Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Dan Tucker
Dan's posts


Post has attachment
Cannot wait!!!

Post has shared content
Well, err, that solves the WebKit monoculture problem

Blink is the first big Google secret I've had to keep, it's been exciting and petrifying, especially that time I was drinking with someone from Mozilla and they said "You guys should totally split from WebKit" and my head expended to 3 times its normal size as I desperately tried to guess what I would say if I didn't know what I knew. Anyway, the cat's out of the bag, I need restrain myself no longer, I can finally tell everyone what I think about it:

It's interesting!

Phew. That felt good. I know it isn’t a very quotable opinion, but anything more extreme would be guesswork.

If you watch YouTube in tomorrow's Chrome, you're unlikely to witness a superior quality of acting compared to WebKit, the kittens aren't going to fall out of the screen and dance around you as you joyfully applaud. And similarly, tomorrow's Chrome won't refuse to open because you haven't told Google+ the blood types of your children.

Damnit, now I have to test another browser?

This isn't going to change the amount of testing you need to do. If you test in Chrome but not Safari, you're doing it wrong. For starters, they’ve never used an identical build of WebKit, and even then, WebKit is just the layout engine. Safari and Chrome always had different JavaScript engines, different CPU & GPU rendering, and different network stacks (see

With an increasing number of build and run-time flags, the different ports of WebKit have been diverging for years. For Chrome, it reached a point where keeping the Chromey bits separate from the WebKitty bits was getting in the way of performance and security improvements. Some of these changes are related to Chrome’s multi-process model, so don’t make sense to the world-of-WebKit, and it’d be unfair to try to shoehorn those requirements into that community.

I lamented the loss of Opera's engine, Presto, and see Blink as a rebalancing of engine diversity. I hope Blink can do for layout & rendering what V8 did for JavaScript, although the improvements will be more gradual.

As developers, we bear the scars from days where "another engine" meant the difference between IE6 and Firefox 3 (wow "bear the scars", you can tell I've been watching Game of Thrones), but modern browsers are more compatible, see the similarities between Firefox and Chrome which use completely different engines.

Blink won't introduce its own vendor prefix either, it'll retain "-webkit-" for features that already use it, removing them after they land unprefixed. New experimental features can be activated in about:flags in the Dev and Canary builds.

So basically, Apple wouldn't let Google land Dart into WebKit?

I assume you're thinking that, because I thought that. Is this Google's Henry VIII move? Well, from what I've seen so far, Google seem pretty serious about preventing Blink becoming a Google-born feature party. Exploration of new features is being done in the open -, policies will be published on adopting new features and when they may be considered stable.

To me, the pattern for feature adoption sounds rather Mozilla-like (, in a good way. I'm sure we'll see Dev and Canary builds will be used to trial non-standard features, much as they as now, but rigorous processes are being put in place to select what gets promoted to stable, and when.

So what exactly's going to change?

It'll be like it is now, but harderbetterfasterstronger. Except harder, that doesn't make sense. Unless I mean "harder to break the sandbox of", yes, that's what I mean. Our lovely developer FAQ ( covers some of things the team is looking at.

In short, DON'T PANIC. It sounds like a huge change, but in terms of day-to-day development, the internet will still be the internet. Just as WebKit grew out of KHTML, Blink grows out of WebKit. It's interesting!

For more info, check out the developer FAQ

Post has shared content
Discussions about DRM often land on the fundamental problem with DRM: that it doesn't work, or worse, that it is in fact mathematically impossible to make it work. The argument goes as follows:

1. The purpose of DRM is to prevent people from copying content while allowing people to view that content,

2. You can't hide something from someone while showing it to them,

3. And in any case widespread copyright violations (e.g. movies on file sharing sites) often come from sources that aren't encrypted in the first place, e.g. leaks from studios.

It turns out that this argument is fundamentally flawed. Usually the arguments from pro-DRM people are that #2 and #3 are false. But no, those are true. The problem is #1 is false.

The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright violations.

The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage against creators of playback devices.

Content providers have leverage against content distributors, because distributors can't legally distribute copyrighted content without the permission of the content's creators. But if that was the only leverage content producers had, what would happen is that users would obtain their content from those content distributors, and then use third-party content playback systems to read it, letting them do so in whatever manner they wanted.

Here are some examples:

A. Paramount make a movie. A DVD store buys the rights to distribute this movie from Paramount, and sells DVDs. You buy the DVD, and want to play it. Paramount want you to sit through some ads, so they tell the DVD store to put some ads on the DVD labeled as "unskippable".

Without DRM, you take the DVD and stick it into a DVD player that ignores "unskippable" labels, and jump straight to the movie.

With DRM, there is no licensed player that can do this, because to create the player you need to get permission from Paramount -- or rather, a licensing agent created and supported by content companies, DVD-CCA -- otherwise, you are violating some set of patents, anti-circumvention laws, or both.

B. Columbia make a movie. Netflix buys the rights to distribute this movie from Columbia, and sells access to the bits of the movie to users online. You get a Netflix subscription. Columbia want you to pay more if you want to watch it simultaneously on your TV and your phone, so they require that Netflix prevent you from doing this.

Now. You are watching the movie upstairs with your family, and you hear your cat meowing at the door downstairs.

Without DRM, you don't have to use Netflix's software, so maybe just pass the feed to some multiplexing software, which means that you can just pick up your phone, tell it to stream the same movie, continue watching it while you walk downstairs to open the door for the cat, come back upstairs, and turn your phone off, and nobody else has been inconvenienced and you haven't missed anything.

With DRM, you have to use Netflix's software, so you have to play by their rules. There is no licensed software that will let you multiplex the stream. You could watch it on your phone, but then your family misses out. They could keep watching, but then you miss out. Nobody is allowed to write software that does anything Columbia don't want you to do. Columbia want the option to charge you more when you go to let your cat in, even if they don't actually make it possible yet.

C. Fox make a movie. Apple buys the rights to sell it on iTunes. You buy it from iTunes. You want to watch it on your phone. Fox want you to buy the movie again if you use anything not made by Apple.

Without DRM, you just transfer it to your phone and watch it, since the player on any phone, whether made by Apple or anyone else, can read the video file.

With DRM, only Apple can provide a licensed player for the file. If you're using any phone other than an iPhone, you cannot watch it, because nobody else has been allowed to write software that decrypts the media files sold by Apple.

In all three cases, nobody has been stopped from violating a copyright. All three movies are probably available on file sharing sites. The only people who are stopped from doing anything are the player providers -- they are forced to provide a user experience that, rather than being optimised for the users, puts potential future revenues first (forcing people to play ads, keeping the door open to charging more for more features later, building artificial obsolescence into content so that if you change ecosystem, you have to purchase the content again).

Arguing that DRM doesn't work is, it turns out, missing the point. DRM is working really well in the video and book space. Sure, the DRM systems have all been broken, but that doesn't matter to the DRM proponents. Licensed DVD players still enforce the restrictions. Mass market providers can't create unlicensed DVD players, so they remain a black or gray market curiosity. DRM failed in the music space not because DRM is doomed, but because the content providers sold their digital content without DRM, and thus enabled all kinds of players they didn't expect (such as "MP3" players). Had CDs been encrypted, iPods would not have been able to read their content, because the content providers would have been able to use their DRM contracts as leverage to prevent it.

DRM's purpose is to give content providers control over software and hardware providers, and it is satisfying that purpose well.

As a corollary to this, look at the companies who are pushing for DRM. Of the ones who would have to implement the DRM, they are all companies over which the content providers already, without DRM, have leverage: the companies that both license content from the content providers and create software or hardware players. Because they license content, the content providers already have leverage against them: they can essentially require them to be pro-DRM if they want the content. The people against the DRM are the users, and the player creators who don't license content. In other words, the people over whom the content producers have no leverage. 

Post has shared content
When travelling Coral Economy Class with us, which seat do you prefer and why?

1. Window seat
2. Middle seat 
3. Aisle seat

#Etihad #EtihadAirways #Airlines #AvGeek   #holidays  

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has shared content
Here it is people... the "Scream & Shout" WORLD PREMIERE with Dying to know what you think!

Post has attachment
Haha... I love it!

Post has attachment
Wait while more posts are being loaded