Looks like the JorkanyBot scanned this, went into overdrive, and crashed Moo.

@Marko
Quote:

Performance problems? I have no performance problems with Firefox on Win or Linux.

So tell me why FF portable 2.x from USB-stick is 5 times faster than the FF 3.x equivalent. (loading speeds etcetera)

2.x is faster from hard drive as well.

Last edited by tomazkid on 30-Sep-2009 at 12:38 AM.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

Quote:

Shame we could not get cross platform development because the bounty amount would surely go much higher.

I worry more about what happens when they lose interest in keeping it up, and at that point even the one Amiga OS that has Firefox at all stagnates. There's some plan for that, but being more open would reduce chances of getting frozen in time that much more. But getting Firefox at all is a huge step in a good direction.

_________________
All glory to the Hypnotoad!

Wonderful news.

Made a small donation.

Steve

_________________
A1200T - OS4.0,OS3.9: 603e PPC 200mhz,060 50mhz, 256mb ram, FastATA MK-III, BVision, 160gb,20gb HDDs

A1200 - OS3.1: Blizzard IV 030, 64mb ram, 400mb HDD

OS4.x - Flying the AMIGA flag

@Rob

Quote:

Looks like the JorkanyBot scanned this, went into overdrive, and crashed Moo.

LOL, so he did, still down.

_________________
Hate tends to make you look stupid...

Quote:

@Rob Quote: Looks like the JorkanyBot scanned this, went into overdrive, and crashed Moo. LOL, so he did, still down.

People still visit that site?

Hans

_________________
Join the Kea Campus - upgrade your skills; support my work; enjoy the Amiga corner.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - see more of my work

Mostly for entertainment.

_________________
Hate tends to make you look stupid...

@Hans

Quote:

If the license clearly states that not all code has to be shared, then there is nothing to circumvent. These aren't legal loop-holes, but allowances that are specified in black and white. There is no hipocrisy.

The MPL is ambiguous, however. E.g. Modifications are defined in part as, "Any new file that contains any part of the Original Code or previous Modifications." A black and white interpretation would define any source file containing any byte present in the "Covered Code" as a modification. That probably wasn't the intent, but....

_________________
Sam440ep-flex 733 MHz/1 GB RAM/Radeon 9250/AmigaOS4.1 Update 2
borked A1200/Blizzard1260+SCSI-IV/Z4+MediatorZIV/Deneb/Voodoo3/CatweaselMk3
more borked A1200/MBX1200z/Indivision
A500/clockport/RRNet
A600/A603

Superb

@Trev

Quote:

The MPL is ambiguous, however. E.g. Modifications are defined in part as, "Any new file that contains any part of the Original Code or previous Modifications." A black and white interpretation would define any source file containing any byte present in the "Covered Code" as a modification. That probably wasn't the intent, but....

I don't think so since a single byte without context is not part of anything, code is always a sequence of bytes within a context that forms a set of ordered instructions. You could start arguing about how similar code has to be before it's a copy and not just similar (or theonly way to use a particular API) but that's where the intent comes in. Crumb was suggesting that the Friedens are circumventing the intent of the license, which is not the case; it clearly states (in black and white) that it can be used in conjunction with closed-source files.

Hans

_________________
Join the Kea Campus - upgrade your skills; support my work; enjoy the Amiga corner.
https://keasigmadelta.com/ - see more of my work

@Rogue

Quote:

ctually, no. This has nothing to do with Hyperion and the "most ambitious project". It's just a pet project Thom and me have been doing in our spare time.

You have spare time!?

OMG, where did this come from? Great news & great work!

Rude!

_________________

This is great news! kudos to the Friedens.

One thing though - not making it 100% open source is going to give the trolls an endless source of righteous indignation, and probably attract a few GPL militants as well. I hope it's worth it.

>Ok fair enough, i wish them all the best. Shame we could not get cross
>platform development because the bounty amount would surely go much
>higher.

we will see if this bounty gets higher than the Amizill bounty.

BTW.: Any chance to get the money out of the Amizilla Bounty, maybe it could be spend for another cross plattform project ?

_________________
AmigaONE. Haha. Just because you can put label on it does not make it Amiga.

I borrowed this comments from here (#27 & #28):
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=38873&forum=2&start=20&order=0

@CodeSmith

Aint it silly argument about source code when there is no browser yet? I mean, if you looked at the screenshot, it does not render anything yet. It just attempts to load a web page. And that is it.

Link to screenshot: TimberWolf

Last edited by itix on 30-Sep-2009 at 07:19 AM.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

FF is not the greatest among browsers (Opera is much better, imo) but then again is very popular and a mainstream product! On the other hand, I really much liked OWB, and the only things missing were some plugins and flash.

Anyway, I will try to donate really soon!

_________________

Quote:

IMHO taking advantage of the work of others thanks to open source but trying to circunvect the licenses finding legal holes to avoid sharing your work based on others is an act of hypocrisy

This is not about finding legal holes. The MPL explicitly says you have to publish the source of whatever you changed, and new files do not need to be released.

What you are worried about is that there won't be any other port from us, but plainly, that is not the intention. The intention is to have Firefox on AmigaOS 4.1 and beyond; we'll release out source code if we don't continue with the project ourselves anymore, this ensures that future updates will be possible for AmigaOS users.

The source code of Firefox/Mozilla has been out there since oh I don't know how many years (ten I think), and nobody has tackled it so far. That is certainly not our fault.

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail

Quote:

the unofficial version of firefox for 64bit cpu is named Shiretoko :) (not codename, but real name of browser) so, timberwolf OS4 for the same reason

Actually, Shiretoko is the codename of the beta versions of Firefox, and is branded like that e.g. on Ubuntu to have a different name from 3.0 which is still the default (AFAIK) on Ubuntu.

All Firefox pre-releases have a codename like that.

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail

Quote:

I mean, if you looked at the screenshot, it does not render anything yet. It just attempts to load a web page. And that is it.

Actually, the screenshot is a few weeks old, it was taken from the very first instance of Firefox that actually started. In the meantime, it looks a lot more like firefox, but the HTTP requests didn't get sent because it was missing information to assemble the browser ID string. That's fixed in the meantime, but there's another issue now within widget.

Not denying that there is still a lot of work ahead, and tedious work too, but at the very least there is something on screen, and it actually reacts to mouse input. Which is quite a bit more than there was two or so month ago.

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail

Quote:

And the speed? Do we really have the hardware power for it? point being, the latest versions of FF crawls on dual-core x86's at 2-3 Ghz.

It's way too early to say anything about speed. Right now, there is about 15kB/second debug spew coming from it. We're also using Cairo Image surfaces right now instead of hardware accelerated surfaces (we've added HW acceleration in Cairo in the meantime).

I can't say Firefox crawls on x86. The only major gripe I have with it is the slow startup speed (i.e it takes almost 15 seconds to launch on my Windows system).

Having said this, I don't see Firefox running on the classic, and as a matter of fact AmigaOS 4.1 or later is a requirement anyway. The classic will not have enough hardware or CPU power to run the thing decently.

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail

Quote:

I worry more about what happens when they lose interest in keeping it up, and at that point even the one Amiga OS that has Firefox at all stagnates

Well as was pointed out on the bounty page, the source code will be given to someone else if we lose interest. The interim updates should be rather straightforward though, the widget and NSPR parts (which really are the biggest system-dependent parts) have not changed much in years, and it is doubtful they will change dramatically in the future.

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail