Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Ubuntu 13.10 Likely Switching To Chromium Browser

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    You should read more than just the headline…
    I did, they had one tiny blurb about blink at the top of the blueprint page, they clearly haven't given it much thought.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,156

    Default

    Then you lack reading skills. I also already posted an abstract of the blueprint:

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Turns out thanks to the link by RussianNeuroMancer the actual news is that Canonical plans to develop a toolkit-agnostic Blink-based library for use in GTK and Qt applications in both Ubuntu desktop and Ubuntu Touch.

    To my surprise I actually like that proposal. Considering how much Canonical fucks up these days, this is a welcome change. Even though I'm not the biggest fan of Google's WebKit fork, turning Blink into something both Qt and GTK applications can (hopefully) easily use is great from a security POV as Google will just do all the patching work.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    There are always problems when “or later” is missing. Eg a GPLv2-only application can't use the library then and in the future GPLv4 applications may not be permitted to use LGPLv3-only libs (because of all that GPL compatibility stuff).

    Another problem would be that it would also generate needless confusion because Blink is LGPLv2-or-later. Even though not necessary legally required, inconsistent licensing is usually frowned upon.

    Best-case scenario would be that Canonical develops this toolkit-agnostic library directly within the Chromium project, follow Blink's licensing, and Chromium itself would use it via bindings for Skia.
    Isn't that more or less a reconstruction of webkit. I thought google tried to discard that model and replace it with simpler without any platformdependent code?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    338

    Default

    One word:
    Flash.

    Pepper flash is -far- less buggier than the piece of shit abandonware adobe left Linux, I use it with Chromium when I absolutely need flash.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peppercats View Post
    One word:
    Flash.

    Pepper flash is -far- less buggier than the piece of shit abandonware adobe left Linux, I use it with Chromium when I absolutely need flash.
    Chromium does not contain Flash. Only the closed source downstream product Google Chrome does.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    338

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Chromium does not contain Flash. Only the closed source downstream product Google Chrome does.
    And it takes about 3 seconds to use pepper flash with Chromium, while it's completely incompatible with Firefox.
    Ubuntu doesn't have an RMSbot FOSS view on opensource software, they'll use the best solution for the given problem, and Chromium is it for modern web browsing where every media site has flash embedded.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,156

    Default

    Flash has nothing to do with this decision. Flash on ARM is dead anyway.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •