Undoubtedly, that would be the best choice if Opera is really willing to contribute to/sustain the vitality of the Web ecosystem, as they stated...webfork wrote:As some of the Slashdot comments indicated, I hope they open the Presto engine's code as I expect (with better mobile device support than probably any other browser) it still has wide appeal.
Indeed, but switching to WebKit means that Opera Software doesn't need to use as much resources for maintaining site compatibility. At the very least, the change will save money.freakazoid wrote: Won't Opera still have the problem of marketing themselves? This change doesn't solve that problem.
For example, the top two browsers in html5test.com are WebKit based.Chromium uses the "process per tab" model. Assuming that Opera will stay single-process (two processes if the plugin wrapper is taken into account), it won't have Chromium's "memory problems". (BTW, I'd like if Opera switched to process per tab – I have eight gigabytes of memory.)freakazoid wrote: Also Opera is known for its speed and memory usage. If they switch to Webkit, won't they inherit all the memory problems that Chromium has? Will their extensions be bloated as well?
Opera software is abandoning its homegrown rendering engine in favor of the open source WebKit rendering engine. Many developers seem to think this means one fewer browser to test in, but unfortunately, that’s not the case.
The problem with the dream of less testing because there’s more WebKit is that “WebKit” can mean many things. The WebKit in Safari does not have all the features you’ll find in the WebKit that powers Google Chrome. The situation gets even more complicated with mobile where there are about as many different versions of WebKit as there are browsers.
As Mozilla’s Rob Hawkes and Robert Nyman point out in the post WebKit: An Objective View, that means “each browser will still have its own quirks, performance differences, design, and functionality. These should all be tested for.”
The change will save money over the long-term. Spending development time to create a UI around Webkit will not save money over the short-term though.SYSTEM wrote:Indeed, but switching to WebKit means that Opera Software doesn't need to use as much resources for maintaining site compatibility. At the very least, the change will save money.
I think Safari uses the single-process model; I'm still worried about extensions and memory usage though.SYSTEM wrote:Chromium uses the "process per tab" model. Assuming that Opera will stay single-process (two processes if the plugin wrapper is taken into account), it won't have Chromium's "memory problems". (BTW, I'd like if Opera switched to process per tab – I have eight gigabytes of memory.)
Thanks for the links. Good reads!the_watcher wrote:this seems interesting :
http://bluenotetechblog.com/think-one-f ... ink-again/Opera software is abandoning its homegrown rendering engine in favor of the open source WebKit rendering engine. Many developers seem to think this means one fewer browser to test in, but unfortunately, that’s not the case.
The problem with the dream of less testing because there’s more WebKit is that “WebKit” can mean many things. The WebKit in Safari does not have all the features you’ll find in the WebKit that powers Google Chrome. The situation gets even more complicated with mobile where there are about as many different versions of WebKit as there are browsers.
As Mozilla’s Rob Hawkes and Robert Nyman point out in the post WebKit: An Objective View, that means “each browser will still have its own quirks, performance differences, design, and functionality. These should all be tested for.”
the_watcher wrote:this seems interesting :
http://bluenotetechblog.com/think-one-f ... ink-again/
Both interesting, thanks.freakazoid wrote:Saw an article on ArsTechnica showing a preview release of the new Opera browser using Webkit on Android:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/02/ ... kit-world/
