Slashdot Mirror
QT Mozilla Port
LowneWulf writes: "Check it out! The Mozilla QT port has finally been checked into the Mozilla tree! Annoucement from the author here."
The sad part is that I've switched to mostly using Konqueror these days. Less memory. Less crashes. Loads faster. AA fonts look better. Mozilla has a ton of excellent functionality that I look forward to getting in on (plus I've had a few compatibility problems with javascript and Konq). But its cool to see this coming along.
tag please
Good working keeping the close tabs.
The sad part is that I've switched to mostly using Explorer these days. Less memory. Less crashes. Loads faster. AA fonts look better. Konqueror has a ton of excellent functionality that I look forward to getting in on (plus I've had a few compatibility problems with javascript and Konq). But its cool to see this coming along.
Just to be clear, TheKompany does not employ any core KDE developers (they do help out with koffice though) and they had nothing to do with kfm either.
I'm really just impressed with the rate of development for konqueror to Mozilla which just seems to be drudging a long. I'm a complete konqueror advocate, I just love the darn thing with the exception of some java script incompatibilites.. but thats being worked on immensly as we speak. The thing is stable, fast, small in memory and powerful. Why isn't mozilla? They've had probably more support and much more development time from what I've seen.. (Mozilla started April 1998? and KDE 2 development October 1999?) Is it the execution of the design or what? I'm not to bash mozilla, I think it's good and has a potential to be great but IMO it seems behind konqueror while it had the headstart.....
Chris Blizzard at redhat ported mozilla to pure xlib at one point. I hope the work continues on that, since it is clearly bloat to map a library of widgets that you don't use (XUL draws its own widgets).
The Qt version looks identical to the GTK+ version, since neither use the toolkit's widgets, they just use it for low level drawing code.
OT: Can anyone point me to a URL to get java working on Konqueror? I've tried several JREs, none seem to work (or I'm screwing up a setting somewhere).
It's all done by macros; very little programmer intervention is required.
When IE6 comes out in, like a year from now, it will be the browser we should have had four years ago.
Well the problem is that there's still no other browser that is even close to being what we should have had 4 years ago. Netscape/Mozilla is a total mess. What's the point of having 10MBps of bandwidth when the browser takes several seconds to render a page. Not to mention the fact that Netscape is far worse on adhering to standards and adding it's own little tags.
Lynx and w3m, etc, may or may not be more standardcompliant, but I'm sorry, I don't want a text-only browser. Konqueror is, admittely quite ok, but has a far way to go, it still crashes on quite a lot of pages. IE6 on the other hand, which I'm running right now, renders quick as lightning, hasn't crashed on me once, and has lots of nifty little features. Yes, ok, I does take up 12MB of ram, but virtually no CPU time, and it's still a lot less than Netscape ever did on my Linux (where it also crashes all the time). (And don't give me "it's builtin to the operating system" - I don't care, in a modern OS internet SHOULD be tightly integrated. It's the Right Thing (TM) in my opinion).
What was your point on my comparison? I compared a beta browser to a non-beta; yepp. So? I could have compared IE5.5 to the lastest konq release if you want to? I would say the same things. And yes, Konq does render nicely, and has lots of little nice features, but it crashes for example on http://tvprogram.nu which I use > 10 days a day to see what's on TV. It's also crashed repeatdly on other sites. And I'm sorry, but a browser I can't use for my everyday work, isn't a good browser in my book.
And yes it possible that Konq is more integrated, for which I applaud them! In all fairness I think KDE2 is the only sensible desktop project on Linux. I've used Linux since 93, but nowadays I'm older, and wants stuff done, and have no energy for fighting my OS at every step. Win2k does everything I want (including emacs, a nice prompt and Counter-Strike) while being just as stable as my Linux, and having a much nicer GUI (== more consistent).
Every other browser, especially Netscape, out there basically does this too. The few good ones that doesn't are Lynx, Amya, Galleon and so on. The reason you're redirected has been stated many times over, and by people not from MS. If you hate it that much, just change it? (Or delete the bookmarks, as I do, since I have no use for them.)
... in what way is IE more "sponsored" than for example Netscape or Konq? They all come from a company or group that releases a browser for free, all saying basically "NO WARANTEE".
IE might be a good browser, but I'm not going to drive a car with a locked hood that says 'Sponsored by Scientology', or something.
But I bet you'll use an OS and apps you have no clue how they work and look in src, just because it's open source? Have you gone through the kernel and your apps line by line? Didn't think so. And the "Sponsored by Scientology", I didn't get all
It was actually a while since I tried the latest Mozilla build, so I downloaded it (0.81) and tried. It sure looks and feels better than NS6 (especially the UI) but it still takes 40-80% more time than IE6 Beta Preview 1 to load and display a page. Sorry, but it's not that great yet. (Tests highly informal).
How does one enable GTK look-and-feel with Mozilla and/or Netscape 6? I had it working and then upgraded to v6.0.1 and deleted my old ~./mozilla directory... D'ohhh!
Well, under Linux it was dependent on GTK+. Thanks for playing, though.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Build instructions for Unix
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Well, the slashbots seem to be trashing Malda for talking up Konq, since it's not cross-platform...wow, IE runs on a whopping, what, one platform too? Oh, I suppose I'll count the Mac port, even though it sucks ass. Heck, konq has it beat there, as it's already on more than two hardware platforms.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Damn, wish I had some moderator points to mod you up with. Either people don't get it, or people who post such things ("you Linux zealots should stop bashing MS so much") are in the employ of Microsoft, or both. MS's marketing dept., yes, does post more pure garbage than the average horde of Linux devotees. :-) (BTW, anyone notice the increase in crap floods after the Miller "Linux is going down" announcement?)
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Feh, no thanks. I'm running Konqueror 2.1.1 right now. It sounds like you're comparing a beta Microsoft browser to the current release of Konq. At least have the decency to compare IE6 to the current Konq. :-) I have a K6-300, only 64MB of RAM, and hm, Konq renders quick as lightning, hasn't crashed on me once, and has lots of nifty little features. And yeah, it's integrated into the desktop environment pretty well--better, I think, than Microsoft's IE on Windows. (BTW, unless they've changed things for IE6, IE really isn't part of the OS, despite the noise they made during the antitrust trial.)
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Well, yeah, I failed to point out the different OS platforms Konq will run on. I've been a FreeBSD user, it's ! Linux, in some ways, it's > Linux, but I'm curious as to why you're flaming me a bit. :-) The only issue I have with Konq is the braindead Netscape Flash plugin, though you've probably not had to deal with that as that'd be a pain (iirc there's no FreeBSD plugin, just Flash through Linux emulation on Linux Communicator?)
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
It's already been done for some time with GTK-- it's called Galeon. I used it a while back and it worked pretty well. It really did strip out a lot of the "extra" stuff, and seemed to speed it up a bit, although not as much as I would have hoped. As others have mentioned, it would probably require more than just a toolkit makeover to really speed up 'zilla.
While it somewhat defeats the purpose of having widespread public releases for debugging, have you tried stripping the debugging info from mozilla?
Running 'strip' will knock quite a bit off the executable and it runs quite a bit faster, you just lose the ability to trace where any crashes come from.
That's a pretty bad analogical argument. Microsoft's implementation and changes to Common Internet File System (CIFS), the supposed real name for what everyone refers to as "Windows networking," is a pretty different issue from a standardized content viewer.
Does Microsoft have an amazingly non-standard TCP/IP stack? There are standards that must be followed, and if there is a standards body that is actually listened to in a field, eventually Microsoft will come around.
Legacy bloat in a product which has never been released?
ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
Because they haven't optimized much (if at all) on Unix. Click on my username to find a more detailed post by me on the subject.
IAAL,BIANLY
So when sourceforge and /. close due to lack of revenue what exactly are you planning on doing? That'll simplify your regexes a little bit, eh? Or will you be first in line to offer to pay for it? I'm not holding my breath.
/.'s ads directly impacts their ability to stay afloat and provide you with stuff that is worth reading (and in sourceforge's case, worth programming with or on.) I guess I know I'm not going to change your mind, but maybe it'll stop others from following the same path. Shame that /. has such a technically savvy userbase... if this is what people are going to do with their knowledge, it's going to cost /. in the long-run. Maybe they do need to start posting more Windows stories.
This isn't like TV, where watching or not watching a show or the ads doesn't impact the revenue stream of CBS, NBC, etc. Blocking
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
Two points:
1) What Moz wants more than anything else is to spread the renderer (and hopefully the plug-in model) as far and wide as possible. They don't care all that much about the chrome and all. If that spreads, great... but I get the impression that spreading the renderer is just as important if not more so. Hence, embedded apps (which includes not only "net appliances" but also QT, GTK, and (gasp) AOL) are a prime concern and they spend a lot of time making sure that embedded support is done correctly.
2) I get the impression that QT is not actually "supported" in any meaningful sense. In other words, like the OS X and OS/2 ports, Moz puts it in CVS and provides ftp space and supports it in that way. But they don't actually support it in any meaningful way- i.e., programmer man-hours. In this sense, the QT and other OS ports are proof that Open Source has worked for Netscape- it has allowed others to come in and contribute, reducing cost and maximizing impact for Netscape.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
The basic answer is that the 5% of the code that is not cross-platform is a lot of the most performance sensitive code in the product (graphics rendering, networking, file access, etc.) Mozilla/Netscape have poured tons and tons of man-hours into optimizing that code on Windows. Those hours (since they are in non-XP code) do very, very little for the other platforms. In contrast, they've put very little time or money into optimization on Linux and other platforms. Obviously, they've optimized the XP code as much as possible, but that only goes so far- the lowest level stuff is where a lot of optimization work has to go on, and that just hasn't happened on Linux yet. IMHO, optimizing that stuff is where old-school Linux gurus could be of the most help- learning the guts of Moz isn't easy, but that type of stuff is "just" X calls and things like that, where folks not very familiar with Moz but intimately connected to X and other common sub-systems might be able to make a quick and important contribution. Until there is both marketshare and serious competition in Unix, Netscape/Moz isn't going to do it for us.
~luge
IAAL,BIANLY
Qt is C++. There are bindings to other languages.
You're not going to change the entire object model.
You can't just take code from Qt and put it in glib.
If you can tell me a way to do this without an abstraction layer, I'll believe that you did not really mean abstraction layer.
The idea is still worthless, and i think you should read the rest of the replies to your post.
Is your head so far up in the clouds that you do not see the codebase in use already? Do you really expect everyone to change their code to match a new api? Keep in mind that there are people who use Qt and gtk commercially. Trolltech has a commitment to their customers to keep their API the same.
-- Thrakkerzog
Aha! You mention an abstraction layer!
Plbttth!
:-)
Hey look! These two languages are really producing machine code underneath.. why don't we merge the two?
-- Thrakkerzog
Could you please explain exactly how GTK+ does inheritance? I don't get it.
can I put a bunch of GTK+ "objects" in a list (of the superclass type), pull them out later on and call a method which does the apropriate action based on whatever type that object may be?
Think of a list of "Drawing" objects. Pen, pencil, etc.. Each object inherits from the "Drawing" superclass. I put all sorts of pens and circles, etc on a list. Later on, I pull them out in a loop, assigning them to a variable of type "Drawing". I can then call Drawing::Paint() on each object, and it will execute the code of the appropriate object type. This works in C++, Java and Smalltalk quite easily.
Given that C does not allow you to overload operators, I don't see how this can be done.
Please enlighten me.
-- Thrakkerzog
Just a nitpick about Konq. It does xdnd just fine.
I don't know what problems you are talking about. Most likely, the target you are trying to drop on does not do xdnd properly.
-- Thrakkerzog
Well, let's see..
Qt is C++, and takes advantage of advanced c++ features such as inheritance. You can't exactly do that in C. (without a bunch of pre-processor crap)
The entire object model is different. You could create a wrapper which is another layer of abstraction between the toolkits.. but most people don't understand that Qt is much more than a widget library.
There is stuff in Qt today that will take some time to implement in gtk+ or glib. Why would you want an abstraction layer that couldn't do everything both toolkits have to offer?
If you made an abstraction layer, you would use _more_ memory than before! The whole idea is worthless in my opinion.
-- Thrakkerzog
IE also runs on HPUX and Solaris.
The nightly builds and releases do not have debugging compiled in - at least not enough to be slowing it down noticably.
Mozilla is slow because it has not optimized enough (yet).
Good example.
hey even darwin is coming along... i think its way ahead of linux...
Uhh, Darwin is not open source, last I heard.
abiword?
Compare AbiWord to Microsoft Word 2000, and then tell me it's good. Even Microsoft WordPad is better (and I am serious).
open office is gonna be great (as long as they piss off the stupid windows start menu copy it has)
I think they already ditched the Start Menu thingy in OpenOffice - not sure though. Anyways, in Linux, OpenOffice is very slow and very ugly. There is a massive amount of code in it, so I doubt it's going to be fully optimized to be reasonably fast (say, as fast as Microsoft Office 2000) anytime soon. I have not used it enough to fairly judge it's features.
It's a good idea too.
I'm sure many other people are thinking the exact thing that you are - to do a feature map from GNOME to KDE and vice versa. Come up with a combined model, where people could target either GNOME or KDE by writing to one.
It'd be nice if the component models could be made to work together as well, so that people could use the best of both worlds - but that would require some serious cooperation (I think.. anyway).
Laxitive
Seems like a great browser, but when I installed KDE 2.1.1 and loaded up Konq, I couldn't try to load any web page without it crashing. Is this common, or just an oddity for me.
Konqueror works like a charm for me. Fast, stable, and works on the *vast* majority of pages. Every once in a while I haveta fire up netscape, but its getting more and more rare.
Erik
While Mozilla doesn't do that at the moment it can do something better. If you right click an image in mozilla in the menu there is an option to block images from that server.
When I first loaded Mozilla and after half a day of browsing I had 95% of the adds blocked.
What's your point?
--
Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org will!
Right on - Having different looking widgets is just a normal Unix annoyance. Having major projects like KWord(sic) and Gnumeric not be able to interoperate is very serious problem.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I was pleasantly suprised to see that Konq has nearly the same W3C DOM support as Mozilla:
5 .h tml
.81/Win32
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ppk/js/index.html?version
I think the Konq advocates need to get the word out about this better. Especially because the rational for Mozilla was that it had to be big and heavy to fully support DOM and CSS, and other options such as Opera don't have this support.
[Saying "ECMAScript" or "JavaScript" support isn't quite the same thing (language versus API - IE3 supported ECMAScript for example). And the Konq web page just has some meaningless babble about "HTML bindings" (which could mean anything from NS3-style form bindings to something proprietary)]
--posted from Moz
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
If I were Steve Case, I'd be asking why they didn't just maintain Windows, Mac and Unix ports (keeping as much of the rendering engine cross-platform as possible) and make them each as good as possible.
Building the interface in Javascript was certainly one of those "seemed like a good idea at the time" things. It bought them the ability to run on BeOS and OS/2, and cost them a responsive browser on their primary platforms (the Mac port is so retarded, not to mention already obsolete that it's really just Windows and Linux).
A guy wrote the basic KMelon Win32 shell in a weekend - I figure if they put the XUL interface into legacy mode today (let the Be and the OS/2 people maintain it) and hired 3 engineers (GTK, Win32, Carbon) - they would have a decent, quick, professional, platform-consistant GUI done by Moz 1.0 in Q4 2001.
Note that one of the big driving factors of XUL was to get Unix developers on board without having a widget war situation. (GTK was beta, QT was proprietary, the Freenix people hated Motif). With Big Unix on board with GTK, that's pretty much been solved, this topic of this article excepted.
-- posted from Moz 0.81/Win32
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
You can do that yourself with "user style sheets" - I remember to have read an article about it not long ago somewhere on Oreilly's website!
Greetings Joergen
You have an app that is crashing another app? Try not running everything as root.
Btw, I'm running Konq on FreeBSD at the moment just fine. Last I checked, FreeBSD != Linux. So now I guess IE's got nothing on Konq (numbers wise), except for the java issue.
I got an idea. How about slashdot offer pay accounts? If you really don't like the banners, donate.
No flames ment, sorry. Yes, I have a hard time getting flash to work even in netscape 4.7. The plugin loads, but doesn't play correctly if at all. Oh well, can't have it all I guess. :)
I had this problem when I had AA fonts enabled but had a corrupted font file. When it tried to read in the corrupted file it would crash. I could browse local files and run several KDE apps but when I tried to load a web page it would die badly.
Try using strace to figure out what it is doing at the time it dies, and look at the KDE Crash debug output. Both can be very helpful.
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
You failed to quote the two most important lines in the previous post, which are:
Compatibility with C was one of the overriding design goals of C++
From Bjarne Stroustrup's (creator of c++) book "The C++ Programming Language":
"With minor exceptions, C++ is a superset of C. Well-written C programs tend to be C++ programs as well."
Your argument only holds one way, that C++ programs cannot be compiled with libc. The only examples he gives of C code that's incompatible with C++ would lately be considered poor C.
And you should really listen to his advice:
Better spend more time studying for those CS classes and less time posting drivel on slashdot and kuR05h1N.
Mike
Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
I've been searching the net for an answer to this, but none is to be found... I've got a PII 400, and Mozilla is almost unusably slow. On an equivalent Windows box, it is perfectly usable.
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
I've found Mozilla to be extremely stable. If you're on Windows, it will even perform pretty well. If you're on Unix, Mozilla will be the slowest hog beast you've ever encountered. (If anyone knows why this is the case, please let me know!)
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
The last time I saw numbers for Galeon's memory footprint, it seems to be almost as big as Mozilla. It is just as bloated, memory-wise. In addition, you will need Gnome installed. I saw no mention of Javascript or HTTPS on the Galeon pages: does it have those? A browser that is too stripped down will not be useful.
The kdeinit process speeds up app loading, since KDE apps link to a lot of shared libraries and kdeinit is linked to those. By forking off new processes rather than having a new process link to all those shared libs as it starts, time and memory is saved. But the code is not really in memory if you don't use it. Konq loads a lot faster if Kmail is displaying HTML pages, for example. That is because khtml is loaded. On the other hand, free memory increases by quite a chunk when I shut down Konq and no other app is displaying HTML. So it is not true that Konq is always in memory. It certainly isn't on my KDE desktop.
I use konquerer full time, as it is much better then netscape and mozilla right now. There are some complaints that I have about it though.
- It has no history
- The AA fonts are cool, but it's not quite ready yet, and it makes the fonts harder to read. Truetype fonts make it so I don't want AA anymore anyway...
- There seem to be some fonts that aren't configureable. Sometimes it chooses a font that is completely unreadable at any scaled size and then makes it smaller or larger.
- When you follow a JavaScript link the little gear doesn't spin, so you don't know it's working.
- It takes forever to use backspace in the Location bar and text entry fields, no matter what your repeat rate is.
- It doesn't support https on PowerPC (Nitpick: the ppclinux kernel is called ppclinux, not linuxppc linuxppc is that shitty redhat based distribution that hardly anyone uses.)
- When you add mime types it forgets them
- When a document is the result of a POST operation the mime type is ignored altogether. (Even though they keep telling me this is fixed in the latest versions. I'm running the latest versions!)
Still dreaming of a essentially featured (not full featured.. I don't want most of 'em) browser for linux that has a standard interface. Sigh.
I don't run KDE.
I run Konqueror.
None of KDE, QT, or Konqueror are in memory when I load it the first time.
It loads faster than mozilla.
It loads faster than netscape.
I'm not a KDE zealot or a Konqueror zealot... Hell, I even hate QT; I think the widgets are unnecissarily large and ugly, too much stuff responds to mouse overs, and there is a general bubbliness about it that just bothers me. Konqueror gets the job done better then netscape and mozilla though. Konqueror gets the job done faster. The only thing that is faster is table rendering in mozilla, but everything else is so slow that it's an overall beast.
Konqueror, while a really cool web browser, has had just one goal: surf the web, on unix, on X, and on KDE2
While I agree with most of what you said, I have to take exception to this. Konqueror also has the goal of being a file manager and viewer, and an excellent one at that.
ALso, Mozilla is a lot more than a Web browser...it's also an e-mail client, HTML editor, news reader, chat client, instant messager, and so forth.
Basically, its like comparing vi with Emacs. Both are text editors, but they have vastly diffferent goals...same with Mozilla vs. Konqueror, but s/text editors/Web browsers.
My journal has hot
> new paradigms already sneaking into real apps.
Can you care to nominate some examples? Generating UIs on the fly? VR? Voice activation? Has cosmocode (or whatever new label) or Eazel really offer such as compelling advantage that people are willing to pay a premium (whether price or CPU wise) for their supposedly non-tedious or non-traditional approaches? As others have reasoned, the cost of unlearning QWERTY (or whatever your GUI equivalent is) is not worth the advantages of changing over to an alternative once a technology is widely adopted, suboptimal as it may be. That has always been a trap that coders have fallen into, in supposing we can dictate what the unwashed masses want. It is really hard to come up with GUI features that are met with universal popular acclaim so if you have any superior insight, please enlighten the rest of us.
LL
It's not hard to call C++ code from C. You just need to do a bit of wrapping..
Just do something like this to avoid name mangling.. But to get back on the topic - what the hell are you talking about? It's true that c++ code needs to be linked against the c++ std lib, and equally true that the c code needs that too - but there's absolutly nothing stopping an app from linking both (there nothing stopping an app from linking both Qt and GTK+ either).
I the idea given in this thread is certainly feasable - to write a GTK+ API like wrapper in C for Qt and a Qt like wrapper in C++ for GTK+ - just wrapping native calls to a new API so Qt programs could be written using the GTK+ api. It certanly isnt *easy*, but it's possible.
class foo {
public:
void hi() { cout << "hi";};
};
extern "C"
{
void *makeFoo() { return new foo;}
hi(void *this) { foo *f=static_cast<foo*>(this); f->hi(); };
}
Calling C from C++ is even easier.
just extern "C" {} the C code.
-henrik
You seem to fail to realize how insightful the question really is and get bogged into trivial details. Why doesn't QT allow me to compile GTK apps against it, or vice versa? is a very good question. There are C bindings for Qt and C++ for GTK. Making those bindings emulate the interface of the other lib is a large amount of work, but it's not impossibly big.
Here's the kicker: It would allow the programmer to use what language/interface she prefers (GTK/C or Qt/C++) and the user to decide how he wants the apps to look and feel (Qtish or GTKish). Something like this would go a *long* way to unifying Gnome and KDE without sacrificing one codebase. The user can then decide if he wants the Qt or the GTK libs installed, but all apps will run with either one.
-henrik
Firstly, mozilla isn't really "slow". Its a complex little beast. Its less a "web browser" and more an application framework with built in Javascript engine and cross platform GUI descriptor langauge (XUL).
Practically the entire 'application' is built from XML and Javascript. That's why its so themable and is also why it is being used to develop cross platform applications (www.activestate.com - check out Komodo).
To bypass the slowness, get Galeon. (galeon.sourceforge.net). The latest version is stable and is Just A Web Browser. You need mozilla installed as Galeon uses it as the HTML engine but none of the extra stuff (mail, news, composer) are enabled and it flies along really nicely.
It very rarely crashes, copes with plugins and java perfectly (well, wherever I've tested that anyway) and has a really nice recovery mode which reverts to the open pages you had if ever it does loose its sanity (a very useful feature).
It you want to know how good the vanilla HTML handling in Mozilla is, try it. You really won't be disappointed.
Well why don't they do the same thing with the Win32 API, then we can run Win apps with a Gtk appearance?? The reason is it's damned hard to reconcile different gui tool kits. A gui that looked good with gtk, might look awful and muddled under QT. That is if it worked at all and the toolkits have equivilents for each behaviour.
I strongly argue that the Unix world should settle on one toolkit for that reason. Trouble is, even the people who agree, can't agree on which one it should be. The pragmatic choice right now would be gtk because the C library format is not compiler dependant or compiler version dependant. I also like that it's development is more open than the Trolls. I'm sure QT fans will point out various benefits of that toolkit though.
If your X server crashes, one of four things is true. These are given in order from most probable to least probable: /home/stupid/*.* /backup/*.*" doesn't work under Unix.
1. You are running your applications as root like a wannabe sysadmin who's still wondering why "cp
2. There is a bug in your X server.
3. Your hardware is bad.
4. There is a bug in the kernel.
There are no other possibilities.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
At least the concept is not new. There was something called QTScape done a very long time ago right when the Mozilla project first started. Of course back then the code was based on the old Navigator code and is completely outdated. Its good to know there is some work being done on this though. I think that using the QT toolkit good give Mozilla a significant speed improvement. I know that Konq. is fast as well but it would be interesting to compare the speed of these two browsers when they run on the same toolkit. I have a feeling that Konq. would still be a little faster but perhaps not by nearly as much. Plus Mozilla has many features that Konq. doesn't have.
You grab kdebase-2.1.1.tar.bz2; you grep it for mozilla, netscape, etc; you'll find nothing of significance. A couple of user-agent strings, and grumbles about Moz still falling short of its compliance claims. Nothing along the order of "we hoiked this from the Mozilla project".
Try framing and answering some very easy verifications before unrolling nonsense like that.
Gee... I thought the OS took care of all that sharing on its own, to save paging and VM. But I can attest konqi is not always loaded; it seems to take forever to start for me. (That may be because us NetBSDers are having a bit of a dispute about the Right Way to handle KDE's modules :p I suspect I still have many that run as processes instead of shared objects.)
As for its rendering speed... I dunno. It may be slower overall, but the progressive rendering of tables on my 56k link make the wait tolerable. GAWD I hated trying to read a large not-completely-crippled /. page on Navigator... You do want something faster than my 100MHz Cyrix, I'll tell you that =)
I wish all web creators were so open to helpful criticism... I find it interesting that it tends to be the amateur, in any field, which has what's usually called a professional attitude...
Anyway, not to say you're wrong about the lack of backlash as such; but this was the first time in years I heard back `I tried it in Messie and Nessie' without it being followed by some snarky `get a real browser'-ilk remark. Is the struggle worth making? Can we win? who knows... but I figure there's getting to be some, let's say, non-fringe competition in user devices, especially handhelds, and recognition of access issues, which might show there's money to be made by compatibility instead of in-. Cross our digits...
spoo
I think that would be kinda stupid. Annoying ads are not always that size, and some useful graphics happen to be that size. A URL filtering proxy is a much cleaner solution. Very effective, for me, just setting 4 URL regexes have, for me, essentially eliminated ads, fmads.osdn.com, ad.doubleclick.net, images.slashdot.org/banner, and adtegrity.spinbox.net. Whenever I find a new banner ad, I just add the ad site URL in, and it goes away. I still get to see the 468x60 images I have an interest in, and don't get annoyed by certain non-standard ads/pop-up tricks ads pull. Of course, I use galeon tabbed interface to minimize pain of pop-ups as well as my junkbuster proxy which forwards all requests through a squid cache before going out. I know there are cleaner ways of doing this, but it is effective and easiest this way.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
As near as I can tell, the culprit seems to be the hugely bloated chrome interface. Use a project such as galeon, which embeds the mozilla renderer in a decently fast UI, and things seem much better. Pretty stable too.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Seems like a great browser, but when I installed KDE 2.1.1 and loaded up Konq, I couldn't try to load any web page without it crashing. Is this common, or just an oddity for me. It really annoyed me, was looking forward to trying it out. Galeon works like a charm however, and plain mozilla is too sluggish to pay any attention to whatsoever. If netscape 4.x wasn't so ugly viewing a lot of pages nowadays, it would still be my browser of choice, it still seems to render faster than any mozilla-based project. Can't wait to see a Mozilla 1.0 with all the sluggish debugging ripped out. I wish there was a branch where debugging was removed just to show off what mozilla could be capable of. Maybe then we wouldn't criticize that so much.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Add userContent.css to the chrome directory under your profile, then add this to it:
img[width="468][height="60"] {-moz-opacity: 100%}
It's something like that anyway (search for the CSS Anarchist's Cookbook).
Correction:
img[width="468][height="60"] {-moz-opacity: 0.1}
(make image translucent)
img[width="468][height="60"] {display: none}
(make image disappear completely)
Here, try The CSS Anarchist's Cookbook off of O'Reilly.
It has instructions on how to do that using user style sheets.
Have fun.
-- I'm not evil, I'm
Maybe you didn't hear him; the man said "there aren't any browsers that don't crash."
IE crashes. period. and when it does, it usually takes half your shell with it.
really, the way IE can blow away just about any windows machine makes me wonder if the whole thing isn't running in the kernel or something.
all hail MS
sean
I'll say it again: why close your browser?!
How we know is more important than what we know.
Oddly enough, as times pass and IE gains market share, it gets MORE standard compliant than it ever was. The new IE 6 even goes as far as not being compatible with IE 5.5 and below so that it is more strictly compliant with HTML 4.0, XHTML and CSS 1 & 2 (don't worry, there's a switch to drop the compatibility mode and use the strict standard mode, the compatibily mode being run by default).
One good thing with the lack of competition in browsers is that Microsoft doesn't feel the need to divert from the standard and introduce new funky tags. I'm not saying this won't change to something worse, or that we won't see "Windows only" functions spring back to life, but for now IE 6 is the most standard compliant browser ever, while being the one who face the smallest competition ever.
Please before flaming me go read the IE 6 preview papers first...
I'd just like to step in and tell you that "Amiga weenies" are the most loyal, intelligent, and mature computer users I've ever known. They support the best technology. Period.
------
And that question is:
Why is Mozilla so much slower on Unix than on Windows?
And I have a question of my own to ask:
Can the "chrome" be scraped off of Mozilla, and replaced with GTK/QT/whatever?
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Personally I don't care how different they choose to make the underlying code. What i'd like to see them do is standardize on one appearance system. In Windows people don't know whether they apps they wrote were done in pure API calls, MFC, VCL, or whatever else. And it's usually not readily apparent what language was used. A toolkit is different than the class libraries under Windows, but the idea is the same, people would care much less about QTvs GTK+ vs Motif is the apps supported a single drawing style and theme system. The code to layout the window doesn't have to be approached the same way, so a QT widget is fundamentally different from a GTK widget. Only thing changed is that they now look the same to the user.
treke
Fame is a vapor; popularity an accident; the only earthly certainty is oblivion.
http://www.muhri.net/skipstone, it's a pure GTK+(No gnome libs) browser using the Mozilla renderer
treke
Fame is a vapor; popularity an accident; the only earthly certainty is oblivion.
Qt is C++,
Actually, its Python. No wait, its...just about every other language it can handle. Since one can't do inheritence in C, make it suitably modular.
The entire object model is different.
Yes, we need to fix that.
There is stuff in Qt today that will take some time to implement in gtk+ or glib.
I know. Lets get started now, if glib seems to be the best place to put that kind of thing (I think Qt might be)
If you made an abstraction layer, you would use _more_ memory than before!
Did I ever say *anything* about an abstaction layer?
The whole idea is worthless in my opinion.
That's because you currently don't seem to understand it.
Merging them would create a toolkit that is
something very different from either one
Ideally it should resemble both and not be too difficult, or provide a common layer between the two, much is the same way that Win32 provides a layer beneath MFC and VCL, which were once two very distinct toolkits.
the apis are very different for both toolkits.
I should have mentioned I'm talking about merging the API as well as the toolkit.
QT and GTK are fundamentally different toolkits, operating on different programming paradigms
Could you elaborate? AFAIK they can both handle, C (GTK native, Qt C bindings), C++ (GTK using Inti, QT native), and Python (Python bindings for both.
QT and GTK use different langages (C vs. C++)
AFAIK, no. GTK can do C++ using Inti. Qt (I hope) also be bound to C. Both have Python bindings.
If this came about, what would be the point of having 2 toolkits anyway?
There wouldn't be, as a reasonable set of functionality from both would be in one combined library
Why don't we all just switch to Win32 programming and use WINE?
Because Win32 is not Open Source, controled by MS and is broken according to some.
One toolkit is better than 2, right?
Only if that one toolkit is well written, modular, and has little overhead.
KDE can import your GTK+ and IceWM themes, making "lack of constant appearance" a matter of user choice.
if you're speaking about KDE / GNOME (semi OT), no. It is not reasonable to expect a user to learn 2 sets of common dialogue boxes, 2 sets of widgets that react in 2 seperate ways, ad infinitum
What lack of consistency in UIs? Buttons, scrollbars, checkboxes, radio buttons, dockable toolbars - these concepts are almost identical in both toolkits. The only difference is in their appearence (KDE puts two buttons at the bottom of a scrollbar, but only in some themes, etc - this would be solved by QT importing GTK themes).
Making GTK compile QT apps (even though it's really impossible)
You think GTK can't do C++. That is incorrect. It seems you think this is impossible based on that idea.
Having GTK compile Qt apps would not help the stability, speed, or functionality of the Windows port of GTK,
Actually, I was thinking of having Qt compile GTK apps, as it seems to be the more well developed and cross platform of the two, seemingly due to age, though others with more knowledge might have a better idea. I think it would, as QT has been dedigned to be cross platform (including non Unix-like OSs), but again I'd like to hear from someone with experience. After the GTK = C comment, I'm sorry but you don't count.
With QT-GTK and GTK-QT widgets almost ready and XParts in the works, programs for either toolkit can use widgets or components (think Parts/Bonobo) from both.
That's great news. But a single object model would still be cleaner.
The idea doesn't take away anyone's freedom to choose - you could still use whatever toolktis functionality was duplicated into the other to form the newer kit.
Qt is C++. There are bindings to other languages.
Why should this be the case (seriously, my eyes are open to options for those who explain themselves reasonably)? In thirty years time, will C++ still be the most popular development language? Shouldn't these toolkits be modular?
You're not going to change the entire object model.
A massive change isn't it? But greater ones have been affected. Hopefully it should be possible to migrate it over time.
You can't just take code from Qt and put it in glib.
I know. I'm not proposing to use either as they currently stand, but create something that's language independent.
The idea is still worthless, and i think you should read the rest of the replies to your post.
I'm reading every one, positive or otherwise, with an open mind, and responding with questions where I need to. I've never called an idea or another poster worthless yet.
Is your head so far up in the clouds that you do not see the codebase in use already?
You've overly abrasive, but I do get the point. But I think the current code base is miniscule in proportion to the future codebase, and a stable modular toolkit which doesn't rely on a particular language would be a good base to build on. The thirty years bit...
Do you really expect everyone to change their code to match a new api? Keep in mind that there are people who use Qt and gtk commercially.
Indeed. Over time yes, just as they would eventually change to a new release of either of those two toolkit / APIs.
Trolltech has a commitment to their customers to keep their API the same.
They have a commitment to their customers to keep the API in a forward moving direction without significantly breaking compatibility with previous releases. Just as the people doing commercial GTK support have similar commitment. There's a big diff there.
You do not seem to understand the difference between a language binding and native support of a language. They're NOT the same thing.
I should have raised this earlier, but I see no reason why a particular tooklit or API should be more accessible to one language or another.
Win32 isn't open source, but WINE is, and WINE is an implementation of Win32.
Yes, but Win32s future is controlled by MS. Wines future is dictated by Win32 future. Furthermore, Wine is a work is progress, and there are very few stable apps I've seen that use it (as a Corel WPO2K user, I'm pretty sure about that one). MusicMatch, Websphere HP builder, and especially WP02K have serious issues.
I see no concievable benefit in merging them.
What do we get? Consistent look and feel? Already got it (theme importer).
Consistent look and feel =! theming! Please understand this! Its dialog boxes, widget behavior, panel application behaviour, drag and drop behaviour (xdnd still isn't used properly by either Konq or the GNOME desktop - try it with Konq FTP sometime).
Because of this, end users are forced to choose their apps on toolkit compatibility rather than quality. That is a Bad Thing.
To be honest, in terms of KDE / GNOME (which this discussion seems to have been moved towards) I would actually be just as happy if KDE and GNOME worked properly together now. But they don't. Not by a very long shot. For all the reasons above, and a billion more (duplicate menus, bookmarks, config centers, etc), and it seems very few people care.
Interoperability? Already got it (QT-GTK widget and XParts).
Good point, but they're both unfortunately very rarely used.
Might as well start a whole new toolkit, QTK or something.
Um, yes. That's what I'm talking about.
My understanding of the current QT licensing situation were that someone could port the Linux version of QT to Win32 to create a GPLed Win32 QT. Anyone care to correct me?
an ideal world, it would be like this. :-D
yes it would
we're getting more OT. I thought you weren't talking about KDE/GNOME,
I was responsing to someone who was. And by responding to you, we're even more off topic. Great isn't it? I'm very well aware all these things are provided by the environment, as you surely know. Oh well.
That just shows that you don't read the KDE or GNOME mailing lists.
True. But I do follow their news and kernel cousins and had a good chat to a couple of CompanyX employees about this issue at a conference recently. Their attitude was that one (either GNOME or KDE) would become massively larger than the other and interop was of very little long term concern. This is what worried me.
The duplicate Control Centers and such are not a problem - just don't use the other one!
Um, how can I not use the other control center? Remember, I'm picking apps based on quality, not toolkit. In this case, that's Gimp, Konq etc. Can one of them configure both these apps?
You seem to have switched gears now from "lets merge GTK and QT and keep compatibility" to "Lets create a whole new toolkit".
My basic tenet was to create a modular project with the best elements and bindings of both. Good Open Source apps re--use code whenever possible so most `new' apps borrow heavily from old ones.. Whether the first line of code is original or taken from another project is of little concern.
Because they are different libraries.
That's obvious enough - as is that I'm not talking about the present situation, but a future one.
A combined API and toolkit that's modular in design and language independent (for the next big shift in language design that replaces C / C++), with a superset of features from both, with a spec created by a neutral third party.
And yes, that is a lot of work.
Why can't I compile any app with QT support?
More to the point, why doesn't QT allow me to compile GTK apps against it, or vice versa?
Remember X2 and K56Flex? No? They were two different 56k modem standards. Both groups expected their implementation to be ratified by the International Telecommunications Union, who were going to analyse the points of each and decide of a 56k standard.
In the end, the ITU decided that both standard had their good points. V90, a standard that took the best bits of K56Flex and X2 and combined them into a single standard, became the order of the day. And the crappy X2 / K56Flex incompatibilities died a graceful death.
Could an independent group such as LI do the same to GTk and QT? This would solve...
1) Wasted memory.
2) Lack of consistent appearance.
3) Lack on consistency in widget behaviour.
4) Some of the lack on consistency in UIs, but not much.
5) Lack of solid cross platformability for particular toolkits. I am told GTK for Win32 is not the best right now. A solid cross platform Unix-based / Windows toolkit would help Open Source Unixes a great deal
6) Limitations of widget availability between both toolkits.
Please bear in mind this is a completely different concept to merging KDE and GNOME, which have less to do with Qt and GTK than many people think.
Thoughts anyone?
It works with some site's banners, but not all. For example it works with megatokyo but not with slashdot. I suspect that the style sheet is overridden on sites that use style sheets. Is there any way to prevent this?
You can't really compare these two as projects, because they have completely different goals. Mozilla has to work on 3 different platforms. When Mozilla was started, there was no mature widget set that they could use for the Mac, Win, and *nix, so they had to build their own (in the form of XUL/JS) while they were building the app that used it! (Also note that this UI system was built optimized for Win32)
The Mozilla project is also focused on embedding their layout engine into other products, such as the upcoming AOL for linux release. They've also built a really nice email client too, which is on-par with most other free email clients, such as outlook express.
Konqueror, while a really cool web browser, has had just one goal: surf the web, on unix, on X, and on KDE2.
Side note: due to the excellent design of both these projects, we can now expect a mozilla KPart, that we can use to browse the web through konqueror using the mozilla layout/js engines, very soon now! I think it's already in the works...
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
A qt port probably won't help. So don't use it. The people who do the qt port are also not the same people who are working on the main browser, so don't waste time complaining about "misallocation of resources", either.
--
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Brandon Hume
hume -> BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca, http://WWW.BOFH.Halifax.NS.Ca/
Duh, konq loads faster because it's already in memory! haha. Yeah, what do you that humungous kdeinit process is? Hehe.
Windows lamer: Yeah but IE loads faster.
Clueful interpreter: Because it was already loaded!
Well now, that depends.
I use junkbuster to block most ads. The reason for this is simple: I'd prefer not to see them. Why? Because they don't interest me. And that's the key point right there. They don't interest me. It doesn't take a lot of logic to deduce that, even if I weren't blocking them, I sure wouldn't be clicking on them. After all, they don't interest me.
It just so happens that set up junkbuster to let Slashdot's ads through. Why? It's not that I'm trying to be a good citizen. It's because they interest me. I want to see what TMBG's up to. I want to see what ThinkGeek has new this week. Not only do I view these ads, but I click on them. Because they interest me.
Now, with that said, I produce the final piece of the puzzle: advertisers generally pay by the click, not the view. If I don't click on an ad, it's irrelevent whether or not I viewed it. Therefore, if I screen out all ads that I wouldn't have clicked on anyway, no one gets hurt. I view ads that interest me, and click on them. I block ads that don't interest me, and don't click on them. I win, Slashdot wins, the advertiser wins.
Simple as that.
(To Whom It May Concern: Yes, I know my grammar is crappy. Who cares?)
But you miss the beauty of open source alltogether. You expect too much from lazy stoners like myself. We'll write some code here and there and eventually go back and fix the bugs we coded cuz we were too stoned at the time. And one day you'll end up with an extremely fast and super stable application, no matter what app it is. And if one person can't design it correctly someone else will replace it or offer another choice.
But the best part for consumers is that it is free, you always have access to the latest patches and source code and it will never go away.
See with proprietary software you rely on a company to drive their programming slaves to push out buggy code prematurely because you whine about it not having all those neat features. And the entire purpose of the software company is to make money and keeps its investors happy. This ends up giving you software that is bloated, has many features you will never use, filled with quickly and poorly written buggy code, and overly hyped and marketting to get you to pay money for it. Just like open source, except its not free and those bugs probably won't get fixxed before the next release, a few months down the road. No matter how much you don't like that there is nothing you can do because you don't have access to the source code. And any attempt to modify your app is illegal.
