Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Triple-Engine Browser Released As Alpha

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the three-engines-no-waiting dept.

Internet Explorer 181

jcasman passes along a heads-up on Lunascape, a Japanese browser company that is releasing its first English version of its Lunascape 5 triple-engine browser. It's for XP and Vista only. There are reviews up at CNET, OStatic (quoted below), and Lifehacker. Both the reviews and comments point out that, in its current alpha state, the browser is buggy and not very fast; but it might be one to watch. "How many web browsers do you run? If you're like me, you regularly use Firefox, Internet Explorer, Chrome and Safari. Each of those browsers, of course, has its own underlying rendering engine: Gecko (in Firefox), Trident (in Internet Explorer), and Webkit (in Chrome and Safari). Today, a Japanese startup called Lunascape has released an alpha version of its Lunascape browser ... that allows you to switch between all three of these prominent rendering engines. The company says that the Japanese version of Lunascape has been downloaded 10 million times and touts it as the fastest browser available."

cancel ×

181 comments

Lunatic Japan (5, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25890967)

The idea is as ludicrous as a turducken [wikipedia.org] . One thing's for sure, though: It will be a turd.

Lunascape supports its own plug-ins and themes...It does not, however, support Firefox add-ons, which is a real drag.

And almost certainly not even worth the look useless unless it will be able to block ads and scripts like NoScript and AdBock can. Using the english page to search the plugins reveals...nothing! Nothing at all! Okay, trying the Google translation of the original Japanese page yields 43 plugins, all related to crap like youtube and twitter...not a single ad or script blocker.

This browser is much more chindogu [wikipedia.org] , than anything else.

Re:Lunatic Japan (0, Redundant)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891015)

Using the english page to search the plugins reveals...nothing! Nothing at all!

Then write one.

Re:Lunatic Japan (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891123)

Because if a community isn't thriving, it's clearly my fault for not devoting my time to it.

Yeah, that'll win converts.

Re:Lunatic Japan (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891219)

All communities start off small. Know how they grow and thrive? (Hint: it doesn't start with bitching about how small it is.)

Re:Lunatic Japan (5, Informative)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891307)

If you ever visit Korean sites, they are chock full of ActiveX crap. If you ever want to be able to navigate them properly, your only chance is to run Internet Explorer.

If you use Firefox but need to use IE from time to time, I *highly* recommend the IE Tab Firefox Extension [mozilla.org] . I never used to use it because I figured it'd be too much of a bloat or hassle, but it really works *great*. I encourage you to use it if you ever have to open an IE window.

Re:Lunatic Japan (1, Informative)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891393)

The Korean government mandates that ActiveX crap.

Re:Lunatic Japan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891939)

Thanks for the heads-up... I haven't visited Korean sites in the past simply because I don't read Korean, but now I know to actively avoid them.

Re:Lunatic Japan.. smacks of CO-FUCKING- (-1, Flamebait)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892021)

RRUPTION.

I cannot for the life of me understand why Japan & Korea (pick your favorite historical reasons) would suck hard and mean and fast to mshaft. Ms dick must REALLY be soulful and full of 18-wheeler shifting fun and jerking and haunching on heels exciting. I would expect Japan and Korea to be WARY of lock-in, especially by a company like msoft.

But, to some extent, Korean sites i've visited render mostly OK, but if i have Korean friends log in in CyWorld, using my Mandriva laptop, they won't get far in some places. This is depressing. I wish i had enough DIRT on ms to make companies and countries change their minds, but the money or kickbacks or "marketing dollars" must REALLY be fucking that tempting, to go with a deviant W3C-breaking "standard" company.

But, i'll likely someday get burned just for saying this: NO, goddammit, it's NOT all about business decisions based on customer preferences. I have PLENTY of awareness of Koreans and Japanese using Apple laptops with Firefox. Hell, I can see 5-10 at a time on any given visit to Borders in SF. Too bad most of them are on windoze. But, i make sure people can see Mandriva running, and Opera opening up saved HTML pages (I don't, won't and can't surf wirelessly...)

Re:Lunatic Japan.. smacks of CO-FUCKING- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25892469)

twitter?? is that you???

Re:Lunatic Japan (5, Informative)

moocat2 (445256) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892057)

I use IE Tab Firefox Extension and it is a life saver for me. There are a couple of important pages on my company's intranet that require IE (yes, ActiveX crap). Not only can I have a one tab running the IE rendered while the rest of my tabs are using whatever the native Firefox rendered is, but you can configure the extension to always use IE for specific pages so once you configure that you don't have to remember which pages need IE.

Re:Lunatic Japan (1)

cbreaker (561297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892203)

I really only use IETab for Outlook Web Access. although perfectly doable to make OWA just as functional in any browser as IE, Microsoft keeps on making OWA suck for non-IE browsers.

So, I IETab for OWA and that's pretty much it. There's the occational site out there that STILL requires IE to render properly but generally those are just shit little sites, or sites that use the Media Player plug-in that doesn't work correctly on Firefox + x64 Vista.

Re:Lunatic Japan (1)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892303)

I believe that extension only works in windows. It seems to use some ie's engine to run MS web features. So if you run linux you're pretty much screwed. : /

Re:Lunatic Japan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893211)

Really? I thought Mozilla ported IE to Linux.

Re:Lunatic Japan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891215)

Or on the other hand, don't.

This web browser is like Frankenstiens monster, except with three hearts (one of which only pumps specially tweaked blood) and the body of a retarded monkey.

Re:Lunatic Japan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891701)

Then write one.

Great solution. Go tell the developers of Firebug, Adblock, and Noscript that they need to duplicate their work for a new browser using the same engine, see how that works out.

I mean, why support a huge existing library of code when you can just ask everyone to rewrite it? Great idea!

Re:Lunatic Japan (2, Funny)

Markvs (17298) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891069)

Ah, but turducken is tasty! But only in it's cooked state. Perhaps Luna will be tasty too, after it's been prepared and cooked and is actually ready to be served.

Re:Lunatic Japan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891667)

Ya ya, Turducken sura esta dee finah guudest eetung fur in der stomackenchamber geputten. Speziala wenna eetung mitt der pootatos oond Turduckengemisctesossa oond freshe Sallatgreenenleefeestuffmittotmaatoos oond natrulech eein ooder tswi glaasen beste Halberlitreguuttrikenvondenwinencellarspezelrooteswinenkapoweescmheksoguutten. Abber somesstimes gaiben es uns eene beete hosentooten gewwoofen sounds oond weer laffen like deer kraazypeepoles aller der nachtenlangg.

Re:Lunatic Japan (1)

shivamib (1034310) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891541)

The company says that the Japanese version of Lunascape has been downloaded 10 million times and touts it as the fastest browser available.

Holy smokes! 10 million downloads? Darn, maybe we should abandon Firefox... Lunascape runs gecko even faster than it!

Now if only I used that Windows thingie...

Re:Lunatic Japan (3, Insightful)

worthawholebean (1204708) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891583)

It's in alpha. You can't really expect it to have a fully-formed community or mature addons.

Re:Lunatic Japan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891731)

turducken is so 2006. Get with the times:

Turbaconducken
http://bacontoday.com/turbaconducken-turducken-wrapped-in-bacon/

Re:Lunatic Japan (0, Offtopic)

Latinhypercube (935707) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892111)

omg, u had to introduce me to the abortion that is a Turducken. Makes me want to puke.

Re:Lunatic Japan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893191)

Argh. I came in here to read the comments and two hours later I'm reading a wikipedia page about Cyrillic.

Can you say bloat? (1, Interesting)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891005)

My god! This is like inviting the cast of 'Biggest Loser' at the beginning of the show over to your apartment for Hors de Vors. Vista already ate everything, they are going to be fighting over crumbs!

Re:Can you say bloat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891103)

I thought the Japanese did it faster, smaller and cheaper? What happened?

Re:Can you say bloat? (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891325)

C'mon man! Their developers are probably SUMO who have been eating Microsoft dogfood!

Re:Can you say bloat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891437)

Did you mean hors d'oeuvres?

Re:Can you say bloat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891945)

Thanks, google!

Re:Can you say bloat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25892259)

No, I'm google. That was clippy.

Web development (1)

Beyond Opinion (959609) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891039)

If it does what it promises, (and they release a Linux version) it could be convenient for web development. However I'm bit wary, because if they don't implement everything exactly right, I may end up fixing "bugs" that only exist in the minds of the Japanese. . . .

Re:Web development (3, Insightful)

stokessd (89903) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891079)

I would think a Linux version would be unlikely due to the trident component.

Sheldon

Re:Web development (3, Funny)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892991)

I would think a Linux version would be unlikely due to the trident component.

Trident? So it's BSD-only then?

Re:Web development (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891117)

They won't release a Linux version. While it is technically possible, they would likely run into some problems while trying to distribute MSIE binaries. They would have to do the same thing that people do where they download MSIE from Linux and then set it up under Wine.

Re:Web development (1)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891299)

Because in this day and age noone could possibly have enough hardrive space for multiple browsers.

Re:Web development (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891489)

Have you ever worked on 3 or 4 pages at once that all needed to be tested in a different browsers? It's a PITA, especially if some of the browsers don't support tabs (IE6). That's a ton of windows and tabs to keep track of in addition to any other pages you have up. Anything that can simplify that task is welcome in my book.

Re:Web development (2, Interesting)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891725)

"Have you ever worked on 3 or 4 pages at once that all needed to be tested in a different browsers?"

No. And most people don't. A triple-engine browser is targetting a pretty small audience.

Re:Web development (1)

brainnolo (688900) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891921)

I didn't bother to read TFA, so I don't know what the devs claim, but does every piece of software need to target the mass? To me it looks like an useful development/testing software for web developers and for users who regularly need to use sites that require a specific engine (assuming that the software allows tying a site to a specific engine so it is opened automatically with the correct one, otherwise is worthless for the last category I mentioned)

Re:Web development (1)

Beyond Opinion (959609) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892143)

No. And most people don't. A triple-engine browser is targetting a pretty small audience.

If by most people you mean a large percentage of the population, then you're right, most people don't work on multiple pages in multiple browsers. Most people don't produce 3D graphics either, but Autodesk sells programs for that purpose for thousands of dollars per license.

I don't see how it's necessary for a computer program to have a large audience to exist. Heck, if that were the case, should Linux even exist?

That said, there are other reasons why this isn't the answer. Without a Linux version, it doesn't help me a whole lot. If a Linux version did exist, it would let me work out a few more bugs before having to take it to a Windows machine to polish it up.

Re:Web development (2, Insightful)

BrentH (1154987) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892187)

Jeez, what is up with you guys? Why do you have marketingdepartments internalized? Not everything is created to make money or gain marketshare, some things are just made for fun or for a very small niche. I mean, you can see who'd like such a browser, don't you? Tweakers (such as on this website!), webdevs, people who like crazy tech, to name a few, not to mention the makers themselves probably. It's fun, godd*mmit, why does it need to be anything else?

Re:Web development (2, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893011)

Worth mentioning, this problems is mostly Microsoft's fault. Easily 90% of the cross-browser problems are cases where it works everywhere but IE. If I didn't have to test in IE, I probably would only test outside of Firefox once a week.

That said, the solution to this is a decent window manager -- even Spaces on OS X helps a bit.

Madness (2, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891377)

A browser that has the second (or third) engine as from another browser is no substitute for proper testing in a different browser. Browsers are much more than just engines. However, this sort if chimera IS a great way to get more bugs and vulnerabilities than a single engine would provide.

Re:Web development (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891973)

I may end up fixing "bugs" that only exist in the minds of the Japanese. . . .

Mothera?

Re:Web development (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892943)

For Linux, there's a project which lets me run four versions of IE simultaneously under Wine, or I'll run Windows in a VM.

For Windows, there's IETab, which makes me think this browser is even more worthless.

Nope. (5, Insightful)

stonecypher (118140) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891085)

This isn't really useful as a diagnostic browser.

There are significant rendering differences between the various KHTML/Webkit implementations (eg Apple uses its own font renderer, which gives seriously different results than most host OS renderers, and Google has provided its own viewport code which gets several things incorrect, such as the placement of background coloration on absolutely positioned bodies, which aren't as silly as they might initially sound once you look into scalable viewports.) It also misses Opera, which still has more market share than Safari on Windows, as well as a variety of small browsers.

On top of that, there's the significant likelihood that this browser injects new differences into the rendering process.

Short version? Switch if you find the browser compelling (does an, but this doesn't substitute for actual browser case testing (it neither correctly nor completely covers the playing field.)

I won't be adding it to my standard six, that's for sure. The last thing I need is another also-ran browser to check.

Re:Nope. (1, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891313)

Short version? Switch if you find the browser compelling (does an, but this doesn't substitute for actual browser case testing (it neither correctly nor completely covers the playing field.)

Hot on the heels of the article that complained about privacy in Safari 3.2, it seems like this browser really needs a central ratings server. i.e. The only point of a browser like this is to provide the use of a different rendering engine when no other engines will work correctly. Thus the ideal solution is not to make the user switch engines willy nilly. The ideal solution is for the browser to pull the ideal rendering engine from a database that matches sites against the ideal engine. If a site is unknown to the database, the browser attempts to detect what engine should be used for the site (rather difficult, and should probably default to something standards compliant like Gecko if it can't make a reasonable guess). If the user changes the engine, this should be reported back to the server. After a critical mass, this answer gets added to the central database.

Of course, such a scheme has some very concerning aspects. Particularly in the case of malware sites. When a new exploit becomes available for ANY of the engines, I could use a botnet to seed the default engine for a new malware site I deploy. Anyone using this super-browser would get infected if they visited my site. Anti-phishing technology might help, but it's almost guaranteed that some of the users will end up infected.

Re:Nope. (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893045)

Thus the ideal solution is not to make the user switch engines willy nilly.

Yes.

The ideal solution is for the browser to pull the ideal rendering engine from a database that matches sites against the ideal engine.

No, then you've just got the browser switching rendering engines willy-nilly.

I shouldn't even have to switch user-agents to make things work. That's why we have these things called standards -- the only rendering engine you should need is your favorite one that supports the standards.

Re:Nope. (1)

gsnedders (928327) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893197)

Sorry,

the only rendering engine you should need is your favorite one that supports the standards

provided all your favourite sites use standards themselves.

Re:Nope. (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893221)

I agree completely. While I understand the point of a browser like this, I do think that forcing engines to be standards compliant is a better solution. My intent was not to endorse this sort of browser, but rather discuss how it might work in a practical manner.

That being said, there are a few circumstances where I can see multiple engines being of practical value. Those circumstances are when there are applications built on an engine-specific technology. e.g. a XUL application, a Mac Widget, a 3D Canvas app for Opera, or a Microsoft HTA. Those are edge cases though, and probably not worth developing an entire browser around.

Re:Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891423)

Standard six?

Firefox 2,3
IE6,7,8
Safari Mac, Safari Windows
Opera

Re:Nope. (1)

stonecypher (118140) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891455)

I don't count versions as separate browsers. I meant Firefox, IE, Safari, Opera, Chrome and Safari/iPhone (I count that as separate, whereas I don't count mac/win separate, because the interface and experience are pretty radically different.)

Re:Nope. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891825)

This isn't really useful as a diagnostic browser.

I believe that the goal was to facilitate scan-line interleaving: every other line of a given website is rendered by a different engine. It is the latest effort in standards-based browsing. The Acid Test winds up looking like a bunch of cloned Neanderthal pirates that use solid state disks to subvert RIAA intelligence.

Was this not the obvious use of such technology?

Seriously.

Re:Nope. (1)

stonecypher (118140) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892691)

This may be the first genuinely funny thing I've ever seen an anonymous coward say. If you had logged in, I would totally fan you right now.

Re:Nope. (1)

scipiodog (1265802) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893037)

Why is this especially new anyway? I can already use IETAB in Firefox to view pages in IE rendering.

So, this is new because... they've added a Safari user agent?

Meh.

Target audience? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891303)

How many web browsers do you run? If you're like me, you regularly use Firefox, Internet Explorer, Chrome and Safari.

What person in their right mind needs to "regularly" run 4 different web browsers? I'm a full-blown web developer, and I only use 2 browsers on a daily basis. I use Opera for the vast majority of normal browsing, references, API lookups, etc, and I use Firefox with Firebug for actual development and debugging. Periodically I test with IE and Safari, and maybe Chrome, but I would never say that I "regularly" use IE or Safari. Opera is the only browser I use where I save bookmarks, for example.

I'm having a hard time seeing where there would be an audience for a browser with 3 rendering engines. In Opera I have toolbar buttons to launch the current page in Firefox, IE, or Safari. If I want to test my page with a certain rendering engine, I'm going to launch it in that browser. I'm not interested in testing my pages with "Trident running in Lunascape", I'm interested in testing with Internet Explorer. Period. It doesn't matter if it works in Lunascape if it's broken in IE or Safari or Firefox.

And that's from a web developer's perspective, a normal user wouldn't have the first clue what a rendering engine even is and they wouldn't know when or why they would change the engine to use another one.

If you want 3 rendering engines, download 3 browsers. A single browser with 3 rendering engines is a novelty, nothing more. It is not useful as a development tool because it is not the same thing when something works in Trident vs. working in IE. IE has plenty of room to screw things up besides the engine, testing with the engine is only one part of making sure it works in IE.

Re:Target audience? (3, Interesting)

prozaker (1261190) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891441)

so true, I don't know who else has a use for this except web developers.

As a web developer myself I rather test a page in each browser instead of having one with 3 rendering engines in it.

I didn't read the article but I'm guessing it only does 1 kind of ie. (maybe 7?) which is worthless because most of the problems occour in ie6 (god bless its heart)

And most of the time, if not ever, if firefox displays it fine, then most of all the non ie browsers will do that too. And also because of firebug, I don't get that in ie... no, you did not say iedeveloper bar.

why not have a page called trident and just put a link of all the major browsers there.

'I would click that'

Pfff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891305)

Does it have an aloe vera strip?
Does it?
THought so

Re:Pfff (1)

stokessd (89903) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891447)

It doesn't have 5 blades either...friggin lightweight...

Business model & source code? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891373)

What exactly would the business model for this startup be?

Firefox is free software that gets most of its funding from Google.

Safari is Apple's way of ensuring their users have some level of web access that is not dependant upon a third party and to push web standards.

IE is MS's way of ensuring that users are able to access the web through Windows and to have some kind of vendor lock-in (although arguably that's going away).

Chrome is Google's attempt to push web standards & Javascript performance because their applications rely heavily on this.

In addition, they've got a user-base issue. They're targeting the wrong user-base as is. The only people who would use this are web developers. Yet they are saying that "most" users use multiple browsers to overcome incompatibility. Considering that the only incompatibility people complain about is IE-centric sites, I fail to see how most users would use more than 2 (also considering how a lot of sites tend to work well enough on other browsers these days).

Also, how exactly does it "automatically" select the best performing engine for each site? Either it keeps a list of site-engine mappings (which doesn't seem scalable or feasible) or it somehow analyses the content (an analysis which must be fast enough that when included with the optimal rendering time is still faster than just picking the fastest engine on average).

