* Re: [9fans] Webbrowser
@ 2003-02-05 20:44 Keith Nash
2003-02-05 22:27 ` John Packer
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Keith Nash @ 2003-02-05 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> " 'Even though some of us used to work on Mozilla, we have to admit that
> the Mozilla code is a gigantic, bloated mess, not to mention slow, and with
> an internal API so flamboyantly baroque that frankly we can't even
> comprehend where to begin. Also did we mention big and slow and
> incomprehensible?'".
>
> sounds nice, doesn't it? :) article here:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/29183.html
This remarkably frank statement describes the reasons for Apple's choice of khtml over Mozilla as the rendering engine for OSX's new web browser, Safari.
Apple has open-sourced its WebCore library, which includes their modified form of khtml, and a library that replaces khtml's calls to KDE and Qt libraries (presumably with Aqua calls).
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/webcore/index.html
http://www.apple.com/safari/
If anyone is serious about porting a graphical browser to Plan 9, this might be worth a look.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Webbrowser 2003-02-05 20:44 [9fans] Webbrowser Keith Nash @ 2003-02-05 22:27 ` John Packer 2003-02-05 22:55 ` Skip Tavakkolian 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: John Packer @ 2003-02-05 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > Apple has open-sourced its WebCore library, which includes their > modified form of khtml, and a library that replaces khtml's calls to > KDE and Qt libraries (presumably with Aqua calls). > > http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/webcore/index.html > > http://www.apple.com/safari/ > > If anyone is serious about porting a graphical browser to Plan 9, this > might be worth a look. Unfortunately ktml is written in C++. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Webbrowser 2003-02-05 22:27 ` John Packer @ 2003-02-05 22:55 ` Skip Tavakkolian 2003-02-06 0:53 ` John Packer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Skip Tavakkolian @ 2003-02-05 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > Unfortunately ktml is written in C++. You know that GCC has been ported and is available? Or am I missing something? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Webbrowser 2003-02-05 22:55 ` Skip Tavakkolian @ 2003-02-06 0:53 ` John Packer 2003-02-06 1:19 ` Russ Cox 2003-02-06 2:13 ` [9fans] Webbrowser Peter Bosch 0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: John Packer @ 2003-02-06 0:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > You know that GCC has been ported and is available? Or am I missing > something? I know. I have actually thought about attempting to port the khtml library to Plan 9, but I guess I'm prejudiced against C++, (and gcc). I don't mean to offend anyone. I agree that khtml is far preferable to Mozilla. It just seemed a step toward Mozilla/X11 chaos and bloatedness, and away from the grace of Plan 9. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Webbrowser 2003-02-06 0:53 ` John Packer @ 2003-02-06 1:19 ` Russ Cox 2003-02-06 3:00 ` [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] andrey mirtchovski ` (2 more replies) 2003-02-06 2:13 ` [9fans] Webbrowser Peter Bosch 1 sibling, 3 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Russ Cox @ 2003-02-06 1:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans Having gcc doesn't mean we like it. I have yet to use gcc for anything -- even my recent Perl 5.8.0 port still uses pcc, which is just a wrapper around 8c et al. The main `benefit' of gcc seems to be that you could compile C++ code, but you'd still be locked in the APE, making it harder to integrate well with the rest of the system. On a related note, I looked at links for a while today. I did most of the work for a port, but there's a big select loop at the heart of it that I just didn't want to deal with cutting through. I also didn't write the frame buffer, mouse, and keyboard code, but those look easy once you kill off select. In my frustration, I tried i again. No good. Then I tried charon again. It's come along quite a bit since the last time I used it. It seems like Charon is still the best bet for now, though I do wish it were easier to integrate with the rest of the Plan 9 environment. There's just no good answer right now. Russ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] 2003-02-06 1:19 ` Russ Cox @ 2003-02-06 3:00 ` andrey mirtchovski 2003-02-06 4:16 ` andrey mirtchovski 2003-02-06 12:30 ` [9fans] Webbrowser - porting mozilla matt 2003-02-06 12:52 ` Ian Broster 2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: andrey mirtchovski @ 2003-02-06 3:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Russ Cox wrote: > Having gcc doesn't mean we like it. I have yet to > use gcc for anything -- even my recent Perl 5.8.0 port > still uses pcc, which is just a wrapper around 8c et al. > just out of curiosity: what are my chances of using the GCC3.0 port to compile, say GCC3.2 and switch it as the C++ plan9 compiler? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] 2003-02-06 3:00 ` [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] andrey mirtchovski @ 2003-02-06 4:16 ` andrey mirtchovski 2003-02-06 14:24 ` David Presotto 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: andrey mirtchovski @ 2003-02-06 4:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans I've actually used gcc to compile something -- a simple cpu and memory benchmark called 'ubench'. I strongly desire such that the 'my OS is faster' flamewars continue on this list, that's why i'm posting a URL to the ubench source and compilation instructions for Plan9 (using the GCC3.0 port). Unfortunately I couldn't be bothered rewriting the benchmark for the native P9 compiler, so 'my compiler is faster' flame warriors will be left dissatisfied. The URL for ubench is: http://www.phystech.com/download/ubench.html to compile under plan9: % gunzip < ubench-0.32.tar.gz | tar xv % cd ubench-0.32 % # edit ubench.c and comment out syslog.h on line 25 % gnu/gsh $ gcc -o ubench signals.c cpubench.c membench.c ubench.c (alternatively, to compile with optimizations, do:) $ gcc -o ubench signals.c cpubench.c membench.c ubench.c -O2 $ ^D % strip ubench % ubench here are the highly scientific results I got: Celeron 900mhz (average ~40,000 in FreeBSD 4.7 w/ gcc2.95), the machine is a standalone 9pcdisk/kfs terminal: no optimizations: % ubench Unix Benchmark Utility v.0.3 Copyright (C) July, 1999 PhysTech, Inc. Author: Sergei Viznyuk <sv@phystech.com> http://www.phystech.com/download/ubench.html Plan9 1 0 generic pcdisk Ubench CPU: 23072 Ubench MEM: 14221 -------------------- Ubench AVG: 18646 % with -O2: % ubench Unix Benchmark Utility v.0.3 Copyright (C) July, 1999 PhysTech, Inc. Author: Sergei Viznyuk <sv@phystech.com> http://www.phystech.com/download/ubench.html Plan9 1 0 generic pcdisk Ubench CPU: 24992 Ubench MEM: 18097 -------------------- Ubench AVG: 21544 % Pentium 4, 2Ghz (average ~60,000 on FreeBSD 4.7 w/ gcc2.95, now the machine has FBSD 5.0 w/ gcc3.2 on it, but is booted in p9 so I couldn't test :), the machine is running as an auth/cpu/kfs server: cpu% ubench Unix Benchmark Utility v.0.3 Copyright (C) July, 1999 PhysTech, Inc. Author: Sergei Viznyuk <sv@phystech.com> http://www.phystech.com/download/ubench.html Plan9 1 0 generic pcauth Ubench CPU: 39110 Ubench MEM: 33350 -------------------- Ubench AVG: 36230 cpu% with -O2: cpu% ubench Unix Benchmark Utility v.0.3 Copyright (C) July, 1999 PhysTech, Inc. Author: Sergei Viznyuk <sv@phystech.com> http://www.phystech.com/download/ubench.html Plan9 1 0 generic pcauth Ubench CPU: 43528 Ubench MEM: 44170 -------------------- Ubench AVG: 43849 cpu% And something else: I just checked how ubench is compiled on freebsd (what optimizations are used) and gave the same arguments to plan9's gcc. The result is: $ gcc -o ubench signals.c cpubench.c membench.c ubench.c -O2 -Wall '-malign-loops=2' '-malign-jumps=2' '-malign-functions=2' -fomit-frame-pointer -s cpu% strip ubench cpu% ubench Unix Benchmark Utility v.0.3 Copyright (C) July, 1999 PhysTech, Inc. Author: Sergei Viznyuk <sv@phystech.com> http://www.phystech.com/download/ubench.html Plan9 1 0 generic pcauth Ubench CPU: 43863 Ubench MEM: 44170 -------------------- Ubench AVG: 44016 cpu% as with everything, those results should not be taken too seriously :) andrey ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] 2003-02-06 4:16 ` andrey mirtchovski @ 2003-02-06 14:24 ` David Presotto 2003-02-06 15:30 ` andrey mirtchovski 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: David Presotto @ 2003-02-06 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 225 bytes --] I looked at at the benchmarks. There are lots of times() calls in inner loops that are very low cost in Unix but pretty expensive in Plan 9. Why not do a run under iostats and post the results. It might be enlightening. [-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 5014 bytes --] From: andrey mirtchovski <mirtchov@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 21:16:59 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0302052038050.7087-100000@csl> I've actually used gcc to compile something -- a simple cpu and memory benchmark called 'ubench'. I strongly desire such that the 'my OS is faster' flamewars continue on this list, that's why i'm posting a URL to the ubench source and compilation instructions for Plan9 (using the GCC3.0 port). Unfortunately I couldn't be bothered rewriting the benchmark for the native P9 compiler, so 'my compiler is faster' flame warriors will be left dissatisfied. The URL for ubench is: http://www.phystech.com/download/ubench.html to compile under plan9: % gunzip < ubench-0.32.tar.gz | tar xv % cd ubench-0.32 % # edit ubench.c and comment out syslog.h on line 25 % gnu/gsh $ gcc -o ubench signals.c cpubench.c membench.c ubench.c (alternatively, to compile with optimizations, do:) $ gcc -o ubench signals.c cpubench.c membench.c ubench.c -O2 $ ^D % strip ubench % ubench here are the highly scientific results I got: Celeron 900mhz (average ~40,000 in FreeBSD 4.7 w/ gcc2.95), the machine is a standalone 9pcdisk/kfs terminal: no optimizations: % ubench Unix Benchmark Utility v.0.3 Copyright (C) July, 1999 PhysTech, Inc. Author: Sergei Viznyuk <sv@phystech.com> http://www.phystech.com/download/ubench.html Plan9 1 0 generic pcdisk Ubench CPU: 23072 Ubench MEM: 14221 -------------------- Ubench AVG: 18646 % with -O2: % ubench Unix Benchmark Utility v.0.3 Copyright (C) July, 1999 PhysTech, Inc. Author: Sergei Viznyuk <sv@phystech.com> http://www.phystech.com/download/ubench.html Plan9 1 0 generic pcdisk Ubench CPU: 24992 Ubench MEM: 18097 -------------------- Ubench AVG: 21544 % Pentium 4, 2Ghz (average ~60,000 on FreeBSD 4.7 w/ gcc2.95, now the machine has FBSD 5.0 w/ gcc3.2 on it, but is booted in p9 so I couldn't test :), the machine is running as an auth/cpu/kfs server: cpu% ubench Unix Benchmark Utility v.0.3 Copyright (C) July, 1999 PhysTech, Inc. Author: Sergei Viznyuk <sv@phystech.com> http://www.phystech.com/download/ubench.html Plan9 1 0 generic pcauth Ubench CPU: 39110 Ubench MEM: 33350 -------------------- Ubench AVG: 36230 cpu% with -O2: cpu% ubench Unix Benchmark Utility v.0.3 Copyright (C) July, 1999 PhysTech, Inc. Author: Sergei Viznyuk <sv@phystech.com> http://www.phystech.com/download/ubench.html Plan9 1 0 generic pcauth Ubench CPU: 43528 Ubench MEM: 44170 -------------------- Ubench AVG: 43849 cpu% And something else: I just checked how ubench is compiled on freebsd (what optimizations are used) and gave the same arguments to plan9's gcc. The result is: $ gcc -o ubench signals.c cpubench.c membench.c ubench.c -O2 -Wall '-malign-loops=2' '-malign-jumps=2' '-malign-functions=2' -fomit-frame-pointer -s cpu% strip ubench cpu% ubench Unix Benchmark Utility v.0.3 Copyright (C) July, 1999 PhysTech, Inc. Author: Sergei Viznyuk <sv@phystech.com> http://www.phystech.com/download/ubench.html Plan9 1 0 generic pcauth Ubench CPU: 43863 Ubench MEM: 44170 -------------------- Ubench AVG: 44016 cpu% as with everything, those results should not be taken too seriously :) andrey ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] 2003-02-06 14:24 ` David Presotto @ 2003-02-06 15:30 ` andrey mirtchovski 2003-02-06 17:32 ` David Presotto 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: andrey mirtchovski @ 2003-02-06 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans this is iostats: read 238369 bytes, 13.02132 Kb/sec write 1266 bytes, .4715208 Kb/sec protocol 659280 bytes, 28.10126 Kb/sec rpc 8876 count Message Count Low High Time Averg in out version 1 0 0 0 0 ms 19 19 bytes attach 1 0 0 0 0 ms 25 20 bytes flush 1 10000000 0 0 0 ms 9 7 bytes walk 2544 0 153 551 0 ms 78729 88992 bytes open 1248 0 117 785 0 ms 14976 29928 bytes read 1277 0 11179 17877 13 ms 29371 252416 bytes write 15 0 686 2622 174 ms 1611 165 bytes clunk 2542 0 44 379 0 ms 27962 17794 bytes stat 1247 