[haiku-development] Re: R1/a4 initial planning
- From: Ryan Leavengood <leavengood@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 01:21:48 -0500
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Sean Collins <smc.collins@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thats becoming more true as the web becomes more "cloud like" whatever the
> hell that really means. Sounds like a bad thing to me.
Hahaha, a lot of that is marketing BS.
> then maybe the best alternative, is to resort to QTwebkit, or another
> webkit browser like Chrome etc, if your saying its going to take years to
> finish and make presentable.At some point the users donating the $$ are
> going to want to see some tangible gains for that investment. A offhanded
> comment was recently made and this fustration is driven by a apparent lack
> of progress from the outside pov. There are other options, though they are
> not everyones favorite, if developer time is truely this scarce, then maybe
> something this big, should be a port and not a native project.
Well really because Haiku is its own unique system anything requires
some porting. To make use of QtWebKit we need a good QT port for
Haiku. Then it becomes a question of putting the development time into
QT which might better be spent on the native Haiku API or on our
native WebKit port. And mostly you don't know beforehand which is the
better approach. But we tend to be biased toward the Haiku native side
since, well, why else would we be writing our own OS? ;)
I love Chrome and would love to see it running on Haiku, but porting
it might be as much work as porting WebKit and making our own native
browser. But really since Chrome builds off WebKit, we would need a
WebKit port either way, and Chrome or any other ported application
will never fully be able to take advantage of any of Haiku's unique
qualities (such as file system attributes, the translation kit, the
media kit, pervasive threading, etc.)
> Just a anecdote to imply that I understand the pride etc of having something
> you made yourself, but at the end of the day, if you can browse the web, or
> drive down the race track, the destination is sometimes more important then
> the journey.
We definitely don't want to invent things we don't need to. Using
WebKit is pretty much the epitome of building off the work of others.
It just happens that even with all the code WebKit provides, there is
still a lot of code the platform has to provide, and then there is the
web browser itself.
If it makes you feel any better I have long had plans to borrow any
useful code from the Chromium project for Web+, if it can be used
without too much hassle. But finding the time to even investigate that
sort of thing is the main issue.
--
Regards,
Ryan
Other related posts:
