×

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!

The Unforking of KDE's KHTML and Webkit Begins

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the sounds-dirty dept.

104

Jiilik Oiolosse writes to tell us Ars Technica is reporting that after years of existing seperately, KHTML and Webkit are finally coming back together. "In open source terms, this may be as big of a deal as the gcc and egcs merger of yonder days. KHTML and Webkit are definitely coming of age. The KDE developers, responsible for the original creation of KHTML, are dedicated to seeing this unforking happen and are taking a leading role in that effort."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

104 comments

why does slashdot look like shit in IE? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19961143)

Is it because you guys can't write a decent web application to save your life?

Re:why does slashdot look like shit in IE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19961181)

Is it because you guys can't write a decent web application to save your life?
So's your face

Re:why does slashdot look like shit in IE? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19961581)

it is because IE is shit and anyone caught alive using it is an idiot.

IE? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19962057)

IE?? oh you mean that thing thats destined to suck balls for all eternity.

*pets his firefox*

P.S.
Get a real browser.

Impact on Apple (2, Insightful)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961151)

How will this impact Apple given that Safari uses it. Also after the unfork they decide to go the GPL3 route.

Re:Impact on Apple (3, Informative)

Jiilik Oiolosse (717106) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961199)

KHTML/Webkit and derivatives are under the LGPLv2, and the rights were not assigned to a central organization. They would have to contact every author that ever touched that code before they'd be permitted to offer it solely under the LGPLv3...

Re:Impact on Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19961405)

Err no:

version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

Distributors are free to distribute under LGPLv3 or the KDE project can switch at will.

Boy lost in the Software. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19961495)

It's a dangerous zone if the boy unknowns that he is on mined zone of GPLv3.

The boy always wants GPLv2 code and never GPLv3.

Imagine a "hidden GPLv3 license" inside of a file of a tarball of a subpackage of a KDE of a distributions 100% GPLv2.

Surprise! Surprise! Surprised! You're damned!!!

# grep -iR GPLv3 / doesn't work because of the compressed files.

Re:Boy lost in the Software. (-1, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#19963083)

So, have you stop beating your wife yet?

Man, but the anti-GPL3 zealots sure do come up with some of the most ludicrous and twisted logically-challenged arguments.

Well, you have fun maintaining GPL2 Samba and the like. Let us know how it goes.

Re:Boy lost in the Software. (-1, Flamebait)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#19963481)

Oh look, and now an anti-GPL3 moderator comes along to waste some points on my post. I've got karma to burn you retard.

Re:Boy lost in the Software. (3, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 6 years ago | (#19964975)

Frankly if I had mod points I would have modded both of your posts down, and I couldn't care less about the GPLv2/GPLv3 debate or its outcome. Your first post didn't say anything worth being modded up, and I don't know what that "have you stopped beating your wife?" comment was about but it smells like flamebait to me.

And this one? Aside from worthless insulting of some anonymous moderator, you bust out some fantastic "ZOMG! ANTI-GPLV3 CONSPIRACY!!!" nonsense that simply deserves to get buried. And you used your karma bonus to do it.

Perhaps instead of some vast anti-GPLv3 conspiracy to keep you down, you're just being modded down for being an ass?

Re:Boy lost in the Software. (1)

illuvata (677144) | more than 6 years ago | (#19968245)

I don't know what that "have you stopped beating your wife?" comment was about but it smells like flamebait to me.

It's a well known example of a common fallacy [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Impact on Apple (1)

ray-auch (454705) | more than 6 years ago | (#19968235)

They are free to distribute under V2 or later terms.

They are not free to change the licencing to "V3 or later" and exclude the V2 option. Under clause 1 of GPL (v2 - but v3 is similar) the requirement is: "keep intact all the notices that refer to this License".

Only the copyright holder can change the "version 2 of the License..." line.

At least, that is my understanding - IANAL etc.

Re:Impact on Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19967429)

I've read this on the webkit web site. I'm worried about the last paragraph, should I ?

---

Obtaining Check-In Privileges

Contributors with a proven track record of good patch submissions and that have demonstrated an ability to work well with the community can obtain check-in privileges to the WebKit source tree. In order to obtain this check-in access, the contributor must find a reviewer who will act as a sponsor.

The sponsor arranges a copy of the committer agreement to be sent to the contributor. Once the contributor sends a copy of the signed agreement to Apple, she or he receives check-in access.

---

Re:Impact on Apple (0, Flamebait)

mpapet (761907) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961425)

Apple is pretty much driving this one now. I think this quote from TFA is telling, "its improvements had become difficult to move back into KHTML"

Apple is free to do what they want within the confines of the licenses provided. The problems will arise when projects rely on Apple for their features. Specifically, the features apple is willing to share. One of the problems is Apple has no interest in keeping a GPL'd webkit fully functioning with tidy entry/exits for whatever proprietary things Apple wants to add. I can easily imagine Apple's GPL CUPS suffering the same fate.

Re:Impact on Apple (5, Informative)

ip_fired (730445) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961531)

When I worked on WebKit, the source that was publicly available was the source that went into Safari after it's had been adequately tested. They don't have a super-secret version that they are adding their improvements to. The version they improve is the LGPL version.

In fact, you can go and download the nightly build of WebKit and use it with Safari (Safari is just a wrapper that provides the gui).

http://nightly.webkit.org/ [webkit.org]

Can you get Windows Binaries? (2, Insightful)

billstewart (78916) | more than 6 years ago | (#19962063)

I'm not really interested in building Windows versions of the browser from source - other people have presumably done that, since they're shipping the source (:-), and the little development I do these days (and lots that I used to do) tends to be on various flavors of Unix systems where there's a decent development environment and working OS. But I spend *lots* of time using Windows, and using Windows browsers, and having a browser that was lighter-weight than Mozilla would be a Good Thing.


The nightlies look like they're just source, and the various home pages and first layer or two of wikiness didn't seem to have any indication that they want to support users as opposed to developers.

Re:Can you get Windows Binaries? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19962169)

Webkit isn't a web browser and Safari on Windows isn't any lighter or faster than firefox.

Re:Can you get Windows Binaries? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19966037)

The Safari 3 beta for Windows is faster than Firefox. See http://www.apple.com/safari/ [apple.com]

Re:Can you get Windows Binaries? (2, Interesting)

Phil Urich (841393) | more than 6 years ago | (#19967021)

The Safari 3 beta for Windows is faster than Firefox. See http://www.apple.com/safari/ [apple.com]


I had my doubts, but now that I've looked at Apple's entirely unbiased official site I'm convinced! :P

Seriously, do your research first. Safari kindof cheats (and by kindof, I mean majorly) with onload, see this article for example [howtocreate.co.uk] . Quote, "Well, its results are almost certainly wrong, and it will appear a lot faster than it really is, if JavaScript is used to time it. The results are completely unreliable." The author suspects it wasn't intentional cheating, though. Regardless it's not as straightforward of an issue as Apple's PR department would like you to think.

(by the way, Konqueror launches far faster than Safari 3 claims to on that publicity site; is that Konqueror being quick, Windows being slow, 64-bit computing actually being an improvement, or the fact that they tested that on an iMac? I bet they used XP SP2 Home :P )

Re:Can you get Windows Binaries? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#19967709)

Cool, I do prefer Opera and Safaris page tells me it's the slowest one even thought I've always belived it has behaved as the fastest one, go figure =P

That is with an awful lots of tabs thought which is the situation I use it in, Safari is much faster now after installing pit helmet (ad/banner blocker) thought, because flash in OS X is dead slow and a few pages with flash will eat up all your CPU and most of your RAM. Flash suck.

Re:Can you get Windows Binaries? (3, Informative)

ip_fired (730445) | more than 6 years ago | (#19962629)

I believe the nightlies are actually compiled DLL's (or shared libraries, depending on which OS you are on). You can point the safari executable to use the nightly builds instead of the shipped build.

With that said, the nightlies can be buggy, leak, crash, etc. After all, it's just what the devs checked in the previous day and it hasn't really been fully tested.

I was just trying to make the point that the guts of Safari is open source, and that is where Apple puts it, it doesn't have a separate branch that it works on.

Re:Impact on Apple (5, Insightful)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961631)

One of the problems is Apple has no interest in keeping a GPL'd webkit fully functioning with tidy entry/exits for whatever proprietary things Apple wants to add.

Huh? How do you get that from a story about Apple providing such an attractive fork that everyone, including the original authors, is switching to it?

The piece you quoted refers to a squabble about changes to Webkit being difficult to port to KHTML. Which, as the article notes, has been long resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

An explanation (3, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961963)

Apple is pretty much driving this one now. I think this quote from TFA is telling, "its improvements had become difficult to move back into KHTML"

You are missing some of the context. WebKit is being heavily developed and is receiving contributions from many source, though what is most notable is the fact that WebKit has an abstraction layer, whereas KHTML does not. This abstraction layer allows WebKit to be adapted to many underlying architectures and this is why Webkit is getting the attention. Because of the original license nothing is stopping the KHTML developers from taking the WebKit source and making a fork (KHTML -> Webkit -> KHTML NG), but while everyone is benefiting there is little need to do this.

What is also interesting are some of the players that are contributing to WebKit, since there are big corporations in there too, including Adobe and Nokia. There are of course many unaffiliated developers that should not be forgotten, of course.

 

With our powers combined (3, Funny)

SpiffyMarc (590301) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961165)

Finally, open-source has an answer to Voltron (or the Megazord, depending on which generation you are in.)

Re:With our powers combined (1)

Xybre (527810) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961227)

I'm ubernerding here, but..

"With your power combined" is from Captain Planet.
I thinks this bridges the generation gap between Voltron and .. what is that, Power Rangers?

Re:With our powers combined (2, Funny)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961489)

Super Sentai [wikipedia.org] (AKA Power Rangers) predates Captain Planet [wikipedia.org] .

Re:With our powers combined (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961601)

That only means they were the first to rip-off the One True Multi-colored Team(tm), Voltron, Defender of the Universe (pbuh).

Re:With our powers combined (1)

Xybre (527810) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961655)

I hate to continue this discussion, but Power Rangers didn't make it to english-speaking television until 1993, and Captain Planet was aired first in 1990.

I somehow feel like less of a person for going through wikipedia for these tidbits. Maybe if I just change the date of Captain Planet's pilot episode to 1951 I can win this one.. hrm..

Re:With our powers combined (1)

rkanodia (211354) | more than 6 years ago | (#19963387)

It's ok, you win anyway. After all, I just found out that Captain Planet was based on a novella by Jules Verne.

Re:With our powers combined (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19965649)

I much prefer "Orbots! UNITE!"

Dear KDE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19961179)

You had best unfork yourself or I will unscrew your head and shit down your neck!

Sincerely,

Sgt. Hartman

How is it? (1)

Snowgen (586732) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961197)

How is it I can live my whole life without ever hearing about something, and then two [slashdot.org] different [slashdot.org] , unrelated, stories both reference this whole EGCS thing on the same day?

Re:How is it? (2, Informative)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961243)

egcs was a fork of the gcc tree, and had some nice pentium optimization back in the day. See link [wikipedia.org] .

Re:How is it? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961433)

One thing that nothing I've read made clear is what happened to the copyright. Usually, GNU projects have to have the copyright assigned to the FSF. Did the EGCS people all assign their copyright to the FSF when they were un-forked?

Re:How is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19962643)

Yes. Though keep in mind that the people who worked on EGCS wanted to work on GCC in the first place, but found that there was too much beaurocratic overhead.

Re:How is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19961259)

Everything you see - your entire observable world - is a TV show, of which you are the star. EGCS is nothing more than another artificial stimulus from the faux outside world as envisioned by the director of the show. Everybody you think you know and love is in on this. Your only chance for escape is to kill them. Kill them all.

Re:How is it? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19961401)

The real beauty of EGCS history is when RedHat 6.0 shipped with a snapshot version of EGCS instead of tried and true GCC 2.98, and called it GCC 3.0. Of course, since it was just a daily snapshot and not even a release candidate, it was buggy as all hell. Couldn't even compile a kernel because some of the inline assembly and undocumented behavior changed. What a huge piece of shit, thanks RedHat.

It got so bad, FSF had to disavow all knowledge of any GCC 3.0 compiler and jump to 3.1 immediately, since invariably GCC was blamed for this debacle, instead of the true idiots: RedHat.

The more you know.

Re:How is it? (3, Informative)

1729 (581437) | more than 6 years ago | (#19963575)

The real beauty of EGCS history is when RedHat 6.0 shipped with a snapshot version of EGCS instead of tried and true GCC 2.98, and called it GCC 3.0. Of course, since it was just a daily snapshot and not even a release candidate, it was buggy as all hell. Couldn't even compile a kernel because some of the inline assembly and undocumented behavior changed. What a huge piece of shit, thanks RedHat.

It got so bad, FSF had to disavow all knowledge of any GCC 3.0 compiler and jump to 3.1 immediately, since invariably GCC was blamed for this debacle, instead of the true idiots: RedHat.

The more you know.


Your facts are a bit off:

http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc-2.96.html [gnu.org]

In particular, note that the gcc-2.96 debacle had nothing to do with egcs. GCC 2.95 was released after the gcc/egcs merger and before Red Hat released gcc-2.96.

Re:How is it? (4, Interesting)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961415)

Well, it's a famous forking/unforking story regarding GCC, and today we've had a GCC forking story, and a forking->unforking story. Since stories about successful unforks and stories about GCC aren't all that common on Slashdot, it makes sense you haven't seen it here before.

Fortunately, in this case the reference is actually relevant to the process and the discussion. In the GCC story, it was completely unrelated to a license-based fork of GCC.

Unforking? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19961213)

I believe you mean KHTML and WebKit will be *spooning* soon!

I sincerely apologize for the following: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19962923)

> I believe you mean KHTML and WebKit will be *spooning* soon!

Unforkingbelievable!

Re:Unforking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19963027)

Spooning? Oh yay. Now we'll have two rendering engines called WHTML and KebKit.

Re:Unforking? (0, Troll)

tqk (413719) | more than 6 years ago | (#19963875)

Can we please unfork KDE and Gnome next? Assuming that means the two of them will implode into a Black Hole and wink out of existence. Please?

Fluxbox rules, Blackbox's not bad, Openbox tends to work after a fashion, and there's always fvwm* or dwm for the rest. Enlightenment, you're on your own.

Re:Unforking? (1)

Coldfinger (954122) | more than 6 years ago | (#19967431)

The KHTML team just released the following statement in response to all the dodgy comments on slashdot:

There is no spoon

Sincerely,
The KHTML Team

Official Announcement, For Release Immediately: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19969251)

There is no fork.

Sincerely,
The New WebKHiTML Team

Does anybody else smell Microsoft? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19961247)

Something tells me the blood-soaked hands of Microsoft are silently pushing these two projects together in order to make the slaughter easier...

Re:Does anybody else smell Microsoft? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#19962411)

Based on past history, MS would need the web world to coalesce to 1 stronger opponent. Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, Safari/khtml, etc. I am not worried.

Webkit wins (5, Informative)

dj_tla (1048764) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961311)

The summary is a bit vague as to what 'coming together' means. Basically, Webkit is going to be adopted in KDE as a Kpart, features in KHTML that aren't in Webkit are being added to Webkit, then KHTML will die out. Seems at least some KHTML developers will be working on Webkit in the future. The article also goes into the history behind the forking, and is actually a decent read.

Re:Webkit wins (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961387)

It's a shame, in a way, since there was a big clean-up of the KHTML code just after the Apple fork. Mind you, the WebKit code is a lot cleaner than it used to be; if I had just a bit more time I'd start doing a GNUstep port.

Re:Webkit wins (4, Insightful)

stilborne (85590) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961389)

i think a more accurate term is "everybody wins". the code bases have evolved and it has come time to bring the best of all worlds together. the path chosen to get there is interesting, but not a matter of winners and losers.

Re:Webkit wins (1)

dj_tla (1048764) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961479)

Thank you for correcting me, I agree wholeheartedly. Looking at the article, they focus a lot of Webkit's widespread adoption, but don't go into the development of either codebase other than Webkit abstracting out KDE and Qt specific code.

Re:Webkit wins (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19961557)

The parent is posted by the new president of KDE eV.

Here [imageshack.us] 's the official press photo, and here [ruphy.org] you can see him drying his underpants over the fire. Strictly fyi, of course.

Re:Webkit wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19961739)

That's funny as hell.

Makes me glad I don't use KDE - the linux desktop for tracksuit wearers.

Re:Webkit wins (1)

stilborne (85590) | more than 6 years ago | (#19963275)

yeah, it was pretty funny. a few of us went for an unscheduled swim in loch laramond, with the "unscheduled" bit resulting in us stripping down to our briefs. frigging cold water but very refreshing. since we also had these two nice fires, i figured i'd dry out my gear rather than let it sit soggy in the scottish drizzle.

i dunno, i think it's important not to take one's self overly seriously. creating technology should fun have as an element, and it's hard to have fun when you're serious all the time.

that said, when time comes i get pretty serious. there are pictures of that on the net too, but they are less enjoyable to look at ;)

Re:Webkit wins (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 6 years ago | (#19966811)

It could perhaps be a good idea to come up with a new name for the whole project to tone down the "we won, they lose" issue...

Re:Webkit wins (5, Informative)

stilborne (85590) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961447)

> what 'coming together' means

i suppose i could be a bit more helpful and comment on this as well..

> Webkit is going to be adopted in KDE as a Kpart,

what's happened is that the Qt rendering layer has been added to the main webkit repository and several people at Trolltech and from the KDE community are working on webkit and the Qt based rendering in that repository.

this opens the way for webkit to show up in kde, including the kpart.

hopefully more of the khtml forks will follow suit and join mainline dev, but this certainly does start to bring together two of the bigger and more knowledgeable teams when it comes to khtml/webkit.

> features in KHTML that
> aren't in Webkit are being added to Webkit

as many as possible, yes.

Re:Webkit wins (4, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 6 years ago | (#19965595)

I wonder if this actually means that WebKit will become a standard Qt (and not just KDE) component. Qt has its own HTML rendering engine currently, but it's rather simplistic. I wonder if Trolltech has decided it's time for something more powerful...

Re:Webkit wins (1)

iangoldby (552781) | more than 6 years ago | (#19966633)

I wonder if this actually means that WebKit will become a standard Qt (and not just KDE) component.
Yes, that's what it says in the article [arstechnica.com] .

Four standard browsers. (2, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961545)

So we have the Webkit family.
The Gekko family.
Opera.
and the IE family of browsers.
All this would be great if they would all follow the standards!
Okay it would be great if IE followed the standards instead of making them up as they go. IE7 is better but far from perfect.
I wounder if there is any chance that Firefox will move to Webkit in the future? I know it is unlikely but one does wonder.

Re:Four standard browsers. (2, Insightful)

wal9001 (1041058) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961645)

Maybe the "Make sure everything works in IE" era will die off and grow in to the "Make sure everything works on iPhone." Then we could all let IE die or switch to Webkit/Gecko rendering. Since both of them aren't written by a bunch of faceless cubicle monkeys deep in a megacorporation we'd probably end up with a happy world of (correctly rendered) rainbows designed within the standards set forth by WC3!

Re:Four standard browsers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19961811)

> All this would be great if they would all follow the standards!

It's pretty much just IE that DOESN'T follow standards. The others are doing a good job, and in my opinion, as a webdesigner/programmer with 11 years of experience, Webkit/KHTML is doing the best job to date.

Re:Four standard browsers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19962167)

All this would be great if they would all follow the standards!
Opera and Webkit both do an admirable job of following the standards. Then there's Firefox and, worse, IE... (Apparently Firefox 3.0 might finally pass the ACID2 test! It's only been how long since Opera and Webkit did?)

I wounder if there is any chance that Firefox will move to Webkit in the future?
0% chance. Firefox under Linux is based on GTK+/GNOME, not Qt/KDE. Firefox requires XUL, which is a part of the Firefox rendering engine (called Gekko). Replacing Gekko with Webkit would essentially be dropping all the existing Firefox code and starting from scratch.

Personally, I think a new open source project to bring a Webkit-based browser to Windows that attempts to actually fit into Windows could easily kill Firefox. No bloat, superior standards support, what isn't there to love?

Re:Four standard browsers. (2, Interesting)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 6 years ago | (#19964685)

Personally, I think a new open source project to bring a Webkit-based browser to Windows that attempts to actually fit into Windows could easily kill Firefox. No bloat, superior standards support, what isn't there to love?
There used to be such an effort, called Swift. When Safari for Windows was announced, the Swift developer(s?) announced that they'd continue development, switch to win32 WebKit builds and provide a native Windows user experience with a WebKit renderer. Now swift.ws is gone. I seem to recall it'd disappeared before, so I don't know if the dev(s?) changed their plans or just have shitty hosting.

Re:Four standard browsers. (1)

MORB (793798) | more than 6 years ago | (#19967815)

I also expect/hope that konqueror will be among the applications ported on win32 in KDE4.

Re:Four standard browsers. (1)

POWRSURG (755318) | more than 6 years ago | (#19968461)

Since I've talked to the Swift developer (singular), I can say that Swift is technically still alive (or at least it was a few weeks ago, even if every link he ever sent me is now dead). I believe that he said that he expected that Swift 0.4 to be available by the time Safari 3 gets out of beta.

I don't know where he plans on hosting it, but because of his comment about version 0.4 it seems that Safari being released on Windows did not deter him from releasing his browser. For a low version number release by a single developer, it was an ok browser.

Honestly I'm surprised that the community didn't offer him better help on maturing his product (I believe it was GPL, but I do not recall and I only have the 0.2 source at home) or at least help him with bandwidth. Having a Webkit based browser on Windows is pretty damned useful for developers. Sadly, thanks to Apple's release of Safari on Windows I doubt this will ever happen.

Re:Four standard browsers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19969489)

The ACID test represents tiny part of standards, and passing it doesn't really tell anything about the overall standards compliance of a browser engine. FF2 is about on par with Opera when you look at the big picture.

I'd actually commend FF crew for going with their schedule rather than shoehorning the few small parts necessary to pass ACID2 into older gecko just for the sake of publicity whoring while ignoring the real improvements.

No chance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19962205)

The thing many people miss about Firefox is, its entire UI is done in Gecko, via XUL. So you'd have to make KHTML/Webkit understand XUL first... ...and one has to wonder why you'd bother, when we have Konqueror.

Re:Four standard browsers. (1)

Spaseboy (185521) | more than 6 years ago | (#19972325)

Just for shits, I'll throw out there that WebKit based browsers pass the Acid2 test. It would be the only open-sourced rendering engine to do so. If you are looking for a WebKit-based Firefox I already asked about this when chatting with a Gecko contributor. He said that all the "Firefoxy" things are intrinsically tied to Gecko. Camino is a perfect example of what he was talking about. It is based on Gecko but has none of the Firefox stuff because they did not want to be tied to the Gecko engine if things changed in the future.

Debate in a Glasgow pub? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19961573)

Aparently the debate was in a Glasgow pub. So was the final decision was made over a broken bottle and a cry of "Stich this Jimmy!"?

As big as GCC? (3, Interesting)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961741)

As big as GCC? I'll need Wikipedia's help just to know what Webkit is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webkit [wikipedia.org]

Re:As big as GCC? (0, Troll)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 6 years ago | (#19963079)

Hell yeah, I mean a web rendering engine? Like we needed more of those... and frigging apple is involved! for god's sake, don't compare this to precious GCC...

Developers abandon KHTML for the WebKit fork (2, Informative)

homesnatch (1089609) | more than 6 years ago | (#19961809)

This is a more accurate subject line. If you read the article, it is clear that the original developers are moving to WebKit instead of KHTML.

From TFA:

While there are still a few reservations, the consensus is to develop a Webkit KPart for embedding into Konqueror at the earliest opportunity and to take a more active role in the development of Webkit itself. This was hinted at earlier in an Ars interview with Lars Knoll, but now it is more or less the official word.

Now, KHTML won't be deleted right away since there are features in it that need to be ported into Webkit. For example, KHTML (in KDE 4) implements portions of the definition of the CSS3 standard, which will need to be adopted into Webkit and so forth. But the big deal is that the coders that invented the underlying layers that power Konqueror, some Nokia browsers, Abrowse, Safari, Adobe's Air, and now Epiphany and a few other projects that are in the works, are now back in the fold.

Not really. (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#19962949)

You did quote an example here -- but yes, this is probably my favorite way to do a merge, or an "unfork". Given fork A and fork B, pick fork B, port the features you miss from fork A, then drop A and use B.

But it is quite similar to gcc/egcs, in that the egcs fork got far enough ahead that the gcc people adopted it and "abandoned" their own new gcc version. I strongly suspect, however, that anything gcc had that egcs didn't was ported over before egcs was blessed as the new gcc.

This story is incorrect. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19962807)

As simple as that. How could there be a concensus reached
at Glasgow, if a large portion of KHTML developers weren't
even there?

There is no definite decision to merge or "unfork".
Everyone has always believed that this would be
a nice goal, but getting the details right has never
happened, despite some people working very hard to
work them out.

What is true is that some KHTML developers believe they
may have a technical solution which could hopefully
lead to social solutions. Hopefully it will work out,
but perhaps it will not, and as such any such public
announcements are premature and misleading.

Maksim 'SadEagle' Orlovich,
KHTML ECMA, DOM, and KJS Developer

Maybe they can merge in a spell checker... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19963777)

...when they bring Webkit and KHTML together, and then story authors and editors won't spell "separately" wrong anymore!

Hey!

Stop throwing rotten fruit!

Strange, this sounds like good news (1)

Skeith (931626) | more than 6 years ago | (#19963987)

Khtml developers will add features that Webkit is lacking and then they will all get in the same boat. Trolltech and KDE will work together for Webkit under qt, Nokia works on gtk, Apple with whatever OSX uses. While I don't agree with Apple secretly forking it, the momentum Apple created should be used by the open source community. Webkit will be very versatile when this is done, being able to use both gtk and qt.

thats the end of the world as we know it (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19964089)

Are you actually aware of what this means?

Three very big development 'companies' are working together on *one* web engine with *one* code base.
Apple. Trolltech. KDE/The Open Source community. Maybe Nokia too, sometimes in the future.

Never thought that that would happen.

Re:thats the end of the world as we know it (1, Informative)

stilborne (85590) | more than 6 years ago | (#19965069)

add Adobe with Air to that picture, and there are Others(tm) lurking with webkit trees.

Re:thats the end of the world as we know it (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19965995)

+ Adobe, which uses WebKit as its HTML renderer in Adobe AIR.

Re:thats the end of the world as we know it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19966065)

Adobe is yet to make any significant contribution to the WebKit tree at webkit.org or post a source tree that actually builds.

This will only be applicable to GPL programs (1)

xynopsis (224788) | more than 6 years ago | (#19966923)

Apple's Safari is a closed and proprietary program that is why they removed the Qt dependency in the fist place and replaced it with a small subset of Qt functionality called KWQ. Since Qt's license only allows GPL and requires payment for other versions, I wonder what this means for companies wanting to release a product based on WebKit but decide not to publish the source code - such as Safari itself. They may or may not like the idea of shelling out $3000/developer just to include Webkit.

Re:This will only be applicable to GPL programs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19967315)

If Apple wrote KWQ the Qt license doesn't apply. You're assuming that KWQ was created by copying source from Qt, which is almost certainly not the case.

KHTML & WebKit are LGPL v2 or later.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...