(no subject)

[David Dunn]

*~*
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.

[Martin Fuchs]

>    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

[Ian McLean]

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(a)reactos.com
>  [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Martin Fuchs
>  Sent: Friday, 6 February 2004 9:23 am
>  To: ros-general(a)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(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

[Filip Navara]

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

[KJK::Hyperion]

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

[Robert Köpferl]

>   
>  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(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

[Robert Köpferl]

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)

[Martin Fuchs]

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