3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat is not different from how most of Firefox's capabilities only work as part of Firefox.
- zanny 12y agoThe 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 agoIt'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 agoThose capabilities (at least the new ones—old SpiderMonkey JS extensions notwithstanding) aren't exposed to Web content.
- gcp 12y agoThe ones exposed to the web (the API) is standardized, well documented, and implemented by several parties. (P)NaCL is none of those things.