0 50 697 0 ms 13717 103426 bytes Opens Reads (bytes) Writes (bytes) File 1233 1233 88776 0 0 /dev/cputime 1 0 0 1 5 /proc/10281/note 1 0 0 1 5 /proc/10282/note 1 0 0 1 5 /proc/10287/note 2 0 0 2 9 /proc/10289/note 1 0 0 1 5 /proc/10295/note 1 1 172 0 0 /adm/users 1 2 7 0 0 (stdin) 1 0 0 7 1227 (stdout) 1 0 0 2 10 (stderr) 1 2 579 0 0 /rc/lib/rcmain 1 24 91459 0 0 /bin/rc 1 15 57376 0 0 /usr/bootes/ubench-0.32/ubench and this is what kprof has to say: total: 492060 in kernel text: 56450 outside kernel text: 435610 KTZERO 80100000 ms % sym 50180 88.8 halt 3210 5.6 memmove 420 0.7 savagewaitidle 410 0.7 i8259isr 350 0.6 inb 250 0.4 drawclip 150 0.2 runproc 130 0.2 wbflush 120 0.2 memset 110 0.1 chardraw 70 0.1 rectclip 60 0.1 memdraw 50 0.0 drawmesg 50 0.0 convD2M 50 0.0 strlen 40 0.0 syscall 30 0.0 drawgoodname 30 0.0 _syscallintr 30 0.0 dstflush 30 0.0 memimagedraw 30 0.0 drawreplxy interesting tidbit -- iostats filled up the memory on both machines I tried it on (128 and 512 MB), it's fun to look at in 'stats' adnrey On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, David Presotto wrote: > I looked at at the benchmarks. There are lots of times() calls in > inner loops that are very low cost in Unix but pretty expensive in > Plan 9. Why not do a run under iostats and post the results. It > might be enlightening. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] 2003-02-06 15:30 ` andrey mirtchovski @ 2003-02-06 17:32 ` David Presotto 2003-02-06 18:10 ` William K. Josephson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: David Presotto @ 2003-02-06 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans Just for a wild guess, I bet the 1200+ open/read/close/strtoui's of /dev/cputimes skewed the results which would mean that side effects that wouldn't exist in programs (dominated the results). The tests themselves were not at all OS tests, they pretty much test the compiler and malloc and nothing else. There's a little pipe stuff in there to implement locks but they looked like pretty high level locks. I'm not saying that we're anywhere near as fast as the other OS's, only that the tests were pretty misdirected. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] 2003-02-06 17:32 ` David Presotto @ 2003-02-06 18:10 ` William K. Josephson 2003-02-06 18:16 ` Ronald G. Minnich 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: William K. Josephson @ 2003-02-06 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 12:32:52PM -0500, David Presotto wrote: >themselves were not at all OS tests, they pretty much test the compiler >and malloc and nothing else. There's a little pipe stuff in there to implement >locks but they looked like pretty high level locks. Not to mention that the repeated comparisons with gcc get tiresome: gcc is really not as great as many proponents make it out to be, even on the ia32. I'm very glad to have it and use it regularly, but it is much slower than either 8c or the vendor compiler and generates substantially slower code than the vendor compiler, at least in my experience. It isn't uncommon to see Intel's compiler beat gcc by 30-40% and I haven't found any non-trivial examples where gcc beats the Microsoft or Intel compilers, although they may well exist. If someone has the time, money, and warm bodies to invest, great, otherwise I'll port a few assembly routines when it really matters and get on with my life. Premature obfusc^H^H^H^H^Hoptimization is the root of all evil. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] 2003-02-06 18:10 ` William K. Josephson @ 2003-02-06 18:16 ` Ronald G. Minnich 2003-02-06 18:23 ` William K. Josephson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: Ronald G. Minnich @ 2003-02-06 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, William K. Josephson wrote: > It isn't uncommon to see Intel's compiler beat gcc by 30-40% > and I haven't found any non-trivial examples where gcc beats > the Microsoft or Intel compilers, although they may well > exist. Agree with most of your comments re gcc, but the fact is that counterexamples do in fact exist. In fact I believe that LLNLs latest LINPACK runs were better with gcc than the intel v7.0 compiler, which I think surprised *everybody*. ron ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] 2003-02-06 18:16 ` Ronald G. Minnich @ 2003-02-06 18:23 ` William K. Josephson 2003-02-06 21:09 ` Ronald G. Minnich 0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread From: William K. Josephson @ 2003-02-06 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 11:16:22AM -0700, Ronald G. Minnich wrote: > Agree with most of your comments re gcc, but the fact is that > counterexamples do in fact exist. In fact I believe that LLNLs latest > LINPACK runs were better with gcc than the intel v7.0 compiler, which I > think surprised *everybody*. That does surprise me. What is the target hardware? I've found gcc 3.2's support for the Pentium 4 to be rather atrocious. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] 2003-02-06 18:23 ` William K. Josephson @ 2003-02-06 21:09 ` Ronald G. Minnich 0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Ronald G. Minnich @ 2003-02-06 21:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, William K. Josephson wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 11:16:22AM -0700, Ronald G. Minnich wrote: > > > Agree with most of your comments re gcc, but the fact is that > > counterexamples do in fact exist. In fact I believe that LLNLs latest > > LINPACK runs were better with gcc than the intel v7.0 compiler, which I > > think surprised *everybody*. > > That does surprise me. What is the target hardware? > I've found gcc 3.2's support for the Pentium 4 to be > rather atrocious. > that's the best part. Is a p4@2.4 ghz. ron ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Webbrowser - porting mozilla 2003-02-06 1:19 ` Russ Cox 2003-02-06 3:00 ` [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] andrey mirtchovski @ 2003-02-06 12:30 ` matt 2003-02-06 12:52 ` Ian Broster 2 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: matt @ 2003-02-06 12:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans Mozilla is the name for the renderer and the User interface The renderer itself is called NGLayout http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/ Porting instructions are here : http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/ngport.html Reading through them suggests it wouldn't be too hard - ymmv [a lot probably] Mind you the bottom of that pages says : Last modified January 14, 1999. m ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Webbrowser - porting mozilla 2003-02-06 1:19 ` Russ Cox 2003-02-06 3:00 ` [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] andrey mirtchovski 2003-02-06 12:30 ` [9fans] Webbrowser - porting mozilla matt @ 2003-02-06 12:52 ` Ian Broster 2 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Ian Broster @ 2003-02-06 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > Porting instructions are here : > http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/ngport.html > Mind you the bottom of that pages says : Last modified January 14, > 1999. And at the top: Last updated 8-July-98 ... ian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Webbrowser 2003-02-06 0:53 ` John Packer 2003-02-06 1:19 ` Russ Cox @ 2003-02-06 2:13 ` Peter Bosch 1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread From: Peter Bosch @ 2003-02-06 2:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > I know. I have actually thought about attempting to port the > khtml library to Plan 9, but I guess I'm prejudiced against > C++, (and gcc). I don't mean to offend anyone. > > I agree that khtml is far preferable to Mozilla. It just > seemed a step toward Mozilla/X11 chaos and bloatedness, and > away from the grace of Plan 9. g++ can be used on Plan 9. pb. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-02-06 21:09 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-02-05 20:44 [9fans] Webbrowser Keith Nash 2003-02-05 22:27 ` John Packer 2003-02-05 22:55 ` Skip Tavakkolian 2003-02-06 0:53 ` John Packer 2003-02-06 1:19 ` Russ Cox 2003-02-06 3:00 ` [9fans] GCC3.0 [Was; Webbrowser] andrey mirtchovski 2003-02-06 4:16 ` andrey mirtchovski 2003-02-06 14:24 ` David Presotto 2003-02-06 15:30 ` andrey mirtchovski 2003-02-06 17:32 ` David Presotto 2003-02-06 18:10 ` William K. Josephson 2003-02-06 18:16 ` Ronald G. Minnich 2003-02-06 18:23 ` William K. Josephson 2003-02-06 21:09 ` Ronald G. Minnich 2003-02-06 12:30 ` [9fans] Webbrowser - porting mozilla matt 2003-02-06 12:52 ` Ian Broster 2003-02-06 2:13 ` [9fans] Webbrowser Peter Bosch
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).