Web Browser???
Moderator: Moderator Team
You obviously have not checked the Gekko 1.9 results, which are aka FF3. You need to have a MSHTML replacement, too many applications rely on it. Even if your have something personal against Gekko, there is no other suitable replacements for a required component.Haos wrote:I dont think Firefox should be a default browser. Its unreliable, prone to crash, slow at rendering and bloats at memory use.
See? We may take it for days like that. This is why i am against bundling any of the popular browsers in ROS. Everyone should pick their own favourite or we should eventually choose some really small and lightweight one.
Phalanx if you had read my section the two possible engines open source that could be used is webkit and gekko at this stage that can be used in place of MSHTML.
Wine is working with alterations to gecko leading most likely there own engine. Replicating MSHTML warped ness is not exactly simple.
It is not the time to be talking about this topic. I am not going to tie developers hands to say they have to use gecko if webkit turns out to be a better match or some other lower less advertised engine is a close match.
Only persons who can make selection is the developers build that section.
Please cease and desisted with this stupidity. Its just simply too soon to be talk about it come back in at least 12 months times.
Wine is working with alterations to gecko leading most likely there own engine. Replicating MSHTML warped ness is not exactly simple.
It is not the time to be talking about this topic. I am not going to tie developers hands to say they have to use gecko if webkit turns out to be a better match or some other lower less advertised engine is a close match.
Only persons who can make selection is the developers build that section.
Please cease and desisted with this stupidity. Its just simply too soon to be talk about it come back in at least 12 months times.
-
meridian.blue
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:05 am
-
meridian.blue
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:05 am
Why is this topic still alive!?The only third party app that stands a chance of making it into ROS is a web browser of some kind, but it would have to meet the requirement of being a win32 app.
Because you raised this issue. Remember??? What you really mean is... why are there forums? If this thread is invaild you are the moderator close or remove it. However, before you do note the amount of posts and views.
It is not the time to be talking about this topic.
It is not time to code this feature. Why wait for a fire to 'discuss' water?
Please cease and desisted with this stupidity.
It is only stupidity if you are equating input with inclusion.
If gatekeepers are omnipotent why does Redmond's recent blunder exist? I would say because they spent too much time talking to themselves in the mirror and not enough talking to users. If the gatekeepers of this project feel users are incapable of or do not have the right to a point of view they should remove the forum so they can spend more time in the mirror.
meridian.blue You don't really understand why I said what I did.
Yes I really do mean cease and desisted with this stupidity. I guess you cannot see why I see this as stupid.
Every input on a topic has its correct time. No matter how we assess what functions from a html engine we need now by the time Reactos reaches stable it can be completely wrong.
Gatekeepers are not omnipotent. To be correct the recent Redmond blunder is why I am also shutting this down.
May 2001 is when longhorn started. Now lot of input on how Vista should be designed was taken then. Ie computers will just keep on getting bigger cpu's ram and so on. So no need to limit ourselfs. Other things of the design they locked in early too. Way to early.
Now lower power laptop and computer were never even dreamed of in 2001. So nice big screwup. Also 2001 users had just got out of the 9x time frame so where more willing to being abused by OS than current batch of uses.
No matter how we try to look at the current problem of what browser what engine to use there is no way at moment can we make 100 percent correct selection. Even what browser to ship default is outside being able to pick the correct one for when Reactos is released at least beta let alone stable.
There is reason why I said developer would have to make the selection of engine too. It has to be the best match to support applications to MS Trident so most applications work. Worst case is that no engine out there is upto the task so completely new HTML engine has to be built.
I really do think feature to feature matching is past what this topic can handle. Yes MS HTML bugs will need to be replaced for some applications. If anything a table in the wiki comparing each of the available engines and how well they match up to MS Trident.
Ie its 100 percent stupid to have a argument about a topic when there is no way to come to the correct answer. Basically every thing so far in this topic will end up in the trash can of time. Since we will have to have this argument at a latter date when the result will be useful.
