Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

279 comments

Port the IE rendering engine (5, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222675)

I'm waiting for IE's rendering engine to be ported, possibly with some help from Wine.

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (1, Insightful)

mrgreen4242 (759594) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222686)

I hope you are joking. Why would you want to port a rendering engine that is not standards complient? I hope that someone modifies the Gecko rendering system to something that can be a full replacement for IEs, and you can actually view a page the way its supposed to look while using IE (and all the programs that use IEs rendering engine for inline HTML proccessing).

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (3, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222703)

*Why would you want to port a rendering engine that is not standards complient?*

to view non standard pages? seriously, there would be some use for it.. but not woth the risk in using(the nonstandard stuff that I most often run into are usually spyware anyways and i'd rather not have them run like supposed..)..

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (5, Insightful)

adamjaskie (310474) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222706)

It would be useful for testing web pages when you do not otherwise have access to a Windows machine, like me.

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (1)

IIEFreeMan (450812) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222744)

Just run IE with Wine I guess ... ?

Porting the whine.. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222823)

"Just run IE with Wine I guess ... ?"

Waaah! But I don't wanna run IE with Wine.

Re:Porting the whine.. (2, Funny)

runderwo (609077) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222905)

Would you like some cheese with that... oh, nevermind.

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (1)

runderwo (609077) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222924)

Except for the fact that you need a Windows license to legally use the windows version of IE in any case. It's in the EULA.

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (4, Interesting)

ricotest (807136) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222925)

Read the parent post again. He is proposing a modification to the Gecko engine to make it emulate IE5/6's quirks (as well as the IE4 and below quirks that it already emulates in the aptly-named 'quirks mode') so that you can view the page how it would look in IE without using IE. This would be incredibly useful. It's not a new idea by any means, but it would solve your problem.

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (-1, Redundant)

unother (712929) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222792)

Why would you want to port a rendering engine that is not standards complient?

Why would you wish to write a sentence that is not English spelling-standards compliant?

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (2, Interesting)

abirdman (557790) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222839)

modifies the Gecko rendering system to something that can be a full replacement for IEs

Now wait, let me get this straight: You want someone to port the "non-standards-compliant" part of IE into a standards-compliant browser so it will render non-standards-compliant web pages the same way the much maligned non-standards-compliant browser does? Doesn't this turn the new browser into a non-standards-compliant browser? Or does that only happen if the rendering engine is written that way from scratch?

I understand the motivation to have an "IE Preview" option-- and have cursed the problem of not having that myself at times-- but if that functionality is built into my browser, I don't think I'd be able to call my browser "standards compliant" anymore. I frankly don't have a better solution, but please don't suggest ruining Gecko by making it an IE clone. (And yes, I'm nearly ignorant on the subject of rendering engine internals.)

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (5, Informative)

mrgreen4242 (759594) | more than 9 years ago | (#10223002)

Um, I suggested that someone create a set of what would liekly be .dlls that would accept all the calls from Windows APIs calling for IEs renderer, but would instead render the page with Gecko's engine, and then send the results to whatever program called for them in a manner that was similar enough to the IE subsystem that the calling application wouldn't notice it wasn't from IE.

Then IE would be standards compliant, and so would all the Windows apps that rely on the IE rendering subsystem for HTML rendering.

I THOUGHT that it was pretty clear, and other people seem to have got it, but I hope that makes it even more clear for you.

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (2, Informative)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222852)

You shouldn't be surprised to learn that many, many websites focus on compliance with IE only. Especially small-scale businesses and websites that get low maintenance attention.

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (1)

tunabomber (259585) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222883)

I hope that someone modifies the Gecko rendering system to something that can be a full replacement for IEs, and you can actually view a page the way its supposed to look while using IE (and all the programs that use IEs rendering engine for inline HTML proccessing).

Why would you want to use Internet Explorer if you couldn't use it to view sites that work render properly in IE? The improvement you speak of would only be useful if it were mandated by Microsoft, vastly increasing Gecko's userbase.
For a drop-in replacement for IE, you could just install Firesomething [cosmicat.com] so you don't have to deal with all of IE's security problems.
Also, I'd expect that if any program uses embedded IE, it is for the purpose of viewing a small set of web pages that were specifically written for IE and hence could possibly render improperly if gecko was used instead.
The only program that I could think which uses embedded IE for general-purpose browsing is AOL.

In conclusion, use a real web browser [mozilla.org] whenever possible, and Internet Explorer only for "broken" sites.

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222700)

I guess you're missing all those BSODs?

port the IE rendering engine, indeed.

that's one of those things that doesn't even sound right. Are you stoned and browsing slashdot?

Are you stoned and browsing slashdot? (4, Funny)

bayerwerke (513829) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222878)

Oh come on, that never happens.

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (1)

Leffe (686621) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222715)

That would actually not be a bad idea as many would think.

In fact, many pages on the internet are made with all the quirks of IE in mind, having access to a browser you can use in certain situations is never wrong, and it blending in with the rest of the desktop is nice. Especially nice is adding tabs and other nice features.

Well, it's not like you can't do it now anyway, Wine is pretty powerful.

That was done a long time ago. (3, Interesting)

bayerwerke (513829) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222737)

Actually it ran in X before it ever did in Windows. IE is the browser formerly known as NCSA Mosaic.

Re:That was done a long time ago. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222759)

Wrong. IE is based on Spyglass Mosaic, which isn't the same codebase.

Re:That was done a long time ago. (4, Informative)

bayerwerke (513829) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222769)

"Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign."

Maybe you should tell someone at Microsoft that.

Re:That was done a long time ago. (2, Funny)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222767)

Actually it ran in X before it ever did in Windows. IE is the browser formerly known as NCSA Mosaic.

Yeah, but who would seriously want to run Mosaic nowadays? It's got crap support for modern standards, piss-poor rendering, no working PNG support, broken CSS, and with no chance of it being updated it's, erm... Well...

... Kind of like its descendant, Internet Explorer. ;-)

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (2, Interesting)

tajmorton (806296) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222748)

Actually, it does run on Linux through Wine. Admittedly, it doesn't work in Konq, but yes, it does run.

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (4, Funny)

xutopia (469129) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222805)

help from Wine? I think you mean with some help from Crack?

Re:Port the IE rendering engine (1)

jdkane (588293) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222919)

That would be Microsoft's best tactic to bring the security of Windows to Linux.

W00t (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222679)

First post!

So now can they integrate IE's engine into Konq? I want my XXX toolbars and dialers already!

Re:W00t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222687)

Not only did you fucking fail it, the actual first post was the same joke!

Re:W00t (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222693)

Haha, that's funny. The comment above me talks about IE, gets modded +2. I talk about IE, I get modded -1 off-topic.

Gotta love hypocrisy that is /. :-)

FAQ (5, Interesting)

jlp2097 (223651) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222680)

Also read this blog entry [kdedevelopers.org] by one of the developers which answers the most common asked questions.

Re:FAQ (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222747)

You broke it, now I'll never know if I can just reboot, update my packages, and have Geckonqueror or not.

Re:FAQ (4, Informative)

cozziewozzie (344246) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222939)

The best thing is that Firefox will have a completely native look and feel. This means that they are making sure the entire Mozilla platform runs as native KDE applications. This is not only Firefox/Gecko, folks, this means Mozilla, Thunderbird, Sunbird and anything based on Mozilla will in the future look and act as a native KDE app.

Awesome!

Re:FAQ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10223010)

Hey, that doesn't even list "Is this a joke?" Are you sure it answers the most common questions?

Konqueror's UI (2, Interesting)

ari_j (90255) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222684)

I like Konqueror, and this makes it a million times better, but the interface still sucks. Ctrl-W to close a tab works on all but the last tab. I like the Mozilla way much better. There are other gripes I have with it, but most of them are of similar form: Mozilla does something better.

Re:Konqueror's UI (2, Informative)

kundor (757951) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222826)

file a request for ctrl-w to close the window if all other tabs are gone, then. They're fairly responsive to that sort of thing.

That probably is in violation of their Interface Guidelines, however, but, you know, they're guidelines, not actual rules.

Re:Konqueror's UI (3, Funny)

cortana (588495) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222899)

It's KDE! They'll just add a checkbox to the Prefs dialog.

Re:Konqueror's UI (1)

fault0 (514452) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222931)

> Ctrl-W to close a tab works on all but the last tab.

That's a feature not a bug. It's so that you don't inadvertantly close the window. It's been discussed on the Kfm-devel mailing list several times before, the last being about a year ago.

first post? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222690)

Konqueror sortof reminds me of IE, especially how its integrated into KDE... But adding gekco to it makes it a more powerful browser, as opposed to one that sometimes tends not to display pages properly. Thats why I used firefox in the first place. What is in store for the linux firefox now?

