Opera is dropping FreeBSD, it's (almost) official.

Re: Re:

vermaden said:
For me it's not important if it's Gecko, Webkit or even Trident, I care about features/UI more.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with this however i would prefer the engine be open sourced. It helps somewhat with keeping web standards open IMHO.
 
vermaden said:
For those missing Opera 12.x series (like me) there is an open source project to recreate the Opera 12.x feeling with Webkit: http://otter-browser.org/
Click to expand...

Meh. The TODO list fails to mention Opera's best feature: a fully customizable UI.

Rant: I still wonder which numbnut came up with idea of nailing tabs to the top of a browser? As if the height of the viewport wasn't important. Last time I checked the content of almost every website out there was more high than wide.

Sigh... Opera was a vim among notepads. :\
 
drhowarddrfine said:
@protocelt The only one in your list that is not open source is Trident. You can easily look through the source of Gecko, Blink and Chromium.
Click to expand...

True. I should have worded my reply differently. My point was that I'm not concerned with the engine being used in my browser of choice as long as it's open sourced. Being how important browsers are these days I think it's important to keep standards as open as possible.

On a separate note, I am a bit wary of Blink. Google has been locking down a lot of access to their services as of late, at least in the mobile space. I hope they don't start adding locked down extensions and APIs to the engine. This would affect Opera obviously as well now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
drhowarddrfine said:
Blink is licensed under BSD and LGPL.
Click to expand...

Yes that's true, however from my understanding future added code is not required to be open to be compatible with either of the licenses. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
 
Code: 
In file included from ../src/main.cpp:20:
In file included from ../src/core/Application.h:23:
../src/core/SessionsManager.h:135:27: error: unknown type name 'QUrl'
        static bool hasUrl(const QUrl &url, bool activate = false);
                                 ^
In file included from ../src/main.cpp:20:
../src/core/Application.h:25:10: fatal error: 'QtCore/QCommandLineParser' file
      not found
#include <QtCore/QCommandLineParser>
         ^
2 errors generated.
*** Error code 1

Stop.

This is from building otter on FreeBSD 10 i386.

Using #make -i more errors are produced. The compiler is Clang-3.4. So, if anyone is wanting to port this - as suggested earlier in this thread - then you have a lot to rewrite - patching just makes things worse.
 
sossego said:
Code: 
In file included from ../src/main.cpp:20:
In file included from ../src/core/Application.h:23:
../src/core/SessionsManager.h:135:27: error: unknown type name 'QUrl'
        static bool hasUrl(const QUrl &url, bool activate = false);
                                 ^
In file included from ../src/main.cpp:20:
../src/core/Application.h:25:10: fatal error: 'QtCore/QCommandLineParser' file
      not found
#include <QtCore/QCommandLineParser>
         ^
2 errors generated.
*** Error code 1

Stop.

This is from building otter on FreeBSD 10 i386.

Using #make -i more errors are produced. The compiler is Clang-3.4. So, if anyone is wanting to port this - as suggested earlier in this thread - then you have a lot to rewrite - patching just makes things worse.
Click to expand...

You need Qt5. Qt4 is inadequate for building Otter.
 
Some comments showing happiness for the imminent demise of Opera on FreeBSD. I don't understand how the lack of support from commercial software can be a good thing.
 
I think the idea of the Otter browser is fantastic and when it starts working on FreeBSD I will definitely give it a try.

However, I am a tad worried about the authors choice of Qt5. As in... why? Opera used Qt4 and a software author who always uses the latest stuff is often quite junior or will simply always be playing catch up with technology.

I mean, the reason why we cannot try it now *is* because he decided to use Qt5. I am also worried it will become very bloated (which the older Opera wasn't) and that the port is going to pull in much of the known universe as dependencies.

I guess only time will tell :)
 
I don't know much about the difference between Qt4 and Qt5. That being said, I guess a Qt-based application (just like a GTK-based one) doesn't have to be very heavy on resources or have a gazillion dependencies. It's when they require dozens of KDE/GNOME-specific libraries that they become really bloated.

For instance, a Qt4-based browser like Arora has slightly fewer dependencies than (and is as responsive as) the current Xlib-based Opera.

Of course the case might be different for Qt5...
 
kpedersen said:
However, I am a tad worried about the authors choice of Qt5. As in... why? Opera used Qt4 and a software author who always uses the latest stuff is often quite junior or will simply always be playing catch up with technology.

I mean, the reason why we cannot try it now *is* because he decided to use Qt5. I am also worried it will become very bloated (which the older Opera wasn't) and that the port is going to pull in much of the known universe as dependencies.
Click to expand...

QT5 is from december 2012, and we're currently at version 5.2; so while it's still somwhat `new', it's hardly `the latest stuff'. If you're starting an application from scratch now, it makes sense to use QT5.
 
There's also the Odyssey web browser, it's quite lightweight, but I'm not sure how much it's tied to the Amiga architecture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top