They also don't seem to be providing the source code for their modified Gecko engine that is supposedly faster than Chrome. They probably chose the MPL, rather than GPL or LGPL, but even it still, AFAIK, forces you to release the source code if you make modifications to the MPL licensed files.

Re:Business model & source code? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25893141)

Safari is Apple's way of ensuring their users have some level of web access that is not dependant upon a third party and to push web standards.

IE is MS's way of ensuring that users are able to access the web through Windows and to have some kind of vendor lock-in (although arguably that's going away).

That sounds a bit biased IMHO.

Fastest browser? (2, Interesting)

Onyma (1018104) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891379)

I haven't had time to try this but if they are just sitting on top of everyone else's rendering engines then how can they claim to be faster than any of them?

Re:Fastest browser? (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891469)

I haven't had time to try this but if they are just sitting on top of everyone else's rendering engines then how can they claim to be faster than any of them?

It is actually pretty easy to claim that.

It is a bit harder to do it. But claiming it is no problem.

Re:Fastest browser? (1)

Onyma (1018104) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891557)

Ha... touche.

Re:Fastest browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891685)

I haven't had time to try this but if they are just sitting on top of everyone else's rendering engines then how can they claim to be faster than any of them?

Just like how 9 women can have a baby in a month, 3 rendering engines will be 3 times faster!

Re:Fastest browser? (1)

DeadPixels (1391907) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892191)

Probably because of the lack of plugins and extensions. The fastest browser is going to be the most bare-bones as well. The trick is to find the right balance between being customizable, useful, and fast.

Re:Fastest browser? (1)

tfranzese (869766) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892573)

What's funny is that while their product is in alpha they're comparing their product's JavaScript performance (which is where they make their claim, not sure if the numbers are fudged) to IE7 and FireFox 3.0.1 rather than the IE8 beta or the FireFox builds with TraceMonkey. Seeing that FireFox's new engine is roughly 22% (see source below) faster than Google's V8 in this same test that would place the latest FireFox performance at 2.695 ms which is close to their numbers. So perhaps they're using TraceMonkey for their own JavaScript engine for their numbers. Either way, their comparison's a wash. Source: http://www.firefoxfacts.com/2008/09/11/firefoxs-new-javascript-engine-faster-than-chromes-v8/ [firefoxfacts.com] Disclamer: I understand performance might not scale linearly across whatever architectures both tests (Luna and the linked), but it's probably a good guesstimate.

Machine Learning? (1)

MC2000 (1246222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891421)

This could actually be useful if they applied machine learning techniques to allow the browser to remember which engine works best on which site. As long as switching the rendering engine doesn't take too long, you could probably get a decent overall boost in performance.

What's the point? (1)

shivamib (1034310) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892005)

Or better yet, websites could just, you know, follow the standards and like, just work.

Re:What's the point? (1)

MC2000 (1246222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892275)

There's always going to be a difference in the implementation of the same features. Some rendering engines will be more efficient at certain tasks than others.

Re:What's the point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25892389)

Yeah. I'll get right on it. Have YOU tried to build a cross-browser compatible modern, functional website recently?

Why not just Firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891429)

IE Tab [mozilla.org] allows you to use Internet Explorers rendering engine in Firefox.

I use this for Windows Updates all the time, I haven't actually used IE since I first installed my OS. I had to use it to download Firefox :-P

End of story (5, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891445)

How many web browsers do you run?

Like 99% of the rest of internet users, I use one browser (firefox).

I'm rather surprised this has been downloaded 10M times, unless there is some sort of patriotism based motivation going on. For the life of me I just can't picture the average internet user saying "Hey, let's see how this website looks when rendered by the Webkit engine!" while their buddy, looking on over their shoulder responds "Yeah, do it! This is going to be a blast!"