Anyone wanting to kill banner ads should see this. Of course, anyone using iCab has the exact feature the OP asked for.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Constitutionally Correct
Sure, it's pretty easy, as long as your browser is CSS2 compliant.
img[width="468][height="60"] {display: none !important }
User !important rules have top priority in CSS2, unlike CSS1. However, !important rules will still work with CSS1 browsers, providing the author has not made his own styles !important.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Constitutionally Correct
That's exactly the right way to think about it. Advertisers seem to think that 100 views == 1 click, or whatever. They're wrong. If I'm at CNN.com, I don't care how many banners I see, I'm not clicking any of them. I don't care about the stuff they're advertising. Specialty sites like Slashdot, however, maybe they advertise stuff I'm interested in. Maybe 100 views == 5 clicks then.
Of course, the advertising companies (DoubleClick) would love to track our browsing habits so they can automatically serve up interesting ads regardless of where we are. No, thanks! Traditional media (TV, print) advertising is based on the content, hence beer ads during football games and in the sports section. They don't advertise beer by following you around all day holding a sign in front of your face. That's more like invasion of privacy or stalking. The search engines have got it right...when you search for "football" the beer ads come up. They aren't tracking me (which is a lot of work), they are working on the principle of related content (much easier).
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Constitutionally Correct
More to the point, why doesn't QT allow me to compile GTK apps against it, or vice versa?
Because they are different libraries. This is like asking why you can't compile a C++ program against glibc or compile a C program with libstdc++.
It looks like you are asking for someone to write a library that exports both the GTK APIs and the Qt APIs which would be a phenomenal amount of work.
--
You can call C functions from C++ and with a little work, you can call C++ functions from C.
You seem to misunderstand what libraries are. The question isn't whether you can use C functions from a C++ program or vice versa but whether the library functions will exist.
For instance if I compile the following C++ program against gcc which uses the C libraries It will choke because it won't be able to find the code for a number of classes (string, ostream) and static objects (cout) because these are defined in the libstdc++ library and not glibc. It will compile fine[0] since the syntax is valid and the declarations can be found in the included header files but it will fail at link time since the needed classes and functions aren't in the libraries or source files the code is being compiled against.
[0]If gcc wasn't also a c++ compiler then it wouldn't even compile.
--
It is sad that there are so many people who seem to be programmers but can't tell the difference between syntax and libraries.
From Bjarne Stroustrup's (creator of c++) book "The C++ Programming Language": "With minor exceptions, C++ is a superset of C. Well-written C programs tend to be C++ programs as well."
Your argument only holds one way, that C++ programs cannot be compiled with libc. The only examples he gives of C code that's incompatible with C++ would lately be considered poor C.
Ouch. You just revealed that you don't understand what is being debated. The question isn't whether C++ syntax and C syntax are similar enough to be interchangeable but whether the C library functions (e.g. strcpy, memcpy, mktime, etc) exist in libstdc++. If g++ simply uses both glibc and libstdc++ to compile programs so as to have access to both the C libraries and the C++ libraries then What is your point?
And you should really listen to his advice:
It seems you are more in need of the advice than I.
--
Of course, you chose to only respond to one side of his rebuttal. You also said: "This is like asking why you can't compile a C++ program against glibc..."
Which is exactly what I just showed.
Anyway nitpicking whether a C++ program can use C functions overlooks the original point that libraries have to have the functions you want to use. Would you have preferred if I said "That is like trying to compile a Java program against libstdc++ or a C program against rt.jar?"
You most certainly can call libc functions like 'printf' and 'fgets' from C++ programs
Really. Is this because libc is also used by g++ when compiling C++ programs or that libstdc++ reimplements the functionality of libc. Either way your argument is pointless with regards to the original point that the library needs to have the functions you require.
Write a library in C, and every single language under the sun can easily talk to it.
Oops, now I realize I'm being trolled. You got me. IHBT. IHL. HAND
--
Shayne
Today I didn't even have to use my AK; I got to say it was a good day -- Icecube
After acknowledging that mozilla was the slowest app on my computer for the last year or two, I realized that this is the program that hardware manuacturers are secretly paying for. No wonder netscape is still in business! We have found an essential application that requires a 1.5GHz+ / 256MB+ RAM computer.
The list of immediate plans includes the simpler things to implement, including Menu/desktop files, MIME system, Themes (naming, pixmap engine), URI schemes, and Drag and Drop. There is a much larger list on the site, but those are the things to look for the next few releases of Gnome and KDE (there's already a draft stanard for the desktop entry system).
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Your point is well taken. The single most promising aspect of Mozilla is its portability.
Hopefully, they've done a good enough job of abstracting the native toolkit that ports are relatively easy. I read recently that IBM has done an OS/2 port, so maybe it's true.
Then again, XUL, while interesting seems to be the main performance bottleneck in Mozilla. I actually use Mozilla on my Windows machine at work (128MB), where after the long startup, it works fine.
Still, with a mac port of QT, you could have konqueror on unix, windows and mac. Plus, you'd get Koffice, etc. I know that QT wasn't GPL'd when Mozilla was getting started either (neither was Mozilla itself), so that wasn't an option at the time. But these days, a QT (or GTK+, I'm not gonna play favorites) port to the mac would solve the 'mainstream' problem for potential Linux developers while providing (apparently) a great toolkit for building a browser.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
It's the problem of your win98 box, mine can stay up for more than a week (not just idle, of course). I can open more than 10 IE (5.5) windows at the same time with other applications running. IE rarely crashes on my box.
I don't mean win98 is great, but there is a way to keep win98 a bit more stable. However, it is very sad that not everyone knows about this...
Galeon homepage. Need a whole bunch of extra Gnome libraries though.
...and Amiga...and Apple...etc.
OS/2 was actually a superior OS compared to Windows, but died the death of a thousand cuts due to Microsoft's marketing and lack of third-party application support as well as over-zealous users. When the Amiga finally died, an official at Commodore was quoted as saying, "our over-zealous user base didn't do us any favors". Mac users pretty much defined over-zealousness. BTW, has the Mac market share reached double digits yet? :)
I use FreeBSD and OpenBSD, but I don't go out of my way to evangelize it, nor do I bad mouth any alternatives. I let the product speak for itself. If you like it, fine. If you don't, that's fine, too; use something else.
NEVER use a spineless operating system.
It's a very dark ride.
Ah, but there is: IE
Except Microsoft doesn't make IE for my computer. Now I have to go out and buy a $1000 PeeCee to run a web browser? Thank you, but at that price, I could site-license Opera.
Will I retire or break 10K?
What on Earth are you doing running a web browser on a production machine?
production != server. AFAIK, workstations can also be considered "production" machines.
Will I retire or break 10K?
For everyday browsing I use konq now and I can't say it is unstable or anything. Well, it crashes sometimes, but not very often.
But after all it doesn't matter that much to me because I only use windows for my games and occasionally viewing files in one of the office programs.
Some people are never happy. If you don't want an IRC client, uncheck the option box during installation. It's not hard to do.
It's not as if AOL is inextricably dependent on IE since they've wisely ensured that their content and that of their partners is viewable with any browser.
Like the rest of the frontend in NS/Mozilla, the built-in AIM is just some chrome and a few DLLs. Edit the installed-chrome.txt file to remove references to aim.jar and NS will no longer contain AIM. Then you can delete AIM permenantly by removing aim.jar and the AIM component DLLs.
(Not this is not a TROLL i am really confused)
i checked the article. it says (as an answer to a post), moz-qt uses chrome. They why would we need the port anyway?
I think i am wrong somewhere. QT is a toolkit and moz is 'toolkit-independant'. So what is the point in the port? What parts of QT does moz use?
Uuh I dont think so I'm using mozilla, and i'm seeing the popup lists with little scrollbars in my gtk theme, so they must be using gtk for more than just 'low level drawing'. sure, its not used for menubars, back/forward buttons and the browser scrollbar, but have a look at the buttons, lists, etc IN the html page... those are gtk controls!
What's the real purpose in supporting ui ports (GTK+, Qt) if the Mozilla languages (XUL, etc) are supposed to replace those (to be more cross-platform friendly)?
My definition of an OS zealot is someone who continues to use an OS that is clearly deficient in one or more aspects that are significant to that particular user. The motivation to use the OS -- whatever it is -- is stronger than the frustation engendered by its problems.
Note that this applies to any OS, not just Windows, or Linux.
The really important point is OS zealotry isn't going to improve that OS, any more than, say, fan zealotry can improve the performance of a sports team.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Er, no. If you go talk to the KDE guys they will inform you that it's a from-scratch browser with little outside code borrowing. It uses an HTML renderer called KHTML, not Gecko. It uses OpenSSL for crypto, not NSS. And so on.
