Did Vivaldi choose the correct Work Engine?



  • I Know that this will be contentious, but I raise the question having read (too) many Chrome and Vivaldi responses, and there is Explicit or Implied suggestion that, fundamentally, the system,both, do not function as one would expect. The parameters (although moving), are established for Browser Functionality, yet sometimes, you get the impression that some software is being generated by Script Kiddies. Now, with Vivaldi, I am still not sure if it is a Clone of Chrome, or being written out of the original Free Software Chromium. Maybe it would be good, to know what the aspirations are, and what Final Image is being Envisaged.


  • Moderator

    This question, really, is kind of flogging a dead horse.

    Jon and the crew considered carefully and at length which engine to use. They decided against writing their own (a practical impossibility), against QTWebKit (too limiting, too poorly supported and declining in percentage popularity) and against Gecko (limiting in different ways and also on the wane) and in favor of Chromium, which quickly turned to Blink. The decision is firm and not subject to being revisited at this stage, and the browser has now been under development for between 1.5 to 2 years, depending on whom you listen to. If you really wish to understand how Jon and the team came to this decision, both Vivaldi and journalists who have interviewed Jon have written on it at length.

    The crew who are building the browser are some of the most talented and most experienced browser developers in the world.

    They are using a unique UI platform to ensure that if they can imagine it, they can make it real.

    They are staying in tight and constant communication with the community of users, to ensure that their product is responsive to user demand.

    A similarly large volume of material exists laying out at length the aspirations and "Final Image," as you put it of the team for the browser. It is ultimately intended to be a browser for advanced users, it aspires to be the fastest and most efficient, it is intended to be the most customizable offering the most options of any browser, and it is meant to appeal to the segment of the market who use their browser to do their work, and who demand more of their browser than do casual skimmers of the web, social butterflies, and consumers of digital media.

    All of this has been covered ad infinitum both in this forum, in the blog, and in numerous articles and interviews around the web.

    This will be perhaps the twentieth comment I have written covering similar ground, in response to similar queries.



  • So let me get this clear, are you suggesting that Vivaldi aspire to become a Specialist Browser; And if it is based
    on the Numbers game, you can just see google winning Hands-down.
    I can see why they not have been attracted to Blink (Opera), but, if they are as good as you imply, they may
    have been able to construct their Ideal product.
    There is a lot of validity in Qt, but then, if it's the numbers game.
    Vivaldi is the New-kid-on-the-block, so everyone is intrigued, what concerns me, is that it may become 'tainted'
    as a Chrome clone, or merely become engulfed by Chrome, as Google has a vested interest in their monopoly position.
    Let me add the following link that I have just found:-
    http://prng.net/blink-faq.html


  • Moderator

    I think my comment stands on its own. I mean no more and no less than what I said. There is nothing to be interpreted or read into it, nor extrapolated from it.

    I also think you envision scenarios or eventualities for which there is no basis.

    Vivaldi's motives are transparent, their choice of engine was for clear and unambiguous reasons, and the fact that they are using open-source software largely managed by Google does not somehow imply that they will now or eventually be dictated to or gobbled up by Google. Any "taint" imputed by association with Chromium is in the minds of users so-disposed. And when dealing with such people you can never persuade them that they are safe using your software. No point in trying.

    Vivaldi is not trying to win in competition with other browsers. They are trying to make the kind of browser old Opera 12 aficionados would love, and attract enough users to it to make it pay for itself and maybe, hopefully, make some money for the founder and sole investor.



  • i would suggest that since google funds chrome and dictates its direction, that any browser using it is a clone on some level. and that doesn't have to be a negative thing. there seems to be a race on for an alternative chrome browser (one that uses blink but is not google). opera jumped into the race first, but within a couple of years there will likely be 100's of blink browsers. opera disrespected its user base/clients and gave vivaldi an opening. i can't help but notice that opera is shifting direction and copying vivaldi with each successive update (whether its bookmarks, side bars, etc). vivaldi must be scaring them. but the trick is to use the blink engine, and distance yourself from google tracking etc. and make your browser look and feel different than google chrome. adding novel features would be nice too.

    yes, i also like qt a lot. i find it lighter and faster. it may not have the numbers, but it is alive and kicking. blink is likely a safer long term business choice however. though, apple is developing webkit in a different direction then blink … so it would be interesting to see someone make a safari clone for windows.



  • This question arose, based upon correspondence [Windows= Is vivaldi ready to be default Browser]
    In some respects, I feel duped, in that the Vivaldi Browser was being touted as 'The Opera replacement'
    Nothing could be further from the truth; The Opera Browser referred to, functioned on an independent (Presto)
    engine and maintained independently, with the facility to modify 'as needs'. From my perspective, it is that
    Google will set the Bar to which Vivaldi can rise; Do not loose sight of the fact that Chrome, is a Google product.
    The problem of being Power Hungary, is not a Vivaldi problem, it appears to be a 'feature' of Chrome; One
    Chrome user was considering UPPING his 8Gig RAM, to try and solve his problems?????
    As was pointed out to me 'elsewhere', the present developer are the Best there are, and have spent some two
    years on this project!!! Well if they so good, and not Hamstrung by Google, why haven't they sorted this
    fundamental problem; And why, can I not even SET the level of Cache to run with???
    At least the Parent company have been more integrity in their approach, through the use of the Chromium/Blink
    Engine.
    From my experience, Opera never catered for Linux, and in some ways, QupZilla stepped up to the mark.
    From the same source, I was also informed that they spent a long time deliberating over which engine to run
    with; Just from my short (poor) experience, can't see how they could have made a worst one, but if they claim it was the BEST, then what BEST, were they referring to; BEST for the End-user, BEST for them, as developers,
    There is a bit of me that observes this as being in the realm of: We'll show them whose Best; Took a POPULAR
    Browser, hung lots of Bells & Whistles on it, and claiming that it is the NEW Opera Incarnate.
    As people become MORE informed, there are those claiming that Chrome is really the 'biggest piece of s**t they
    ever used.
    I will leave the following link, as an insight from Others:-
    http://prng.net/blink-faq.html


  • Moderator

    djmax:

    1. What are you hoping to accomplish with this topic? It's not as though anyone is learning anything from it, and it's not like it's going to cause Vivaldi to change course. It appears you're just trying to vent your anxiety and disappointment and get people to either argue with you or validate how right you are to feel aggrieved and how terrible Vivaldi is.

    2. You are complaining of things (such as being a resource hog) which the Vivaldi developers have already pledged to address in their time. We know this can be done because, for instance, with the same 10 tabs open on my machine Vivaldi uses nearly double the memory Chrome does, and NeuOpera uses only about .8 as much as Chrome, plus it's faster. Vivaldi promised features. It did not promise any particular resource-usage profile. But it did announce its GOALS to be the fastest, and to be for people who use a lot of tabs. I, for one, am going to give them the chance to meet those goals. You don't have to. But you don't make anything better kvetching about it here. I DO know that Vivaldi is already faster and less resource-hungry than it was in February, plus it already has features other browsers lack, and which I need.

    3. It's not "Hungary," it's "hungry." The first is a nation. The second is a condition of needing sustenance.

    4. The opinions of diverse geeks, developers and paranoiacs on the web regarding the politics of Google and Chromium development may be fascinating to you, but they are not relevant to the usability of Vivaldi. Those of us who care about such are already informed about it and have our own opinions. Those of us who don't, will pay attention to whether, and how fast, Vivaldi gets better for our particular use cases.

    So I've pretty much said everything I care to on this topic, and won't be contributing to it any more. Others may do what pleases them.



  • @djmax:

    In some respects, I feel duped, in that the Vivaldi Browser was being touted as 'The Opera replacement'

    Vivaldi aims to be a great Opera successor, not an 1:1 Opera replacement, that's more the Otter mssion.

    Both ways have pro and cons, and each user can evaluate independently what's the best fit for him and for his HW.

    Surely one thing that Vivaldi already accomplished was to put some pepper on the back of both Opium and Otter developers, both project started to evolve more quickly than before.

    An that's can't be other than a pretty good thing for all of us, Opera orphans.

    We have choices, we aren't anymore the sad people we were in 2013, that's what matters.

    Everything else: Open V.S. Closed source, the choices about the engine and the front-end, the business model, and so on, are merely academic academic discussions, that wouldn't help the development nor the user experience.



  • Now, there's this notion that Vivaldi is for power users as if it's ONLY for power users, but wouldn't it be just as good for any average user? It can't be any worse than Chrome or Firefox, a casual browser, for the average user.

    I'm probably a power user, but the maximum amount of tabs I get up to is 20-25, maybe even 30. I don't like getting to more than that, and find myself wanting to clean up as I know I'll never get to many of those tabs. I like to try keeping under 10, but I get more and more over time, and try to finish with those tabs as I can. How many tabs constitutes a "power user"? Just curious.

    I do love keyboard shortcuts and organizing my tabs for great browsing, whether it's to read information, have lots of YouTube videos, social media, etc. it's great.

    As for the topic the OP has made, yeah, it's kind of pointless if all he came here to do is complain. Though it would be nice to speculate if Vivaldi would ever fork Chromium/Blink somewhere in the far future to take more control of their browser, but that would be hard to tell and I'd be down for discussing it just for fun speculation.



  • @D0J0P:

    Now, there's this notion that Vivaldi is for power users as if it's ONLY for power users, but wouldn't it be just as good for any average user? It can't be any worse than Chrome or Firefox, a casual browser, for the average user.

    Jon's idea is that Vivaldi will look at a wider user base but the main goal is to please the power users.

    People who want just to open a webage has already a number of choices. The former/actual Opera users were just left w/o any fully viable alternative.

    Is not matter of being elitist or racist, there was an empty market nice and Vivaldi (and also Otter) took the opportunity.

    That's all



  • I wish Vivaldi has Firefox engine


  • Moderator

    @Stardust:

    I wish Vivaldi has Firefox engine

    That ship has sailed. Jon and his team carefully considered and discussed, at length, which engine to use. They settled on Chromium (Blink) for a number of reasons, the validity of which has not changed.

    Mozilla's Gecko, as we know it, is going away. It was already declining in popularity, which decline shows no sign of stopping, and now Mozilla are moving Firefox to a multiple-process model. Just imagine if Vivaldi had chosen Gecko and then, just as they were putting out their first stable version, the support for their rendering engine went away. What a calamity that would be.



  • @Ayespy:

    @Stardust:

    I wish Vivaldi has Firefox engine

    That ship has sailed. Jon and his team carefully considered and discussed, at length, which engine to use. They settled on Chromium (Blink) for a number of reasons, the validity of which has not changed.

    Mozilla's Gecko, as we know it, is going away. It was already declining in popularity, which decline shows no sign of stopping, and now Mozilla are moving Firefox to a multiple-process model. Just imagine if Vivaldi had chosen Gecko and then, just as they were putting out their first stable version, the support for their rendering engine went away. What a calamity that would be.

    Precisely. The transition from old-to-new Firefox is going to be painful enough for Mozilla, let-alone anyone who depends upon their technologies. Blink development is far more iterative, so it's unlikely that the Vivaldi team will have to subject all their hard work to a complete overhaul in order to maintain compatibility with the rendering engine.


Log in to reply
 

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