@asymetrix

Quote:

--- Quote: OneTimer1 wrote: Nice, but is there any desirable software using this GUI ? asymetrix wrote: @OneTimer1 software using imgui

Nice, but I could not find any web browser there and some of the software listed there is not even open source. No one will port it for Amiga, not for 10 times the money the Amiga community (including AOS4, AROS, MOS and AOS3) would pay.

This thread was a discussion about a web browser, you hijacked the thread without the slightest respect on the topic.

Last edited by OneTimer1 on 21-Mar-2020 at 10:32 PM.

@bison

Quote:

bison wrote: For those wanting a modern web browser on Amiga, be careful what you wish for! The reckless, infinite scope of web browsers

Sounds like conditions are ripe for a bit of a rebellion. Just because W3C, Google & co add new features and further bloat the "www," doesn't mean that front-end web developers have to use them. Front-end web developers could get together and decide on a reduced feature set that they prefer to use...

It would be really interesting if someone wrote a web-bot to scour the internet and catalog how often different features are actually used on the internet. I bet that you could handle the vast majority of websites out there with a much smaller subset of features. The specs for the reduced feature set would still be huge, but less insane than the complete W3C specs.


@asymetrix

Quote:

asymetrix wrote: @thread One needs to break the pieces up and make Amiga libraries. Find slow areas and speed them up. There is a very small GUI which some people like : Maybe its easier to write and has smaller footprint. imgui cimgui c api for imgui

Interestingly, I already have IMGUI bookmarked for future projects. Not because AmigaOS GUI systems are inadequate, but because it'll make writing cross-platform software easier. Cross-platform is extra important right now, because our userbase is so small.

IMGUI looks both easy to use, and easy to port. It's missing one feature: differentiating between left and right alt keys (and others). Other than that, it looks pretty good.

Hans

_________________
http://hdrlab.org.nz/ - Amiga OS 4 projects, programming articles and more. Home of the RadeonHD driver for Amiga OS 4.x project.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - More of my work.

@Hans

If something doesn't get implemented in Chrome then it's pretty much doomed as a Web standard. Just look at what happened to "style scoped"

Last edited by BSzili on 22-Mar-2020 at 08:12 AM.

_________________
This is just like television, only you can see much further.

@BSzili

Quote:

BSzili wrote: @Hans If something doesn't get implemented in Chrome then it's pretty much doomed as a Web standard. Just look at what happened to "style scoped"

Not sure about you, but I don't think anything new needs to be implemented in Chrome.

I've seen a few rants from front-end web developers (i.e., people developing actual website front-ends that run and are displayed in your browser) about web standards and the W3C. In my post above I just suggested that they got together and decided to use only a subset of what's available. No new Chrome code needed, because it's all already in there. It's well within their power to say "thanks W3C for the overly complex web platform, but we're only going to use the subset we've listed here."

Hans

Last edited by Hans on 22-Mar-2020 at 09:28 AM.

_________________
http://hdrlab.org.nz/ - Amiga OS 4 projects, programming articles and more. Home of the RadeonHD driver for Amiga OS 4.x project.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - More of my work.

@thread

I know our old web browsers fall well behind being able to successfully display and decode much of what gets delivered on todays' web but they used a series of plug-ins (helpers)to be able to show video, play audio, etc.

Would it be possible (I'm not a programmer) to take one of the more capable browsers that we currently have and write plug-ins to handle the stuff they can't currently do. Or at least write a very basic browser that accepts plug-ins which could be written with a standard interface

There is a stop-gap work-around. Not very elegant but it works. That is to use a web-rendering proxy, wrp, found on Github

There are a couple of videos on Youtube showing this in use. I've seen one where someone was browsing the web using Internet Explorer 4!

Last edited by OldAmigan on 22-Mar-2020 at 10:17 AM.

_________________
Fred Booth
========================================
A500, A600, A1200 c/w Mediator and 030
AmigaOne and OS4.1
Mac LCII, G4 Powermac running OSX + Amigakit and MorphOS 3.0
Dell Mini 10 Netbook running IcAros and AmigaForever+Amikit+AmigaSys
2006 Macb

@Samurai_Crow

Quote:

LLVM is too big to compile on a 32-bit architecture.

