Slashdot Mirror
Konqueror Passes the Acid2 Test Too
An anonymous reader writes "A month after Safari , and after a lot of controversy, Allan Sandfeld Jensen announced today that Konqueror passes the Acid2 test too. Half of the patches could be merged from Apple's Webcore, the rest needed to be rewritten from scratch."
Sorry, dont know what that is. Could someone post a link...
"Allan Sandfeld Jensen announced today that Konqueror passes the Acid2 test too. Half of the patches could be merged from Apple's Webcore, the rest needed to be rewritten from scratch.""
It's amazing what people can do when sufficiently motivated.
I for one am very glad that the Gecko/Mozill engine is not our only choice in free software based renderers. There is some security in seeing that we have at least two projects with excellent browsers available for the community.
Congrats Konqueror team!
I wonder if anyone is working on a Windows port of this?
Throw the bums out!
I have been using Konqueror a bit more that usual recently because it loads quicker that Firefox, and I still find myself switching to Fx for pages that render wrong
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
There were never any gpl violation wrt khtml.
Konqueror guys didn't like the patches from apple.
Looks like they could handle these patches, though! good for them.
jeff
ipv6 is my vpn
Both Safari and Konqueror have improved because of Open Source. Even though the two teams worked independently, they benefited from having access to the other's code.
Does it really matter what Apple's motivations were? The end result is that Open Source development has helped both products.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Now we are waiting for IE to support the ACID2 test.
And only then, we could design web sites using today's CSS features. Oh, not today's, 5 years ago's but it will still be a revolution.
{{.sig}}
What's C? What's RSA? What's a race condition? It isn't "News for people who are too lasy to learn things on their own", now is it?
I think it's great that the KHTML team have managed to pass the ACID2 test only a month behind Apple. However, I am skeptical if this kind of pace can be continued in the future. Firstly, it looks like the KHTML developers might have been working harder than usual just to pass the test so that they wouldn't lose face. As the two code bases diverge (they only merged half of Apple's patches) it will become increasingly difficult for the KHTML guys to keep up. Webcore is effectively a fork, and there's a diminishing degree to which code can be shared between the fork and the original.
Unless KHTML receives extra resources (in money, developers, etc.), I fear that they may be left behind Mozilla and Webcore.
OLPC Australia
This has been featured on Slashdot before. The Acid 2 test is a web browser standards compliancy test, and it applies to all web browsers not just Konqueror and Safari. These are just the first two that can pass the test. The others will hopefully follow later.
Take the Acid 2 Test.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Acid2 is a test page, written to help browser vendors ensure proper support for web standards in their products.
Recently, one of the Safari developers announced that Safari (the HTML parsing part of which is Webcore, which is derived from KDE's KHTML component) now passed the Acid 2 test. This led to a lot of comment, on Slashdot and elsewhere, asking when Konqueror (KDE's web browser) would pass Acid 2. This led to a post by a KDE developer saying that Webcore and KHTML had diverged significantly, and this is turn led to a lot of badly informed comment (mostly on Slashdot), slagging of KDE, Apple, or both.
Happily KDE and Apple seem to be working relatively well together, and this current announcement indicates that the KHTML developers have worked through all Apple's Webcore patches related to Acid 2, using the ones they can, and rewriting the ones they can't. Konqueror now becomes the second mainstream browser to pass the Acid 2 test.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
As Hyatt's blog post noted, the Acid2 code is not yet in a released version of Safari. You can either (a) patch and recompile WebKit/WebCore yourself or (b) wait for the next update of Safari, which Apple and Hyatt have said will be Real Soon Now.
This is a site for geeks, and most readers are regular readers.
The Acid2 test is not something specific to konqueror, it's a test for browsers in general, it has been covered here a lot lately, just search, or read the site more often.
Safari is based on Konqueror, Apple publishes it modifications of Safari and people tries to backport the useful ones to Konqueror. There has been troubles about this, since apple does a few things that make it hard to reuse the code, again, you are either trolling, or you really don't read slashdot, has been covered before, ___lots___.
Here goes the acid2 information: http://fuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=acid2
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
This site is of a technical nature and the articles may assume some technical knowledge. Any web developer who doesn't have his head stuck in a hole in the ground knows what Acid2 is and why it's important. (This embedded systems developer does, too--read a technical blog sometime, you might learn something. The 37signals folks have good ones. Try them first).
Slashdot has extensively covered the apple patches/khtml/webcore controversy and shouldn't have to reexplain it every time something tangentially related has come up. Did you search the archives? Google? Seriously, you can't present technical information without expecting the reader to have some background information. The abstract would be 500 words long if they took the time to explain all of that. Whether that would be good or not is up for debate, but it's not what slashdot has ever done.
Acid2 and is no more relevant to konqueror than to firefox or ie. Why should konqueror people understand it any more? Stop talking out of your ass and look it up.
Truism alert. Of course Apple could be doing a lot more and still be within the bounds of the license.
The more interesting question is; could Apple be doing less and still be within the bounds of the license.
There isn't any violation, technically, but IMHO the spirit of the GPL has been broken. Of course, spirit isnt legally defensible. Apple released patches in large gobs instead of in easily digestible chunks, and their code comments made many references to bugs in the internal Apple bug database (which isn't available to the KHTML team). They also made many Mac OS specific (KDE incompatible) changes and they disallowed CVS access.
OLPC Australia
I still find myself switching to Fx for pages that render wrong
This could be because the page itself is broken but it works in IE. Being standards compliant is very different from being able to render the same as in IE. Firefox has probably spent a little more effort on mimicking IE's quirks and less on standards compliancy.
It's good to have both browsers to choose from.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
"and this is turn led to a lot of badly informed comment (mostly on Slashdot), slagging of KDE, Apple, or both."
This ignores the properly informed issue. That there were no patches from Apple at all, just complete release tarballs that the KHTML guys got access to along with everyone else and then had to diff to several megs of text worth of changes and then sort through it.
This was the FIRST case of Apple giving the KDE guys patches at all. This is not a vendication of Apple's previous practices (which were perfectly legal, there is no law requiring community participation or reasonable cooperation), rather it is evidence of how much better giving the kde html guys patches is versus not doing so.
This also increases compatability between Webcore and KHTML and therefore increases the liklihood of future KDE development being portable into Webcore and benefiting Apple in turn.
They claim that Konqueror is the second browser to pass the Acid2 test, but in fact iCab (on Mac OS X) was second :
5 /05/22/24-acid2-icab-%20le-premier-vainqueur
:-)
http://frederic.bezies.free.fr/blog/index.php?200
way to go OS X browsers
*Sigh* Just because you want more from (whoever, Apple in this case), it doesn't give you the right to demand more than is required by the terms of any given contract or licence. It certainly doesn't give you the right to accuse them of breaking those terms when you're fully aware that they haven't.
I'm assuming you're fully aware because of the enormous hoo-haa that developed when the story first broke... No-one (not Apple (!), not the KHTML team, not anyone even remotely informed) claimed that the licence terms were being broken. The claim was that Apple ought to have been complying more with the spirit of the licence than the letter of it.
Frankly I think it cheapens the GPL when it's abused as in the OP's subject. The standard response to companies who *do* abuse it is that they ought to have read the licence and not assumed they could just take and not give. The standard response to people who, like Oliver Twist, say "but I want more" ought to be in the same vein - the GPL is what it is and it's a damn fine licence. Use it, don't abuse it.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Acid2 test passed Load balancing failed
You're not worth my time to set straight, so suffice it to say that you are a fucking idiot. Please refrain, in the future, from spewing your senseless shit all over Slashdot where it may negatively impact others in the form of wasted time and wasted brainpower.
Maybe you'd be more comfortable reading CNN or Yahoo! News.
Gecko (the engine used in Firefox and Mozilla) probably won't be passing it too soon. See Robert O'Callahan's blog entry here. This means Firefox 1.1 won't pass Acid2.
My server
The Konqueror team don't have access to the Safari code, at least not in a form they can use.
The fact that they were able to use ha;f the patches says otehrwise. They may not have access to ALL the code. But they do have access to at least some of it as demonstrated by the FACT that they used it.
As to whether it helped both products, well of that I'm sceptical.
Well is passes Acid2 now. Something is better. You're just trying to paint the worst face possible on something that is a mixture of good and bad.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And they could be doing better there
There's no "better" / "worse"; they either are abiding by the terms of the licence, or they're not. No matter what you'd like them to be doing above and beyond the terms of the licence, the fact is, they are abiding by its terms. If the Konquerer team wanted more than that, they should have selected a licence that specified as much.
If they're not meeting the terms of the licence, I would suggest you point out precisely which clauses they aren't abiding by here (where it's likely to get a lot of free publicity), to the Safari team (who can do something about it), to the KDE team (who I would hope would go after Apple with all they have, or refer their case to the FSF), and to Apple Legal (who are responsible for remedying the situation if the Safari team won't).
Seriously; if they're not meeting any of the terms, either point out which ones, or quit your complaining. If it's that you'd rather they do more than they're obliged to under the terms of the licence, then start complaining to the KDE team that they should have used a more restrictive licence, but don't complain that someone isn't going above and beyond what they're required to.
shouldn't Apple be doing more?
Doing more then what? By what people can tell, most of the dispute is because the Safari/WebCore and the Konquer people are doing different things with the code and also use different source managment systems. Apple uses one that most of the OS X devs use. And that is completly different then the one the KDE folks use.
Thus far, most of the complaints has been "Apple isn't doing it our way." Apple shot back with "Use WebCore, we will even show you how and assist on making it multiplatform", but that got shot down by the K folks. The issue isn't just with one side, it's with both using their normal work flows and expecting the other side to change everything.
Apple doesn't ship Konquer in their OS and has no plans to. KDE has no plans to use WebCore. So diversity issues are going to happen, and either side can just live with it, or do something about it. But it seems the KDE folks would just rather sit and whine about how Apple isn't doing things their way.
Maybe I missed it, but if you can point out to me where in the GPL it says you must bend over backwards to make a group of people happy, I'll conclude Apple is doing something wrong. Until then, I'll file this under the "people are never happy" section, and be one of the few to appreciate what Apple is doing to help OSS, and to promote the adoption of Unix in many areas. Sure, it's not the Linux way of things, but Apple is doing a hell of a lot better then say Sun with Solaris or HP with Tru64/HPUX to push the Unix platform across all spaces.
I usually do the opposite. newegg renders badly in firefox by default unless I adjust font sizes, so I usually go to it in konq. Even more strange, neither of them can render circuitcity.com correctly, but netscape 7 can (but that's under Windows at my job, haven't tried it in linux), go figure.
:). It seems like konq wants to render the whole page in one go and firefox'll render pieces.
I find myself going back to firefox because konq tends to pause a bit on some sites (especially flash and animated gif heavy sites) before rendering the page. To be truthful, the actual time I wait to get a page I can view is about the same, but that little pause bugs me
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why is the spirit of GPL broken? They released the code for free and open access.
Anything in the GPL that hints that you should release patches in small digestible chunks?
Anything in the "spirit" of the GPL that says I have to test my fixes for _your_ platform?
I got a bug, I fix it for my platform, I submit the changes back. It's up to _you_ to figure out how to patch it for your platform.
Anything in the GPL that says "your code should be commented and readable"? How many other contributors to GPL projects provide well-written comments and documentation?
Anything in the GPL that stipulates use of CVS? What if I hate CVS? Is that against the spirit of GPL? All it says is that I have to include the source code for you to freely use.
No to all of the above. In my opinion, Apple has not legally violated the GPL, nor have they done so in spirit.
You don't seem to understand the situation. Originally KDE-guys beef wasn't with Apple, but with the users who complained. But speaking of Apple: The problem with them is that they tell everyone what a huge supporters of open source they are. But as far as KHTML is concerned, they are not. They are merely following the license (as they are required to do). And in my (and many other's as well) opinion that does not mean that they are "big supporters of open source". Merely following the license is not enough to warrant that title.
If Apple wanted to, they could actively support KHTML-guys. But they choose not to do so. And that is their choice. But if they choose to do so, they shouldn't then march around calling themselves (good open-source-citizens).
The code Webcore-guys generate is next to useless to KHTMl-guyes. Apple gives them no access to their bug-database (so they have no idea what "this fixes bug #32332" means), they have no acces to their internal VCS (so they could track the changes). All they have is megabyte-sized codeblobs.
Webcore-guys DO have access to KDE's bug-database, and they have access to KDE SVN-repository. So all improvement KDE-guys make, can be merged to Webcore. But Webcore-improvements can't be merged to KHTML as easily.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
No, Safari has rich text editing.
Why should a web browser include a text editor? Stop propagating bloat and jack-of-all-trades syndrome.
I might also add that Safari's implementation of RTE is far superior to Mozilla/Gecko/Firefox.
I wonder how meaningful the Acid2 test really is?
It's a religious sort of thing. Sort of like when you hear the CSS fanatics proclaim the dirtiness and brokenness of table-layout designs. After beaten beaten about it for a while, you go about an arduous process of dealing with all of the oddities of CSS. Eventually you might end up with the same layout as your table design, and you'll wonder WTF you wasted your time for, but at least you won't hear the CSS fantatics yelling in your ear.
Firms rely on predicatability to build model that can be used to generate profit. So, even if IBM or SUN, or MS or whoever charges an large sum of money for thier product, as long as the monies and products are predictable and can be built into the model, all is well. The same goes for regulations. If the regulations are clear and evenly applied, then they can be dealt with.
In this environment the GPL is a big unknown. Is the writer of the code really going to let it be used for internal use only? Is some wacko going to start changing the rules when the product becomes succesful, saying that it is no longer ok just to release the code or changes as written, but the changes must be reformatted to meet some arbitrary standards?
I hate to say it, but if we want firms to base products on OSS, so we at least have a more or less compatible and known base, we have to let not attack those firms when they are doing exactly that. As the article stated, half the changes fit right in. The others had to be rewritten, but it is often easier to rewrite than start with a blank sheet of paper. So Apple did transfer back significant good to the community.
There are blatant violaters out there that need to be stopped. There may even be some blatant violations at Apple. But I don't see that arguing over how code is released, unless it violates a specific item in the GPL, really helps anything.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Opera is making excellent progress with Acid2. Only a few more lines to go. They are treading softly with regression testing.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/index.html?tid=edmunds. n.zipentry.new..2.*
Most of the links on this page don't work in konq. 3.40
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...and for the near-terminally thick, it is: get involved in developing the project.
Even if you couldn't code to save your life, you can document, test, draw/paint/sing/play data, promote and other stuff and use the respect that earns within each project community to convince the coders to do mroe of what you're interested in. "You fix this JavaScript bug and I'll turn the attached sample icon into a whole theme for you," sort of thing.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...so 'fess up your scanner type and let's be about making it work under Linux for you.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Konqueror 3.3.1 (Mandrake Linux 10.1), tables on that page are all centred ferpectly [sic]. On the few sites where I cared to check, 3.4.1 renders quirks much more competently than 3.3.1, and AFAICT it will only get better when these patches are integrated.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
...just disable the good bits for IE users and leave a link behind to a page explaining their loss and the reason for it and what they can do to fix it (abandon MSIE for something safer and more compliant).
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I'm using Safari Version 2.0 (412) right now on Tiger (10.4.1) and the test does not render correctly. Is this some unreleased version they're talking about?
Actually CSS would be child's play if browsers were as consistent as they are with 'table based layout'. The problem is that most screw it up so bad that it requires insane amounts of hacks to get a site looking good. you get used to it after a while tho and once you've learnt all the little browser bugs and tricks it becomes easier than using tables. The point is, table-layout was a hack that CSS was supposed to solve, the browsers screwed it up.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
In related news: In an effort to open up their development process the developers of the Konqueror components KHTML, KJS and KSVG have launched the open Web portal KHTML.info. By providing a central contact point and source of information in form of an open Wiki the developers want to promote their work and embrace users and developers from both Open Source as well as commercial environments.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
I assume you meant that as some sort of affront, but Yes! I would be more comfortable reading CNN or Yahoo News, because they have stories that are better written! They have writers who can give background to stories, and know how much to background they need to fit their audience.
I know it's easy to claim you know everything already and don't need any context for anything you read, but that's just bad journalism.
...iCab runs on Mac OS 8.5.
So: no, it does not rely on Webcore.
You don't need to be able to read French to figure that out from the linked page.
In addition, "Faux, iCab n'utilise PAS WebCore" is pretty obvious as a reponse to "Une version beta de iCab, utilisant probablement une version de dev de webcore", and if you're still not sure, cheat, feed the whole page to Google Translate and see what comes out: "Forgery, iCab does not use WebCore".
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
It is currently scored "Interesting". Did nobody find the "funny" moderation option or are you taking this serious?
It's been mentioned on Slashdot. In fact, when I put acid2 in the search box, I get 110 results. One of the articles includes the following:
"Acid2 is a CSS/HTML test suite put out by the Web Standards Project (WASP)."
Exactly what would you like engraved on your silver platter?
Actually, if you read the email exchanges, you see Apple engineers discussed the patch tarballs and actively assisted khtml developers when they asked for reasonable things (ie, not access to internal Apple revision control systems). KHTML devs did not reveal this (to my knowledge) in their "open letter" this cooperation, which is quite a bit more than the LGPL. The LGPL requires you make the patches available- that's it. Apple sent them, discussed them, provided help interpreting them, did work by proxy, etc.
This is a logical fallacy called "fallacy by omission", and the specific technique employed was called "Stacking the Deck".
What becomes apparent is that the KHTML team doesn't like that Apple is doing everything they should be, getting commended for it, and that the work (supposedly) wasn't useful to them (we see now that's not the case, as half the patches were easily applied).
If integrating half of the patches only took a month or two, guess what- it wasn't nearly as impossible as the KHTML team made it out to be, and the code wasn't nearly as useless as they portrayed it to be.
WEBCORE CODE CANNOT JUST BE DROPPED INTO THE KHTML TREE. Webcore directly uses OS X features. That is one problem. The code bombs Apple drops periodically have inadequate documentation as to why some changes were made and not others.
The second is irrelevant because of the first; they're also unrelated, though you imply them to be compounded. It's not Apple's responsibility to turn over Webcore, or convert the code to use something besides Webcore. They're not allowed to sit on that code, they HAVE to provide it.
Second, they've provided several of what you've referred to as "code bombs", which is one step ahead of a company that would just provide them with ONE tarball; they're sharing work progressively, and have an active dialog with the khtml team.
Webcore at this point is a khtml fork that is about two years old.
And your point would be what? The LGPL doesn't say "help integrate old code". It doesn't say, "only fork recent code", or "don't fork code at all". It doesn't say "provide changelogs". It doesn't say "provide the project coders with access to your internal revision control systems and corporate network". It doesn't say ANY of that! EVER! PERIOD!
I'm sorry, but this whole thing has left me very embarrassed for the open-source community, and left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. Apple IS one of the better companies as far as contributing to open-source, they've brought open-source technologies to more desktops than anyone else, they've come up with some truly unique technology which they've provided source for- and they still get kicked in the teeth.
A lot of companies are looking at how Apple was treated, and thinking, "geez, Apple did more than just send tarballs, and they got pretty beat up for it." Question: do you think this will encourage or discourage companies to do work on open-source projects?
Please help metamoderate.
The answer is very straightforward: bad timing. In both cases.
To really make the point, the page should include an evil-but-signed ActiveX control (the original "run once, ruin everything" technology).
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Actions speak otherwise- half the patches integrated according to the article.
It means in future open source projects will know what's coming when Apple decide to get "involved".
Yes. They can expect to get regular tarballs, participation of senior team leaders, active dialog on public mailing lists, and assistance of Apple engineers in interpreting the tarballs.
(No, seriously. Go read the archives and look at the discussion that follows when Apple sends in a code base. The "burnt out guy" whines. Another developer or two actually get to work and look at the code, start talking to Apple engineers, etc. An Apple engineer says "let me take a look at that" and a little bit later, comes back as promised with an answer and help.)
After starting out optimistic he's now bitter.
Optimistic is a funny word. He seemed under the impression that Apple was obligated to provide changelogs, access to internal revision control systems, etc. He also got upset when he realized that Apple had forked code. It sounds like he had unreasonable expectations, and when Apple said "I'm sorry, we can't do that" or "I'm sorry, we're not allowed to do that", he threw a hissy fit.
The Konqueror developer in question also used a logical fallacy called "Stacking the deck", a kind of fallacy-by-omission. He did not discuss any of Apple's assistance provided to developers on the mailing list, and repeatedly asserted that Apple was meeting "minimum" requirements of the LGPL, when in fact Apple was doing more.
That is why he got burned. Not because of actions on Apple's part- and your insinuation that Apple is to blame for the actions of its "Apple fanboys" is absurd. You're distracting from the core issue- that the developer used fallacies to promote his version of the facts. Sadly, few people bothered to actually read the mailing list exchanges.
Apple got the code to a rendering engine for free and gave back little to nothing
Again, you're distorting facts. Apple gave back all the code it was obligated to, and participated in an active dialog. If half of Apple's patches were integrated within less than a few months, that's a lot more than "little to nothing". Question- how long would it have taken the KHTML developers to become Acid2 compliant without the contributions by Apple? And if the patches were so worthless, why did they "waste" time and effort if writing their own stuff from scratch would have been more productive, as was implied if not outright stated by khtml developers?
Please help metamoderate.
Yes. Apple could just be grabbing periodic snapshots of KTHML and using them without expending any effort on making it better.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
LOL. The test is supposed to be broken. It's checking that renderers fall back correctly.
I don't see that debian will package konquerer that soon...
b inary-i386/Packages
Taken from http.us.debian.org/debian/dists/Debian3.0r6/main/
Package: konqueror
Priority: optional
Section: web
Installed-Size: 4984
Maintainer: Christopher L Cheney
Architecture: i386
Source: kdebase
Version: 4:2.2.2-14.9
Replaces: kdebase-libs ( 4:2.2.2-14.2)
Filename: pool/main/k/kdebase/konqueror_2.2.2-14.9_i386.deb
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
when my favorite browser, lynx, will pass the Acid2 test?
A big well done to the Konqueror team and thanks for all the efforts you put in! Double thumbs up :D
-- My funny sig is in my other pants
That's a good point. I guess it's really a judgment call whether the readership here could be expected to know what the blurb is talking about. Personally I don't think it's too much to ask, but then, I probably check Slashdot too often for my own good.
There could be an issue. The license says the code has to be made available "in the preferred form for making modifications". The monolithic patches apple gives are not very nice to work with, it could be argued that smaller patchsets are this preferred form.
I am trolling
You actually deserve to get slammed for this. So he forgot one hyperlink. Type Acid2 in Google. It's the first hit.
The license says you must make available the "work in the preferred form for making modifications". KDE has said they would like separated patchsets (apple just gives them a huge unified diff of a whole month or so's changes, without showing what goes with what) and logs from the version control system (so they have a better idea what change does what). Apple has refused to provide either.
I am trolling
Yes, there's the bit that says you have to release "in the preferred form for making modifications", and it is implied in the preamble that is what you use yourself to modify it. I very much doubt the huge monolithic patchsets are what apple devs use internally, far more likely they use their VCS tree complete with comments. So that's what they should release.
I am trolling
Then that is a problem of unrealistic expectations or a misunderstanding on the part of the "fanboys". That's not a problem with Apple's (perceived lack of) cooperation.
Everything I read from the KHTML team whined about how Apple (in their opinion) wasn't doing as much as they should have. I saw a lot of whining about how Apple wasn't giving access to internal code revision servers and whatnot. There was not a single word giving Apple credit for what they HAD done for you.
THAT is why you drew further ire, and I stick to my assertion that your arguments were full of omissions to support your position- aka, "stacking the deck".
Please help metamoderate.
Since this was the first time Apple actually suplied real patches as such, and not only as a big blob of code named WebCore. And only after one of the khtml developers bugged Hyatt about it, after him bragging in his blog. Yes, I'd say the statement are rather accurate regarding the normal khtml/webcore cooporation.
You've totally missed the point. Let's review.
A third party developer releases a set of changes for Safari that will make it pass the Acid2 test. This set of patches was not a part of the Apple-generated "code dumps". Instead, each and every change was documented separately as to why it was made.
The KHTML folks complain about people assuming that these patches to Apple's code base will just drop into KHTML. A typical sentiment is that the KHTML developers are lazy if they don't apply fixes for Safari as soon as they are released. The developers were not complaining that Apple wasn't doing their part, just that people don't understand how hard it is to merge changes back into KHTML due to the divergence of the two code bases.
The fact that only 1/2 of the changes for Safari were useable in KHTML and that it took one month to incorporate an extremely well-documented set of changes to Safari proves the point that the KHTML developers were making about how hard it is to merge changes back into KHTML from Safari.
Interestingly, the reaction of the masses is not that the KHTML developers have been vindicated, but rather that they are lazy. Wow. Talk about deja vu.
..wayne..
First off, Acid2 test isn't that uncommon a term. Secondly, it's been featured on Slashdot before.
Even for someone who does not know the reference, it's quite obvious from the context of the article (if you bothered to read it, that is).
I mean, when an article on biology or something comes up, you just look up the terms you do not know on Google or Wikipedia. Why not the same here?
Just do a simple Google search or a Wikipedia lookup and there is enough and more information.
Why do you expect to be spoon-fed everything? Can't you do a simple search and find it yourself, is it that hard?
Remember that webcore contains OS X specific code.
I'm happy about this. My hope is that the winner of Browser Wars 2 won't actually be a browser, it will hopefully be standards. When there are a plethora of appealing standards compliant browsers to choose from, site designers will be forced to stick to standards.
I'm not going to get into the politics of Safari vs. KHTML. It matters (to me) less how standards compliance was achieved than that it was.
Ironic, isn't it. We're laughing at different jokes.
since the file you are loading is .html you still need to change the code to render it properly. if it was loading a png that'd be different. At worst it'll only behave compliant for the Acid test.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
When will you realize that the complaint was NEVER about how Apple is not doing enough. The KHTML guys accepted that because Apple was complying with the GPL.
The KHTML guys were complaining about people like YOU that lay blame on them for not implementing some of the patches from webcore. It was explained that not all patches can be merged because they are extremely obtuse, referring to bugs that the KHTML guys had no access to. When you get a huge patch with a commment that says "Fixes issue #1239837" and you have no idea what that issue is, then its pretty hard to decide whether that issue applies to your codebase or not.
Christ, I can't believe how many idiots like you still haven't figured out what the commotion was all about, and insist on blaming the KDE guys for whining.
He wasn't asking the community, he was blaming the editors for not explaining a term that's apparently been used on Slashdot 110 times before. Thanks for actually reading the original post, though. I just disagreed with the assertion that this is the editors' job.
So if the KDE people say that they want every file and directory in WebCore to start with the letter 'K', does Apple have to comply with that?
What if the KDE developers say that the preferred form is on a 160GB SCSI drive installed in a dual G5 with a 30" Cinema display attached to it, does Apple have to comply with THAT?
I think that people may be taking those words from the GPL a little too far. To me, what they mean is that if I get a binary, I need to get the source required to recreate that binary.
Now we are waiting for IE to support the ACID2 test.
IE's target is still the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.
Apple does the bare minimum the LGPL requires with Webcore but the khtml devs accepted that.
No, let's be clear. Apple does ALL AND EVERYTHING that the LGPL requires. Implicit in your statement is the suggestion that free software can be free if it includes tacit, implied promises not to fork and to satisfy its authors with all its changes. That suggestion is flagrantly inconsistent with the notion of free software, in any sense.
Fundamental to the notion of free software is that its authors cannot limit the rights of others to access and modify the software. Forking is not a problem with free software, it is a feature.
Ordinarily forking
Kirby
Apple does the bare minimum the LGPL requires with Webcore but the khtml devs accepted that.
No, let's be clear. Apple does ALL AND EVERYTHING that the LGPL requires. Implicit in your statement is the suggestion that free software can be free if it includes tacit, implied promises not to fork and to satisfy its authors with all its changes. That suggestion is flagrantly inconsistent with the notion of free software, in any sense.
Fundamental to the notion of free software is that its authors cannot limit the rights of others to access and modify the software. Forking is not a problem with free software, it is a feature.
Ordinarily forking *is* a problem for the community, when the initial developers are adequately satsifying the needs of the community as a whole and working well with others. But this is not always the case. Sometimes politics, legitimate and petty, and aesthetics, legitimate and ludicrous, gets in the way of good agile development. When that happens, the community may well be better served by a fork.
Apple and the Konqueror clan were not working well together, but both had important and significant constituencies to serve. It was either going to work or not, but neither Apple nor the clan "owned" this free software. In its feral state, BOTH were free to decide by what methodology development of their respective trees will proceed, what features the code will have and what will be the quality of that code.
Darwin (no pun intended) takes care of the rest.
Evolution by forking is not the preferable state of nature, but it happens when it needs to happen. And people will abandon what is useless and use what is important.
If, someday, there is actually a need to harmonize this code, it will be harmonized. Otherwise, it may well be for the best there was a fork. The problem that it is difficult to harmonize advances in one tree into another is salient, but it is not due to any malfeasance of anybody. Apple WAS FREE to do what it would with the code. And glory be for that... So, too, is the Konqueror clan, and glory be for that.
The remaining whines in the message are puerile. Don't like the doco or the coding style? Its free software, change it. Don't like the way others are working on the code? No problem, ignore them, and use the free software of the existing code. Got a feature you need? Great. Code it up. Don't want to? No problem, but why are you posting your gripes HERE?
Apple has a free software realationship with the K-clan. K-clan could work with them or not, and vice-versa. If it doesn't work out, so be it. The code is out there. It was built the way it was built, and people may use it or not. Nobody has a gripe, because it is free software -- if you don't like it -- change it.
The fact that a browser can display broken css is nice, but isn't displaying proper CSS properly a bit more important?
Why yes, yes it has.
In fact, not just that-- the letter of the GPL has been broken as well.
However this is not a problem since Konqueror is under the LGPL, not the GPL.
The above is not just nitpicking your post. There is quite a serious distinction here. This is in fact exactly one of the reasons why Richard M. Stallman strongly recommends people use the GPL rather than the LGPL-- because normal, in-spirit, recommended uses of the LGPL can seriously violate the spirit of the GPL, and Richard M. Stallman wants to preserve the spirit of the GPL. From the LGPL preamble:However, Apple has pretty well I'd say covered the spirit of the LGPL, which was after all more or less specifically designed to allow free software which proprietary software developers can make use of, as clients of a sort, without having to enter the free software world themselves. And this was in a way part of the dialogue of the Safari project beginning-- had Konqueror decided to use the GPL rather than the LGPL, Apple almost certainly would not have used KHTML as the basis for Safari, because the GPL, in spirit and in letter, is too demanding to be useful for Apple's purposes.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
As for the second part, apple is allowed to charge what it costs them to distribute the sources.
To me, the GPL means getting what the person themself used to modify and create that binary. I wouldn't be happy with autogenerated source, for example like you get from qt designer, I'd want the file they used to generate it from. Similarly, if there's important information in the CVS log that helps you understand the code and makes modifying it much easier, I want access to that.
I am trolling
The preferred form means what they use when they change the source themselves. If they really work on the big source tarball that's fine, just as if they really code it in assembly then releasing that is fine. But if they work using the VCS and the comments and patchsets in there are important for modifying the code, then that's what they should be distributing.
I am trolling
will be the one that has a production release that passes, not some alpha code that passes.
I've programmed professionally for a living for about 10 years. Never met anyone who edit patchs or changesets as their primary method editing code. I've seen people fix up patches and then apply them (even that is very rare). I've seen them review the history of the code via the VCS. However, not a single person I've ever met, generates a patch from scratch and then applies it to the source. They edit the source and generate patches. The patches are there merely as a convienent way to express the changes.
Comments you might have a point (lacking the comments, I could see a legitimate argument that it's a simplified form of variable and function obfusication), but patchsets are completely irrelavent, they are a by-product of the editting, they aren't necessary to build the source. They aren't what anyone edits to create source. I never have to edit an old patchset to fix a problem. I just go edit the source code.
Patchsets are useful for pulling in other peoples changes, they aren't useful for making changes to the software yourself. Nobody will interpret what you want that to mean in a legal sense.
Kirby
> IMHO the spirit of the GPL has been broken.
Really? So what about rxvt and konsole? As far as I know, the KDE developers have never released any patches to try to integrate any of their enhancements to rxvt back into the rxvt code base. They simply release the code for konsole. It's up to the rxvt developers to review the konsole code and backport any useful bits they may stumble across. Would you say that the KDE developers are violating the spirit of the GPL there? I don't think so! Apple's doing a lot more for KHTML than KDE is doing for rxvt -- where's the outrage at KDE?
3 cheers for the KDE team stepping up and making this happen!
Now hopefully Apple pulls the CVS'd version of KHTML, and bases their next release of Safari off if it, and the cycle can continue.
chown -R us.
The file manager doesn't include a web browser, it simply uses the web browser already on the system to render it's display.
If you are willing to help make Konqueror and KHTML better, you should visit the newKHTML wiki.
I have a Microtek Scanmaker 4850, and I can't afford a new $500 Windows box to run it any more than I can afford a new $150 scanner.
because they have stories
I think you have just hit the nail on the head there!
Slashdot does not have stories! Slashdot is a content aggregator, someone writes in with "Hey cool! Look at this site!" and the "editor" says "hey thats so cool its been posted three times already and deserves to be posted a fourth time!" If you READ the text on slashdot, it says "Some idiot said: 'Hey cool! Look at this site!'"
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
All that is left to pass the test is Firefox...IE doesn't have a chance.
Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
Where, precisely? The complaint voiced by the KHTML devs was against the "fanboys," not Apple. While they regretted that there wasn't more cooperation between the KHTML and Webcore teams, they were quick to point out that Apple was within their rights. To quote Zack Rusin, "all I'm asking for is that all the clueless people stop talking about the cooperation between Safari/Konqueror developers and how great it is. There's absolutely nothing great about it. In fact 'it' doesn't exist." Yes, this wasn't "giving Apple credit for what they HAD done," but what, precisely, were they going to give credit for? What Apple was providing had traditionally been useless to them. Both sides were willing to go on as they were despite this: it was the reaction of the "fanboys" that was problem. This isn't about Apple. It was never about Apple. Apple's behavior is a complete straw man.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
They could use it from a proprietary, ecrypted version control system too. SHould they release that?
The clause in the GPL/LGPL is to prevent someone from obfuscating the code before release.
Apple does not have to release a change set of any kind. THey can simply release the entire source tree and they will be conforming with the license requirements. period. You may not like it, but that is valid.
By the way, a lot of developers using version control still don't use decent comments. You assume Apple does.
The problem with them is that they tell everyone what a huge supporters of open source they are. But as far as KHTML is concerned, they are not. They are merely following the license (as they are required to do). And in my (and many other's as well) opinion that does not mean that they are "big supporters of open source". Merely following the license is not enough to warrant that title.
No, they are doing more than most other corporate "consumers" of Open Source. They are actively developing and improving an Open Source code base, not just taking whatever the Open Source community creates and distributing it as their product. The Open Source codebase they are developing is WebCore which is a fork of KHTML. Now, WebCore doesn't run on anything other than Mac OS X but so what? If you want to do stuff on Mac OS X you've got access to the source and you can do cool things with it. And, at least some of the work that was done on Web Core is applicable to KHTML.
Most Open Source developers are anxious to get their patches merged back into the trunk so they work hard to make nice patches. Apple doesn't care. So, if the KHTML guys want to use their code they can and if they don't want to they don't have to.
...they're planning to put it out in 3.4.2, due out in not many weeks from now. 3.4 is significantly faster, fancier and lower-footprint than 3.3; using 3.4.1 here now.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Except doing so would probably expose bits of Safari which are not based on open-source code. Ain't gonna happen. Also, "preferred form" seems to be interpreted by some folks to mean "guarantee compatibility with my version", which I don't think would hold up in court.
So if Apple releases their KHTML changes with the WebCore stuff in, they get yelled at for being bad citizens. But if they released their changes without the WebCore stuff in, they wouldn't be releasing the source of all their changes and would be violating the license. What's a developer to do?
It isn't "News for people who are too lasy to learn things on their own", now is it?
Well, just as long as it's news for people too lazy to learn to spell, you're in the clear.
But really, if we take your argument and run with it, there's no point in a news summary site. Truly unlazy people would already have found all this stuff out by the time it hits Slashdot. So since we're already supporting laziness, maybe the editors could finish the job and include links or parenthetical phrases like "a CSS validation test".
People review the patchsets and use them to see what they're going to change. You don't write code straight from the patchsets, but you do go through the patchsets before you change something, seeing what they are and what they are doing, so you can check you're not introducing regressions if nothing else. I can see the other side though.
I am trolling
I don't assume they use decent comments, but I do assume they use some form of comments. So far they haven't released any.
I am trolling
You want to mock my tyopgraphical error, then make up a word like "unlazy". As long as we're nitpicking stupid shit, consider your nits picked.
When they talk about municipal WiFi networks, do they say, "WiFi, a wireless networking standard"? They may have the first few times, then it's on you to figure it out if you weren't paying attention.
If anything, blame the submitter.
What they did/do is to take KHTML, improve upon it and use it. Then the parade around telling everyone what "good open-source citizens" they are when they release their changes to others (in the form of huge code-blobs. So they are merely following the requirements of the license, that's all. And that doesn't make then "good open-soirce citizens" in my book. If they wanted to be called that, they should ACTIVELY work with others. Merely following the license is not enough.
Do you understand where the beef is? Apple is not "good open-source citizen" just because they release their changes. They are merely following the license, something that is REQUIRED of them. If they want to be viewed as something better, they have to do more than the bare minimium. KDE-guys TRIED to work with them. They gave them accounts to their CVS (so Apple can pick and choose improvements from KHTML to WebCore), they were willing to sign NDA's so they could access their bug-database and/or intenal VCS. Apple refused. They simple were not interested in working with KDE-guys, even though it wouldn't have been that much of hassle for Apple. Since Apple made the conscious decision to NOT work with KDE-guys, I really fail to see how they are "good open-source citizens". Merely doing what the license requires of you is not enough. Of course Apple has the legal right to not work with KDE-guys, and they are not breaking any laws. But they shouldn't then brag what great supporters of open-source they are, since they are not (as far as KHTML is concerned)
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
You want to mock my tyopgraphical error,
Really, you make this too easy. I wasn't mocking your "tyopgraphy"; I was mocking your hypocrisy. Until you can summon the energy to proof your own posts, maybe you shouldn't be accusing other people of laziness. Although this does kinda explain why you're leaping to the defense of shoddy editorial work.
then make up a word like "unlazy".
It was the right word, pal. Not all good words are in the dictionary.
When they talk about municipal WiFi networks, do they say, "WiFi, a wireless networking standard"?
You're saying just as many people have heard about WiFi as have heard about Acid2? By my estimation, WiFi's maybe 50 or 100 times more common. If you have some numbers that don't make your analogy look completely ridiculous, bring 'em on. Maybe I missed the aisle of Acid2 hardware at Fry's.
If anything, blame the submitter.
The submitter should have fixed it. The editor also should have fixed it. But only one of them is a paid professional, and one of them has a lot more experience in this. If blame assignment is a game you like playing, then it makes more sense to blame the guy whose job it is.
Suppose that I drop code into KHTML which calls a function defined in a separate, proprietary library. What you're claiming is that I would then be required to release source to the proprietary library when, in fact, that's precisely what the LGPL is designed to avoid. Apple can drop all the proprietary calls to their own libs that they want into KHTML without having to open source those libs, but they do have to release the KTHML changes which make those calls.
Also, it's somewhat moot now.