OS2 World Community Forum

WebSite Information => Article Discussions => Topic started by: Martin Iturbide on October 12, 2017, 12:27:11 am

Title: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Martin Iturbide on October 12, 2017, 12:27:11 am
Hi

In reference to this article: http://articles.os2voice.org/ (http://articles.os2voice.org/)

First of all, Qt has shown that it has a lot of interesting application and a lot of Qt apps has been ported to the OS/2 platform, that is why I think it is very important to have Qt 5.5 ported too. Bitwise has also demonstrated that they can deliver what they offer and have OS/2 skilled developers. I think we all need to help and donate to this fund raising started by OS2VOICE (https://www.arcanoae.com/shop/os2-voice-browser-sponsorship/).

The other thing interesting about the OS2VOICE post is what it says "But having Q.T. will also make it easier to port the Chromium web browser to OS/2. " The important browsers on the wild are Chrome, Firefox, Edge and Safari. Dumping Firefox for smaller and experimental browser will not be nice, but dumping Firefox for Chromium makes a lot more sense. If having  Qt 5.5 will help the developers to have Chromium ported there is another reason why we need to support a Qt port.

What I think it needs more information is why it is so hard to port RUST to OS/2 and why "It is unlikely that RUST will ever be ported to OS/2." If someone can post more information about this subject, it will be great.

Regards
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: ivan on October 12, 2017, 02:05:20 am
In my opinion chrome browser should be taken behind the barn and shot.  It does not have the ability to use essential addons like noscript and adblock+.  After all it is a google invention and google lives by adds on web pages.

Maybe they should look at waterfox which is associated with firefox but has had all of the slurping and tracking bits removed.  It was forked by a 16 year old a few years ago.  I have been moving my friends that insist on using windows over to it and they are all more than happy with it - I even have a friend with iOS using it rather than safari.  It also works well on linux.

Just mt 2 cents worth.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Dave Yeo on October 12, 2017, 02:16:57 am
As far as I know, having a newer QT won't help with porting Chromium (the open source part of Chrome) to OS/2 porting Chromium would be a huge job.
Palemoon is a possibility as it is a fork of Mozilla. I have a very broken port here that does display web pages.
Rust is basically alpha software, or was until recently. It is built on LLVM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM), so first LLVM would have to be ported. LLVM is a project of similar size as GCC and to get it to the point where it produces code, including DLLs on OS/2 by itself would be an undertaking.
Then Rust 0.01 needs to be ported, which is used to port Rust 0.02, which is used to port Rust 0.03, etc, repeat about 20 times to get to Rust 1.0, which might be able to build current Rust. Every 6 weeks there's a new release and Mozilla uses the latest.
It's a lot of work, which would involve at least one compiler expert, which we don't have. Even some of the BSDs have only lately got current Rust running, and they're starting with LLVM already ported and using ELF objects, shared libraries and executables, unlike us. We don't have a compiler expert and the funding for one would possibly be a couple of hundred thousand dollars or more.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Dave Yeo on October 12, 2017, 02:26:46 am
@Ivan, I looked at WaterFox, seems it is purely 64bit and would be harder to port then Palemoon.
Eventually we're going to be left behind as everyone moves to 64bit. Developers with tons of memory will forget about 32bit, programs such as web browsers will need more memory then 32bit can supply (already happening with Mozilla, most problems are memory related, even on 32bit Windows) and most users will be on 64bit and 32 bit operating systems will have the same fate as 16 bit operating systems.
It'll take a while but the switch over is happening more and more. Most all x86 CPU's have been capable of 64bit for over a decade, memory is cheap enough that having 4-8GBs is common, hard drive prices the same, so the slight bloat of 64bit doesn't matter at all.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Jochen Schäfer on October 12, 2017, 09:27:10 am
As far as I know, having a newer QT won't help with porting Chromium (the open source part of Chrome) to OS/2 porting Chromium would be a huge job.
I looked into the build process, and Chromium uses the whole GTK enchilada. Which would be a worthwhile purpose in itself.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: André Heldoorn on October 12, 2017, 10:09:19 am
have Qt 5.5 ported too. Bitwise has also demonstrated that they can deliver

</silence>FWIW: I've already stopped upgrading some improved Qt-ports because of the required, enforced, useless Unix directory structures.<silence>
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Eugene Tucker on October 12, 2017, 11:14:01 am
What about the Chromium variant 'Brave " , it seems to offer a lot of good features, but aren't both 64 bit browsers.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Dave Yeo on October 12, 2017, 05:10:26 pm
As far as I know, having a newer QT won't help with porting Chromium (the open source part of Chrome) to OS/2 porting Chromium would be a huge job.
I looked into the build process, and Chromium uses the whole GTK enchilada. Which would be a worthwhile purpose in itself.

Even on Windows?
Yes, having GTK ported would open up a lot of other ports.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Roderick Klein on October 12, 2017, 08:42:20 pm
Hi

In reference to this article: http://articles.os2voice.org/ (http://articles.os2voice.org/)

First of all, Qt has shown that it has a lot of interesting application and a lot of Qt apps has been ported to the OS/2 platform, that is why I think it is very important to have Qt 5.5 ported too. Bitwise has also demonstrated that they can deliver what they offer and have OS/2 skilled developers. I think we all need to help and donate to this fund raising started by OS2VOICE (https://www.arcanoae.com/shop/os2-voice-browser-sponsorship/).

The other thing interesting about the OS2VOICE post is what it says "But having Q.T. will also make it easier to port the Chromium web browser to OS/2. " The important browsers on the wild are Chrome, Firefox, Edge and Safari. Dumping Firefox for smaller and experimental browser will not be nice, but dumping Firefox for Chromium makes a lot more sense. If having  Qt 5.5 will help the developers to have Chromium ported there is another reason why we need to support a Qt port.

What I think it needs more information is why it is so hard to port RUST to OS/2 and why "It is unlikely that RUST will ever be ported to OS/2." If someone can post more information about this subject, it will be great.

Regards

That last part about RUST I understood that from Dmitry from Bitwise Works. He did not explain any details. But I will take his word for it :-)  Also next to RUST do not forget the other point I mentioned in the article I have written.
Even if RUST could be ported to OS/2 we would still be stuck with the other issue that Firefox is already bloatware and according to Dmitry (and developer on other platforms), so hard to maintain.

At least we are starting on this journey early enough to have a new browser on time.

Roderick Klein
President OS/2 VOICE
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Martin Iturbide on October 12, 2017, 09:37:40 pm
Hi

Let me list the suggested options on this thread:

- Chromium  - https://www.chromium.org/ - Chrome OSS Project
- Palemoon - http://www.palemoon.org/ -  Firefox/Mozilla Fork
- Brave - https://brave.com/ - Chromium fork.
- QupZilla - https://qupzilla.com - Qt Browser, latest version requires Qt5

Any others?

Regards
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Jochen Schäfer on October 13, 2017, 08:56:07 am
As far as I know, having a newer QT won't help with porting Chromium (the open source part of Chrome) to OS/2 porting Chromium would be a huge job.
I looked into the build process, and Chromium uses the whole GTK enchilada. Which would be a worthwhile purpose in itself.

Even on Windows?
Yes, having GTK ported would open up a lot of other ports.
At least on X Windows. But it definitely doesn't use Qt.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Sigurd Fastenrath on November 06, 2017, 08:43:29 am
During the OS/2 User Meeting last Weekend we had the Chance to discuss this Topic as well.

