Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Konqueror Ported To QT/Embedded

Posted by HeUnique on from the looks-impressive dept.

It appears that the Konqueror [?] browser has been ported to QT/Embedded. The entire Konqueror takes between 2.1 and 2.8 Megabytes. You can read more details (with some screenshots) on the porting site. Although it's not completed yet, from the screenshots it looks very promising - good work, Simon.

3 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Precompiled Version For Mandrake 7.2 Available by belbo · · Score: 5
    Since I'm always looking for smaller browsers, I've compiled this little thingy (took some 50 minutes, though) as a static version with SSL support on LM 7.2.

    I've put a tarball of this compile on my MandrakeUser.Org site. Just unpack and run the 'konq' binary. It's pretty good, actually, although as basic as you can get.

    tom, tom@mandrakeuser.org

    --

    --

    --
    "Just believe everything I tell you, and it will all be very, very simple."

  2. Not about PDAs! by JohnZed · · Score: 5

    Many of the comments here have discussed whether or not this would be a good option for a palmtop/PDA. But let's remember that "embedded" != PDA. What about internet kiosks, web pads, diskless workstations, super-subnotebooks (quite a few of these run WinCE), etc.? These sorts of embedded devices are often diskless, but with 16-32 megs of flash memory. Konqi (if its JavaScript + SSL support became more stable) and Gecko will quite probably dominate these increasingly important platforms, which means that system designers don't have to be bound to WinCE and pocket explorer.
    -JRZ

  3. X11 has shared memory and all the other features by q000921 · · Score: 5
    The shared memory transport under X-Window has never been implemented,

    Shared memory transport for X11 has been around for over a decade. If you are running XFree86, you almost certainly have the MIT-SHM extension installed. It is widely used by programs that need high performance graphics.

    Some vendors have additionally created server and Xlib implementations that use shared memory instead of sockets, although that never seemed to result in an interesting additional speedup. Eventually, I think people stopped bothering.

    since in the beginning [X11] was not designed for fast graphic routine for personal computing, etc.

    X11 was designed for implementing high-performance graphics workstation applications on what is fairly modest hardware by modern standards. That's why X11 is actually quite fast, efficient, and gives you a lot of low-level hooks.

    However, X has advantage: although it's slower, it has network transparency so that you can run app over other computer via network. [...] Oh, by the way, the graphic display in MS-Windows is faster not only because of its driver is better + DirectX accel support, but also because it uses shared memory transport.

    It's a myth that X11 is slower than the Win32 API. In fact, whenever I have compared the two, X11 wins hands down. The reason is probably that the Win32 API uses a lot more synchronous calls and forces more context switches.

    In fact, in these days of accelerated graphics cards with their own processors, the X11 model is much closer to what is going on under the hood than the antiquated and inefficient Win32 "graphics library" model.