*~* I also agree with this,
We should take Firebird (since its only the browser (not mail, IRC, composer, etc.) and its faster than IE) and add in the ActiveX control plug in (which you can get at: http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm) and also make a COM wrapper for the Gecko rendering engine, between those two we should have a full replacement to IE for the OS. I think that there was some Netscape employees working on making a COM wrapper for Mozilla, but I can't remember the website, and development seemed to be pretty inactive, but its better than starting from scratch.
*~*
No, no, I don't think you get what I'm suggesting. Both Mozilla and Firebird have the same engine under the hood. The speed difference is mostly because seamonkey loads more than just the browser. The ActiveX control is simply a way to access the browser, all of those other features are actually add-ons that don't need to be installed.
As for the dummy-browser, it's actually quite simple to do. I would if I better understood ActiveX, but the "official" website for the control has a variety of demos to work from. The dummy-browser would be a little bit more useful than just plain Firebird, since we could integrate bookmarking features with ros explorer much in the same way microsoft does with IE.
If modified properly, the control could replace IE completely. It wouldn't be needed for anything anymore.
We should take Firebird (since its only the browser (not mail, IRC, composer, etc.) and its faster than IE) and add in the ActiveX control plug in (which you can get at: http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm) and also make a COM wrapper for the Gecko rendering engine, between those two we should have a full replacement to IE for the OS. I think that there was some Netscape employees working on making a COM wrapper for Mozilla, but I can't remember the website, and development seemed to be pretty inactive, but its better than starting from scratch.
I installed Firebird this week and have to admit I also like it. But why do you think, it's faster then Internet Explorer? It feels a bit more sluggish for example when resizing the windows. But not really much, it's acceptable. What I really like is it's popup window blocker. :)
Then I downloaded it's source code and unpacked it onto my drive... This are 184 MB of source code in numerous subfolders! Is this really anything needed just to display HTML and a few other protocolls? I did not try to compile it - reading the Howto has been quite disgusting. You need cygwin, perl, and a few other special tools.
I think we should try to install it as binary Active-X control without interating any source code into the ROS tree. (if that's possible)
Regards,
Martin
I have noticed that NCSA Mosiac itself is available for download. I have not tried it myself, I wonder whether anyone has, and how it rates ?
Rgs Ian.
-----Original Message----- From: ros-general-bounces@reactos.com [mailto:ros-general-bounces@reactos.com]On Behalf Of Martin Fuchs Sent: Friday, 6 February 2004 9:23 am To: ros-general@reactos.com Subject: [ros-general] Re: Browsers
We should take Firebird (since its only the browser (not
mail, IRC,
composer, etc.) and its faster than IE) and add in the
ActiveX control
plug in (which you can get at: http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm) and also make
a COM wrapper
for the Gecko rendering engine, between those two we should
have a full
replacement to IE for the OS. I think that there was some Netscape employees working on making a COM wrapper for Mozilla, but I can't remember the website, and development seemed to be pretty
inactive, but
its better than starting from scratch.
I installed Firebird this week and have to admit I also like it. But why do you think, it's faster then Internet Explorer? It feels a bit more sluggish for example when resizing the windows. But not really much, it's acceptable. What I really like is it's popup window blocker. :)
Then I downloaded it's source code and unpacked it onto my drive... This are 184 MB of source code in numerous subfolders! Is this really anything needed just to display HTML and a few other protocolls? I did not try to compile it - reading the Howto has been quite disgusting. You need cygwin, perl, and a few other special tools.
I think we should try to install it as binary Active-X control without interating any source code into the ROS tree. (if that's possible)
Regards,
Martin _______________________________________________ ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
Hi!
Martin Fuchs wrote:
We should take Firebird (since its only the browser (not mail, IRC, composer, etc.) and its faster than IE) and add in the ActiveX control plug in (which you can get at: http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm) and also make a COM wrapper for the Gecko rendering engine, between those two we should have a full replacement to IE for the OS. I think that there was some Netscape employees working on making a COM wrapper for Mozilla, but I can't remember the website, and development seemed to be pretty inactive, but its better than starting from scratch.
I agree with it, but actually the COM wrapper of Mozilla doesn't inplmentent the MSHTML interfaces (although it's planned) and only supports the SHDOCVW interfaces (IWebBrowser, ...) now. A few weeks ago there appeared patch for Wine that implmented mshtml.dll by calling the Mozilla ActiveX control. Since then it was discovered that it doesn't work yet, because of the incomplete Mozilla ActiveX implementation, but this code can be taken as start for implementing our MSHTML and SHDOCVW in future.
I installed Firebird this week and have to admit I also like it. But why do you think, it's faster then Internet Explorer? It feels a bit more sluggish for example when resizing the windows. But not really much, it's acceptable.
It's comparable fast for me, but it's UI speed is theoretictly a bit worse because it uses it's own control toolkit and supports skins.
What I really like is it's popup window blocker. :)
Me too ;-)
Then I downloaded it's source code and unpacked it onto my drive... This are 184 MB of source code in numerous subfolders! Is this really anything needed just to display HTML and a few other protocolls?
There a lot more to that like test applications, source for the ActiveX control, installer, editor, mail/news, ...
I did not try to compile it - reading the Howto has been quite disgusting. You need cygwin, perl, and a few other special tools.
If you would like some help with this, contact me. I've done this a few weeks ago and it took me a almost whole week to just setup the build environment correctly. Since then I was trying to get it working on ReactOS and fixes numerous bugs in many ROS components. Some time ago I got the winEmbed example working and now I've made test for the major blockers that prevents the Mozilla (winEmbed, Firebird, Seamonkey, ...) from working on ReactOS. It's located in apps/tests/moztest in the ROS tree. I would appreciate some help from the persons that understand the "broken" parts better than me... Now I'm working on WSAListen to make it work non-blocking.
I think we should try to install it as binary Active-X control without interating any source code into the ROS tree. (if that's possible)
Agreed.
Regards, Filip
At 20.04 06/02/2004, you wrote:
It's comparable fast for me, but it's UI speed is theoretictly a bit worse because it uses it's own control toolkit and supports skins.
most people overlook, or ignore, that Internet Explorer does *exactly the same*. The chrome is probably written in WTL or even bare Win32, but the web control is *entirely* owner-drawn, and supports skins even in page rendering. I'd say that, apart from writing an iexplore.exe clone and adding (enabling?) Mozilla support for Windows themes, no work needs to be done in this field
most people overlook, or ignore, that Internet Explorer does *exactly the same*. The chrome is probably written in WTL or even bare Win32, but the web control is *entirely* owner-drawn, and supports skins even in page rendering. I'd say that, apart from writing an iexplore.exe clone and adding (enabling?) Mozilla support for Windows themes, no work needs to be done in this field
That are words! I do also see IE as a component we do not need. We can just ignore it. If IE gets installed on ROS -- fine. If not -- don't care, improve gecko-ActiveX control to support more of the IE-DOM. I think the Mozilla community will do that job for us / the world if ROS gets more to the minds of the people.
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
I agree.
There exists a ActiveX-control of gecko : http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/control.htm
It resembles most of the interfaces and the most importand DOM. The dom is however not compleetely compatible, and forseeable never will be.
It's importand to also be able to embed ActiveX-controls, which is the project you mentioned. AFAIK this is accomplished by these projects.
Technically it happens the following: COM-objects (=ActiceX-control) have to be recistered via an GUID in Registry to be found. There is essentally a link from an interface GUID to a DLL. Since the gecko ActiveX-Control implements the same Interface as IE, there's no problem. There should however be a dedicated GUID for gecko (which is the case) (to instantiate gecko explicitely). So installing IE on ROS would overwrite the GUID ant make it point to an IE-dll. What we still need is a browser interface (GUI). Firebird can make this part. There can however also be some kind of ActiveX-Container like IEXPLORE.EXE is. I don't care about that. In order to reduce redundancy (not two geckos on one system) either firebird should exist in a ROS-version or ROS should provide an ActiveX-container. A ROSified Firebird could for example provide also the Mozilla ActiveX Control and update it. This would imply that we have a talk at Mozilla.org and invite them in our plans (which I would suggest)
On 05.02.2004 23:40:21 Robert_K�pferl wrote:
I agree.
There exists a ActiveX-control of gecko : http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/control.htm
This is a good link! I will try to include the control into explorer, as I already have some code, which uses the IE control and this one is (nearly) compatible with it. The biggest problem seems to convince GCC to compile it. ;-) (There is no support for bstr_t, variant_t, ... in MinGW)
Regards,
Martin
-
David Dunn -
Filip Navara -
Ian McLean -
KJK::Hyperion -
Martin Fuchs -
Robert Köpferl