Google chrome + flash

Just wondering, if google chrome were to be compiled on Haiku, would it have built-in flash support?

Is the idea that Web+ will support plugins at some point in the future?

No. Flash in Chrome browser comes from Adobe not Google.

Only way to get flash on Haiku is either from Adobe directly (closed source) or 3rd party version like Gnash.

Adobe does not release the source to flash so you are stuck using something like Gnash until they compile a version for Haiku.

Oh. Would it be possible to make a gnash plugin for chrome, so that we wouldn’t be stuck with the slow, apparently badly programmed and aging firefox?

Have not checked but would think gnash plugin can be made for Chrome. Getting Chromium working on Haiku might be another story. Could require lots of coding work. Someone would have done it already if it was easy?

Newer Firefox, 3.5+ is fairly good. Haiku uses 2.x Firefox which was very sluggish because of code bloat.

I am using the latest Firefox. It’s using about 349 MB of RAM now. No flash videos are playing. PCSX2, a PS2 emulator is also running here, but it’s only using 229 MB, not as much as the web browser.

Well, considering that Chrome uses more RAM than Firefox, then your better off sticking with WebPositive if you are looking for a lightweight browser.

The problem is of course that keeping up with the features most people expect from a browser these days is in my opinion a full-time job, so I think in the end we will need a up to date port of either Firefox or Chrome in order to satisfy the majority of users out there. Stippi’s work on Webpositive is great, but unless we force him to work 28 hours a day or something I just can’t see him keep up.

WebPositive is likely to support plugins in the future but only developers working on it can say for sure what their plans are.

Web browsers use lots of RAM. You should compare to other web browsers. I’m using IE8 and over 350 MB now. Open the same tabs in both browsers and compare memory use.

Firefox also has lots of code and supports lots of stuff so keep that in mind. I would expect it to use more RAM than some other lighter web browsers.

Short Firefox timeline:

Does it have to be like this? I don’t see how a web browser can need so much power. I’ll have to check how much WebPositive needs.

Well, WebPositive is already near-better than Firefox. The most immediately needed features are: being able to choose whether to save or close all tabs when trying to close the window, choose where to save files, and URL completion like in Firefox before 4.x (Yeah, after having this awesome feature for over 5 years, they thought it was a great idea to remove it).

Does it have to be like this? I don’t see how a web browser can need so much power. I’ll have to check how much WebPositive needs.[/quote]

It’s not power we’re talking about but RAM.

We can get some hint of why a modern full-featured browser uses lots of RAM just by thinking it through:

Suppose you are looking at a Haiku web page, of course the browser has everything you can currently see in RAM, plus intermediate composites. Now suppose there’s an image rollover so that as you hover over the Haiku logo it immediately animates. Cool. But to make this happen the browser must pre-fetch the image, into RAM. If there are a hundred rollovers, it doesn’t know which (if any) you might need, and so it will try to fetch all of them.

You follow a link. Can the browser forget the page you were just looking at, and all those rollovers, freeing up lots of RAM? No, because you might click “Back” at any moment and you will expect that to be fast too. In fact it’s common for five or more previous pages, and all the accompanying Javascript, pre-fetched images, etc. to stay in RAM just in case you click “Back”.

In addition a modern browser often has “smart” links or folders which point to RSS feeds. To keep these up-to-date it periodically reads the contents of those RSS feeds and, of course, keeps them in RAM too. If not when you clicked a “smart” folder it would take some seconds to show the contents, which wouldn’t feel too smart after all.

Then there’s interactive history. Someone already mentioned the Awesomebar. In order for Firefox to react (almost) immediately when you type ‘Haiku’ into the Awesomebar by suggesting Haiku web sites and forums, it must keep not just a list of places you’ve recently been or bookmarked, but a full index of such places with free text searching. If that index isn’t in RAM there will be a long wait while the search is performed on disk, because it’s random access it might take as much as several seconds and that wouldn’t be “Awesome” at all - in fact people already complain that it’s too slow when used the first time.

Of course a lightweight browser is possible, but reviews and other commentary make it clear that “lighter weight” isn’t really a priority for users. They’d like a browser that used less RAM, but it better not also have less features.