OS2 World Community Forum

OS/2, eCS & ArcaOS - Technical => Internet => Topic started by: guzzi on August 07, 2019, 09:50:17 pm

Title: The new browser / QT5
Post by: guzzi on August 07, 2019, 09:50:17 pm
It looks like a beta release of QT5 is imminent. Days rather then weeks away (my assessment, https://github.com/bitwiseworks/qtbase-os2/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc). Pretty much on schedule. Once the retail version is complete work on the browser proper can start. A lot of people have sponsored this project, either directly to BWW or through VOICE. Please, keep sponsoring. Beside the browser a lot of other application will become available in more recent versions with this port of QT5. i.e. qBittorrent. I think Tellie is already waiting impatiently to start porting newer QT apps to our platform). A little bird whispered in my ear that the Falcon browser  might be available as early as November.



Sponsoring: http://www.os2voice.org/membership.html#bww
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 07, 2019, 10:58:25 pm
Don't forget the Bitwiseworks link to donate (https://www.bitwiseworks.com/shop/index.php?id_product=56&controller=product&id_lang=1).  ;D

Or you can also use Paetron to donate monthly (https://www.patreon.com/bwwbitwiseworks).

Regards
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: ivan on August 07, 2019, 11:15:49 pm
Maybe I missed something but what browser is this and will it use addons like noscript and adblock plus?
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: guzzi on August 07, 2019, 11:42:51 pm
https://www.falkon.org/about/
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: David Graser on August 08, 2019, 04:29:59 am
It looks like a beta release of QT5 is imminent. Days rather then weeks away (my assessment, https://github.com/bitwiseworks/qtbase-os2/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc). Pretty much on schedule. Once the retail version is complete work on the browser proper can start. A lot of people have sponsored this project, either directly to BWW or through VOICE. Please, keep sponsoring. Beside the browser a lot of other application will become available in more recent versions with this port of QT5. i.e. qBittorrent. I think Tellie is already waiting impatiently to start porting newer QT apps to our platform). A little bird whispered in my ear that the Falcon browser  might be available as early as November.

Sponsoring: http://www.os2voice.org/membership.html#bww

I made a 80x80 PNG icon and an OS/2 256 color icon.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Roderick Klein on August 08, 2019, 12:30:59 pm
Maybe I missed something but what browser is this and will it use addons like noscript and adblock plus?

The Firefox addons will not work with the Falcon browser. As I explained already is that the Falcon browser is one of the browsers we can port with the new QT libraries. 80 to 90% of the code the QT based browser use is in the QT framework.

I installed Facon for now on Windows box to see what it is like, screenshot of the extensions:
https://www.dedoimedo.com/images/computers-years/2018-1/falkon-extensions.png
They have an adblock extension.

Firefox/Seamonkey based browsers are effectively running at the end of the railwayline on OS/2.
We do not have the RUST compiler on OS/2 and it seems the kernel does not provide enough virtual adress space to run the compiler on OS/2. Also Firefox has been a nightmare to keep the ports up to date by BWW. (To many changes).

https://html5test.com/
Firefox 45 on OS/2 gets 400 out of 555 points scored.

Falcon gets 525 out of the 555 points.

Expected beta of Falcon in October or November of this year.

Roderick Klein
President OS/2 VOICE
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Eugene Tucker on August 09, 2019, 12:47:57 am
Thank you for the update Roderick.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Dave Yeo on August 09, 2019, 01:35:38 am
Maybe I missed something but what browser is this and will it use addons like noscript and adblock plus?

The Firefox addons will not work with the Falcon browser. As I explained already is that the Falcon browser is one of the browsers we can port with the new QT libraries. 80 to 90% of the code the QT based browser use is in the QT framework.

I would have thought the newer web extensions that Firefox, Chrome etc support would work for most QT browsers.
Quote
I installed Facon for now on Windows box to see what it is like, screenshot of the extensions:
https://www.dedoimedo.com/images/computers-years/2018-1/falkon-extensions.png
They have an adblock extension.

Firefox/Seamonkey based browsers are effectively running at the end of the railwayline on OS/2.
We do not have the RUST compiler on OS/2 and it seems the kernel does not provide enough virtual adress space to run the compiler on OS/2. Also Firefox has been a nightmare to keep the ports up to date by BWW. (To many changes).

https://html5test.com/
Firefox 45 on OS/2 gets 400 out of 555 points scored.

Falcon gets 525 out of the 555 points.

A lot of those failures will also happen on Falcon for OS/2. Things that depend on OS support are most of the failures. Luckily some important ones should work, better scripting support hopefully, same with web applications and web components.
Quote
Expected beta of Falcon in October or November of this year.