Re:first post? (1)

whiteranger99x (235024) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222704)

But adding gekco to it makes it a more powerful browser, as opposed to one that sometimes tends not to display pages properly. Thats why I used firefox in the first place. What is in store for the linux firefox now?

Ummm, they can...well....improve it. ;)

Re:first post? (2, Informative)

cbrocious (764766) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222780)

You don't need QT/KDE to run Firefox.

Jag är bajsnödig. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222691)

Är du ?

Another possible port? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222692)

Now if only those KDE devs would port the Safari rendering engine us Linux users would be happy.

Re:Another possible port? (-1, Redundant)

Izago909 (637084) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222721)

Quote from the Safari website: [apple.com]

"Safari uses open source software for its web page rendering engine, Safari draws on KHTML and KJS software from the KDE open source project."

Technically, Safari is an OSX port of a Linux rendering engine.

Re:Another possible port? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222725)

It was a friggin' joke. Geez.

Re:Another possible port? (4, Informative)

Alex Brasetvik (554885) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222745)

>Now if only those KDE devs would port the Safari rendering engine us Linux users would be happy.

I see this is a joke, but for those who doesn't know, Apple is indeed contributing their enhancements of KHTML -- on which Safari is based -- back to the KTHML-team.

Re:Another possible port? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222884)

How much is really contributed back, that's how many bugfixes does apple contribute with and how many features?
Or are they simply having their codebase available at the apple developer page, which would take some time for the khtml developer to port back?

I'm not bashing apple but just wondering how much of apples work can be easily integrated.

Re:Another possible port? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10223019)

"Now if only those KDE devs would port the Safari rendering engine us Linux users would be happy."

Damn linux developers. Next thing you know, they'll be running a XBox games in a bsd emulator running in mingw in wine in UML on on hurd on the X-box...

more choice is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222697)

But I love khtml to mozilla's engine. mozilla still has many outstanding UI bugs that I and others have reported years ago that haven't been squashed. Yes they're minor issues but they bother me since other browsers don't have those kind of issues.

Re:more choice is good (2, Interesting)

Tribbin (565963) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222717)

"Mozilla still has many outstanding UI bugs that I and others have reported years ago that haven't been squashed."

Could you please be more specific?

Re:more choice is good (1)

professorhojo (686761) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222830)

no of course he can't.

*sigh*

Re:more choice is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222750)

And the UI has what to do with the engine, exactly?

Advantages of Mozilla platform?? (2, Interesting)

darthtrevino (812116) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222707)

Seriously, Mozilla has been touted as a software development platform. What advantages does it present over the .NET platform, or the Java platform? Or is it something completely different?

Re:Advantages of Mozilla platform?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222739)

Seriously, Mozilla has been touted as a software development platform. What advantages does it present over the .NET platform Cross platform compatability , or the Java platform? It can be taken seriously Or is it something completely different?

Re:Advantages of Mozilla platform?? (1)

darthtrevino (812116) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222804)

LOL, I had to laugh at the Java comment. Good one ;-)

Re:Advantages of Mozilla platform?? (2, Interesting)

rd_syringe (793064) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222825)

As far as I can tell, the only project actually using Mozilla's "software development platform" is Mozilla. On the OSS side, people seem more interested in Mono than XUL.

Advantages of Mozilla platform??-Everywere. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222879)

MAB and Newsmonster jump to mind.

XUL isn't just a Mozilla technology. Luxor is an independent implimentation.

Re:Advantages of Mozilla platform?? (2, Interesting)

_|()|\| (159991) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222916)

the only project actually using Mozilla's "software development platform" is Mozilla

While it's not free, Komodo is a slick app. built with the Mozilla framework. I've been meaning to take a look at Creating Applications with Mozilla [oreilly.com] to see whether it's worth considering for my projects.

Re:Advantages of Mozilla platform?? (2, Informative)

kerrle (810808) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222937)

It's a pretty good book; I was able to do a basic calendar app quite easily. The only problem I had with the book is that it's based on a fairly old copy of Mozilla, but it's still completely useable.

Re:Advantages of Mozilla platform?? (3, Informative)

Scaba (183684) | more than 9 years ago | (#10223033)

You also may want to consider Rapid Application Development with Mozilla [informit.com] instead. It's more recent and a better read, I think. You can also download the entire book (PDFs) from the above mentioned link (hint: see Downloads). If you like it, don't forget to buy it.

Re:Advantages of Mozilla platform?? (3, Informative)

rycamor (194164) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222936)

Actually there are many companies and projects using the Mozilla platform these days. I use it every day at my job these days. Some examples out there:

Sunbird -- calendaring system
Nvu -- web authoring system
Oeone -- Linux desktop
Komodo -- programmer's editor/IDE

And tons of other small projects are available as Mozilla or Firefox extensions at www.mozdev.org and other sites.

Re:Advantages of Mozilla platform?? (4, Interesting)

ADRA (37398) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222860)

Think of Mozilla's platform as Java-lite. You can write very small programs that utilize many built-ins that the browser supports. It has a deployment framework through 'extensions', etc..

Not everyone needs a fully library supported language like .NET or Java in order to do their work.

As long as you can learn JavaScript, you can write mozilla extensions. I'm just wish that the Mozilla folks would make it easier to find info on how to develop the platform as a platform. From what I've read on their site, they target the 'Mozilla as-a platform' over 'Mozilla is-a platform'. They might find that free/comercial entities could find use in their platform and help develop it if they think there's more for them to use from it.

Think of thin-apps niche for a moment:
Java Runtime ~15MB .NET Runtime ~25MB
Mozilla Runtime ~5MB and that includes a browser

If you want to deploy Thin Client App xyz, which one do you choose? You can't assume that your customer has either Java or .NET installed (trust me from experience, they don't). Less means better in this case. The smaller the release, the more likely an admin would choose your solution.

Mozilla has less surface area which means there's less functionality built id but its more simple to develop for. The language is JavaScript which is used by throngs of web developers (the target market of this technology). You can look at the debate over web based Application distribution to see where Mozilla fits into things. (The new MS web services model, Java Web Start, Mozilla)

Re:Advantages of Mozilla platform?? (1)

Doppler00 (534739) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222926)

Less means better in this case.

I would disagree. Who's going to quibble about a few megabytes of hard drive space? The differences between 5, 15, and 25MB is trivial. The important question is what capabilites do each of these frameworks provides. Which one is easier to work with? Who provides the best support? The disk space they consume is the least of your worries.

Firefox/Qt (4, Interesting)

_|()|\| (159991) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222716)

Perhaps more interesting than porting Gecko to Konqueror is integrating Qt and KDE with Firefox. It sounds like this porting fest has gained a couple of talented developers for the Mozilla project. This is good for both KDE and Mozilla.

Firefox/Qt-A cross, cross. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222794)

"This is good for both KDE and Mozilla."

Jut KDE. In case you've forgotten Mozilla/Firefox is a cross-platform browser. But everyone seems to be determined to undermine that fact.

If you want to do KDE a favour? Why not intergrate IE into KDE and QT? I'm certain it'll be a BIG benefit.

Re:Firefox/Qt-A cross, cross. (0)

twener (603089) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222917)

Mozilla/FireFox gaining Qt as platform is no win for them?

so that would be like (0, Flamebait)

b17bmbr (608864) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222720)

an ActiveX component. didn't some company up in redmond have an idea like that?

<ducks>

Re:so that would be like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222776)

It's called a KPart. Konqueror is just a frame for KParts, KHTML being the most common part, but of course not limited to.

Re:so that would be like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222846)

hey fucktard get your facts straight before you reveal what an idiot you are

Re:so that would be like (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222880)

Do you honestly think Microsoft invented embeddable components?
I doubt it, seeing as you're probably a geek trying to be "amusing", but it's really sad that in some areas people really do think that sort of thing.

Good news... (2, Insightful)

pebs (654334) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222727)

This is good news to me. I tried KDE a while back, but wasn't totally satisfied with the Konqueror web browser, which to me was the missing link in all the apps. It lacked type-ahead find, had kinda awkward rendering, and a few other things I didn't like.

Now I will give it another shot once this makes it into a release. I'm a Gnome user, but I'm not married to it, KDE was very nice last time I tried it.

XML (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222803)

it should be <ducks />

Re:Good news... (1)

twener (603089) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222929)

A while back? khtml improved majorly in KDE 3.2 and 3.3 and does know about type-ahead-find in KDE 3.3 too.

KHTML (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222730)

More choices, I see nothing negative in that.
The one thing I'd actually like to see in my GNOME environment is a KHTML based webbrowser, the html rendering feels much snappier than Gecko/Mozilla browsers.
There must be a reason why Apple desided to go with KHTML for their Safari browser instead of Gecko/Mozilla.

Re:KHTML (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222947)

Perhaps that's closer than you think.