The MorphOS SDK comes with LLVM.

@jacadcaps

Quote:

jacadcaps wrote: @Samurai_Crow Quote: LLVM is too big to compile on a 32-bit architecture. The MorphOS SDK comes with LLVM.

Cross-compiled probably.

@Hans

Quote:

Sounds like conditions are ripe for a bit of a rebellion. Just because W3C, Google & co add new features and further bloat the "www," doesn't mean that front-end web developers have to use them. Front-end web developers could get together and decide on a reduced feature set that they prefer to use... It would be really interesting if someone wrote a web-bot to scour the internet and catalog how often different features are actually used on the internet. I bet that you could handle the vast majority of websites out there with a much smaller subset of features. The specs for the reduced feature set would still be huge, but less insane than the complete W3C specs.

Yes, I'm thinking along similar lines. A subset of what we already have, along with a validation test to make sure web pages only use the subset.

WebKit could end up playing a role in this. It's not exactly small, but it's starting to fall a bit behind, and it's still used by some mobile browsers. "Does my page render with WebKit" could end up being a de facto conformance test of sorts. Innovation always seems to come from places that are in some way resource-constrained.

Last edited by bison on 22-Mar-2020 at 07:22 PM.
Last edited by bison on 22-Mar-2020 at 05:10 PM.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@Hans

Quote:

Just because W3C, Google & co add new features and further bloat the "www," doesn't mean that front-end web developers have to use them.

Rebellion won't help.

The switch from Desktop-PCs to mobile phones generated a small delay for bloat and features, but most phones nowadays have more power than hardware available for AOS4 or AOS3.

Odyssey / OWB used to be the best browsers for AmigaOIDs but the JIT compilers for Java Script turned out to be non-portable to PPC and HTML5 is still waiting to be done.

And by the way, modern WWW browsers are needing a systems with more than 2GB of memory, there is no future for an OS limited to 32 bit.

@OneTimer1

Quote:

but the JIT compilers for Java Script turned out to be non-portable to PPC

What do you mean? Bigfoot has written a JIT for the MorphOS' Odyssey.

https://morph.zone/modules/news/article_storyid_2416.html

@Samurai_Crow

Quote:

Cross-compiled probably.

Sure, it does build though. With the exception of perl, the whole of the MorphOS SDK can be built on MorphOS. How else are you going to prove that your SDK is actually working? If it can't build itself (natively), it is really not good for anything.

Last edited by jacadcaps on 23-Mar-2020 at 12:00 AM.

@OneTimer1

Quote:

OneTimer1 wrote: @Hans Quote: Just because W3C, Google & co add new features and further bloat the "www," doesn't mean that front-end web developers have to use them. Rebellion won't help. ...

_________________
http://hdrlab.org.nz/ - Amiga OS 4 projects, programming articles and more. Home of the RadeonHD driver for Amiga OS 4.x project.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - More of my work.

@jacadcaps

Quote:

What do you mean? Bigfoot has written a JIT for the MorphOS' Odyssey. https://morph.zone/modules/news/article_storyid_2416.html

He actually wrote that the upstream JIT wasn't portable to PPC. I guess that's why Bigfoot wrote his own (from scratch?).

_________________

@jacadcaps

Quote:

jacadcaps wrote: What do you mean?

It means you can't port it, you have to write a new one from scratch.

Quote:

Bigfoot has written a JIT for the MorphOS' Odyssey.

Yes, he has started a new one and it might not be a part of the Odyssey code.

So, if it works, you should ask him for an AOS4 port, but it might be unusable for AOS3.

Last edited by OneTimer1 on 23-Mar-2020 at 10:10 AM.

@tonyw

Quote:

There is no such thing as "full maturity". It's a moving target, moving faster than any finite-sized development team can keep up.

