[HN Gopher] RenderingNG: Ready for the next generation of web co...
___________________________________________________________________
RenderingNG: Ready for the next generation of web content
Author : chrishtr
Score : 53 points
Date : 2021-06-30 15:39 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (developer.chrome.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (developer.chrome.com)
| lionkor wrote:
| I'm probably just being cynical, but those graphs and diagrams
| scream of a lack of "meat" to what they're saying. Except for the
| first graphic, they are all just products of a marketing brain,
| as far as I can tell.
|
| Showing the old engine as a graph that plummets, and the new one
| as one that doesnt, or the one that plots "frustration" against
| "features & complexity", is just utterly meaningless to me. Maybe
| this appeals to the small part of the community that gets excited
| for quirky and cool posts by big corps, but I only see about 5
| paragraphs of info here.
|
| Basically RenderingNG will more reliable and better and better
| and more reliable, and thats neat, I just wish they didnt waste
| so much of the reader's time.
| peakaboo wrote:
| Look at the evolution of the web technologies. Lots of
| improvements. Now look at the web. It's unusable without an ad
| blocker. The tech mafia keeps tracking people and censoring the
| web, practicing right-speak and removing critical voices. Can a
| new Web technology solve that? If not, it doesnt matter.
| rchaud wrote:
| You're conflating web technology with the content strategy of
| web publications and Google's moderation approach. These are
| 3 entirely separate issues.
| azangru wrote:
| I find this sentiment baffling.
|
| > Now look at the web. It's unusable without an ad blocker.
|
| Don't like ads? Don't visit sites that run ads. For instance,
| I can't read most of online newspapers because of the ads; so
| I just don't bother. I visit HN instead.
|
| > The tech mafia keeps tracking people and censoring the web,
| practicing right-speak and removing critical voices.
|
| I don't know what right-speak is (is it speaking correctly or
| speaking on right-wing political topics?), but:
|
| - peer-to-peer technologies exist (Odysee, Bitchute, etc.;
| still relying on the browser to work)
|
| - less censorious networks exist (e.g. locals)
|
| - you can self-host your own platform where you set the rules
| (phpBB, mattermost, etc.)
|
| - you can run your own blog ang right-speak there to your
| heart's content; and maybe if this right-speech in
| interesting, you can attract commenters to exchange ideas (if
| you find this valuable)
| jfengel wrote:
| I think "right-speak" is his neologism for "politically
| correct". What he wants is to practice "wrong-speak", i.e.
| speech not approved by whatever shadowy forces are
| constraining him.
| Santosh83 wrote:
| > Don't like ads? Don't visit sites that run ads.
|
| Lots of people, especially in the developing world, don't
| have that luxury, and they're also incidentally those with
| underpowered devices and less tech savvy to go get an ad
| blocker.
| azangru wrote:
| I thought we were talking about our own individual
| choices. At least we can do something about them.
|
| As the problem is described, I don't see any way how it
| can be approached.
|
| - Don't want ads and tracking -- Well, they exist and
| aren't going anywhere.
|
| - Don't use sites that show ads -- Nah, can't, don't have
| this luxury.
|
| - Install ad blocker -- Nah, don't know how or don't have
| a powerful enough device.
|
| What else is there to do? Keep seeing ads, I suppose.
| Learn to endure them somehow.
| contravariant wrote:
| Clearly in the old version the scrolling performance becomes
| negative at some point, which would be interesting to see.
| egnehots wrote:
| Yeah, but don't forget that's just the first post in a serie.
|
| Let's hope that the next post will have more meaningful
| technical content..
| roca wrote:
| I think the Chrome team has done a lot of good work here, but
| you're right about the graphs. What units does the
| "frustration" axis use, anyway?
| ww520 wrote:
| Hair count? The number of hairs pulled dots to frustration.
| krylon wrote:
| Decibel, as in the volume at which users yell at their
| display. ;-)
| meibo wrote:
| > You should not need to worry about browser bugs making features
| unreliable, or breaking your site's rendering.
|
| As long as Safari is still around to haunt us, I think I will :)
| emersion wrote:
| A little disappointed to not see Linux mentioned in any of the
| timelines.
| d_tr wrote:
| Indeed. Chromium feels very fast on Windows with a Ryzen 2600
| and an R9 280X GPU (4 TFLOPS). On Linux it feels sluggish and a
| single zoom step can take up to a full second on some pages,
| and nothing I tried (Wayland vs X11, amdgpu vs radeon,
| experimental chromium flags vs defaults) seems to make any
| difference...
| readflaggedcomm wrote:
| >Gecko and Webkit have also implemented most of the same
| architectural features described in these blog posts, and in some
| cases even added them before Chromium.
