Browser

mikedep333 · Post by **mikedep333** » Sun Oct 09, 2005 10:46 pm

GvG is absolutely right.

Luke-Jr, although getting firefox to work is a high priority, it still does not.

Luke-Jr · Post by **Luke-Jr** » Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:37 am

mikedep333 wrote:Luke-Jr, although getting firefox to work is a high priority, it still does not.

Ah, so that's the reason this exists...

Floyd · Post by **Floyd** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:33 am

maybe we should use the off-by-one browser?

mikedep333 · Post by **mikedep333** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 6:29 am

Floyd,

off by one site wrote: Off By One Browser Limitations

* No JavaScript support (so no pop-up ad windows).

* No applet, plug-in or Flash support.

Post by **Ged** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:58 am

The best option we currently have is the built in ibrowser with the 1.6 mozilla control.

Hopefully firefox will be working in the near future. Once firefox is working, I would imagine thunderbird won't be too far behind

Floyd · Post by **Floyd** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 7:31 pm

mikedep333 wrote:Floyd,
off by one site wrote: Off By One Browser Limitations

* No JavaScript support (so no pop-up ad windows).

* No applet, plug-in or Flash support.

but the point is to put a small file size browser so the bloat worry warts won't complain. and it's still functional enough to download a real browser like firefox or other real apps like open office or gimp.

Wierd · Post by **Wierd** » Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:35 pm

That is why we created iBrowser.

iBrowser can jump on the net and grab Firefox, IE, or whatever your perferred browser is.

It also satisfies the need for an internet activeX control, that many cheesey visual basic applications use. (thanks mozilla!)

Why use something when we allready have something that works?

oiaohm · Post by **oiaohm** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:29 am

I think we have a name over lap. You don't mean the iBrowser image viewer? I guess.

If its internal might be better to go RosBrowser.

One off is point less. One Off build around the mozilla control. Minorly pointless just a work around until firefox comes on line I would guess.

A patch for firefox/mozilla to support Vbscript is either complete or underdevelopment. Plugin for Active X exists http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm. So get the control using this active X support warning Active X has a lot of security problems the reason why its no in the main version of firefox. Nothing wrong with the plugin it is the Active X controls themselfs.

I know why I don't go near KHTML with a verry long stick. Its not stable yet on Win32. Stable is half the battle with code the other half is features.

It needs alot of time yet before I would even consider it for reactos.

Basicly Mozilla is so near its not funny. Starting from the begining is not going to work. Advantage of patching firefox/mozilla it might be excepted back into the main tree. So more developers to look after it.

If we are going to support windows scripting we will need Vbscript and ms javascript support anyhow that can be reused for the Mozilla support. Ie not developing something we don't need saves time.

At this time Mozilla is to close to being functional really to look at anything else at this time. The sections Mozilla requires most of them the OS will require as well to be complete also any other browser built will require them. Completing Mozilla is really costing us nothing compared to building a complete browers from start.

Phalanx · Post by **Phalanx** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:04 am

This battle happens every month for the past year and a half, and nothing changes cause the situation is the same. Have a look in the past. The Mozilla ActiveX control replaces a feature in windows that all others do not replace. And it has more support which is important in an OS, as you need something that can be used as far and wide as possible, not just cause it can read the back of your hand and wave at you with an animation at the same time while using 2k of memory. In the end the end user is not going to care, and will only notice if they can or can not load their favourite page, see the output xml results from PCmark, or use their web building app with the built in control.

Floyd · Post by **Floyd** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:10 am

i don't really care what browser it is.
cf. the distribution size thread.

i would rather use firefox myself, but the war that erupted over the fat vs. lite distros of ROS points out that some people will complain about it. both distros need a browser just to get other apps. or an app-get program (but considering how often links change, would probably be safer for a browser.

Viator · Post by **Viator** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:26 am

why not make an installer that installs the packages YOU want. That way you can have light or fat or just click on default and get a one app for one task desktop. As for the package manager im not sure exactly how it will get the apps/packages will it WGET them via http which means the maintainer will have to keep links upto date not too hard really or will there be a repository where the maintainer downloads the latest version of the apps and keeps them upto date etc the it would be much easier to use wget that would take NO bandwith and no storage space id go with that at first. One place ros is also lacking like i said when i started this post is the installer. It need not be graphical but it needs to get the job done and easily and have alot more options.

uriox · Post by **uriox** » Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:34 pm

Viator wrote:why not make an installer that installs the packages YOU want.

I second that. Very important IMHO... Then you'll only have one distro with real choices.

I'm tired of Windows XP and having to rely on nlite project to install what I want/need.

Phalanx · Post by **Phalanx** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:17 am

uriox wrote:
Viator wrote:why not make an installer that installs the packages YOU want.
I second that. Very important IMHO... Then you'll only have one distro with real choices.

I'm tired of Windows XP and having to rely on nlite project to install what I want/need.

You do realise that the more choices you offer people, the more people you push away? They found the most successful ice cream stores with the same level of service were the ones with the least number of flavours, as customers could make up their minds and stuck with it instead of trying something else. Windows XP is very good at that, users don't have to learn much to get a system that works. Sure you still have your choices in add/remove programs, but the average user does not have to deal with that, and that is why it works.

Floyd · Post by **Floyd** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:13 am

Phalanx wrote: You do realise that the more choices you offer people, the more people you push away? They found the most successful ice cream stores with the same level of service were the ones with the least number of flavours, as customers could make up their minds and stuck with it instead of trying something else. Windows XP is very good at that, users don't have to learn much to get a system that works. Sure you still have your choices in add/remove programs, but the average user does not have to deal with that, and that is why it works.

that sounds reasonable. i always thought packaging windows with very basic applications, nothing too fancy but fitting an immediate need, was a brilliant marketing move.

Luemmel · Post by **Luemmel** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:06 pm

latest news from the mailing list:
http://www.reactos.nl/pics/ff1.png
http://www.apiviewer.de/downloads/mozilla.png

cheers to all developers who made this possible

Browser

iBrowser???

Who is online