Why use Chromium as engine?



  • I am wondering, why is Vivaldi using Chromium as engine? Would it not be better to create Vivaldi's own engine/build upon Opera 12's engine? It would be hard, I know that, but now what Vivaldi is, is essentially just another Google Chrome clone, same as Opera, at least that is how I see it. Can anybody explain it to me? This is not meant to be hate on Vivaldi, I am just curious.



  • @MrGoatsy:

    I am wondering, why is Vivaldi using Chromium as engine? Would it not be better to create Vivaldi's own engine/build upon Opera 12's engine?

    It would be hard, I know that, but now what Vivaldi is, is essentially just another Google Chrome clone, same as Opera, at least that is how I see it.

    Can anybody explain it to me?

    This is not meant to be hate on Vivaldi, I am just curious.

    The reason should be more than obvious, but just in case Jon von Tetzchner synthesized it with "no one made an original engine in the last 17 years"



  • Building a own new brwoser engine last about 6-8 years and some more years fo fix render and other errors and be errotoleant enough for the sites of WWW.
    Costs too much time and money.

    I remmeber Operas old browser struggling years to get working with many existing websites.



  • Largely a consequence of the mess made by the W3C with the mashup of a markup language, a turing complete interpreted(!) scripting language, and the ludicrously convoluted CSS, all based on a broken metaphor of a printed "page".



  • @jaxtraw:

    Largely a consequence of the mess made by the W3C with the mashup of a markup language, a turing complete interpreted(!) scripting language, and the ludicrously convoluted CSS, all based on a broken metaphor of a printed "page".

    Chromium has been made because of Webstandards are somewhat of a crap? Or what do you mean?

    <ironic>Yes, I was more happy about the Net, as it was done over Mailbox like FIDO or with HTML 1.0 without any CSS and JS. And yes, with a text browser.
    No standards, no hassle.</ironic>


  • Moderator

    In some early interviews, however, Jon did explain the choice pretty clearly.

    "The Vivaldi team decided to go with Chromium as the foundation of the browser. The team was obviously too small to write its own engine from scratch, and while von Tetzchner also looked at using Mozilla’s engine and WebKit, he decided to go with Google’s project in the end.

    'Going with WebKit didn’t make a lot of sense,” he said. “And going with Mozilla — we felt that fewer people were using it. They were two good choices in any case, but we went with the safer choice.'"

    Web compatibility was always going to be an issue. WebKit has a small minority of users and is less flexible for UI customization and features than either Gecko or Chromium; and with Moz declining in usage and Chromium getting an ever-growing share of web usage, the smart thing, by his calculation, was to go with the engine he could be sure most websites would always take into account when coding. Further, there are zero licensing issues with the Blink engine since it's open source (which, by the way is the case with all of the technologies used to craft this browser), and, again, as the code is open source, figuring out how to plug in or actuate each feature of the UI on top of the engine is transparent.

    There are some issues with the fact that Chromium is a complete hog for memory and processor cycles, but these issues are actually ADDRESSABLE within the browser itself, by managing the ways in which the browser tells the engine what to do. Opera has already proved this fact by making a browser which, while much less flexible than Vivaldi aims to be, is smoother, more responsive, and makes considerably better use of resources than Chrome.



  • @Ayespy:

    In some early interviews, however, Jon did explain the choice pretty clearly.

    "The Vivaldi team decided to go with Chromium as the foundation of the browser. The team was obviously too small to write its own engine from scratch, and while von Tetzchner also looked at using Mozilla’s engine and WebKit, he decided to go with Google’s project in the end.

    'Going with WebKit didn’t make a lot of sense,” he said. “And going with Mozilla — we felt that fewer people were using it. They were two good choices in any case, but we went with the safer choice.'"

    How about using several engines: Chromium and Mozilla Gecko? ;)


  • Moderator

    Aside from being even harder to build and to perfect, and even harder to implement all of the options a typical Vivaldi user is likely to desire, you'd have to ask Jon. These days a multi-engine browser strikes me as more a conceit than a utility.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.