I will post my 2 Cents about this here based on the informations we have been presented there and from what I have read/heard elsewhere so far:

- The Project title is somewhat misleading in my opinion: it should be named as: "Sponsorship for a QT5 port needed"

- There is no clear Roadmap regarding a browser: wich will be the one of choice?

- Therefore it is not clear: what is needed at all to complete such a Task? QT5, Rust? Else?

- The Project Goal is 10.000 Dollar where Roderick stated that already 6.500 have been collected, as some "unknown" or "do not want to be named Person" already donated 5.000 Dollar in Bitcoins in Addition. Roderick said that this Money would be enough to work for 3 or 4 months on the QT port. But he estimated the QT port itself would take at least 6 to 9 month to work on...

And for some Browser Alternatives there is even no Need to have QT5 ported.

So this Project is more or less a shot in the dark so far. It is not clear where it leads to nor when it will be completed. Roderick stated that it is better to have a movement than None.

I appriciate all the Things done by Roderick and BWW and all others involved, but not having a plan at all - other than porting QT5 first and looking where this will lead to - is not a good way in my opinion.

I think it would be a good idea to

- make the decision first where to invest the Money in
- give more Information about this at all
- so: to Show a plan.

Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Roderick Klein on November 06, 2017, 09:40:37 am
Here is what I said (at least tried todo so).

The rust port seems to be the least likely to occur, because of:
1. Getting RUST on OS/2 seems to be a lot of work.
2. As Sandra confirmed Firefox is big construction pit that is never ending.  These two items make it the least likely candidate.

Going with Pale Moan (a Mozilla split off at browser 24) is very likely to have the issue in the near future that Pale Moan could port code from the Mozilla foundation. And then we are stuck back to square one.

Having a QT browser we depend on QT and webkit. We have multiple browsers that depend on QT and webkit. Having multiple options.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Olafur Gunnlaugsson on November 06, 2017, 11:08:13 am
Going with Pale Moan (a Mozilla split off at browser 24) is very likely to have the issue in the near future that Pale Moan could port code from the Mozilla foundation. And then we are stuck back to square one.

*Pale Moan* Freudian slip?

Pale Moon is also buggier than most people realise
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 06, 2017, 11:25:52 am

Pale Moon is also buggier than most people realise
And that's not the only problem. It also lacks the support for native text encodings. Without an useable C++ development environment there's no hope for something more modern or advanced. Why should an incomplete and slow port of the Qt framework change the situation? On the other hand it's possible to use something written in C that will perform much better under OS/2-based systems. Maybe like the NetSurf (http://www.netsurf-browser.org/ (http://www.netsurf-browser.org/)) for RISC OS.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Olafur Gunnlaugsson on November 06, 2017, 02:34:12 pm

Pale Moon is also buggier than most people realise
And that's not the only problem. It also lacks the support for native text encodings. Without an useable C++ development environment there's no hope for something more modern or advanced. Why should an incomplete and slow port of the Qt framework change the situation? On the other hand it's possible to use something written in C that will perform much better under OS/2-based systems. Maybe like the NetSurf (http://www.netsurf-browser.org/ (http://www.netsurf-browser.org/)) for RISC OS.

Netsurf lacks an ECMAScript interpreter so you are forced to use mobile versions of most major sites.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 06, 2017, 05:13:48 pm
Netsurf lacks an ECMAScript interpreter so you are forced to use mobile versions of most major sites.

The Spidermonkey javascript interpreter can be utilised by NetSurf Version 3. Better DOM integration is in development for version 4.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Martin Iturbide on November 06, 2017, 05:22:32 pm
During the OS/2 User Meeting last Weekend we had the Chance to discuss this Topic as well.

I will post my 2 Cents about this here based on the informations we have been presented there and from what I have read/heard elsewhere so far:

- The Project title is somewhat misleading in my opinion: it should be named as: "Sponsorship for a QT5 port needed"

- There is no clear Roadmap regarding a browser: wich will be the one of choice?

- Therefore it is not clear: what is needed at all to complete such a Task? QT5, Rust? Else?

- The Project Goal is 10.000 Dollar where Roderick stated that already 6.500 have been collected, as some "unknown" or "do not want to be named Person" already donated 5.000 Dollar in Bitcoins in Addition. Roderick said that this Money would be enough to work for 3 or 4 months on the QT port. But he estimated the QT port itself would take at least 6 to 9 month to work on...

And for some Browser Alternatives there is even no Need to have QT5 ported.

So this Project is more or less a shot in the dark so far. It is not clear where it leads to nor when it will be completed. Roderick stated that it is better to have a movement than None.

I appriciate all the Things done by Roderick and BWW and all others involved, but not having a plan at all - other than porting QT5 first and looking where this will lead to - is not a good way in my opinion.

I think it would be a good idea to

- make the decision first where to invest the Money in
- give more Information about this at all
- so: to Show a plan.

Hi Sigurd.

I think that your post has a point and that it will be interesting for OS2VOICE and Roderick to reply to the questions. 

On my opinion I support this effort even if it is a Qt 5 port only (no browser yet). I know there are PM exclusive lovers that don't want to try anything else, but Qt has shown that a can provide a lot of apps to the OS/2 platform. While some people counts the micro-seconds to load a Qt app compared to PM, they don't see all the potential new applications we can get from the open source world and the ported Qt4 apps we already have.

While every one is worried on the "short term" strategy on getting drivers for ArcaOS, this is the only open source effort I have seen from the community that belongs to a "middle term strategy" to maintain the platform current by supporting a newer framework to provide more apps. So it is worthy the shot to get Qt 5.

I share the same doubts that you posted, and I thank you for posting those, but I'm also thinking that OS2VOICE and Roderick is doing this in good faith and relaying in a group/company (Bitwise) that has delivered OS/2 projects on the past.

Regards
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Martin Iturbide on November 15, 2017, 03:18:54 pm
Hi

I really hope that Roderick can update us on this subject.

Also today Firefox 57 was released for other non-OS/2 platforms and they advertise it as "Faster". Even that I don't know the technical effort to port RUST Language (https://www.rust-lang.org/en-US/) to OS/2, I see RUST as something interesting. Why do I think that RUST will not crash and burn like other novelty languages? I think that because they are starting with a strong "killer application" called Firefox under that language. Instead of being a new language trying to get adoption and applications, it is starting with Firefox running on their language, which it is a very important browser on the internet. So under my opinion it is likely that we are going to see more applications adopting RUST in the future.

On the other hand I also bet for the project of having Qt5 ported to OS/2. We need to have something more standard than PM that can allow us to have more apps ported to the platform and also it represents an open and modern way to create GUI applications.

Regards
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: ivan on November 15, 2017, 03:40:21 pm
Regarding Firefox 57 the Register has an article about it and a very large number of comments.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/10/open_source_insider_firefox_57/

I am advising all my windows using friends to switch off firefox auto update and not touch this with a barge pole.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Dave Yeo on November 16, 2017, 01:48:40 am
@Martin, it isn't just Rust but lots of other changes. Yesterday they announced that soon they'll require Python3, which we don't have and today, they seem to have made skia a hard dependency, so our Cairo no longer works and skia would need porting. Who knows how many things I've missed as I'm not following development as much as I used to.
They also recommend 16 GBs of address space to compile now, so basically 64 bit platforms. I think that is due to Rust. Eventually we're going to be left behind in a 64bit world
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: André Heldoorn on November 16, 2017, 01:56:20 pm
I am advising all my windows using friends to switch off firefox auto update and not touch this with a barge pole.

</silence>
Counted blessings of Agile (an extremely bad release is better than no release, while ignoring annoying comments of experts), for people not being management consultants or software engineers paid by the hour: 0 :o

There must be a reason why e.g. ITIL has so define that the customer is satisfied, by definition... :)
<silence>
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 16, 2017, 04:01:12 pm
Who knows how many things I've missed as I'm not following development as much as I used to.
They also recommend 16 GBs of address space to compile now, so basically 64 bit platforms. I think that is due to Rust. Eventually we're going to be left behind in a 64bit world
Whatever, for further Mozilla development the host build environment can be migrated to an OS/2 64-bit environment which is available (Windows Server 2008 R2 for example). The support for 32-bit target architectures has not been removed until now. But I'm not a spokesman of Mozilla. The current OS/2 fork seems to rely on too many buggy tools. There were no important OS/2-specific code improvements in last years at all. Addionally the newly introduced bugs become innumerable.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Roderick Klein on November 16, 2017, 05:08:47 pm
Can you please provide more specifics instead of saying its based on buggy development tools ?
We have current GCC compilers for example and LIBC libraries are being updated. If
you make a claim make it more specific instead of such a generic claim.

Ooh you said in os2.org that I was distributing hot or baked air. You just cored a home run.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Roderick Klein on November 16, 2017, 05:11:21 pm
Who knows how many things I've missed as I'm not following development as much as I used to.
They also recommend 16 GBs of address space to compile now, so basically 64 bit platforms. I think that is due to Rust. Eventually we're going to be left behind in a 64bit world
Whatever, for further Mozilla development the host build environment can be migrated to an OS/2 64-bit environment which is available (Windows Server 2008 R2 for example). The support for 32-bit target architectures has not been removed until now. But I'm not a spokesman of Mozilla. The current OS/2 fork seems to rely on too many buggy tools. There were no important OS/2-specific code improvements in last years at all. Addionally the newly introduced bugs become innumerable.

And what do you mean with "There were no important OS/2-specific code improvements in last years at all."

Can somebody please delete this guy from the forums. Always so unconstrucitve.

Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Roderick Klein on November 16, 2017, 05:17:46 pm
Who knows how many things I've missed as I'm not following development as much as I used to.
They also recommend 16 GBs of address space to compile now, so basically 64 bit platforms. I think that is due to Rust. Eventually we're going to be left behind in a 64bit world
Whatever, for further Mozilla development the host build environment can be migrated to an OS/2 64-bit environment which is available (Windows Server 2008 R2 for example). The support for 32-bit target architectures has not been removed until now. But I'm not a spokesman of Mozilla. The current OS/2 fork seems to rely on too many buggy tools. There were no important OS/2-specific code improvements in last years at all. Addionally the newly introduced bugs become innumerable.

Look Andreas if you think our browser environment is so badly broken, specify in more detail how its broken.  The above claims are pretty generic and just completely scare people as if the browser is completely fallen apart. And that is not the case as I have mentioned some of the issue's Firefox has on OS/2 also plague it on Windows and Linux. 
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Roderick Klein on November 16, 2017, 05:23:14 pm
These are some of the current compiler tools around for OS/2:
http://os2ports.smedley.id.au/index.php?page=copy-of-gcc-v6.x

The libraries are being up dated as we speak. Partly to accomodate Firefox:
https://github.com/bitwiseworks/libcx

So next time make things more specific and please stopping generic claims.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Andreas Schnellbacher on November 16, 2017, 05:57:48 pm
Can somebody please delete this guy from the forums. Always so unconstrucitve.
The ignore feature works well: http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore;u=41 (http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore;u=41)
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 16, 2017, 06:55:07 pm
Can you please provide more specifics instead of saying its based on buggy development tools ?
I don't want to bore here somebody with numerous links to bug trackers. People with working webbrowsers can simply use a search engine of their choice.
Quote
We have current GCC compilers for example
But the examples are unfortunately missing here. Speaking about GNU's GCC there's no mention about OS/2 in the current supported releases (6.4 and 7.2).
Quote
and LIBC libraries are being updated.
Everybody can check on own system how "updated" the \OS2\DLL\LIBCM.DLL or LIBCS.DLL files are? Perhaps only you have a C Library Reference with additional updates to prove your claims.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Roderick Klein on November 16, 2017, 11:30:01 pm
Can you please provide more specifics instead of saying its based on buggy development tools ?
I don't want to bore here somebody with numerous links to bug trackers. People with working webbrowsers can simply use a search engine of their choice.
Quote
We have current GCC compilers for example
But the examples are unfortunately missing here. Speaking about GNU's GCC there's no mention about OS/2 in the current supported releases (6.4 and 7.2).
Quote
and LIBC libraries are being updated.
Everybody can check on own system how "updated" the \OS2\DLL\LIBCM.DLL or LIBCS.DLL files are? Perhaps only you have a C Library Reference with additional updates to prove your claims.

I do not know what you talking about but Paul Smedley provides current builds of GCC 6 and 7 on his website for OS/2.

I you reference that LIBCM not being updated that is a DLL. So why does not need to be updated ?
We have plenty of new DLL's coming out that are in the Netlabs RPM repo that are being updated to support new ports.

Guys I guess we do have a new Tim Martin for os2world...
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Roderick Klein on November 16, 2017, 11:50:17 pm
Can somebody please delete this guy from the forums. Always so unconstrucitve.
The ignore feature works well: http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore;u=41 (http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore;u=41)

Thanks I set him to ignore mode.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 17, 2017, 01:26:53 am
I do not know what you talking about but Paul Smedley provides current builds of GCC 6 and 7 on his website for OS/2.
Only three errors in one sentence.
1. The current "supported" versions of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) are Version 6.4 and 7.2. Neither full builds nor builds of a subset are currently available.
2. The mentioned download package comes not from his website but from dropbox - I didn't know that Paul is the owner of dropbox?
3. The mentioned download package is not a full package but a subset of GCC features (C and C++ frontend, gfortran frontend) - some tools but no standard C library or standard C++ library support included

Quote
I you reference that LIBCM not being updated that is a DLL. So why does not need to be updated ?
Sorry, it's totally incomprehensibly written. LIBCM is the multithreaded and LIBCS the singlethreaded module that implements C runtime library support under OS/2. I know the terminology is not fully correct.

Quote
We have plenty of new DLL's coming out that are in the Netlabs RPM repo that are being updated to support new ports.
Shared libraries (from a UNIX-like world) are quite different from "real" OS/2 DLLs. Everybody should use this bloatware really? Thanks for gossip and slander...
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Dave Yeo on November 17, 2017, 01:35:46 am

But the examples are unfortunately missing here. Speaking about GNU's GCC there's no mention about OS/2 in the current supported releases (6.4 and 7.2).

Our GCC is a fork, forked back in the early 2.x days I believe, possibly due to RMS not wanting anything to do with proprietary systems such as OS/2.
IBM paid for the development of GCC 3.2.2-3.3.5 to replace VACPP rather then develop VACPP anymore, so it is our official compiler I guess.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 17, 2017, 02:22:00 am
Our GCC is a fork, forked back in the early 2.x days I believe, possibly due to RMS not wanting anything to do with proprietary systems such as OS/2.
It's more complicated to expain it here.

Quote
IBM paid for the development of GCC 3.2.2-3.3.5 to replace VACPP rather then develop VACPP anymore, so it is our official compiler I guess.
A vicious circle. I'm only aware that it was used for the later builds of the IBM WebBrowser for OS/2. IBM C/C++ Compiler V3.6.5 was used for this task before. VisualAge C++ remained but lost it's OS/2 host and target support. They also shipped also a Version for Linux (PPC) that performed much better than Apple's GCC under MacOS X on a PowerMac. But in real world AD mostly IBM XL C for AIX was used. Now they call almost all compiler products XL C/C++ for the different platforms.

At least we have one "current" compiler for native OS/2: Peter's Iron Spring PL/I compiler. And how about the sleeping beauty of OpenWatcom C/C++?
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: André Heldoorn on November 17, 2017, 07:54:36 am
At least we have one "current" compiler for native OS/2: Peter's Iron Spring PL/I compiler. And how about the sleeping beauty of OpenWatcom C/C++?

</silence>
And Free Pascal (targets "OS/2 / eComStation" too), recently updated in 2017.
<silence>
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Sigurd Fastenrath on November 17, 2017, 08:00:45 am
Guys I guess we do have a new Tim Martin for os2world...

Even though I can understand the "heat of the Moment" it is allways contraproductive to argue with personal attacks instead of Facts.

Regarding the Topic / my questions there are still no concret answers from you.

Having no detailed Information about a plan and what will be done with the 10.000 Dollars at all was the reason why we handed the Money collected at the User Meeting in Cologne directly to BWW instead of this funding. Unfortunately this damages the whole funding and brings back memories of the past regarding Mis-Management of eComStation - Things I thought have been gone away because of the solid and good work ArcaNoae and BWW are doing.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Silvan Scherrer on November 17, 2017, 08:39:20 am
Can somebody please delete this guy from the forums. Always so unconstrucitve.
The ignore feature works well: http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore;u=41 (http://www.os2world.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=lists;sa=ignore;u=41)

Thanks I set him to ignore mode.

yes Ignore lists give a great feeling :)
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: André Heldoorn on November 17, 2017, 10:44:58 am
Ignore lists give a great feeling :)

kind regards
Silvan
CTO bww bitwise works GmbH

</silence>
No doubt that someone representing an ICT company must have experience with the, according to them, great feeling of ignoring customers in public.
<silence>
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Martin Iturbide on November 17, 2017, 12:50:26 pm
Guys

I think you already made your point and you need to agree to disagree.  There is no need to compare or label people and it is not important who has the last word.
There are different opinions and that is all.

Back to the subject, I think that Sigurd has an important point and it can be interesting to hear a plan from OS2VOICE and Bitwise works about this subject and that Roderick update us on the fund raising and specify if he needs something else. I still think that this fund raising is in good faith and that Qt 5 is strategic for the platform. 

Quote
Guys I guess we do have a new ..

Please don't name him since it may be like Beetlejuice :)

Regards
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 17, 2017, 01:41:52 pm
At least we have one "current" compiler for native OS/2: Peter's Iron Spring PL/I compiler. And how about the sleeping beauty of OpenWatcom C/C++?

</silence>
And Free Pascal (targets "OS/2 / eComStation" too), recently updated in 2017.
<silence>
Last time I checked it targeted EMX (which means OS/2 2.x or DOS extender) with all bells and whistles. Existing EMX-based applications are easy prey - but on YUM-infected systems also an endangered species.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Pete on November 17, 2017, 06:05:51 pm
Hi All

At least we have one "current" compiler for native OS/2: Peter's Iron Spring PL/I compiler. And how about the sleeping beauty of OpenWatcom C/C++?

</silence>
And Free Pascal (targets "OS/2 / eComStation" too), recently updated in 2017.
<silence>


We should not forget Wolfgangs efforts in maintaining WDSibyl at http://www.wdsibyl.org/


Regards

Pete
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Roderick Klein on November 17, 2017, 08:40:30 pm
Guys I guess we do have a new Tim Martin for os2world...

Even though I can understand the "heat of the Moment" it is allways contraproductive to argue with personal attacks instead of Facts.


I welcome people there input in a forum. In my opinion Andreas had no good word left for my funding campaign I posted to os2.org, no problem. But when I asked him to ask questions and he does not. It seems he is just in the forum to spread negative messages and it seems not much else. Most OS/2 users are skilled enough to understand slightly  more then what he posts which seems point at some level of knowing what is he is talking about. But talking stand point the build tools that are outdated for example. If it was not for GCC we would have been dead years ago. So that is what I mean with un constructive attitude in his communication. The vast majority of new software is being compiled with these tools that Paul Smedley maintains in his spare time Dmitry from BWW and other people. A different attitude from his side is certainly in place. Some on Andreas his statements come across as political one liners with little technical foundations underneath it.

Roderick
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Martin Iturbide on November 17, 2017, 09:22:02 pm
I welcome people there input in a forum. In my opinion ....

Roderick, please put any negative and non constructive comment to rest and focus on the important things. You are not forced to reply to every post. 

Let's move on. I think that it will be better to update us on the fund raising and to know if there had been any talks with Bitwise works about the project.

Regards
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Roderick Klein on November 17, 2017, 10:01:51 pm
Guys

I think you already made your point and you need to agree to disagree.  There is no need to compare or label people and it is not important who has the last word.
There are different opinions and that is all.

Back to the subject, I think that Sigurd has an important point and it can be interesting to hear a plan from OS2VOICE and Bitwise works about this subject and that Roderick update us on the fund raising and specify if he needs something else. I still think that this fund raising is in good faith and that Qt 5 is strategic for the platform.

Quote
Guys I guess we do have a new ..

Please don't name him since it may be like Beetlejuice :)

Regards

I post my thoughts about Andreas his posting in the reply to Sigurd. So far I have found Andreas his postings constructive and a lot of information missing.  To answer both Sigurd and Martin there questions. First of all thanks to a 5000 Dollar donation we are now over the 6500 Dollars boundary.

As for the funding project I explained this already in Cologne and in my VOICE article (articles.os2voice.org).

What I said in Cologne is partly based on what Herwig stated in his presentation he give via Skype at Warpstock Toronto this year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9C6Hs-_Ung
19:33 24:00 minutes browser remarks from Herwig.
I also spoke to Dmitry from BWW for more then an hour on the phone who has been doing the Firefox development for the last couple of years.

The 340 Euro collected at your Cologne meeting SIgurd you say was directly donated to BWW. because of quote you where afraid of "eComStation Mis-Manegement".
1. The plan I put on the table was based on what primarily Dmitry told me from BWW.

2.  The money from VOICE the 10.000 Dollars would go directly to BWW. Who else should he hire and who would manage the funds after BWW is paid ? So I do not know what the relationship is with "eComStation mis-management".

The point is to what level of detail do you want to have this plan lined out Sigurd ?

I do not see much difference with how a funding campaign from BWW was put up.
For example:http://qt.netlabs.org/en/site/index.xml

Basically we have the following options as I described in articles.os2voice.org

1. Is Firefox and get the RUST compiler on OS/2. Based on what Dmitry said it seems currently this is the least likely plan to occur.
The other thing that makes Firefox a less useable is the product is the ever lasting massive changes that make Firefox extremely labour intensive to maintain on OS/2.
And this is not just because the Mozilla foundation removed the OS/2 code. Dmitry and other developers are not happy with this extremely rapid rate after the Mozilla foundations changes libraries and code. So this contributes to the possibilities of Firefox 57 ever making it on OS/2.

2. The other option is Pale Moon a split of Firefox 24. But how long will it take before the Pale Moon project potentially imports code from the Mozilla foundation
and we get stuck with Firefox issue's again! Dmitry did see this as an possibility this could happen.

3. A Q.T. based browser and Dmitry said that with webkit and Q.T. 5.9 we can either have one of the Q.T. based or Chromium.
Its true Herwig says it might not be possible. But the video that was recorded at Warpstock Toronto was older. I talked to Dmitry about 1 month
after Toronto. And he has been doing more research.

So point 1 and 2 are the least likely to happen. Point 3 seems to be the most likely.
Currently Firefox 45 is being finished for final release so collecting money for a new browser is it that bad idea ?

We aim at a new browser and all money is going to BWW and VOICE is just facilitating the collection of the money.
The Dutch VOICE foundation is Dutch none profit organization and its bylaws and the board of in total members make certain the money is spent wisely. So I hope this takes your concerns away regarding your concerns Sigurd about my possible mis-management.  I/VOICE will not be spending the money at BWW and will not be performing the development or coordinate the development of the software.

Roderick
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Sigurd Fastenrath on November 17, 2017, 11:03:48 pm
Good evening,

thanks for the words, Roderick, but I think this brings me no step further. But that does not matter.

Yes - I am of the opinion, that ecomstation failed because of mismanagement, sadly. And yes, the Situation about the "Browser of the future" reminds me of the Situation "the ACPI of the future of eCS 2.0".

When I collect the Facts I do have now, These are almost the same as the ones I already had the time I wrote my first comment in this thread.

- It is not clear what browser will be developed
- It is clear, that Firefox is not the path of the future (after 52), something you stressed every time but was clear to almost all of us when explanations came around because of the changes necessary (Rust and so on, please see other threads)
- I think it has been your words in cologne that stated that the 10.000 Dollar will be enough for about three months cost of developing, but as you stated as well, porting QT5 will Need about at least 5 to 6 month.
- So, to port a browser after that, even more time is needed (and so Money) and my be other parts have to be developed/ported as well to get a QT Browser running.
- If I remeber correctly at Cologne someone already stated, that it is impossible to port Chromium browser you mentioned, as it relies on several other Things. But I may be wrong.

So it is this mixture of uncertain plans and informations that are almost saying what is not possible but do not say where this path will lead to. And this is exactly what reminds me of the "eCS times".

I just fear (a bit) that this kind of Advertising such a Project will damage the solid and planfull work, ArcaNoae and BWW are doing.

In the end I think that a Firefox 52, when we will have it, will serve for another couple of years, and then all the other Problems, like UEFI, UEFI2020, USB 3, NVMe, Panorama, UNIAUD.... will lead to an end of OS/2 nativ on modern Hardware and I see no way that this can be stopped.

So, in my opinion, Money would be needed to Support current Hardware Features, like USB 3, WLAN (so many years missed now...) UNIAUD or what else - so desperatly needed Features.....to keep the current Hardware for some years. So: to develop Drivers.

Yes - I could raise an own funding for this, but for me it is just Hobby, so this example is just to explain why I do not see a plan behind this funding.

When the end on native Hardware will come it will still work in a virtual envorement, but in that a "usual" Warp 4 will do the Job as well. And in a virtual enviroment there is no Need for an up to date browser.

It is a pitty that you allways have this black or white sceme, if one does not understand or critize parts of what you are doing he automatically MUST be against everything you do or say.

But that is just my opinion. And it is OK as it is, I wish you all the luck for the future of your funding and the whole Project.



Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Dave Yeo on November 17, 2017, 11:15:50 pm
It would be good to continue on to Firefox 52ESR, which should be doable. 52ESR is going to be the last Mozilla release for XP and may be maintained for longer or forked for XP (and Vista) users.
SeaMonkey is likely to die after 52ESR and is currently based on 52ESR with the next few versions planned to stay on 52ESR and there is a good chance that Mozilla52ESR will be forked to enable SeaMonkey to keep working with security fixes, there's rumours that some Linux dists are planning on maintaining it, which would include Firefox. Considering that we're always a year behind, we may be able to use the 52ESR code base for a few years
Thunderbird has also considered forking Mozilla-Central (Firefox head), but that seems unlikely right now and if they do fork it, it'll probably be 56 that is forked.
In summary, there is no great rush to move away from Mozilla and 52ESR may be viable for 3 or 4 years, by which time most browsers are probably going to be 64bit or in the case of QT based webkit, just as out of date as 52ESR. Chromium has the same problems as Mozilla with too fast of an update cycle.
All the other forks of Firefox I've looked at have been 64bit or dependent on working 3D graphics support.

Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Joop on November 18, 2017, 12:29:44 am
For the next five to ten years we will still have 32-bit systems (non OS/2 based), including Windows. So it is to be expected that major players will have a 32 bit application. Going to ONLY 64 bit is a big mistake from the Mozilla foundation. Not all can go to 64 bit for several reasons. If we don't have a FF 32 bit then something else will pop up, likely in some kind of public domain license. 
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 18, 2017, 01:39:37 am
It would be good to continue on to Firefox 52ESR, which should be doable. 52ESR is going to be the last Mozilla release for XP and may be maintained for longer or forked for XP (and Vista) users.
Finally some correct information in this thread. The matching link (https://support.mozilla.org/kb/end-support-windows-xp-and-vista) for non-believers.

Quote
SeaMonkey is likely to die after 52ESR and is currently based on 52ESR with the next few versions planned to stay on 52ESR and there is a good chance that Mozilla52ESR will be forked to enable SeaMonkey to keep working with security fixes, there's rumours that some Linux dists are planning on maintaining it, which would include Firefox. Considering that we're always a year behind, we may be able to use the 52ESR code base for a few years
There's no final decision until now.

Quote
In summary, there is no great rush to move away from Mozilla and 52ESR may be viable for 3 or 4 years, by which time most browsers are probably going to be 64bit or in the case of QT based webkit, just as out of date as 52ESR. Chromium has the same problems as Mozilla with too fast of an update cycle.
Which I have to agree with.

Quote
All the other forks of Firefox I've looked at have been 64bit or dependent on working 3D graphics support.
The only working approach to ship a Mozilla-forked web browser for oldschool systems is Cameron's TenFourFox http://tenfourfox.blogspot.de/ (http://tenfourfox.blogspot.de/).  So the web browsing experience on a 17 years old G4 is better than on more recent Intel-based hardware under OS/2 nowadays.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Dave Yeo on November 18, 2017, 02:04:10 am
The only working approach to ship a Mozilla-forked web browser for oldschool systems is Cameron's TenFourFox http://tenfourfox.blogspot.de/ (http://tenfourfox.blogspot.de/).  So the web browsing experience on a 17 years old G4 is better than on more recent Intel-based hardware under OS/2 nowadays.

Huh? Tenfourfox is stuck on 45ESR and is now forked due to 52ESR not being buildable on PowerPC Macs due to no thread local storage IIRC. Cameron wasn't very happy about it but at least he is keeping certificates, security patches up to date unlike Bitwise as well as other improvements. See the release notes for the latest, https://github.com/classilla/tenfourfox/wiki/ZZFPRReleaseNotes04 (https://github.com/classilla/tenfourfox/wiki/ZZFPRReleaseNotes04).
If we had someone with the interest and knowledge, going the same way with our fork would be another possibility. Bitwise has too much on their plate to do much more then basic porting. I don't have the skills and everyone else is busy as far as I know. It's almost a full time job keeping up with Mozilla and ideally we'd need someone with access to the security bugs.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Dave Yeo on November 18, 2017, 02:12:22 am
For the next five to ten years we will still have 32-bit systems (non OS/2 based), including Windows. So it is to be expected that major players will have a 32 bit application. Going to ONLY 64 bit is a big mistake from the Mozilla foundation. Not all can go to 64 bit for several reasons. If we don't have a FF 32 bit then something else will pop up, likely in some kind of public domain license.

Mozilla will likely be the last to drop 32bit support just like they were the last to drop XP and even OS/2.
The problem is that generally developers have the latest machines, using a 64 OS with lots of memory and 32 bit will become more and more of an afterthought. We're seeing it in things like the recommendation to have 16GBs of virtual address space to build Mozilla as one example.
MS will keep supporting 32bit for quite a while, along with some Linux dists but others have already switched to pure 64bit and as programs continue to bloat up, 32 bit will be harder.
There's also more and more dependencies on using the video cards for stuff, and not just drawing. My old gutless cheap phone can do things that I can only dream off in OS/2.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 18, 2017, 02:23:48 am
I welcome people there input in a forum. In my opinion Andreas had no good word left for my funding campaign I posted to os2.org, no problem.
That's a big misconception. I simply dislike your sophistic behaviour here.

Quote
But when I asked him to ask questions and he does not.
Stop - there has never been a conversation about your "campaign" between us. Absolutely nothing!

Quote
It seems he is just in the forum to spread negative messages and it seems not much else. Most OS/2 users are skilled enough to understand slightly  more then what he posts which seems point at some level of knowing what is he is talking about. But talking stand point the build tools that are outdated for example. If it was not for GCC we would have been dead years ago.
You can call it a "minority report". I will use in future comma instead of minus symbols in my posts. Perhaps they will look friendlier then ;-)

Quote
So that is what I mean with un constructive attitude in his communication. The vast majority of new software is being compiled with these tools that Paul Smedley maintains in his spare time Dmitry from BWW and other people. A different attitude from his side is certainly in place. Some on Andreas his statements come across as political one liners with little technical foundations underneath it.
Please no fallback to fake news again, the only new software for OS/2 that came up in the last half year were some device drivers that use a different toolset. It's nice to have GCC (g++) but I cannot find the GNU debugger (gdb)? Which debugger is used for current Mozilla development? Which profilers and code analysers are utilised? Questions, questions that will stay unanswered. The unclear current situation without any plan (as Sigurd mentioned) leads to unsatisfied users etc.

It would be a better idea to discuss about the technical details in the mozilla OS/2 newsgroup and not here.

And some extra ++++++
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Martin Iturbide on November 18, 2017, 02:44:21 am
So, in my opinion, Money would be needed to Support current Hardware Features, like USB 3, WLAN (so many years missed now...) UNIAUD or what else - so desperatly needed Features.....to keep the current Hardware for some years. So: to develop Drivers.

Hi Sigurd

I'm complete against to use community raised money to generate close source drivers contaminated with the IBM DDK license which is incompatible with any open source license. (In case someone think that is the plan).

Drivers maybe necessary but are "short term" needs, in the long term you will require newer drivers and more updated drivers. In my opinion it is better to use money on things that will help the keep the platform current and with working applications in a middle-long term. If we don't have working applications that you want to use on OS/2, there not even need for drivers.

Sigurd, this does not mean it has to be black or white. This just look to me like a fundraising you don't want to support because you want drivers first. Maybe you will have to skip this one and focus on support some other driver projects.

Regards
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Dave Yeo on November 18, 2017, 03:24:11 am
It's nice to have GCC (g++) but I cannot find the GNU debugger (gdb)? Which debugger is used for current Mozilla development? Which profilers and code analysers are utilised? Questions, questions that will stay unanswered. The unclear current situation without any plan (as Sigurd mentioned) leads to unsatisfied users etc.

The IBM debuggers mostly work fine for GCC(g++) code including Mozilla. Steven did work getting the OpenWatcom linker linking the huge debug version of xul. Firefox itself has tools for debugging JavaScript and such. Profiling with GCC was discussed years back in the newsgroup but I forget the particulars.

Quote
It would be a better idea to discuss about the technical details in the mozilla OS/2 newsgroup and not here.

The newsgroup seems pretty dead.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Sigurd Fastenrath on November 18, 2017, 08:49:01 am

Hi Martin,

Developing drivers dies not automatically lead to closed source. I.e. I asked Lars Erdmann regarding USB 3.0.

But I have to state that even if the drivers would be closed source in my opinion it would be better to have those as none of them.

Regards
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Paul Smedley on November 18, 2017, 09:32:48 am
Hi Guys,

I do not know what you talking about but Paul Smedley provides current builds of GCC 6 and 7 on his website for OS/2.
Only three errors in one sentence.
1. The current "supported" versions of the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC) are Version 6.4 and 7.2. Neither full builds nor builds of a subset are currently available.
2. The mentioned download package comes not from his website but from dropbox - I didn't know that Paul is the owner of dropbox?
3. The mentioned download package is not a full package but a subset of GCC features (C and C++ frontend, gfortran frontend) - some tools but no standard C library or standard C++ library support included

1) I haven't built 6.4, but 6.3 is available on my site. Likewise with 7.2. Note these are minor bug fixes, I just haven't had time to build them.

2) Does it really matter that my downloads come from Dropbox? I hsot files on Dropbox to try and provide the best possible download speeds for users.

3) Why should I include a C library with a compiler? It's clearly stated the compiler builds on top of the environment that klibc provides..

Cheers,

Paul


Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Martin Iturbide on November 18, 2017, 12:17:51 pm
Developing drivers dies not automatically lead to closed source. I.e. I asked Lars Erdmann regarding USB 3.0.

That is interesting, you are right, there can be open source drivers on OS/2, but the temptation to use IBM DDK code (which is incompatible with open source) is high since it will help developers to make drivers faster.

Lar's drivers are not open source and can not be turn open source because they are based on the IBM DDK source code (AFAIK). But he uses a workaround, he turned his project into a collaborative project under netlabs, so even if it is not open source another member of netlabs can continue the project in the future. That was the only legal solution I know for IBM DDK source code drivers.

Under my experience on this platform, close source software is future abandonware. It would be better to invest in open source drivers even if those will cost more by not using IBM DDK code.

Regards
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser (driver development)
Post by: Roderick Klein on November 18, 2017, 05:29:53 pm
Problems, like UEFI, UEFI2020, USB 3, NVMe, Panorama, UNIAUD.... will lead to an end of OS/2 nativ on modern Hardware and I see no way that this can be stopped.

So, in my opinion, Money would be needed to Support current Hardware Features, like USB 3, WLAN (so many years missed now...) UNIAUD or what else - so desperatly needed Features.....to keep the current Hardware for some years. So: to develop Drivers.

I will answer some your other questions  later. As for the drivers. I would like to refer to you to the presentation of David Azarwicz from Arca Noae in Toronto.

He is currently working on USB 3.0 host controller driver that can fit in the current USB stack.
UNIAUD based on technically dead and Arca Noae seems to be working on an audio driver based on FreeBSD audio chipset.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuEoW_1cmgU
USB 3.0 is mentioned (around 20:30). I could not find the Uniaud portion in the train quickly.

Roderick
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 18, 2017, 05:30:12 pm
The IBM debuggers mostly work fine for GCC(g++) code including Mozilla. Steven did work getting the OpenWatcom linker linking the huge debug version of xul.
I suppose that IBM's HLL symbol format is utilised. That's of course a weak point in the Watcom debugger. So in a real world scenario I have to use a remote debugger under Windows NT or AIX.

