nanogui: Thread: Re: [linuxce-devel] Re: Web browser ported to Microwindows

Yes, I suppose it would be good news also, if only their browser was GPL (or
some other genuinely free & open-source license).  However, AFAICT it is
thoroughly proprietary.

Maybe they will choose to contribute back to Microwindows.  However, since
Microwindows isn't GPL (it's MPL) they have no obligation to do so.

Regards,
Brad

----- Original Message -----
From: Andru Luvisi ####@####.####
To: Greg Haerr ####@####.####
Cc: ####@####.#### ####@####.####
####@####.####
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 7:36 PM
Subject: [linuxce-devel] Re: Web browser ported to Microwindows


> On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> > I'm happy to announce that I've just heard that Opera Software has
> > just ported their fully functional web browser to Microwindows!
> [snip]
> > For more information on Opera Software, see www.opera.com.
>
> I suppose this is good news.  Unfortunately, I don't seem to be able to
> find the source for either the ported browser or the original on their web
> site.  Could I trouble you for the url?
>
> Andru
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Andru Luvisi                 | http://libweb.sonoma.edu/ |
> | Programmer/Analyst           |   Library Resources Online              |
> | Ruben Salazar Library        |-----------------------------------------|
> | Sonoma State University      | http://www.belleprovence.com/ |
> | ####@####.####      |   Textile imports from Provence, France |
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linuxce-devel mailing list
> ####@####.####
> http://mailman.bok.net/mailman/listinfo/linuxce-devel

> Yes, I suppose it would be good news also, if only their browser was GPL (or
> some other genuinely free & open-source license).  However, AFAICT it is
> thoroughly proprietary.
> 
> Maybe they will choose to contribute back to Microwindows.  However, since
> Microwindows isn't GPL (it's MPL) they have no obligation to do so.

For a small browser the new gtkhtml work is looking very promising as a core.
Its actually the KDE khtmlw widget (that nice fast but not full of js/java/..
kfm viewer) aka 'konqueror' redone into C with a lot more gui independance.

Once its stable as a gtk widget it seems a good basis for an html viewer
for Nanogui/microwindows.

>For a small browser the new gtkhtml work is looking very promising as a core.
>Its actually the KDE khtmlw widget (that nice fast but not full of js/java/..
>kfm viewer) aka 'konqueror' redone into C with a lot more gui independance.
>
>Once its stable as a gtk widget it seems a good basis for an html viewer
>for Nanogui/microwindows.


I have heard a lot of things about konqueror, and much of it is not really 
good.
I really cant tell, I haven't seen anything of it. Is it as good as the 
developers
say it is ?



--
   Richard Kvalsvik

- Developer at Opera Software
- Lasershow designer for LASER-nordic

Heya,

>
>
>I have heard a lot of things about konqueror, and much of it is not really
>good.
>I really cant tell, I haven't seen anything of it. Is it as good as the
>developers
>say it is ?
>


Can't really say because I have done any "standard" (if there is one) test.
But I had a chance to try out the KDE system with (what I assumed to be) the
KDE browser and  it "appeared" faster.  And the display was much better, in
my opinion, than that of Netscape.

But then again I haven't tried it out that much...  Too damn busy
programming these friggin' routers...;-)


Stay Cool,


J.C.

> I have heard a lot of things about konqueror, and much of it is not really 
> good.
> I really cant tell, I haven't seen anything of it. Is it as good as the 
> developers
> say it is ?

Not in my opinion, but its also not as bad as some of the people who complain
about it make out either