Mozilla/QT needs developers!

strredwolf writes "They need developers to port Mozilla to TrollTech's QT. The origional port is since 0.9.9 and hasn't been updated since. We need that Mozilla for the iPAQ or Zaurus!!!"

Handhelds?

[Xunker]

I have to question the actual feasability of Mozilla on a handheld.. well, current handhelds. Mozilla, while powerfull and efficient, is also monsterously huge in comparison to the miniscume persistant storage of handhelds and their small execution space.

I''m sad to say that I think a 32 meg Zaurus couldn't run Mozilla well.. at least, not *stock* Mozilla.

Re:Handhelds?

[DJayC]

Perhaps something more lightweight like Phoenix (or whatever they are going to call it)? But you are right, even Phoenix is a bit chunky for a handheld, but it's nice to know there are people who desire this. I think in order for a Mozilla based browser to work out it would have to be more than a "port".

Re:Handhelds?

[Chexsum]

You dont understand what theyre asking. The QT embedding widget needs to be ported or else itll be dropped from the distribution IIRC.

The widget is like a wrapper for Gecko so that Gecko can be embedded into QT programs easilly. It probably wouldnt be too much work *if you were a C++ and/or QT programmer* to port it. =)

Phoenix is a small and fast browser but I doubt its smaller and faster than a Gecko-based browser which doesnt use XUL *the Mozilla.org portable widget set* to render the layout. Check Galeon out sometime. :P

What a widget port of Mozilla is.

[dbaron]

No, it's not just an embedding widget. A port of Mozilla to a toolkit is code that maps the interface Mozilla uses for interacting with native widgets and event queues (the part in widget/src/qt/) and graphics devices (the part in gfx/src/qt/) to the particular toolkit's API.

The default Unix port of Mozilla uses GTK+. (It's the default in the build system for platforms other than Windows, Mac, OS/2, BeOS, and QNX, and it's the one distributed in mozilla.org release builds for all but those platforms.) This means that many of the interactions between Mozilla and Xlib have GTK code in the middle. (Not all of them do -- some parts of the code, such as the font code, uses Xlib APIs directly, although the Xft builds use Xft2 and fontconfig APIs instead.) It also means Mozilla gets a good bit of look-and-feel information from GTK themes (more recently than it used to).

In addition to the GTK+ port, there are also a raw Xlib port (no toolkit between Mozilla and Xlib) and a QT port, but the QT port is poorly maintained and will be removed if no maintainer steps up (as the Motif port was a while ago).

Some of the ports also come with embedding widgets that allow embedding of the layout engine into programs using those toolkits. However, the embedding widget is just a small and optional part of the port. I also don't see any reason that it wouldn't be possible to use a QT embedding widget for Mozilla even if Mozilla is using GTK+ internally.

Re:Handhelds?

[npietraniec]

that's the point. If you could use *stock* mozilla they wouldn't need any new developers. Have yo used Phoenix? Maybe they should have said "we'd like to get gecho on the iPaq"

Re:Handhelds?

[Xunker]

Ah, but Gecko is just the renderer, eh? It doesn't actually rely on any widget set; in fact, it doesn't even have to have a presentation layer at all! The neet for QT depends on what you put Gecko into, like Pheonix or Galeon.

Link doesn't work ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... as bugzilla have disabled referrals from Slashdot.

Try this one instead, it routes via yahoo first:

http://tinyurl.com/38uw [tinyurl.com]

Re:Link doesn't work ...

[Trevelyan]

Or just copy the url and paste it into your address bar.
With Mozilla just:
-Right click->copy link location
-Ctrl+T for new tab
-Middle click on address bar, to paste
-Press return

Re:Link doesn't work ...

[Trevelyan]

I've noticed something else.
If you follow the link from the front pages it dont work. but if you click 'read more' to bring the article up and follow the link from that page then it does work.

My current guess is that they block 'slashdot.org' but not 'developers.slashdot.org'

mozilla.org

[Anonymous Coward]

The last mozilla.org status update [mozilla.org] report covered this. It says that January 8, 2003 (scheduled release of Mozilla 1.3beta) will be the deadline to find an owner for the QT Mozilla port.

Re:Oooh... big man!

[fault0]

Or it'll be removed (like the Motif one was)

Not because Mozilla on Zaurus and IPAQ

[jki]

We need that Mozilla for the iPAQ or Zaurus!!

But as I see it, having it work with QT is important because it makes things possible for sub-projects of mozilla (some of which are more aimed into pda/embedded market) and also because having support for it further developed (and not removed from the source tree) might provide many important pieces of code which can be utilized in other open source projects as well... I think QT is very interesting concept from the embedded devices point of view, especially... I don't know but I think this might be rather important from a wider view also :)

Text from blocked link;

[Anonymous Coward]

This is horribly formated, but I'm posting as AC and don't really care....

The qt port (--enable-toolkit-qt) has been busted since the 0.9.9 timeframe (~9 months at this point) and numerous times before that. The port also lacks a maintainer which would explain its tendency to bitrot. I've sent mail to drivers, m.builds, m.unix & m.qt concerning the problem. If we don't have a working port by the time the tree closes for moz1.3beta (~10 weeks), the port should be removed. ------- Additional Comment #1 From Esben Mose Hansen 2002-11-09 02:54 ------- Let's not let this happen! Let's get qt working again, then I will be maintainer if nobody else will. ------- Additional Comment #2 From Christopher Blizzard 2002-11-19 09:10 ------- I haven't seen any patches to get it going again. Tick...tick...tick... ------- Additional Comment #3 From Robert Kaiser 2002-11-19 09:58 ------- blizzard: In n.p.m.qt there is an ongoing discussion about why the current patch has problems, and Esben seems to find out more about it almost daily. It seems he also found a/the key why it got problems currently. Well, we'll see. ------- Additional Comment #4 From Esben Mose Hansen 2002-11-19 10:55 ------- Sigh. Modern people are in such hurry :-P If this is so urgent, please direct me to some info which shows how the autoloading/registering works. Because the QT gfx factories aren't called. Not at all. So when the first widget (i.e. window) is constructed, it cannot get the device context. This, apparantly, is not considered an error, an execution continues regardless. But with no device context, nothing really happens. More details in the qt newsgroup, which are quite low traffic :) (scurries off to read through the developer info) ------- Additional Comment #5 From Allen Baranov 2002-11-22 00:42 ------- Hi, I have been following this port for a while now. Basically I've read all the postings. Tried the patches. No luck yet though. If I get my name in lights I'm very keen to be "one of the admins" of this port. My knowledge of C++ and qt and even C is laughable. But I know how to patch, compile and fiddle. I check email every day ('cept weekends). I'm also happy to get my hands dirty. From what I have seen on the newsgroup Esben is really the man for the job. I'd like to nominate him or second his nomination ;) and I'd like to help him out. I use KDE as my desktop and mozilla as my browser. I'd really like to play together nicely. ------- Additional Comment #6 From Allen Baranov 2002-11-25 02:08 ------- Is it possible for this project to get some space on mozilla.org or somewhere to put up a web page detailing what is happening. I'm happy to do a bit of HTMLing. There is also Esben's patch that will probably be the starting point of this reincarnation of the project and it would be nice to redirect people to this page to get the patch and start fiddling. I have sourceforge membership if we need to go there. ------- Additional Comment #7 From Heiko Stoermer 2002-11-26 07:20 ------- It seems Esben has something that compiles! We just need some way to share work. Why not check it in, the current CVS state of gfx/qt is broken anyway. If it compiles, more people can start to work on it. ------- Additional Comment #8 From Robert Kaiser 2002-11-26 08:25 ------- I'd volunteer to check in Esben's patches whenever needed, as I have a CVS write account and it's not built by default, so it's not that bad when I don't know the real code too good. Of course, I'll build (and use when it works) the code myself, and of course I need to know what review requirements there are for this parts of the code. cls, any advice for that? btw, I change the summary to state that we have two ways: remove it - or get it working :) ------- Additional Comment #9 From Christian Biesinger 2002-11-26 10:24 ------- review requirements: ports need port owner review and have an "automatic" sr=blizzard. now, if there is only one module owner and he wants to check something in, I do not know what's the policy :) ------- Additional Comment #10 From Esben Mose Hansen 2002-11-26 11:51 ------- I'll clean up the code I have an attach it to this bug shortly or tomorrow. I'm currently trying to get it to show the ProfileManager (because it's simple --- just one modal dialog.) For some reason nsWidget::Show() isn't called, which seems strange to me, but what do I know :) ------- Additional Comment #11 From Yannick Koehler 2002-11-27 05:17 ------- I'm going to jump in. I've started to play with Qt/KDE recentely and very like it. I was always wondering why Mozilla wasn't already using qt instead of GTK ;-) I'm not interested in the main role thought. I'll get the tree and see how I can patch and get Qt/Mozilla working. ------- Additional Comment #12 From Heiko Stoermer 2002-11-27 06:24 ------- Same with me. I'll try to help. ------- Additional Comment #13 From Christopher Blizzard 2002-11-27 13:35 ------- We use gtk instead of qt because of qt's licensing. ------- Additional Comment #14 From Yannick Koehler 2002-11-28 04:36 ------- Is there still issues with the Qt Free Edition License? Can the code written to interface to the lib be made MPL/GPL etc... if we don't link? This should be clarified before we commit stuff no? ------- Additional Comment #15 From Heiko Stoermer 2002-11-28 05:57 ------- AFAIK the point is that mozilla is not a strictly free software (it is used by AOL/Netscape as commercialware). This could mean that they have to buy qt licenses if qt is not just a module but the standard toolkit. Additionally, I think the decision for gtk was made before there was a gpl'ed qt. I think the maintainers have had their thoughts on that before they let anyone commit qt-based code into the repository. No problems should arise. Apart from that, again AFAIK, Troll supported the first port to qt and is definitely well-informed about how much qt is in mozilla. Please correct me if i'm wrong. ;-) ------- Additional Comment #16 From Paul Oswald 2002-11-28 08:52 ------- Yes, the original port was made after mozilla was open sourced (April 2001) by 5 trolls and 2 netscape employees: The QtMozilla team members are: Warwick Allison, Kalle Dalheimer, Eirik Eng, Matthias Ettrich, Arnt Gulbrandsen, Haavard Nord and Paul Olav Tvete. The animated "spinning globe" button was created by Brodd Nesset. Animal wrangler: Eirik Aavitsland (from http://www.trolltech.com/qtmozilla/) As long as you use the Qt free edition, it is available under the GPL. There should be no issues with licensing. ------- Additional Comment #17 From Christian Biesinger 2002-11-28 09:00 ------- Heiko, what Netscape (and others) do and do not is of no relevance here, as it is (imho) highly unlikely that they'd make a Qt version of their Mozilla distributions. So - Netscape is not allowed to ship a Netscape version with the free version of Qt, because it is neither GPL nor the source is available. Mozilla, on the other hand, may use Qt under the QPL, aiui. Not under the GPL, because Mozilla is not yet fully tri-licensed, ie. most parts of Mozilla are not GPL yet. yes, I also think that the decision for Qt was made before it was GPLed. but see above why mozilla can not use Qt under the GPL license. finally, IANAL. ------- Additional Comment #18 From Esben Mose Hansen 2002-11-28 10:25 ------- Created an attachment (id=107719) Patch that enables compilation QT --- but doesn't work Here's my current patch. Sorry about the delay --- I swear somebody was standing on the wire to America. To those who have unsuccessfully tried my older patches: This patch is *really* against the CVS head... which was untrue before. My bad :-( ------- Additional Comment #19 From Kelly Price 2002-12-04 19:06 ------- I'm going to throw in my 2 cents on this one (and vote for this bug) because the Opie handheld enviroment for OpenZaurus can use a Mozilla/QTEmbedded browser.

