5 ms·

I really don't like that this site makes it appear as if Apple started everything... no mentioning of KHTML :(

by buster 15y ago

sjwright 15y ago
Yes, WebKit is based on KHTML, but the Linux operating system was based on GNU and I don't hear people calling it GNU/Linux all that often. Real Artists Ship. By way of his kernel, Linus shipped GNU to a mass audience. And by way of WebKit, Apple shipped KHTML to a mass audience.
- sp332 15y ago
  Webkit is a fork of KHTML. Linux was a kernel that the GNU project added well after both projects were underway.
  - nakkiel 15y ago
    GNU added nothing. The GNU/Linux combination has nothing to do with GNU.
    - sp332 15y ago
      You are suffering from a severe case of ignorance. GNU is an entire OS, including a lot of user space stuff. You can run Linux without using GNU at all, see Busybox for example. You can also run GNU with other kernels, like HURD. Most distros take the Linux kernel, run the GNU OS on it, and then add other programs on top. Debian actually has (had?) a version that ran GNU/Hurd without the Linux kernel at all.
      - nakkiel 15y ago
        Don't be rude and I won't. Also reading my sentence in its context will help. The parent thread read "Linux was a kernel that the GNU project added well after both projects were underway". I was highlighting the fact that GNU is not responsible for the GNU/Linux combination in the sense that most distributions are not endorsded by the GNU project. Debian still has a GNU/Hurd version which got a little more official just a couple of months ago. They also have a GNU/kFreeBSD version.
        sp332 15y ago
        I'm pretty sure the FSF actually funded a partial rewrite of glibc to integrate with Linux extensions better, but I can only find it mentioned in passing on https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
wzdd 15y ago
Or the most interesting part of that early story, which was Apple picking khtml over the (at the time) more-capable Gecko engine---which turned out to be a very good decision.
- Zirro 15y ago
  I'm not saying it isn't true, but how do we know it was the better choice?
- ootachi 15y ago
  Why was that a good decision?
  - tptacek 15y ago
    Because WebKit is such an obviously successful project, is what I read out of that.
    - azakai 15y ago
      Both WebKit and Gecko are obviously successful, so it isn't clear that Apple's choice was better than the other option at the time. We do know that this choice turned out very well for Apple, but we don't know if things could have turned out better otherwise if Apple had picked Gecko. For that matter, we don't know if things wouldn't have turned out better for Apple if it had started from scratch. For one thing, doing so would have avoided KHTML's LGPL license, which requires source code to be shared. That would have allowed Apple to make its web engine closed source or entirely BSD, which could have led to very different results than how things unfolded. Better or worse, it is very hard to say. Edit: I'm curious, why the downmod?
      - tptacek 15y ago
        At a glance, it looks like Webkit is more successful than Gecko, simply because it powers more browsers and because Gecko has virtually no footprint in mobile browsing. We can obviously go round-and-round all day on which is the better engine. I'm only saying that Webkit was a successful project for Apple. I'm not sure how productive it is to second-guess it. (I didn't downvote you).
guruz 15y ago
I don't think that is bad intention :-) I know the guy who has written that blog post, he was one of my colleagues when I was working at Nokia/Trolltech. This is where Lars Knoll (creator of KHTML) is still working at.
tptacek 15y ago
In fairness, Apple took the KHTML ball and ran it pretty freaking far down the field; not only that, but they structured their involvement in a way that allowed most of their fiercest competitors to benefit from their work. It's not like Webkit is simply a rebranded KHTML.
- buster 15y ago
  Sure, but since this is talking a lot about who contributed how much to Webkit i would expect at least a note. Especially since the reason for Webkit being open source could be that KHTML is LGPL. I doubt i'd be open source if KHTML were BSD/MIT style licensed. But that's just my opinion.
Someone 15y ago
Where do you get that impression from? I do not see any claim that Apple started WebKit. The only mentions I see on the page for "apple" are in raw statistics that explicitly mention that they are about fairly recent time frames. The first one has more commits from chromium.org than from apple.com I also briefly browsed other pageson that site, but did not find any evidence for your claim. Do you really expect every mention of "WebKit" to have a footnote explaining that it was based on KHTML?
- buster 15y ago
  I expect if for an article talking about the history of development effort, for sure.
  - Someone 15y ago
    Well, we disagree about that then. I do no see a reasonable way to weave that remark into this post, I do not see any claim that this is even remotely an attempt to write the full history of WebKit, and I notice that, for those who do not know what WebKit is, the first occurrence of the term in the blog post links to WebKit.org, which says: "WebKit is an open source web browser engine. WebKit is also the name of the Mac OS X system framework version of the engine that's used by Safari, Dashboard, Mail, and many other OS X applications. WebKit's HTML and JavaScript code began as a branch of the KHTML and KJS libraries from KDE." I think that should be sufficient acknowledgement for anybody releasing code under the LGPL license.
    - buster 15y ago
      I don't know what link you clicked, but it's an article that shows how much effort by which party was going into the development of Webkit. I acknowledge you that this is about the webkit code repository where it got forked, so that's the reason it starts with Apple. Nevertheless i'd have expected a footnote mentioning it. Why shouldn't that be possible? A remark below the graph, a footnote at the end, whatever.. But this discussion already is far more work and thought then my little remark in the beginning deserved...

I really don't like that this site makes it appear as if Apple started everything... no mentioning of KHTML :(

by buster 15y ago

I really don't like that this site makes it appear as if Apple started everything... no mentioning of KHTML :(

Yes, WebKit is based on KHTML, but the Linux operating system was based on GNU and I don't hear people calling it GNU/Linux all that often. Real Artists Ship. By way of his kernel, Linus shipped GNU to a mass audience. And by way of WebKit, Apple shipped KHTML to a mass audience.

sp332 15y ago
Webkit is a fork of KHTML. Linux was a kernel that the GNU project added well after both projects were underway.
- nakkiel 15y ago
  GNU added nothing. The GNU/Linux combination has nothing to do with GNU.
  - sp332 15y ago
    You are suffering from a severe case of ignorance. GNU is an entire OS, including a lot of user space stuff. You can run Linux without using GNU at all, see Busybox for example. You can also run GNU with other kernels, like HURD. Most distros take the Linux kernel, run the GNU OS on it, and then add other programs on top. Debian actually has (had?) a version that ran GNU/Hurd without the Linux kernel at all.
    - nakkiel 15y ago
      Don't be rude and I won't. Also reading my sentence in its context will help. The parent thread read "Linux was a kernel that the GNU project added well after both projects were underway". I was highlighting the fact that GNU is not responsible for the GNU/Linux combination in the sense that most distributions are not endorsded by the GNU project. Debian still has a GNU/Hurd version which got a little more official just a couple of months ago. They also have a GNU/kFreeBSD version.
      - sp332 15y ago
        I'm pretty sure the FSF actually funded a partial rewrite of glibc to integrate with Linux extensions better, but I can only find it mentioned in passing on https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

wzdd 15y ago

Or the most interesting part of that early story, which was Apple picking khtml over the (at the time) more-capable Gecko engine---which turned out to be a very good decision.

Zirro 15y ago
I'm not saying it isn't true, but how do we know it was the better choice?
ootachi 15y ago
Why was that a good decision?
- tptacek 15y ago
  Because WebKit is such an obviously successful project, is what I read out of that.
  - azakai 15y ago
    Both WebKit and Gecko are obviously successful, so it isn't clear that Apple's choice was better than the other option at the time. We do know that this choice turned out very well for Apple, but we don't know if things could have turned out better otherwise if Apple had picked Gecko. For that matter, we don't know if things wouldn't have turned out better for Apple if it had started from scratch. For one thing, doing so would have avoided KHTML's LGPL license, which requires source code to be shared. That would have allowed Apple to make its web engine closed source or entirely BSD, which could have led to very different results than how things unfolded. Better or worse, it is very hard to say. Edit: I'm curious, why the downmod?
    - tptacek 15y ago
      At a glance, it looks like Webkit is more successful than Gecko, simply because it powers more browsers and because Gecko has virtually no footprint in mobile browsing. We can obviously go round-and-round all day on which is the better engine. I'm only saying that Webkit was a successful project for Apple. I'm not sure how productive it is to second-guess it. (I didn't downvote you).

guruz 15y ago

I don't think that is bad intention :-) I know the guy who has written that blog post, he was one of my colleagues when I was working at Nokia/Trolltech. This is where Lars Knoll (creator of KHTML) is still working at.

tptacek 15y ago

In fairness, Apple took the KHTML ball and ran it pretty freaking far down the field; not only that, but they structured their involvement in a way that allowed most of their fiercest competitors to benefit from their work. It's not like Webkit is simply a rebranded KHTML.

buster 15y ago
Sure, but since this is talking a lot about who contributed how much to Webkit i would expect at least a note. Especially since the reason for Webkit being open source could be that KHTML is LGPL. I doubt i'd be open source if KHTML were BSD/MIT style licensed. But that's just my opinion.

Someone 15y ago

Where do you get that impression from? I do not see any claim that Apple started WebKit. The only mentions I see on the page for "apple" are in raw statistics that explicitly mention that they are about fairly recent time frames. The first one has more commits from chromium.org than from apple.com I also briefly browsed other pageson that site, but did not find any evidence for your claim. Do you really expect every mention of "WebKit" to have a footnote explaining that it was based on KHTML?

buster 15y ago
I expect if for an article talking about the history of development effort, for sure.
- Someone 15y ago
  Well, we disagree about that then. I do no see a reasonable way to weave that remark into this post, I do not see any claim that this is even remotely an attempt to write the full history of WebKit, and I notice that, for those who do not know what WebKit is, the first occurrence of the term in the blog post links to WebKit.org, which says: "WebKit is an open source web browser engine. WebKit is also the name of the Mac OS X system framework version of the engine that's used by Safari, Dashboard, Mail, and many other OS X applications. WebKit's HTML and JavaScript code began as a branch of the KHTML and KJS libraries from KDE." I think that should be sufficient acknowledgement for anybody releasing code under the LGPL license.
  - buster 15y ago
    I don't know what link you clicked, but it's an article that shows how much effort by which party was going into the development of Webkit. I acknowledge you that this is about the webkit code repository where it got forked, so that's the reason it starts with Apple. Nevertheless i'd have expected a footnote mentioning it. Why shouldn't that be possible? A remark below the graph, a footnote at the end, whatever.. But this discussion already is far more work and thought then my little remark in the beginning deserved...