Why must mozilla bashing always take place? It has crashed for me at the most in the last month twice. It does not load faster for me. Im using mozilla .81. What makes me extremely
angry is when people(albeit not here) say mozilla is "unstable, buggy, crashes, bloated..." when they have no idea, simply repeat what others say. I've been using mozilla since .6 as my
only browser with _no_ problems.
:it`s untable, buggy, crashes and bloated, and I do have an idea. I`ve used the overhyped and totally dreadfull N6 and slightly previous versions of mozilla before that one came out, and I was so disappointed from what I got that I`m still using N4.6 today. Unless people can actually say mozilla is light, easy and stable, I`ll have a go, but a 20Meg app that doesn`t react as it should and crashes doesn`t need nice words from me, regardless the source.
Well, I`ll say it here
There is no need for me to use IE. It crashes and has nasty features which bug me. N4.6 also crashes (alot), but atleast it does everything, securely, and just that, no more, with me in full control. Mozilla is promising but unless they got their bugs worked out and their package cleaned up, I won`t have another go at it. Face it. It`s not a webbrowser, it`s a pack of nice dreams thrown together, without really having a normal product goal, like e.g. stability and ease of use. Instead of filling up a dreamcastle with goodies, why not build a solid house and go from there? Not a big mistery this one, but the question remains.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
N4.6 also crashes (alot), but atleast it does everything, securely, and just that, no more, with me in full control
.01 point release includes a security fix, and there's been 30 or more point releases since the product has been on the market. Major holes that have been in the 4.x codebase from the beginning are still being found.
Netscape is no more secure that IE with reasonable ActiveX download prefs set. Virtually every
Using Netscape 4.x probably should be considered a crime against web standards, but it's a free world. Just don't blow FUD on security issues - it's too important.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Full System Crashes?: A Grand Total of 3 in heavy production usage.
Internet Explorer Crashes?: I'm not sure, none that I can remember.
A Note: The purpose of this post is not to tout the advantages of Win2k or the disadvantages of Linux.
The purpose of this post is to say that zealous Linux advocacy via MS bashing does no-one anygood. Especially the open-source community.
i was wondering too.. mozilla is way bigger project but konqueror made the job without all the noise mozilla is making. although konq displays pages a little bit slow, i tried opera linux 5b6.. very fast.
What was the point of an agonizingly drawn out cross-platform browser development saga again?
But Konq already supports running on fbdev, and in the qt palm enviroment, also qt is portable between unix and windows (no mac however), and porting konq to windows whould be no harder than porting moz imho.
apache?
hey even darwin is coming along... i think its way ahead of linux...
abiword?
open office is gonna be great (as long as they piss off the stupid windows start menu copy it has)
the improvement gap of mozilla in each milestone is increasing... (the interface is sooo 1999, but then again the interface of w2k is soooo 1995 hehe)
blah
---------------
100% Australian
im stuck wif w2k/ie5/sp1 and ive adapted. thats not saying i wouldnt prefer macos x or bsd or beos or heck even os/2 (please note that i didnt say linux... how many linux users dis mozilla? if mozilla was half as broken as the distros for lin it wouldnt even be at alpha stage...) .tar.gz? gnome updater? netscape installer?
yes the kernel is good... what about sound? eek, what about installing? eek! rpm, anyone? deb?
im not a regular programmer but me trying to compile a program for lin shits me to hell... glibc sucks.
so does X... gimme berlin anyday
flame away *kiss*
---------------
100% Australian
u can download the darwin source from the apple website... u cant use it but open source is open source
i didnt say gpl i said open source
---------------
100% Australian
totally ignoring the other myriad obstacles linux has to get thru before it becomes a truly viable desktop operating system for the masses, the need for a fast, lightweight web browser is vital...still, even with it's non-standardness and annoying quirks, internet explorer beats the hell out of the competition
my $0.02, flame away
--
because you can already do this much easier in any proxy server worth a damn (squid, etc.)
--
"just connect this to..."
BZZT.
Liberty.
You're probably thinking of the old kfm browser. Konqueror supports SSL, Netscape plugins, ECMA (pretty much complete now), Java, CSS 1 (almost complete), CSS 2 (mostly done).... I use it for online banking on the Fidelity and Fleet Bank sites, both very JavaScript heavy, and it works perfectly. Better than Mozilla.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
Right, but it's still a legitimate question to ask which is a more sensible way to go about it. The reality is that the Konqueror team has come up with a pretty solid browser for Unix and embedded Qt with a tiny fraction of the resources and experience of the Mozilla project. Meanwhile, after all the labor invested in XUL/JS and the performance penalty it enforces on the browser, what do they have? The Mac version is pretty much despised for its poor performance and Mac integration (especially compared to Mac IE, which kicks ass) and the Unix version is dog-slow.
If I were Steve Case, I'd be asking why they didn't just maintain Windows, Mac and Unix ports (keeping as much of the rendering engine cross-platform as possible) and make them each as good as possible. As it stands, they've pretty much conceded Windows and Mac market share to Microsoft, and now their monopoly on the Unix browser is crumbling.
(Yes, I know, if I'd just try the latest nightlies, I'll see that everything has changed. ;-) )
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
set up your proxy to block anything to those servers and you're set.
Or you could just *pay* for the software. Doing this just discourages commercial software development for those of us who want it.
i wish i was but oh well
They are not the same. In fact, they are not even close. You might want to try something like wxWindows or zoolib. These toolkits "wrap" other toolkits for ease in portability.
Beware that when you wrap like this, you generally lose the extra features of each toolkit in order to remain portable.
Now I have to ask: why? Why would you want to do this? All this would do is change the look and feel of the application. This is not important. wxWindows and friends were made for crossplatform. Linux Qt -> Linux Gtk is not crossplatform, and isn't even worth talking about.
Do you really want to use the widgets of the opposite toolkit that badly? Why not just use Qt? It is much more complete and proven than its competitors and has all you need.
-Justin
My bad. A couple of guys who work for it are on the KDE developer's page and it's called a successor to kfm, so I just stretched out an extra connection.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Just a few thoughts on obvious reasons why you can't compare the two. I'm not going to try taking into account the project management dynamics of the two different groups (K vs. Mozilla) because as outsiders we can only speculate on things like bad management, morale, working conditions, etc.
Konqueror:
Is being developed by the same group that is working on a complete gui environment.
Is being developed using an already established widget toolset.
Is meant to run well first and foremost on Linux, and specifically KDE.
Is being developed by a kompany that has a good history of working and completing individual application projects.
Mozilla:
Is the flagship product of the Mozilla group. It's even being built with the framework for other aps to derive from.
Isn't working from an established widget toolset. They've been working within various environments including Windows, Linux, and Mac. It is very important that Mozilla works on all three of these platforms.
Was started entirely from scratch. This in itself was important to the team.
cough cough is associated with the same people who brought you Netscape cough cough
The reason that Konqueror works so well within Qt-enabled X is the same reason that Explorer works so well within Windows. If soemone introduced you to some new gui environment and said "build me a perfect browser", it would probably take longer for you than for someone who'd already been working within that environment, let alone if you had to actually make your browser work over several gui environments. I can only imagine the hell that is trying to get something to render uniformly over several platforms. With Konqueror, that's QT's responsibilty and headache, not the Kompany's.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
The only certainty is entropy.
That's not to say that I'm not thoroughly impressed with Konqueror - I use it all the time (though mostly out of laziness since it has a button in the K panel at bottom of screen). However, recently I've been finding Konqueror's various inadequacies annoying enough to make me bother launching Mozilla with an Xterm, so in all likelihood I'll soon be bothering to create a Mozilla button (which would make using Konqueror pointless).
hopefully this will take 'nice looking widgets' off the wish list :D
Netscape 6 is based on M18 of the mozilla code. Mozilla has gone through 4 releases since then and the next one is due out in a week or two.Yes, Netscape 6 was unstable, buggy, and crashed. But Mozilla has improved a lot. I'm using 0.8.1 to post this message. It has become my standard browser and I have very few problems with it.
I'll say one more thing. Mozilla isn't even up to Version 1 yet. Accourding to the mozilla team it is still beta software.So people should stop bashing it until the final version is released.
It is adware, but for those who have a problem with that it's fairly easy to figure out how it does it: it retrieves XML files from a certain pair of servers in the opera.com domain which feature urls for the ads... set up your proxy to block anything to those servers and you're set.
You really need to grab a recent build. Mozilla is a totally different animal that it was during the period that you're referring to.