Re:End of story (2, Interesting)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891671)

Like 99% of the rest of English speaking internet users, I use one browser (firefox).

I'm being a little presumptuous, but I suspect that you, like me, have never looked at browser data for Japanese websites. They are much more tech savvy than we, and I would not be surprised to find that much like the population of Slashdot (myself included) they have a disproportionate share of that made up 1% of internet users that use multiple browsers you quoted.

Re:End of story (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891681)

Sorry, I forgot to say "fixed that for you."

Re:End of story (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892155)

Fixed that for yourself.

Re:End of story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891813)

I'm rather surprised this has been downloaded 10M times

It's Japan we're talking here. Anything will be downloaded 10M times. They're kinda... kookie on that lil island.

Re:End of story (1)

ya really (1257084) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891951)

How many web browsers do you run?

If you're a webdeveloper, I hope one has access to at least IE, FF, Safari and Opera for testing and perhaps Chrome as well for JS engine differences to safari. Otherwise, one just have to assume that everything works out A-OK for everything.

Re:End of story (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893111)

Javascript libraries can help with a lot of that, but you're right.

Which is part of why this browser seems so pointless. Webkit in Safari is different than Webkit in Chrome. Webkit in this new browser will be different still. Which means you just added three more configurations to test, without removing any -- except I, for one, am not going to care, since I don't see this browser getting a user base anywhere.

Yay (1)

petehead (1041740) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891465)

Another fastest browser... woo hoo.

How many browser do I use? The majority of users? (1)

javelinco (652113) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891479)

How many browser do I use? The majority of users? Come on people. The majority of users use one browser. They use either Internet Explorer, or something like Firefox. That's it. If they use something besides Internet Explorer, they will reluctantly fire up IE when they have problems. Does anyone believe otherwise? Unless I'm developing web pages, I personally don't use more than that either - I may check new ones out, and pick the one with the current best features for what I use - but this isn't normal.

Big in Japan (2, Funny)

jaymzter (452402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891483)

Yeah, just like "Citizen Dick is really big in Japan too.

Re:Big in Japan (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891595)

There is an overwhelming shortage of Singles references out there. You sir, win.

This screwed up our LAN (4, Interesting)

amake (673443) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891509)

I work for a Japanese video game company, and about a month ago we had a network outage that was traced back to the auto-update feature of Lunascape. I have no idea how many people installed it, but it apparently created enough traffic to take down our internet connection. I hope the developers have improved it by now.

Re:This screwed up our LAN (1)

shivamib (1034310) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891631)

Ha! So you were the one downloading 10 million times!

In Soviet Russia, Lunascape download YOU!!

FRIST sTOP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891513)

IE Tab Firefox Addon (0, Redundant)

giemer (1066414) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891793)

Its a great addon ... and has been around for over a year.

Basing an entire browser on the concept ... is absurd for anything beyond development.

not anime friendly (1)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891815)

this browser, like firefox, locks the file that is being downloaded and is therefore, not anime friendly. since it is not anime friendly, it has dishonored all of japan. until i can download my code geass mkv files in hi def and watch them as they are being downloaded (btw, lulu lives so =P ), i will stick with my anime friendly opera browser.

Re:not anime friendly (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25892045)

I'm not sure how to put this lightly so I'll just say it.

You're an idiot.

Re:not anime friendly (2, Interesting)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892489)

Stop using Windows and that file locking crap just goes away.

Re:not anime friendly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25892565)

On the other hand, if he's using Linux, he won't be able to actually play MKV files that use SSA/ASS softsubs without them looking like ass. So what should he do?

Really? (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892713)

I've never noticed poor text quality on the text stream subs. Must be your player of choice and configuration, not the fundamental platform on which it runs.

I only need one browser. Opera. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25891859)

That's because these days I only ever visit specific websites, ones which I know render properly because they are "standards compliant", as much as that's possible.

