Why porting Mozilla to Amiga??

[greenboy]

Yes, Bill Panagouleas and I have been talking about the project since the first mention of it in public. I brought my ideas about getting involved to Bill and Raquel's attention around the 19th of last month. We had a long discussion about it, as above, and talked about better funding and guidelines.

After presenting these guidelines to Bill P, which were to ensure that all the PPC OSes MorphOS, AROS, and AmigaOS would be targeted and in the hope that good project management and development stategies  would begin to take shape, Bill agreed on the 22nd that should we participate those stipulations were indeed acceptable and desirable.

Now we are waiting to see a higher level of activity in what teams and individuals propose, with an eye on feasibility, research, non-partisanship, and with some semblance of being able to proceed with well-organized project management.

We think the availability of a recognized cross-OS, cross-platform browser has the benefit of familiarity for people from other communities as well as supplying essential browser features and higher website compatibility. It would also be nice to see people within the community sharing the effort and the potential benefits.

[ronybeck]

Konqueror It is far from quick.  It has trouble with  Bnaking websites ( www.westpac.com.au is a night mare and it works fine in mozilla and Internet Explorer ).  It certainly doesn't have the user base that mozilla has.

It's getting better - you don't need the QT library at all to make KHTML work, just like Apple don't use QT in their Safari browser, but you need some GUI library to display the pages

I never said it did.

Apple wrong about their decision do adopt KHTML instead of Mozilla/Gecko?

I don't use mac so I don't care.  Beside, Apple has enough resources to make it work well.  Amiga doesn't.  Don't get disapointed if they ever do port itand it turns out to be crap.

(I can't really call the XUL think a good GUI, sorry)..............Go do some checking how many apps are based on QT and how many apps are based on Mozilla's XUL engine, then come back

Again I don't care.  I didn't argue anything about QT aside from what it's purpose is.  Some one asked and I answered.  How about you go look and find out or do what ever it is your on about.  :-D

 ....by porting mozilla - you're porting a browser, and not much more......

Wrong!  Mozilla comes with an email and chat client as well.  You need to port the Gecko engine which could be used for much more than just a web browser.  An email client might use it to deal with HTML content in emails for example.   Perhaps you should now go and do some checking :-D

The Gecko engine has come a long way since the early days.  It was exceptionally slow to begin with but it has been refinded a lot since then.

[trgse]

Stop spreading FUD

Qt is NOT FREE!!!!!!!
it's Source is NOT FREEE!!!!!

the only system's where it is available (for endusers) is where the Qt Programmers have ported it themselves!!!!!!

Apple went to all the trouble of removing Qt from KTHML, why? figure it out ####head.

as for you not getting mozilla fast it's no wonder you can't do that... you have the IQ of sewer rat, if you can't setup windows correctly, then DON'T USE IT!!!!!!!

####ing moron.

[Pyromania]

Well said bbrv

[greenboy]

Ah, I see the respect for proper research is being firmly reinforced - and the cooperative team spirit most earnestly being explored here, as we speak! Truly serendipitous! And so reassuring: it becomes immediately apparent that an ambitious and taxing community project will indeed succeed ; }

[bhoggett]

@trgse

Stop spreading FUD

Qt is NOT FREE!!!!!!!
it's Source is NOT FREEE!!!!!

Then what is this?

Amazing how ignorant some people can be, and how insulting they are to those who don't share their ignorance.

The source for Qt/X11 is free under the GPL. Anybody, including Apple, can make a port of it to any platform starting from that basis, as long as the port is also released under the GPL.

@all: back on-topic

Actually, Mozilla is quite slow, and even Firebird (formerly Phoenix) doesn't exactly fly. However, I'd put it somewhere in the IE speed class unless you have seriously misconfigured something.

Browsers like Opera and Konqueror are actually faster, but not as complete. I still have to switch to Mozilla to properly view or access a number of sites because Konqueror and Opera can't do the job properly.

As for Amiga browsers? With all due respect to the developers who I am sure are both competent and hard-working, the fact remains that Amiga browsers are somewhere near the bottom of the pile, only worth using when there is no alternative.

Mozilla for Amiga? Well, if people want to do it, why not? Even for 68k, it should be able to run fine on emulated systems, be that MOS, AOS4, UAE or Amithlon, and porting it to PPC from there should be relatively easy.

As for the Qt/GTK/XUL debate, that's a different issue. Of course it would benefit any OS to have Qt and/or GTK+ ported to it, as that would open up the porting of many quality apps, but I don'tt see why this should be a major consideration in deciding which browser to port.

While Mozilla may be slowest of the options for porting, it also happens to be the most complete.

@bbrv

The Opera guys are not the naive big-headed teenagers you make them out to be. They simply play in a bigger league than you do, so things like MorphOS are too insignificant to register with them. If you don't like the price move on, but stop making derisory comments about anyone you can't do a deal with.  

[greenboy]

but stop making derisory comments about anyone you can't do a deal with

Yes. It would be nice if we ALL could live with similar ideals intact. And never be thinking similar credos should only apply to OTHERS ; }

[Rodney]

@ bhoggett

Could you be more precise when you say its slow? Are you refering to load time, render time, UI slowness?

Loading time is deffinatly an issue, but one that your not prolly not ever going to solve, as for the reason i have previously suggested.

I dont know any render slowness or UI slowness (appart from the earlier version of mozilla). Once Firebird is up and running, i think its great. I used pheonix on a P2 233 and i took maybe 20-30 seconds to load, but i love it so much that its worth a 20-30 second wait.

The only browsers your gunna get that load fast on an Amiga are those that use the intuition libraries and other amiga libraries needed to make a browser.

Opera will use its own libraries, but it will load fast because being the fastest browser is its main aim. That is, standards compliance is a second goal compared to speed.

Mozilla may be slow, but its Open Source, which means its going to be around for a long long time. Also, its only slow whilst loading the program, there after, i dont think it could be better.

And if you didnt want anything but a browser, just give the money to AWEB, but i dont believe giving them the money will get their product out the door any faster, so theres no advantage.

Basicaly, mozilla is a good choice, for those reasons, and for the other reason is your getting more than a browser, and i think that is really important.

Although if you had to do it without the extra mozilla stuff then you'd have to rip out gecko and use the Amiga libraries to interface with Gecko. That way, you get your standards compliant browser, but with the speed you want. Im my opinion, if your not going to go the whole mozzila hog, then thats your other best option!!!!

[bhoggett]

@Rodney

Could you be more precise when you say its slow? Are you refering to load time, render time, UI slowness?

Load time is the worst culprit, as you say. However, even the rendering time and UI fail to give a feeling of "zip".

Firebird does help somewhat with the loading time, as it's Mozilla minus the non-browser rubbish (e-mail and news client, HTML editor, etc). However, unless your system is at the lower end of the scale, actual performance when browsing is pretty much the same. (on lower end systems there will be a difference, as Firebird has a smaller resource footprint).

Note I'm not saying Gecko is a particularly slow performer, but it isn't the fastest either. Galeon performs similarly on my Linux installation to Mozilla or Firebird in actual browing.

By comparison, Opera absolutely flies and even Konqueror feels snappier.

I don't mean this as a slur on Mozilla. I still use it or Firebird by preference on my Windows system, and Galeon on Linux.

If you could match Mozilla's compatibility with Opera's performance, you'd be on to a winner!  :-D

[Tomas]

Right now i am running KDE+mozilla in remote window using Xmanager client.. The server is a amd k6/2 450mhz, 64MB of ram running debian 3.0 over a 100mbit network.. How come its still faster than IE here?? I am even using mozilla 1.0.0....
:-D  :-P  :-P


You people who complain about the speed, must have really poorly configured systems...

[bbrv]

Hey Bill...

@bbrv

The Opera guys are not anyone you can't do a deal with.  

What is your excuse?  We spoke to them.  Have you ever?  What have you ever done by the way, Mr. Self-Righteous, self appointed seer of all things?  Grumpy old man!  Bah!

BTW, if we did not mention it iBrowse was the #1 Amiga Browser on the Slashdot/OSNews day.

R&B :-)

[KennyR]

Not the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to legality, are you trgse?

[KennyR]

On my 850MHz Duron notebook, it takes just 10 seconds to start up Phoenix (now Firebird) and display my homepage (fetched from remote server via DSL). That's not too shabby, I'd say. Even with IE's being partly loaded already, it takes 9 seconds just to open and display an empty window on the same machine.

Ten seconds is an age, especially when you're just clicking on something on IRC for general interest. My system boots faster than that. IMO a browser taken 10 seconds to load on a UDMA drive with a 850MHz CPU powering it is unforgivable for "just" a browser.

I guess my definition of slow is just different from all the Linux and Windows users in here. How you have the patience for it all I can't guess. Even my 040/25 felt a sharper machine to use.

[greenboy]

KennyR,

Truth be told I'd rather see the fastest and most fully compliant browser available free and with a T-shirt too, for all these platforms - available last year.

...Failing that, I'd like to see progress and choice, and maybe spur the native browsers forward as well ;  }

[bhoggett]

@bbrv

All I'm saying is that if you are incapable of showing respect to others then you shouldn't expect any yourself, and if you happen to represent a company and product too, then they will be tarred with the same brush you are.

Since you always threat anyone who doesn't agree with you as an ignorant moron, why should anyone show any respect to you, unless they feel indebted to you for your generosity?

Not everyone's principles are for sale, so if you act like a spoilt child I reserve the right to say so, no matter what level of superiority you think your "achievemnts" have earned you.


The Opera people make their money from advertising or selling registrations. This is how development for their product is supported. The number of MorphOS users is so tiny that neither advertising not registration would make it worth developing and supporting a port. If you don't like the price they quote you, go and write your own or buy someone elses. It's very simple, isn't it? Why do you have to deride everyone who doesn't do business with you?

 :-(

[Hammer]

KennyR wrote:

On my 850MHz Duron notebook, it takes just 10 seconds to start up Phoenix (now Firebird) and display my homepage (fetched from remote server via DSL). That's not too shabby, I'd say. Even with IE's being partly loaded already, it takes 9 seconds just to open and display an empty window on the same machine.

Ten seconds is an age, especially when you're just clicking on something on IRC for general interest. My system boots faster than that. IMO a browser taken 10 seconds to load on a UDMA drive with a 850MHz CPU powering it is unforgivable for "just" a browser.

I guess my definition of slow is just different from all the Linux and Windows users in here. How you have the patience for it all I can't guess. Even my 040/25 felt a sharper machine to use.

In my test X86 PC**, Mozila V1.3 takes about 1.5 seconds to load.

Such as system is powered by a Seagate 80Gb 7200 RPM (yields about ~55Mb/s from aHead’s NeoBurn5’s hard drive test) and Microsoft’s UDMA IDE drivers. The motherboard is ASUS nForce II 400 Ultra based (it’s faster on nVidia specific UDMA IDE drivers, but that’s another issue).

I.E 6.0.2600 loads about similar time as with Mozila V1.3. This is on Windows XP Pro-SP1 with all display frills turned on. Hard drive’s throughput speed, IDE drivers and available physical RAM does play critical role.

Mozilla 1.3 is only ~25Mb. Ideally, with a 55Mb/s hard drive the system should be able to load Mozilla about ~0.5 of a second. My test machine load it at ~1.5 seconds due to overheads (e.g. Windows, seek times, network connection checking and 'etc'). A 10-seconds load time is ‘slow’ for an UDMA Hard disk.

At the moment, I don’t have access to KT133A/VIA 686B (MSI built) equipped PCs.  Maybe later.... It can reach ~40Mb/s in a similar NeoBurn test hard disk speed conditions (using an older Seagate 7200 RPM 40Gb drive)).

I’ll probably test Mozilla’s load speed on a Pentium II 400Mhz with 3.2Gb hard disk and 192Mb RAM(loaded with WinXP) (Later, IF I have the time).