September 2003 - Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Re: [Dillo-dev] Dillo on Windows fork

by Melvin Hadasht

Hi, > That does not necessarily mean the project has to be forked, only that > someone needs to be willing to maintain the Windows code - by which I mean > (at the very least) following the development process and making sure that > changes don't break Windows compatibility. Otherwise we'll end up with the > same situation that killed Classic Mac OS support on Mozilla. AFAIK, the port of Sylpheed-Claws to Windows uses gtk 1.3.x (which is closer to gtk 2.x than to gtk 1.2.x). If someone wants to port Dillo to Windows, he can look at how Sylpheed-Claws I/O infrastructure was ported to Windows. Sylpheed-Claws does not use pthreads, but it forks to access to POP3 mailboxes, as Dillo forks to do DNS lookups, IIRC. We have a CVS branch for the Windows port. I think, if someone does not already have the experience of porting to Windows, looking at Claws versions can be very helpful, as our port is done by a very knowledgeable guy. -- Melvin Hadasht

Sept. 3, 2003

RE: [Dillo-dev] Dillo on Windows fork

by Eric Gaudet

> Kelson, > > > If Jorge does not want to work on a Windows port, that's up > > to him.... > > That does not necessarily mean the project has to be forked.... > ... > It seems clear that I must take Dillo for Windows elsewhere, > that opinions are too firmly set for Windows users to feel > welcome here soon. It isn't a problem to put my version on > SourceForge. Does anyone here want to get involved now or > shall I go it alone? > That's the beauty fo the GPL: even if the developers of Dillo don't want to help with a feature, a port, you can still do it. And if you end-up adding interesting stuff, Dillo can even get it back! ... > Should I choose a new name for the Dillo fork on SourceForge? > It's not required, AFAIK. The only requirement is to release the sources under the GPL with any release you do. Regarding the need for a windows port, I don't quite see who would need such a thing (besides you, obviously). Windows has phoenix, which is lightweight enough when the OS itself need a big machine only to boot. As for running old versions of windows on a small machine, it really is ludicrous. Running an OS that's unsupported, crash-prone and hopelessly outdated like W9x sounds like a bad idea. This kind of machine is a perfect target for a small linux. Good luck anyway. Eric

Sept. 3, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Dillo on Windows fork

by Robin Rowe

Kelson, > If Jorge does not want to work on a Windows port, that's up to him.... > That does not necessarily mean the project has to be forked.... No one has asked Jorge to work on the Windows port. My request was for technical information about the *Linux* implementation of Dillo. Jorge won't answer my Linux questions. He chooses not to help even indirectly, because I would use that information to work on Windows. > Maybe it'll take time for the changes to work their way into the main > branch. Who knows? Does it matter? It seems clear that I must take Dillo for Windows elsewhere, that opinions are too firmly set for Windows users to feel welcome here soon. It isn't a problem to put my version on SourceForge. Does anyone here want to get involved now or shall I go it alone? Jorge, what should be done about the Dillo name? CinePaint used to be called Film Gimp, a name inherited from an abandoned branch of GIMP that at one time was expected to be the next GIMP. Confusion with the GIMP project prompted our name change. Film Gimp users would sometimes wander into the GIMP list causing annoyance and confusion. Any Dillo for Windows users who come to this Dillo list expecting to be welcomed and supported will be wasting everyone's time. Should I choose a new name for the Dillo fork on SourceForge? Thanks, Robin --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robin.Rowe(a)MovieEditor.com Hollywood, California www.CinePaint.org Free motion picture and still image editing software

Sept. 3, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Dillo on Windows fork

by Kelson Vibber

Personally, I think that Windows compatibility could be beneficial for Dillo. If the goal is to make the Internet more widely available on less-expensive (in other words, older) hardware, it seems to me that making Dillo available on the large number of old Win9x systems would help. Recently, my brother picked up a cheap PCMCIA network card, dragged my parents' decade-old laptop off the shelf, and plugged it into their home LAN. This system is old enough that we installed Windows 95 on it when the OS was new. At one point, my brother turned to me and asked if I knew of a good web browser to run on a really old system. I said, "Well, if this were Linux, I'd recommend Dillo, but..." We ended up installing Opera, which still took about a minute to start up, but ran reasonably well afterward. Of course, there is the matter of developer interest. If Jorge does not want to work on a Windows port, that's up to him. This is free software, after all! As I understand it, he has expressed no objection to the existence of a port, but he does not want to be involved in the process. That does not necessarily mean the project has to be forked, only that someone needs to be willing to maintain the Windows code - by which I mean (at the very least) following the development process and making sure that changes don't break Windows compatibility. Otherwise we'll end up with the same situation that killed Classic Mac OS support on Mozilla. Maybe it'll take time for the changes to work their way into the main branch. The code to embed Dillo in Sylpheed, for instance, was a series of patches for a long time before it was added, and the tabs/frames patch (or parts of it) will probably follow the same path. The same thing could happen with the Windows port. Kelson Vibber www.hyperborea.org

Sept. 3, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Dillo on Windows fork

by Tom Lisjac

On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 09:34, Colin Michael Yates wrote: > Given that Linux is about choice... Yes, Linux and open source development is very much about choice... and one them is how a developer chooses to spend his or her time. It's hard work to build a project like this, but the reward is doing something that the creator believes is worthwhile. Nobody is being paid... so this doesn't need to conform to anyone else's idea of what "worthwhile" is. The GPL allows the code to be modified by anyone who chooses to... but it doesn't require the author to do work that he doesn't enjoy doing. > Fair enough having a personal agenda, but enforcing it on others (i.e. > being hostile) isn't really on. Hostility and indifference are two very different things. I haven't seen any hostility on this list... yet. Best regards, -Tom

Sept. 3, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Dillo on Windows fork

by Colin Michael Yates

Given that Linux is about choice, and the fact that we Linux users moan so much about MS apps not running on Linux, it kind of seems hypocrtical to support *only* Linux! Fair enough having a personal agenda, but enforcing it on others (i.e. being hostile) isn't really on. I am quite dissapointed now. I moved away from Microsoft to get rid of this kind of thing :) On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 08:09, robert w hall wrote: > In article <02d101c371a7$137a5fd0$0200a8c0@tbird>, Robin Rowe > <rower(a)MovieEditor.com> writes > >Colin, > > > >> Any chance of a downloadable exe? > > > >Yes I'd be glad to, but the Windows port is not ready yet for release. I got > >as far as the splash screen. Still more bugs to fix. Encouraging though. > > > >In response to my request for technical information about Dillo to make it > >easier for me to debug the Windows port, Jorge sent me an email off-list > >last week in which he told me, "you're on your own" and directed me to > >his interview at http://www.dillo.org/interview.html for the reason why. > >What Jorge says there is he is opposed to supporting Windows users as a > >matter of personal politics. > > Well, for me, one of the annoying things about M$ is it's policy of > aggressive obsolescence. Support for NT3.51, NT4, win95, win98 has > already gone - but these systems have life left in them and are > appropriate to the smaller machines of their time. > I would have thought supporting a browser to run on these earlier > machines would in no way be helping the Gates empire to 'world > domination', quite the reverse... > > Bob > >

Sept. 3, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Dillo on Windows fork

by Robin Rowe

Robert, > Well, for me, one of the annoying things about M$ is it's policy of > aggressive obsolescence. Let's not debate the pros and cons of Microsoft. It isn't that interesting and anyone with an opinion is unlikely to change it. In my world, that is, motion picture animation and special effects, the O.S. situation is very different from elsewhere. If you read my articles in Linux Journal then you are aware that in motion picture production Linux dominates as the most popular O.S. on servers and desktops. Windows isn't even a close second. The largest corporate installations of Linux in the world are DreamWorks, ILM, and Disney. To support all operating systems -- even minor ones like Windows -- is a mark of professionalism where I come from. Cheers, Robin --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robin.Rowe(a)MovieEditor.com Hollywood, California www.CinePaint.org Free motion picture and still image editing software

Sept. 3, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Dillo configure cannot find zlib, jpeglib not libpng

by Sebastian Geerken

On Thu, Aug 14, Scorpio Rising wrote: > I have a configuration problem in Debian stable. > > The configure file cannot find/use the z, jpeg or png libs that are in > /usr/include. > > *** cannot locate***......disabling jpeg/png/libz > > I have tried the command line options and even hardcoding the paths in > configure.in to no avail. > > I have installed the dev-headers for these packages. If you haven't solved the problem otherwise ... Perhaps you have installed the wrong versions. With the following packages, dillo compiles and run fine for me: $ dpkg --list "*zlib*" "*libjpeg*" "*libpng*" Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold | Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) ||/ Name Version Description +++-==============-==============-============================================ pn libcompress-zl <none> (no description available) pn libzlib-ruby <none> (no description available) un python-zlib <none> (no description available) un zlib <none> (no description available) pn zlib-bin <none> (no description available) pn zlib1 <none> (no description available) pn zlib1-altdev <none> (no description available) un zlib1-dev <none> (no description available) ii zlib1g 1.1.4-1 compression library - runtime ii zlib1g-dev 1.1.4-1 compression library - development pn zlibc <none> (no description available) un libjpeg-dev <none> (no description available) un libjpeg-gif <none> (no description available) pn libjpeg-mmx-de <none> (no description available) pn libjpeg-mmx-pr <none> (no description available) pn libjpeg-progs <none> (no description available) ii libjpeg62 6b-5 The Independent JPEG Group's JPEG runtime li ii libjpeg62-dev 6b-5 Development files for the IJG JPEG library un libjpeg6b <none> (no description available) un libjpegg-dev <none> (no description available) pn libpng-dev <none> (no description available) un libpng1-dev <none> (no description available) ii libpng2 1.0.12-3 PNG library - runtime ii libpng2-dev 1.0.12-3 PNG library - development ii libpng3 1.2.1-1.1 PNG library - runtime un libpng3-dev <none> (no description available) If you still fail with these packages, you should send your config.log to the list. Sebastian

Sept. 3, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Dillo on Windows fork

by robert w hall

In article <02d101c371a7$137a5fd0$0200a8c0@tbird>, Robin Rowe <rower(a)MovieEditor.com> writes >Colin, > >> Any chance of a downloadable exe? > >Yes I'd be glad to, but the Windows port is not ready yet for release. I got >as far as the splash screen. Still more bugs to fix. Encouraging though. > >In response to my request for technical information about Dillo to make it >easier for me to debug the Windows port, Jorge sent me an email off-list >last week in which he told me, "you're on your own" and directed me to >his interview at http://www.dillo.org/interview.html for the reason why. >What Jorge says there is he is opposed to supporting Windows users as a >matter of personal politics. Well, for me, one of the annoying things about M$ is it's policy of aggressive obsolescence. Support for NT3.51, NT4, win95, win98 has already gone - but these systems have life left in them and are appropriate to the smaller machines of their time. I would have thought supporting a browser to run on these earlier machines would in no way be helping the Gates empire to 'world domination', quite the reverse... Bob -- robert w hall

Sept. 3, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Problems compiling tab+frame patch on Mandrake and RH 7

by Kelson Vibber

On Tuesday 02 September 2003 2:05 am, Frank de Lange wrote: > These errors can be caused by mismatched autotools (when the one used to > create the configure script does not match the installed version). You can > try to run the autotools manually to recreate the files with your installed > versions of the autotools: Thanks! I've updated the RPM spec for the patched version to (a) check for automake and autoconf, and (b) run them before calling configure. So far, so good on fully-patched RH 7.2 and Mandrake 9.1. I can't test it on Mandrake 8.2 yet, because both the spare partition and UML filesystem have stopped working. I'll probably just start from a fresh Mdk 8.2 UML fs and reclaim the partition. RPMs for Mandrake 9.1 i586 and PPC will be up shortly. -- Kelson Vibber www.hyperborea.org

Sept. 3, 2003