- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

A question about the nature of this list

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 22:57:21 -0500, Rob S. <mr_semantics(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Gentlemen,Is it permissible to ask questions about odd dillo behavior on > this list? I have a weird issue that I have not encountered before, and > it is best "described" with a picture, but before I post anything, I > want to ensure that it is ok to do so.Regards, > Rob Somers I think it's OK (but don't quote me on it). I'm certainly intrigued. ~Benjamin

Dec. 28, 2010

A question about the nature of this list

by mr_semantics＠hotmail.com

Gentlemen,? Is it permissible to ask questions about odd dillo behavior on this list? ?I have a weird issue that I have not encountered before, and it is best "described" with a picture, but before I post anything, I want to ensure that it is ok to do so.? Regards, Rob Somers

Dec. 28, 2010

Re: FLTK 1.3.0 RC 1 released!

by rogerx.oss＠gmail.com

Dunno about the *other* distros, but Gentoo has several versions of FLTK available including 2.0_pre branch. And, somebody has volunteered a FLTK-1.3_rc1 ebuild on bugs.gentoo.org. Dillo is extremely important on all my platforms as I use Intel P3 CPU's. Using any other browser, and I'm just wasting my CPU cycles with unneeded html scripts -- even with noscript & no-ads plugins for Seamonkey! Maybe hook-up with the FLTK mailing list to see if they're really going to push 1.3? From what I read a week ago, they're devoting all efforts on 1.3 and deprecated 2.0 branch. 2.0 branch might get it's features ported to 1.3. Cheers! -- Roger http://rogerx.freeshell.org/

Dec. 28, 2010

FLTK 1.3.0 RC 1 released!

by mr_semantics＠hotmail.com

> To: dillo-dev(a)dillo.org > Subject: Re: [Dillo-dev] FLTK 1.3.0 RC 1 released! > Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:41:04 -0500 > From: obeythepenguin(a)gmail.com > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:38:55 -0500, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid(a)dillo.org> > wrote: > > > Mainly GNU/Linux flavours. > > > > Most of them have a policy of not packing unreleased libraries > > (quite understandable if you ask me). FLTK-2.0 was never released > > so, as a most unfortunate side effect, we were left out of the > > repositories. > > That makes sense, though then again I've seen a lot of "released" code in > distributions much worse than FLTK-2.0... > > One thing I like about Windows development is that, with comparatively > little effort, you can produce a single executable that runs on any > Windows system. Binary compatibility isn't possible to nearly that extent > on Linux/Unix -- the software, even the culture makes it limited and > extremely difficult at best. Part of the reason I stopped Unix > development, but I digress. I know you probably see things a bit > differently. > > ~Benjamin My apologies to Mr. Johnson - I am used to another list I am on where hitting reply sends it to the list. ?I should have checked before I hit send. So this is perhaps a little off topic, but what is the status of dillo with regard to FLTK 1.3.0? ?Will it be ported to that, or is the plan to continue with the "dead" FLTK 2?For me, it does not really matter a lot - I just grab the source and build it myself, but I was just curious about the direction you fellows are taking.

Dec. 28, 2010

FLTK 1.3.0 RC 1 released!

by higuita7＠yahoo.co.uk

hi On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:48:30 -0500, "Benjamin Johnson" <obeythepenguin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Out of curiosity, who's not carrying it? It's been a while since I've > run Linux, but OpenBSD has dillo-2.2 in its package tree. Almost all distros/OS with binary packages... fltk 2.0 is not yet released and have a very slow development cycle (ie: almost dead), and that generates two problems: -less software uses the "new", "unstable" and incompatible(with previous versions) lib, creating less demand for distros to use it -as devs dont tell its finish and looks dead, no distro will "waste" time packaging it in beta state, they wait for the "stable" version when it show up sadly, dillo is not important enough yet to pressure distros to use it and many distros don like statically linked binaries For source distros/OS, its easier, grab what is in the repository and forget... if its broken its upstream fault.. if its dead, its user fault :) right now, the main linux distros (ubuntu, debian, fedora, opensuse) none have fltk2 binary package released. Of course, all can be build from source, but most (binary distros/OS) users dont want/know to build a package cya higuita -- Naturally the common people don't want war... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. -- Hermann Goering, Nazi and war criminal, 1883-1946

Dec. 27, 2010

FLTK 1.3.0 RC 1 released!

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:38:55 -0500, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid(a)dillo.org> wrote: > Mainly GNU/Linux flavours. > > Most of them have a policy of not packing unreleased libraries > (quite understandable if you ask me). FLTK-2.0 was never released > so, as a most unfortunate side effect, we were left out of the > repositories. That makes sense, though then again I've seen a lot of "released" code in distributions much worse than FLTK-2.0... One thing I like about Windows development is that, with comparatively little effort, you can produce a single executable that runs on any Windows system. Binary compatibility isn't possible to nearly that extent on Linux/Unix -- the software, even the culture makes it limited and extremely difficult at best. Part of the reason I stopped Unix development, but I digress. I know you probably see things a bit differently. ~Benjamin

Dec. 27, 2010

FLTK 1.3.0 RC 1 released!

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:48:30AM -0500, Benjamin Johnson wrote: > On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:26:05 -0500, Jorge Arellano Cid > <jcid(a)dillo.org> wrote: > > >Hi there, > > > > Good news, it looks as though FLTK-1.3.0 is close to an > >official release. This is an important fact because once dillo is > >ported to it, distros repos could carry dillo again. > > > > http://fltk.org/articles.php?L1028 > > > > Out of curiosity, who's not carrying it? It's been a while since > I've run Linux, but OpenBSD has dillo-2.2 in its package tree. Mainly GNU/Linux flavours. Most of them have a policy of not packing unreleased libraries (quite understandable if you ask me). FLTK-2.0 was never released so, as a most unfortunate side effect, we were left out of the repositories. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 27, 2010

Merry Christmas! I've got presents :-)

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:02:19 -0500, corvid <corvid(a)lavabit.com> wrote: > If we had our own downloader, > 1) Downloads would be rejected less often when servers wouldn't see Wget > in the user agent string anymore. Admittedly, there is wget's --user-agent option, though that doesn't resolve the overall ugliness of dependency on an external program. That reminds me, I should have it use prefs.http_user_agent rather than the hard-coded string, since that can be overridden and it would look funny having two different user agents. My own builds use a Mozilla/4.0 agent, which is ugly but makes sites like Google behave a little better. > 2) Maybe the matter of proxies would be a bit less tangled. Libcurl obeys $http_proxy, but not prefs.http_proxy (yet). I don't think curl accepts the full URL_STR, so it would have to set the host, port, etc. from the individual DilloUrl fields. > I wonder whether libcurl makes it simple to retry and continue partial > downloads. (I wish dillo itself had some ability to do that, but I don't > want to battle with CCC.) Judging from [1], it looks pretty simple: open the file in append mode, and set CURLOPT_RESUME_FROM to the number of bytes already downloaded. Shall I go ahead and add it in? [1] http://curl.haxx.se/libcurl/c/curl_easy_setopt.html ~Benjamin

Dec. 27, 2010

Merry Christmas! I've got presents :-)

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Jeremy wrote: > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 04:16:13AM +0000, corvid wrote: > > Benjamin wrote: > > > The biggest changes are the preferences dialog and the > > > libcurl-based downloader, which removes Dillo's dependency on wget > > > and allows it to function as a completely self-contained > > > executable. (By default it's disabled, and Dillo continues to use > > > the old downloads DPI.) > > > > Naturally one begins to wonder about having such features in the > > real dillo :) > > I like the libcurl-based downloader. Curl seems to be pretty mature > and stable these days. If we had our own downloader, 1) Downloads would be rejected less often when servers wouldn't see Wget in the user agent string anymore. 2) Maybe the matter of proxies would be a bit less tangled. I wonder whether libcurl makes it simple to retry and continue partial downloads. (I wish dillo itself had some ability to do that, but I don't want to battle with CCC.)

Dec. 27, 2010

Merry Christmas! I've got presents :-)

by onepoint＠starurchin.org

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 04:16:13AM +0000, corvid wrote: > Benjamin wrote: > > The biggest changes are the preferences dialog and the > > libcurl-based downloader, which removes Dillo's dependency on wget > > and allows it to function as a completely self-contained > > executable. (By default it's disabled, and Dillo continues to use > > the old downloads DPI.) > > Naturally one begins to wonder about having such features in the > real dillo :) I like the libcurl-based downloader. Curl seems to be pretty mature and stable these days. Regards, Jeremy Henty

Dec. 27, 2010