Benchmark for web page rendering speed; dillo-svn vs dillo 2.2?
Could we get a benchmark that compares rendering speeds of web pages, and possibly resource usage on top of that as well? I'm just curious to see the results :)
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:49:33AM -0400, Jimm Katastrophe wrote:
Could we get a benchmark that compares rendering speeds of web pages, and possibly resource usage on top of that as well? I'm just curious to see the results :)
We have http://www.dillo.org/memory.html Cheers, Johannes
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:01:09PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote: On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:49:33AM -0400, Jimm Katastrophe wrote:
Could we get a benchmark that compares rendering speeds of web pages, and possibly resource usage on top of that as well? I'm just curious to see the results :)
We have http://www.dillo.org/memory.html
What about dillo_port1.3? ... not that it'll make much of a difference from version 2? (... guessing, probably wise to wait until Dillo gets it's next release version number with fltk-1.3.)
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:01:09PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:49:33AM -0400, Jimm Katastrophe wrote:
Could we get a benchmark that compares rendering speeds of web pages, and possibly resource usage on top of that as well? I'm just curious to see the results :)
We have http://www.dillo.org/memory.html
Yes, I made that table long ago, and although it took some time to make, it proved useful. We'd be grateful if somebody wants to contribute some up-to-date benchmarks. FWIW, I don't know how to add the memory footprint for images stored in the X server (something Firefox seems to do). Rendering speed depends a lot on the HW, making the benchmark in somewhat old and current HW would also be useful. I can't do it now because there's the last dillo-2.x release, and the new dillo-3.0 release pending; which will take most of my time. -- Cheers Jorge.-
Jorge wrote:
I can't do it now because there's the last dillo-2.x release, and the new dillo-3.0 release pending; which will take most of my time.
What still stands between us and these releases?
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 09:09:39PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jorge wrote:
I can't do it now because there's the last dillo-2.x release, and the new dillo-3.0 release pending; which will take most of my time.
What still stands between us and these releases?
(besides a bad cold I'm getting out of...) I'm working on the tarball now: Tarball: browser's splash screen, README, ChangeLog (release date too) dillorc, dillo's VERSION in configure.in (rebuild configure) I'm not adding new patches, just rounding the release. Once I have it "ready" I'll ask you to check it. The main thing to update is the website. With a clear emphasis on the new dillo-3.0 (which I'd like to have in release candidate status when the dillo-2.2.1 is released). After checking the whole website yesterday, it was clear that it would take some effort to update it. Chiefly: dillo-3.0 screenshots, Main page: Info&News, Compatibility, Current Plans. From the top of my head: Main page: Round the idea of dillo-3.0 and fltk-1.3. News: what we've done, the released status of the underlying toolkit, back to distro's repos etc. Compatibility: list currently reported OSes, add Mac OSX (native), 64bit tested (ia64), etc. Current Plans: After the first dillo-3.0 release, we'll focus on implementing floating objects. News: maybe add some more items... Then some minor things as: source compilation instructions, FAQ, Help pages. Optional: bug tracker cleanup. If you can help with the screenshots, and maybe some other items, it'd be great. -- Cheers Jorge.-
Jorge wrote:
I'm working on the tarball now:
Oh, excellent!
Tarball: browser's splash screen, README, ChangeLog (release date too) dillorc, dillo's VERSION in configure.in (rebuild configure)
I'm not adding new patches, just rounding the release. Once I have it "ready" I'll ask you to check it.
The main thing to update is the website. With a clear emphasis on the new dillo-3.0 (which I'd like to have in release candidate status when the dillo-2.2.1 is released).
After checking the whole website yesterday, it was clear that it would take some effort to update it. Chiefly: dillo-3.0 screenshots, Main page: Info&News, Compatibility, Current Plans.
From the top of my head:
Main page: Round the idea of dillo-3.0 and fltk-1.3. News: what we've done, the released status of the underlying toolkit, back to distro's repos etc.
Compatibility: list currently reported OSes, add Mac OSX (native), 64bit tested (ia64), etc.
I added a 3.0 section to Compatibility a while back, but it's commented out for now.
Current Plans: After the first dillo-3.0 release, we'll focus on implementing floating objects.
It's currently listed as high priority.
News: maybe add some more items...
Then some minor things as: source compilation instructions, FAQ, Help pages.
Will we have a dillo3-help.html? I suppose we do have the fullscreen change...
Optional: bug tracker cleanup.
If you can help with the screenshots, and maybe some other items, it'd be great.
Screenshots, okay.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 05:28:34PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jorge wrote:
I'm working on the tarball now:
Oh, excellent!
Ok, committed. The dates are left blank of course. Please check the splash page and correct my english. That should be it. I've not tested it though.
Tarball: browser's splash screen, README, ChangeLog (release date too) dillorc, dillo's VERSION in configure.in (rebuild configure)
I'm not adding new patches, just rounding the release. Once I have it "ready" I'll ask you to check it.
The main thing to update is the website. With a clear emphasis on the new dillo-3.0 (which I'd like to have in release candidate status when the dillo-2.2.1 is released).
After checking the whole website yesterday, it was clear that it would take some effort to update it. Chiefly: dillo-3.0 screenshots, Main page: Info&News, Compatibility, Current Plans.
From the top of my head:
Main page: Round the idea of dillo-3.0 and fltk-1.3. News: what we've done, the released status of the underlying toolkit, back to distro's repos etc.
Compatibility: list currently reported OSes, add Mac OSX (native), 64bit tested (ia64), etc.
I added a 3.0 section to Compatibility a while back, but it's commented out for now.
Time to uncomment and put on top of the list. Maybe sending 1.x and 2.x to another page makes sense too.
Current Plans: After the first dillo-3.0 release, we'll focus on implementing floating objects.
It's currently listed as high priority.
News: maybe add some more items...
Then some minor things as: source compilation instructions, FAQ, Help pages.
Will we have a dillo3-help.html? I suppose we do have the fullscreen change...
Yes.
Optional: bug tracker cleanup.
If you can help with the screenshots, and maybe some other items, it'd be great.
Screenshots, okay.
Good! -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 05:28:34PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jorge wrote:
I'm working on the tarball now:
Oh, excellent!
Ok, committed.
The dates are left blank of course. Please check the splash page and correct my english.
That should be it. I've not tested it though.
Today I made some tests, and found that newer FLTK2 versions as alpha-r8800, changed the internal API, rendering some parts of dillo-2.2.1 unusable. (e.g. "Open file", Close dialog, Repost dialog). fltk-2.0.x-r7513 works fine for me. The simple solution is to suggest a library version range in the README. e.g. "The FLTK2 library is statically linked into Dillo2. You can get it from fltk.org. The recommended version is >= r6916 and <=r7513 http://fltk.org/software.php?VERSION=2.0.x-r7513" Comments? -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:45:14 -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
Today I made some tests, and found that newer FLTK2 versions as alpha-r8800, changed the internal API, rendering some parts of dillo-2.2.1 unusable. (e.g. "Open file", Close dialog, Repost dialog).
fltk-2.0.x-r7513 works fine for me.
The simple solution is to suggest a library version range in the README. e.g.
"The FLTK2 library is statically linked into Dillo2. You can get it from fltk.org. The recommended version is >= r6916 and <=r7513
http://fltk.org/software.php?VERSION=2.0.x-r7513"
Comments?
FWIW, those dialogs have always been broken on Windows. I basically had to write my own Fl_Native_File_Chooser class (although Windows' dialogs are much nicer than FLTK's, anyway). I'd say just include a "known good" FLTK2 release in the Dillo tarball, and modify the build system to use that copy instead of the system one. As an added bonus, it might make Dillo more attractive to Linux distributions, since they don't have to add an unreleased dependency library to include an up-to-date Dillo package. Just a thought, ~Benjamin
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:29:15AM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:45:14 -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
Today I made some tests, and found that newer FLTK2 versions as alpha-r8800, changed the internal API, rendering some parts of dillo-2.2.1 unusable. (e.g. "Open file", Close dialog, Repost dialog).
fltk-2.0.x-r7513 works fine for me.
The simple solution is to suggest a library version range in the README. e.g.
"The FLTK2 library is statically linked into Dillo2. You can get it from fltk.org. The recommended version is >= r6916 and <=r7513
http://fltk.org/software.php?VERSION=2.0.x-r7513"
Comments?
FWIW, those dialogs have always been broken on Windows. I basically had to write my own Fl_Native_File_Chooser class (although Windows' dialogs are much nicer than FLTK's, anyway).
I'd say just include a "known good" FLTK2 release in the Dillo tarball, and modify the build system to use that copy instead of the system one. As an added bonus, it might make Dillo more attractive to Linux distributions, since they don't have to add an unreleased dependency library to include an up-to-date Dillo package.
Just a thought, ~Benjamin
This then defeats the purpose of a source based distro such as Gentoo.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:52:03 -0400, Roger <rogerx.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:29:15AM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote:
FWIW, those dialogs have always been broken on Windows. I basically had to write my own Fl_Native_File_Chooser class (although Windows' dialogs are much nicer than FLTK's, anyway).
I'd say just include a "known good" FLTK2 release in the Dillo tarball, and modify the build system to use that copy instead of the system one. As an added bonus, it might make Dillo more attractive to Linux distributions, since they don't have to add an unreleased dependency library to include an up-to-date Dillo package.
Just a thought, ~Benjamin
This then defeats the purpose of a source based distro such as Gentoo.
It's a common enough trick -- OpenOffice.org does it, Audacity does it, basically any big-name open source project you can think of includes at least one dependency library in the stable tarballs because the upstream developers can't keep a stable API or functional code longer than ten minutes. If the distributions wish to change things, that's their prerogative; I mean, Debian's constitutionally incapable of leaving upstream code unmolested, and I'm sure anyone else who maintains an ebuild/RPM/BSD port can figure out how to patch it back to do things their own way. At least you've made an attempt. It may work, it may not, but it's still better than doing nothing but whine about how no distributions will ship your code because of a trivially avoidable technicality. ~Benjamin
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 08:09:57PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:52:03 -0400, Roger <rogerx.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:29:15AM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote:
FWIW, those dialogs have always been broken on Windows. I basically had to write my own Fl_Native_File_Chooser class (although Windows' dialogs are much nicer than FLTK's, anyway).
I'd say just include a "known good" FLTK2 release in the Dillo tarball, and modify the build system to use that copy instead of the system one. As an added bonus, it might make Dillo more attractive to Linux distributions, since they don't have to add an unreleased dependency library to include an up-to-date Dillo package.
Just a thought, ~Benjamin
This then defeats the purpose of a source based distro such as Gentoo.
It's a common enough trick -- OpenOffice.org does it, Audacity does it, basically any big-name open source project you can think of includes at least one dependency library in the stable tarballs because the upstream developers can't keep a stable API or functional code longer than ten minutes.
I can't argue this one. FLTK has made their bed on this. :-/
If the distributions wish to change things, that's their prerogative; I mean, Debian's constitutionally incapable of leaving upstream code unmolested, and I'm sure anyone else who maintains an ebuild/RPM/BSD port can figure out how to patch it back to do things their own way. At least you've made an attempt. It may work, it may not, but it's still better than doing nothing but whine about how no distributions will ship your code because of a trivially avoidable technicality.
I was thinking of providing a --use-static-fltk configure option or something. This way, when things do get stable, a distro can chose to build with external libs.
~Benjamin
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 22:48:25 -0400, Roger <rogerx.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 08:09:57PM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote: If the distributions wish to change things, that's their prerogative; I mean, Debian's constitutionally incapable of leaving upstream code unmolested, and I'm sure anyone else who maintains an ebuild/RPM/BSD port can figure out how to patch it back to do things their own way. At least you've made an attempt. It may work, it may not, but it's still better than doing nothing but whine about how no distributions will ship your code because of a trivially avoidable technicality.
I was thinking of providing a --use-static-fltk configure option or something.
This way, when things do get stable, a distro can chose to build with external libs.
I think most projects automatically use the system library if present, and fall back on the included one otherwise. We might take that a step further: use the system library if it's present and a sane version, otherwise fall back on our own. I forgot to mention, I'm running r7725 with a couple of my own patches on Windows (and have been for some time now), without problems. I could probably put together an updated FLTK "release" for the tarball, using that + working file dialogs from an older revision, if anyone's interested. ~Benjamin
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:29:15AM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:45:14 -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
Today I made some tests, and found that newer FLTK2 versions as alpha-r8800, changed the internal API, rendering some parts of dillo-2.2.1 unusable. (e.g. "Open file", Close dialog, Repost dialog).
fltk-2.0.x-r7513 works fine for me.
The simple solution is to suggest a library version range in the README. e.g.
"The FLTK2 library is statically linked into Dillo2. You can get it from fltk.org. The recommended version is >= r6916 and <=r7513
Done. I also added a download link since older fltk-2.0 revisions are no longer available from fltk.org. BTW, the recipe to build dillo in our web site was also updated: http://www.dillo.org/source.html -- Cheers Jorge.-
Jorge wrote:
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 11:29:15AM -0400, Benjamin Johnson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:45:14 -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
Today I made some tests, and found that newer FLTK2 versions as alpha-r8800, changed the internal API, rendering some parts of dillo-2.2.1 unusable. (e.g. "Open file", Close dialog, Repost dialog).
fltk-2.0.x-r7513 works fine for me.
The simple solution is to suggest a library version range in the README. e.g.
"The FLTK2 library is statically linked into Dillo2. You can get it from fltk.org. The recommended version is >= r6916 and <=r7513
Done.
I also added a download link since older fltk-2.0 revisions are no longer available from fltk.org.
BTW, the recipe to build dillo in our web site was also updated:
I gave download.html its own copy of FLTK2 instructions since pointing people to the beginning of source.html is confusing for now.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 09:45:14AM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 05:28:34PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jorge wrote:
I'm working on the tarball now:
Oh, excellent!
Ok, committed.
The dates are left blank of course. Please check the splash page and correct my english.
That should be it. I've not tested it though.
Today I made some tests, and found that newer FLTK2 versions as alpha-r8800, changed the internal API, rendering some parts of dillo-2.2.1 unusable. (e.g. "Open file", Close dialog, Repost dialog).
fltk-2.0.x-r7513 works fine for me.
The simple solution is to suggest a library version range in the README. e.g.
"The FLTK2 library is statically linked into Dillo2. You can get it from fltk.org. The recommended version is >= r6916 and <=r7513
http://fltk.org/software.php?VERSION=2.0.x-r7513"
Comments?
I would simply give a known good revision of fltk2. Nevertheless we should let the fltk guys know about the incompatible changes. Cheers, Johannes
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 05:28:34PM +0000, corvid wrote:
Jorge wrote:
I'm working on the tarball now:
BTW, just committed fixes for gcc warnings on amd64. -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 05:28:34PM +0000, corvid wrote:
[...] Then some minor things as: source compilation instructions, FAQ, Help pages.
FAQ updated.
Will we have a dillo3-help.html? I suppose we do have the fullscreen change...
Yes.
Next in my list. -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 03:10:55PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 02:55:51PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 05:28:34PM +0000, corvid wrote:
[...] Will we have a dillo3-help.html?
Done. Also updated dillo3 and its user-help.html. -- Cheers Jorge.-
Hi, OK, does anybody see anything pending before packing dillo-2.2.1-rc1? (Yes, there're some web site updates pending, I mean just inside the tarball). -- Cheers Jorge.-
Jorge wrote:
OK, does anybody see anything pending before packing dillo-2.2.1-rc1?
(Yes, there're some web site updates pending, I mean just inside the tarball).
I just updated a couple of version numbers...
Hi there, Please report your OS/platform for dillo3 if not already listed in the compatibility page. TIA. -- Cheers Jorge.-
Hi, OK, rc1 for dillo-2.2.1 is here: http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-2.2.1-rc1.tar.bz2 Please download, build, test and report how it works in your OS. If we're lucky it will become dillo-2.2.1. TIA -- Cheers Jorge.-
Hi.
OK, rc1 for dillo-2.2.1 is here:
http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-2.2.1-rc1.tar.bz2
Please download, build, test and report how it works in your OS.
Dillo 2.2.1 rc1 compiles and runs smoothly on my machine: Debian 6.0 GNU/Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 gcc (Debian 4.4.5-8) 4.4.5 FLTK 2.0.x r7513 Kind regards, Alexander
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 07:57:18PM +0200, Alexander Voigt wrote:
Hi.
OK, rc1 for dillo-2.2.1 is here:
http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-2.2.1-rc1.tar.bz2
Please download, build, test and report how it works in your OS.
Dillo 2.2.1 rc1 compiles and runs smoothly on my machine:
Debian 6.0 GNU/Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 gcc (Debian 4.4.5-8) 4.4.5 FLTK 2.0.x r7513
Thanks for the report. Now, let's expect some more... -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 03:01:36PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 07:57:18PM +0200, Alexander Voigt wrote:
Hi.
OK, rc1 for dillo-2.2.1 is here:
http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-2.2.1-rc1.tar.bz2
Please download, build, test and report how it works in your OS.
Dillo 2.2.1 rc1 compiles and runs smoothly on my machine:
Debian 6.0 GNU/Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 gcc (Debian 4.4.5-8) 4.4.5 FLTK 2.0.x r7513
Thanks for the report. Now, let's expect some more...
Compiles and runs fine on: DragonFly 2.11-DEVELOPMENT gcc (DragonFly) 4.4.6 Cheers, Johannes
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 09:52:20PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 03:01:36PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 07:57:18PM +0200, Alexander Voigt wrote:
Hi.
OK, rc1 for dillo-2.2.1 is here:
http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-2.2.1-rc1.tar.bz2
Please download, build, test and report how it works in your OS.
Dillo 2.2.1 rc1 compiles and runs smoothly on my machine:
Debian 6.0 GNU/Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 gcc (Debian 4.4.5-8) 4.4.5 FLTK 2.0.x r7513
Thanks for the report. Now, let's expect some more...
Compiles and runs fine on:
DragonFly 2.11-DEVELOPMENT gcc (DragonFly) 4.4.6
No more reports have come my way. A couple more days and it'll become a release. -- Cheers Jorge.-
Hi, I just tried Dillo 2.2.1-rc1 on Scientific Linux 6.0 2.6.32-71.24.1.el6.x86_64 gcc 4.4.4 20100726 (Red Hat 4.4.4-13) FLTK 2.0.x r7513 and it works very well. Kind regards, Alexander
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 07:54:34PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
[...] No more reports have come my way. A couple more days and it'll become a release.
OK, the dillo-2.2.1 release is done. The freshmeat announcement was also submitted (now waiting for verification). I'm happy because now we can concentrate on dillo3 and its upcoming release! :-) -- Cheers Jorge.-
Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
OK, rc1 for dillo-2.2.1 is here:
http://www.dillo.org/download/dillo-2.2.1-rc1.tar.bz2
Please download, build, test and report how it works in your OS.
Looks good here! Linux 3.0.0, gcc 4.4.1, fltk-2.0.x-r7513. Regards, Jeremy Henty
participants (8)
-
corvid＠lavabit.com -
Hole.destructor＠gmx.de -
ircsurfer33＠gmail.com -
jcid＠dillo.org -
Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de -
obeythepenguin＠gmail.com -
onepoint＠starurchin.org -
rogerx.oss＠gmail.com