Roderick Klein
President OS/2 VOICE
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Dave Yeo on August 09, 2019, 08:27:11 am
This iseems to be the falkon web browser, previously known as Qupzilla, that Roderick is talking about, not falcon. Seems to be a KDE browser so I wonder if Bitwise is planning on porting part of KDE or if it'll run with just QT. Have to test.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Olafur Gunnlaugsson on August 09, 2019, 02:36:11 pm
This iseems to be the falkon web browser, previously known as Qupzilla, that Roderick is talking about, not falcon. Seems to be a KDE browser so I wonder if Bitwise is planning on porting part of KDE or if it'll run with just QT. Have to test.
If the Windows port is anything to go by it just needs QT, but similarly to Chromium based browsers the built in adblocker slows it down considerably.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: ivan on August 09, 2019, 10:05:26 pm
They not only need a fast configurable ad blocker but a javascript blocker is a necessity considering the number of exploits that are delivered through javascript.  Without those two it is going to be almost useless (I would not let it near anything like internet banking and other sensitive sites).
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Olafur Gunnlaugsson on August 10, 2019, 04:35:10 pm
They not only need a fast configurable ad blocker but a javascript blocker is a necessity considering the number of exploits that are delivered through javascript.  Without those two it is going to be almost useless (I would not let it near anything like internet banking and other sensitive sites).

The entirely sandboxed Javascript environment is a viable exploit delivery mechanism how?

Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Dave Yeo on August 10, 2019, 05:30:59 pm
They not only need a fast configurable ad blocker but a javascript blocker is a necessity considering the number of exploits that are delivered through javascript.  Without those two it is going to be almost useless (I would not let it near anything like internet banking and other sensitive sites).

The entirely sandboxed Javascript environment is a viable exploit delivery mechanism how?

Denial of service by overwhelming the CPU and/or memory. Just having to run an ad blocker will be hard on people with older systems.
Sandboxes have been known to leak as well.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: David Graser on August 10, 2019, 09:33:31 pm
Made some different Falcon icons.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Dave Yeo on August 11, 2019, 06:19:27 am
Made some different Falcon icons.

Look good and similar to the Linux icon. One nit, it should be Falkon icons to differentiate from the unsupported falcon browser.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Remy on August 11, 2019, 04:56:26 pm
I checked falkon under windows and saw some issue (e.g. on my site  http://remydodin.levillage.org/en/presentation.php?item=0900003&id=moi ) - pictures aren't correct and audio didn't start at expend time... ) 
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Per E. Johannessen on August 11, 2019, 05:12:10 pm
Just to avoid confusion, like Dave Yeo mentioned, there are;

https://falcon-browser.jaleco.com/

and

https://www.falkon.org/

Believe Falkon (with 'k') is the one likely to be ported.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Dave Yeo on August 11, 2019, 06:53:38 pm
I installed it and tested a bit on Mint. Unluckily I had to update Mint from 18.3 to 19 first which took quite a while.
Installing with apt (similar to yum) it did pull in some KDE libs which probably aren't needed but do give some extra functionality like a password manager. It also pulled in gstreamer which is likely used for multimedia, this could be a problem as we don't have a gstreamer port and when I looked at it back when Firefox used it, it did not look trivial to port, it's plugin based so needs to dynamically load DLLs. So Youtube etc may not work at first on OS/2
Has the same minimal (phone?) UI that has become popular for some reason with the hamburger menu and not very configurable.
Doesn't support WebExtensions unluckily and only has half dozen or so extensions. I spent quite a bit of time trying to install the JavaScript blocking extension with no luck. Even being able to block all JavaScript would be better then nothing. No idea about cookies.
The browser itself seemed fine, displayed everything I tried, didn't take much CPU or memory but I didn't test that much. I assume it uses the same JavaScript engine as Chrome so a lot of stuff that doesn't currently work should.
It'll probably make a good secondary browser but the lack of extensions is a problem and things such as passwords will have to be manually transferred.
Have to play with it a bit more but at least it seems to display modern JS heavy sites.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: David Graser on August 11, 2019, 07:35:37 pm
still doodling around
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Dmitriy Kuminov 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: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-61676. (And btw the original ticket mentioned Falkon, https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTWB-35).

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.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Dave Yeo on August 15, 2019, 01:54:35 am
That's good to hear as extensions do make the browser so much more useful. It's a shame that the weird interface has caught on, but it seems to be the way things are going on all platforms.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Remy on August 15, 2019, 02:52:16 pm
Just to avoid confusion, like Dave Yeo mentioned, there are;

https://falcon-browser.jaleco.com/

and

https://www.falkon.org/

Believe Falkon (with 'k') is the one likely to be ported.

Right, I realy mean falkon
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: ivan on August 15, 2019, 05:01:09 pm
Like Dave I installed it on my Linux Mint computer and I too am totally not impresses with the UI and the fact that there doesn't appear any way to change it. 

Not a browser I would use unless forced to do so - even firefox is heading that way and don't mention chrome.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Dmitriy Kuminov 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.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: David Graser on August 18, 2019, 05:45:43 pm
doodling again
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: jailbird on August 19, 2019, 02:01:20 am
Qt 6.0 is already in the planning stages. So hopefully we won’t have to go through this all yet again.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Dmitriy Kuminov 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.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Pete on August 26, 2019, 03:59:32 pm
Hi All

Will there be an email/newsreader client to go with the new browser?


Regards

Pete
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: David Graser on August 26, 2019, 08:30:48 pm
Hi All

Will there be an email/newsreader client to go with the new browser?


VOICE is working on an updated version of PMMail that I believe will be available for for all to use.  I don't know if a newsreader is in the works.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Tuure Linden on August 28, 2019, 09:14:55 pm
QT seems to be a bit problematic because they release new major versions "all the time". In the Linux World the KDE desktop and other software follows QT. Usually when a new version of QT is available, the older one is abandoned soon. I'm just wondering how long time it takes that the "new" browser becomes obsolete and QT6 will have to be ported. And how much work that will be again... But there are now other alternatives than a QT based browser?
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Dave Yeo on August 29, 2019, 02:35:09 am
There's not many options besides the QT based browser. FF52 could still be ported and then the various forks such as PaleMoon could be ported. Really, now there is the Webkit browsers, Firefox and its forks.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Tuure Linden on August 29, 2019, 01:54:55 pm
And portin RUST to OS/2 is absolutely impossible?

Personally I think it has been a bad idea to come up with such a programming language. Many legacy systems won't get Firefox releases anymore because of that... For example TenFourFox for PowerPC Macs is now doomed.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Jochen Schäfer on August 29, 2019, 02:57:13 pm
Nothing is impossible, but even porting QT5 in C++ is a major undertaking.
In theory, one could build a Rust cross compiler from the C/C++ Rust compiler and then compile Rust with the cross compiler. That's what I read about how most ports are done.
But it's time consuming and it's also a 4 GB dead end.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Martin Iturbide on August 29, 2019, 04:12:41 pm
Hi.

And portin RUST to OS/2 is absolutely impossible?

I don't think it is impossible, but not being a programmer I can not estimate the effort. Maybe the logical path was that it was less effort (I'm not saying that is easy or effortless) to port Qt 5 and a Qt browser than posting Rust and compiling Firefox. So that makes more sense for a community like us, which is struggling for resources. (money, developers, etc)

Personally I think it has been a bad idea to come up with such a programming language....

I can not say that Rust is technically good or bad (haven't used it), but I what is interesting is that is a new language that already has a "killer/flagship application" created under his technology, which is Firefox. But, how relevant is Firefox today? or, how strong is Mozilla's funding to push Rust harder on the market/community?. As my personal opinion, at the moment I'm not convinced of the Rust adoption in software, maybe the future will slap me in the face, but I would prefer Qt5, Node.js, OpenJDK to be ported to OS/2 before Rust.

Regards
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Olafur Gunnlaugsson on August 29, 2019, 04:29:24 pm
And portin RUST to OS/2 is absolutely impossible?

Personally I think it has been a bad idea to come up with such a programming language. Many legacy systems won't get Firefox releases anymore because of that... For example TenFourFox for PowerPC Macs is now doomed.

It is not impossible to port the rust compiler, but it is quite a big project and the only use for it really is for the Mozilla ecosystem, we have had problems maintaining much more popular programming tools in the past due to a lack of available programming talent and/or programmers willing/able to give up their free time to do maintenance  them, so focusing what little resources the community has on it will bring only limited amount of software to the platform.

The language features are also strangely old fashioned with lack of memory management (optional or otherwise) and modularity, especially given that the main problems associated with Mozilla browsers in the past have been related to memory leaks, the lack of a modularity is a pain since the rust toolchain is terribly slow making GGC seem fast by comparison. It would in its current state also need redesigning for use on OS/2, as it stands now it is too memory hungry, in fact has not possible to build the toolchain on 32 bit systems since 2014 (modularity would help a lot with this), although this is a language implementation issue and not a technical issue, i.e. it is perfectly possible to create or modify a rust compiler that works on 32 bit systems, but it will add considerably to the effort needed to port it.

The odd thing about rust while it is indeed a safer language than C++ and this is touted by Mozilla as the main reason for its existence, it is still not a safe language, making it yet another safeish functional language variant of which there are already a few thousands. It is a bit perplexing why mozilla choose to invent a new language that sports no new features rather than using an existing language and toolchain ....
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Dave Yeo on August 29, 2019, 04:36:07 pm
Porting Rust would be a huge effort. The whole toolchain would need reporting including GCC to use ELF instead of AOUT, then LLVM ported and then could start on Rust. Rust itself was quite hard to even port to the BSD's. Possibly years for a compiler guru to do. Then it sounds like a memory hog which would need more then 4GBs to build Firefox. OS/2 was actually one of the last 32bit platforms that could build Firefox.
A cross compiler might be easier, but still a big job really requiring a developer who really groks compilers and OS/2.
Title: Re: The new browser / QT5
Post by: Tuure Linden on August 29, 2019, 09:02:58 pm
And there's nothing wrong with the QT besides the short lifecyckle of major versions. It makes writing cross platform software very easy if I have understood right. I've never used the environment myself. What might be the reason why the make new versions so frequently, I have no idea... Back in the day I liked software made with QT3 and KDE 3 series Desktop was great in Linux. I absolutelu hated KDE4 and I don't like KDE5 so much neither. There is Trinity Desktop that is based on the latest KDE 3 release but it has compatibility issues with newer Linux distros and it seems that it's quite difficult to maintain QT3 software in the world of QT4 and 5.