Linked by fran on Sun 20th Feb 2011 19:00 UTC
Google "Over the last few months we have been hard at work getting Native Client ready to support the new Pepper plug-in interface. Native Client is an open source technology that allows you to build web applications that seamlessly and safely execute native compiled code inside the browser. Today, we've reached an important milestone in our efforts to make Native Client modules as portable and secure as JavaScript, by making available a first release of the revamped Native Client .[...]In the coming months we will be adding APIs for 3D graphics, local file storage, WebSockets, peer-to-peer networking, and more. We'll also be working on Dynamic Shared Objects (DSOs), a feature that will eventually allow us to provide Application Binary Interface (ABI) stability."
Thread beginning with comment 463423
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by moondevil
by Kroc on Sun 20th Feb 2011 23:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by moondevil"
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Ah, but don’t jump to conclusions either; he still has a point.

A large part of the problem with ActiveX was because it is alien to the browser. Flash is an ActiveX plugin too.

NaCl might take away some of the pains associated with the Windows-only nature of ActiveX, but it doesn’t remove the issue of technology like this usurping the natural web.

Mozilla have come out against NaCl and will not be including it: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/24/jay_sullivan_on_firefox/

Google are just looking to move more stuff to the web in order to grease their palms, they are not interested in the long term openness and freedom of the web. NaCl makes some things possible on one hand (high-end games), but at the same time provides new ways of companies creating closed experiences that do not compliment the web. Flash all over again, basically.

The Web is about View->Source, that’s what keeps it open.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by moondevil
by shmerl on Mon 21st Feb 2011 00:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by moondevil"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Agreed. Mozilla advocate browser based technologies like WebGL and etc. instead of using plugin style approach.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by moondevil
by kaiwai on Mon 21st Feb 2011 05:03 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by moondevil"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I would argue that the flaw with Flash has less to do with the fact that you can't go 'view source' and more to do with the fact that it is a closed source implementation where there is no ability for a consortium of companies working on a single open source code base to fix up long standing issues with said technology.

Compare NaCL to Flash - NaCL is completely open sourced, the NAPI Pepper extensions are full open source as well. What does that mean as an end user? it means that if there are issues I'm not dependent on one single company to actually fix the problem in the case of Flash. If the Flash plugin was open source do you really think that the long standing issues would have existed if it meant that RedHat/Novell/Apple/etc were able to fix their platform specific issues?

You may talk about openness but for the majority of people they really don't care - what they care about is the end result and whether the end result is desirable. The issues with Flash had less do with 'open ness' as so far as being able to peak into raw source code and everything to do with the plugin being closed source and everyone dependent on one single company to fix issues.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by moondevil
by moondevil on Mon 21st Feb 2011 07:46 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by moondevil"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Thanks Kroc,

that is what I meant.

NaCl is not different (with minor details) from:

Java
Flash (with or without Alchemy)
.Net
ActiveX

Just because it is being proposed by Google we have to welcome it with open arms?

The Web is to be made of open standards.

As for things like NaCl, there is already a solution. It is called desktop applications.

Maybe I am too old, but I still don't get the browser as an OS.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: Comment by moondevil
by dsmogor on Mon 21st Feb 2011 14:55 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by moondevil"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

>I don't get browser as the os
Google as MS, now you get it?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by moondevil
by kragil on Mon 21st Feb 2011 08:21 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by moondevil"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

View source might help you learn JS and all, but once an application reaches a certain complexity it doesn't help you anymore.

Do you read the complete code of gmail, foursquare, wave? I think any JS that is generated and/or compressed is not consumable by humans.
Same will be true for PNacl.

There is only a slight difference between Eclipse compiling your code down to JS or to LLVM bitcode.

Edited 2011-02-21 08:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by moondevil
by Kroc on Mon 21st Feb 2011 11:40 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by moondevil"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I think any JS that is generated and/or compressed is not consumable by humans.


But it can still be queried by machines. It can be probed, debugged, logged, analyzed. It cannot permanently hide its secrets.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by moondevil
by Lennie on Mon 21st Feb 2011 09:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by moondevil"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

We already know Javascript is not the reason we don't have high-end games in the browser. It is mostly the graphics side of it. It is "just a webpage":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSSf_umjOgU

It is fully dynamic with mixed content from Twitter, Flickr and embedded video. It also analyzed the audio in Javascript to show the 'bars' in on the buildings.

It was build in a few weeks by people who didn't know HTML or OpenGL.

Even though a lot of improvements have been made with hardware acceleration there is still a lot that can be improved. Because not everyone will have anywhere near the same performance yet.

I guess it is now at the point what can be done with directx through activex in the browser (something which not many people utilize for in-browser games obvious reasons).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by moondevil
by pmac on Mon 21st Feb 2011 11:39 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by moondevil"
pmac Member since:
2009-07-08

There's no reason why a browser vendor couldn't implement View->Source functionality for Flash. Adobe have released the information that would allow one to examine the contents of a SWF:

http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/actionscript/artic...

Reply Parent Score: 2