Why not konqueror?

[PinkX]

Konqueror [konqueror.org] has been out for ages already, it's lightweight, and free software. And Qt based.

I don't know if it's tightly integrated into KDE to make it a Qt-only app (I guess it is), but just the browser component of it could be 'stripped out', KHTML is pretty mature. The AtheOS [sf.net] web browser is bassed off it.

I am not a KDE/Qt developer nor a KDE user, so I might be wrong at this. But I think it would be easier to mantain a stripped-down, kde-less version of the browser component of Konqueror instead of trying to keep up-to-date with a Qt port of Mozilla, which BTW is a bit bloated for PDAs (and please don't get me wrong here, I *LOVE* Mozilla).

Re:Why not konqueror?

[Anonymous Coward]

Konq's already on the zaurus. It's the default browser for OpenZaurus, in fact. Mozilla has a number of advantages over Konq, including better Javascript and Java support. Despite the fact Opera and Jeode are on the SharpZaurus Roms, Opera can't load Applets! Stupid or what???

Re:Why not konqueror?

[Jagasian]

I am a big KDE fan and KDE user. I used to think Konq was the best browser for Linux, and it truely was... until Mozilla 1.0. Yes, for years I swore that Mozilla was going nowhere, but once 1.0 was released, and I could see how stable it was... how well it rendered sites. It was then that I realized that Mozilla did it.

Netscape is back! It reminds me of that Obi-wan quote:
"You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."

How is Netscape more powerful than ever? Well technology wise, functionality wise, and performance wise, it matches Internet Explorer... but what truely makes it invincible is that it is open source software. Just like Obi-wan returned from the grave so has Netscape.

Re:Why not konqueror?

[dotgod]

You had a point until the whole star wars freak analogy. Then it just got scary. Um...wow.

Re:Why not konqueror?

[perlyking]

Thats a silly quote though since Obi-wan is hardly "more powerful" when he comes back.

Re:Why not konqueror?

[vadim_t]

I think Konqueror is mostly a container. It doesn't really render HTML or anything like that, it just serves as a container for KHTML, PDF viewers or anything else. I guess it'd be possible to port Konqueror + KHTML to Qt only, but then you'd miss the rest of the functionality, as installing new programs in KDE may make Konqueror able to load those file types.

Re:Why not konqueror?

[perlyking]

I've got konqueror embedded on my Zaurus at the moment. It is not lean or small though.
TBH though its not open source (horror!) I'm looking forward to Opera 7 on embedded devices though whether it will run on my Z is a different matter.

Re:Why not konqueror?

[sporty]

Because, some of us simply have preferences? Otherwise, I'd easily say, why Konq? It's a piece of crap blah blah blah, which is both wrong and unfair, 'cause somebody likes it.

So why Mozilla/Qt? (vs gnu? :) 'cause someone is interested and are trying to get the other people who are interested to wake up. That's why not. :)

Konqueror Embedded

[benjamindees]

Ask and ye shall receive [konqueror.org].

Performance

[turgid]

Mozilla's performance is barely acceptable on my humble 500MHz K6-2. It stinks on UltraSPARC. I suspect it stinks on anything that isn't x86, partly because of GCC's inefficiency on non-x86 architectures. Therefore I hate to think what it would be like on a 206MHz StrongARM. I think Mozilla needs a lot of optimization before anyone can contemplate running it on a handheld. On a related note, why is Netscape 7 so much faster than Mozilla on the same machine? I know an ipaq user who runs dillo for his web browser. It seems far better suited to hand-held use.

Re:Performance

[REBloomfield]

to be honest, it sticks on most of my Wintel platforms. It reminds me of what is happening with the iPod, it's being turned into bloatware rather than sticking to the nice, slick, browser that i loved - it's in early phases.

GCC 3

[yerricde]

partly because of GCC's inefficiency on non-x86 architectures. Therefore I hate to think what it would be like on a 206MHz StrongARM.

GCC 3.x makes faster code than GCC 2.x on ARM architecture, but it's still not up to the level of Metaware's prohibitively expensive compiler.

Re:Performance

[ParnBR]

I have no problems whatsoever with Mozilla 1.0.1 in my P2/400 at my work place. I'm using Win2K and 192MB of PC100 memory, and an awful S3Trio64 2MB video card. "Visual enhancements" are all on (shadows, transparencies) and Mozilla is still fast even when using heavy skins, like Skypilot. I usually start Mozilla when I arrive and only shut it down in the end of the day. Sometimes Mozilla gets slow when I have lots of tabs open, but if I wait a little it goes back to normal. I also tried Phoenix 0.4 in a P200MMX with 64MB and it worked fine, although not as well as Opera (of course)

Re:Performance

[GiMP]

The performance of mozilla can vary according to architecture and OS. Mozilla is quite fast in Linux/ppc,x86, MacOS/ppc, MS Windows/x86, and *BSD/ppc,x86. However, it totally stinks on Irix/Mips and is adequate but far from speedy on HPUX/pa-risc.

Performance of mozilla on Irix is terrible, although it is considerably better with Skipstone and Galeon.. Phoenix is probably fast too, but I haven't tried it personally. I believe the irix binaries are compiled with SGI's CC compiler, not gcc.. but I could be wrong. I also haven't tried a release since almost a year ago, so it may be better now.

Need developers

[nuggz]

This is the way the free market/software system works, there will always be dead/dying projects. The time to allocate to such projects is a valuable resource, obviously people have chosen to invest it in something else.

If someone found it important enough, they would find the time themselves, or come up with money to hire someone else to do it.

Just Install X

[edward.virtually@pob]

At least as far as the Zaurus is concerned, the easy solution is to replace QT with the standard X environment. Not that I think Mozilla would be a good idea on such a tiny machine -- maybe Phoenix or whatever it's called now.

Mixed Feelings

[RAMMS+EIN]

I have mixed feelings about this one. Although having a Qt port of Mozilla is nice, because it prompts developers to properly separate function from UI, I think the reason it is so poorly maintained is simply because there is no need for it.

The reason I used Mozilla is that GTK is my favored widget library, and I didn't want to install any other. There are other browsers for Qt, for example, Opera, which is smaller, faster, and more standards-compliant than Mozilla (or it's stripped-down version, Phoenix). If the point of porting Mozilla to Qt is running it on a Zaurus (or similar handheld), I say ``Don't bother''. Opera is optimized for such environments. Yes, it's closed source, and it's free for non-commercial use, just like Qt is.

So, to conclude, I don't care much what happens to Mozilla/Qt. Atomic Navigator, the browser in PicoGUI [picogui.org], also needs developers.