A GNOME port of khtml:

gnome-webkit [gnome.org]

Java applet support? (2, Interesting)

Freddy Fantabulous (539208) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222733)

Does this mean java applets will actually appear in the page like they're supposed to instead of popping up in a separate window? I hate it when I go to a (poorly designed) page in Konqueror that uses a bunch of java applets for button rollovers... I end up with a dozen little windows all over my screen. That this still hadn't been fixed by Konqueror 3.3 is what finally got me to switch to Opera.

Re:Java applet support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222816)

Could you provide some sample URLs? Have you actually reported the bug? The only problem I've experienced with Konq 3.3 is that some sites don't set the appropriate mime type flash crap and it confuses Konq, but it renders all sites I visit fine.

Re:Java applet support? (1)

Freddy Fantabulous (539208) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222970)

This is the bug I'm talking about...

http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13635 [kde.org]

Apparently it's a problem with using Konquerer outside of KDE, so I'm guessing this will not be fixed. It's a shame too, because Konqueror is just a nice browser. I'm particularly fond of how easy it is to configure the keybindings/control layout. Konqueror is the only reason I ever install the KDE libraries. I wish the KDE folks cared more about making their apps work independently. Well designed X apps should work under any standards compliant window manager. I think that their strict focus on making one big, unified environment is somewhat myopic. It's really not in keeping with basic unix design standards.

Re:Java applet support? (1)

cozziewozzie (344246) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222873)

The easiest way to avoid what you're seeing is to use KWin as the window manager. The java applets unfortunately open new windows with other window-managers.

Re:Java applet support? (1)

Doppler00 (534739) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222984)

I wish people would stop using those stupid java applets for buttons on their websites. You can get the SAME effect using JavaScript and you don't require the client machine to startup a 20MB Java VM process.

Almost first post! (2, Funny)

tajmorton (806296) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222765)

Damn, I almost got the first post but I was having trouble getting Gecko to work in Konqueror!

Better news.. (4, Interesting)

Visceral Monkey (583103) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222768)

The best news here is that Firefox will also now be able to use the native KDE widgets, etc. Sweet.

Re:Better news.. (4, Interesting)

cozziewozzie (344246) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222887)

I see a very encouraging pattern here:

Mozilla: Can use KDE or GTK frontend.
Firefox: Can use KDE or GTK frontend.
OpenOffice: Can use KDE or GTK frontend.
Xine/Mplayer: Can use KDE or GTK frontend.
giFT: Can use KDE or GTK frontend.
GIMP: Can use KDE or GTK frontend.

Are we really moving away from the Desktop Environment holy wars, and towards interoperability?

Re:Better news.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222940)

KDE frontend for GIMP? What did I miss?

Re:Better news.. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222954)

Are we really moving away from the Desktop Environment holy wars, and towards interoperability?

Not really. You can draw GTK+2 apps using Qt widgets but that doesn't magically give the applications DCOP interfaces, KIO support, and things like that which really make KDE what it is.

Is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222781)

I understand that they've replaced GTK with QT but have they also added a switch to have it work natively in Konqueror?

I'm glad to see that they're contributing back to the CVS. I hope it fares better this time as last time no one worked on it after a while and it got removed.

Old stuff (3, Informative)

Trofonio (812490) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222827)

This isn't really new. A qtmozilla was implemented by Trolltech a couple of years ago. Then it became an open source project hosted at http://www.mozilla.org/ports/qtmozilla/.

Anyway this wasn't the same than a KDE port, but given that the Kecko Team have not integrated KIO, KWallet and KCookieJar already, they aren't there either.

Re:Old stuff (1)

_|()|\| (159991) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222965)

If either the Mozilla [mozilla.org] or Trolltech [trolltech.com] pages had been updated in the last year, I might agree that this is old news. As it is, two developers with a lot of experience with KHTML seem interested in making this a viable port. It also seems that their approach may be more sustainable, such that Qt/KDE can be a fully supported peer of GTK+ as a Mozilla front end.

Re:Old stuff (2, Informative)

fault0 (514452) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222989)

AFAIK, this port is completely written from scratch. Since QtMozilla was made, nearly all the ui-dependent parts of Mozilla were rewritten.

The best part of all is.... (3, Interesting)

ErichTheWebGuy (745925) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222859)

... that we will finally have OK/Cancel buttons in the usual (correct) places in the Qt version of Firefox!

Re:The best part of all is.... (1)

twener (603089) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222956)

This was already possible before with the right setting/theme: Plastik for Firefox [kde-look.org] .

Re:The best part of all is.... (1)

fault0 (514452) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222964)

You can already do that with the Mozilla KDE integration project: Mozillux.

