WebSite Information > Article Discussions

Sponsorship needed for new OS/2 web browser

<< < (2/15) > >>

André Heldoorn:

--- Quote from: Martin Iturbide on October 12, 2017, 12:27:11 am ---have Qt 5.5 ported too. Bitwise has also demonstrated that they can deliver
--- End quote ---

</silence>FWIW: I've already stopped upgrading some improved Qt-ports because of the required, enforced, useless Unix directory structures.<silence>

Eugene Tucker:
What about the Chromium variant 'Brave " , it seems to offer a lot of good features, but aren't both 64 bit browsers.

Dave Yeo:

--- 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.

Roderick Klein:

--- Quote from: Martin Iturbide on October 12, 2017, 12:27:11 am ---Hi

In reference to this article: 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.

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

--- End quote ---

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

Martin Iturbide:
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

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version