%5B19,19,19,19,20%5D,%22access-binary-trees%22:%5B6,6,6,6,6%5D,%22access-fannkuch%22:%5B13,14,12,13,13%5D,%22access-nbody%22:%5B20,21,20,20,20%5D,%22access-nsieve%22:%5B3,3,3,3,3%5D,%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:%5B2,2,2,2,2%5D,%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:%5B6,5,5,6,5%5D,%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:%5B4,4,4,4,5%5D,%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:%5B11,11,10,11,11%5D,%22controlflow-recursive%22:%5B3,3,3,2,3%5D,%22crypto-aes%22:%5B8,8,8,8,9%5D,%22crypto-md5%22:%5B6,6,6,6,7%5D,%22crypto-sha1%22:%5B8,7,7,7,7%5D,%22date-format-tofte%22:%5B24,23,24,24,24%5D,%22date-format-xparb%22:%5B24,24,24,27,24%5D,%22math-cordic%22:%5B1,1,1,1,1%5D,%22math-partial-sums%22:%5B22,21,21,22,21%5D,%22math-spectral-norm%22:%5B11,11,11,11,11%5D,%22regexp-dna%22:%5B26,25,25,24,24%5D,%22string-base64%22:%5B8,9,9,8,8%5D,%22string-fasta%22:%5B24,24,23,23,23%5D,%22string-tagcloud%22:%5B34,33,34,33,63%5D,%22string-unpack-code%22:%5B39,39,39,38,39%5D,%22string-validate-input%22:%5B22,22,22,22,22%5D%7D

Kraken

No results, it waited for about 10 minutes, but the test just stops at one point and starts all overa again, just like in a loop.

PeaceKeeper

2521 Points
Rendering 2197
Social Networking 1309
Complex Graphics 6245
Data 5317
DOM Operations 1811
Text Parsing 3681

I just benchmarked the new IE9 beta ( I am loving the new look :) ) Hardware Information: Core 2 duo e5300 @ 2,6GhZ,XFX ATI Radeon 4770 512 MB DDR5, 2x2 GB A-DATA@800MhZ, Gigabyte Ep45 UD3P mobo, WD Black 640 GB Software information: Windows 7 Ultimate x64, started programs during benchmark: Skype, MS OneNote, BitDefender 2011, about 20 IE9 tabs Results Sun Spider: http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider-results.html?%7B%223d-cube%22:%5B19,18,18,18,18%5D,%223d-morph%22:%5B25,23,24,24,23%5D,%223d-raytrace%22:%5B19,19,19,19,20%5D,%22access-binary-trees%22:%5B6,6,6,6,6%5D,%22access-fannkuch%22:%5B13,14,12,13,13%5D,%22access-nbody%22:%5B20,21,20,20,20%5D,%22access-nsieve%22:%5B3,3,3,3,3%5D,%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:%5B2,2,2,2,2%5D,%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:%5B6,5,5,6,5%5D,%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:%5B4,4,4,4,5%5D,%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:%5B11,11,10,11,11%5D,%22controlflow-recursive%22:%5B3,3,3,2,3%5D,%22crypto-aes%22:%5B8,8,8,8,9%5D,%22crypto-md5%22:%5B6,6,6,6,7%5D,%22crypto-sha1%22:%5B8,7,7,7,7%5D,%22date-format-tofte%22:%5B24,23,24,24,24%5D,%22date-format-xparb%22:%5B24,24,24,27,24%5D,%22math-cordic%22:%5B1,1,1,1,1%5D,%22math-partial-sums%22:%5B22,21,21,22,21%5D,%22math-spectral-norm%22:%5B11,11,11,11,11%5D,%22regexp-dna%22:%5B26,25,25,24,24%5D,%22string-base64%22:%5B8,9,9,8,8%5D,%22string-fasta%22:%5B24,24,23,23,23%5D,%22string-tagcloud%22:%5B34,33,34,33,63%5D,%22string-unpack-code%22:%5B39,39,39,38,39%5D,%22string-validate-input%22:%5B22,22,22,22,22%5D%7D Kraken No results, it waited for about 10 minutes, but the test just stops at one point and starts all overa again, just like in a loop. PeaceKeeper 2521 Points Rendering 2197 Social Networking 1309 Complex Graphics 6245 Data 5317 DOM Operations 1811 Text Parsing 3681