Quote
Firefox itself has tools for debugging JavaScript and such. Profiling with GCC was discussed years back in the newsgroup but I forget the particulars.
That was back in the times when IWB changed to be built with GCC - not sure.

Quote
The newsgroup seems pretty dead.
But is the only source of valuable information that still remains.

To support the sponsorship I collected today some money from the street - not bad for 25 minutes...
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Dave Yeo on November 18, 2017, 09:03:14 pm
The IBM debuggers mostly work fine for GCC(g++) code including Mozilla. Steven did work getting the OpenWatcom linker linking the huge debug version of xul.
I suppose that IBM's HLL symbol format is utilised. That's of course a weak point in the Watcom debugger. So in a real world scenario I have to use a remote debugger under Windows NT or AIX.

Yes, HLL debug symbols are generated with -g -Zomf. Some have to be repressed as there isn't room for the records.
There are plans to add HLL debug symbols to OpenWatcom, though whether time will be found...
Quote

Quote
Firefox itself has tools for debugging JavaScript and such. Profiling with GCC was discussed years back in the newsgroup but I forget the particulars.
That was back in the times when IWB changed to be built with GCC - not sure.
It was around Firefox 3, 9 years back. Here's the discussion, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/mozilla.dev.ports.os2/GCC$20profiling/mozilla.dev.ports.os2/A9wuXGW8TKA/ZtAu6HerUC4J (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/mozilla.dev.ports.os2/GCC$20profiling/mozilla.dev.ports.os2/A9wuXGW8TKA/ZtAu6HerUC4J)
Quote

Quote
The newsgroup seems pretty dead.
But is the only source of valuable information that still remains.

Yes, and luckily Google seems to have it all indexed.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: guzzi on November 18, 2017, 09:55:37 pm
Some considerations about this sponsorship drive:

It is indeed not clear which browser will be ported and not even when. I am not happy about that myself. I still gave my consent as a VOICE board member, for a number of reasons.
It has become increasingly clear that porting Firefox is too resource intensive, for reasons already stated in this thread, o.a. the rapid major code changes. Choosing an alternative takes time. Porting the alternative takes more time. Getting the necessary funds together also takes time. By raising money now we save time later.
Software development does not come for free, at least not when there are few developers and therefore full time development by the sparse developers is needed.
Although there is no alternative browser chosen yet, the developers have been chosen, namely BWW, because they have proven to deliver.

Others may think differently. Everyone is free to choose if they will contribute or not.

As for the comments in this thread about buggy software, lack of tools etc., when I take into account the number of bugreports in the firefox bug tracker by the main complainants I get the strong impression that complaining or even trolling is more important to some than actually helping getting bugs fixed.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Roderick Klein on November 18, 2017, 11:49:27 pm
Good evening,

thanks for the words, Roderick, but I think this brings me no step further. But that does not matter.

Yes - I am of the opinion, that ecomstation failed because of mismanagement, sadly. And yes, the Situation about the "Browser of the future" reminds me of the Situation "the ACPI of the future of eCS 2.0".

For everbody reading this let just expand a bit more on this discussion about eComStation mis-management.
Because I think its time to set some misconceptions straight.

Sigurd wrote:
"Yes - I am of the opinion, that ecomstation failed because of mismanagement, sadly. And yes, the Situation about the "Browser of the future" reminds me of
the Situation "the ACPI of the future of eCS 2.0".

Without the whole eComStation project there would have not been OS/2 and it would have been long dead. I can understand from a customer perspective the product when it came to ACPI did not deliver what you where expecting off it, sorry about that. I do not think its rocket science to figure out however that both eComStation and ArcaOS mostly the same people where working at Arca Noae as the people that *helped* me at Mensys at the time. The guys at Bitwise works, Steve Levine, David Azarewicz ans Alex Taylor.

I guess its also no surprise that the research and development budget at Mensys never was not millions of Dollars for OS/2. That is/was no secret at all. I remeber the discussions in the public forums about how to manage a project. But with eCS we never had the budget for a large development team or a lot of project managers. Welcome to reality of keeping OS/2 moving forward with all compenents attached to it from browser down to all the drivers. 

When it came to ACPI and it not working I think its fair to say Pasha from the Ukrain did his very best. But ACPI is most likely one of the most complex drivers ever written for OS/2 outside of IBM. Anybody can say about eCo software and Eugene what you want, but eCo software got more projects off the ground such as ACPI and Panorama. Was it of a good quality ? Perhaps not what everybody wanted/was expecting but we would most likely not even be having this discussion in 2017 with the efforts ..

Later things did improve on ACPI  when David Azaricz stepped in at Mensys. And was BTW the person who invited David to start helping us out at Mensys at the time. But finding a developer that can write and debug that sort of code low level code is certainly not easy to find.

Mensys hired a company from the Ukraine to work on the Intel and Realtek OS/2 driver ported from Linux (this was not eCo software). They made the first Intel Gigabit driver based on Linux kernel sources at the time, that worked pretty good. When they started working on the Realtek OS/2 driver things started out ok, but ended in disaster of nothing short. At the company they had three project managers failed on trying to fix this trapping Realtek driver and 2 developers spent close to 6 months on this. Steve Levine also tried to *help* them to fix the kernel TRAP but it was not his job in this case. After the company told me that could not continue the project I went back to Steve it ook him 45 minutes to located the kernel TRAP.
The whole reason Steve never fixed the kernel TRAP was because it was the job of company from the Ukraine todo this.

The whole point being is that this management discussion with OS/2 projects is a bit more complicated then its sometimes presented in the forum.

So I can understand if you where not happy with how the project was managed overal. But it was done to best our abbilities and with the budgets we had to work. And as I always stated over the years a lot of money of sales was always reinvested in OS/2.

Roderick
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Roderick Klein on November 19, 2017, 01:27:07 am
I am working on some more details answers and will post tomorrow.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Sigurd Fastenrath on November 19, 2017, 07:41:24 am
I am working on some more details answers and will post tomorrow.

Roderick, when I read this I fell sorry to have written what I have written because I did not want to make you so many Trouble, emotional Trouble. It was just about the Project. eCS is Long gone and it is far in the past, so please do not invest time on this Point. I know that you and others did the best they can, so - sorry, do not waste your time answering to this Point I have written and but use it for your funding. We can talk about this better, if you like, when we will met the next ime, may be in May in Berloin or December in Cologne, I am looking Forward to it.

Thanks and all the luck for the future!
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: André Heldoorn on November 20, 2017, 12:07:34 pm
The problem is that generally developers have the latest machines, using a 64 OS with lots of memory and 32 bit will become more and more of an afterthought. We're seeing it in things like the recommendation to have 16GBs of virtual address space to build Mozilla as one example.

Or, less abstract and closer to home, by things like the assumption that OS/2 has a beloved Unix directory structure. I've stopped updating several apps because the old version is aimed at OS/2, while improved newer versions are aimed at the developer's eCS 2.x and AOS.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 20, 2017, 12:36:38 pm
Or, less abstract and closer to home, by things like the assumption that OS/2 has a beloved Unix directory structure.
I don't know what's going on here? UNIX' directory structure was adopted back in the days of DOS version 2. And OS/2 remains quite compatible. Of course each has it's own limitations.

Quote
I've stopped updating several app because the old version is aimed at OS/2, while improved newer versions are aimed at the developer's eCS 2.x and AOS.
So which features you're missing?