Mozillux [polinux.upv.es]

One useful thing .. (1, Offtopic)

Eloquence (144160) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222869)

.. which KDE offers are the so-called io_slaves, so I can access, for example, my server using fish://bla (an SSH slave), WebDAV using webdav://bla, and so on. Does GNOME have something similar? It would be nice to be able to use these slaves in Mozilla/Firefox.

One useful thing-Virtual post. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222895)

Gnome-vfs2

Re:One useful thing .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10223007)

> It would be nice to be able to use these slaves in Mozilla/Firefox.

I think they've already done this in the new port. Amazing how much they accomplished in a few days.

Konqueror + slashdot != true (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222889)

Great, now slashdot will look weird in Konqueror as well!!

Fonts rendering - win for Konqueror (1)

jessONslash (805319) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222893)

Konqueror (with QT3.3.3) can render some open type fonts on my linux box, whereas Firefox/Mozilla draw only blanks. The fonts are in question are from: www.crulp.org

To those of you crowing about removing KHTML... (5, Informative)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222958)

At one time, Gecko was the creme de la creme of fast rendering engines. Now it's just the most compatible as well as being damn fast. Look how times have changed.

The KDE project takes a lot of flack for the way they integrate applications. Most people call it 'bloat'. Some call it 'Microsoftesque'. As the conventional OSS wisdom goes, apps that live outside the KDE project are usually better. But, as we see in the Windows (and Mac) world, integration and consistency is what sells. Fortunately, KPart has emerged as the best of both worlds.

Thesis: small applications doing specific tasks.
Antithesis: large applications that do everything.
Synthesis: apps seamlessly integrated via an open framework.

For years we witnessed proprietary software get more and more bloated and more and more expensive. That was due in no small part to the monopolies created by proprietary formats and standards. Now, with OSS, we are witnessing capitalism in action. Choice and open standards lead to constant improvement.

The next time you think about removing choice, think "where would OSS be without this competition?" Would we have KPart if it weren't for Gnome? Would we have great, cross-platform Gnome apps if it weren't for KDE? Many people look at these projects and see redundancy. I look at them and I see innovation.

The argument that someone needs to "manage developer resources" in OSS is completely bunk. OSS didn't get where it is today by forming a central economy of software projects. OSS is about freedom and fair competition. A defining quality of Open Source has been: there are no managers! The downside is that you may not get to tell a developer what to work on unless you're willing to pay her. The upside, though, is that we all reap the benefits of creative freedom.

konqueror could use them both (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10222966)

It might be a good idea to make khtml as standard compliant as possible and switch to the gecko enigne whenever konqueror detects a page, which has incorrect html.
khtml would be very clean and probably easy to develop and konqueror would still be able to show all pages.

what the hell is wrong with you people? (-1, Flamebait)

MOMOCROME (207697) | more than 9 years ago | (#10222991)

"Mozilla/Gecko ...mature, powerful rendering engine"

hasn't anyone ever tried to write a validated webpage that works in mozilla/firefox? it's nigh impossible, if you expect to use all of the features of html4.01 transitional or css1.0

have a look here: Mozilla's quirks mode [mozilla.org] . It's actually necessary to trick the browser into getting even somewhat close to standards compliant, and even then the formatting is all screwy by half.

No problems in ie 4, 5 or 6. no problems in Opera or with khtml. I have no trouble testing sandards-validated pages QNX browser, mac OS/X, netscape 4 or with any other damn browser. Just the unholy troika of moz-firebrid-netscape.

I'm like, wtf?

A shame since the port existed before (2, Interesting)

CwazyWabbit (610151) | more than 9 years ago | (#10223026)

There was a QT port in mozilla.org's CVS in the past, but it got dropped through lack of maintenance. While the four days it took to port the gfx layer is obviously impressive, it is a shame that all of the original work was allowed to bitrot.

More information (4, Informative)

fault0 (514452) | more than 9 years ago | (#10223028)

Zack Rusin, one of the authors of this port, has written some more information about it in his blog.

See his blog [kdedevelopers.org]

Great, but... (4, Insightful)

Money for Nothin' (754763) | more than 9 years ago | (#10223029)

Can we have the rendering speed of KHTML (Konqueror's rendering engine) and the relatively-small memory footprint of Konqueror with the compatibility of Mozilla?

I mean, switching between rendering engines just to access a particular site sounds annoying. Almost as annoying as having to open an IE window for sites that don't work well w/ Mozilla or a Moz. window for sites that don't work in Konqueror...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...