khtml is a rendering engine. Mozilla is an application. Porting gecko (the khtml equivalent in Mozilla) and porting kthml are about equally difficult. Possibly easier for gecko, which is designed from the ground up to be easily portable.
If you want to compare porting Mozilla to something, you'd have to compare it to porting all of the KDE widget set _plus_ khtml.
MIT owns and operates a nuclear reactor, particle accelerator, wind tunnels, numerous chemistry labs, laser research facilities, and BL3 (biohazard level 3) facilities, with BL4 facilities being added (BL4 is the second-highest level; the highest, BL5, is "airborne with near-100% fatality rate" -- almost nothing like that around. BL4 is where things like HIV and Ebola live).
I suspect their insurance rates are already quite exorbitant.
Re:Oh man, will there be no OS9 builds, ever?
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 1
Just as a clarification, though few HPUX users exist, one of them has been volunteering to keep the HPUX port going..
Re:Oh man, will there be no OS9 builds, ever?
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 2, Informative
> Would it really be that hard to merge in all the > improvements that have been made since then and > release 1.4 for OS9?
In a word, yes. We spent months looking for someone or some group willing to maintain the OS9 version with its separate build system and such, and no one was up to doing it.
It'd take a few weeks of work for someone who really knows what he's doing to merge in the changes at this point and then fix up all the resulting build system issues.
Re:Lose2003 Report
on
Mozilla 1.4 RC1
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You can get selection ranges out of a text control with a 1.4 rc1 build...
> An easy fix to the bug would be to not change > filenames at all when transferring them from > server to client
Unfortunately, that opens up a remote-execution-of-arbitrary-code vulnerability on the Windows operating system (all 32-bit versions of Windows). Which is why Mozilla only mucks with the extension on Windows.
So the current behavior is here to stay until someone with access to a Windows system has the time to write lots of code to work around this OS-level problem.
Up until David Baron was hired by Netscape (last month or so), I'd say something like 70-80% of core gecko development was being done outside of Netscape. At this point, it may be more like 50-50.
Mozilla has been shipping with the Mac OSX version of AOL for something around a year now. Yes, the AOL/Windows install base is larger. But unless AOL plans to abandon its Mac offering altogether, Mozilla is not going anywhere.
Um. As someone who actually works on developing the browser in question, I'd much appreciate it if you did not make inflammatory statements and make them sound like they are made in my name and the names of my colleagues.
> I think that a couple of false allegations are a > small price to pay to save even one child from > such horrors.
Given that such false allegations have a strong tendency to destroy people's lives, it's pretty debatable what false-allegation-to-saved-child ratio is still acceptable... Some hard numbers on what "a couple" means here would be nice.
> It shows you a list of all the prefs you can > control
Actually, it shows a list of all the prefs that have a value set. Which is not the same thing at all -- there are a lot more prefs that you can control than there are prefs that have a value set by default.
A Lie group is a set that has a multiplication operation defined on it (giving it a group structure) and has a topology defined on it (giving it a manifold structure) in such a way that multiplication is a continuous operation (so if y is close to x, then z*y is close to z*x for all z). For example, the unit circle in the complex plain, with the usual multiplication operation is a Lie group, with the topology being just the induced topology from the metric on the complex numbers (so two points on the circle are "close" to each other if they are "close" to each other in the plane in the usual sense).
A simple example of an algebraic variety is the complex plane itself. In general, an algebraic variety is something that locally looks like the set of zeros of some function ring, with some global compatibility conditions.
A function is "holomorphic" at a point in complex n-dimensional space if there is a neighborhood (think "little disk") around the point in which the function can be written as a power series (so it has a Taylor expansion around that point). Non-holomorphic means that no such expansion exists; for example the function f(z) = |z|^2 on the complex plane is not holomorphic.
Being 3/4 of a way through an engineering degree is not likely to help much, here. Algebraic varieties typically do not make an appearance in people's educations until they get to graduate school in mathematics; the other two concepts may appear in upper level physics or mathematics classes, but are of almost no use in engineering.
This is all DOM, not Javascript. As in, you have a document object, some properties on it, form objects, element objects, reflected into JS. The actual syntax is JS. But the fact that document.forms["formName"] is the way you get a form is DOM, not JS. All the JS is doing is getting the "formName" property of the object that was returned when you got the "forms" property of the "document" object.
So my conclusion is that you have never done any real programming in JS as a general-purpose language, instead of just using it as an interface to a browser DOM.
> Indeed, what is the point of hardcopy computer > books?
The ability to read them away from a computer and useful indexes (which no electronic book I have seen has -- they all rely on the generally poor searchability of the text).
> "never toss a dwarf", "second lunch" , etc. I > don't remember reading these lines.
The first one never appears in quite that form, though it's there in a slightly more extended version. The second one is in the book nearly verbatim on a few occasions.
> And here's a crazy idea - let's make a love > triangle with Eowyn
You mean like the love triangle in the book? It's not as pronounced in the book, but definitely there....
> also presuming that NK fired first and acheived > surprise.
Even if South Korea fired first, Seoul would still be gone. Current estimates are that it would take South Korean and US forces on the order of 24 hours, with heavy bomber support, to eliminate the North Korean artillery.
For Mozilla, code + data is on the order of 20MB. I'd be surprised if more than 15MB of that is code -- the encoding conversion tables and the printing tables are huge.
> And honestly, don't you think it's a tad > agressive to accept a law condoning an invasion > in a allied country?
No. The #1 job of the government of the United States is to represent its citizens to the world at large and to provide for collective benefits to those citizens. This is why governments get established.
In particular, the government of the United States should strive to the utmost to protect those of its citizens who may be visiting other countries. This is one historical reasons why consulates are considered the territory of the country being represented -- it gives nationals of that country a safe place in a foreign land.
In this particular case, the U.S. government is protecting its citizens from seizure and imprisonment by others. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The only question is how said protection is to be effected. I suppose we could threaten trade sanctions instead, but then if someone _did_ get imprisoned by this court we'd have to actually implement those sanctions. Which would be a great burden. The threat of war is much more effective in this case, since there is a _much_ lower probability that it will actually have to be acted on (people are a lot more wary of being invaded than they are of threatened trade sanctions).
Other than those two options (trade sanctions and warfare), the U.S. has no real way to influence another sovereign nation (all of diplomacy centers on two things: "Do we keep trading, and how?" and "Do we have a war over this?").
Slashdot Mirror
khtml is a rendering engine. Mozilla is an application. Porting gecko (the khtml equivalent in Mozilla) and porting kthml are about equally difficult. Possibly easier for gecko, which is designed from the ground up to be easily portable.
If you want to compare porting Mozilla to something, you'd have to compare it to porting all of the KDE widget set _plus_ khtml.
MIT owns and operates a nuclear reactor, particle accelerator, wind tunnels, numerous chemistry labs, laser research facilities, and BL3 (biohazard level 3) facilities, with BL4 facilities being added (BL4 is the second-highest level; the highest, BL5, is "airborne with near-100% fatality rate" -- almost nothing like that around. BL4 is where things like HIV and Ebola live).
I suspect their insurance rates are already quite exorbitant.
Just as a clarification, though few HPUX users exist, one of them has been volunteering to keep the HPUX port going..
> Would it really be that hard to merge in all the
> improvements that have been made since then and
> release 1.4 for OS9?
In a word, yes. We spent months looking for someone or some group willing to maintain the OS9 version with its separate build system and such, and no one was up to doing it.
It'd take a few weeks of work for someone who really knows what he's doing to merge in the changes at this point and then fix up all the resulting build system issues.
You can get selection ranges out of a text control with a 1.4 rc1 build...
> An easy fix to the bug would be to not change
> filenames at all when transferring them from
> server to client
Unfortunately, that opens up a remote-execution-of-arbitrary-code vulnerability on the Windows operating system (all 32-bit versions of Windows). Which is why Mozilla only mucks with the extension on Windows.
So the current behavior is here to stay until someone with access to a Windows system has the time to write lots of code to work around this OS-level problem.
Up until David Baron was hired by Netscape (last month or so), I'd say something like 70-80% of core gecko development was being done outside of Netscape. At this point, it may be more like 50-50.
Mozilla has been shipping with the Mac OSX version of AOL for something around a year now. Yes, the AOL/Windows install base is larger. But unless AOL plans to abandon its Mac offering altogether, Mozilla is not going anywhere.
Um. As someone who actually works on developing the browser in question, I'd much appreciate it if you did not make inflammatory statements and make them sound like they are made in my name and the names of my colleagues.
Thank you.
> I think that a couple of false allegations are a
> small price to pay to save even one child from
> such horrors.
Given that such false allegations have a strong tendency to destroy people's lives, it's pretty debatable what false-allegation-to-saved-child ratio is still acceptable... Some hard numbers on what "a couple" means here would be nice.
> It shows you a list of all the prefs you can
> control
Actually, it shows a list of all the prefs that have a value set. Which is not the same thing at all -- there are a lot more prefs that you can control than there are prefs that have a value set by default.
> Stick to your piece of shit IE. We definitly don't
> want people like you to begin with.
Who is this "we" you speak of? I don't see any checkins to Mozilla Firebird from any CVS account that has any resemblance to your username....
A Lie group is a set that has a multiplication operation defined on it (giving it a group structure) and has a topology defined on it (giving it a manifold structure) in such a way that multiplication is a continuous operation (so if y is close to x, then z*y is close to z*x for all z). For example, the unit circle in the complex plain, with the usual multiplication operation is a Lie group, with the topology being just the induced topology from the metric on the complex numbers (so two points on the circle are "close" to each other if they are "close" to each other in the plane in the usual sense).
A simple example of an algebraic variety is the complex plane itself. In general, an algebraic variety is something that locally looks like the set of zeros of some function ring, with some global compatibility conditions.
A function is "holomorphic" at a point in complex n-dimensional space if there is a neighborhood (think "little disk") around the point in which the function can be written as a power series (so it has a Taylor expansion around that point). Non-holomorphic means that no such expansion exists; for example the function f(z) = |z|^2 on the complex plane is not holomorphic.
Being 3/4 of a way through an engineering degree is not likely to help much, here. Algebraic varieties typically do not make an appearance in people's educations until they get to graduate school in mathematics; the other two concepts may appear in upper level physics or mathematics classes, but are of almost no use in engineering.
This is all DOM, not Javascript. As in, you have a document object, some properties on it, form objects, element objects, reflected into JS. The actual syntax is JS. But the fact that document.forms["formName"] is the way you get a form is DOM, not JS. All the JS is doing is getting the "formName" property of the object that was returned when you got the "forms" property of the "document" object.
So my conclusion is that you have never done any real programming in JS as a general-purpose language, instead of just using it as an interface to a browser DOM.
> Indeed, what is the point of hardcopy computer
> books?
The ability to read them away from a computer and useful indexes (which no electronic book I have seen has -- they all rely on the generally poor searchability of the text).
> "never toss a dwarf", "second lunch" , etc. I
> don't remember reading these lines.
The first one never appears in quite that form, though it's there in a slightly more extended version. The second one is in the book nearly verbatim on a few occasions.
> And here's a crazy idea - let's make a love
> triangle with Eowyn
You mean like the love triangle in the book? It's not as pronounced in the book, but definitely there....
> Opera is available for Windows, Linux, FreeBSD,
> Solaris, Symbian OS, Mac, and so on. It is even
> available for QNX.
Mozilla is available on all of those except Symbian OS, plus OS/2, BeOS, HP-UX, VMS, IRIX at the very least.
So in fact Mozilla is available for more platforms.
Mozilla uses arena allocation in almost all allocation-heavy parts of the code, as a matter of fact.
That explains all the flyers on campus lately....
> also presuming that NK fired first and acheived
> surprise.
Even if South Korea fired first, Seoul would still be gone. Current estimates are that it would take South Korean and US forces on the order of 24 hours, with heavy bomber support, to eliminate the North Korean artillery.
> or were simulating 64 bit integer math
You mean like any program that needs to do dates/times for either a bigger range than 1901-2038 or at better resolution than 1 second?
For example, every single web browser (times in JS are precise to milliseconds).
> What about Mozilla?
For Mozilla, code + data is on the order of 20MB. I'd be surprised if more than 15MB of that is code -- the encoding conversion tables and the printing tables are huge.
This is why I highly recommend NOT running the Java plugin -- it's crashy.
> And honestly, don't you think it's a tad
> agressive to accept a law condoning an invasion
> in a allied country?
No. The #1 job of the government of the United States is to represent its citizens to the world at large and to provide for collective benefits to those citizens. This is why governments get established.
In particular, the government of the United States should strive to the utmost to protect those of its citizens who may be visiting other countries. This is one historical reasons why consulates are considered the territory of the country being represented -- it gives nationals of that country a safe place in a foreign land.
In this particular case, the U.S. government is protecting its citizens from seizure and imprisonment by others. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The only question is how said protection is to be effected. I suppose we could threaten trade sanctions instead, but then if someone _did_ get imprisoned by this court we'd have to actually implement those sanctions. Which would be a great burden. The threat of war is much more effective in this case, since there is a _much_ lower probability that it will actually have to be acted on (people are a lot more wary of being invaded than they are of threatened trade sanctions).
Other than those two options (trade sanctions and warfare), the U.S. has no real way to influence another sovereign nation (all of diplomacy centers on two things: "Do we keep trading, and how?" and "Do we have a war over this?").
And a lot of Germans and Japanese would prefer they stay there, so that they don't have to spend as much money on their own military....