5 ms·

On the other hand, if all browsers just used webkit then maybe we'd finally get "write once, run anywhere" JS, CSS, etc.

drinchev 14y ago
That's the most scary thing of all. Although open-sourced webkit is mostly developed by big companies ( Apple, Google, Adobe .. ). Webkit is not perfect. There are a lot of bugs that nobody cares and will care less. Imagine what will happen if there are no competitor and webkit core engineers do whatever they want and still people use their engine. Prefixes like '-webkit-animation' will remain forever and w3c specs will not be a significant for them.
- marcedwards 14y ago
  If there's bugs you care about, then you patch them. WebKit is open source, so anyone can fork it and build their own version with any fixes or changes they like. I don't see anything but positive news from this.
  - quadhome 14y ago
    That doesn't mean those patches will be accepted upstream.
  - kibwen 14y ago
    > WebKit is open source, so anyone can fork it and build > their own version with any fixes or changes they like. You're committing an error here. Say you find a bug in Webkit. You patch it, but Apple declines to accept it upstream. You fork the project. Now how do you get your fork into the hands of your users? Unless you're secretly Google in disguise, you're SOL.
  - gcp 14y ago
    If there's bugs you care about, then you patch them. So now you have a fixed WebKit that nobody else uses.
  - pooriaazimi 14y ago
    But it's not that easy. It's one thing to add a missing feature to a Ruby gem or event to jQuery, but WebKit is a much bigger beast. Most geeks can't realistically patch things in a big heap of C++ code like that...
    - nanidin 14y ago
      The codebase is pretty big... and I think you're right that someone can pop in and contribute to smaller projects much more easily. But I've poked around in it and it's not that bad. If you put a week into understanding it, it's not nearly as daunting. It's about the same as when you start at a company with a large existing codebase. You're not going to get much done until you've read and understand the chunks of the code that relate to what you need to do. This spinup time is definitely bigger than the hour it can take to fix a bug in a small project that you previously had no experience with, but it's definitely within the realm of the possible.
  - ctz 14y ago
    Please explain how I can patch webkit bugs on my iPhone.
- rimantas 14y ago
  > Imagine what will happen if there are no competitor and > webkit core engineers do whatever they want and still > people use their engine. Well, I've tried and it is still better than few buggy engines. I am sure Gecko and Presto also have bugs that nobody cares about.
micheljansen 14y ago
Yes, because when IE was the dominant browser that was totally the case. Don't forget that on mobile platforms, not including Windows Phone, WebKit is already the standard engine. Safari, Android's stock browser and Chrome all use WebKit and developing for mobile is a ghetto, especially because each version has their own quirks and bugs (and there are dozens of Android stock browser variations in active use at any given time).
- nailer 14y ago
  IE wasn't open source and wasn't maintained on any other platforms than Windows (the Mac and Solaris versions were woeful). WebKit can be maintained, forked etc as the world pleases.
  - micheljansen 14y ago
    Yes, but just because there is one engine, doesn't mean there is one standard. Just like during IE's monopoly there were several versions of the browser to deal with (each with their own quirks), an engine monoculture (Webkit or otherwise) does not guarantee ease of development at all. I agree that if there is to be a rendering engine monoculture, it might as well be open source, but that in itself guarantees nothing.
- meerita 14y ago
  IE was dominant on one OS. It wasn't dominante on anything else than Windows world. Please, and that dominion lasted no more than 10 years. It ended with Android and iOS.
  - PommeDeTerre 14y ago
    Windows was (and still is) the dominant desktop OS. Until recently, it was a very dominant dominance, with competitors usually making up less than 5% of the market share. Even today, mobile users typically account for only about 10% to 15% of a site's traffic, for sites that don't directly target mobile users. Mobile just isn't as important or widespread as a lot of people think it is.
pcwalton 14y ago
Interesting that you mention JS, because the two major browsers running WebKit have totally different JS engines.

drinchev 14y ago

That's the most scary thing of all. Although open-sourced webkit is mostly developed by big companies ( Apple, Google, Adobe .. ). Webkit is not perfect. There are a lot of bugs that nobody cares and will care less. Imagine what will happen if there are no competitor and webkit core engineers do whatever they want and still people use their engine. Prefixes like '-webkit-animation' will remain forever and w3c specs will not be a significant for them.

marcedwards 14y ago
If there's bugs you care about, then you patch them. WebKit is open source, so anyone can fork it and build their own version with any fixes or changes they like. I don't see anything but positive news from this.
- quadhome 14y ago
  That doesn't mean those patches will be accepted upstream.
- kibwen 14y ago
  > WebKit is open source, so anyone can fork it and build > their own version with any fixes or changes they like. You're committing an error here. Say you find a bug in Webkit. You patch it, but Apple declines to accept it upstream. You fork the project. Now how do you get your fork into the hands of your users? Unless you're secretly Google in disguise, you're SOL.
- gcp 14y ago
  If there's bugs you care about, then you patch them. So now you have a fixed WebKit that nobody else uses.
- pooriaazimi 14y ago
  But it's not that easy. It's one thing to add a missing feature to a Ruby gem or event to jQuery, but WebKit is a much bigger beast. Most geeks can't realistically patch things in a big heap of C++ code like that...
  - nanidin 14y ago
    The codebase is pretty big... and I think you're right that someone can pop in and contribute to smaller projects much more easily. But I've poked around in it and it's not that bad. If you put a week into understanding it, it's not nearly as daunting. It's about the same as when you start at a company with a large existing codebase. You're not going to get much done until you've read and understand the chunks of the code that relate to what you need to do. This spinup time is definitely bigger than the hour it can take to fix a bug in a small project that you previously had no experience with, but it's definitely within the realm of the possible.
- ctz 14y ago
  Please explain how I can patch webkit bugs on my iPhone.
rimantas 14y ago
> Imagine what will happen if there are no competitor and > webkit core engineers do whatever they want and still > people use their engine. Well, I've tried and it is still better than few buggy engines. I am sure Gecko and Presto also have bugs that nobody cares about.

micheljansen 14y ago

Yes, because when IE was the dominant browser that was totally the case. Don't forget that on mobile platforms, not including Windows Phone, WebKit is already the standard engine. Safari, Android's stock browser and Chrome all use WebKit and developing for mobile is a ghetto, especially because each version has their own quirks and bugs (and there are dozens of Android stock browser variations in active use at any given time).

nailer 14y ago
IE wasn't open source and wasn't maintained on any other platforms than Windows (the Mac and Solaris versions were woeful). WebKit can be maintained, forked etc as the world pleases.
- micheljansen 14y ago
  Yes, but just because there is one engine, doesn't mean there is one standard. Just like during IE's monopoly there were several versions of the browser to deal with (each with their own quirks), an engine monoculture (Webkit or otherwise) does not guarantee ease of development at all. I agree that if there is to be a rendering engine monoculture, it might as well be open source, but that in itself guarantees nothing.
meerita 14y ago
IE was dominant on one OS. It wasn't dominante on anything else than Windows world. Please, and that dominion lasted no more than 10 years. It ended with Android and iOS.
- PommeDeTerre 14y ago
  Windows was (and still is) the dominant desktop OS. Until recently, it was a very dominant dominance, with competitors usually making up less than 5% of the market share. Even today, mobile users typically account for only about 10% to 15% of a site's traffic, for sites that don't directly target mobile users. Mobile just isn't as important or widespread as a lot of people think it is.

pcwalton 14y ago

Interesting that you mention JS, because the two major browsers running WebKit have totally different JS engines.