2009/9/8 Uriel <[email protected]>: > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Anselm R Garbe<[email protected]> wrote: >> 2009/9/8 Uriel <[email protected]>: >>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Anselm R Garbe<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I think it is clear that the existing web stack can't be implemented >>>> in a less sucking way. >>> >>> This is ridiculous, are you saying that a web rendering engine can't >>> suck less than webkit or geko? Are you fucking kidding me? >> >> Theoretically it can suck less than webkit, geko or what not, but it >> still would suck much more than a web replacement engine that has not >> to support the current web stack. >> >> BUT it is nearly impossible to do considering the man years needed to >> make the existing web stack "work" and the continuous effort to keep >> it working (considered all the upcoming features such as html5, >> geolocation, device apis, etc that are expected to be supported by a >> browser engine). >> >> Undertaking the development of a less sucking browser engine could >> easily end up in a more sucking browser from the end user point of >> view... because it won't support every web page. Or in other words it >> will be the w3m or lynx experience when trying to access Google Maps >> ;) >> >>> Any implementation will suck hugely, but there is tons of shit that >>> suck in webkit and geko that are in no way required to suck to be 'web >>> compatible'. >> >> Have you considered that this is because of the web stack and not >> because of stupid WebKit C++ developers? >> >> I mean come on, that netsurf thing is barely comparable to WebKit atm, >> otherwise you must be joking. >> >>>> That's why it's quite clever and pragmatic to >>>> let the WebKit folks do the ugly work. >>> >>> It might be pragmatic, but there is nothing 'clever' about it. >> >> The "clever" aspect is that others do the work, mostly people that >> have far more clue about the current web stack than ourselves... >> >>> Chrome is not a black box, what I meant was that Chrome has put WebKit >>> into something much closer to a real black box than what uzbl and surf >>> are doing. >> >> Ok >> >>>> Second, I see nothing wrong with experimenting with browser chromes >>>> like what uzbl or surf do. >>> >>> Experimenting with anything is cool, pretending it is something it >>> clearly isn't is not cool. Uzbl and surf are not 'sane browsers' that >>> 'follow the Unix Philosophy', and to claim so is to be either >>> delusional or disingenuous. >> >> I more and more dislike using the term "unix philosophy". At least the >> official surf website doesn't claim surf to follow the unix philosophy >> or to be "sane" in some way. I didn't follow the whole thread here >> however. >> >>>> BUT using Chrome as a base looks like much more effort to me, not to >>>> mention its baroque build system. >>> >>> Perhaps, but Chrome has actually built something much closer to a real >>> black box around WebKit, which is what some people here were claiming >>> they had done, when it clearly isn't the case, and unless that is >>> addressed not only will uzbl and surf be little more than very thin >>> coats of paint on top of the sewage leaking WebKit turd, they will >>> also be insecure and performance hogs. >> >> I'd be careful with this "Google gets it right" trust. > > Don't give me this shit, Google could not get 2+2 right even if their > stock options depended on it. > > Still the design of the Chrome architecture is *way* saner than that > of any other browser out there. It is still hideous and awful, but if > you can see it is light years ahead of the mozilla crack monkeys or > the Apple cult of fucktards, you have no clue what you are talking > about. > > Of all things Google has done since they built a search engine, Chrome > might be the first that is not pure liquid shit (if there were others, > I have forgotten them). > >>Theoretically a >> very thin layer around WebKit should perform better, have less bugs >> and be more secure than the rather thick layer of "Google Chrome" -- > > Theoretically and practically you have fuck shit clue what you are > talking about. You are wrong on *every account*. > > Perhaps you want to go back to operating systems where all code runs > in ring 0 and all processes are cooperatively scheduled, that is much > simpler so according to your 'theory' it should perform better, have > less bugs and be more secure. > >> but this only holds unless the developers of both layers are similar >> experienced. > > This has very little to do with the experience of any developers and > with the architecture involved. Precisely because the Chrome design > means that mistakes are much less harmful, so even if developers are > total morons (which they are), they can cause much less damage. > >> And one has to admit that Google has hired damn good >> developers compared to the average IT world. > > Hah! Google developers are a bunch of delusional XML-addled crackheads > that for the most part could not build any system worth shit without > ruining it with tons of Java, XML, C++, OO and any other garbage > imaginable. > > Still, somehow, god only knows how, they have come up with a design, > that while it sucks, it is *way* superior to that of any other major > web browser out there. > > uriel > > P.S.: Funny thing, I was comparing mentally the architecture of chrome > to that of all other browsers, and realized the one it is most closely > similar to is abaco! (Of course not quite, and actually in a few ways > the division of labour among he various processes is more sensible in > Chrome!).
So you judge about things you believe you have superior clue about, then go ahead and do us a favor and build a decent web browser that we can all be happy with. As I said very often to you: talking and discrediting things is *simple*, but getting things done isn't. Perhaps you are brave enough to proof your judgements with a real piece of software development one day? Kind regards, Anselm
