| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
slycordinator
Advocate
Joined: 31 Jan 2004
Posts: 3050
Location: Houston, TX
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| srunni wrote: | | slycordinator wrote: | | srunni wrote: | | There's one thing I don't understand though - why didn't they just work on making Firefox better? |
Because their design seems to be completely different from Firefox's? |
But as I read somewhere, the whole point of this seems to be to break Microsoft's stranglehold on the browser market. Getting people to switch to Google's Firefox version would be enough to do that. And it would save them a lot of trouble. |
Go to the first post. Click on the link and read a few of the slides. There's clearly much more to what they've worked on than just trying to get rid of MS's "stranglehold." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
abaelinor
n00b
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
oh god, this is awesome. it's so fast. i'm incredibly impressed.
the mods i used in firefox were
-- gmail notifier
-- abp
-- download statusbar
-- customize google
-- bugmenot
download statusbar is moot.
i was expecting integration with google docs so you could load up word docs without actually having to load word. unfortunately, that's not implemented yet. there doesn't seem to be any gmail integration either.
i'll be needing bugmenot, abp, and the above integrations before i'm really happy about it. also, there are a few bugs (textareas, even in dialogue boxes are borked).
definitely a fan of the pr0n viewer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
doubleagent
Guru
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Posts: 444
Location: 127.0.0.1
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TNorthover wrote: | | doubleagent wrote: | | If they were wanting to make a rock solid browser, they had a good thing going until here. The instance somebody figures out how to break the sandbox...urk. |
How's that significantly worse than normal? You can always have strings floating around that if they somehow made their way to the cpu would wreak havok. |
Truths.
I just have an inherint fear of js screwing things up more than most things, due to the unprecedented amount of unchecked userland runtime it is given.
_________________
| shickapooka wrote: | | i think they programmed [otw] based on a right-wing jewish-nigger-nazi, his gay, retarded, left-wing love slave with webbed feet, and their three headed cat that poops uncontrollably. the cat is also an apple fanboy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dweezil-n0xad
n00b
Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 57
Location: Ostend, Belgium
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://dev.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/build-instructions-linux
Note: If you want to use a Chromium-based browser, you should look elsewhere. Although many Chromium modules build under Linux and a few unit tests pass, nothing actually runs.
_________________
HP HDX 18 | C2Q Q9000 @2GHz | 6GB DDR3 | NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drizek
n00b
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 32
Location: Believe in America
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is friggen awsome. It is very fast, I can't wait until we have usable webkit based browsers on linux.
Is this writen in qt?
_________________
Stand With Mittens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Advocate
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 3891
Location: UK - Birmingham
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
something call ChromeCanvas
their own toolkit??
| Code: |
void ChromeCanvas::DrawFocusRect(int x, int y, int width, int height) {
// Create a 2D bitmap containing alternating on/off pixels - we do this
// so that you never get two pixels of the same color around the edges
// of the focus rect (this may mean that opposing edges of the rect may
// have a dot pattern out of phase to each other).
static SkBitmap* dots = NULL;
if (!dots) {
int col_pixels = 32;
int row_pixels = 32;
dots = new SkBitmap;
dots->setConfig(SkBitmap::kARGB_8888_Config, col_pixels, row_pixels);
dots->allocPixels();
dots->eraseARGB(0, 0, 0, 0);
uint32_t* dot = dots->getAddr32(0, 0);
for (int i = 0; i < row_pixels; i++) {
for (int u = 0; u < col_pixels; u++) {
if ((u % 2 + i % 2) % 2 != 0) {
dot[i * row_pixels + u] = SK_ColorGRAY;
}
}
}
}
|
_________________
| Quote: | | Voting holds no real power, he who counts the votes has the true power. |
Weaver Projects
whats the difference between 9/11 and a cow?
u stop milking a cow after 10 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokehabit
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3302
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| drizek wrote: | | Is this writen in qt? |
google isn't that stupid to write something in qt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
srunni
Guru
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cokehabit wrote: | | drizek wrote: | | Is this writen in qt? |
google isn't that stupid to write something in qt |
Then what are they going to use? They'd have to be even stupider to use GTK 
_________________
| Patrick Ewing wrote: | | if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck, right? So if this duck is not giving you the noise that you want, you’ve got to just punch that duck until it returns what you expect. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokehabit
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3302
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| srunni wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | drizek wrote: | | Is this writen in qt? |
google isn't that stupid to write something in qt |
Then what are they going to use? They'd have to be even stupider to use GTK |
funny, seeing how far more projects use gtk it would seem that you are wrong. Also gtk is in more widespread use in windows as well |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| srunni wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | drizek wrote: | | Is this writen in qt? |
google isn't that stupid to write something in qt |
Then what are they going to use? They'd have to be even stupider to use GTK |
A quick glance at the code seems to indicate there is no UI work done for Linux or Mac yet... someone correct me if you find otherwise.
Also, I think when it is finished we should patch it to remove the EULA and google updater. Of course, we will have to re-brand it and remove google artwork to do so.
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
erm67
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Nov 2005
Posts: 130
Location: somewhere in Berlusconia.
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dweezil-n0xad wrote: | http://dev.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/build-instructions-linux
Note: If you want to use a Chromium-based browser, you should look elsewhere. Although many Chromium modules build under Linux and a few unit tests pass, nothing actually runs. |
That is bad, I even fired up my winXP after almost 1 years using only linux ....
I would use it, fast clean and nice unfortunately I will have to wait for something usable on linux, not even google chrome will make me switch back to Windows ;-(
_________________
Truck!!
A posse ad esse non valet consequentia
Πάντα ῥεῖ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drizek
n00b
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 32
Location: Believe in America
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to say, the more I use it, the more awesome it becomes. Mouse over a link for example and poof, out comes a statusbar. why isn't every app like this?
One of hte things I don't like so far is that it only resizes text, it does not scale the page. Firefox plus Flash 10beta lets you resize the page and the window, and the video controls stay the same size. Very useful for when I am not wearing glasses. I am getting quite a bit of corruption while typing in this text box though, and it seems to be replacing text instead of inserting it.
_________________
Stand With Mittens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poly_poly-man
Advocate
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 2477
Location: RIT, NY, US
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cokehabit wrote: | | srunni wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | drizek wrote: | | Is this writen in qt? |
google isn't that stupid to write something in qt |
Then what are they going to use? They'd have to be even stupider to use GTK |
funny, seeing how far more projects use gtk it would seem that you are wrong. Also gtk is in more widespread use in windows as well |
so clearly, windows is superior to all other operating systems, because it's in use more?
GTK is much easier to program. QT is superior.
_________________
iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAA
avatar: new version of logo - see topic 838248. Potentially still a WiP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abaelinor
n00b
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| drizek wrote: | | I am getting quite a bit of corruption while typing in this text box though, and it seems to be replacing text instead of inserting it. |
yeah, i submitted a bug report on it already. and it's bugged for all textareas, even in the dialog box for the bug report. it seems to be fixed when you hit home, then end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2008/09/platforms-and-priorities.html
They talk about how they are approaching the Mac and Linux versions there. It is all very high-level hand-wavy talk but I suspect they are going to use GTK (maybe with KDE/Qt coming later) for the Linux version since Ubuntu is popular at Google. In fact the developers documentation indicates most of them are using Hardy Heron.
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
square_
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| poly_poly-man wrote: | so clearly, windows is superior to all other operating systems, because it's in use more?
GTK is much easier to program. QT is superior. |
no its not. at least not since qt4. its really easy to program, thats the reason why it spreads more now. VLC switched to qt for example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| square_ wrote: | | poly_poly-man wrote: | so clearly, windows is superior to all other operating systems, because it's in use more?
GTK is much easier to program. QT is superior. |
no its not. at least not since qt4. its really easy to program, thats the reason why it spreads more now. VLC switched to qt for example. |
Qt is more self contained and focused. GTK consists of disparate parts and has a somewhat unnatural design considering it is written in a procedural language.
As far as C++ graphics toolkits go, Qt is a pleasure to work in. I haven't done a lot with GTK.
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abaelinor
n00b
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| square_ wrote: | | poly_poly-man wrote: | so clearly, windows is superior to all other operating systems, because it's in use more?
GTK is much easier to program. QT is superior. |
no its not. at least not since qt4. its really easy to program, thats the reason why it spreads more now. VLC switched to qt for example. |
because when i think of attractive, powerful UIs, VLC is the first thing to come to mind ::facepalm:: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Advocate
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 3891
Location: UK - Birmingham
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sts wrote: | | square_ wrote: | | poly_poly-man wrote: | so clearly, windows is superior to all other operating systems, because it's in use more?
GTK is much easier to program. QT is superior. |
no its not. at least not since qt4. its really easy to program, thats the reason why it spreads more now. VLC switched to qt for example. |
Qt is more self contained and focused. GTK consists of disparate parts and has a somewhat unnatural design considering it is written in a procedural language.
As far as C++ graphics toolkits go, Qt is a pleasure to work in. I haven't done a lot with GTK. |
And thats what it pretty much comes downto
C++ coders tend to drift towards qt since it is C++ (and only C++ gtk fans sticking with gktmm)
C coders stick with GTK
Both do the same job at the end of the day in pretty much the same way, which is what makes this whole qt > gtk, gtk > qt just pathetic
From a coding P.O.V. if you want an all encompassing toolkit that does it all for you (widgets, network-stack...) then qt4 will provide that (for the moment), gtk has alot of those things still in gnome libs
Part of GTK3 (apart from cruft cleanout) is to take a load of gnome libs (that over the releases have been isolated ready for gtk+ integration). Now before you narrowminded qt funboi's start going "oooo gtk is coping qt) it was slated that this was going to happen for a /very/ long time, XFCE wanted todo a load of networky stuff (smb browsing) BUT gtk doesn't provide any networking stack AND XFCE didn't want to depend on gnome-libs
I use pyGTK and done a bit of pyqt (and via python abstracted myself away from C/C++ camps that both toolkits have made) and do you know what..
THEY ARE BOTH THE FUCKING SAME
Oooo container, ooo pack a widget, oooo bind a callback
FFS TCK is exactly the same from a Toolkit P.O.V.
Which then boils downto what you prefer the look of and API
I personally prefer the look of GTK, you get that qt funboi's personally I don't give a shit what BS you start spoiting it aint gonna suddenly change the feeling that gtk looks better to me then qt
and as for a API... well what do you code in? C, C++
well bend me over and fuck me rotten I wonder what toolkits will fit in with the way you code.
FFS it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see...
_________________
| Quote: | | Voting holds no real power, he who counts the votes has the true power. |
Weaver Projects
whats the difference between 9/11 and a cow?
u stop milking a cow after 10 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
drizek
n00b
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 32
Location: Believe in America
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VLC is ugly because it is in GTK.
Check out Arora http://code.google.com/p/arora/ it is a qt webkit based cross platform browser if you are interersted in chrome. It is nothing like it in terms of te google integration, but it is fast.
Holy crap, downloading files in chrome is awesome. Try it. (OK< maybe that is a bit of an overstatement...)
_________________
Stand With Mittens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abaelinor
n00b
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Posts: 51
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| drizek wrote: | VLC is ugly because it is in GTK.
Check out Arora http://code.google.com/p/arora/ it is a qt webkit based cross platform browser if you are interersted in chrome. It is nothing like it in terms of te google integration, but it is fast.
Holy crap, downloading files in chrome is awesome. Try it. (OK< maybe that is a bit of an overstatement...) |
it's similar to the firefox add-on, "download statusbar", which is a de facto mod i add whenever installing firefox for someone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | sts wrote: | | square_ wrote: | | poly_poly-man wrote: | so clearly, windows is superior to all other operating systems, because it's in use more?
GTK is much easier to program. QT is superior. |
no its not. at least not since qt4. its really easy to program, thats the reason why it spreads more now. VLC switched to qt for example. |
Qt is more self contained and focused. GTK consists of disparate parts and has a somewhat unnatural design considering it is written in a procedural language.
As far as C++ graphics toolkits go, Qt is a pleasure to work in. I haven't done a lot with GTK. |
And thats what it pretty much comes downto
C++ coders tend to drift towards qt since it is C++ (and only C++ gtk fans sticking with gktmm)
C coders stick with GTK |
Not quite. I write more C than C++, I just rarely will code up a UI in C. That is why I said it feels unnatural, GTK is not intuitive to a C coder.
I don't think Qt is better, but I can see why people will have a favorite depending on their programming background. Aesthetically, I like GTK better.
Like you said, I'll use Qt if I need a lot of functionality and easy cross-platform support. GTK if I want something simple that is more decoupled and only for Linux.
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
srunni
Guru
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| poly_poly-man wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | srunni wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | drizek wrote: | | Is this writen in qt? |
google isn't that stupid to write something in qt |
Then what are they going to use? They'd have to be even stupider to use GTK |
funny, seeing how far more projects use gtk it would seem that you are wrong. Also gtk is in more widespread use in windows as well |
so clearly, windows is superior to all other operating systems, because it's in use more? |
++
Only reason that GTK has become the "standard" widget toolkit library on Linux is because the Gnomies will start whining if they are forced to use a Qt app on their systems, because that would be too confusing for the nonexistent newbie users that the GNOME dev's are designing GNOME for.
_________________
| Patrick Ewing wrote: | | if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck, right? So if this duck is not giving you the noise that you want, you’ve got to just punch that duck until it returns what you expect. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sts
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| srunni wrote: | | Only reason that GTK has become the "standard" widget toolkit library on Linux is because the Gnomies will start whining if they are forced to use a Qt app on their systems, because that would be too confusing for the nonexistent newbie users that the GNOME dev's are designing GNOME for. |
Actually, it is just because Gnome is the "default" DE. Look at Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, RedHat, SuSE, etc. all use Gnome by default. That doesn't mean it is better, just that it makes sense for devs to focus on GTK.
_________________
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Advocate
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 3891
Location: UK - Birmingham
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| srunni wrote: |
Only reason that GTK has become the "standard" widget toolkit library on Linux is because the Gnomies will start whining if they are forced to use a Qt app on their systems, because that would be too confusing for the nonexistent newbie users that the GNOME dev's are designing GNOME for. |
Not really, the only reason that GTK has become the "standard" widget toolkit library was because of the BS licence that qt was under.
Rememeber it was not that long ago that qt (and only with qt4) that you could use it on windows without a licence
So ppl who wanted linux and windows apps were forced into using gtk. Now that qt is more open are they suddenly just gonna re-code their apps? dont be stupid
gtk works for them, qt works for others
_________________
| Quote: | | Voting holds no real power, he who counts the votes has the true power. |
Weaver Projects
whats the difference between 9/11 and a cow?
u stop milking a cow after 10 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Off the Wall
