- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Copy and paste from page content area

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Benjamin wrote: > Was this ever implemented in the X11 version? I don't have access to a > Unix box right now, otherwise I'd just test it myself. :-) It has that mechanism where you highlight text with the left mouse button to select it and middle button to paste somewhere, but it doesn't do the one that uses control keys (which I've never understood the value of). I was going to say that sometimes I double-click words with the expectation that they'll be selected, and this makes me think: What is the double click emitter for in dw/selection.cc, anyway? I don't see anything using it...

Dec. 29, 2010

Copy and paste from page content area

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

Was this ever implemented in the X11 version? I don't have access to a Unix box right now, otherwise I'd just test it myself. :-) ~Benjamin

Dec. 29, 2010

A question about the nature of this list

by mr_semantics＠hotmail.com

---------------------------------------- > From: corvid(a)lavabit.com > Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 07:09:09 +0000 > Almost certainly something wrong in fltk2 or dillo. > The situations that I'm aware of that screw up rendering are: > - configuring fltk with --enable-cairo > - running on OSX > Do either of these apply? Well I did not explicitly do?--enable-cairo this time (or any other time I have built dillo), so I will say not. ? And I am running this on OpenSUSE Linux i386. For good measure, I went and built against a different version of fltk2, to see if I missed anything. ?Still the same trouble. ?My build process is outlined in a blog post I wrote so my friend could build it on her machine - it is ?found here (should any of you have the time to take a peek at how I built dillo) : http://totally-out-of-ideas.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-build-dillo-on-open… Anyway, I don't want to take up too much of your time on something that I have most likely done incorrectly in the build process. ?I will keep fiddling with it, to see what I can figure out on my own. Rob

Dec. 28, 2010

FLTK 1.3.0 RC 1 released!

by obeythepenguin＠gmail.com

Getting off-topic, I know, but since this is quite interesting... On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:43:08 -0500, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid(a)dillo.org> wrote: > I don't develop nor have a Windows machine, but have heard of > DLL hell (in the same sense as RPM hell ;). Having developed extensively for both -- at one point I was rolling my own Linux distribution -- I can say quite confidently that Linux/Unix has it worse. On the technical side, there's system-wide shared libraries and soname versioning; if the major version changes, everything linked to the library must be recompiled. To compound that, there's the larger development community's general disregard for backwards compatibility. The worst changes I had to make for Dillo-Win32 were patching two or three lines of FLTK-2.0, to support Windows 95. Even then, it was trivial to run a brand-new program on a fifteen-year-old operating system. (On a related note, it's nice that I can still use my nineteen-year-old copy of WordPerfect 5.1. When I ran Linux, I was lucky if I could run something I'd compiled just a year or two before.) > Anyway, the point seems clear to me. In the very old days, with > an Atari 800XL (or C64), developers had a great time. Binaries, > and even HW tricks were portable! > > These days, as you point out, it's very hard to acieve binary > compatibility with GNU/Linux (HW is different, distros are > different, libraries are different). If the problem was left to > the user, no progress could be made (most don't know what is to > compile, and shouldn't need IMHO). This is mainly solved by the > distro-packaged-SW, which users feel comfortable with. That's the > reason why it's so important for us to be back on this kind of > repositories. Windows achieves its binary compatibility largely because every Windows operating system is in the control of one vendor. If anything, the Linux distribution system is worse, because it places control of *applications* in the hands of the OS vendor as well. What I love most about Windows development is the ease of distribution: I just put the file online, and any user can download and run it without so much as a ./configure or even a chmod. No complication, and *no middleman*. I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way, just pointing out that the distribution system is badly flawed and unfriendly from both a user's and a developer's perspective. ~Benjamin

Dec. 28, 2010

FLTK 1.3.0 RC 1 released!

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 04:41:04PM -0500, Benjamin Johnson wrote: > 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. I don't develop nor have a Windows machine, but have heard of DLL hell (in the same sense as RPM hell ;). Anyway, the point seems clear to me. In the very old days, with an Atari 800XL (or C64), developers had a great time. Binaries, and even HW tricks were portable! These days, as you point out, it's very hard to acieve binary compatibility with GNU/Linux (HW is different, distros are different, libraries are different). If the problem was left to the user, no progress could be made (most don't know what is to compile, and shouldn't need IMHO). This is mainly solved by the distro-packaged-SW, which users feel comfortable with. That's the reason why it's so important for us to be back on this kind of repositories. -- Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 28, 2010

Re: FLTK 1.3.0 RC 1 released!

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 05:45:20PM -0900, rogerx.oss(a)gmail.com wrote: > 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. That's soothing to hear. > 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? They're committed to it. I've posted some links to their forums from time to time. > 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. In a nutshell: 2.0 is dead. The remaining developers agreed to cuncur on 1.3 long ago, and to try to release near Christmas (still in the ballpark). -- Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 28, 2010

FLTK 1.3.0 RC 1 released!

by jcid＠dillo.org

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 07:53:20PM -0500, Rob S. wrote: > [...] > 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? As laconically stated in our [Current Plans] link, the idea is to give high priority to the FLTK 1.3 port (for the reasons higuita summarized very well in a former post). -- Cheers Jorge.-

Dec. 28, 2010

A question about the nature of this list

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Rob wrote: > Ok, here is what I am looking at: > http://www3.sympatico.ca/rsquared/images/misc/dillo.png > As you can see, there is a bunch of text that has sort of "scraped off" the page at the top and the bottom of the viewing area as I scroll up and down. ?When I first start the browser, the two areas I have highlighted are clean, but text kind of builds up there until you see the smudgy mess in the picture. ?I have never seen it before - I asked my wife if she has had that trouble with her computer, and she says no. ?I also showed another friend who uses dillo, and she hadn't seen it before either. ?Since I did a standard build, I am starting to wonder if it is maybe faulty hardware on my machine. ?But I wanted to show you all to see if you had seen this before I start checking elsewhere. Almost certainly something wrong in fltk2 or dillo. The situations that I'm aware of that screw up rendering are: - configuring fltk with --enable-cairo - running on OSX Do either of these apply?

Dec. 28, 2010

A question about the nature of this list

by mr_semantics＠hotmail.com

> If you can provide a link to a picture for interested parties > to follow, that'd work well. (Our convention is only to use > attachments for smallish patches.) Ok, here is what I am looking at: http://www3.sympatico.ca/rsquared/images/misc/dillo.png As you can see, there is a bunch of text that has sort of "scraped off" the page at the top and the bottom of the viewing area as I scroll up and down. ?When I first start the browser, the two areas I have highlighted are clean, but text kind of builds up there until you see the smudgy mess in the picture. ?I have never seen it before - I asked my wife if she has had that trouble with her computer, and she says no. ?I also showed another friend who uses dillo, and she hadn't seen it before either. ?Since I did a standard build, I am starting to wonder if it is maybe faulty hardware on my machine. ?But I wanted to show you all to see if you had seen this before I start checking elsewhere. Rob

Dec. 28, 2010

A question about the nature of this list

by corvid＠lavabit.com

Rob wrote: > Is it permissible to ask questions about odd dillo behavior on this list? Yup. > 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. If you can provide a link to a picture for interested parties to follow, that'd work well. (Our convention is only to use attachments for smallish patches.)

Dec. 28, 2010