I think what Fairdinkem means in this case is bringing the Mozilla version that became Timberwolf to full maturity. That is a fully working browser based on the codebase it was built off. With a normal working GUI. Nothing more. But nothing less.

Obviously it's limited to the build it is based on. But those are known limitations. What is needed is to build up support libraries to interface with AmigaOS and keep updating other dependants so each version can be rebuilt more easily. Of course even that is work in itself and endian issues present another challenge. As well as reliance on non portable features like JS JIT turning script into machine code.

It's an up hill battle. I think browsers on Amiga always have been. The browser code can technically compile on PPC Linux. Be good if that code could be made use of. But cross compiling can only go so far. Even an API emulator would help.

@OldAmigan

Quote:

There is a stop-gap work-around. Not very elegant but it works. That is to use a web-rendering proxy, wrp, found on Github

I've had the same sort of idea. Using a browser to do it seems funny rather than a dedicated client with GUI.

But my idea is to have a client interface with an Android phone and use it to render the web page in the background. So it would render to a hidden framebuffer. It would take input from the AmigaOS client and send back a page render. But optimised. Anims and sounds would be the hardest to show and play with good timing. But hopefully it would be a better web experience.

Not the most perfect solution but what can you do? It does sound a bit too close to a remote desktop. It would be similar I suppose but more isolated into a closed system.

I'm posting this from BisonWeb, a browser that I wrote in less than an hour with PySide.

Quote:

#!/usr/bin/python3 # apt-get install python3-pyside from PySide.QtCore import QUrl from PySide.QtGui import QApplication from PySide.QtWebKit import QWebView from os import fork from sys import argv, exit, stderr if len(argv) != 2:   stderr.write('Usage: BisonWeb URL\n')   exit(1) url = argv[len(argv) - 1] pid = fork() if pid == 0:   app = QApplication([])   screen = app.desktop().screenGeometry()   width = screen.width() * 0.667   height = screen.height() * 0.8   x = (screen.width() - width) / 2   y = (screen.height() - height) / 2   view = QWebView()   view.setGeometry(x, y, width, height)   view.setWindowTitle("BisonWeb - " + url)   view.load(QUrl(url))   view.show()   app.exec_()

I'm tempted to say "What Amiga needs is a toolkit with a WebKit wrapper," but that's probably a huge amount of work too.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@jacadcaps

Quote:

jacadcaps wrote: @Samurai_Crow Quote: Cross-compiled probably. Sure, it does build though. With the exception of perl, the whole of the MorphOS SDK can be built on MorphOS. How else are you going to prove that your SDK is actually working? If it can't build itself (natively), it is really not good for anything.

I just downloaded and installed the SDK. It has version 3.8 of Clang. The stable release on Linux is 9.x and 10.x is the experimental builds.

@sTix

Quote:

sTix wrote: Nevertheless, kudos to Jacadcaps for taking on such a suicide mission.

No suicide as of yet!



Hello World!




Quote:

[yada yada] ... some intellectual honesty

I pointed out the obvious fact that there are no signs of OS4 being developed much since 2014 and practically not at all since 2016. Then you say that this is "intellectually dishonest" based on a third party having released a stand-alone product offering external GFX support of an ancient 2013 level GPU as proof. Do you really think that OS4 in its current state and situation (meaning the vegetative coma and legal limbo it has been in during the last half decade with its Exec "brain" even being removed from its body) --including its SDK/Toolchain and team of active developers-- does match the one of MorphOS? On MorphOS, years has been spent on preparing the ground and bringing the OS and SDK/Toolchain up to the challenge, and much more time and work is going to be put into this before the new browser gets realized. On OS4, who is doing all this grunt work? Please answer as intellectually honest as you can.

@TRIPOS

Don't forget that the Enhancer software is used to patch and upgrade elements of AmigaOS that Hyperion can't or won't upgrade.

Also, MorphOS is not in competition with AmigaOS. Trevor and others now support both platforms. From the Red corner MorphOS would have to rival Linux and Hyperion and A-EON both be bankrupt before MorphOS could hope to steal users away from that OS. It has the trademark and that seems to be of value to the Reds!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios