[windows2000] Re: Google announces Chrome Browser

  • From: "Ray Costanzo" <ray@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 11:34:58 -0400

Some good valid points here, Jon.  I envision things splitting off in the same 
way that operating systems have.  The browser's ultimate goal in life is to be 
the operating system.  The browsers will have to get more and more complex to 
give the functionality that we expect from desktop applications today.  They'll 
get to the point where there's too much overhead in getting everything setup 
and maintaining it, that someone will create a new child that will serve a role 
that the browser of 1998 did.  It's just an endless cycle.  Maybe instead of 
running a Windows OS or a Mac OS, 15 years from now we'll be saying we run IE 
OS or Safari OS.


From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Jon Spriggs
Sent: Tue 9/2/2008 11:34 AM
To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [windows2000] Re: Google announces Chrome Browser

The main problems with browsers is based on who's behind them.

There are three main browser renderers; you've got Gecko (Mozilla's
engine), Webkit (AKA Khtml I think used by KDE, Apple's Safari and now
Chrome) and IE. With each engine there's a different license which
defines who wants to implement them. Gecko is released under the Mozilla
Public License, Gnu General Public License and the Gnu Lesser General
Public License - none of which are particularly amenable to corporates.
Webkit is released under the lesser general public license, which is
more corporate friendly, and lastly you have IE which can only be used
on MS Approved Platforms.

I think that as Webkit and Gecko both have licenses which promote
sharing, you'll see a degree of crossover between Gecko and Webkit code,
and I'm hoping that the new V8 engine that Google have funded will be a
strong contender for implementation in the rest of the platforms using
webkit and hopefully also be of use in gecko - we'll have to wait and see.

As IE is not particularly sharing friendly, I think that there will
never be one common browser engine... especially as the other browser
engines will never want to implement the horrific mess which is ActiveX
and MS will want to push those for everything.

But, we'll have to see how everything goes over the next couple of
years, starting with the next few months!



Sorin Srbu wrote:
> Ray Costanzo <> scribbled on Tuesday, September 02, 2008 4:44 PM:
> That's a nice thought and I second it, but as all utopian things, it's never
> gonna' happen... Not in mylifetime anyway.
> You know how the proverb goes; the good thing about standards is that there 
> are
> so many to chose from... 8-)
>> This really gets my goat.  Yet another freaking browser is NOT what the
>> world needs.  What the world needs is one common rendering engine that all
>> browsers can share so that your browser decision would be based on the
>> ancillary features.  Let me choose Firefox because I can have a cat theme,
>> or let me choose IE because it is easily managed by group policy.  But make
>> it so that the actual interpretation and rendering of the html and css are
>> performed by the same component.
>> Yeah, I know, then who creates this component and maintains it?  Well, if
>> the W3C thinks they get to decide everything, let them write it and give it
>> out to anyone who wants to create a browser.
>> From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Kenzig
>> http://thin.ms
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 8:49 AM
>> To: THIN; windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [windows2000] Google announces Chrome Browser
>> To be available in about 19 hours
>> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/fresh-take-on-browser.html
>> Looks like the download placeholder is here:
>> http://gears.google.com/chrome/?hl=en
>> Jim Kenzig
>> Blog: http://www.techblink.com
To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation
mode or view archives use the below link.


Other related posts: