Mozilla future?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Mozilla future?

Ray Davison
What is the prognosis for FF, TB and SM?

Is it a matter of time and talent, or are there things about the OS/2
versions that are more difficult than the Win versions?

The above question applies especially to SM.  As I understand, SM is an
"orphan" on all platforms.  Yet the Win versions seem to be able keep
moving forward.

As I understand, Odin allows OS/2 to make use of some Win parts.  Is
this necessary or just expedient?

How big an issue is money?

TY
Ray


_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozilla future?

Dave Yeo-3
On 03/05/14 07:11 am, Ray Davison wrote:
> What is the prognosis for FF, TB and SM?

Dmitriy is currently moving to 24esr after doing a fairly good job of
getting the IPC stuff working on 17esr. Once he gets 24esr working I'd
guess he'll continue getting native plugins working, bug fixing and
finishing the IPC stuff. Currently he has taken various shortcuts with
the IPC stuff and it can be optimized.

I have now got the 17esr tree installed but am having problems linking
xul.dll. It's all done in a weird way now to work around buggy OSX
linker. Instead of creating a bunch of static libs and then linking them
to make xul.dll it uses Python a lot to basically make a list of all the
object files and link them. I keep getting errors about the command line
when creating the list of files and the odd time I've gotten past that,
the system locks up hard.
Investigating as it does work for Dmitriy.
Once I get it linking it should be trivial to update to the last 17esr
code and build TB and SM. Same with 24esr, once Firefox is building, it
should be trivial to build SM and TB.
After 24esr we're sorta screwed as the OS/2 code has been removed from
Mozilla due to no code being committed and they're radically changing
their build setup.
Theoretically we can reverse the OS/2 code removal but it is going to
get more and more difficult.

>
> Is it a matter of time and talent, or are there things about the OS/2
> versions that are more difficult than the Win versions?

Currently it is time and talent. If the code grows too much more we may
run into operating system limits. OS/2 was never designed to load such a
huge dll as xul.dll is becoming and already has major problems with the
full debug build, which makes things harder.
Note that they already had to quit compiling on 32bit windows so we're
not alone but we can't just load a 64bit version of OS/2

>
> The above question applies especially to SM.  As I understand, SM is an
> "orphan" on all platforms.  Yet the Win versions seem to be able keep
> moving forward.

If I can compile firefox, I should be able to compile SM. Bitwise is
also planning on eventually building SM and TB but it is low on their
priority list. I use SM so it is high on my list, besides as I said, it
is trivial once Firefox is building as most of the code is the same.
After 24esr who knows.

>
> As I understand, Odin allows OS/2 to make use of some Win parts.  Is
> this necessary or just expedient?

The only part Odin plays is in the plugin wrapper code to run Flash and
to a lesser degree Java which is built with Odin.

>
> How big an issue is money?

Bitwise is doing the port for money so for them it is a big issue as
they're at least partially trying to make a living on OS/2 code.
I've always just been doing it to have an up to date browser though if I
was richer I'd have a faster computer :) My last computer died, it could
compile ff10esr in 50 minutes after Lewis donated a fast CPU to me. My
current one is taking 2.5 hours to get to linking xul.dll on 17esr and
if I'm doing something even longer as I only have 1.5GBs of memory and
there are files that eat up 800Mbs to compile and once it starts to swap...
Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozilla future?

Ray Davison
In reply to this post by Ray Davison
Dave Yeo wrote:
>
> Note that they already had to quit compiling on 32bit windows so we're
> not alone but we can't just load a 64bit version of OS/2

Is it possible to use one OS to run a compiler for another OS?
>
> The only part Odin plays is in the plugin wrapper code to run Flash and
> to a lesser degree Java which is built with Odin.

Would getting Flash and Java on a system by clicking an EXE require
native versions, which there are not, and won't be?

Or might there be some way to "package" foreign stuff so that it seems
like a simple EXE to the user?

> Bitwise is doing the port for money so for them it is a big issue

Have calls for donations ever brought in enough to make a difference?

> if I was richer

How rich?

> I'd have a faster computer

How fast?

Ray


_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozilla future?

Steve Wendt
In reply to this post by Ray Davison
On 3/5/2014 7:11 AM, Ray Davison wrote:

> The above question applies especially to SM.  As I understand, SM is an
> "orphan" on all platforms.

It could be said that Thunderbird is more orphaned than SeaMonkey.

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozilla future?

Steve Wendt
In reply to this post by Ray Davison
On 3/5/2014 1:31 PM, Ray Davison wrote:

> Is it possible to use one OS to run a compiler for another OS?

Sure, if the compiler supports it, and compiles the code in question.
For example, Watcom is really good at cross-compiling.  GCC is also used
for cross-compiling for many platforms, but not OS/2.  The C++ support
in (Open)Watcom is unfortunately too dated for Mozilla.

> Would getting Flash and Java on a system by clicking an EXE require
> native versions, which there are not, and won't be?
>
> Or might there be some way to "package" foreign stuff so that it seems
> like a simple EXE to the user?

Not really sure what you are asking... there are WarpIn installers for
Flash and Java.

>> Bitwise is doing the port for money so for them it is a big issue
>
> Have calls for donations ever brought in enough to make a difference?

Bitwise reports funding levels for their various projects, and has met
and even exceeded them sometimes.

>> I'd have a faster computer
>
> How fast?

If money is no object, then the fastest one available that performs the
necessary tasks.  What's the point of your questions?  Are you trying to
figure out if you are willing to send Dave money or hardware?  His
biggest problem is actually bandwidth, which won't be solved unless he
moves.  ;-)

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozilla future?

Alan Beagley-2
In reply to this post by Steve Wendt
On 03/05/14 06:03 pm, Steve Wendt wrote:
> On 3/5/2014 7:11 AM, Ray Davison wrote:
>
>> The above question applies especially to SM. As I understand, SM is an
>> "orphan" on all platforms.
>
> It could be said that Thunderbird is more orphaned than SeaMonkey.

What does any later version of Thunderbird do that our 10.0.12 for OS/2
doesn't do?

Alan
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozilla future?

Steve Wendt
On 3/5/2014 5:16 PM, Alan Beagley wrote:

>> It could be said that Thunderbird is more orphaned than SeaMonkey.

More specifically, it only has ESR releases now, and doesn't get much
attention any more.

> What does any later version of Thunderbird do that our 10.0.12 for OS/2
> doesn't do?

Security updates are probably the most important bit:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/17.0esr/releasenotes/
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/24.0/releasenotes/
https://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/thunderbird.html

I don't know if that answers your question?  My point was that SeaMonkey
is more alive/active than Thunderbird, even if ignoring OS/2.

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozilla future?

Ray Davison
In reply to this post by Steve Wendt
Steve Wendt wrote:
> On 3/5/2014 1:31 PM, Ray Davison wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to use one OS to run a compiler for another OS?
>
> Sure, if the compiler supports it, and compiles the code in question.
> For example, Watcom is really good at cross-compiling.  GCC is also used
> for cross-compiling for many platforms, but not OS/2.  The C++ support
> in (Open)Watcom is unfortunately too dated for Mozilla.

So we cannot borrow power from another OS?
>
> Not really sure what you are asking... there are WarpIn installers for
> Flash and Java.

I think OS/2 is friendly, once you get it up and running.  But getting
it there can require you learning another career.  And that makes it a
hard sell.

In Win you can get Flash and Java by running a couple EXEs, and it will
auto update.  In OS/2 you must first get Odin and WarpIn installed and
working, then try to get Flash to work.  We could ask Steven Levine how
long he recently spent trying to help someone do that.  And that was
someone who is committed to using OS/2, being helped by someone who
actually understands the process.  Someone we tried to bring from Win
would have early in the process said why bother?  Or have we given up
trying to share OS/2?

> If money is no object, then the fastest one available that performs the
> necessary tasks.  What's the point of your questions?  Are you trying to
> figure out if you are willing to send Dave money or hardware?  His
> biggest problem is actually bandwidth, which won't be solved unless he
> moves.
>
Kinda hard to share bandwidth?

Ray


_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozilla future?

Steve Wendt
On 3/6/2014 10:18 AM, Ray Davison wrote:

>> Sure, if the compiler supports it, and compiles the code in question.
>> For example, Watcom is really good at cross-compiling.  GCC is also used
>> for cross-compiling for many platforms, but not OS/2.  The C++ support
>> in (Open)Watcom is unfortunately too dated for Mozilla.
>
> So we cannot borrow power from another OS?

Not unless/until someone creates an OS/2 cross-compiler for GCC.  The
odds of that happening are pretty close to zero.

> Or have we given up trying to share OS/2?

Honestly?  I can't see why anyone would convert to it now.  If there had
been enough resources to keep current on Mozilla, LibreOffice, Qt, Java,
etc. then things might be different.

> Kinda hard to share bandwidth?

:-)

_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozilla future?

Dave Yeo-3
In reply to this post by Ray Davison
On 03/06/14 10:18 AM, Ray Davison wrote:
> Kinda hard to share bandwidth?

I borrowed some from Tellie to get the Bitwise tree locally so it is
possible (he cloned the repository, stripped it to the bare essentials
and made it available on his ftp server including leaving his computer
on for a couple of days)
I should have made similar requests sooner and may make similar ones again.
So thanks to Tellie
Dave
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Mozilla future?

Paul Ratcliffe
In reply to this post by Ray Davison
On Thu, 06 Mar 2014 19:29:21 -0800, Dave Yeo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> made it available on his ftp server including leaving his computer
> on for a couple of days)

You mean people don't leave their computers on normally? What an odd
concept :-)
_______________________________________________
dev-ports-os2 mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-ports-os2