@cope

Quote:

I have a fantasy that the Amiga OS will load on to the new PlayStation when it comes out and hopefully the Browser Sony includes will somehow magically work for us.

I'd love to see OS4 on the PS3. however, no one has even looked into what the licensing requirements there are, and I expect Sony gets a fee..how much will determine if it's even more than a pipedream, failing some investment capital....would be excellent to see, however!

Forget about some PS3 browser suddenly working under OS4. The OSes are different, it's very unlikely to be open source, just won't happen.

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@Framiga

Quote:

"Amiga browsers suck big time. You can't do any websurfing at all" this statement, that i feel offensive toward the current Amiga browsers developers, is only your personal opinion.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make it any less true. They were good 'way back,' but things haven't moved forward enough to keep them viable with respect to browsers on other platforms. While it's possible any of them _could_ make a comeback (ok, I think Voyager really is dead this time...), right now it's simply more likely most of us do our browsing on other platforms due to the many limitations of current browsers. To say otherwise means your browsing is either seriously limited, or you deal with a lot of sites being unusable, or at best, rendered pretty badly/not the way they were intended. More and more sites use CSS for layout, and obviously that's unsupported.

Quote:

Do you think that IB, AWeb and Voy team (if any) are all idiots?

Nope, surely not. I believe the AWeb team is mostly working on other projects, but also get the impression IBrowse is basically slowed to a crawl. May be wrong, but didn't the original IB dev basically say he'd lost interest for some time, or similar? Maybe in TAM?

Quote:

Do you have a solution to this "lack of decent browser" that we don't know?

I doubt it; I know I don't. Currently putting my bets on something coming out of KHTML, myself.

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@nbache and Hans

Thanks for pointing out Smithy did an info update, somehow managed to miss that previously (well ok, it WAS in a Helgis thread where Coder was already in so... )

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@Aminicle

Quote:

don't worry , soon i win the "euromillions" and i give you all a µA1 or similar and a decent browser for free ... isn't that nice ?

Cool, problem solved...can ya hurry up a bit

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@thread

wonder what happen behind the scene...
imho, mozilla/firefox are quite easily portable, even skyos and riscos! made it..
why would it become suddenly so difficult on amiga?

do amiga api is "anti-mozilla by nature? :)
what would make it more tricky on amiga to do it like riscos did?

@wegster

Why should we expect to get a browser for free? I certainly don't expect ANY software to be freeware.


In fact, PAYING for software stands a far better chance of upgrading our software base than expecting freebies...

"Just because it's free on x86" Doesn't get it written or ported to our Os.


I guess I must be old fashioned.. I expect to pay for stuff.

Last edited by The_Editor on 05-Mar-2006 at 07:43 PM.

_________________
******************************************
I dont suffer from Insanity - I enjoy it

******************************************

@freaks
Dunno about RiscOS...although I think there was a RiscOS dev or user on AW a while back that made some comments on it.

AFAIK, there are two prime issues there...Moz uses a 'portability library,' forget what it's called, but AFAIK it relies on two things-
a. POSIX API - which SkyOS at least has, and has helped in ports to that platform.
b. gtk - which in itself is certainly easier to port on a POSIX system....gtk also has a fair number of dependencies.

Unsure about others...there have been a few efforts to port gtk, I think afxgroup was also working on this, or did an initial port, someone from AROS was also working on a gtk-> MUI wrapper, but no idea if either of them is complete enough to be of any use to the moz project or not..

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@The_Editor

Quote:

Why should we expect to get a browser for free? I certainly don't expect ANY software to be freeware.

It's all relative. Like I said, I did pay for IB registration...a lot of people will see this as 'insane' as (assuming we ever see hardware) the user base ever is to grow later. I think FireFox is still a big memory hog, and still has memory leaks, but it IS a good browser. To get that for free, yet to pay for something entirely substandard in comparison....won't/doesn't make sense for many people.

Quote:

In fact, PAYING for software stands a far better chance of upgrading our software base than expecting freebies... "Just because it's free on x86" Doesn't get it written or ported to our Os.

Also free on PPC on Linux and OS X.

You're right in that it doesn't get us anything, and it basically puts us in a bad spot. Not enough software or hardware to attract many devs, then they'd also have to buy some things they're used to for free. Likewise, if people aren't _willing_ to pay for some things...viscous circle. Open Source has really become a double edged sword in some cases...

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@wegster

yes i understand there's difficulties and challenges..
iirc atari too have a port working on mInt..
do windows is posix compliant?

beside os4 sdk with gcc toolchain is like 90% posix compliant now right?
because, when you use ./configure scripts, it mean you're compatible with that norm, kind of.. or somewhere near that .. i think through GG/SDK amiga already reached a form of posix compliance since a while already..

and i think mozilla have been ported to a number of non-posix compliant platforms too.
to say posix compliance is not the most relevant factor it seems ..
last time i checked ami-zilla bounty offered 9000dollars form the one that could achieve it. is it not enough ? i wonder what devs are waiting or what stop them?

i think it's not posix compliance.
and gtk have warper on mos,aros,os4, so even if it's not complete, i think it's not gtk either that stop it to happen..

something else?

@freaks

Quote:

do windows is posix compliant?

No but Windows has millions of users and developers.

Quote:

beside os4 sdk with gcc toolchain is like 90% posix compliant now right?

Not remotely, not even with ixemul would it be compliant enough.

Quote:

last time i checked ami-zilla bounty offered 9000dollars form the one that could achieve it. is it not enough ? i wonder what devs are waiting or what stop them?

$9000 are not enough for a professional programmer to work full-time for n months.

Quote:

and gtk have warper on mos,aros,os4, so even if it's not complete, i think it's not gtk either that stop it to happen..

A pretty useless wrapper, for an application of this magnitude.

Last edited by AMiGR on 05-Mar-2006 at 09:29 PM.

_________________

@freaks
Quote:

beside os4 sdk with gcc toolchain is like 90% posix compliant now right?

Dunno what percentage it is....last I knew things like fork() were still causing problems...be interested in someone that knows more details on this..

Quote:

last time i checked ami-zilla bounty offered 9000dollars form the one that could achieve it. is it not enough ? i wonder what devs are waiting or what stop them?

They're working on it AFAIK, but 9k USD isn't enough to work full-time on this for a single developer, let alone multiple.

Quote:

i think it's not posix compliance.

That would be part of it as an initial guess. Used to know POSIX inside and out, not so much any more..one of these days will dig up the POSIX book and take a look again..

Quote:

and gtk have warper on mos,aros,os4, so even if it's not complete, i think it's not gtk either that stop it to happen.. something else?

A wrapper may likely not be enough, or implement everything needed, just like the OS4 version of OpenGL hasn't been complete enough in the past for some things (still the case?).

Dunno. In theory, if the portable runtime has been 100% ported, after that the rest is (relatively) trivial...so am guessing something in the Mozilla cross-platform lib is still problematic, or a large dependency such as gtk or glib still needs to be done first...

Anyone know if the AmiZilla guys ever listed out a full dependency list and/or status against it?

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

@AMiGR

i'm sorry i think our shell is almost posix compliant.
else how coult it configure sources ? it reqiere posix environment.
if our sdk is not good enough yet, morphos's one is better, i remember 2years ago i configured and compiled some linux progs out of the box,
just ./configure, make were enough.

as for porting mozilla, n-months is inaccurate.
ppl tend to say it would requiere more than 6months if not a whole year to port it,
i think 3months full time would be enough. (there's ppl who ported it in less time.)

so 9700 dollars is not bad.

as for windoz having millions of user this is irrelevant too..
millions of users are not developping. it is one man that does. or a small team.

enough of the shi t ;)
would will beleive you need 1year and a team of 100ppl to port mozilla...
(even 50ppl)

1 to 5 dudes / 3months , job's done..


i think the problem is elsewhere, dunno where but ..


(and i think it's not fork() but vfork() which is problematic iirc)

Last edited by freaks on 05-Mar-2006 at 09:40 PM.
Last edited by freaks on 05-Mar-2006 at 09:37 PM.

@freaks

Time. You need a lot of time.

This thing isn't going to port itself and people must have and even more important be willing to spend their free time on porting Firefox to the Amiga.

9000 dollar is a fee compared to the the time that needs to be invested. Because it is income next to your normal income, tax will probaly take a third of it so you are actually left with 6000 dollar.

So you either need a bunch of people willing to spend all of their free time( and a lot of it) on this venture or you need to have money and hire a couple of people to work on it for a time.


Many open source things are sponsored these days in the Linux world. I have tested GLX( the X server replacement using OpenGL) today and it works fantastic but the whole thing is mainly developed by 1 or 2 people from Novell( and some people of some other companies like Redhat). Why? Because it takes a lot of time to get anything of the ground without some cash backing it.

