NetSurf OS3.x Issues

[wawrzon]

I have my doupts that Chris version woun't ever materialize to working version for 68k Amigas.

Arti's version is a hack, he has took a version of Netsurf wich hasn't meant to be used like that. He has made a huge job to make it work like it does now.  It will always require two diffrent version for AGA and RTG. AGA version on based to Novacoder's SDL AGA, wich himself is descripted as "quick dirty hack". SDL doesn't support 8 bit screens.

I really hope that Arti get his version to work useable state, but compared to work he has took it doesn't look good. He need to rewrite quite much code, to get it useable.

Another thing is how usefull it will be? For me it just to possibility to download files occasionaly, without need to use anther Computer. Netsurf works well with that. General web browsing woun't be possible ever with real 68k Amigas. Maybe FPGA accelerators will change that some day.

Current version of netsurf has a java script. Saying "Even OWB is more capable", is not fair. OWB is complete web browser. It woun't ever run useable state with real 68k Amigas, just to starting requires 4x ram compared to Netsurf (11mb).

while i dont agree with fishy about that chris is twisting truths, but rather simply accept his opinion as another point of view i partly agree but partly disagree with. the above post perfectly portrays what fishy is talking about, the mindless parroting.

it would be courious to hear in detail, what that awful "hacks" are, artur has introduced, illustrated with code quotations. what are the parts of code he has to "rewrite" and beyond all why chris version is not satisfactory as is if it is in so much better state, because last time i tried arturs version worked  that bad at least under uae.

now. what concerns progress, chris version doesnt seems to get there much faster than arturs one. in fact it seems to be on hold, while artur keeps delivering. would be good if those bragging so much about how bad chris version is and what needs to be done, would help either artur or chris, according to their insight.

what concerns me i might return to this subject as soon as my abilities improve, but being currently working on aros68k under deadwood guidance it may not be soon. on the other hand its possible that by then i can contribute better, so maybe its worth the wait.

also just in case, deadwood has proposed a bounty to port current odyssey to 68k, which has been given up due to no interest.

[wawrzon]

Hack = Add a feature to program wich original source doesn't have and woun't have.  SDL AGA is good example, Novacoder himself said it "quick dirty hack". There is no 8bit screen support in SDL and never will be.

so adding features to the source results in this being "hack" by definition? sounds like software development is one big hack altogether.

and adding 8bit paletted support is an example for that? then netsurf is not going to have this anyway, no matter the used backend, just because it would be a hack. what are you expecting then? move on.

Of course coder can take a opensource code and make a changes to it, make it "his own". But future updates are not that easy implement any more. I'm not a coder that true, but I work with coders and seen problems wich are made By making unsupported features to original opensource code.

i admit, i dont know what are these hacks, arti and nova have introduced, it also depends on what one considers to be conform. imho i wouldnt want to manage the browser build with devcpp, this already makes it hard to be maintainable and the opportunity to push changes upstream becomes unlikely if not completely remote.

from this perspective it would be certainly better to have a target platform and developer within the original source tree and not an unsupported fork, as chris proposes. but as it is the fork is working and chris target is not. and there is none to help with it, including you. so go figure.

[wawrzon]

OK then I don't remember correctly why Novacoder calt his SDL AGA a dirty hack

he may have said so, still he considered this hack to be worth to do, and the source is out in the open afair. on the contrary by your own definition, both odyssey and timberwolf are "hacks" because the code is not and cannot be included in the genuine repository upstream, and cannot be easily kept in sync with webkit or modzilla engines as you postulate.

Itix: Could you considering to help Chris? I do know that you don't have experience or interest with Reaction, but problem is elsewhere. Screen is not refreshed propely, etc.

Some years ago you said that you have considered to make 68k version of your netsurf MorphOS port.

itix helped me to get his old mui netsurf frontend to compile o certain extent (with zune) till i gave it up at least temporarily, since chris came up with his reaction port to amiga. maybe he can advise you if you start working on it yourself.

[wawrzon]

Why was reaction the choice? Because the OS4 version is using it? MUI seems like the best option now that both OS4, AOS and MOS all have a version on them.

because chris frontend was done for os4 and os4 native gui kit is considered to be reaction. itix, according to himself, has once rewritten chris frontend early version to mui, which would be a more portable solution, but this rewrite is outdated and the engine interfaces apparently doesnt fit it anymore. thats what i was intending to attempt to have an universal frontend target for all amiga-like systems.

[wawrzon]

MUI would be more adorable than reaction, no doubt for that. MUI would be also more future proof solution, as it is availlable for free and it is availlable for all platforms and also a OS3.0/1. If there were a boynty for Netsurf it should have MUI gui.  I would hapily participate.

Problem is if we collect some thousands money, would it help to find coder or or not?

you could have participated in discussion on aros-exec about odyssey port to 68k in order to establish a bounty. i think some word has been spred. currently there is no agreement what to do and also mui, even if available for free in one or another form is not open, so its absolutely not as future proof as you imply. but there is zune.

once im ready with what im doing now ill discuss with deadwood the possibility to include odyssey in aros contribs and e it compile for 68k and maybe work on it some day. but not now. especially i have too limited experience yet.

[wawrzon]

I, for one, would pay good money if everybody could just work together toward a good, 68k/3.9-compatible browser.

Doesn't look like I'll be spending that money any time soon!  

kay, so there is two of you, you may contact deadwood about the issue.there is a thread about the bounties on eab:

http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?p=1059700#post1059700

this is about aros68k, but the odyssey bounties were not neccesarily restricted to aros afair. though as there was not much interest its hard to determine, how the bounty aim would have been forumlated.

[wawrzon]

OWB is not a answer, at least I don't belive it would be useable with real Amigas. It would require emulator or FPGA accelerator with 256mb ram.

OWB takes about 45mb ram just to start? Netsurf requires 11mb. Target is not a general web browsing, it just wount be possible with current CPUs. I just want to have possiblity to do some  googling and most importan download files from web.

odyssey might not be usable for real amigas, thats true, but we dont know exactly until we try. one could fiddle with some constants or so and see if it makes a difference. people who have better insight into the source like deadwood, who as i know is sceptical about this, might tell more. however what i can say from my experience aros owb, which ai have been trying out on an amiga as well, has similar resource demands as netsurf.

[wawrzon]

It would need to be useable with OS3.1, 68040 and 32 mb ram.

Useable means something like this  : I know http://www address wich have a file, wich I want to download. I can do that even if web page takes some time to load/display.

Problem is that we already have a proof of consept for those, it is possible with Netsurf. Getting OWB to same level would require time and effort, result is not known?

im not sure if you are in a position to make demands. im not even sure the version of netsurf you advocate fulfils your own criteria any better than any other alternative, even treated as a proof of concept. certainly not as far as i have been able to test it.

this said i wish you luck to motivate anybody to do this work the way you want it to be done.

[wawrzon]

My NetSurf version compiled with clib2 also gets slower after couple of pages.
Ixemul and libnix versions works normal.

sounds like bernd has been right after all, that ixemul has the most effective memory allocator (afair for applications that frequently allocate and release small pieces of memory, probably anything more complex belongs in this category). good that at least libnix works fine. simply dont link against clib2, or what are the crucial advantages of this library?

[wawrzon]

Clib2 version uses less memory than ixemul and libnix,
loads pages faster at the begining. It is stable and debug uses amiga interface.
No external library needed.

what are actual memory requirements differences between these versions?
if the memory gets used faster with libnix version, then probably the advantage of clib comes at the cost of memory fragmentation, which may be much more a burden for a slow cpu while not noticeable on a faster one.

sounds as if the options are:
1. profile and eventually fix clib (i doubt there is anyone who could immediately do that)
2. use libnix (whats wrong with it, isnt it stable?)

[wawrzon]

@chris
correct, but this is unfortunate, since none will write a test case nor submit a bug report. all we can do is to bring it to olsen attention and ask his opinion, while in the meantime staying with libnix.

[wawrzon]

Artur's fork should not really be called NetSurf: https://listmaster.pepperfish.net/pipermail/netsurf-dev-netsurf-browser.org/2010-February/001739.html

chris, few things need to be mentioned. the post you have linked to is very old (six years by now) and i remember that artur was ready and has tried to sastisfy the demands of the developers, as you can judge from the content of this followup post:
https://listmaster.pepperfish.net/pipermail/netsurf-dev-netsurf-browser.org/2010-February/001742.html

i have not been following it but im certain, that if artur was categorically demanded to rename his fork he would do that. meanwhile he was supplying amiga community with a functional browser based on netsurf sdl frontend for years, while you only decided to put some effort into the 68k frontend (as official it might be) just few months ago and i doubt it is in a state to compete in terms of usability with what artur has delivered even by now.

i think its a little unfair to publicly demand of him to rename his port in this situation, as everybody currently associates netsurf on amiga with his work. artur has admired your work, and afair proposed cooperation. i dont know if it is practical or only words, even if from technical point of view it would be better to have unified effort, but the attitude towards him puts me off a little.

[wawrzon]

thx, chris. need to check out your version one of these days;)

[wawrzon]

as artur says it must be the problem with the library the core gets linked against, i really doubt its the fault with the choosen frontend. on aminet there is a simple tool to compare time spant in a particular library function, very easy to use. its called librarytimer. you only need a valid fd files for the library you want to observe. and of course rtfm.

[wawrzon]

that doesnt sound like a proper testing. first of all a number of factors need to be eliminated that may be related to other parts of the system, like network stack. how about storing some webpages locally on hd drive and trying to switch between them. does slowdown also occures? because it might be an amitcp bug, or a big in interaction with amitcp, but not particularly netsurf bug.

i still have an impression it is a memory allocation issue, and tha is what i would be obseving, but im a noob.