Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Thu 12th Feb 2009 16:47 UTC
Original OSNews Interviews Lunascape5 Genesis is a feature rich browser that brings the best of everything in the browser world. It is the world's first triple engine browser that gives users the freedom to choose between Trident (IE engine), Gecko or Webkit. The beta version of the browser was released today and it is available for download from their official website. In addition to offering three different rendering engines, the company blog announced that Lunascape5 has emerged as a winner in the SunSpider Javascript benchmark outperforming IE8 (alpha), FF3.1 (beta), Google Chrome and Opera 10 (alpha). We also have a short interview with the CEO of Lunascape Inc, Mr. Hidekazu Kondo.
Order by: Score:
Konqueror?
by jtinz on Thu 12th Feb 2009 16:54 UTC
jtinz
Member since:
2006-02-06

How many engines does Konqueror support?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Konqueror?
by phoenix on Thu 12th Feb 2009 17:08 UTC in reply to "Konqueror?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

KHTML only at this time.

There's been hints floating around the web that they may make a KPart out of WebKit such that you could switch between KHTML and WebKit, but I have no idea if that is actually happening.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Konqueror?
by OfficeSubmarine on Thu 12th Feb 2009 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Konqueror?"
OfficeSubmarine Member since:
2006-12-14

I don't know the specifics behind it, but on jaunty at least the kpart is in the repository and seems functional from the couple test runs I gave it. It was a little slow, but that's not too surprising at this point. It did really drive home that konq really needs some love as a web browser. In particular, it's heading to be the only browser that doesn't have some kind of JIT compilation for javascript.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Konqueror?
by Soulbender on Thu 12th Feb 2009 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Konqueror?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It also has an experimental webkit engine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Konqueror?
by michi on Thu 12th Feb 2009 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Konqueror?"
michi Member since:
2006-02-04

KHTML only at this time.

There's been hints floating around the web that they may make a KPart out of WebKit such that you could switch between KHTML and WebKit, but I have no idea if that is actually happening.


Actually there is a webkit kpart, which can be used in konqueror: http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/playground/libs/webkitkde/
I tried it with KDE trunk and it seams to work reasonably well.

There are also several projects to build a stand-alone browser for KDE, just like dolphin: Foxkit (http://code.google.com/p/foxkit/), Arora (http://code.google.com/p/arora/) and rekonq (http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php/rekonq+Web+Browser?content...).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Konqueror?
by OfficeSubmarine on Thu 12th Feb 2009 17:42 UTC in reply to "Konqueror?"
OfficeSubmarine Member since:
2006-12-14

I remember way back in the day there used to be a gecko kpart. I think it hasn't been functional in a long time though.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by garyd
by garyd on Thu 12th Feb 2009 17:39 UTC
garyd
Member since:
2008-10-22

Wasn't Netscape 8 the first browser with a switchable engine? However, this is the first to let you switch between all three leading rendering engines.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by garyd
by trenchsol on Fri 13th Feb 2009 16:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by garyd"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

Yes, I remember, too. AOL offered two engine browser.

Reply Score: 2

Google Chrome webkit?
by Chezz on Thu 12th Feb 2009 18:26 UTC
Chezz
Member since:
2005-07-11

WTF? Isnt this supposed to be Safari not Chrome. I know Safari uses webkit and I know apple introduced webkit aftering merging khtml. Whats with Google taking over this lovely core?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Google Chrome webkit?
by dvhh on Fri 13th Feb 2009 01:52 UTC in reply to "Google Chrome webkit?"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

might be that the chrome source are more usable as a component that safari (hackable, whatever )

Reply Score: 1

Using trident engine
by Liquidator on Thu 12th Feb 2009 18:32 UTC
Liquidator
Member since:
2007-03-04

If I use Lunascape with Trident selected, will I be more secure than if I use IE? (I don't know where security flaws are located in IE). Thanks.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Using trident engine
by WorknMan on Thu 12th Feb 2009 19:01 UTC in reply to "Using trident engine"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If I use Lunascape with Trident selected, will I be more secure than if I use IE? (I don't know where security flaws are located in IE). Thanks.


I would assume it has the same security vulnerabilities as IE does. However, assuming this is the same version of Trident that ships with IE7, is security in IE7 really that big of an issue anymore, at least as compared to everyone else?

I mean, I know it was a nightmare with IE6, but I thought IE7 was pretty well 'sandboxed', and blocking ActiveX controls by default, etc.

Edited 2009-02-12 19:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Using trident engine
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 13th Feb 2009 04:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Using trident engine"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I would assume it has the same security vulnerabilities as IE does. However, assuming this is the same version of Trident that ships with IE7, is security in IE7 really that big of an issue anymore, at least as compared to everyone else?

I believe you're right. However, on post-XP systems (Vista and Windows 7), you'd actually be *more* secure with IE most likely, since it's been designed to run in "protected mode" on those platforms. Unless they've made it in such a way that anything using IE's Trident engine is automatically run in protected mode, but I haven't heard anything about that. I guess that's where the ability to disable ActiveX in this new browser comes in handy, that alone will seriously defend against a lot of bad stuff out there.

Still, nothing beats common sense; just don't visit sites you don't trust and click every random link you see, and you'll be much safer.

Edited 2009-02-13 04:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Using trident engine
by ba1l on Fri 13th Feb 2009 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Using trident engine"
ba1l Member since:
2007-09-08

I believe you're right. However, on post-XP systems (Vista and Windows 7), you'd actually be *more* secure with IE most likely, since it's been designed to run in "protected mode" on those platforms.


Protected mode is basically a hack to allow IE to run with reduced privileges. Microsoft didn't take the time to write a proper solution to allow any application to run inside a low-rights sandbox - it was designed to allow a single application to run inside a single low-rights sandbox, and it has lots of hacks to allow older IE addons to still work, such as file and registry virtualization.

Basically, unless you're IE, protected mode is kind of useless, and Microsoft don't support using it in any way. The sole component of protected mode that's usable by third-party applications is the integrity levels feature, which prevents a low integrity application from screwing around with a higher integrity application. It does absolutely nothing to protect files or the registry.

Chrome takes an interesting approach - they build their own sandbox. It's not the same as IE's protected mode, and doesn't rely on the integrity levels feature introduced in Vista, or UAC, so it works on Windows XP as well.

Basically, each rendering task (one per tab, I think) is run inside it's own process. The security token for each process is modified so that the process is denied access to everything. Each process is run inside a virtual desktop to isolate it from the user's desktop. This gives the same effect as protected mode - the vulnerable parts of the application are isolated from the rest of the system, so any successful attack can only damage the contents of the sandbox. Which is empty, so there's nothing to damage.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Using trident engine
by jessta on Thu 12th Feb 2009 19:16 UTC in reply to "Using trident engine"
jessta Member since:
2005-08-17

(I don't know where security flaws are located in IE). Thanks.

...ummmm..neither does Microsoft.

Reply Score: 7

johjeff
Member since:
2007-11-06

garyd is correct. Netscape 8 could switch between IE's Trident and Mozilla's Gecko engine. It was actually not a bad browser as I recall. Netscape 9 did away with the dual support and went back to Gecko exclusively. Not sure why, but it was a pretty good performing browser.

Jeff

Reply Score: 3

Wow. How did this get past the editors?
by noamsml on Thu 12th Feb 2009 20:59 UTC
noamsml
Member since:
2005-07-09

Everyone knows Netscape 8 could do exactly that long before this newfangled browser.

Reply Score: 2

Who cares?
by mckill on Thu 12th Feb 2009 21:07 UTC
mckill
Member since:
2007-06-12

How big is this beast and how much of a pain is it to get updated? I don't run into websites that need activex/IE anymore so why would anyone want to use IE? People will choose a Webkit variant or a Gecko variant and stick with it.

I also don't see how they can be faster at JS than anyone else, if anything they will be the exact same as the other other browsers since there is no actual code being added/modified other than their shell/glue code.

Edited 2009-02-12 21:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Who cares?
by Liquidator on Thu 12th Feb 2009 21:21 UTC in reply to "Who cares?"
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

This is what I thought too. Don't the rendering engines also include CSS and JS engines?

I guess web designers already use MultipleIE or equivalent to test their web sites.

Regular users probably want to avoid Trident. I use Presto.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Who cares?
by amjith on Thu 12th Feb 2009 21:55 UTC in reply to "Who cares?"
amjith Member since:
2005-07-08

The reason the JS execution is faster is explained in the interview.

"In the case of TraceMonkey running on Gecko, we do our own specialized tuning, and it actually runs faster than on Firefox."

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Who cares?
by Blomma on Fri 13th Feb 2009 02:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Who cares?"
Blomma Member since:
2005-07-06

We can only hope that they as good netizen have contributed back these optimizations to firefox considering how much firefox has given them.

Reply Score: 1

haha
by jefro on Thu 12th Feb 2009 21:38 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

haha,

Shorter Beer means Fosters Lager.

Reply Score: 3

It's also the fastest browser in the world
by asgard on Fri 13th Feb 2009 05:56 UTC
asgard
Member since:
2008-06-07

Not only that, but it is also the fastest browser in the world. To accomplish that, it renders each page with all the three engines at once and uses the fastest result.

(Sorry, couldn't resist - there are too much superlatives in this news and trying to ex post facto make fast something which was designed not to be - HTML/CSS/Javascript - makes me cry as an engineer.)

Reply Score: 1

gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Not only that, but it is also the fastest browser in the world. To accomplish that, it renders each page with all the three engines at once and uses the fastest result.


That would at least finally give someone a reason to buy this "interesting" AMD 3 core processor which has been floating around for some time now.

Reply Score: 2

Dreamhost logo?
by Liquidator on Fri 13th Feb 2009 08:41 UTC
Liquidator
Member since:
2007-03-04

Strange similarity with the Dreamhost logo ;)

http://www.dreamhost.com/

Reply Score: 2

Comment by TLZ_
by TLZ_ on Fri 13th Feb 2009 09:06 UTC
TLZ_
Member since:
2007-02-05

This reminds me of the late 90s and early 2000s when there was a lot of various trident-based (and some that was hybrid Trident/Gecko) browser with branding. (Yahoo-browser, MSN-browser, AOL-browser, etc...)

Seems like this is a new trend, in Mac there is an explosion of various WebKit browsers and in windows you have things such as Sleipnir, which also is Japanese.
http://www.fenrir-inc.com/

I don't really see the point of all these though, they rarely add more value than the browsers that "own" the rendering engines they are using.

"Back in August 2001 the big problem with browsers was keeping multiple windows open at once. Screens were small, having 20 windows open at once was annoying. So I built the initial Lunascape browser with tabs, the world's first"

Opera 5 had tabs in 2000.
(Can't remember whether Mozilla had it before 2001 or not.)

"Something close to 5 billion people still are not using the Internet at all. Using a browser will be, more than likely, the first and best way for new users of the Internet to take advantage of cyberspace."
Chances are that they'll access that with a mobile browser(not necesseraliy on a smartphone) and not a computer. This is why Opera Mobile is actually more used than Safari Mobile despite iPhones huge success.

(I realize that I come off as a Opera-fanboy here, for the record: I'm a Firefox user at desktop, and Safari user with my phone.)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by TLZ_
by Liquidator on Fri 13th Feb 2009 11:16 UTC in reply to "Comment by TLZ_"
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

They should revamp the GUI of Lunascape and remove all not-so-important items. I'm not going to leave my Opera any time soon ;)

Reply Score: 2

GUI
by mono on Fri 13th Feb 2009 11:29 UTC
mono
Member since:
2005-10-19

Why on earth they make custom skins for these applications instead of the default Windows style?
It's like Apple... they are forcing their look on Windows in Safari, iTunes and Quicktime Player...

Reply Score: 2

RE: GUI
by TLZ_ on Fri 13th Feb 2009 15:36 UTC in reply to "GUI"
TLZ_ Member since:
2007-02-05

Apple are funny.

After Leopard they're very strict about user interface styles(exept "pro" programs), but completely dump it on Windows.

I can understand why though. Their interface is a brand, and they're using their Windows programs to advertise for OS X. I don't think it's working out that well though. All their interfaces on Windows is usually not very stable and behaves weird.

I guess part reason they get away with it is that nobody(including Microsft themselves) seem to care all that much about GUI consistency on Windows. Just look at Office 2007. Except Firefox maybe.

Reply Score: 2

Well
by Ultimatebadass on Sat 14th Feb 2009 09:31 UTC
Ultimatebadass
Member since:
2006-01-08

all the technical bits aside, that browser is one fugly piece of software :/

Reply Score: 1

Firefox Plugin
by Luke McCarthy on Mon 16th Feb 2009 13:49 UTC
Luke McCarthy
Member since:
2005-07-06

Firefox has an "Open in IE Tab" plugin.

Reply Score: 1