Coffeehouse Thread

58 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Deadkit?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    MasterPi

    I think he means WebGL.

  • User profile image
    Richard.Hein

    /facepalm Oops. Yeah, it was WebGL, not WebKit.

  • User profile image
    fanbaby

    @Richard.Hein: Just a bit of pedantry - /facepalm is more applicable when seeing someone starting a multimillion Silverlight project Smiley

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    "At the time Chrome developers argued that WebKit had become difficult to deal with and developers often accidentally broke things while working on a project."

    "According to Google, there are about 4.5 million lines of code in WebKit that are there for other browsers that Chrome doesn't use and Google wants to eliminate that code."

    Sounds like a well-oiled machine Smiley

  • User profile image
    kettch

    @Harlequin: Also, according to some of the other articles, there's a lot of code in WebKit that is only in there for Chrome. So it goes both ways.

  • User profile image
    exoteric

    @Richard.Hein:Elmer already posted that. I think it's more of an English to Bullshit translation actually.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    Just love seeing how "Open source" code leads to creating a better "Standard" for the internet....

    errr NOT!

    we have businesses each with an agenda that in the end has to do with making money and to heck with open anything, standards / reinventing the wheel and all that go out the window 

  • User profile image
    fanbaby

    , figuerres wrote

    Just love seeing how "Open source" code leads to creating a better "Standard" for the internet....

    errr NOT!

    we have businesses each with an agenda that in the end has to do with making money and to heck with open anything, standards / reinventing the wheel and all that go out the window 

    I'm having trouble undestanding your bitterness. My current theory is that you've just been disrupted. "Just choose/learn Microsoft and everything will turn out great" has failed you. 

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    , fanbaby wrote

    *snip*

    I'm having trouble undestanding your bitterness. My current theory is that you've just been disrupted. "Just choose/learn Microsoft and everything will turn out great" has failed you. 

     

    this has ZERO to do with Microsoft.

    it has to do with how some folks say that open source software is the great stuff that we all need to use ....  the idea that if we use it then we get better apps with better use of standards and so on...

    the statements that folks have made that with open source the community has control of the software, that many hands can jump in and do great stuff and chase away the evil of the closed source ....

    and here I see  Google and apple making more of a mess and as they are the real owners of the code the result may be just as bad in the end as any closed source project.

    will a new rending engine fix anything in the way of html standards no. who really benefits from what they are doing ?  they do.  they write the code and put it in products that they make money from.  so how is this so amazing great for the world?

     

     

  • User profile image
    kettch

    @fanbaby: I don't have much respect for Open Source any more. I've used many Open Source products. I've even advocated for them. However, each and every time, I end up burned. I've seen lots of once good projects get forked due to petty bullshit rather than genuine issues with technology.

    The end result is nothing good for the consumer. It's incredibly frustrating to devote time and effort implementing a product, and wake up the next morning to see it's been forked. Then as you watch, they begin implementing diverging feature sets that would be awesome if they were in the same product, but separately, they are useless.

    Don't give me that tired rhetoric about me being able to change the source myself. I have my own code to write. It's much more cost effective for me to just pay somebody for a commercial product that has the features I want, is consistently maintained, and has support that consists of more than "RTFM n00b".

  • User profile image
    Bass

    Are you kidding? At least Google is still developing this in the open. I can use it in my own products or whatever nobody is going to sue me even if I modify it and use it without paying a royalty (if it is possible at all).

    And if I felt like learning how a top tier rendering system is structured I can download the source and learn how it is set up (this isn't theory, I do this a lot with FOSS).

    In these ways it will never be "as bad" as a closed source project. 

    Forking is FOSS better/more efficient then two proprietary products with the same purpose. There is some chance of knowledge and code diffusion between two similar FOSS projects, as is often the case with BSD and Linux stuff for instance.

  • User profile image
    PopeDai

    , kettch wrote

    @fanbaby: I don't have much respect for Open Source any more. I've used many Open Source products. I've even advocated for them. However, each and every time, I end up burned. I've seen lots of once good projects get forked due to petty bullshit rather than genuine issues with technology.

    2/10. Try harder. A simple noun-replacement reveals the folly in your line of reasoning:

    I don't have much respect for Closed Source any more. I've used many Closed Source products. I've even advocated for them. However, each and every time, I end up burned. I've seen lots of once good products get terminated due to petty bullshit rather than genuine issues with technology.

    Besides, "Open Source" refers to a type of software license, not a movement (that would be Free Software), I don't imagine it's something that can earn or lose "respect".

  • User profile image
    kettch

    @Bass: That's an important distinction. It seems that few of the successful FOSS projects are developed in the truly distributed and altruistic way that people envision when they think of FOSS. The really good stuff all has corporate backers paying developers to work on it for their own gain. Developing "in the open" is as much a marketing decision as it is technological.

    There's still a lot of good that comes out of these projects. Like you said, it's useful to be able to crack something open and see how it works.

  • User profile image
    kettch

    @PopeDai: No trying to lay down a line of reasoning. That's personal experience, and the end result of my experiences is that I tend to steer clear of FOSS products. YMMV

  • User profile image
    PopeDai

    , kettch wrote

    @Bass: That's an important distinction. It seems that few of the successful FOSS projects are developed in the truly distributed and altruistic way that people envision when they think of FOSS. The really good stuff all has corporate backers paying developers to work on it for their own gain. Developing "in the open" is as much a marketing decision as it is technological.

    It's done for corporate gain - but not for marketing reasons at all. I can't think of any successful commercial product that uses an open-source backend that ever mentionins this in their marketing materials. Examples

    • Mac OS X - Based on BSD, Mach, and Darwin. Apple's marketing says it's "Built on UNIX", with no mention of Hexley, the Darwin mascot.
    • Google Android - Based on GNU/Linux. The poster-child of FOSS development.
    • Wordpress - Makes zero mention of its open-source-ness on its user-facing website, in fact there's a visible link to a Store section where you buy upgrades.
    • And there are countless lesser examples I can think of too.

    Corporations are attracted to open-source development from a game-theory perspective: where utilising pre-made open-source code improves the quality of their own product (at the cost of also enhancing their competitor's product), it is always advantageous compared to the expense of writing their own implementation, as your competitor can still use open-source and gain a payoff by not having to underwrite initial development expenses. As Google and Apple are not directly competing in the web-browser layout engine space the only rational strategy is to cooperate in the development of the same engine.

  • User profile image
    kettch

    @PopeDai: The average customer isn't the target of that marketing. However, if Company X mentions that Product Y is going to be open sourced, a non-trivial portion of the developer community gets weak in the knees.

  • User profile image
    Bass

    , kettch wrote

    @Bass: Developing "in the open" is as much a marketing decision as it is technological.

     

    I'd be more concerned if something was a good marketing decision but a bad technological decision.

    It seems that few of the successful FOSS projects are developed in the truly distributed and altruistic way that people envision when they think of FOSS.

    Who thinks of FOSS this way? When I think of FOSS I think of software I can use and modify liberally. I could care less how it was made. If it is made by millionaire hipster developers who spend their money on coke and hookers, all the better for them.

  • User profile image
    PopeDai

    , Bass wrote

    *snip*

    Sounds like an awesome thing to me. I'd be more concerned if something was a good marketing decision and a bad technological decision.

    What about both? Windows Chicken!

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.