Oregano 3 future relying on user demand

By Chris Williams. Published: 12th Mar 2005, 13:10:06 | Permalink | Printable

Email encourage@oregano3.for.riscos

Oregano 3 could soon be a reality provided the userbase shows sufficient interest, says OreganoUK. According to boss Richard Brown, the company is ready to "commit a significant amount of money to bring out Oregano 3", and has appealed for punters to email in to show support.

"You may make comments if you wish but please no questions, I am just interested in seeing the response. As you will have gathered from this group O3 development has been moving faster recently," said Richard earlier today on the Oregano mailing list. His call comes just a day after a similar web broswer appeal from another developer.

He added: "The full specification is not known at this moment in time we will elaborate further nearer the release time."

If you want to show support or interest, give Richard a pep talk or otherwise let your feelings known, drop an email to yes [at] oreganouk [dot] net.

What we'd call Oregano 3 is otherwise known as the rather blandly named 'TV Browser', which is currently being employed in various pieces of kit, including Sony's PlayStation 2, as an embedded web browser (pictured above). Oregano is developed by Oregan, and the RISC OS port is distributed by OreganoUK. OreganoUK and Oregan were due to engage in talks over an updated RISC OS port around Christmas 2004.

Links

TV Browser in action OreganoUK website

Previous: Flash your cash for Firefox port
Next: More on RISC OS in schools

Discussion

Viewing threaded comments | View comments unthreaded, listed by date | Skip to the end

I hope this update happens. Oregano 2 is the backbone of my browsing though I also have Webster XL here. It's not that often that I have to resort to Safari or IE to get into sites (though I am self-censoring in that I ignore on principle sites that make it hard for people to use unless I really have to get in).

If Chocky's Firefox port comes off too then we *will* be priviledged by having some real choice - I support him too.

Tony (Who really would like a better browser)

TonyStill on 12/3/05 5:52PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Bearing in mind past performance of Oregano browsers and their cost, why would anyone support this over the Firefox port that Peter is working on?

fwibbler on 12/3/05 5:54PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

fwibbler: Having two options is better than relying on one, surely? I have responded affirmatively to the Oregano3 request; I also contribute to the UPP. If in a few months time I can choose from 2 capable browsers, that will be a considerably better situation than the one I'm in now IMO. I shall probably get both. George

bucksboy on 12/3/05 6:13PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I would like to see O3 on my Iyonix ... but it should be more stable and faster than O2.

MoAco on 12/3/05 6:18PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

IMHO, i'd rather they put the money towards Peter's project to port the magnificent firefox over to the platform.

jonesd98 on 12/3/05 6:19PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

fwibbler: The commercially developed plug-ins are Oregano's potential advantage.

If these could be made compatible with the standard RO system, then any O3 buyers would have these available on all browsers. This would make supporting both projects the sensible option.

jess on 12/3/05 6:41PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Did not Peter say that porting Firefox will aid the porting of other things. Would I be wrong to speculate that Java and Flash could be possible things that the porting of Firefox could aid. If the Firefox, and NetSurf projects are successful then I don't see there being a market for a commercial browser in a few years time.

AndrewDuffell on 12/3/05 7:01PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

The latest available open source Flash player has already been ported by John-Mark Bell - an updated version of the original !Flash. If you want something else, you'll either have to wait for the Linux version upon which that version is based to improve, or talk to Macromedia.

I'd also point out that Firefox and any possible O3 won't make Netsurf go away - that's still steadily improving, and is already an improvement for many sites compared to the existing choice on RISC OS.

mrchocky on 12/3/05 8:03PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

mrchocky: how style-guide complient are you expecting your Firefox port to turn out? Will it feel more or less like a RISC OS application than Oregano2? I was thinking that this is where Oregano3 might be preferable to a Firefox port, but is that true?

senduran on 12/3/05 8:33PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

See: [link]

Sadly, the pictures are broken, but you should get the idea. Most people I have spoken to have expressed the opinion that style guide compliance is of considerably less importance than a working program.

mrchocky on 12/3/05 8:54PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I think it should be a working program first, and then if it is not too much work, style guide compliant later. But then, I'd rather Peter spent his time on making it the best port he can do without being too woried about the style guide.

sa110 on 12/3/05 9:03PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

The URL I really meant was:

[link]

mrchocky on 12/3/05 9:07PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Could firefox' facility for extensions be used to add RISC OS style guide behaviour? (After a stable version is released)

(The extensions as far as I can tell are cross platform, unless they use helper programs, which would mean that you could get the same behaviour on a PC too

)

jess on 12/3/05 9:40PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Having two options is nicer than just one, but as Peter points out Netsurf is here and still improving so why the need for Oregano3? I can't believe that O3 is going to be more capable than Firefox in any area except maybe Flash. We still don't know how much O3 is going to cost but I'll bet my left nut it won't be less than the 25 or even 50 pounds Peter is asking for Firefox. How up to date will O3 be kept? How often will it be updated (I guess I could ask that about Firefox for RISC OS too but I'd guess it'ed be in line with the Linux version).

As for style guide compliance I think Firefox will basically be a Linux browser running inside a RISC OS window. That is it'll have RISC OS scrollbars and close button etc but thats all. Having said that, Oregano2 wasn't much better in that respect either. Is O3?

I do wonder how fast either of these browsers will be compared to current offerings of Netsurf, Oregano2 and WXL?

Cheers!

fwibbler on 12/3/05 11:47PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I think I orefer to be greedy. I want Netsurf to continue to advance I will probable buy Oregano3 A firefox port sounds interesting and may help to bring new Risc os users hovering on the outside. WXL may one day get turbo-ed.

jlavallin on 13/3/05 12:21AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

fwibbler> regarding Firefox basically being a Linux browser running in a RISC OS window, I believe that Peter has already mentioned in a previous article that closer integration with RISC OS would be possible with work to the underlying toolkit libraries (GTK being the obvious example).

Netsurf has some really excellent GUI features such as a history based URL bar (I believe this sort of functionality should be available to other RISC OS writables) and the browsing history view is marvellous.

jonix on 13/3/05 2:26AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I must have missed that. That's even better news then. Cheers!

fwibbler on 13/3/05 7:45AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

mychocky: most people wanted a working version? How many people was that? Perhaps you could directly ask the question of all the people who send money. I won't support the Firefox project because merely a working version is meaningless. I already have a fully-working, lighting-fast copy of Firefox running on the PC next to my Iyonix, as I suspect many other people do. A RISC OS port only becomes interesting when it's a proper RISC OS application. Oregano3, well who knows how RISC OSy it's going to be, but I'm likely to buy it if they can at least fix the window resize issue; assuming it's otherwise like O2 it'll then be RISC OSy enough for basic usage.

senduran on 13/3/05 10:17AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Senduran: Without a working version comments as your last are meaningless! Let the developers finish it and then see if you want improvements, it's to early to talk about these things yet and it sounds like you feel the porting project is useless and shouldn't continue unless your demands are met. It is not a nice thing to say to people who spend lots of ours behind their computers looking through lines and lines of code for this project. Let them feel happy about what they do! Cheers

Jaco on 13/3/05 11:28AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

wrt Oregano 3, Leo White has sent us some screenshots of the latest Oregan TV Interactor showing a few sites. I assume this is probably going to be the interactor that Oregano 3 will be based upon, so it is a massive improvement on Oregano2 in the case of the W3 site.

AndrewDuffell on 13/3/05 11:56AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Why would I use extensions for making it more RISC OS like? Apart from being wholly unsuitable for that, I've already named a mechanism that all GTK2 apps can use to improve RISC OS behaviour.

mrchocky on 13/3/05 1:03PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

The main advantage Firefox as over Oregano 3 is that it exists and is being developed rather than being theoretical. The other thing AIUI is that the Firefox project and Netsurf are to ensure we aren't left with an ageing browser for years on end and that open source resources are made available.

Basically an investment for our future which contrasts starkly with Fresco which remains useful but is a relic and whose technology is available to nobody. In a small market and more importantly an area where compatibility quickly changes open source seems to be preferable by a long way.

AW on 13/3/05 5:13PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Senduran: I agree that having an application conform to basic RISC OS mechanisms is important. That is, IMHO, essentially why we use RISC OS. If every application went its own way, then RISC OS would be worthless. If every application followed LINUX, or Windows or whatever conventions then we might as well use LINUX or Windows etc.

