Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 13:51 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Thread beginning with comment 354136
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Since the exploit in this case is for Safari Apple are in fact releasing the code, so if were a question of reciprocity the guy has no excuse.
Repeat with me: SAFARI IS NOT OPEN SOURCE.
Webkit is open source. Safari isn't. There's a huge difference there.
Repeat with me: SAFARI IS NOT OPEN SOURCE.
Webkit is open source. Safari isn't. There's a huge difference there.
Both Chrome and Safari use Webkit (well, technically webkit includes the javascript engine too - Google has their own one called V8) - the issue is that Chrome probably was developed with a branch that differs significantly from the Safari which Apple uses themselves. The build of the webkit which is used by Safari is different from Chrome which means there will be differences.
You are right that Safari itself isn't opensource, just the core (webkit) but it ignores the fact, like I said, that different builds combined with branches/forks and emerging later on result in different outcomes in the final product.
Edited 2009-03-21 01:35 UTC




Member since:
2008-06-26
Repeat with me: SAFARI IS NOT OPEN SOURCE.
Webkit is open source. Safari isn't. There's a huge difference there.