3 ms·

Isn't NaCl open source? What's the problem?

gcp 12y ago
Something being open source doesn't really have much relation to a technology being open. In this case in particular, it's replacing one open-source API that is easily re-implementable, and has been reimplemented by many parties, by another one that is realistically only available by importing the majority of Chrome into your project.
- pekk 12y ago
  That is not different from how most of Firefox's capabilities only work as part of Firefox.
  - zanny 12y ago
    The point is that NaCL is not browser portable at all. NPAPI is. Therefor, they are depreciating a cross browser plugin architecture for one that is Chrome-only. Which basically means no more plugins at all, unless Chrome captures a ridiculous 50%+ marketshare. Which is actually likely, because Google is doing some real seedy nonsense to get Chrome on every Windows preinstall and bundled with every other freeware program in the universe.
    - justinschuh 12y ago
      It's a myth that NPAPI is browser portable (at least in the sense that portability is not a massive undertaking). NPAPI doesn't work on mobile platforms and it requires a huge effort to add or even maintain support for a multi-process browser and a modern graphics stack. Even then, the support is a hack that is a constant source of bugs, crashes, and security vulnerabilities. The only thing that's kept it working this long is constant vigilance on the part of browser makers.
  - pcwalton 12y ago
    Those capabilities (at least the new ones—old SpiderMonkey JS extensions notwithstanding) aren't exposed to Web content.
  - gcp 12y ago
    The ones exposed to the web (the API) is standardized, well documented, and implemented by several parties. (P)NaCL is none of those things.
selectnull 12y ago
Just because something is open source, it does not mean it will be supported by others. Browsers (and web in general) is very complex beast. It's not enough to open source something and proclaim it good for all. Other browsers need to support the same technology in order to gain big number of developers. NaCl was not (afaik) adopted by any other browser vendor. Therefor it's not open web.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  It seems to be good technology though, so other browsers should support it.
  - gcp 12y ago
    It was a passable-but-not-good-enough solution for something everyone wants to get rid of, quickly superseded by superior alternatives. I wouldn't hold my breath.
    - pekk 12y ago
      There are no superior alternatives. There isn't even one alternative which does the same thing.
      - hosay123 12y ago
        Sure there is, ActiveX

gcp 12y ago

Something being open source doesn't really have much relation to a technology being open. In this case in particular, it's replacing one open-source API that is easily re-implementable, and has been reimplemented by many parties, by another one that is realistically only available by importing the majority of Chrome into your project.

pekk 12y ago
That is not different from how most of Firefox's capabilities only work as part of Firefox.
- zanny 12y ago
  The point is that NaCL is not browser portable at all. NPAPI is. Therefor, they are depreciating a cross browser plugin architecture for one that is Chrome-only. Which basically means no more plugins at all, unless Chrome captures a ridiculous 50%+ marketshare. Which is actually likely, because Google is doing some real seedy nonsense to get Chrome on every Windows preinstall and bundled with every other freeware program in the universe.
  - justinschuh 12y ago
    It's a myth that NPAPI is browser portable (at least in the sense that portability is not a massive undertaking). NPAPI doesn't work on mobile platforms and it requires a huge effort to add or even maintain support for a multi-process browser and a modern graphics stack. Even then, the support is a hack that is a constant source of bugs, crashes, and security vulnerabilities. The only thing that's kept it working this long is constant vigilance on the part of browser makers.
- pcwalton 12y ago
  Those capabilities (at least the new ones—old SpiderMonkey JS extensions notwithstanding) aren't exposed to Web content.
- gcp 12y ago
  The ones exposed to the web (the API) is standardized, well documented, and implemented by several parties. (P)NaCL is none of those things.

selectnull 12y ago

Just because something is open source, it does not mean it will be supported by others. Browsers (and web in general) is very complex beast. It's not enough to open source something and proclaim it good for all. Other browsers need to support the same technology in order to gain big number of developers. NaCl was not (afaik) adopted by any other browser vendor. Therefor it's not open web.

tomjen3 12y ago
It seems to be good technology though, so other browsers should support it.
- gcp 12y ago
  It was a passable-but-not-good-enough solution for something everyone wants to get rid of, quickly superseded by superior alternatives. I wouldn't hold my breath.
  - pekk 12y ago
    There are no superior alternatives. There isn't even one alternative which does the same thing.
    - hosay123 12y ago
      Sure there is, ActiveX