In essence, that means it is important to meet much of the Style Guide to the letter and all of it in spirit.

However, if the browser providers need to follow a route that takes them first to basic functionality and then onto full RISC OS ergonomics, I can live with that. Oregano 2 is not too bad, in fact, as a RO application - just very slow.

Tony

TonyStill on 13/3/05 5:15PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

MrChocky: I was thinking of whether third parties could add missing behaviour (even as a stopgap) by using extensions.

Senduran: A working version of firefox that behaves just as the windows one would, but on the RISC OS desktop is still very worthwhile, because it means you don't need to use windows, and the way it works would be familar to anyone who has to use windows. However the more style guide compliant the better, of course.

jess on 13/3/05 6:09PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Of course, getting the browser is the first thing needed. One thing at a time. Cheers!

fwibbler on 13/3/05 6:15PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

It occurs to me that I haven't actually pledged any support for the Firefox project yet. No time like the present. Cheers!

fwibbler on 13/3/05 6:16PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

jess: They can't, please don't try and perpetuate this idea.

Oddly, despite your willingness to comment on this project and the idea of ported browsers - even long before it became a project - I don't seem to have a commitment from you.

mrchocky on 13/3/05 6:29PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Mrchocky: I think you've just stepped out on a rather fragile limb here. Naming people that have or haven't commited to your project without their consent is not a smart thing to do, especially when you're trying to gather momentum and trying to convince people to promise you money for your work.

Gulli on 13/3/05 7:02PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Would I be right in assuming that any port of Firefox would have to include the XUL language? If so, then many of the extensions for Firefox would run with very little/no modification required. As far as I can figure out, anything that's purely XUL (such as [link]) would be ok? - the Web Developer bar in particular is an invaluable aid for debugging sites.

barti on 13/3/05 7:12PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

barti: that looks likely.

mrchocky on 13/3/05 7:51PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Regarding user interfaces, RO style guide, etc, it's an odd topic for browsers. Compare the differences between Dillo and O2 - there really isn't very much - the main cosmetic things being the menus and scrollbar behaviour. Of course, O1 and other RO browsers have much more RO integration, having being developed as native browsers.

The point is, in a browser, the difference between style guide compliance and not is quite small. Most of the browser interface is beyond the control of the browser developers - it's actually in the web page you're viewing. And those certainly won't be style guide compliant.

As I said earlier, the overwhelming response I've had from talking to many people at shows, etc is that the RO compliance is secondary. Obviously there are a small number of exceptions, but the reality is, if you wanted a fully integrated version of Firefox in RISC OS, it would take many months longer. I don't think anyone wants that.

As to O3, whilst I'm sure it will have considerable improvements, and might even run faster and use less memory, the overwhelming feature in Firefox's favour, apart from considerably more credibility for RISC OS, is that it can offer a far more comprehensive browsing experience than any other RISC OS browser ever could. And if for some unfortunate reason, I'm unable to continue, then all the resources are there for someone else to continue on, instead of being left in the lurch as with Fresco, Browse, and to a certain extent, O1, O2 and WebsterXL.

mrchocky on 13/03/05 8:58PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

As regard doing anything to Firefox (if it were to be done) it was my understanding that the entire Firefox interface is written in XUL. That includes everything from menus to dialogue boxes and toolbars. Surely given this, and adjustments made to GTK+ would have no affect what-so-ever on the interface of Firefox, except *possible* to change it's apperance (i.e. colour, widgets, etc.). It's easy to see this in practice: all skins are written in XUL and you can change literally what *anything* in the interface looks like using CSS. The interface is actually rendered by the Gecko engine just as the web pages it contains are. At least, this is what I had gathered (and I haven't seen any evidence to prove otherwise). Anyway, the whole of Firefox is skinned. It's appeaance can be changed to RISC OS like just by changing the skin mostly. Other functionalities would still need changing however (such as how a three button mouse is dealt with differently to on Windows).

Smiler on 13/03/05 9:48PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Oh for the day when people can get "it's"/"its" right.

No, your premise is wrong. Unless you are proposing that XUL renders all the RISC OS tools itself, there is no way to make it do this. XUL has no knowledge of RISC OS menus, scrollbars, etc. Now. I haven't actually studied XUL in great detail, but my understanding is that it certainly knows about widgets, but ultimately the widget rendering is down to the toolkit - probably GTK.

So, once again, there are only two ways to make it more RISC OS like - either do a full RISC OS front end for Firefox, or better, implement RISC OS functionality in a modified X11 GTK2 backend, which would be beneficial to all apps using GTK2.

mrchocky on 13/03/05 10:11PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In reply to Gulli:

Mr.Cocky did indeed overstep the mark in naming and shaming that person. In a conversation with Jess yesterday we had decided to make a pledge and I was prepared to send a cheque of £50. I don't think this will now happen after his comments. Perhaps, a little more politeness to others on Drobe may go far in helping his cause.

TTX9 on 13/03/05 10:42PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Naming and shaming? No. Jess has been exceptionally vocal about this issue on many forums. Having some input is one thing, but to the extent Jess has mentioned it, I hadn't seen any practical input on the matter from him in any respect - I didn't mention money.

Perhaps you can avoid your name-calling in future, since it really adds nothing useful to your post.

mrchocky on 13/03/05 10:51PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

To clarify the situation, Phil & I have a small business that uses RISC OS called ITWorkshop.

I'm still in favour of us making a pledge.

jess on 13/03/05 11:00PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I don't see any reason why naming is shaming. For a start, monetary contribution wasn't even mentioned. Commitment could come in the form of porting a program or library, or by improving the tools behind the porting process. If people don't want to contribute, that's fine. If they do, that's even better. Ultimately everyone will benefit because the software will be available to all (even to those who have not contributed).

In my opinion, Peter's track record is good. The facts are that he has been consistent in his efforts and has produced good results.

jonix on 13/03/05 11:04PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

But I'm sure you won't regret it if you DO make a pledge. Not so sure about O3, I would expect it to cost around the same as O2. I use O2 as my main browser on the Iyonix, but it occasionally freezes the machine, and some sites don't work. To overcome to this I resort to firing up ARM Linux and run Mozilla which works well, if rather slowly. Oh yes, and my ability to do that is thanks to Peter too!

mrtd on 14/03/05 09:32AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

hmmm, i guess a re-vamped Digital Symphonry is out of the question :@( nice piece of software that.

if Oregano 3is better then O1, then its worth doing again......

Nice to hear 2 browsers are moving forward

em2ac on 14/03/05 5:20PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I think in the long term firefox is the best way to go. However I am concerned that it may be a tad sluggish on our current hardware.

Walks on 14/03/05 5:40PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Happy to support both.

Pete on 14/03/05 6:32PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Perhaps Peter could give us a rough idea of the page rendering speed Firefox is likely to have compared to other RISC OS brosers (Netsurf, Oregano2 WXL) Cheers!

fwibbler on 14/03/05 10:13PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

mrchocky: 'The point is, in a browser, the difference between style guide compliance and not is quite small. Most of the browser interface is beyond the control of the browser developers - it's actually in the web page you're viewing. And those certainly won't be style guide compliant.'

I really hope you were just clutching at straws and don't actually believe that. Even the web page you're viewing doesn't necessarily (shouldn't) dictate how you interact with that website (eg. how a browser for the blind might let you navigate a site). In a visual rendering client the only interface elements that a website controls are navigation 'buttons' (text, pictures) between and amongst pages. Compared to any normal application (music player, DTP package, graphics package) a browser is noteable for the distinct /lack/ of special interface elements it must implement that might be 'outside the scope', so to speak, of an OS style guide. From an interface perspective a browser is really just a document (html) viewer with the ability for document content to provide page turning (nothing unique to browsers). Document viewers benefit the /most/ from style guide complience - because there's no other function than page turning the user really shouldn't have to learn how to do anything. They should already know how to do it (because it behaves identically to all other applications), and be able to do it quickly and without thought.

Or to put it another way, when you can't use a document viewer because it isn't style guide complient you notice it /much/ more than if the application were more complex and perhaps understandably less intuitable.

Furthermore, because it's a document viewer, and you may want to view /many/ (millions) documents through the viewer of the course of its/your lifetime, again, the interface needs to be perfect. Maybe you could put up with a clumsy interface that was different to everything else you use for a special application you only have to make yourself use once a year, but for something you might want to use multiple times a day? It would drive you insane. And what of basic functionallity required of a document viewer? Copying content out (clipboard), printing, saving in alternate formats etc?

I find it so depressing that the person best able to port Firefox doesn't understand the importance of getting the interface right. If you do nothing else at least get the overall window to behave properly in terms of resizing (appropriate to the current contents as per NetSurf when it's working right) and interacting with other windows (stack order).

'if you wanted a fully integrated version of Firefox in RISC OS, it would take many months longer. I don't think anyone wants that.'

Hmmm? What's that now? Haven't we been waiting for many many years for a decent browser? Do you honestly imagine anyone would even /notice/ it taking months longer? How /could/ they notice? The only person the timescale ultimately effects is yourself - how much lost earnings you suffer, and how long you have to code before gaining the satisfaction of release. Of course there's nothing stopping you doing this incrementally - getting the basic working release done first and then the RISC OS 'total conversion', but from your comments I doubt that a total conversion will ever happen simply because you don't seem to realise how important it is. For that reason I won't be supporting the project.

senduran on 14/03/05 11:01PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Oh good grief. You must be having a really bad evening or just feel like bitching at me. You've taken what I've said, and turned it into the worst possible statement.

Of course, if you'd read fully what I've said about the various issues, you'd know I understand interfaces exceptionally well.

I'm afraid your views don't represent reality, or those of the vast majority of RISC OS users. Please get off your high horse, calm down, and when you've done so, perhaps we can try again with a more rational start. I don't think it's worth my effort addressing points in a such a rant.

mrchocky on 14/03/05 11:21PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Senduran:

Peter is correct that most of the browser interface isn't too far out from style guide anyway. I use netsurf at home and firefox on windows at work. Most of the interaction is clicking on the web page or the buttons in the toolbar. The biggest difference I find is using the "menu" button on windows and chosing new window rather than adjust on firefox. Obviously there are lots of other differences, but they are all things used far less often. Certainly not horrible enough to not want the browser if it's like that. Anyway, isn't the plan that the underlying libraries will be improved as time goes on to be get closer to the style guide?

jess on 14/03/05 11:45PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

PeterDarnell: "Happy to support both."

Does that mean that you've emailed Oregano UK in support of development of that browser, and also emailed Peter with a pledge towards Firefox?

dgs

dgs on 14/03/05 11:52PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

mrchocky: Try again with a more rational start? What part of my post wasn't completely rational? Instead of taking it personally, how about (as I think you're fond of asking others in these kinds of discussions) you actually address what I've said instead of ignoring it all by becoming upset. From you reply I suspect you stopped reading after my first sentence.

Appoligies for being a little rude, but try and get past that.

Nothing I've read suggests you know interface issues 'exceptionally well'. Care to point me to something specific? And regardless, it's not what you know, it's what you care about and plan on acting upon.

All you have to say is something like 'yes, I know that a style guide complient interface is important and it's something I'd like to work toward' and I might support the project. I can only assume, however, that your thinking is along the lines of 'making it style guide complient would be very hard/ very time consuming work, therefore I can't justify doing it'. You've now taken that line of reasoning to the twisted extreme by trying to suggest that nobody really wants a style guide complient interface, that browsers don't need them, that it would make no difference... whatever you can think of to justify not doing the work.

If you don't want to do the work, there's obviously nothing I can do about it. But just admit the real reason you're not doing it, don't try to suggest there's no value in doing it. Or do you really not understand interfaces as you claim to?

senduran on 15/03/05 06:17AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Er, yes. If you say so. I'm neither upset or taking it personally - on the contrary, the person who seems upset is you. Is it really worth my effort replying to a rant (I'm hardly the only person who claimed it was) - moreover, reply to personal accusations? Not really, especially when I have discussed at length, during talks I've given, and in my ChoX11 article, the things that are needed to make unix programs more RISC OS like.

If you want to convince yourself that I don't value the RISC OS user interface (and it sounds like you already have), despite what I've said, then there may not be much I can do. And if you seriously believe that RISC OS users will happily wait many months more just because a port doesn't precisely match the style guide (but works fine in all other respects), then you haven't been listening to what RISC OS users are saying nor do appreciate how serious the situation has become.

And I've most certainly not said "nobody really wants a style guide complient (sic) interface", that is pure fiction on your part.

As for the work, yes it is very involved, and you certainly don't seem to appreciate that to be done properly and usefully for a large range of programs, it must be done in GTK with a proper RISC OS backend, so that a large number of programs benefit. Certainly not your selfish demand that I produce a perfectly style guide browser and everything else be damned.

And given that I've already spent thousands of hours unpaid, I reject your claims about not being prepared to do further work - that is, if it financially possible - which it won't be unless I can initially produce a browser of any kind.

And so, Sendu, since you seem to care so desperately much about this issue, I'm wondering what you're doing to make it happen? That is, beyond resorting to ill-founded accusations against me? Are you going to write a RISC OS GTK2 backend? Will you convince or fund someone else to do so? Or are you hoping that I'll just do it, even though that isn't the priority of the majority of RISC OS users?

mrchocky on 15/03/05 08:35AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

In rerply to dgs

Yes I have

We need more people commercially developing software and we need people buying it.

Pete on 15/03/05 09:11AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

mrchocky: 'Is it really worth my effort replying to a rant (I'm hardly the only person who claimed it was)'

Are we reading different forums? I can't see anyone else calling what I wrote a rant.

'moreover, reply to personal accusations?'

I haven't made any, nor do I want you to reply to them. I want you to reply to my points about interfaces, browsers needing them, if you plan to do a style guide one etc. I assumed you had taken it personally because the only comments you had made (and still the majority of your comments) about my posts have nothing to do with browser interfaces.

'And I've most certainly not said "nobody really wants a style guide complient (sic) interface", that is pure fiction on your part.'

How, then, do you want me to interpret 'As I said earlier, the overwhelming response I've had from talking to many people at shows, etc is that the RO compliance is secondary.'? My use of 'nobody' was an exaggeration of 'overwhelming', but I wasn't trying to quote you, I was suggesting an extreme of thought you might have.

'it must be done in GTK with a proper RISC OS backend, so that a large number of programs benefit. Certainly not your selfish demand that I produce a perfectly style guide browser and everything else be damned.'

First of all, I'm not demanding you do anything. If you actually read what I've written I am only defending the idea that interfaces are important even for browsers. What you considered a 'rant' was a clear explanation of why they might be important. I felt it was necessary as a rebuttal of 'Regarding user interfaces, RO style guide, etc, it's an odd topic for browsers...'. I appreicate that it might be very hard to achieve, but that has nothing to do with my point: 'there is great value in making a style-guide compliant browser'.

'I reject your claims about not being prepared to do further work'

I made no such claim. I explained why I thought you were unlikely to produce a style-guide compliant browser on any time scale. Perhaps I'm trying to provoke you into showing how I'm wrong in that regard. Indeed, I've already written that I just want you to say something like 'yes, I know that a style guide complient interface is important and it's something I'd like to work toward'.

'And so, Sendu, since you seem to care so desperately much about this issue, I'm wondering what you're doing to make it happen? That is, beyond resorting to ill-founded accusations against me? Are you going to write a RISC OS GTK2 backend? Will you convince or fund someone else to do so? Or are you hoping that I'll just do it, even though that isn't the priority of the majority of RISC OS users?'

No, I'm not going to write a RISC OS GTK2 backend. I doubt I have enough money to fund more than a week of development time. Of course I'm hoping you'll do it. I hoped you'd do it by explaining why it was important. Sadly you refuse to read or comment on that explanation. How do you know it isn't a priority of the majority of RISC OS users? When people expressed support/ gave money/ talked to you, did they know exactly how it would behave from an interface perspective?

Anyway, since you want me to do /something/, I'll put what little money I have where my mouth is. The day you release a fully style-guide compliant RISC OS Firefox port, I'll give you £1000. Trivial I know, but like I say, it's something.

senduran on 15/03/05 2:47PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Sendu: While I broadly agree with your statements, and that Peter seems to have largely misinterpreted them (certianly from where I'm sitting), a fully style-guide compliant RISC OS Firefox port wouldn't be Firefox: It'd be some RISC OS program that happened to use Gecko for rendering. Which is quite a different matter. That might be want people want instead of a Firefox, it might not. It depends how much value users put on being able to use Firefox extensions and such, and how much effort for a developer it would be to get XUL/GTK/All the other bits working flawlessly verses a native GUI.

nunfetishist on 15/03/05 5:12PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Yes, certainly what I'd personally like to see is more along the lines of a new RISC OS browser that uses Gecko for rendering. Since its presumably far easier to write a native frontend than to get a foreign one to display and work, I can only assume that Gecko isn't in a state that makes it easy to port and use.

senduran on 15/03/05 8:01PM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

nut: I understood just fine, but thanks for your concern.

I disagree about it not being Firefox; we're mainly talking about changing some of the GTK widgets, where appropriate, to Wimp ones. This will have a dramatic appearance on the RISC OS appearance. The application of XUL should be very limited, perhaps to reorganise some menus. The result should still be very much recognisable as Firefox.

Yes, there is merit in making a brand new GUI for Gecko, but it is a considerable amount of work to write an entire new GUI from scratch and then interface it with what is probably a large number of APIs to Firefox, and such a path would not benefit other applications. Because of the work I've done on ChoX11 already, getting the existing UI running is at least reasonably straightfoward, and I'm working with code that's known to work elsewhere.

In time, there might be a browser on RISC OS that uses the Gecko engine and its own GUI. Perhaps the NetSurf UI can be adapted. But that time is not right now.

Sendu: no, your offer is not trivial, it is in fact very generous compared to what I've asked for. Many people have already contributed or promised to contribute in some manner, but there's still a lot more than haven't, and perhaps this might give them the motivated that's required to pledge a small mount.

As for you offer, I am happy to take you up on it, but before you get carried away, I think you would wany to see a non-style guide version to see what ought to be changed. And then, perhaps a 3rd party needs to be appointed to decide exactly when compliance has been reached, otherwise there might never be agreement. Someone from ROL or Castle if that's agreeable.

I will be publishing more information on the project in the next few days.

mrchocky on 16/03/05 11:16AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

I shall certainly try out the initial version and provide feedback, but consider the offer open regardless. Having someone from ROL or Castle decide when compliance is reached is indeed agreeable, but for certain points (I can only think of one right now) where the style guide is open to interpretation, it should behave as the majority of RISC OS applications do (ie. be in the spirit of the style guide). FYI, the one I can think of is the window maximise issue - it's possible to interpret the guide as saying a maximised window should/could fill the screen, but clearly that's not what RISC OS applications do. They obey don't cover icon bar, and they only become as wide as necessary to display document contents.

I should point out that complete complience, for me, means that there aren't extra things there. For example you might do style-guide menus, but for complete complience you'd have to remove any other menu system. What I'm requesting is pretty easily summed up by saying it should seem like just another RISC OS application - if it manages that trick I'm not going to argue.

senduran on 16/03/05 12:37AM
[ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Please login before posting a comment. Use the form on the right to do so or create a free account.

Search the archives

Today's featured article

Drobe price comparison chart
Checking out the competition

21 comments, latest by govind on 14/11/03 2:15PM. Published: 9 Nov 2003

Random article

Qercus back from the dead shocker
Miracle as monthly mag delivers issue, finally

24 comments, latest by jc on 13/11/06 5:28PM. Published: 13 Oct 2006

Useful links

News and media:
Iconbar • MyRISCOS • ArcSite • RISCOScode • ANS • C.S.A.Announce • Archive • Qercus • RiscWorld • Drag'n'Drop • GAG-News

Top developers:
RISCOS Ltd • RISC OS Open • MW Software • R-Comp • Advantage Six • VirtualAcorn

Dealers:
CJE Micros • APDL • Castle • a4 • X-Ample • Liquid Silicon • Webmonster

Usergroups:
WROCC • RONE • NKACC • IRUG • SASAUG • ROUGOL • RONWUG • MUG • WAUG • GAG • RISCOS.be

Useful:
RISCOS.org.uk • RISCOS.org • RISCOS.info • Filebase • Chris Why's Acorn/RISC OS collection • NetSurf

Non-RISC OS:
The Register • The Inquirer • Apple Insider • BBC News • Sky News • Google News • xkcd • diodesign

Â© 1999-2009 The Drobe Team. Some rights reserved, click here for more information
Powered by MiniDrobeCMS, based on J4U | Statistics
"Drobe won't credit us for breaking stories. Oh well, that's journalism for you."
Page generated in 0.4689 seconds.