NetSurf 3.4 released!

[wawrzon]

edit:sorry, post in a wrong thread..

[utri007]

@utri

could you stop bashing arturs work on each and every occasion just because you are involved with another option? it really doesnt make one want to help with it.

No bashing, everything I said is true. You are too sensitive with this. Arthurs fork works very nicely with emulators.

I'm not involved Netsurf any way, my opinion is just what I have read and based experience with both versions. Even very early versions of Chirs port feels much more "amigish", than arthur's version. Arthur's version locks Computer for long time, wich hasn't happened ever with Chris version. With emulator Arthur's version fast as wind, no problems at all. Memory requirements of Arthur version are now decreased, wich is good, but it is still unuseable with 32mb ram. I could make a Chris version to start with 16mb ram, but it would be unuseable.

[wawrzon]

simply dont let it sound like a broken record.

[utri007]

simply dont let it sound like a broken record.

Problem is that there is certain confusion now and then, you have followed prety much every thread about this. Seems that Dandy is't.

[wawrzon]

you can simply tell him that it is a wrong version in this context and point him to the right one. isnt that enough?

[amiadudeorwat]

That's not the problem, I need a compiler which can build for WarpOS and have absolutely no idea how to set one up (and I really, really, don't want to have to set up a third build environment to do this - ie. I'd like my gcc to build both 68k and WarpOS code if possible).

The last, probably ancient compared to what you are using, version of GCC for WarpOS
http://aminet.net/package/dev/gcc/ppc-gcc-2.95.3-base

There are WarpOS compilers on that link for compiling on 68k or PPC.

[Dandy]

That's not my version.

O.K. - it's a  bit confusing with two different forks of Netsurf for Amiga.
May I suggest to rename both?

Chris's version could be called e.g. HW-NetSurf_v3.x_OS3.lha
and
Arthur's version could be called e.g. UAE-NetSurf_v3.x_OS3.lha.

"HW", as Chris's version is aimed at real Amiga Hardware, and "UAE" as Arthur's version is aimed at Emulators.

Both suggested filenames should necessarily include the actual version number of the build!

This way users could already see from the filename the targetted Amiga system, browser-name, actual version number and targetted OS version(s).

Which is the version number of the "New Version" linked by utri007 in his posting #8?

[Dandy]

No bashing, everything I said is true. ... I could make a Chris version to start with 16mb ram, but it would be unuseable.

@ utri007 & wawrzon:
Guys, please don't start a 'war' on this!
I think both forks have their right to exist.

But as I want a "modern" browser on my old, real Amiga hardware, I think Chris's Version is what I'm looking for.

[Dandy]

You need to rename those libraries. Remove _68060 from end.

Did that - my system no longer crashes partially when I try to start Arthur's Netsurf.

New version :

http://cy2.uk/netsurfos3
...

Already downloaded it. Will try to install tonight.

[chris]

O.K. - it's a  bit confusing with two different forks of Netsurf for Amiga.
May I suggest to rename both?

Actually there are three, as there's a version built for AmiCygnix too!

You'll find Artur's version is called NetSurf68k.

The main factor which tells them apart is the frontend. Artur's is "Framebuffer-SDL", mine is "Amiga", the AmiCygnix version is "gtk".  Once you've seen them all it's easy to tell which is which. Before then, read the readme files.

Which is the version number of the "New Version" linked by utri007 in his posting #8?

3.6dev. It's equivalent to CI build 3602, I think.
Once you have it running, "about:testament" will tell you exactly which Git commit it is built from (and by whom, and when)!

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Actually there are three, as there's a version built for AmiCygnix too!

You'll find Artur's version is called NetSurf68k.

The main factor which tells them apart is the frontend. Artur's is "Framebuffer-SDL", mine is "Amiga", the AmiCygnix version is "gtk".  Once you've seen them all it's easy to tell which is which. Before then, read the readme files.



3.6dev. It's equivalent to CI build 3602, I think.
Once you have it running, "about:testament" will tell you exactly which Git commit it is built from (and by whom, and when)!

LOL. Well that's about as clear as mud. :lol:

Kidding, kidding. But it's really challenging for anyone who's not already intimately familiar with all the different versions to make heads or tales of all this. I haven't had much time for playing around these past few months, but I know it felt like I downloaded about 30 different versions before I found one that worked on my A2000, back when I started playing around with this.

I'd go one step further. Put them all on one website, or on Aminet. Make it as "dumbed down" as possible. E.g.,

"Click here to download NetSurf for classic machines with a graphics card"
"Click here to download version for classic machines with AGA"
"Click here to download version for WinUAE"
"Click here to download version for OS4"
"Click here to download version for MOS"

Etc. Doesn't have to necessarily be in that order, just a clear differentiation between which version is for which system, lol. :p

[wawrzon]

Chris's version could be called e.g. HW-NetSurf_v3.x_OS3.lha
and
Arthur's version could be called e.g. UAE-NetSurf_v3.x_OS3.lha.

i doubt anyone will accept your proposal, especially that its based on imho incorrect information, that chris version is better suited for real amigas and arturs for uae. right, artur develops on uae and with uae in mind, but i have run his browser on an amiga too, including aga version.

right. it woukld be better to join the forces and have on e binary for all. even if i would prefer to build the gui against mui instead against reaction in this case.

so, have you got arturs netsurf running on your system, by now or what? i might check current version here on uae/aros68k, but usually it works out of the box.

then you can test chris his version, which is a bit more fiddling with as i remember. because it is still in experimental stadium. i cant test it here currently, since it isnt compatible with plain 3.1 plus class act and i dont have a 3.9 setup with me.

[chris]

I'd go one step further. Put them all on one website, or on Aminet.

http://aminet.net/search?name=netsurf&path=comm/www

I count two versions for 68k, although admittedly it's not immediately obvious what the difference is between them.
My test builds aren't on Aminet as I try to keep that for release versions (the latest there is 3.5, next one will be 3.6).

Also: http://www.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/ contains the *official* builds (no 68k versions on there yet)

I do understand the confusion and try to be very clear in my news articles about which version I'm refering to.

[Dandy]

Actually there are three, as there's a version built for AmiCygnix too!

Wow! Even more confusing...

You'll find Artur's version is called NetSurf68k.

That's most likely the reason why I confuse them all the time:

My Amiga System is both - 68k AND OS3.x (and furthermore PPC and OS4).

So - no matter what I read (NetSurf OS3 or NetSurf 68k) - I always think it is the right version for MY system (aside from OS4 Version)...

The main factor which tells them apart is the frontend. Artur's is "Framebuffer-SDL", mine is "Amiga", the AmiCygnix version is "gtk".  

I see. But excuse my ignorance - could you please explain to me what "Framebuffer-SDL" means in this regard?

Once you've seen them all it's easy to tell which is which. Before then, read the readme files.

For now I'd be happy to get one of them running...

3.6dev.

Arrgh - to top it all both versions (Arthur's and yours) have the same version number! The SDL version I tried to run is also 3.6 dev...

It's equivalent to CI build 3602, I think.
Once you have it running, "about:testament" will tell you exactly which Git commit it is built from (and by whom, and when)!

What does "CI build 3602" mean?

[chris]

I see. But excuse my ignorance - could you please explain to me what "Framebuffer-SDL" means in this regard?

Yes, it's the frontend.  NetSurf is split into the "core" - which is the bit which does all the layouting, fetching, etc - and the frontends - which are the OS-specific bits, so the GUI, rendering, input handling etc.

Framebuffer is a non-GUI interface, it basically just writes the browser direct to the screen.  All the fonts and graphical elements are built internally and the OS has little involvement.  Framebuffer has some other outputs built on top of it, so there's Linux Framebuffer (I assume this will run from a command-line without X, never tried it) and SDL (which uses the SDL libraries to create the display and handle input).

As you can see, the Framebuffer frontend isn't really designed for running on a multitasking windowed operating system.

Arrgh - to top it all both versions (Arthur's and yours) have the same version number! The SDL version I tried to run is also 3.6 dev...

Yes, it's NetSurf internal numbering
Anything between releases gets the next version+"Dev".
Release versions don't have the "Dev".
My versions also have a standard version string, so you can run "version" on them and see the build date (the version number there wil be 3.60006 I think)

Most people run the CI builds, which have the next version number plus their own numbering...

What does "CI build 3602" mean?

It's literally a sequential build number.  The auto-builder builds NetSurf after every commit, build number 3602 occured at around the time I manually built the current "3.6dev".

The version command there will show 3.3602 (which is why release versions are +.60000)

[Acill]

Great explanation Chris! Thank you for thanking the time to do that.