Linux Foundation Publishes Study on Linux Development Statistics

Linux Foundation Publishes Study on Linux Development Statistics: Who Writes Linux and Who Supports It.

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Future of Epiphany

ANNOUNCEMENT: The Future of Epiphany (edit: the Gnome web browser)

“(…)This single back-end will be * WebKit *.

We see several advantages in WebKit. These include:

* The WebKit APIs. The API has been designed from the ground up, and
feels like any other GObject based API. A two-way GObject bindings to
the web page’s DOM, and to JavaScript is in development;
this will allow us and our Extensions to access the DOM directly, which
hasn’t been possible before in Epiphany in either C or Python.
* WebKit uses Gnome technologies directly. Similarly to Gecko, it uses
Cairo for graphics, and Pango for the rendering. On top of that, it uses
libsoup for the network layer, and GStreamer for the <video> and <audio>
tag support in HTML5.
* Starting in time for Gnome 2.24, WebKit/GTK+ will implement a
6-month release cycle synchronised with the Gnome release schedule.
* We feel that WebKit has the momentum, and can bring more developers
to both Epiphany directly and the Gnome platform by extension.
WebKit/GTK+ already has more people working on it than are working on
either GtkMozEmbed or the Epiphany gecko back-end.
* WebKit is a better match for *other* uses in Gnome, e.g. as a HTML
widget in Yelp, in Devhelp, and as an editor in Evolution replacing
GtkHTML.
We will propose WebKit as an approved external dependency for Gnome.
In case that we are unable to complete this development in time for
2.24.0, we will delay the new Epiphany to 2.26. For this end, we will
maintain the gnome-2-22 branch in a state that allows us to potentially
make the 2.24.0 release off of that branch.”

The performance aspect of Acid3 (via Hixie’s Natural Log)

The performance aspect of Acid3

The Acid3 test says “To pass the test, a browser must use its default settings, the animation has to be smooth, the score has to end on 100/100, and the final page has to look exactly, pixel for pixel, like this reference rendering”. (Emphasis mine.)

There has been some question as to what “the animation has to be smooth” means.

The idea is to make sure that browsers focus on performance as well as standards. Performance isn’t a standards-compliance issue, but it is something that affects all Web authors and users. If a browser passes all 100/100 subtests and gets the rendering pixel-for-pixel correct (including the favicon!), then it has passed the standards-compliance parts of the Acid3 test. The rest is just a competition for who can be the fastest.

To determine the “score” for performance in a browser that gets 100/100, click on the “A” of “Acid3″ on the test after having run the test twice (so that the test uses the browser’s cache). An alert should pop up, giving a total time elapsed, and reporting any tests that took longer than 33ms. Test 26 is the only one that should take any significant amount of time, as it contains a tight loop doing some common DOM and JS operations. The test has “passed”, for the purposes of the “smoothness” criteria, if all the tests took less than 33ms (it’ll give you a message saying “No JS errors and no timing issues.” if this happens). Then the only issue is the total time — is it faster than all the other browsers?

An important question is “using what hardware?”. Performance tests vary depending on the hardware, so some “reference platform” has to be picked to make a decision. Since “computer” browsers are the first priority with Acid3, as opposed to browsers for phones or other small devices, and since we want the hardware to be able to run the three major platforms of today, I have decided that the “reference hardware” is whatever the top-of-the-line Apple laptop is at the time the test is run.

As hardware improves, performance improves too, so to take this into account test 26 is set up to take longer and longer over time. Today I calibrated the test so that the performance it expects is plausible and will remain so for the next few years, based on results that browsers get on the past few years of Mac laptops.

Last year’s CanSecWest Winner Repeats on Vista, Ubuntu Wins (via slashdot)

 Last year’s CanSecWest Winner Repeats on Vista, Ubuntu Wins

DimitryGH followed up on the earlier news that the MacBook Air lost CanSecWest by noting that “Last year’s winner of the CanSecWest hacking contest has won the Vista laptop in this year’s competition. According to the sponsor TippingPoint’s blog, Shane Macaulay used a new 0day exploit against Adobe Flash in order to secure his win. At the end of the day, the only laptop (of OS X, Vista, and Ubuntu) that remained unharmed was the one running Ubuntu. How’s that for fueling religious platform wars?”

Tick in the Box (via Rixstep)

Full Article

(…)
No: what John Lilly is actually ticked off about is something else. As if. John Lilly is watching as his miniscule ‘corporation’ get eclipsed by a more commercial one. One with a reputation for ‘class’. One with an incredible communication channel with their iTunes™ that sits on perhaps several hundred million Windows computers today.

Nothing wrong with Firefox at all – on the contrary. But Moz were hard put to pony up for a $75 K New York Times spread. Moz have perhaps 100 on board; Apple have two hundred times that and are Fortune 500. Moz can possibly make Fortune 500,000.

Apple have an incredible edge over Moz here and John Lilly knows it. He can see his company evaporating away before his very eyes. And just wait until the iPhone takes off – what’s going to happen then?
(…)

Apple Is Loser in Three-Way Hacking Contest (via osnews)

Apple Is Loser in Three-Way Hacking Contest

“An Apple Mac was the first victim in a hacker shoot-out to determine which operating system is the most secure. A former US National Security Agency employee has trousered USD 10000 for breaking into a MacBook Air at CanSecWest security conference’s PWN 2 OWN hacking contest. The MacBook was lined up against Linux and Vista PCs – which have so far remained uncracked. Nobody was able to hack into the systems on the first day of the contest when contestants were only allowed to attack the computers over the network,

Good News.

but yesterday the rules were relaxed so that attackers could direct contest organisers using the computers to do things like visit websites or open email messages. The MacBook was the only system to be hacked by Thursday. Miller didn’t need much time. He quickly directed the contest’s organisers to visit a website that contained his exploit code, which then allowed him to seize control of the computer, as about 20 onlookers cheered him on. He was the first contestant to attempt an attack on any of the systems.”

Bad News.

There is more bad news for Apple: “If you have Apple and compare it to Microsoft, the number of unpatched vulnerabilities are higher at Apple.”

Idem. :(

WebKit achieves Acid3 100/100 in public build (via Surfin’ Safari)

Congratulations!!  Great Work!

 

Safari 3.1, FireFox 3.0b4 And Webkit r.31201

The WebKit r.31201 is preforming really well. Firefox 3.0b4 also – indeed, it seems that the Mozilla Team have improved their Mac OS X version way a lot. Try it and colabore in their beta test program; they deserve it, maybe, for the first time (not talking about Camino). The same can be said about the WebKit Team downloading the latest nightly buid. And, finaly, Apple has released Safari v3.1. Let’s see some results – nothing definitive but still.

Acid Test v.3:

• WebKit r.31201: 93/100
• Firefox 3.0b4: 67/100
• Safari 3.1: 75/100

SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark Results:

• WebKit r.31201: 2.855
• Firefox 3.0b4: 3.637
• Safari 3.1: 3.157

…

UPDATE:

WebKit achieves Acid3 100/100 in public build (via Surfin’ Safari)

Actualización de FinderPop (v.2.1.2)

Turly ha publicado recientemente una nueva actualización de FinderPop. En concreto, la versión 2.1.2. Es comptible con Tiger y Leopard. No dudes en probarla. Cambiará tu ‘experiencia de usuario’ y mejorará la forma en la que usas el ‘interfaz gráfico’ del OS X.

Anuncio de Rixstep: ACP-Académico y Xfile-Académico.

Anúncio de Rixstep: Rixstep se complace en anunciar ACP-Académico y Xfile-Académico. Ambos constituyen paquetes especialmente rebajados en su precio, con respecto al ‘ACP’ y al ‘Xfile’ porque están dirigidos a la comunidad académica.

El paquete Xfile constituye una parte del paquete completo ACP -el ‘Apple Core Project’ de Rixstep’-, un proyecto de investigación dirigido a profesionales, lo que no obsta a que los usuários áltamente cualificados también puedan sacar provecho del mismo.

Más infomación en el sitio Rixstep.

Al respecto debo decir que a alguien que sea profesor como yo siempre debería interesarle cualquier cosa que afecte a la llamada comunidad académica. Aunque sólo sea por interés -que no es éste el caso-. Así que, viendo como Rixstep ha decidido rebajar económicamente los precios de sus paquetes de software ACP y Xfile especialmente para la comunidad académica, me ha parecido apropiado recoger aquí el mencionado anúncio. Y, a él, añadir mi anotación. No es que mi opinión cuente mucho pero, por si acaso, ahí va…

Y, para que conste, no tengo ninguna relación directa o indirecta con Rixstep -incluyendo por supuesto la económica-. Simplemente soy un mero usuario del paquete completo (ACP) desde hace tiempo. Un usuario que como ya dije en una entrada anterior en este blog está extremadamente satisfecho de serlo. Imaginaos: ¡¡ no creo haber gastado mejor mi dinero con ningún otro ’software’ para OS X !!.

No sólo es que sea increible, es que además aprendes con él. No creo exagerar si digo que si no lo usas difícilmente puedes saber lo que “realmente” es el OS X. Así mismo, no olvidéis tampoco leer los artículos de la ‘Learning Curve’ -entre muchos otros-.

Así que no puedo sino recomendarlo… Descargadlo, probadlo y judgadlo por vosotros mismos. O, aún mejor, ¡haceros con el paquete completo!

Ambos, tanto en su versión académica como en la que no lo es, en función de si pertenecéis a la comunidad académica o no. Y sí, los estudiantes, pertenecen a ella ;-)