What is Reddit's opinion of
WebKit?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
➔ WebKit website
By popularity on Reddit, this Service is:
38 reviews of this app found across Reddit:
Don't ever mess with vertical* scrollbars. The example you gave, for instance, works badly on a trackpad.
If you really need to change them, make sure the div is still with overflow:scroll and just hide the actual scrollbars by making that div slightly larger than a container div, like google wave did. Or, even better, use webkit-scrollbar. it will only work for chrome and safari, but that way you are still using the actual, bugless scrollbar code of your OS instead of some JS imitation.
* Horizontal scrollbars are fine to change, mostly because users almost never scroll sideways. Go wild changing those.
Absolutely false.
Android is not based on WebKit. WebKit is the core of the mobile browser on most if not all Android devices. Android is loosely based on Linux with some Java-ish runtimes.
Apple did not develop WebKit in-house. WebKit came from the open-source KDE project KHTML and while Apple curates the project, many companies and individuals have contributed to it, including Google and some Android hardware manufacturers. Apple did make major improvements to the project and has continued to do so, which is why nearly all modern mobile web browsers are WebKit-based. The source is freely available.
One could make the argument that many (if not most) of Android's features were blantantly ripped off of the iPhone, but WebKit is possibly the worst example to use.
safari is a better shell for webkit (compared to chrome's web interface for preferences). if you want the latest version of webkit that will match chrome's insane release schedule head over to webkit.org. i use it for daily browsing
Sunspider shows that Firefox 9's javascript is 18 times faster than IE8's.
Unlike IE6, mobile devices and the software that runs on them are likely to be much better every year, if not every few months, going forward.
IE6 came out in 2001, and a worthwhile successor (IE8) wasn't released until 2009. Adoption of IE8 as a baseline minimum didn't occur until perhaps 2 years later, and some people still have to write for IE6 due to their customer base to this day.
The issue that bleeding-edge features in HTML5/CSS3 are still buggy and/or non-standard in terms of browser support will be fixed. Chrome/Webkit and Firefox are updated monthly, and MSFT is putting in tons of effort to make IE10 fully competitive.
As for speed, the average mobile device is maybe 10x slower than the average desktop, but not 100x(!).
An iPhone 4S scores 2270ms on SunSpider, but a decked out Core i7 might get 228ms at best.
TLDR We are not facing a 10-year quandary as we did with IE6. Perfect HTML5/CSS3/etc support isn't finished yet, but progress is certainly being made.
This needs some response. A SP3 with edge runs Sunspider in 114. And when the MacBook gets warm it slows down by a factor of 4 to 25% of it's normal speed. iPads slow down too. None of these tests demonstrate performance in a working environment
Also, maybe you shouldn't include Sunspider.
"SunSpider is no longer maintained. We recommend JetStream, which tests the JavaScript techniques used by advanced web applications."
Sunspider SP3 Results
AFAIK, srcset deals more with the resolution of the image and device than sizing of the image in dimensions. Have a look here: http://www.webkit.org/demos/srcset/
What it means for you right now, is that you keep your width to a max-width="100%", and the browser will pick the best QUALITY image your browser can support, and apply them to your given widths.
I have found that with max-width="100%" you don't really need any other image dimension strategy, as long as the image you are using is up for it.
You could also have a look at using svg for your image needs? I love svg.
I suggest you don't write the rendering engine.
Check out Gecko and WebKit. Firefox uses Gecko, Chrome and Safari use WebKit.
Build a browser around them.
That said, that project sounds like a nightmare. It's pretty damn hard just to write an extension for Chrome/Firefox, let alone wrap an entire browser around one of the rendering engines.
Are you serious guy?
- Books: hand-scanned pages of damn near every book ever written
They sell books...for money
- Maps
They charge 3rd parties to use their api. They have sponsored results in the maps
- Self-driving cars: 10 years out; how can this be merely money-inspired
What? What? So because it's 10 years out it can't be money inspired?? Why? Do you think they'll be giving those cars away for free?
- Mail: incredible spam filters that other companies would (and do) pay for
Yeah, and what about all the ads in my gmail?
- Search: the gold standard in web indexing
Search with ads.
- Labs
A) as you pointed out they killed it, and B) that's just R&D for products they hope to make money off of some day.
- Chromium: an even better open source browser
You do realize that Chrome is based on webkit right? Which is an open source browser engine made and released for free by APPLE.
- Without the goodwill of its users, Google could not exist.
True, but they also couldn't exist without their advertisers. And they make BILLIONS off these free services so don't tell me they're not interested in making money that's utter bullshit.
This is on my C1, running Firefox in XFCE.
(did I do the right test?)
Two problems with this. First of all, this is a web browser test. I don't think this qualifies for comparing processors as a whole. It is designed to compare different versions of the same web browser, not different chips. Also, I think you got my actual point. 1.0-1.2 Ghz dual core processors aren't innovative. They've been around for years now. I want to see full benchmarks of these devices. Multitasking, 3D rendering, boot time, etc. This test is flawed, and therefore gives flawed results.
One other thing is the speed at which is interprets data. Most important is probably the speed of the browser's Javascript engine.
Websites these days use a lot of Javascript. Essentially, websites send you a bunch of code, which your web browser has to read and interpret. This allows the website to not only send static information that is to be displayed, but allows web pages to take advantage of your own computer's processing abilities.
Javascript used to only really be used for basic things like showing and hiding dropdown menus, or validating forms. Now it's being used to write complex applications that run in your web browser. Websites like Google Docs are essentially Javascript applications. So, with the new capabilities and complexities of browser applications, the speed at which a browser can interpret, optimize, and run Javascript is important. There are benchmarks such as SunSpider which can measure a browser's performance.
Other things that make browsers better include their website bookmarking tools, download managing tools, page history browser, look and theme, and extension/addon capabilities, and developer tools. I'd say that for most people, the features and "feel" of an application are more important that how the browser works its magic under the hood.
It has to do with actions the page perform as they are being unloaded. Safari attempts to cache the rendered state of the document. If it sends the onunload message and the page responds to it, the cache needs to be trashed to maintain consistency.
http://www.webkit.org/blog/516/webkit-page-cache-ii-the-unload-event/
From what I can tell by looking through the source, they've achieved it by using the WebKit open source framework.
One of the things that WebKit lets you do is add a transition animation between css changes - here is an article (with markup examples) all about it from the WebKit people:
> While OS X has its proprietary pieces
OSX is almost entirely proprietary and every day it diverges more and more from it's ancestors.
Okay, so you can download some source code - but you can't do anything with it. Apple stopped distributing binaries and anything that was easy to build, so attempts to maintain an open-source OS distribution have failed: [OpenDarwin gave up in 2004, PureDarwin in 2009](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system\)#Derived_projects). Apple also haven't released any source for their iOS branch.
I don't think the community cares much about Apple's OS when they've given so little back.
Although the most open-source part of Mac OS is probably WebKit, but that's (a) because it's LGPL; and (b) if they don't use an open, standards-compliant browser, they'll get eaten alive in the marketplace.
Edit: fixed broken links.
Here's some info on customizing in Webkit based browsers like Safari and Chrome: http://www.webkit.org/blog/363/styling-scrollbars/
If you need any more help with anything involving web design, feel free to throw me a PM. Good luck!
That's exactly what i meant about the lightbox.
I don't have good suggestions about the scrollbar. Webkit has added style properties for scrollbars ( here), not sure about the other browsers.
I forgot to mention the photo of you on the About page - it's terrible! Colour. Face the camera. Smile. That's it :)
Safari (not all webkit browsers) has some pretty awesome css tags that you can never use:
I don't run Steam, so I'm not sure. Do they have a standard test, or were you looking for me to get FPS of a specific game?
I find the best way to test hardware performance on a phone is to run sunspider on it. It's quick, easy, and you can even do it in the store. There are some differences due to different javascript engines, but it gives a pretty good ballpark estimate.
And from what I remember, the iPhone score was pretty dominant.
Edit: Yeah, from here I'm seeing the iPhone 6 got a score of 350ms. For comparison, IE on my desktop gets 150ms, and on my 920 scores about 900ms (lower is better). And from this it looks like the 930 scores at about 530ms.
It does seem to work better than before. It's still mostly worthless if you have a Vita game open in the background because it will have so little RAM to work with, and it's probably the slowest browser on any device I own with the exception of the 3DS or an old feature phone.
- Nintendo 3DS XL: aborts the JavaScript
- PS Vita with 3.30: 22,851.5 ms
- iPod Touch (4th Gen) with iOS6: 3,624.3 ms
- iPod Touch (5th Gen) with iOS8: 1,891.7 ms
Here is the contributes up to 2013: http://cdn1.appleinsider.com/webkit-2013.png
http://www.webkit.org/coding/contributing.html
I really don't think that Apple is in complete control of webkit. Anyway, it is better than carrying on with trident, at least for windows phone users.
Interesting, especially because SunSpider claims on its site it avoids micro-benchmarks and imbalanded results, but your arguments against it sound valid. Also, IE does get remarkable results on SunSpider.
Maybe I should start using Octane instead if I feel like benchmarking my browser. It does yield more realistic results when compared to the raw power of the systems I tested it on.
Here's Sunspider info on how it's balanced and statistically sound: http://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider/sunspider.html
Running the benchmark under FireFox on my Windows 7 i7 920 machine, I get around 180 ms
I wonder how many will upvote the submission without reading the link ;)
Wow. You're like a gift that keeps on giving.
No, dummy, it was updated <strong>2</strong> years ago.
Perhaps you should read the announcement, where you know, they discuss why it doesn't need much changing at all, it being a performance indicator, not a feature indicator.
Here's some relevant info:
> We were hesitant to change the SunSpider content or harness much at all, since it’s been used for cross-version and cross-browser comparisons for so long. But it seems important to address the most significant issues. With that in mind, we have made a limited number of changes to the test harness and to the test content itself.
With this being the primary "fix":
> In addition to lowering the delay between tests, we also greatly reduced the amount of loading that happens during the benchmark. All of the content is in one page. This further reduces the variability between test runs.
In total, they fixed the variance due to power management and caching, and fixed a couple of bugs. Again, it's a performance test of JavaScript, not a feature test. Unless you want to tell me JS has fundamentally changed in the last 2 years, and we should test a dramatically different set of mathematical functions for performance, then you're talking out of your ass claiming it's outdated.
You have no idea what you're talking about. There is one WebKit trunk, and full time employees from Apple, Google, and others are part of the core team.
Start here and educate yourself http://www.webkit.org/
Just got 205 ms with 7 tabs open... then again these numbers don't mean shit if you don't run multiple tests in multiple browsers under the same conditions.
Like I said before, your benchmarks are out of date.
Just ran Sunspider for example, with a few tabs open. Got 235.2ms. http://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9.1/sunspider-0.9.1/results.html?%7B%22v%22:%20%22sunspider-0.9.1%22,%20%223d-cube%22:%5B10,9,10,9,9,8,9,10,9,9%5D,%223d-morph%22:%5B14,13,13,14,15,13,12,13,13,13%5D,%223d-raytrace%22:%5B10,11,11,10,10,10,10,...
haha, yeah... the only place I really saw the pink unicorn was the bootup animation and I had a similar revulsion for dealing with it in the workplace. Fortunately you can easily change the boot animation and I threw on a LCARS animation.
Edit: If you get the chance I'd be curious in your 0xbench and sunspider scores.
If the black and white image was only solid and alpha you could mask the colored image based on the alpha in webkit browsers using -webkit-mask.
Examples here:
http://www.webkit.org/blog/181/css-masks/
Otherwise, you could do it with the current images you have using a <canvas> tag and a bit of javascript.
This benchmark was written by Google to test Chrome's javascript so Chrome obviously wins, but try it on both... http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/data/benchmarks/v6/run.html
For a longer running but less biased benchmark, try http://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider/sunspider.html
Try either a javascript onClick event or a css element hover for the firing of the event.. The animations can be achieved using CSS3 webkit transitions.
Watch out, they only work properly in webkit browsers. I don't know any way to do animations purely in JavaScript besides setting a setInterval and gradually changing a CSS property... so in that regard, look into jQuery and the animations that come with it.
Maybe your javascript engine is slow? My benchmark test
Run this side-by-side:
http://www.webkit.org/blog-files/3d-transforms/poster-circle.html
Chrome's reporting 39fps on my 2007 MBP, and Safair runs the animation smoother with anti-aliasing.
Are your results similar?
Safari I know supports HTML 5 transitions. Chrome and firefox probably do to at different levels. Try searching for weblit-transition for other browsers. I like this site http://www.webkit.org/blog/138/css-animation/
If you use jQuery you can pull it off with jQuery ui I think
Cool, found the SunSpider Java Benchmark. Scored a 2044. Seems to be a good number.
Tried Nightly, you're right, that is quite a remarkable diffrence!.