Active Topics
-
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (9)
to SailfishOS by biketool - 1 hr, 14 mins ago -
[Announce] coderus unrestricted system-ui (297)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by nieldk - 6 days, 6 hrs ago - more...
| The Following User Says Thank You to bluefoot For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2015-07-17
, 12:54
|
|
Posts: 1,986 |
Thanked: 7,698 times |
Joined on Dec 2010
@ Dayton, Ohio
|
#32
|
Originally Posted by bluefoot
Er, but why not? Mozilla is a group founded long ago to build a web browser, and up to this day still centered around their web browser. I would expect their code to be quite performant...
Per the browser performance testing I did on the Jolla & Nexus5, FireFox running inside Alien Dalvik VM on the Jolla is faster than any browser on the Nexus5 running Sailfish (SD800 is miles faster than SD400 in Jolla). This shouldn't happen.
I tested UP performance on the Nexus5 too ... it also uses Qt, QML and libhybris for hardware adaption. If there are inherent issues with them, then they'd suffer too.
And, again, this is also what Qt themselves have recently done -- pretty much given up on their existing webkit engine, and gone with Chromium. If/when Jolla migrates to the more recent versions of Qt, their browser should hopefully better match Ubuntu Phone and other chromium-based systems...
| The Following User Says Thank You to Copernicus For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2015-07-17
, 13:50
|
|
Posts: 338 |
Thanked: 496 times |
Joined on Oct 2010
|
#33
|
Originally Posted by Copernicus
You're really clutching at straws here.
Er, but why not? Mozilla is a group founded long ago to build a web browser, and up to this day still centered around their web browser. I would expect their code to be quite performant...
If I've got this right, UP is using "oxide" for their web engine, and oxide is based on chromium. Therefore, UP is using Google's engine for its web layout; which, again, should provide a superior browsing experience.
And, again, this is also what Qt themselves have recently done -- pretty much given up on their existing webkit engine, and gone with Chromium. If/when Jolla migrates to the more recent versions of Qt, their browser should hopefully better match Ubuntu Phone and other chromium-based systems...
Sailfish Browser is based on Gecko? Please insert your new excuse here.
If Webkit on Qt has been so abandoned and is so poor, and Gecko so great (though not as fast as Chromium), then why are the (deprecated) versions of Qt Webkit used in WebPirate & WebCat still (much) faster than the (much newer Gecko build) Sailfish Browser?
Also, UP's browser gets better results in OctaneV2 than either Chrome or Opera (Chrome based) in lightweight AOSP Android builds on the same (Nexus 5) phone ... and the UP port for N5 is a community Alpha (like the SF N5 port).
Anyway, anything that significantly loads the CPU in Sailfish tends to cause the app to hang, freeze or badly slow down long before 100% CPU utilisation is reached ... this shouldn't happen.
Last edited by bluefoot; 2015-07-17 at 14:00.
|
|
2015-07-17
, 15:19
|
|
Posts: 1,986 |
Thanked: 7,698 times |
Joined on Dec 2010
@ Dayton, Ohio
|
#34
|
Originally Posted by bluefoot
Really, all I'm trying to say is that the current Sailfish browser code probably isn't as good as its competitors. Which, I think, is what you are saying as well. My only addition is that I believe that Jolla is not focussed (and should not be focussed) on trying to create the fastest possible browser; that's a job better left in someone else's hands. I want them to concentrate on the underlying OS, and on growing their business. A good browser is important to a good mobile device experience, but someone else can create that app; Jolla doesn't have to do it themselves...
You're really clutching at straws here.
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Copernicus For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2015-07-18
, 20:38
|
|
Posts: 1,055 |
Thanked: 4,107 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Norway
|
#35
|
Originally Posted by bluefoot
Just because code stops being worked on doesn't mean it immediately "rusts" like metal would. It'll still compile and work the same way it did the last time (unless something changed underneath it).
If Webkit on Qt has been so abandoned and is so poor, and Gecko so great (though not as fast as Chromium), then why are the (deprecated) versions of Qt Webkit used in WebPirate & WebCat still (much) faster than the (much newer Gecko build) Sailfish Browser?
In addition, there's a few more important things to keep in mind there:
- The number of people working full time on QtWebkit (when it was "alive") was something like 5-6x the number of people working on the Sailfish browser full time.
- QtWebkit has a much longer history than the Sailfish browser: it was released initially alongside Qt 4.4, in 2008. The Sailfish browser UI was initially started on in February 2013[1], later released at the end of the year with the Jolla phone. The Gecko work it uses dates back quite a long time, but has changed UI architecture a number of times, so it is also quite new on the side of platform ports.
- QtWebkit also shipped in a multitude of finished "products" (the N9 being the most prominent talked-about example here, but I've worked on a few others, and heard of a lot more in addition) over those years, compared to Sailfish's grand total of one (so far).
[1]: https://github.com/sailfishos/sailfi...8cd9e22fc47e98
__________________
i'm a Qt expert and former Jolla sailor (forever sailing, in spirit).
if you like, read more about me.
if you find me entertaining, or useful, thank me. if you don't, then tell me why.
i'm a Qt expert and former Jolla sailor (forever sailing, in spirit).
if you like, read more about me.
if you find me entertaining, or useful, thank me. if you don't, then tell me why.
| The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to w00t For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2015-07-18
, 20:40
|
|
Posts: 1,055 |
Thanked: 4,107 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Norway
|
#36
|
Originally Posted by w00t
Fun factoid for historians who didn't bother to look it up themselves: the initial skeleton of the browser used QtWebkit :-)
https://github.com/sailfishos/sailfi...8cd9e22fc47e98
__________________
i'm a Qt expert and former Jolla sailor (forever sailing, in spirit).
if you like, read more about me.
if you find me entertaining, or useful, thank me. if you don't, then tell me why.
i'm a Qt expert and former Jolla sailor (forever sailing, in spirit).
if you like, read more about me.
if you find me entertaining, or useful, thank me. if you don't, then tell me why.
 |
|
2015-07-20
, 11:34
|
|
Posts: 6,450 |
Thanked: 20,982 times |
Joined on Sep 2012
@ UK
|
#37
|
Originally Posted by Copernicus
Amen!
A good browser is important to a good mobile device experience, but someone else can create that app; Jolla doesn't have to do it themselves...
I have always considered default applications bundled in the OS a proof of concept and a free bonus (or burden, depending on whether they can be easily removed - and that includes them staying removed after an OS update, nudge nudge wink wink).
The OS developer's effort is best placed in developing the OS. It is the application developers whose job it is to make bigger, better, faster, more featured applications, including browers.
Of course, the OS needs to attract those application developers first. Therein lies the biggest challenge
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to pichlo For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2015-12-18
, 13:10
|
|
Posts: 66 |
Thanked: 87 times |
Joined on Aug 2010
|
#38
|
Originally Posted by Jedibeeftrix
http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermai...ne/021979.html
The jump to QT5.2 was supposed to have been traumatic for the Sailfish team, with no sign of planning for a new rebasing of QT appearing since.
Presumably, they'll have to move eventually, so would an LTS release in Dec15 be the time to [start] that process?
http://blog.qt.io/blog/2015/12/18/in...-term-support/
Seems to be too late for Jolla or maybe not?
Last edited by mick3_de; 2015-12-18 at 13:18.
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mick3_de For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2015-12-18
, 13:22
|
|
Posts: 1,986 |
Thanked: 7,698 times |
Joined on Dec 2010
@ Dayton, Ohio
|
#39
|
Originally Posted by mick3_de
Too late in what way? This just seems to make Qt 5.6 even more appealing as the next target, as it will remain both stable and supported for quite some time to come...
http://blog.qt.io/blog/2015/12/18/in...-term-support/
Seems to be too late for Jolla or maybe not?
|
|
2015-12-18
, 14:06
|
|
Posts: 307 |
Thanked: 1,460 times |
Joined on May 2011
@ Switzerland
|
#40
|
Jolla could have done with that a year ago. Does this mean that finally there's a possibility of a decent range of permitted libs in the harbour?
| The Following User Says Thank You to billranton For This Useful Post: | ||
Last edited by bluefoot; 2015-07-17 at 12:50.