_________________
AmigaOne-XE G3 OS 4.
A4000 PPC
A1200 PPC

@Hans

Quote:

Smithy said that he was at least six months behind schedule with Paihia in this thread. Unfortunately we're not going to get a modern browser very soon.

quote from other thread:
Quote:

No need to ask God. But I've had some IRL issues that have taken up more than time than I'd planned and other bugs that have proven more troublesome so Grande Paihia is running late (as in more than 6 months) again. Sorry, but work is ongoing - I do get in currently about 6 hours a week coding.

just to let you know Smithy, we are behind you on this project.

goes into deep breathing mode...
"Perhaps we can find new ways to motivate you!" you need to kickstart Paihia or no new hardware !

end deep breathing mode

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@freaks

Quote:

i'm sorry i think our shell is almost posix compliant. else how coult it configure sources ? it reqiere posix environment. if our sdk is not good enough yet, morphos's one is better, i remember 2years ago i configured and compiled some linux progs out of the box, just ./configure, make were enough.

MorphOS has had a full GeekGadgets environment and ixemul since very early in its development.
OS4 has no ixemul currently, which is why a custom bourne shell was required (abc).

Quote:

millions of users are not developping. it is one man that does. or a small team.

Millions of users means a lot of capital, which means A HELL of a lot of professional developers.

Quote:

would will beleive you need 1year and a team of 100ppl to port mozilla... (even 50ppl)

Not 100, I'd say 5 people working *FULL* time for 3-6 months would probably be enough.
$9000 are hardly enough to pay one professional programmer for 3 months, for 2, maybe.

Quote:

(and i think it's not fork() but vfork() which is problematic iirc)

Vice versa, afaik.

_________________

I think aWebs alright, okey so it's not pretty but it allows me to do most of my Interweb surfing things, and it is fast, and allows me view pages off-line better than Opera or Firefox does. Admidiy it is only me that seems to use that these days, but..

_________________
Rage quited 29th May 2011

@PulsatingQuasar

Quote:

If we want to have Firefox as a browser it is only going to happen if someone or some company lays down the money for 4 programmers to work a year on it FULLTIME.

And that is not very likely to happen.... So what is our best alternative soloution?

I still think a combined MOS/OS4 (we really need to end the war!) effort to FUND DEVELOPMENT of a browser could work.

I guess ALL active users of these systems have an interest in a Firefox port (or a KHTML based browser), so if all those people where willing to support development the Amizilla bounty would be peanuts compared to what could be collected.

Best bet right now certainly seems to be Marcik's KHTML project. I must admit I never used KHTML myself but mac owning friends like Safari that is based on KHTML, so I guess
it's in another league than our current available browsers.

It would be interesting to hear how many in the community who would actually be willing to pay a monthly fee to keep one or more developers working on a browser project.
I certainly would, as having an expensive computer without essential software is... stupid IMHO.

5 EURO a month from all active MOS/OS4 users could probably pay for one or three fulltime developers... IF anyone would be interested in the task.

5 Euro aint much bit if enough contributed IT WOULD make a DIFFRENCE for the developer...


Now my question to you guys is...
Are there any active Morphos or OS4 users that can say they WOULDN'T PAY a monthly contribution to make a webbrowser available. If they where guaranteed professional fulltime development a monthly status update and a new browser as result at some point?

_________________

Not in any way the ideal solution that we would like to all see but how about a stop-gap measure of getting a X11 environment working on OS4 that would run Firefox (and others)?

I see someone has got Xami working on OS4 but from what I can see this was a project geared purely at remote connecting to a xdm server running on a linux box. Not much of a dev environment. Plus it's 68k, doesn't support hardware graphics acceleration, and so on.

AmiWin seemed to work quite nicely as a fully fledged X server on classic. I seem to remember getting the geekgadgets system at least operational years ago as well so it seems feasible.

Would result in an overly-bloated way to get a web browser up and running but I reckon it's probably the quickest way. GCC seems mature enough on OS 4. Possibly the lack of ixemul would cause a problem (thought this was due in Pre4 or did I miss it?).

Anyway, just a thought

@cope

I have also a fantasy and thats a girl with a wet tshirt which says "playstation" :p

@Kicko

Wouldn't that be ( play )V(station)

Sonny