This thread became really weird. So if there's a moderator: Please branch it out to a new thread! It has no relation with the original topic anymore. If Roderik wants to warm up old soup then I'm starting to believe in tragedies. Otčenáš
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: André Heldoorn on November 20, 2017, 01:18:19 pm
when I take into account the number of bugreports in the firefox bug tracker by the main complainants I get the strong impression that complaining or even trolling is more important to some than actually helping getting bugs fixed.

Names, please. For example, people with your type of arguments tend to overlook that I'm not even really using FF for "OS/2", that I don't tend to provide personal data to create accounts to report bugs, that a bug tracker is the developer's system instead of mine, that I'm a happy user of an older version of SM, that I've never complained about Yeo's efforts regarding FF/SM/his standards, that I've guessed frame rate numbers quite frequently, that I've invested quite a lot of time in upgrades and matching downgrades, and so on. I've been critized frequently, even over here by a programmer of FF, while I'm not even using their latest non-OS/2 version of FF. I've stated frequently that efforts to keep up to date with FF's Agile are impressive. I've stated fequently that authors of ports tend to reduce the size of the OS/2 community, without recalling any serious comment that I was wrong (serious: not counting the author of FF, one of his main arguments was that RPM solved language difficulties of users of OS/2). I've stated that the author of FF for "OS/2" is allowed to release a Pentium 4 version for a 80386 OS, and so on. If I would actually use FF, then I have no reason to believe that all of my latest issues with FF for "OS/2" cannot by reproduced by a $10 Pentium III test install. The author of FF for "OS/2" has offered solutions for unreported bug over here, which just show that reporting some broken components is 100% useless: use an OS with a foreign language users may not understand (DE/EN), and buy matching new hardware. I already know that was the reply to unreported bugs, which also explains why I'm not even using nor funding their work, and I didn't need dmik's silly arguments (a.o. "I'm Russian") to presume such a "solution". And so on. Which part of "I'm not really using FF, SM is my browser" isn't always clear?

Hence the question: names (plural), please? Why are you even using a bug tracker to check people? How do you know that I wasn't a bug tracker's (virtual) "user1235"? Why are you insulting anonymous people with your troll remarks? What's your definition of a troll? I, for one, would suggest the use of a better benchmark than a system of a developer of a product I'm not using, with a CTO who first described that ignoring (potential) customers, in public, is a "great feeling" and next asks (potential) customers to send more money. An unqualified amateur. If something is broken now, then it's your benchmark. And, granted, sometimes one's initial attitude of a classic engineer.

A complicated, interesting fact is that public bug trackers do promote and support the underlying problems of commercial ICT methodes, including but not limited to Mozilla's rapid release cycle. There's no direct link, I'm not expecting an eCS 3.0 anymore. There is a reason why e.g. Agile ignores experts and why e.g. ITIL has to define that customers are satisfied. Satisfied by definition, not by solutions nor actual provided services. Users of active, public bug trackers are a part of a broken system, including but not limited to users having to donate their commercial or private data to a service provider of the author.

In a nutshell: sometimes I actually do "like" to complain about Microsoft, so according to a biased or non-evidence based point of view like yours I'm not a troll when I report everything I don't like about their supported products to Microsoft, by using Microsoft's bug tracking system with a Microsoft account, while not using or really wanting to use Microsoft's dominating products at all. Go figure...
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: André Heldoorn on November 20, 2017, 01:39:20 pm
I don't know what's going on here? UNIX' directory structure was adopted back in the days of DOS version 2.

You're smarter than that and know what I mean, without having to require users to always be technically accurate. This is not an Unix forum, while perhaps appriciating a more accurate report of both Unix and the history of MS-DOS. If I want an Unix directory structure with an own root, including but not limited to solutions like RPM, then I'll start using Unix. I won't.

I could have installed such a (full) structure while smiling and not noticing it, while installing eCS 2.x DE/EN or AOS EN. But DE nor EN still isn't the prefered foreign language of the OS over here, and the developers of eCs 2.x and/or couldn't be arsed to produce an official directory structure-related upgrade for OS/2 and eCS. Different products, smaller user base. Most of the non-DE/EN community of IBM's has already left us, often without telling us.

Thanks for explsainig what Mensys did, but it's quite obvious that resources are limited. The reduced number of eCS 1.x and 2.x languages, compared to Warp 4 FixPaxk 0, has reduced the size of the community too. That's nothing but a fact. Of life. I'm not demanding all files in one directory, but I'm often pointing out that such a change can, and should be avoided. FF45 is just an example of an important product "we" aren't using anymore, and so is an updated silly Qt-based game or most of the un-OS/2'ified GCC port. If I want most of Unix, then I'll start using Unix.
Title: Re: Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Post by: Andreas Kohl on November 20, 2017, 08:39:25 pm
I don't know what's going on here? UNIX' directory structure was adopted back in the days of DOS version 2.

You're smarter than that and know what I mean, without having to require users to always be technically accurate. This is not an Unix forum, while perhaps appriciating a more accurate report of both Unix and the history of MS-DOS. If I want an Unix directory structure with an own root, including but not limited to solutions like RPM, then I'll start using Unix. I won't.
Every OS/2 system has an "Unix directory structure" even when IPLed from floppy or network. And for sure every user who's posting here from an OS/2 (or NT) networked station is also using a BSD-derived IP stack. It's not a good idea to mix different topics namely directory structure, file system and UNIX. Only a simple example/question for porting trivial stuff: How about a shell script that handles "compress"ed UNIX files *.Z and also "pack"ed UNIX files *.z?

Quote
I could have installed such a (full) structure while smiling and not noticing it, while installing eCS 2.x DE/EN or AOS EN. But DE nor EN still isn't the prefered foreign language of the OS over here, and the developers of eCs 2.x and/or couldn't be arsed to produce an official directory structure-related upgrade for OS/2 and eCS. Different products, smaller user base. Most of the non-DE/EN community of IBM's has already left us, often without telling us.
For economical reasons only German counts for large remaining OS/2 deployments. There were two groups of people in the U.S. forced to learn German: DEA's dog handlers and IBM's OS/2 kernel developers.  ;)

Quote
Thanks for explsainig what Mensys did, but it's quite obvious that resources are limited. The reduced number of eCS 1.x and 2.x languages, compared to Warp 4 FixPaxk 0, has reduced the size of the community too.
Warp 4 fixpak 0 (XR_M000) was only available in American language AFAIK. No convincing argument.

Quote
That's nothing but a fact. Of life. I'm not demanding all files in one directory, but I'm often pointing out that such a change can, and should be avoided. FF45 is just an example of an important product "we" aren't using anymore, and so is an updated silly Qt-based game or most of the un-OS/2'ified GCC port. If I want most of Unix, then I'll start using Unix.
It's not fair to blame Unix for the chaotic YUM/RPM situation under OS/2-based systems. The current partly ported RPM features (from an quite outdated release) unfortunately leads to misconceptions in this area. Unix is about small tools that make a great environment. The GNUish bloatware around is not UNIX. To make it clear I don't want to blame FSF here. And so-called open source software existed even before. There are quite good examples for portable software. But also wrong assumptions which will cause trouble under OS/2 targets sometimes torturing end-users with wrong documentation, non-working national language support or other issues. It's a effortless regurgitation to write bug reports for recurrent disturbances.

I welcome every cooperative approach to extend the coexistence of portable software. Unfortunately some people spreading rumours here seem to have their own economic interests. That's not a bad thing at all ...but there's also a category marketplace in this fora most suiteable for mountebanks.