Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: legion on May 22, 2003, 03:14:28 AM
-
How much do you think is a fair amount to donate? I fully plan on using my A1 rig as my day to day computing, and mozilla would be a BIG step in that direction. Wasn't it DaveP that was working on a port some time ago? Also, how difficult is it going to be to port the java functionality over to OS4? :hammer: Also, I think it would be easier and more realistic to port just the Firebird browser codebase over instead of the whole thing, not?
Also, does it need to be called Amizilla :-? I know the naming convention is sort of tradition, but c'mon.. where is our creativity?
Here is my suggestion: We name it "Raptor." After all, its going to be running on a small, fast, sleek OS :-D
-
yes. firebird/phoenix is cool... using it right now under linux... Very quick browser.. :-D
-
All great ideas legion, you can donate any amount you want. To be a Amiga Top Zilla you would have to chip in more than what the three Top Zilla's have @ the time. Thanks for your interest in the project.
Best regards
Bill P.
-
Yes, to port firebird is a good idea. But i think we should wait untill, mozilla has steped up to the plate, in terms of its next big release. Mozilla as seen by most people is just a browser. Some people think its a little more, a mail client and composer. However Mozilla is much more than allt his. Its a platform. A platform for creating platform independent web friendly applications. If/When Mozilla is ported to AmigaOS we'll be able to run many more applications taht have been written for Mozilla. Firebird is just one of them. Soon, thunder bird (a standalone mail client based on mozilla) will be avaliable. Its pre .1 atm. However, Mozilla is still young, and most peoply prolly dont have a clue how much power this platform has. There for, i think porting should wait untill the next stage of mozillas future is firmly in place. This way we can take advantage of mozillas power and not just port a browser, but port a platform independed development environment. That way apps like Thunder bird will hardly even need a recompile. Most apps wont at all once you have the fondation down.
Thats also why i dont think the money should go towards other projects like iBrowse or Voyger... The money should only be for Mozilla (because i believe it gives us more than just a browser).
-
What you say makes a lot of sense Rodney.
-
heh.. linux.. bah :)
Well, they should team up with Ibrowse 2.3 developers. Thats a nice browser and for sure, its the fastest one!
Regards,
Michal
-
Voyager which has flash plugin is still buggy. Aweb and Ibrowse has no real plugin interface, so flash, java etc cannot be easliy attached.
I think the firebird would be a good choice to port, because It's much smaller than mozilla's original browser and it's developed for speed and to be cross-platform.
By the way. we need only a good browser! We have the best email client: Yam, the best IRC: amirc, so why do we need these mozilla components? :)
As I know there are a working java environment on AmigaOS, its only need to be attached to mozilla. And of course we need a flash plugin, and I would be very happy :)
It would attract more people to use AmigaOS. Of course we need other cool free applications ported (like Openoffice), but let's start with Mozilla :)
-
neongod wrote:
I think the firebird would be a good choice to port, because It's much smaller than mozilla's original browser and it's developed for speed and to be cross-platform.
Damn right :) Anyway, MozillaFirebird will be packaged with Mozilla with releases > 1.4. That is MozillaFirebird will be Mozillas defualt browser... Thunderbird will also be packaged with Mozilla > 1.4.
-
Hi,
doesn't the GUI of mozilla rely on a cross-plattform gui environment, I forgott the name.
Maybe someone should port this first, maybe as a ClassAction-wrapper...
-
Do you mean XUL?
-
alx wrote:
Do you mean XUL?
Yes I think. could be cool to design user interfaces for coustom programs with some xul commands...
Or does the gecko engine render the gui as well?
-
DaveP says he's got it "kind of working" with ReAction but that noone was willing to continue the project. How about putting that source code on the page for download? This would probably be a good start!
However, being the sceptic that I am, I don't think that a working and stable Mozilla port will ever become reality, at least not in a couple of years. I don't want to disrespect anyones efforts here, but just take a look at the AWeb Open Source project, nothing much has happened there (except that we finally have a free web browser on AmigaOS, which is good).
First of all, I think a 68k port would be useless. Mozilla is dog slow on a PII 333MHz/256MB RAM both on Windows and on Linux. A PPC port would be the way to go, which clearly narrows down the number of developers able to participate in the project. Then we have the issue of operating systems. A port for OS3.9 doesn't seem very clever with OS4 lurking around the corner. But when WILL OS4 be out? And when will there be developer documentation? Will the hardware to run OS4 be available for everyone (IE a cheap A1)?
Should it be ported to OS4/A1 or MorphOS/Pegasos? How compatible will these systems be? This will further narrow down the number of developers, probably splitting the dev team in half because of what platform they prefer (not taking a stand to which platform is "better" here, just that you have to make a choice on which version to work on).
But if I'm wrong, noone would be happier than me!
Edit: One more thing - I don't think money is an object here. At several occasions I have been asked to make web sites for friends and colleagues on my spare time. These projects would probably amount to no more than a week of work (or three weekends if you will) and I've been offered about $1000 for each project. However, I have NEVER accepted such a project just because I don't want to work on my spare time (coding on my own self-thought-up projects doesn't qualify as work). Since there's money involved here, the programmers will feel obliged (sp?) to produce something since every donor will want to see results, which would make it less of a hobby and more of a part-time job.
-
First of all, I think a 68k port would be useless. Mozilla is dog slow on a PII 333MHz/256MB RAM both on Windows and on Linux.
Ahhh, i used phoenix .5 on a P2 233 with 64M of ram. Its quite fast. The full mozilla build was a little slower, but a lot of the UI issue relating too speed and/or responsivness has been worked out. You'd know that if you ever used the M17->M18's or before that...
Maybe thats what your thinking about? Have you used Firebird yet? Do it :) its fantastic! I cant wait for Thunderbird, and i wounder what OEOne (mozilla based desktop) will do with the mozilla code when we hit 1.4+
very interesting.
Thats another thing. By porting Mozilla one coudl create a very interesting workbench replacement. :) Now that would be damn cool :).
-
let's just get the basic tables and text layout part working first before we start embarking on a workbench replacement project shall we!?
-
@Rodney
Yes, I've used Phoenix and I know it's faster. Still, I believe it's too slow for the 68k family and probably even for 603/604 CPUs. But that is beside my main point, which is that the porting of Gecko+GUI+possible extras is a MAJOR undertaking and even a working beta is probably years away.
-
the best IRC: amirc,
[color=CC0000]*BOLLOCKS*[/color][/b]
CheetaChat
Is by FAR The very best Chat client.
You obviously haven't seen (or used) it or you wouldn't have said that !!
I'd chip in £50 for someone to port Cheetachat over.
-
@The_Editor
CheetaChat is not an IRC client at all. It is a chat client, and it is really good--but it isn't an irc client.
Even if it had IRC capabilities, it has none of the basic features required to be a good IRC client--let alone compete against the feature set of AmIRC.
After all of that, I would still like to have CheetaChat on my Amiga or Pegasos. Because there is more chat than IRC ;-)
-
@ The_Editor, was it really necessary to write bollocks in big capital letters?
-
@ Targhan ... I sit corrected !! Although Voice chat & Web cams & File send (DSS ?) are incorporated in CheetaChat.
@ Lorddef ... ok ...sorry .. here ..* [color=CC0033]*BOLLOCKS*[/color][/b]
-
@ The_Editor. [color=FF3300]*INTELLIGENT*[/color]
-
Why ... "Thankyou" !!
:-D
-
wtf is cheetachat?
-
CheetaChat (http://www.cheetachat.net/)
Its the Dogz Danglies.
-
@The_Editor
wtf r u talking about?
Everyone know GAIM is the best multi-protocol chat client ever. It's multiplatorm as well. If someone ports GTK2 we could have it for Amiga's too.
http://gaim.sf.net (http://gaim.sf.net)
-
Gaim supports many features of the various networks, such as file transfer (coming soon),
Coming Soon ?
cheetaChats had it Donkeys long ago.
Messenger .. Ha Ha .. That crap thing .. cheetachats had that yonks ago to !!
Copy & Paste from Site.
Major Win Gaim bugs and Workarounds
BUGS?
Come back when you get it finished !!
No Webcam support ? Voice Chat ? Custom Avatars ? ....................
And of course .. If you want to become a *Paying* user of CheetaChat ...there's a damn site more on offer.
-
@ mdma
It's nice to see software from linux ported to amiga or other platforms, but one thing is inevitable: the inherited bloatware.
X-Windows and its widgets is not the GUI for amiga, nor for other platforms, but we have to port even part of them in order to run the graphic applications. I've recently installed X-Chat V2.x on XP and I get GTK errors very frequently, not to speak of the vanishing application (it's still very buggy, and it gets killed).
I think that it would be a resource-eater any port of linux apps, but since they don't exist any amiga-native apps, we have to endure...
________
Buy No2 Vaporizer (http://no2vaporizer.net)
-
The_Editor wrote:
Gaim supports many features of the various networks, such as file transfer (coming soon),
Coming Soon ?
cheetaChats had it Donkeys long ago.
Messenger .. Ha Ha .. That crap thing .. cheetachats had that yonks ago to !!
Copy & Paste from Site.
Major Win Gaim bugs and Workarounds
BUGS?
Come back when you get it finished !!
No Webcam support ? Voice Chat ? Custom Avatars ? ....................
And of course .. If you want to become a *Paying* user of CheetaChat ...there's a damn site more on offer.
So I take it you get the source for Cheetachat so you can modify it to suit your needs then? ;-)
-
X-Windows and its widgets is not the GUI for amiga, nor for other platforms
This is a common misconception about unix software. Just because GTK uses X on unix, doesn't mean that it has to use it on other platforms.
-
I couldnt code it if I could get the sources !!
:-D
-
Go go go go! I wan Mozilla on my Amiga! :-)
-
I've decided to volunteer my time, and this is the type of thing that I consider..how fast will it be...we don't have to guess how fast it will be, because Mozilla has already been ported to NetBSD/m68k (including the 1.4 release, unstable) and earlier versions of Moz to linux/m68k.
and yes, they are dog slow, but I will test it out, see exactly how slow, and whether or not 060 is enough horsepower..or whether it will only run acceptably on PowerPC or Amithlon. Actually, some people suggest, that earlier versions of mozilla were fast enough on an 040....after the .8 release but before the 1.4 release....that timeframe.
I still think 68k has to be the target, even if it won't run on any real 68k...for the reasons you mentioned, I am not going to buy an AmigaOne just to help with this project,a nd I don't think a lot of people own AmigaOne's...(yet)
so...I don't speak for the team of course, but just to let you know, one member of the team is considering these types of things. I expect that Mozilla will run on an 060 at bearable speeds, and since I expect more people will soon be using their amiga's via WinUAE, AF, Amithlon, OS 4, or MorphOS, than on an actual classic amiga, it probably won't be such a big issue....
someday, at least, it won't be such a big issue....as for how long it will take...I personally think the traditional porting route would take a very long time...I am looking into something along the lines of Tenon's mach ten 68k...again, this is just me..independently looking at it.
but I think that if not one thing, than another solution will present itself.
btw, I actually used aweb and browsed the internet with an amiga for 15 minutes earlier today....hadn't done that in 5 years...I am safely back using IE now...WOW..it was fun and nostalgic, and terrible all at the same time.
-
mdma wrote:
X-Windows and its widgets is not the GUI for amiga, nor for other platforms
This is a common misconception about unix software. Just because GTK uses X on unix, doesn't mean that it has to use it on other platforms.
that's true, GTK has a native port on Windows and BeOS, and one of the things we have talked about is GTK port to native Amiga. Though, that may not necessarily be required, I do know one thing....no one is talking about targetting the final version to x windows...(even though an x windows port was done by Holger Kruse..its just wouldn't feel like an amiga under x windows)
-
someone should post the donate article to slashdot or something... so maybe some programmers sees it.. Also might bring in some extra donations....
-
cant people just pay for what they get?
whats this donation rubbish!
-
How do you pay for something that is free?
-
Darth_X wrote:
How do you pay for something that is free?
i dont even know what this thread is about :-? :-P
-
this smacks of Aladdin Free License
one of my favorites
-
cycloid wrote:
let's just get the basic tables and text layout part working first before we start embarking on a workbench replacement project shall we!?
haha i wasnt implying anyone particular do it. Im just saying whats possible with the mozilla environment.
-
@ mdma
This is a common misconception about unix software. Just because GTK uses X on unix, doesn't mean that it has to use it on other platforms.
If you read carefully my post, you`ll notice that the problem isn`t the x-server: I want to install a ported application and I have to install an extra package(GTK) in order to make it run.
The point is that the ported apps, are so thightly binded to other packages that we have to port a lot of things. That means that we have to keep bloating the apps:
On Amiga or other OS`s, there are already native GUIs, as for the x-server GTK is a way to make usefull a graphic application on x-enviroment (in association with a window manager). The X-server by itself won`t let you even move windows on screen, exept from setting the x-y coordinates on an x-term!!!
It`s inevitable to do this, exept if there is a HERO who wants to re-event the wheel! Porting of apps that are based on this (GTK for example) will be easier and faster, but from the point of view of a simple user the obbligatory installation of GTK on my PC gave me only errors (unexpected) & distorted graphics (moving the x-chat window), things that never occured on X-chat 1.8, which had the graphics layout pretty much the same as X-Chat 2.x and I didn`t install the GTK.
For my 1.7GHz monster, speed is not an issue (not talking for the bugs i mentioned before, and which are inevitable on every program that is being under development) but if we start talking for Amiga, then the thing gets complicated. Take MUI for example : A nice GUI enhancement that give a lot of new features and is aesthetically much more attractive than the plain WB. But all these at a cost: speed & memory. This is acceptable because they have done a good work and everything was planed from bottom to top (the 68000 version as base), but if you have to port something that was developed and targeted for other machines and HAVE to base other apps on that (an extra load!) imagine what we`ll have to expect...
Practically now: I really don`t know what is your experience with real amiga (not speaking for UAE etc..) but I have installed unix apps on AmigaBSD: As MarkTime wrote, they are really slow! It`s not a fault, but more features more mem & CPU ;-)
To sum-up: Getting new apps designed for powerfull & high specs PCs, means an obbligatory migration to PPC or 68K-emulated on strong CPU else as i said before :
I think that it would be a resource-eater any port of linux apps, but since they don't exist any amiga-native apps, we have to endure...
________
HONDA CM250 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_CM250)
-
Could some one submit the AmiZilla story to /. please?
-
Project got a mention on mozillazine.org!
http://www.mozillazine.org/
Still no /. though
Bootie now @ $$$$ 3590!
Thank you CGGBG; Amiga Computer Group Gothenburg Sweden= $$ 500, A new Amiga Top Zilla
-
@cass
yes I didn't read your first post. I think I agree with a lot of what you say.
a lot of what makes a modern browser so neat, as you said, are those features it has....features like multithreading where the browser is doing a jillion things at once, and it doesn't block anything else, so that the user gets the
feeling of things being fast.
now we talk about Amiga OS being efficient,a nd it is....for what it does, but you get to writing a modern browser,and trying to launch everything that would be a lite thread in unix as a task under exec, and you quickly see, that its not so efficient for some things.
Then you are left with porting a lot, a whole architecture,...in some manner or another....the amizilla team and I may differ on some points...but in some way you can give yourself modern features...partially because those improvements in os design really were improvements and not just 'bloat' and partially because it makes the job of porting somewhat reasonable...i.e. its still a port and not a complete re-write.
I again have to caution everyone I don't speak for the team who may have somewhat different goals, but my goal would be to only get it as fast as it is under NetBSD/68k. And if that is dog slow, then it will be dog slow on a real amiga too. Now if someone wants to go beyond that and figure out how to make it real fast...well great but its a monumental undertaking to just get it far enough to run stably.
But if it runs acceptably on a fast pc using UAE, or Amithlon, or OS 4 or MorphOS, then that is a good thing...and if someone using an 060 gets a functional, yet slow, browser, then I think we have done a good thing and hit the target. The future is with future hardware.
-
I submited it to slashdot yesterday or the day before, but it didnt get posted... :} not everything gets posted... Maybe it was the way i worded it? maybe someone else could have a go?
-
Interestingly the Amiga community has already begun trolling and flaming mozillazine.org about whether OS4 is in beta stage or not, etc.
You gotta love this platform :-)
-
I just don't get people, why would they troll OS4? are they that afraid that Amiga might (and shall :-D) win over Microsoft? And why?
And if Amiga pulls it off to "win" from Microsoft, isn't that in the best interest of the consumer? Competition does lower prices *g*
-
@Krusher
I was mostly thinking of the bad reputation the Amiga community must be getting. Surely we have always been fanatics, bashing PCs, Microsoft, Atari, Macs etc. whenever we were given a chance - but that was fine, because that was back in the days when "everyone was doing it". Now look at us, fighting in our own camp for the whole world to watch, laugh and say "no wonder things are going so slow for them"...
-
Hunter Thompson could write something about this Amiga community. If he was drunk enough. And depressed enough. It would probably be a re-tread of the patented "and those are the GOOD ones" line though... ; }}}
-
@greenboy
Or "Too weird to live, too rare to die"
:-D
(Edit: OK, I got the double-o:s in the right place the third time... Man, my English is getting worse)
-
We have the best email client: Yam
I'd object to that - YAM doesn't have IMAP support yet, does it?
For someone running their domain's mailserver - I would say that IMAP is pretty darn important! (Especially after you have tried IMAP - then POP is very uninteresting).
So it would also be nice to see a port of Mozilla's mail client (and it has improved A LOT lately) ;-)