Someone with Windows 7, a decent 3d graphics card, and a dual or quad-core CPU please benchmark this new IE9 beta vs. the currently released versions for FF, Chrome, Safari and Opera, using:

• Sunspider
• Kraken
• Peacekeeper

And, if you could, break out the scores on the individual Peacekeeper tests. I intentionally omitted V8 in the list of benchmarks since its so inconsistent between runs.

I'd do it myself but I don't have a Win7 installation to use.

You won't have to wait long for WebGL in Safari. It's been in the nightlies since last year.

And the rest of the story is that Webkit went on to become the fastest library on the planet, adopted into pretty much every toolkit and platform currently known to man (scroll down to "webkit ports"), including Chrome and Android.

The whole thing started because the KDE guys didn't want to use Gecko in 1998

A little patience, please.

If you check the entries on the page that you're linking to, you'll find this - https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33044
On that page, there are already some patches that have been submitted, although not yet reviewed and developer resources have been allocated
to having a deeper look at the issue of getting Java applet support working.

Getting Webkit in is a big first step; the rest will come, in time, and quickly, I'm sure. I would expect to see a fully functional Konq+Webkit by this year's end.

Sunspider Test

Firefox-3.5.9-Linux: 2331.6ms

Opera-10.61-Linux: 868.2ms

Chromium-6.0.492.0-Linux: 865.6ms

I would have posted links to the results but apparently there were too many non-letter characters per line (even with the links inside href attribs).

They didn't have any of those things in 2005 - the time period I was referring to in my post.

Just as you said here - (1) they gave source code dumps, (2) they didn't accept any patches, (3) their source code was filled with platform-specific code, (4) they didn't offer any bug repository even to core KHTML devs, (5) they asked KHTML devs to sign NDAs to see source code they added, etc.

Apple forked WebKit in 2002, and at that point it was as you describe. June 7, 2005 is the date when they created a webkit.opendarwin.org website for WebKit; opened the entire CVS repository with the full history of the project to public checkout; invited publicly-submitted patches (and they committed some of those on the very same day); opened a public bug tracker; and created public mailing lists and IRC channels. See Dave Hyatt's blog post. The first person to get commit access to WebKit who wasn't an Apple employee was Anders Carlsson, in August 2005.

So basically, no. WebKit became a full-fledged open-source project in 2005.

It's because they legally had to - they forked KHTML which was under LGPL. Now webkit is also under LGPL.

They could easily have 1) only given source dumps instead of public SVN checkout, 2) not accepted patches or bug reports from the public, and 3) structured all their big additions/rewrites as a separate library so as not to be infected by the LGPL, dropping LGPL code as it gets rewritten, and thereby eventually getting rid of LGPL code entirely.

Instead, they have public SVN checkout, they have a public Bugzilla that they actually use, you can submit patches, you can get commit access, all their additions are LGPL. They did not legally have to do any of this. But they did, and it's awesome of them and we should give them credit for it. (Despite the fact that they may be completely evil in other respects.)

In 2005 Apple open sourced Webkit and released it to the wild. Contrary to common belief, Apple actually gives quite a bit back to the Open Source community.

It's because they legally had to - they forked KHTML which was under LGPL. Now webkit is also under LGPL. In addition, if you go back to the time period you are referring to and read how they released the source back - they made it so that KHTML developers couldn't easily merge the changes back into their project, and offered little to no collaboration with KHTML project. It was Apple's way or highway - yes they are clear legally, but not really a high mark there.

So, Apple may "give quite a bit back" but this is not really a good example.