WebSite Information > Article Discussions
Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser
Jochen Schäfer:
--- Quote from: Dave Yeo on October 12, 2017, 05:10:26 pm ---
--- Quote from: Jochen Schäfer on October 12, 2017, 09:27:10 am ---
--- Quote from: 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.
--- End quote ---
I looked into the build process, and Chromium uses the whole GTK enchilada. Which would be a worthwhile purpose in itself.
--- End quote ---
Even on Windows?
Yes, having GTK ported would open up a lot of other ports.
--- End quote ---
At least on X Windows. But it definitely doesn't use Qt.
Sigurd Fastenrath:
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.
Roderick Klein:
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.
Olafur Gunnlaugsson:
--- Quote from: Roderick Klein on November 06, 2017, 09:40:37 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.
--- End quote ---
*Pale Moan* Freudian slip?
Pale Moon is also buggier than most people realise
Andreas Kohl:
--- Quote from: Olafur Gunnlaugsson on November 06, 2017, 11:08:13 am ---
Pale Moon is also buggier than most people realise
--- End quote ---
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/) for RISC OS.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version