[Sugar-devel] webkit, hulahop; developing apps using browser engine DOM for widgets
bobbypowers at gmail.com
Thu Jun 11 13:01:27 EDT 2009
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Martin
Langhoff<martin.langhoff at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Lucian
> Branescu<lucian.branescu at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't think I have the results anymore, but benches between
>> epiphany-webkit and epiphany-gecko were very similar.
> Lucian -- what Jonas and I are trying to say is: even if gecko is
> (was?) by less "performant" than webkit on a standard machine and
> using gecko's default settings, you _have_ to test tuned gecko vs
> tuned webkit.
> "Out-of-the-box" performance isn't what matters to the end user.
> I agree with you, the usual perception is that opera and webkit
> engines are faster / lighter than gecko. But right now, gecko-based
> Browse.xo is noticeably faster than opera.
> Can you prepare a hand-tuned webkit-based Browse.xo so a reasonable
> comparison can be made?
(sorry Martin for the double post, I forgot to reply-all)
While not hand-tuned, I believe on the latest rawhide-xo images (and
Fedora 11) you can download
for a WebKit based browsing experience. The packages pywebkitgtk and
webkitgtk need to be installed, which they are on rawhide-xo. Its a
little rough around the edges (no autocomplete in the address bar, no
downloads), but generally seems to work well. Now that WebKit seems
to be better supported in F11+, I can try to bundle a modified webkit
.so that reduces memory usage as much as possible.
> martin.langhoff at gmail.com
> martin at laptop.org -- School Server Architect
> - ask interesting questions
> - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
> - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
More information about the Sugar-devel