NetSurf OS3.x Issues

[utri007]

Oldsmobile_Mike : Prety much every link you gave is about Chris trying to port Netsurf to OS3.x. It is not even near to be useable, though it had some promising features already. It doesn't lock Computer, it has a real gui, it requires quite few memory, uses standard system libraries, etc. It is not publicly availlable.

Acill has tried most likely Arthur's version wich can be downloaded from aminet it uses SDL and is based to debugging/no gui version of Netsurf.

It is not usefull, you can load maybe one or two page before it crash.

[utri007]

Have you created new version to test?

[utri007]

-

[utri007]

Not really sure what to advise here, but Arti's port of Netsurf works fine for me. By far and away the best browser for 68k amigas.
Chris's version is thus far next to unusable, but hopefully one day usability will be up to that of Arti's version.

Chances are you'll hear a bunch of crap about "sdl framebuffer, non-gui, debug, etc." while enquiring about 68k Netsurf. Ignore it. It'll come from Chris, who obviously is going to promote his own version, and from other people who don't really understand what theyre talking about parroting him. Ask said people what those terms even mean, or how they influence (or not) things and they wont be able to answer you (sans Chris, who understands, but twists and contorts truths so as to promote his own version), but give it a little time and they'll be parroting again  :-)

All in all though it's not a very good browser anyway compared to pretty much everything out there, but if you want a no frills, basic browser that renders partway correctly it's ok. Don't expect to be able to do even simple stuff like uploading images though. A complete lack of javascript makes these things nigh on impossible. Even 68k OWB is more capable.

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 requies 4x ram compared to Netsurf (11mb).

[utri007]

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.

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.

[utri007]

wawrzon: Just wondering, did you misread with purpose, wich would make you just one bully? Or didn't you just pay attention, I did say "don't have and WOUN'T HAVE". Programmer job can be to add features, but changes are evaluated and then added to orginal source.

Point was to point out that IF Chris get his version to useable state, implementing new version would ideally take about 30 min. Arthurs version cannot be build againts original source tree.

What happens if(when) Arti lost his interest to Netsurf? Who want to take over a custom Project? Without a help of original Project? Arthur has already invented his own version numbers to it?

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.

Was this sarcasm? What was point? Nova's 8bit support is adapted to SDL source tree? Or somebody has took over Project and is maintaing it?

What are hacks what Arti has made to his version Netsurf:

Resizeable screen
Menus
GUI (some sort of)

Chris needs a help from somebody who is experienced 68k coder. Addvertaising that might help him and in the end we could get useable web browser, wich has a future.

[utri007]

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

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.

[utri007]

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.

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?

[utri007]

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.

[utri007]

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?

[utri007]

Sorry if you feel like I'm making demands, purpose is discussing this. But I'm happy to tell that I'm not a position to make demans, so don't worry, now you can be sure.

I'm not talking about Chris's version, I talk about Netsurf in general. Chris has proven memory usage and CPU requirements. Arti has proven speed.

My example was poor, sorry that. Point was that nobody shouldn't wait that general web browsin would be possible 68k amiga, with currently excisting hardware.

To get participants for boynty, requirements should be considered carefully, so that it would interest as many as possible. CPU 68040 is realistic minium target cpu, so is 16mb ram to at least start (not use), OS3.1 should be possible, if it is done with MUI gui.

030 wich most real Amiga users have, is not just possible to achive.

I use Netsurf a lot, downloading files with it works nicely. It even has same feature as iBrowse, I can close browser and downloading continues in background, until file is downloaded.

If deadwood proofs that those are possible with OWB, it is OK. But I do know that current OWB for 68k requires quite lot memory. 45-60mb? you propably know this better. So just wondering why waist time with it, if there is more likely solution?

[utri007]

I could loan machine to you? Maybe you could find motivation that way?

[utri007]

How ELinks work with downloading? I would like to get some information how it performs. Is it so that these days, text only web browsing has a problems, when most of buttons are  images, they would have to have a atl= tag, if not they show up only as a empty space?. It doesn't download images at all?

Sounds reasonable.

Yeah, I knew I had the spelling wrong, just couldn't recall what it was, so I took a stab in the dark :-)
Anyway, I'd meant Elinks. Which I see now checking the site appears not to have been updated for about 3 years. Not uncommon for a projects website to go unmaintained though while there's activity in its source repository.

As for sharing what I've done, there's really nothing much to share. I just looked through my source code archive on my computer looking for something interesting to port to os3.x/aros. It seems nicely portable and thus far its mostly been getting my dev env up to scratch to get it to build. Having said that though I actually looked at this a few years ago, so there's a chance I'd already started the process back then and forgot (my dev env is full of assorted libs and headers Ive added over the years). Things may not have gone so smoothly on a "clean" (if there's such a thing) os3.x gcc+bin utils setup.

Anyway, Im having fun with this, so I'll release stuff as I go along. If people decide its worth a few dollars in donations here and there then that's just a bonus.

I get distracted easily, so lord knows how far I'll take this, but it's sort of surprising no-one ever attacked the 68k browser problem from the "bare bones start, add stuff as needed/wanted" type angle before.

[utri007]

The dev one sucks no matter what.  I can onlg get Chris version working on 32 bit screen modes. 24,  8 or 16 looks like yours Mike.

For me seems that you confuse Chris ja Artis's versions.

Chris version "works" with 8bit, 15bit, 16bit and 24bit screens. In other words as a minium it requires AGA Amiga.

[utri007]

OK I made some testing!

First I made those changes to choises file wich Chris sugggested. Performance increase was unbelievable!

friend_bitmap:1
window_simple_refresh:1
redraw_tile_size_x:100
redraw_tile_size_y:100
use_diskfont:1
font_sans:Topaz
font_serif:Topaz
font_mono:Topaz
font_cursive:Topaz
font_fantasy:Topaz

Noticed that both amigaworld.net and wikipedia.com renders correctly? What is happened? I opened wikipedia after amigaworld, no ghost images any more. No Graphics corruption at all?? Would it be that true type fonts made those graphic corruptions?? Or I don't remeber what you said about this friend_bitmap:1  was it originally only for AGA machine? Or is it just a amiga.org wich causes a problems, this time I didn't test amiga.org at all.

If you trust that Netsurf own clock amigaworld.net opens now 22 seconds, compared to arthurs version from aminet.net it took 38 seconds to render amigaworld.net. At least it feels much much more faster now. Arthur's version also corrupted screen when resizing window and eventually crash machine. Locks Computer for tens of seconds, compared to Chris version wich doesn't or does for a second for time to time.

Scrolling work nicely without true type fonts with Chris version

Tested Arthurs version was ixemul / no true type fonts version. Clib2 version didn't start at all.

Arthurs version also consumes more than 10mb more memory.

I also made fast test with my AGA / 68040 machine, even with that machine amigaworld.net opens 34 seconds. It even has 8mb ram free from 34mb after that (1.5mb chip and  7.2mb fast). Tried to made tests with Arthur's AGA version, but it crash machine after it renders start page.

So Chris, would you be kind and continue work with this, it is already useable. Considering that it has NONE optimications, wondering how fast it could be?

Notice one little annoying feature. I mistyped address, it took minits to timeout.