7 ms·

PNaCl is both not done and (last I checked) not totally machine-independent due to LLVM encodings of machine word sizes. See also http://comments.gmane.org/gman

PNaCl is both not done and (last I checked) not totally machine-independent due to LLVM encodings of machine word sizes. See also http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/43769 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/43... for doubts on the wisdom of using LLVM bitcode for a long-lived, widely-distributed object file format. PNACL is a fine research project, but unfortunately both NaCl and PNaCl are tied to Pepper, a gargantuan API specified nowhere and implemented only in chromium.org code. To say this is "Open Technology" is to reduce "Open" to the level of "Big company Big Bucks Open-washing." There is nothing open about an unspecified research project without a proven multi-party governance structure that's dominated from start to finish by Google, and which only Google could afford to staff and push -- including via big-money distribution deals with game developers and distributors. As I said at Strange Loop and in past talks, don't shoot the messenger: Microsoft and Apple will never adopt NaCl/Pepper. It is a non-starter as a web standard. Why pray tell should Mozilla fall on Google's sword here? Why should we beg to be involved more "in the process" years after it started? Who are you to say that NaCl/Pepper is better for developers or anyone else than a cross-browser approach targeting JS VMs, which are already there and getting fast enough with typed array memory models to compete with PNaCl? (We aim to demonstrate this.) NaCl/Pepper looks like an incumbent power's technological folly, similar to Microsoft Active X or Google's Dart-as-a-native-VM. Just because a big company can pay for it does not make it "Open" or "Good" or good for the web. You've been free with charges of dishonesty, but I'll refrain from drawing conclusions about you from your position except to say that what you write is astoundingly naive -- at best. For anyone building a competitive browser that is not Chrome or chromium-based, what you propose is a money pit in direct and opportunity costs, with no clear path to standardization, where Firefox would always be behind in "Pepper conformance" compared to Chrome. The answer is no. You'll get the same answer from any other browser vendor not free-riding off of chromium/Google.

haberman 14y ago
There is a wide gap between fully embracing a technology and spreading misinformation about it. I respect Mozilla's decision not to integrate NaCl, to argue that it's premature to talk about doing so while it's underspecified and coupled to Chromium, and to set criteria that it must meet before it will be on the table for further discussion. I can understand concerns about cost and governance and an unwillingness to jump on what is perceived as a "Google treadmill." None of my comment was about any of that. What I can't understand is the fundamentalist reaction to the very idea of native code, the ignoring/dismissing of serious work to solve the problem of portability, the liberal use of words like "never" and "non-starter," spread of FUD by invoking inaccurate comparisons like ActiveX (vis a vis its security model) and DLL Hell, and the spreading of misinformation. For example, PNaCl is not, and as far as I can tell never has been, dependent on machine word size. The link you cited doesn't apply because it is arguing against a different approach than what PNaCl actually does. PNaCl works by defining a little-endian ILP32 machine as the target and fixing all important characteristics of this machine independently of the characteristics of the underlying CPU. This abstract machine's characteristics are defined in such a way that they can efficiently be translated to native code on any modern CPU. This is all covered in the introductory doc: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/native_client/data/site/pnacl.pdf?revision=1752 http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/native_client/data/site/pnacl... > a cross-browser approach targeting JS VMs, which are already there and getting fast enough with typed array memory models to compete with PNaCl? (We aim to demonstrate this.) This is a far more reasonable and compelling story. By all means talk up your stuff and argue that you can win in the free market of ideas. I'm not arguing that I or anybody else should be able to dictate to developers what technology they use; on the contrary it is the Mozilla argument of "no one gets to the machine except through our VM and our GC" that paternalistically ties developers' hands and limits their options.
- hermanhermitage 14y ago
  Work with say Khronos group to establish an OpenCPU standard with a source code and possibly intermediate representation. Socialize amongst CPU vendors, and interest platform makers in the mobile and desktop space. Watch it absorbed by web standards.
- BrendanEich 14y ago
  You are still being free with accusations of spreading misinformation and other evils. If you want to have a real exchange, cool it! Just try to imagine how a hardball from me casting aspersions on you for suspected bad or unfair (to Mozilla; "fair" to Google) motives might feel. Thanks for the PNaCl pointer. My comment was based on LLVM bitcode having machine word size dependencies. This was an issue a while ago. I should have checked to see if it remained one. This correction doesn't alter the general unreadiness of PNaCl for the web, on several fronts. Pepper is one, but PNaCl performance lagging NaCl is another. The Chrome Web Store features games ported via NaCl, for performance -- not PNaCl, which would be significantly slower. On this basis alone, it's premature for you to push PNaCl ahead of Google. > This is a far more reasonable and compelling story. Well, gee, thanks a ton! :-| I've been telling this story clearly since Fluent in May. That you chose not to hear it and instead flung accusations and told sob-stories about big bad Mozilla is your doing, not mine. Here's a final clue: all browser vendors, definitely including Chrome, make the rule (not an argument) "no one gets to the machine except through our VM(s) and GC(s)" -- outside of a few dying plugins, which are even source-licensed and co-released. And that brings back my final point: NaCl is for safer plugins, which are OS-specific anyway. The likeliest evolution of SFI or CFI enforcing compilers and runtimes as plugin hosts is via the OS, not the browser. Write a letter to Microsoft and Apple, not to Mozilla!
  - aplzrtve 14y ago
    These are shallow arguments: * pepper is "inspired" by nsapi, clarify your point. * PNaCl performance lagging isn't a solid argument, you know it'll get better, the solution might even be to cut LLVM out save for bitcode. * "nobody does this at the moment" so why does it belong in the OS?
petegrif 14y ago
I don't understand why you feel it necessary to make your points in such an inflammatory manner. Your arguments are well made, why do you feel the need to, for example, call someone 'astoundingly naive?' Being rude doesn't make your points more convincing and I would have hoped you were above that kind of thing. It's a pity because you have a huge amount to contribute.
- BrendanEich 14y ago
  I went out of my way to say that Haberman's position as I understood it -- not he himself -- was "astoundingly naive". This after he called me dishonest and speculated on motives. Are you using the same yardstick with me as with him? I think not. Arguing about motives is a form of the _ad hominem_ fallacy, and I was avoiding it, in contrast to my fine counterpart. Yeesh!
  - haberman 14y ago
    Oh come on. My label of "dishonest" was in regards to a statement, not you personally, just like your label of "astoundingly naive" against me. And I didn't speculate about motives. I'm not sure what statements of mine you're taking so much offense to, but your speech has also been brusque and uncharitable at times ("Who are you to say...", "Here's a final clue:"). I also went out of my way to empathize with Mozilla's concerns and reasoning for not wanting to support NaCl, whereas you show no appreciation for why someone might ever legitimately want to run native code on the web.
    - BrendanEich 14y ago
      You wrote, very first comment at top: "To dis NaCl on this basis and not even mention PNaCl is dishonest." That was in response to my slides. You were calling me dishonest. Come on yourself! You then went on about "propaganda" and scary salt crystals. Something is off right there. Mozilla doesn't make propaganda and we have a tiny fraction of Google's budget (which I can assure you has been deployed commercially to push NaCl). I don't think your tone or content are balanced on any of this, and you at least climbed down on the salt crystals. Can you do likewise on the "dishonest"?

haberman 14y ago

There is a wide gap between fully embracing a technology and spreading misinformation about it. I respect Mozilla's decision not to integrate NaCl, to argue that it's premature to talk about doing so while it's underspecified and coupled to Chromium, and to set criteria that it must meet before it will be on the table for further discussion. I can understand concerns about cost and governance and an unwillingness to jump on what is perceived as a "Google treadmill." None of my comment was about any of that. What I can't understand is the fundamentalist reaction to the very idea of native code, the ignoring/dismissing of serious work to solve the problem of portability, the liberal use of words like "never" and "non-starter," spread of FUD by invoking inaccurate comparisons like ActiveX (vis a vis its security model) and DLL Hell, and the spreading of misinformation. For example, PNaCl is not, and as far as I can tell never has been, dependent on machine word size. The link you cited doesn't apply because it is arguing against a different approach than what PNaCl actually does. PNaCl works by defining a little-endian ILP32 machine as the target and fixing all important characteristics of this machine independently of the characteristics of the underlying CPU. This abstract machine's characteristics are defined in such a way that they can efficiently be translated to native code on any modern CPU. This is all covered in the introductory doc: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/native_client/data/site/pnacl.pdf?revision=1752 http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/native_client/data/site/pnacl... > a cross-browser approach targeting JS VMs, which are already there and getting fast enough with typed array memory models to compete with PNaCl? (We aim to demonstrate this.) This is a far more reasonable and compelling story. By all means talk up your stuff and argue that you can win in the free market of ideas. I'm not arguing that I or anybody else should be able to dictate to developers what technology they use; on the contrary it is the Mozilla argument of "no one gets to the machine except through our VM and our GC" that paternalistically ties developers' hands and limits their options.

hermanhermitage 14y ago
Work with say Khronos group to establish an OpenCPU standard with a source code and possibly intermediate representation. Socialize amongst CPU vendors, and interest platform makers in the mobile and desktop space. Watch it absorbed by web standards.
BrendanEich 14y ago
You are still being free with accusations of spreading misinformation and other evils. If you want to have a real exchange, cool it! Just try to imagine how a hardball from me casting aspersions on you for suspected bad or unfair (to Mozilla; "fair" to Google) motives might feel. Thanks for the PNaCl pointer. My comment was based on LLVM bitcode having machine word size dependencies. This was an issue a while ago. I should have checked to see if it remained one. This correction doesn't alter the general unreadiness of PNaCl for the web, on several fronts. Pepper is one, but PNaCl performance lagging NaCl is another. The Chrome Web Store features games ported via NaCl, for performance -- not PNaCl, which would be significantly slower. On this basis alone, it's premature for you to push PNaCl ahead of Google. > This is a far more reasonable and compelling story. Well, gee, thanks a ton! :-| I've been telling this story clearly since Fluent in May. That you chose not to hear it and instead flung accusations and told sob-stories about big bad Mozilla is your doing, not mine. Here's a final clue: all browser vendors, definitely including Chrome, make the rule (not an argument) "no one gets to the machine except through our VM(s) and GC(s)" -- outside of a few dying plugins, which are even source-licensed and co-released. And that brings back my final point: NaCl is for safer plugins, which are OS-specific anyway. The likeliest evolution of SFI or CFI enforcing compilers and runtimes as plugin hosts is via the OS, not the browser. Write a letter to Microsoft and Apple, not to Mozilla!
- aplzrtve 14y ago
  These are shallow arguments: * pepper is "inspired" by nsapi, clarify your point. * PNaCl performance lagging isn't a solid argument, you know it'll get better, the solution might even be to cut LLVM out save for bitcode. * "nobody does this at the moment" so why does it belong in the OS?

petegrif 14y ago

I don't understand why you feel it necessary to make your points in such an inflammatory manner. Your arguments are well made, why do you feel the need to, for example, call someone 'astoundingly naive?' Being rude doesn't make your points more convincing and I would have hoped you were above that kind of thing. It's a pity because you have a huge amount to contribute.

BrendanEich 14y ago
I went out of my way to say that Haberman's position as I understood it -- not he himself -- was "astoundingly naive". This after he called me dishonest and speculated on motives. Are you using the same yardstick with me as with him? I think not. Arguing about motives is a form of the _ad hominem_ fallacy, and I was avoiding it, in contrast to my fine counterpart. Yeesh!
- haberman 14y ago
  Oh come on. My label of "dishonest" was in regards to a statement, not you personally, just like your label of "astoundingly naive" against me. And I didn't speculate about motives. I'm not sure what statements of mine you're taking so much offense to, but your speech has also been brusque and uncharitable at times ("Who are you to say...", "Here's a final clue:"). I also went out of my way to empathize with Mozilla's concerns and reasoning for not wanting to support NaCl, whereas you show no appreciation for why someone might ever legitimately want to run native code on the web.
  - BrendanEich 14y ago
    You wrote, very first comment at top: "To dis NaCl on this basis and not even mention PNaCl is dishonest." That was in response to my slides. You were calling me dishonest. Come on yourself! You then went on about "propaganda" and scary salt crystals. Something is off right there. Mozilla doesn't make propaganda and we have a tiny fraction of Google's budget (which I can assure you has been deployed commercially to push NaCl). I don't think your tone or content are balanced on any of this, and you at least climbed down on the salt crystals. Can you do likewise on the "dishonest"?