3 ms·

Maybe they made it so it can run on ChromeOS also ? It's not so different than downloading a Windows application that requires JVM or some .NET distributable,

by Kurtz79 10y ago

Maybe they made it so it can run on ChromeOS also ? It's not so different than downloading a Windows application that requires JVM or some .NET distributable, or a Linux package with additional dependencies, IMHO.

satysin 10y ago
I respectfully disagree. [P]NaCl is bad for the web just like ActiveX was. They have a Google Earth desktop client if you want a desktop application. As this is sitting on the open web it should use open standards.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  I also disagree. There is nothing even sorta objectionable about Google software on Google servers requesting you use a Google browser to access them because it uses Google-developed browser features that aren't even part of web standards, and wouldn't be for years even if that was the goal. The alternative would be a moral stance that "no non-RFC stuff on port 80", and that makes zero sense to me. What, they're not allowed to innovate unless they run through the bureaucracy first? I'd love it if you clarified what you're asking for here, because as stated, it seems alien to me.
  - satysin 10y ago
    What I want is for a web site to use standard web technologies so I can use it with my browser of choice. I have no issue with Google putting things over the wire via HTTP but if it only works with a specific client it isn't, to me, a web site but an internet-based application akin to Microsoft ActiveX-based sites which were awful for the web. The whole point of the web is that it was developed as an open platform and we had to fight with Microsoft to stop them turning it into an Internet Explorer only platform. I don't want the same thing to happen with Google/Chrome. I want an open web where I don't have to use one particular browser for certain services. I should also say I do think Google do a lot of good though. They do work with the web standards committee and they do a pretty good job of making their innovations open so I am not quite as worried as I was about Microsoft but, to me, it is better to stop it before it happens than fight to get it back.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      In which case you're in luck - Native Client is completely open, both the source code and the executable format[1]. However, it's new and hasn't been submitted to the standardization bodies yet. With that in mind, I have a real hard time getting worked up over Google putting a draft feature they're working on in their own browser. I suppose if Mozilla and Microsoft really want to implement a moving target, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. If Chrome doesn't restrict it, then they start getting negative press about how this new thing they created doesn't work. [1]: https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/faq https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/faq

by Kurtz79 10y ago

satysin 10y ago

I respectfully disagree. [P]NaCl is bad for the web just like ActiveX was. They have a Google Earth desktop client if you want a desktop application. As this is sitting on the open web it should use open standards.

Karunamon 10y ago
I also disagree. There is nothing even sorta objectionable about Google software on Google servers requesting you use a Google browser to access them because it uses Google-developed browser features that aren't even part of web standards, and wouldn't be for years even if that was the goal. The alternative would be a moral stance that "no non-RFC stuff on port 80", and that makes zero sense to me. What, they're not allowed to innovate unless they run through the bureaucracy first? I'd love it if you clarified what you're asking for here, because as stated, it seems alien to me.
- satysin 10y ago
  What I want is for a web site to use standard web technologies so I can use it with my browser of choice. I have no issue with Google putting things over the wire via HTTP but if it only works with a specific client it isn't, to me, a web site but an internet-based application akin to Microsoft ActiveX-based sites which were awful for the web. The whole point of the web is that it was developed as an open platform and we had to fight with Microsoft to stop them turning it into an Internet Explorer only platform. I don't want the same thing to happen with Google/Chrome. I want an open web where I don't have to use one particular browser for certain services. I should also say I do think Google do a lot of good though. They do work with the web standards committee and they do a pretty good job of making their innovations open so I am not quite as worried as I was about Microsoft but, to me, it is better to stop it before it happens than fight to get it back.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    In which case you're in luck - Native Client is completely open, both the source code and the executable format[1]. However, it's new and hasn't been submitted to the standardization bodies yet. With that in mind, I have a real hard time getting worked up over Google putting a draft feature they're working on in their own browser. I suppose if Mozilla and Microsoft really want to implement a moving target, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. If Chrome doesn't restrict it, then they start getting negative press about how this new thing they created doesn't work. [1]: https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/faq https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/faq