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
The sad part is that I've switched to mostly using Konqueror these days. Less memory. Less crashes. Loads faster. AA fonts look better.
.81. What makes me extremely angry is when people(albeit not here) say mozilla is "unstable, buggy, crashes, bloated..." when they have no idea, simply repeat what others say. I've been using mozilla since .6 as my only browser with _no_ problems.
Why must mozilla bashing always take place? It has crashed for me at the most in the last month twice. It does not load faster for me. Im using mozilla
Looks like key features like plugin support and printing are still missing, so it's probably not the browser to use at the moment. Still, I run a KDE desktop, and it's nice to see Mozilla using my preferred toolkit. I'll wait for a while for it to settle down before switching to it (from konq and Gtk Mozilla), but props to the developers for getting this done!
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
Seems there are plenty of questions to be asked about performance, project management, X platform issues etc. Might be interesting.
what sites does IE crash on? I use 5.5 on 2000 @ work and beta 6 rel 2 on 2000 at home and doesn't crash. I have multiple instances. Sometimes 15 running at once linking to message and stuff from slashdot or my local newpapers site.
I must admit mozilla has only crashed a couple of times on my mandrake 7 box. although one of those sites was bluesnews.com that i frequent often but it has since been fixed.
Currently they aren't any web browsers that don't crash and can still browser 99% of web pages, I don't know why that is, but I don't a qt port is going to help this.
I hope Mozzila can pull itself together, I'd really like to use a work web browser and an open source one at that.
--
M0571y H@rml355.
A feature I think that would be cool in Mozilla would be a bit of code like:
If ( ImageSize == 468 x 60 ) && ( KillAds == 1)
Image = Transparent468x60
Where the "KillAds" boolean is set in the preferences menu... Hell, maybe someone has already done this. I think I heard some talk that AOL would never allow such a feature to be included, but it would be easy enough to add in, I guess...
PK: 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
if you're speaking about KDE / GNOME (semi OT), no
No, I'm not speaking about KDE vs. GNOME. KDE simply enables QT to import the themes - it would be quite possible for QT to do it without KDE (only with the help of the small converter program). QT can be made to look and feel *exactly* like GNOME, totally erasing the "look and feel" issue. The "common dialogs" issue is OT, as it refers to KDE and GNOME themselves.
Because Win32 is not Open Source, controled by MS and is broken according to some.
Win32 isn't open source, but WINE is, and WINE is an implementation of Win32. By your logic, we should try to merge all graphics toolkits into one big, happy API family. Why stop at QT and GTK? Why not try to make a giant über-library that can run any program for any graphics toolkit ever made? It's impractical and unnecessary! QT and GTK do the job just fine the way they are, thank you very much! I see no concievable benefit in merging them. Less memory usage? Maybe a megabyte. But certainly no more than that.
Actually, I was thinking of having Qt compile GTK apps, as it seems to be the more well developed and cross platform of the two.
That still doesn't help the portability problem. QT Windows and QT [something that's not linux] is NOT GPL and NOT FREE(as in beer). You'd have to pay QT licensing fees to develop GTK Windows applications! What kind of sense does that make?
a single object model would still be cleaner
A single object model would require either:
Changing the existing object models
or
Adopting one object model over the other.
Changing the existing object models would simply be creating a whole NEW object model. Just what we need. There's no guarantee that the new one will be better than either of the old ones (it'd probably be worse due to compromises). Adopting one object model over the other will simply not happen, because it would change the API and therefore require lots of people to totally rewrite their programs. If you think people are going to go for that, you're crazy.
This whole "make QT compatible with GTK" thing would just be a lot of work for questionable benefit. What do we get? Consistent look and feel? Already got it (theme importer). Interoperability? Already got it (QT-GTK widget and XParts). Lower memory usage? Not much at all (if you want to support programs written for both toolkits). A better programming environment? If that's what you're after, why not start a whole new toolkit? It would make more sense. You seem to want to both merge QT and GTK's APIs AND keep compatibility (how come QT can't compile my GTK apps?) I'm sorry, that's simply not possible. Changing APIs requires total program rewrites. Might as well start a whole new toolkit, QTK or something.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
In an ideal world, it would be like this. However, becuase this isn't an ideal world, a toolkit will almost always be more accessible in its native language (the one it was programmed in). You are, of course, free to chip in and change that with a new cross-language toolkit - I suggest you do it yourself if that's what you really want done. If you build it, they will come! That's what's great about Open Source and Free Software.
Consistent look and feel =! theming! Please understand this! Its dialog boxes, widget behavior, panel application behaviour, drag and drop behaviour (xdnd still isn't used properly by either Konq or the GNOME desktop - try it with Konq FTP sometime).
Ah, we're getting more OT. I thought you weren't talking about KDE/GNOME, only QT/GTK! Dialog boxes are provided mostly by the desktop environment. Panels and panel applications are provided completely by the environment, not the toolkit at all. (BTW, the KDE 2 panel supports WindowMaker dock applets - I think it can use GNOME panel applets as well). Widget behavior *is* part of themeing, with QT its possible to change the operation of a widget just with themes! Drag and drop interoperability is also provided by the desktop, and its improving - I suspect within the year it'll be working perfectly. The duplicate Control Centers and such are not a problem - just don't use the other one! And don't think nobody cares! That just shows that you don't read the KDE or GNOME mailing lists. Desktop Integration has been a big topic recently - there are joint mailing lists, community standards, and other stuff. The results are starting to show: the QT-GTK widget, XParts, more standardized DND (it used to be much worse), the gphoto KDE IOSlave. Its getting better all the time!
Good point, but they're both unfortunately very rarely used.
That's because they were just invented 2-3 months ago! Give them time, they will be used now that they are available.
My understanding of the current QT licensing situation were that someone could port the Linux version of QT to Win32 to create a GPLed Win32 QT. Anyone care to correct me?
Oh, sure. You'll *just* PORT it! Gee, why didn't I think of that?
Seriously, though, if you think it's needed, start the project yourself. If it's really needed, others will help you. I think you'll have to get a lot of people to keep up with those guys at TrollTech, though. They aren't going to be standing still while you port QT/Linux to Windows.
Um, yes. That's what I'm talking about.
No its not. At least it wasn't. You seem to have switched gears now from "lets merge GTK and QT and keep compatibility" to "Lets create a whole new toolkit." Its a totally different argument now. Before you seemed to want to create a super-library that would be both backward and forward binary- and source-compatible with apps written in both C and C++ using different graphics toolkits! Now you want to start a new library that's better than all the rest. In that case, more power to you. Just don't expect source or binary compatibility with GTK and QT, and don't expect others to do it for you once they hear your great idea. If you want something done, do it yourself! Others may join you later, but they won't start it for you.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Really? Why does Mozilla even need QT then? Why doesn't someone just port it to XLib and be done with it?
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Now if only they could address your other complaints...
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
-
-
-
-
-
-
Please bear in mind this is a completely different concept to merging KDE and GNOME, which have less to do with Qt and GTK than many people think.QT and GTK use different langages (C vs. C++ - yes that's too much of a difference to compensate for in any reasonable way).
If this came about, what would be the point of having 2 toolkits anyway? Why don't we all just switch to Win32 programming and use WINE? One toolkit is better than 2, right?
KDE can import your GTK+ and IceWM themes, making "lack of constant appearance" a matter of user choice.
What lack of consistency in UIs? Buttons, scrollbars, checkboxes, radio buttons, dockable toolbars - these concepts are almost identical in both toolkits. The only difference is in their appearence (KDE puts two buttons at the bottom of a scrollbar, but only in some themes, etc - this would be solved by QT importing GTK themes).
Making GTK compile QT apps (even though it's really impossible) would not help the stability, speed, or functionality of the Windows port of GTK, so it wouldn't help get a quality free toolkit for Windows any more than simply working more on GTK for Win32 directly.
Finally, the "limited widget availability between both toolkits" problem is about to go away. With QT-GTK and GTK-QT widgets almost ready and XParts in the works, programs for either toolkit can use widgets or components (think KParts/Bonobo) from both.
What? It has everything to do with QT and GTK! GNOME was started for the express purpose of providing a desktop environment based on something other than QT. If KDE and GNOME used the same toolkit, merging them would almost be a trivial task. Their choice of toolkits is the only thing really keeping them apart.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
In the end, it probably doesn't matter. I wouldn't expect either Gtk+ or Qt to be central to GUI development on Linux a few years from now. While mature, they represent a fairly tedious and traditional way of writing UIs. There are new paradigms already sneaking into real apps.
Mozilla vs. King Konq... perhaps we're taking this whole Japanese movie monster name thing a little too far...