Note also no developer is putting any time into the Reactos html section and will not be for a far while yet. I see its at least 12 months before a developer will be needed to work on it. So there is no way at all to use any input on this topic at this time.
Can you see my point now. This is just stupid to get input that is never going to be used and new input will have to be got at a latter date to replace it.
Now please just cease and desist this stupidity and wait until the right times to talk about this come along. When it would be wise to start that topic with a basic list of what is what so people don't do some of the laughable errors that have been in this thread. That is about as far as the useful input in this thread has gone.
Also don't double post edit you last post if no one has posted after you.
PS along the lines of fire and water. Its like planing and designing a firehouse 10 years before it gets built. Now small town turns into city. If you use the past firehouse design is far too small. So you have to duplicate work. Now if you had just locked down a block of land in advance no designing and design it closer to time of construction. Design can better match. No duplication no waste.
Yes I really do mean cease and desisted with this stupidity. I guess you cannot see why I see this as stupid.
Every input on a topic has its correct time. No matter how we assess what functions from a html engine we need now by the time Reactos reaches stable it can be completely wrong.
Gatekeepers are not omnipotent. To be correct the recent Redmond blunder is why I am also shutting this down.
May 2001 is when longhorn started. Now lot of input on how Vista should be designed was taken then. Ie computers will just keep on getting bigger cpu's ram and so on. So no need to limit ourselfs. Other things of the design they locked in early too. Way to early.
Now lower power laptop and computer were never even dreamed of in 2001. So nice big screwup. Also 2001 users had just got out of the 9x time frame so where more willing to being abused by OS than current batch of uses.
No matter how we try to look at the current problem of what browser what engine to use there is no way at moment can we make 100 percent correct selection. Even what browser to ship default is outside being able to pick the correct one for when Reactos is released at least beta let alone stable.
There is reason why I said developer would have to make the selection of engine too. It has to be the best match to support applications to MS Trident so most applications work. Worst case is that no engine out there is upto the task so completely new HTML engine has to be built.
I really do think feature to feature matching is past what this topic can handle. Yes MS HTML bugs will need to be replaced for some applications. If anything a table in the wiki comparing each of the available engines and how well they match up to MS Trident.
Ie its 100 percent stupid to have a argument about a topic when there is no way to come to the correct answer. Basically every thing so far in this topic will end up in the trash can of time. Since we will have to have this argument at a latter date when the result will be useful.
Note also no developer is putting any time into the Reactos html section and will not be for a far while yet. I see its at least 12 months before a developer will be needed to work on it. So there is no way at all to use any input on this topic at this time.
Can you see my point now. This is just stupid to get input that is never going to be used and new input will have to be got at a latter date to replace it.
Now please just cease and desist this stupidity and wait until the right times to talk about this come along. When it would be wise to start that topic with a basic list of what is what so people don't do some of the laughable errors that have been in this thread. That is about as far as the useful input in this thread has gone.
Also don't double post edit you last post if no one has posted after you.
PS along the lines of fire and water. Its like planing and designing a firehouse 10 years before it gets built. Now small town turns into city. If you use the past firehouse design is far too small. So you have to duplicate work. Now if you had just locked down a block of land in advance no designing and design it closer to time of construction. Design can better match. No duplication no waste.
-
meridian.blue
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:05 am
No, this topic keeps getting revived by people who don't read all the pages of discussion and end up repeating them.
Sadly... the truth is that line of reasoning is revived by people who fail to read and/or comprehend initial posts to threads. You have a pattern of quoting me out of context which is quite intentional. If you want clarfication than ask. Forums properly are places of dialogue which you confuse as places of competition (I'm not keen on the "Highlander" scenario). The initial post is based on a issue YOU raised. My response was suggesting Amaya or something on that order. I challenge you to produce a thread which covers WC3's approach. It is absurd to suggest reading all posts in a forum section. However I do read initial posts which you have either failed to do or do out of context in this case. I say to you again you are the moderator if this thread is invaild remove it and return to your mirror.