|
| That's why all this threaded rendering stuff sounded familiar.
| Mozilla putting massively-parallel Servo features into Firefox is
| already a few years old:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gecko_(software)#Components
| pverghese wrote:
| Yet for some reason. Firefox is still slow compared to chrome
| stolenmerch wrote:
| Am I correct in reading that these NG sites aren't accessible
| without a side DOM synced to canvas content?
| tormeh wrote:
| Is this Chrome catching up to Firefox's Quantum projects? I.e.
| Stylo and WebRender? It puzzles me a bit that Firefox, Chrome,
| etc. don't reuse each others components. Obviously Chrome can't
| just plop in WebRender, but is it really more effort to integrate
| it than to write your own? Same for Firefox and V8. I'm not
| saying all browsers should be the same, but (and this is a big
| assumption) if reuse is possible, then wouldn't it make more
| sense to focus on your team's strengths and use external
| components for the rest?
| roca wrote:
| Using external components is pretty hard. The interfaces
| between them are pretty complicated and abstraction layers are
| expensive. There are also different policies in different
| browsers, e.g. Firefox is much more into using Rust than Chrome
| is, for obvious reasons.
|
| Firefox does use Skia though.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| The article reads more like its a pat on the shoulder for
| general cleanup work on the Chrome render pipeline that's
| already been happening since 2014 and that's now nearing the
| finish line. Also exchange of implementation ideas is more
| important than exchange of code, especially for implementations
| of web standards. Microsoft reusing Chromium is already bad
| enough for the web as a whole (as a counter example, AFAIK the
| WebGPU implementation teams have been working closely together,
| but each on their own implementation, which sounds pretty much
| perfect to me, healthy competition, but without reinventing the
| wheel).
| Ristovski wrote:
| Rendering performance is one of the few things left that Chrome
| has up its sleeve as an edge over their competitors (mainly
| Firefox), at least on Linux.
|
| Out of the box, Firefox has terrible rendering performance, not
| to mention hw-accelerated video decoding. Now, Chrome is not a
| whole lot better out of the box, since it still applies old
| "Driver bug workarounds" that have long been fixed in mesa/GPU
| drivers, but this is easy to circumvent with the `--disable-gpu-
| driver-bug-workarounds`.
|
| I've been running Chromium with the said flag for over half a
| decade now, and I have yet to see one of the bugs manifest.
| Firefox on the other hand, has a similar entry in `about:config`,
| but one needs to tinker with even more flags to get Firefox to
| acceptable performance (Somehow, enabling xrender makes WebGL
| fast, but makes video decoding have weird jitter, etc).
|
| The day Firefox gets comparable WebGL/video decode performance
| will most likely be the day I switch.
| [deleted]
| floatboth wrote:
| > one needs to tinker with even more flags to get Firefox to
| acceptable performance
|
| All you need is gfx.webrender.all, if you even failed the
| qualification (most modern setups shouldn't fail it).
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Seriously, FF on Ubuntu causes 100% CPU usage when watching
| YouTube in 1080p. Meanwhile Chrome on Windows eats maybe 6-10%.
|
| How is this not #1 priority to fix?
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Not much FF can do directly AFAIK, since it has to do with
| the hardware decoding the drivers support.
|
| I've used an addon for a while which fixed it by forcing
| YouTube to serve h264 rather than vp9 content, as hardware
| accelerated decoding of h264 worked but not vp9. But lately
| it hasn't worked well. Haven't investigated if it was due to
| newer content only being vp9 or if the addon stopped working.
| GrayShade wrote:
| I think it's a conflict with the sandbox, like it
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1698778.
| muizelaar wrote:
| I'm pretty sure most users don't have this experience. Can
| you post a link to a pastebin of your about:support or file a
| bug?
| TingPing wrote:
| This is normal. Firefox is only now rolling out accelerated
| decoding on Linux.
| roca wrote:
| Comparing across platforms is not a good idea. Different
| drivers, APIs and platform OS issues dramatically affect
| these results.
| roca wrote:
| Personally I just have layers.acceleration.force-enabled: true
| and that's enough to get me fast 4K WebGL. WebRender and
| Wayland dmabuf seem to turn on automatically. Intel 915, Fedora
| 34, dual 4K monitors, distro Firefox 89.
| GrayShade wrote:
| Note that WebRender obsoletes Layers, so you shouldn't need
| to set that.
| [deleted]
| AHTERIX5000 wrote:
| Yeah it's not great on Mac either. I have pretty much standard
| Firefox installation with only Ublock Origin added and it's
| extremely easy to get 16" Macbook Pro hot when Safari handles
| the same load without too much heat.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-02 23:02 UTC)