Most websites require you to use Internet Explorer in order for them to work as designed. Many websites will render satisfactorally in Firefox (and indeed, in Opera too), but there are always issues, due to the ignorance and laziness of the site's developer.

But I know what kind of sites I want to visit (mainly academic-related, in particular astronomy, particle physics, and space science), and I also know which of those kinds of sites will work 100% in Opera. Why waste my time with any others?

So much peanut butter all over my chocolate (2, Insightful)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 5 years ago | (#25891985)

So is there some feature that allows it to automatically switch between engines, or is this just another ill-thought out mashup? I mean if I have to choose which engine each time, then I might as well just open another program, RAM isn't the tight commodity it once was.

Craig (1)

craigoda (7137) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892013)

Are there plans for a Mac OS X version? I'm still waiting for Google Chrome to arrive on the Mac. I unfortunately have to use both Firefox and Safari. Firefox on Mac doesn't reliably render http://surfline.com/ [surfline.com] It seems to render it sometimes and then I lose the navigation menus for the site about 1/4 of the time.

Re:Craig (1)

shivamib (1034310) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892085)

Firefox on Mac doesn't reliably render http://surfline.com/ [surfline.com] [surfline.com]

I think it's rather surprising that it renders at all. Can't fix the world, son.

They skipped two blades... (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892213)

Three rendering engines? I'm reminded of the lowly razor. First it was a single blade. Then two, then it went to three. I thought that would be it. Then the Quattro came out: four blades. Of course, everyone thinks this is ridiculous, but then someone comes out with five blades! What percentage of your head must be bone to think that you need five blades on a razor - plus one extra for those areas that need a precise trim? Some amazingly close to 100 number, I'm guessing.

So now it's not enough to have a single rendering engine in your browser. You have to have three. Next year they'll make the LunaScape 7 with five rendering engines, plus an additional one for "discrete browsing".

Someone should just write an ENGINE plugin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25892333)

Seriously, since there appears to be disparity among the different browsers on how to render a Web page correctly (much to the extreme annoyance of those of us who have to try to design pages that render the same across all browsers), maybe some genius out there could design an engine that gets everything 100% correct in regard to page rendering, and then distribute it as a free plug-in for all browsers (that allow plug-ins). As a Web designer, I honestly don't give a damn what browser people use, except insofar as it affects how large a portion of my audience will be seeing my pages through the filter of a given browser's engine, thus dictating to an extent how I need to put my pages together, what features will and won't work without hacks and work-arounds, etc. I really hate having to design for more than one browser, but I do it because the browser-makers can't seem to come up with a consistent display engine.

If someone did actually create a plug-in that got it all 100% correct, and distributed it, maybe that in itself would take pressure off of the browser-makers in regard to having to deal with backward-compatibility for their past mistakes (and sites built up around them) and we could all be forced to re-code, if necessary, for the new correct engine plug-in and not have to do so ever again, nor screw around with all the hacks, etc. Then the browser-makers could focus on just one-upping each other's browser features whilst all using one consistent engine... I know, I'm dreaming...

Re:Someone should just write an ENGINE plugin (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892743)

they already did that. It's called webkit(passes acid3). I don't think it would be a good idea though because then you would lose all competition and there would be no incentives to improve performance

P.S. I am a firefox user, I'm just stating the facts here. I'm not saying that safari/chrome is the best browser around

hmm (1)

Sam36 (1065410) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892471)

What a great idea. Next up, a C compiler that compiles in all 3 versions of C

No good for me (0)

Helldesk Hound (981604) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892745)

> It's for XP and Vista only.

Well that rules me out - I don't run any M$ software on my computers.

Not sure that I'd want a three-headed browser in any case.

Why is it fast? (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25892927)

Fastest? Lemme guess, when you make an HTTP request it goes to some website with a database of all webpages cross-referenced by which rendering engine is fastest for each, then it opens the site you asked for with that particular engine.

Oh Oh (2, Informative)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25893149)

It "works" like slashdot's new CSS stuff: run like hell!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...