WebKit is quickly becoming the default browser on the "Internet Device" market thanks to Google and Apple, and this will put more pressure on FireFox and Opera to adopt it. Or at least emulate it better.
Yeah right. As if Opera and Mozilla are going to accept being dependent on Apple's release cycles. It's either that or making a fork, which basically means that in a while you'd have several different engines again and you wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
It is actually not the Apple release cycles one should be concered about. As an example Chromium is on a continuous build cycle where each day they are around 5 to 10 builds made.
But there is a concern in another area. Webkit coders are generally protective about patches and new features and trying to get a patch approved in upstream is usually a very tiring process right now. Sometimes they demand a complete clean rewrite of code as they are worried that the patch might break something. Code review process also tend to be slower and absurb statements like this would make Safaris UI more complicated seems to be not uncommon.
I believe at one point Chromium developers will start to mantain a trunk that is a bit differnt from upstream. Right now they wait untill it is approved with webkit.
One of the reasons why Google came out with a Browser is to support Webkit. A platform that they consider is crucial for Mobile Devices. By increasing the mindshare of webkit, Google is able to push the Mobile Web in a direction that they want.
Safari made a nice dent in the Market share, and the iPhone went further. Nokia is running a browser based on Webkit. So trying to speed up adoption of this makes a lot of sense. Right now sales of mobile far outweigh the sales of Desktops, but the browsers that run on them still leave much room for improvement. This where webkit comes in and makes mobile web apps more appealing and powerful.
The browser for Google is a medium for them to push Ads through. Trying to gain first hand knowledge of Browers, and of web application developments on these browers is importnat for Google.
As an example, Gtalk for Gmail offers more features than the Desktop version (which now includes Video). Since this is the medium where they can push Ads on they are more focused on making that version a priority. I doubt that these features really came from the 20% time. Push the Web, understand the Web and Extend it. Kill the Desktop. That's their mantra.
I think this is one of the nicest corporate type I have ever heard speaking out. He is warning us. He is saying that MS is not the only guy who would be voried about GPL, GPL derivitives and non-software specificic "open products". In fact does he MS is not the only one? I think he does.
The price which EV1 paid to SCO should be of great interest to all EV1 Customers and potential customers. There are two possibilities:
EV1 paid a paltry sum just to get a 'good name', that they are the only SCO-Risk-Free hosting provider.
SCO paid them an undisclosed NDA bounded sum and and gave them the "License to use Linux".
Both ways SCO profits by being able to point at the large number of Linux Web Site which have signed up fo SCO Linux License. EV1 profits by having paid very little. Because they paid very little they would profit in the long run. That is some of us might get angry and boycot them, but others would be delighted and switch to EV1 servers just to get that protection. Either way EV1 is beting that more will switch to them.
Thats my $0.20
Re:Start with Lion's Unix Source Code commentary
on
Do You Know UNIX Secrets?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
That won't do because he does not want "Version 7 and older". http://catb.org/~esr/nosecrets/
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah right. As if Opera and Mozilla are going to accept being dependent on Apple's release cycles. It's either that or making a fork, which basically means that in a while you'd have several different engines again and you wouldn't have gotten anywhere.
It is actually not the Apple release cycles one should be concered about. As an example Chromium is on a continuous build cycle where each day they are around 5 to 10 builds made.
But there is a concern in another area. Webkit coders are generally protective about patches and new features and trying to get a patch approved in upstream is usually a very tiring process right now. Sometimes they demand a complete clean rewrite of code as they are worried that the patch might break something. Code review process also tend to be slower and absurb statements like this would make Safaris UI more complicated seems to be not uncommon. I believe at one point Chromium developers will start to mantain a trunk that is a bit differnt from upstream. Right now they wait untill it is approved with webkit.
One of the reasons why Google came out with a Browser is to support Webkit. A platform that they consider is crucial for Mobile Devices. By increasing the mindshare of webkit, Google is able to push the Mobile Web in a direction that they want. Safari made a nice dent in the Market share, and the iPhone went further. Nokia is running a browser based on Webkit. So trying to speed up adoption of this makes a lot of sense. Right now sales of mobile far outweigh the sales of Desktops, but the browsers that run on them still leave much room for improvement. This where webkit comes in and makes mobile web apps more appealing and powerful. The browser for Google is a medium for them to push Ads through. Trying to gain first hand knowledge of Browers, and of web application developments on these browers is importnat for Google. As an example, Gtalk for Gmail offers more features than the Desktop version (which now includes Video). Since this is the medium where they can push Ads on they are more focused on making that version a priority. I doubt that these features really came from the 20% time. Push the Web, understand the Web and Extend it. Kill the Desktop. That's their mantra.
The company was "investigating" this issue since 2005. The software is still used. And the sale rep of Fortinet himself (Benjamin Teh, from the Malaysian Office of Fortinet)was present in Burma promoting the use of Fortigate. I believe the article below provide a more accurate picture: http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=5167 http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=5074
I am eagerly awaiting for the day they'd merge with oddpost. I don't need the gigs, I need the userablility and oddpost rocks.
I think this is one of the nicest corporate type I have ever heard speaking out. He is warning us. He is saying that MS is not the only guy who would be voried about GPL, GPL derivitives and non-software specificic "open products". In fact does he MS is not the only one? I think he does.
-
EV1 paid a paltry sum just to get a 'good name', that they are the only SCO-Risk-Free hosting provider.
-
SCO paid them an undisclosed NDA bounded sum and and gave them the "License to use Linux".
Both ways SCO profits by being able to point at the large number of Linux Web Site which have signed up fo SCO Linux License. EV1 profits by having paid very little. Because they paid very little they would profit in the long run. That is some of us might get angry and boycot them, but others would be delighted and switch to EV1 servers just to get that protection. Either way EV1 is beting that more will switch to them. Thats my $0.20That won't do because he does not want "Version 7 and older". http://catb.org/~esr/nosecrets/