Project Timberwolf - Firefox for AmigaOS4.1

[Karlos]

As a developer, I think your opinion holds more weight, but, as I've said elsewhere, from a user perspective, they really bring down the parsimony of the system. I really don't like having to maintain both Libs: and SObjs:, especially since every .so I've looked at doesn't have an Amiga version string. It might help if they belonged in Libs: or Libs:SObjs instead of SObjs:, but I'm not sure.

Well, you have to remember, .so files are not really an amiga standard. They've come from glibc. Under linux, the version numbering is usually maintained through symbolic links.

However, there's nothing at all stopping a .so file compiled for OS4 having a static version string that can be read by the version command. The fact that they don't is probably more down to the fact that most .so files are straight ports of libraries from linux.

[xeron]

However, shared objects on OS4 are technically *not* shared.

Dunno what they smiley's for. They still have their uses. They save hard disk space, bug fixes in shared objects don't require all apps that use them to be recompiled, and combined with dlopen/dlsym are a very handy way of making C++ based plugins.

[itix]

Ok, this is off topic but IMHO, supporting shared objects was one of the best new features I've seen from a developer perspective. Existing library/interface methods just don't seem to have what it takes to support shared C++ code. Without them, you end up having to static link C++ object code, making your executables huge.

They are not shared and C++ dynamic linking libraries stop working when there is new GCC version.

[xeron]

BTW, to all the people claiming we don't really need it since we have OWB, FireFox 3.5+ brings a lot of cool stuff to OS4.x that OWB doesn't, including:

* HTML5, presumably including cool stuff like the video tag
* A download manager
* A really good address-bar history system
* An excellent selection of plugins (a lot of which should be cross-platform)
* Private browsing
* Better security features

[xeron]

They are not shared and C++ dynamic linking libraries stop working when there is new GCC version.

So what. You're free to use shared libraries or shared objects, depending on what suits your needs the best.

[jj]

@ PulsatingQuasar, ajlwalker, JJ, Argo (I feel you all directed your "quit whining" posts to me)
 
There is no issue. I'm not whining. I couldn't care less in what ways the Friedens and/or Hyperion try to raise their peanut money this time around, and it's not like their views on Open Source are unknown to anyone. There are no surprises here, and I don't deny them their right to do what they do.
 
The only thing I said was: Don't give them any *AmiZilla* money, as long as they think the AmiZilla terms and conditions are "unrealistic". It's a matter of principle - the AmiZilla donations was for the benefit of *the entire Amiga platform*, which obviously isn't within the Friedens interest (which I of course understand and respect).

 
I agree they shouldn't get any of the other bounty.  Just don't agree that some people are having a go because they have decidede to go their own way.   And this is not pointed at you

[itix]

So what. You're free to use shared libraries or shared objects, depending on what suits your needs the best.

Sure. But OS4 does not have shared objects. You can use shared libraries or dynamically linked objects. Nothing in those objects are shared. And there is nothing wrong with dynamic linking. Karlos was just confused about it.

[Karlos]

They are not shared and C++ dynamic linking libraries stop working when there is new GCC version.

They are not shared presently in memory (in the sense that shared libraries are), but they are shared in the sense that they are not statically linked against the executable.

Also, newer versions of the compiler don't necessarily always break shared objects. After all, I have shared objects on my linux box that span several versions of gcc and they all work fine. Dependencies between shared objects are more likely to cause a problem.

[itix]

They are not shared presently in memory (in the sense that shared libraries are), but they are shared in the sense that they are not statically linked against the executable.

In other operating systems it is called dynamic linking. Wikipedia article about Windows DLL could be interesting reading to all amigans.

[Karlos]

In other operating systems it is called dynamic linking. Wikipedia article about Windows DLL could be interesting reading to all amigans.

Yes, I know. I have actually written .so files for linux.

[Fab]

BTW, to all the people claiming we don't really need it since we have OWB, FireFox 3.5+ brings a lot of cool stuff to OS4.x that OWB doesn't, including:

* HTML5, presumably including cool stuff like the video tag
* A download manager
* A really good address-bar history system
* An excellent selection of plugins (a lot of which should be cross-platform)
* Private browsing
* Better security features

- OWB/Webkit supports HTML5 and

[Fab]

Dunno what they smiley's for. They still have their uses. They save hard disk space, bug fixes in shared objects don't require all apps that use them to be recompiled, and combined with dlopen/dlsym are a very handy way of making C++ based plugins.

Like itix said, it's an heresy to rely on a C++ interface in general (shared object or not), since it can break at each gcc release. For the rest, i think it's just pure lazyness to use shared objects instead of a shared library.

In OWB, I implemented a shared library-based version of the plugin system and it wasn't particularly harder, and it's quite more amiga-like too (the irony).

[Karlos]

Have you tried writing code that provides properly extensible C++ classes (complete with virtual functions) in an amigaos shared library? It is up to the compiler/linker implementation to decide how virtual function tables work, not the operating system.

[bluestarweb]

wow..this rekindles my interest anew in the amiga, mights go out and buy one the new motherbaords that run AOS 4.1...admittedly i'm curious after having only been emulating for the last few years

[xeron]

- OWB/Webkit supports HTML5 and

Does any port of OWB to Amigoid systems support this?

(same for the good address bar history)

The OS4 OWB port has a reasonable address bar history, but the Firefox 3.x one is better. Is the OWB MorphOS one as good?

And of course, it's a better idea to port firefox if you're unable to design a browser GUI yourself.

Who says the Friedens couldn't? The GUI is not the hardest part of a browser, but if you get a GUI that hundreds of people already work on, thats a bonus.

[xeron]

it wasn't particularly harder, and it's quite more amiga-like too (the irony).

What irony? Who cares? OS4 offers developers more choice. I fail to see why that is a bad thing.