Slashdot Mirror
Jazilla Milestone 1 Released
mcbridematt writes "Many of the long time Slashdot readers will remember the Jazilla project to rewrite the Mozilla browser in Java. It went into hibernation in 2000 and I took it over last August. I have completely rewrote the browser which now follows a more Mozilla-like architecture. The Result: Jazilla Milestone 1 has been released. Download it from here. No prizes for guessing that it's Alpha software." Read on below for a list of what Jazilla can do, so far.
"Significant (implemented) features include:
- chrome:// support
- JavaScript implemented for the GUI thanks to the Mozilla.org Rhino engine. HTML Scripting coming.
- GUI in part, uses XUL and W3C DOM
- Written in 100% Java
- Open Source
- Uses the NetBrowser renderer, which is actually based on Jazilla-classic work."
Once you expand and extract this puppy, just cd into the folder it made and, assuming Java is properly installed on your machine, you need only run:
Good luck, and enjoy! The browser's still lacking in many obvious areas, but it does work on a lot of sites. Too cool -- props for all the hard wo\ rk. :-)
The question had to be asked
Other than being Java-based, what's the point of this web browser?
Does the browser call a new java runtime layer, so it's a java layer running a web browser running a java layer, or does the original java layer detect the attempt to run Java and intercept to run it itself?
What happens if I run the java web browser in a web browser?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
dont get me wrong i think its an interresting project but why write in Java a software that is already available on a huge variety of platforms (its mainly the advantage of writing java apps).
also Mozilla is lacking a bit of speed im sure you wont help in java.....
Overuse of the Pumping Lemma causes blindness
It seems to not work with OS X using instructions above, perhaps something else has to be done.
Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree
Combine the speed and java with the speed of Mozilla.... I bet you can reboot into windows, run IE, and get 3 first posts before Jazilla starts up.
Hee. I told him it would get him laid, then forgot to mention it was a joke. A year and a half later, it was just too funny not to let him keep running with it. Shh! My bad!
mozilla is slow. java is slow. jazilla is slow^2
I wonder if Intel is backing this project. They desparately need a reason to sell high-end chips.
Table-ized A.I.
Does it have support for Java applets, or do you need to install the Java plugin to have applets? :P
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
any idea why anybody would want or need to use that?
mozilla runs on at least as many platforms as any JRE, and many more if you expect swing to work properly.
i don't get it.
Dev elpizw tipota, dev phoboumai tipota eimai lephteros http://euclidian.org
I think Mozilla is slow enough, thank you.
It allows you to close tricked-into Goatse windows before they are finished. Goatsephobia has changed they way people browse. Slow is in.
Table-ized A.I.
I wonder whether the RHUG people will be able to build Jazilla using gcj and so create a native binary package. Then we could see whether it is faster or slower than Mozilla.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Ok grandpa it might be time to upgrade your 386sx to some more modern processor. You will be shocked at how much faster late 90's technology is, and if you want to live on the edge you might even try some system built in the last few years. You will find that any of those run Mozilla and or Java great. Oh yeah, while you are at it you will find that 16MB of RAM won't cut it anymore, you should probably get around 512MB. The good news is that you can get a system like that for under a grand. I do realize that living on social security makes it tough to buy a new system every 20 or so years, but just stop buying so much crap from those late night tv ads, and you should have enough saved up in no time.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Since half the comments so far seem to be "What is the point" I'll offer one justification.
There is still a serious lack of a good modern HTML browser for embeding in java applications. Swing provides an EditorKit which handles HTML3 reasonable well, but most of the other quality offerings are non free.
Major Java IDEs (Eclipse, NetBeans) have projects to implement something like this. Many other Java applications could potentially benefit. It's a good idea.
No, you can't. I assume this was intended as a joke, but I may as well point out that unless a program is not an applet, unless it implements the interface Applet (I think thats the right name...). You can't run any random Java program from a web browser or applet viewer.
Whatever, dude...
First of all execution speed is not a *major* issue anymore(even if it's still a problem for some kind of applications), and can not in any way be defined as "horrible".
Second, what exactly do you mean by etc., because as I recall it, Java offers short developpement periods , full portability(as you stated), and is still in developpement etc... So if I're you, I'd immediately start reading the JVM specifications.....;o)
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
Some of us prefer not to upgrade our computer every fucking month because all of a sudden the idiots at Microsoft/Apple/Netscape decide that our computing experience is incomplete without shiny new throbbing widgets. Even when I'm on a screaming fast computer, I throttle down every single bit of eye candy. Result: I can use my computer for actual work. Even so, I find that either Mozilla (on Linux) or IE (on XP) is entirely capable of reducing a Pentium 4 with plenty of memory into a quivering heap of dung.
Example: I'm often forced to use Microsoft Word. However, I have yet to utilize any feature that is not present in Word 5.1a, which runs quite happily on my stone-age PowerBook. Neither do any of my coworkers or collaborators, apparently; most of them would be served just as well by Emacs or Vi. That doesn't stop them from mailing me Word 2000 documents (nor does the fact that I run Unix pretty much everywhere). Result: I can't use my office computer or my Mac, and I have to walk down the hall to use one of the shared PCs. This is progress?
In short: fuck you. Fuuuuuuuuuuck you.
Works and looks great for me screenshot.
Doesn't take care of CSS, but hey I like to have another choice. Rigth?!
I was using the same command to start it:
java org/jxul/xulrunner/Main &
>> Had I been going to bed earlier every night? Have I been sleeping later? Has Tyler been in charge longer and l
But wouldn't the second and third be second and third posts?
This means that when you go to the store to buy an application, you don't buy the "Mac version" or the "Microsoft Windows version." You buy the "Java technology version." And as long as you have the Java Virtual Machine--which is free, and available from a large number of vendors--you can buy the program without having to worry whether it's going to run on your particular computer.
I think this might be a really cool idea if someone could do something like this. Say for example someone is in a really restrictive corporate or government environment which only allows HTTP and HTTPS out, and no SSH or anything like that. Now say for example you have Webmin installed on your home computer set to port 443. You use your work web browser to view your home's Webmin server inside SSL, and then if Jazilla were made into an applet and put inside a Webmin module that sends all of its information through the Webmin SSL encrypted connection, similar to the way Shell-in-a-Box does, one could use a really nice browser to surf in complete privacy.
Well, it's just a thought anyway.
Well, yeah, I do agree that waiting for the damn window to appear some 30 secs after launching the application is frustrating. So definitely the GUI and some input/output routines need improvement, but at the same time, once the JVM's started and the program initialized, there isn't so much to be said about how slow Java is......
I was recently suprised when a friend of mine did a benchmark on recursion functions and JVM performed better than gcc -o2..........
Yeah... well it's clear that when neither Mozilla nor Java could fly, Jazilla will hardly walk... but that doesn't make it a useless project.....;o)
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
You already can, with Mozilla, as this screenshot shows.
Imagine this uncommon but very possible setup.
You are working on a weekend all by yourself, you get the average of one phone call every 3 hours and nobody EVER comes into the office on weekends but you, the poor tech support guy.
You work for a small company that uses a Netware 5 file server for the firewall. (Remember, Netware 5 is Java based)
You don't have admin access.
The server doesn't have the console locked.
The server IS the firewall, and therefore can be outside of it.
You REALLY want to get your dose of porn, which the firewall wont let you do.
The firewall is unlocked........
Yep, time to load up a JAVA browser on the file server for your own porn surfing pleasure.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I find this line of reasoning a bit pathetic.
Just because we have more CPU power do you think that justifies wasting this power? I guess that Java is for people that already have computers more powerful than they can handle? Personally, I'd rather even give my cycles to SETI@HOME than give them to some VM.
And Java is still slow. Or Swing, or whichever excuse... perhaps it's slow because my VM is optimizing my code behind the scenes.
You've lowered your standards for performance, that's the whole story. Your reason is neither good nor bad nor compelling to someone that still values performance.
These Java processes take 15 meg and up on solaris, at least. They half the power of my machine, they half it's value. I need two machines instead of one. Is that good? Why the hell should I care if they run just as well as old applications on old machines? Why in the hell would I be happy about that... you think I'm nostalgic or something?
-pyrrho
There's more to Java than cross-platform. In fact, with all the various versions running around, I'd say its cross-platform qualities are significantly overrated.
Java is far more important in its security and software engineering features (which are actually very closely related). I find that I'm far more productive in Java than I ever was in C++ and C. I find that's even truer for less experienced programmers. Java increases the ability of programmers to work together through better memory management, better type enforcement, exceptions, etc.
You don't really need to hear all this. At this point you either believe it or not and I'm not going to convince you.
I haven't been able to compare it to C#, which appears to offer many of the same advantages over C/C++. I think of Java in a different class from languages like Perl and PHP, which are less well-suited to teamwork, which is an important goal of mine.
So the reason for this is not because we need another browser (boy, do we not) but because Java needs a browser for use in its environment. Java is still very poor on the client side, for a host of reasons, one of which is its lack of browser integration. Applets were always a stupid idea, I'm afraid, because software distribution via applets just isn't ready and the toys are generally beneath contempt.
You need a browser as part of Java. It's the best way to view text, whether for help, mail, etc. Java has several, but none are really any good because they're not 100% compatible with the lastest rounds of HTML/HTTP/Javascript. A browser, compatible with IE and Mozilla, will help make Java a decent client environment.
you should pay a visit to
m l )
.84 secs per tx but still)
http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno
It's a virtualised machine that runs hosted on Windows, Lunix & FreeBSD (& maybe others) and also runs native on some hardware (such as my IPAQ)
It has some really neat features, many borrowed from plan9.
Version 3 and below is not totally open (the source is $100).
The next version is considering making changes (see http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/4thedoverview.ht
Even if you never downlaod it, it's still worth reading the documentation.
Inferno follows the concept that threads are cheap (as an experiment someone recently had 90,000 concurrent threads passing a message from one to the other (admitedly it took
You'll wonder why anybody uses Java at all.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I guess there's probably no option to turn off Java support.
Troll signs (à la "worm signs" in Dune):
- dogmatic offensive pseudotruths (1st line);
- meaningless insult, liberally sprinkled with swear words (2nd line);
- main troll bait, hoping that mozilla users will feed him (3rd line);
- deadbrain conclusion (4th line).
Leave him alone and do not feed him, please.
I believe that if people want to experiment, they should.
Thufir Hawat
Part-time Mentat
. But i wont be using it since Firebird runs fine
It can't hurt to have a web browser besides you database.
What's needed in this world isn't another clone of *zilla written in the language du jour. The problem with anything written with the Mozilla (or Gecko engine) is speed: Why should it take more than a few fractions of a second to render HTML?
/. and Yahoo just fine.
And yes, it's been done already: Dillo is a blindingly-fast HTML engine/browser that runs from a binary less than 300Kb. No, it doesn't support frames, nor Javascript, nor any of the other kitchen-sink items all other browsers strive to be. Instead, Dillo sports a plug-in interface (open-source, naturally) that allows for all of this to happen, if the user wants it to happen.
So here's my suggestion: Take a cue from Dillo and go for speed, not for bloat.
Oh, and I should add that Dillo renders
Ok it was kinda a joke but I will address it more seriously this time.
1. Java is slow. This was true in 1.0 release of Java, but with todays JIT's the speed difference is small. I can point you to numerous sites, but at the end of the day it comes down to good coders. Your experience must be with some bad coders.
2. SWING is slow. This again use to be true with 1.18 + SWING and 1.2x JVM's the 1.3 and 1.4 have increased SWINGS speed considerably.
3. JAVA takes up too much memory. Yes it is true that the base JVM can take around 5-16MB of RAM per JVM instance. But with todays systems, on a lot of applications that isn't too bad. Now the core issue is that it takes up that amount for EVERY JVM that is used. So to your point: If I launch a Java calculator program, and then launch a Java notepad, I will have lost around 10-32MB of RAM in just JVM's. This is currently true, however it is being addressed and should be solved with the 1.5 release. Once this is done, then it would be possible to have ONE JVM running on the system for all Java applications. The JVM could launch at startup and then even the inital load times would be greatly reduced. I believe that this is the way Apple is handling Java (Can't confirm it though).
So, when this issue is resolved, running Java on a machine could mean only giving up a maximum amount of 16MB of RAM for the JVM and the rest for the application. To be honest that is what most Java programs are doing today. Most run as an application server and run Servlets and JSP's all day long.
Another poster mentioned that you use the correct tool for the job. I agree, but I will add that the issues for not using Java for speed has and is going away. The reasons for not using it for memory are going away on most computers.
We do agree on one point. Most people do have computer processors far greater than they need.
Lastly, if you are having so many issues running Java apps on your system you should look at newer JVM's. They make a huge difference.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Maybe I want to write an application in Java that has a more dynamic user interface. Swing makes things like this hard. What if you could make a great GUI in seconds in Java using dynamically generated XUL with call outs to Java instead of broken impared JS.
o neEditor", XUL.TEXT);
:) I'm impressed with the speed. Maybe it will send some of those idiot trolls about Java being slow back to the drawing board so they can complain about something else for a while when it gets done.
I'm all for duct taping a rendering engine on the front of real Java just because I don't like to deal with any of the popular layout managers for swing. Ideally, I would have my own Java widgets (because swing gets extendible widgets right like no other GUI API anywhere) that were rendered in a sane fasion (plus the native XUL widgets for when you don't need to extend them).
Swing layout is one of the reasons Java GUIs seam to be broken. If you resize a window, you get a lot of grey boxes. Sure, Mozilla could use some double buffering on their resizing, but it doesn't leave me with a gray screen instead of seeing how the components will look after resizing.
It would be even better if you could extend the XUL language in some manner with custom widgets.
For example:
XUL.registerComponent(MyPhoneEditor,"ph
These are all the more reasons why we need a good renderer in Java.
On a side note:
Anyone notice that with Java 1.4.2, jazilla starts faster than mozilla? A little over a second for me. It just won't render any web-site properly
Karma Clown
2) Java will always be slower than a native, non-interpreted language, even if you compile it into a binary.
Not true. First of all, Java is compiled, except it's compiled into byte-code instead of machine-code. This is unlike languages such as PHP and Perl, which must recompile the text source code into machine-code or byte-code each time it's run. While not as fast as machine-code in most cases, byte-code is definitely much faster than interpreted.
One advantage of byte-code to machine-code, in addition to portability, is that it can actually run faster in some cases. My friend did a project for his super-computing class in which he tested a simple algorithm written in both C++ and Java to see what would run faster. He used every level of gcc optimization, as well as a few JVM's. As expected, the compiled C++ version kicked the pants off of the Sun and Blackdown JVM's, but the IBM J9 JVM was around 50% faster than the C++ version. This speed advantage is due to the fact that IBM's JVM is able to optimize the code at runtime, while gcc must do all optimizations at compile-time.
Most people's misconceptions of Java are due to two factors: An incredibly shitty MS JVM and the horrid Swing GUI toolkit. When Sun wrote JWT and Swing, they tried to stick to the write-once, run-everywhere philosophy as much as possible. Unfortunately, the different OS's have very little in common when looking at GUI functions, so they basically had pixel capabilities to work with - no widgets. This means that the widgets are all done in Java instead of using libraries available from the host system. This is why most Java applications look nothing like the operating system they are running on, and run very slow. The SWT GUI toolkit, which is part of the Eclipse Project, uses the host system's libraries to render widgets wherever possible. This leads to an application that runs much faster and looks just like any other application for that operating system. Of course, they have to implement SWT for every host system they want to support, but it still runs on systems where support is incomplete/missing, albeit more like JWT/Swing.
Hmm, I had already forgotten that there was a database with the same name.
Someone is wrong on the Internet!
The stock layout managers suck ass, but there are better ones out there. If you're doing GUIs in Swing, check out TableLayout, HIGLayout, FlexGridLayout. These are all free and Free. There are probably other ones out there too.
I've been using TableLayout and although there are some little things I don't like about it, it does let me code Swing GUIs without the pain associated with the stock layout managers. Haven't tried the other two yet but they look interesting.
You can always run it under dosbox or dosemu, though.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
What we really need is for Mozilla to be bundled into Java! Think about it... Mozilla binaries already exist for all of major platforms on which Java runs. All that's needed is a Java wrapper for it and presto, reliable, native-optimized browsing (and more) anywhere you've got a JVM.
+3 Insightful? WTF? Did the all the anti-Java FUD /.ers get their mod points today?
First you place the blame on Java as one of the bloat/UI "candies" that are forcing people to upgrade thier PC. Then you say that Java has mostly expanded on the server market. So which is it? They aren't big currently big in the GUI department (although if you go here, you'll see that is changing). So tell me again how Java, which runs mostly on servers, is forcing people to upgrade their PC because of UI bloat?
Or how this is part of this conspiracy since Java is made by a company that doesn't make a desktop PC, a company that until recently didn't even support the x86 architecture very well, a company that makes high-end servers and workstations that have exceeded your "typical" PC mentioned above for years?
I agree that Java does on the server "what was easy to program and cheap to run using Apache/CGI/PHP/Perl/Python". It also does it faster (Python, by about 20%), with more maintainable code (Perl) and more securely (CGI). Apache (and by extension Jakarta) has always worked hand-in hand with Java quite well. But then, there are times when Perl and Python are the better choice, so use the right tool for the job.
Comparing Swing to Flash is like comparing Gnome with HTML. That's right....apples and oranges. Excellent strawman attack but it doesn't work. The two are for totally different UI environments.
Mods, just because you don't know Java or agree with the FUD doesn't make this guys tripe right.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
Once this is done, then it would be possible to have ONE JVM running on the system for all Java applications. The JVM could launch at startup and then even the inital load times would be greatly reduced. I believe that this is the way Apple is handling Java (Can't confirm it though).
So, when this issue is resolved, running Java on a machine could mean only giving up a maximum amount of 16MB of RAM for the JVM and the rest for the application. To be honest that is what most Java programs are doing today
After more than 10 years of getting computer users to OSes that separate and protect applications and processes, now we are going back to the old monolithic model, so that one bad JAVA app can compromise all other JAVA apps within the JVM.
Give me a break guys... This is not the direction a platform or programming model should be pushing developers just because Sun cannot get performance to a reasonable level.
Heck even look at VB and its runtime engine, it even consumes less memory and runs as an isolated process. (And VB has tons of stuff in it that weighs it down considerably.)
Come on Sun, give us what you promised six years ago. Quit wasting time suing companies and actually put some work into development.
No wonder that even the Server developers at Sun have been complaining about JAVA and its performance on their own OSes.
SourceForge's download counters claim that Jazilla M1 has been downloaded zero times. Looks like either no-one's actually bothered to download the thing at all, or the mighty SourceForge has failed us. Ho hum...
Probably should stop using Front Page then. Mozilla follows the standards which I.E. does not. If you write your code to standard then you would not have to "tweak" it for Mozilla. Granted you would probably still have to tweak it for IE.
seSales, Point of Sale software for OS X.
How said anything about one bad Java App taking down the rest of them? By no means did I say that someone could do something like:
System.exit(1) and take down every running application...
Also understand that this is being developed by multiple people/vendors NOT SUN. It is in their community process and I hope that Apple is helping with this. I would say that most of the work being done on Java is not from Sun, but IBM. (Just my observation). However, Sun has final say (kinda like some kernel guy...)
You say that VB uses a smaller runtime engine than Java.... SHOCKER!!! How much of it is built in to Windows that it doesn't need to load??? How well does that VB app port to any other platform?
You mention that Sun's server developers complain about Java. You are correct, but not for the reason you mention. They complained about the speed of their JVM to that of the Windows JVM. Sun in it's wisdom decided that to make Java more successful, it needed to make sure that the JVM for Windows ran great. They focused so much attention to it that the one for Solaris suffered. That isn't the case anymore. Now does that mean that every developer in Sun loves Java????? NOPE! Every large company has sharp people who disagree on stuff. I bet you will find people in Microsoft who think Linux rocks and WindowsXp isn't that great.
Another point you made is you want Sun to give the developers what they promised six years ago. I for the life of me can't think of anything they promised except a write once run anywhere thing. I would say that they have 'mostly' achieved that goal. I run Java stuff on NetWare, Windows, Linux, Solaris, AIX and various phones and palm/pocket pc systems. Other than the small devices, no modifications of code have been necessary!
If you give me a great IDE in Java and it runs 10% slower because of Java, I generally don't care. i.e. Oracle Jdeveloper 9i, is the example. I now have an IDE that runs acceptable on most platforms!
The only real problem with Java is that so many kids are taking it today (I have heard it is being taught in more colleges than English), and those kids are being put in to positions they are not ready for (Bad economy, that wants cheaper labor). That coupled with the fact that it is a relatively new language screams for performance issues. This isn't the languages fault.
If you remember when C was first around, just to write a very simple program almost always took 5k (we laugh at that now), but I remember developers (myself included) who thought "What a piece of crap!! I can do that in Assembler in 300 bites and it's startup time is way faster!
What percentage of code is done in Assembler nowdays? Heck the same could be said about COBOl.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.