Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Dmitriy Kuminov

Pages: [1] 2
Applications / Re: Updated RPMs - big release chunk...
« on: October 12, 2021, 09:42:03 pm »
I am not a programmer so I can't be bothered trying to work out what isn't working, that is the job of those producing the updates before they release them - at least that is how it works in industry.
You are right here. And as any job this one (RPM package tester) should be paid for - at least that is how it works in industry. Currently, there is no such a position at BWW because there is no funding for that. And therefore no person that would do that job. Which leaves us with the only option: ppl do it for free, as time permits, w/o any warranty or responsibility (so no complaints accepted) and anyone who can is welcome to contribute on these terms. This is what Doug is talking about I suppose.

Web applications / Re: Otter Browser 1.0 [teaser]
« on: March 08, 2021, 07:02:31 pm »
Thanks everybody!


great to hear about your efforts! Please make a focus to the installation process. Installation of simplebrowser was not funny and failed on my computer after a lot of trials.

Martin, as already mentioned by Roderick, simplebrowser was never meant to be distributed, it was a build for internal testing only (except that special release from Roderick for a wider audience that was still for testing only and having some RPM/YUM skills was a must). Otter will be distributed as an RPM package so it will install everything it needs automatically provided that you have a working RPM environment (e.g. use the latest ArcaOS). Due to OS/2 specifics, there is simply no other way to properly distribute it (e.g. macOS-like bundle approach will not really work on OS/2 for Otter for many reasons).

Web applications / Otter Browser 1.0 [teaser]
« on: March 05, 2021, 07:00:45 pm »
First native OS/2 Otter Browser build ever, enjoy.

There are still some things to polish in Qt and Chromium to make it usable but it's a question of weeks now. One of the things to do is update our current Qt 5.13.1 to Qt 5.15, including Qt WebEngine which will also bring a relatively new Chromium version. Qt WebEngine 5.15 is a requirement in Otter since Nov 2020 (meaning so we are a bit behind until it's done). Updating Chromium is very important as 73.x is a bit outdated (Jan 2019). 83.x is the Chromium version in 5.15.2 and the upcoming 5.15.3 will have Chromium 87.x. This is needed for both performance and stability (Chromium is updated A LOT by Google). Also, there are some Qt issues to fix like system clipboard support which is surely needed for comfortable use.

Stay tuned.

Web applications / Re: QT5 simplebrowser
« on: November 13, 2020, 09:31:46 pm »
Hey, just my few cents. Stuff in /test is surely not for general public. So no bug reports etc. are accepted for that. The new highmem fixes some nasty bug in DosRead on JFS which hangs the system if an app tries to load a few hundred megabytes in one go. It's available in the exp repo as RPM now BTW. And you should NOT mark LIBCN0.DLL or LIBCX0.DLL for loading high — it will break virtually everything on your system.

As for the rest, Chromium behaves really faster and smoother here than Firefox in many situations (especially on heavy JS sites) and in general produces lesser CPU load. YouTube playback is slow not because of JS slowness or such, it's because of some incorrect time scale interpretation somewhere on the pipeline, it's just "ticks" 1 ms per 1 s or so. HTML5/JS animations themselves run in the right time scale (e.g. on To be sorted out. But again, this is not for general use yet (although it already can do what FF can not since long - e.g. visiting online banking sites etc.). Please stay tuned and consider a donation to BWW if you want to see it ready for general use.

Internet / Re: Any updates on the Falcon QT browser?
« on: March 07, 2020, 04:02:13 pm »
Hey Guys,

Otto Browser uses the same web engine as Falkon: Qt WebEngine. It's chromium based and it's what I'm currently hardly working on. Both Falkon and Otto Browser can be built once Qt WebEngine is ready.

Note that Qt WebEngine is not to be mixed with Qt WebKit which was a web engine used in Qt 5.5 and earlier versions (including Qt 4). Qt WebKit is Apple WebKit based and while it can still be built with Qt > 5.5 with almost no effort (we did that for Qt 4 already), it's quite useless. All current Qt based web browsers have switched to Qt WebEngine since long. Qt WebKit is deprecated and it lacks many modern web standards so it's a dead end.

Internet / Re: The new browser / QT5
« on: August 19, 2019, 12:32:42 pm »
This really depends on how they decide to go. They made Qt 5 much more modular and plugin based (compared to Qt 4 and earlier) and this is a good thing. It simplifies things a lot (in terms of support and porting to new platforms as well). Therefore I suppose they will leave the overall structure intact this time. Which means less work bringing it to OS/2.

Article Discussions / Re: Qt 5 Base for OS/2
« on: August 16, 2019, 02:44:32 pm »
Jochen, I see. This looks like an ANPM bug to me. Please report this situation to their bug tracker at (Apparently they should let the whole update process to complete and only then offer a reboot).

Article Discussions / Re: Qt 5 Base for OS/2
« on: August 16, 2019, 12:10:01 pm »
Jochen, how do you install things? `libc-1:0.1.2-1` depends on a newer `klusrmgr-1.2.2-1` which should be automatically dragged in (causing a klusrmgr update before libc) unless you do something special with custom yum/rpm flags.

Article Discussions / Re: Qt 5 Base for OS/2
« on: August 15, 2019, 07:03:50 pm »
Qt 5 is not very backward compatible with Qt 4 but there are tools from Qt that simplify porting. But Qt 5 and Qt 4 apps can coexist so unless there are Qt 5 versions of your apps (which you should use then) you can still use Qt 4 versions.

Re the package error. Fixed, it will get deployed in 30 min or such.

Internet / Re: The new browser / QT5
« on: August 15, 2019, 05:09:08 pm »
BTW, YouTube works great in pure QtWebEngine as long as "proprietary" FFMPEG codecs are enabled when building it. So I expect it to work out of the box on OS/2 once we port it (we already have FFMPEG et al). It will lack hardware support of course but that's another story.

Article Discussions / Re: Qt 5 Base for OS/2
« on: August 14, 2019, 08:16:58 pm »
Martin, thanks for popping this up! A couple of notes:
- Qt 5 RPMs will be moved to the release repository later today.
- Qt 5 consists of modules and each module has its own repository and issue tracker. Per-module tickets should be reported to the module's issue tracker. Currently we only ported the QtBase module. Its issue tracker is located here:

And here are the proper release notes btw:

Internet / Re: The new browser / QT5
« on: August 14, 2019, 08:12:35 pm »
Dave, WebExtensions will eventually be available in QtWebEngine. Currently planned for Qt 5.14, here is its official bug report: (And btw the original ticket mentioned Falkon,

Given that Qt 5.13 is already out (to which our port of Qt5 for OS/2 will be updated within a couple of weeks), Qt 5.14 is really soon. It is scheduled for November, 2019 so if it goes well on their side WebExtensions will appear before/when we are done with our QtWebEngine port. Even if it gets postponed further, we will still get it one day. We have a lot to do before Falkon is ready to run on OS/2 anyway.

Article Discussions / Re: Follow Bitwise on Twitter
« on: June 18, 2018, 03:08:23 pm »
Hello Martin,

Thank you very much for raising it here. We planned to do so ourselves, but you outrun us :)

Yes, we will now post regularly to both our Twitter and our Facebook accounts. We found out that people are unaware about our daily work and therefore there might be an impression that we do nothing between releases. This is of course not true. We have to do *A LOT* of work in between. It's just so that sometimes the connection between what we might work on and the applications we eventually deliver is not obvious for an end user. A typical example is fixing the compiler (GCC) or its main library (LIBC). Regular postings to our online resources are meant to fill this gap.

So those who are on Twitter should follow us just as Martin described. Those who prefer Facebook, can use this link to subscribe to our page and get the same information that appears on our Twitter.

In our posts we use hash tags extensively to simplify following only specific topics if you need. Tag examples:

- #progress — rather noisy (and somewhat "technical") topic were we post interesting findings during our daily development work
- #release — posts with release information for various products we maintain
- #qt5 — Qt 5 related posts
- #NNN (where NNN is the application name) — posts related to the application named NNN (e.g. #injoy, #unzip)

Internet / Re: Firefox - 45.9.0 for OS/2 GA1.1...anyone...anyone???
« on: April 24, 2018, 02:16:27 pm »
Guys, so far it looks like it's a network & timing issue. So depending on the combination of your hardware and used optimization options all builds (Dave's or mine) might or might not work. I've created a ticket for that Feel free to share your experience there. By experience I mean technical facts — which hardware you have, which builds fail for you and which don't and what you do to make them work; abstract phrases like "doesn't work" are of no use so please don't spam with them there.

Applications / Re: Firefox 45.5 Install issues
« on: June 16, 2017, 12:42:29 am »
I have no clue what language difficulties have to do with "hence have various difficulties with the RPM/YUM/UNIXROOT environment", while ignoring the fact that the package manager over here is, and will remain, a human package manager. RPM is no one-size-fits-all solution, albeit you're pretending it is. Whotevah...
The clue is your old eCS or OS/2 installation which is not tested and not officially supported by us as a target for the RPM/YUM/UNIXROOT environment. If you refuse to properly install and properly use this environment then we have nothing to offer you except a raw ZIP with zero support from us. I have no clue what exactly is not clear for you here. We are not pretending and not saying that RPM fits everyone's needs — feel free to use whatever is best for you. We are only saying that if RPM doesn't fit your needs then please don't ask us for help because our only solution to help you with is RPM (reasons explained). That simple. And if you can offer OS/2 users something else — go on, do it, create competition (that you adore so much). We will be really glad to see it.

The ticket system is yours, and the human package manager even avoids WPI packages. Not because WarpIN sucks, so someone representing a WarpIN company doesn't have to try to advocate WarpIN now...
The only thing I advocated here so far is the choice we've made. And my intent has nothing to do with sucking, fucking, or such. It's clearly stated in the second sentence of my original post.

Pages: [1] 2