8 ms·

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.android.chrome&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.android.ch...

by adgar 14y ago

bzbarsky 14y ago
That _Chrome_. The questions is whether this app runs there, since it's using NaCl, which is not exactly portable across hardware architectures.
- nextparadigms 14y ago
  I think Nacl is portable. But it wouldn't run on Android right now anyway since the Chrome browser on Android doesn't have access to the Chrome webstore and extensions.
  - teraflop 14y ago
    NaCL is not portable, unless you happen to be running the same architecture that the software was compiled for. You might be thinking of PNaCL which is still very experimental: http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/pnacl http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/pnacl
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - nextparadigms 14y ago
      Well that's just dumb. They should've made ARM a first citizen for ChromeOS from day one. I saw a rumor about a future Samsung Chromebook that will use a dual core 2 Ghz Cortex A15 chip, so maybe it's coming soon.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - bzbarsky 14y ago
        Yeah, well. There's a reason browser vendors other than Google aren't so keen on NaCl. No one else actually wants the web to get locked in to a particular hardware architecture or small set of architectures. Note that even PNaCl would have that problem (assuming they ever get it to work): it would just aim to work on x86, x86-64 and ARM. Or put another way, if something like that had taken off about 10 years ago, it would have only worked on x86 and maybe PowerPC and x86-64. And browsing the web would have been impossible using an ARM chip. The question that needs asking is why we think that something has changed in the last 10 years such that locking the web into a small set of hardware architectures is OK now.

8 ms·

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.android.chrome&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.android.ch...

by adgar 14y ago

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.android.chrome&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.android.ch...

bzbarsky 14y ago
That _Chrome_. The questions is whether this app runs there, since it's using NaCl, which is not exactly portable across hardware architectures.
- nextparadigms 14y ago
  I think Nacl is portable. But it wouldn't run on Android right now anyway since the Chrome browser on Android doesn't have access to the Chrome webstore and extensions.
  - teraflop 14y ago
    NaCL is not portable, unless you happen to be running the same architecture that the software was compiled for. You might be thinking of PNaCL which is still very experimental: http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/pnacl http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/pnacl
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - nextparadigms 14y ago
      Well that's just dumb. They should've made ARM a first citizen for ChromeOS from day one. I saw a rumor about a future Samsung Chromebook that will use a dual core 2 Ghz Cortex A15 chip, so maybe it's coming soon.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - bzbarsky 14y ago
        Yeah, well. There's a reason browser vendors other than Google aren't so keen on NaCl. No one else actually wants the web to get locked in to a particular hardware architecture or small set of architectures. Note that even PNaCl would have that problem (assuming they ever get it to work): it would just aim to work on x86, x86-64 and ARM. Or put another way, if something like that had taken off about 10 years ago, it would have only worked on x86 and maybe PowerPC and x86-64. And browsing the web would have been impossible using an ARM chip. The question that needs asking is why we think that something has changed in the last 10 years such that locking the web into a small set of hardware architectures is OK now.