Also don't double post edit you last post if no one has posted after you.
This is a assumption I attempted a failed place holder quite often the forum fails to post. My error is not reporting it.
To be correct the recent Redmond blunder is why I am also shutting this down.
Remond's blunder was looking in the mirror too much (decision by commitee) not user input.
its 100 percent stupid to have a argument
For right or for wrong, why is point of view argument???
PS along the lines of fire and water. Its like planing and designing a firehouse 10 years before it gets built. Now small town turns into city. If you use the past firehouse design is far too small.
You confuse dialogue with planning and contingency. Global warming is a coherent analogy. Had it been at least entertained 100 years ago (rather than "planned" which you will speculate) we would have a data base of ideas (not guidelines) to draw on rather than a last minute ad hoc quick fix. Lighten up, we're talking dialogue and exchange of ideas not implementation and/or inclusion. If dialogue is not at it's heart this should not be called a 'forum' instead it should be a gatekeepers poll.
Last edited by meridian.blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:27 pm, edited 5 times in total.
meridian.blue
It rare that a design error is 1 single cause. Most people keep on saying the decision commitee was not getting user input. Problem was they had old and useless user input.
Last minute ad hoc quick fix this is not. To do the html rendering engine fight now is still pointless. No one here has studied the requirements complete. Developer is required in that section at least building and working out the needed test cases.
Setting default web browser is still also pointless. Reason too far to release. Completion in web browers will continual without any Ros action. Developers need to be focused on more critical areas. Its a simple resource issue. There is really no way to use use input on this topic at this time.
So all this topic is doing at worst is generating the same kind of documentation that screwed up Vista.
User input in a project is only really useful if number 1 its current, number 2 it can be used while its still current. This topic is failing 2. Hello Longhorn design team they over looked number 2 as well.
That is only one half of the Remond's error. I know the other half. There was user input documented early on. That documentation was reused instead of getting new and current user input.Remond's blunder was looking in the mirror too much (decision by commitee) not user input.
It rare that a design error is 1 single cause. Most people keep on saying the decision commitee was not getting user input. Problem was they had old and useless user input.
Last minute ad hoc quick fix this is not. To do the html rendering engine fight now is still pointless. No one here has studied the requirements complete. Developer is required in that section at least building and working out the needed test cases.
Setting default web browser is still also pointless. Reason too far to release. Completion in web browers will continual without any Ros action. Developers need to be focused on more critical areas. Its a simple resource issue. There is really no way to use use input on this topic at this time.
So all this topic is doing at worst is generating the same kind of documentation that screwed up Vista.
User input in a project is only really useful if number 1 its current, number 2 it can be used while its still current. This topic is failing 2. Hello Longhorn design team they over looked number 2 as well.
-
meridian.blue
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:05 am
That is only one half of the Remond's error. I know the other half. There was user input documented early on. That documentation was reused instead of getting new and current user input.
Redmond has no history of betting the farm on anything, except their Orwellian vision of the future, which exploits the users vision of the future, instead of catering to it.
So all this topic is doing at worst is generating the same kind of documentation that screwed up Vista.
Redmond has a history of betting the farm on committee (the mirror) or what they can buy or borrow which has and will likely always screw up all their products. So all this line of reasoning is doing at worst is change a forum into a gatekeepers poll. There's nothing wrong with that. It leaves more time for the mirror.
You really don't understand all the committee problem.
First half is getting information on what is needed. Note the users MS looks at are not just end users but programmers and media companies. Yes another error. In 2001-2002 putting DRM in the OS really did look like a perfectly reasonable idea. On the idea that the end user would get access to more content since Media producers would be more likely to release things.
Now a committee is only as effective as the information the committee is using. MS has a really bad habit of not updating information. 2001-2002 predicting people to have very large machines was also fine. The basic stones of Vista were set down then. Next major mistake of MS committees once they have set something in stone they are very unlikely to change it.
Linux Standard Base is also one huge committee. Yes nothing wrong with committees in software development as long as a few basic rules are obeyed.
1 Always compare what you are doing with current information.
2 Don't be afraid to change stuff if its wrong.
3 Don't waste time talking about or generating information that cannot be used.
4 Don't forget the person who will be using the product they are always first.
5. Always check all research you will be using for bias.
6. Don't waste time on sections that you know will be changed by other factors before they are needed. Get the core non changing bits done first.
You keep on calling me a Gatekeeper. I am not. Just because a blocking a topic does not make me wrong.
So far you have not disproved my reason for blocking. Number 1 that in 12 months time the ball park on web browsers is still open for massive change. There is a reason why I am saying this. There is going to be a open source battle between gecko based and webkit based. Gecko has had the time to be left alone in the market up until now. I am not going to try to predict the winner.
If I am wrong on my reading of what is going on provide the facts to prove it. From my eyes no matter what selection was made in this thread we would have to go back and rehash it anyhow in 12 months.
Anyone who knows me that I use the word stupid rarely. Normally when a person is overlooking critical factors. Even worse I had stated all these factors out in older threads in the forum that no one has seamed to have read. So you have not learnt from the past either.
Gatekeeper so called reaction is caused. There are correct ways to answer it.
First half is getting information on what is needed. Note the users MS looks at are not just end users but programmers and media companies. Yes another error. In 2001-2002 putting DRM in the OS really did look like a perfectly reasonable idea. On the idea that the end user would get access to more content since Media producers would be more likely to release things.
Now a committee is only as effective as the information the committee is using. MS has a really bad habit of not updating information. 2001-2002 predicting people to have very large machines was also fine. The basic stones of Vista were set down then. Next major mistake of MS committees once they have set something in stone they are very unlikely to change it.
Linux Standard Base is also one huge committee. Yes nothing wrong with committees in software development as long as a few basic rules are obeyed.
1 Always compare what you are doing with current information.
2 Don't be afraid to change stuff if its wrong.
3 Don't waste time talking about or generating information that cannot be used.
4 Don't forget the person who will be using the product they are always first.
5. Always check all research you will be using for bias.
6. Don't waste time on sections that you know will be changed by other factors before they are needed. Get the core non changing bits done first.
You keep on calling me a Gatekeeper. I am not. Just because a blocking a topic does not make me wrong.
So far you have not disproved my reason for blocking. Number 1 that in 12 months time the ball park on web browsers is still open for massive change. There is a reason why I am saying this. There is going to be a open source battle between gecko based and webkit based. Gecko has had the time to be left alone in the market up until now. I am not going to try to predict the winner.
If I am wrong on my reading of what is going on provide the facts to prove it. From my eyes no matter what selection was made in this thread we would have to go back and rehash it anyhow in 12 months.
Anyone who knows me that I use the word stupid rarely. Normally when a person is overlooking critical factors. Even worse I had stated all these factors out in older threads in the forum that no one has seamed to have read. So you have not learnt from the past either.
Gatekeeper so called reaction is caused. There are correct ways to answer it.
-
meridian.blue
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:05 am
You really don't understand all the committee problem.
I understand the downside of Corporate culture all to well... globalism is making that case.
You keep on calling me a Gatekeeper. I am not. Just because a blocking a topic does not make me wrong.
Gatekeeper is a metaphor not a perjorative if you require clarification ask don't speculate. As for you... I have no knowledge of your status (if you read my posts closely... which you have failed to, in particular the first which follows the topic) so it is not possible to conclude anything regarding you. What makes you wrong is you are not the moderator, who I challenged to kill the thread if it is invaild.
Anyone who knows me that I use the word stupid rarely. Normally when a person is overlooking critical factors.
The critical factor you overlook is context when you confuse dialogue with consensus.
Last edited by meridian.blue on Fri May 02, 2008 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests