[9fans] Re: we need help...

[9fans] Re: we need help...

[steve-simon]

Some thoughts:

Re: Effective X11 implementation.
Would an implementation of gtk be enough? This would give us
mozilla/firebird and many other similar apps.

Re: configure
I had a quick go at getting configure to go, hacking the
scripts a little. It looked quite promising though perhaps my
example was easy (GNU indent).

An alternative approach might be to use configure's
config files (sic) to generate mkfiles directly.

Just my £0.02 worth

-Steve

Re: [9fans] Re: we need help...

[a]

i also find the idea of porting gtk (rather than X11) to draw
somewhat less repulsive and likely more efficient (since, to
get most of the apps our X11 port would be for, we'd have to
muck with it at some point anyway). it's also the approach
being undertaken by various gtk porters (not to plan 9,
obviously: Mac OS X and Win32).

it doesn't exactly make it easy or pleasant or fast...
ア

Re: [9fans] Re: we need help...

[David Presotto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 57 bytes --]

anything that gave me a web browser would be good enough.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2116 bytes --]

From: steve-simon@ntlworld.nospam.com
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: [9fans] Re: we need help...
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:15:17 +0100
Message-ID: <d71c9fb1fd1448a9e8df07748924c5c8@yourdomain.dom>

Some thoughts:

Re: Effective X11 implementation.
Would an implementation of gtk be enough? This would give us
mozilla/firebird and many other similar apps.

Re: configure
I had a quick go at getting configure to go, hacking the
scripts a little. It looked quite promising though perhaps my
example was easy (GNU indent).

An alternative approach might be to use configure's
config files (sic) to generate mkfiles directly.

Just my £0.02 worth

-Steve

Re: [9fans] Re: we need help...

[matt]

> anything that gave me a web browser would be good enough.

btw. the tk/grail option is out, grail can render less than mothra

Re: [9fans] Re: we need help...

[ron minnich]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 matt@proweb.co.uk wrote:

> > anything that gave me a web browser would be good enough.
>
> btw. the tk/grail option is out, grail can render less than mothra


what was the reason for not just getting mothra up to speed?

ron

Re: [9fans] Re: we need help...

[David Presotto]

It was never really very great before and now is hopelessly
out of date.  Charon would be a better bet.

Re: [9fans] Re: we need help...

[C H Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1035 bytes --]

at a technical level, mothra assumed that it could display HTML in
(essentially) a single pass, because that was true
for HTML of the time.  two things happened:
	- tables were introduced, which demolished that assumption
	- graphics designers were introduced, which meant that just
	`displaying' HTML wasn't enough, it must be displayed `properly'
	which arguably can't be done well in one pass.
there's an interaction between the two because some pages
are big tables.  i did some hackery to keep mothra going for
a while, but its data structures weren't really up to the bigger tasks.
not it's fault, i hasten to add, it was just that the one pass assumption
which was true originally (and i suppose might have remained true
in a different history) no longer held so the structures were now
inappropriate.

somewhat later javascript was introduced, and as that's now fairly common
on some sites you might well like to visit, and that's even further away from
old mothra.

it gets harder and harder after that...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2834 bytes --]

From: ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: we need help...
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:59:37 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310280659230.18111-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 matt@proweb.co.uk wrote:

> > anything that gave me a web browser would be good enough.
>
> btw. the tk/grail option is out, grail can render less than mothra


what was the reason for not just getting mothra up to speed?

ron

Re: [9fans] Re: we need help...

[ron minnich]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, David Presotto wrote:

> It was never really very great before and now is hopelessly
> out of date.  Charon would be a better bet.


what are the odds of getting charon then?

ron

Re: [9fans] Re: we need help...

[Charles Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 482 bytes --]

roger has been working on charon running in a Plan 9
window (ie, using Plan 9's /dev/draw directly).
it seemed to work fine--unsurprisingly, since the
models are currently the same--and once we've installed something suitable
to replace the hack his script(s) relied on (that i removed yesterday),
we'll parcel it up somehow so that anyone can use it.
he hasn't come in today so i haven't been able to discuss
possible replacements for the hack, but it shouldn't be too long.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2015 bytes --]

From: David Presotto <presotto@closedmind.org>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: we need help...
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:10:04 -0500
Message-ID: <37c216034e7bb1a9750b8fb87c8ce7c9@plan9.bell-labs.com>

It was never really very great before and now is hopelessly
out of date.  Charon would be a better bet.

Re: [9fans] Re: we need help...

[matt]

there's not *that* much wrong with mothra.
The aforementioned cookies, and I'd like to be able snarf text too.

One thing I've often wanted to put together was a web browser that browsed the HTML but with live links

I've not really looked at the mothra source despite being interested in doing so.

m

Re: [9fans] Re: we need help...

[vdharani]

> roger has been working on charon running in a Plan 9
> window (ie, using Plan 9's /dev/draw directly).
> it seemed to work fine--unsurprisingly, since the
> models are currently the same--and once we've installed something
> suitable to replace the hack his script(s) relied on (that i removed
> yesterday), we'll parcel it up somehow so that anyone can use it.
> he hasn't come in today so i haven't been able to discuss
> possible replacements for the hack, but it shouldn't be too long.

i am not able to understand. how is it any different from charon running on
inferno? if it is the same, why are we doing it like this? and is it that
this will leave us two versions of charon?

thanks
dharani

Re: [9fans] Re: we need help...

[Charles Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 96 bytes --]

it's the same version of charon, but emu and its
applications can disguise themselves better.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3340 bytes --]

From: <vdharani@infernopark.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: we need help...
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:58:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <62856.135.214.42.162.1067367520.squirrel@www.infernopark.com>

> roger has been working on charon running in a Plan 9
> window (ie, using Plan 9's /dev/draw directly).
> it seemed to work fine--unsurprisingly, since the
> models are currently the same--and once we've installed something
> suitable to replace the hack his script(s) relied on (that i removed
> yesterday), we'll parcel it up somehow so that anyone can use it.
> he hasn't come in today so i haven't been able to discuss
> possible replacements for the hack, but it shouldn't be too long.

i am not able to understand. how is it any different from charon running on
inferno? if it is the same, why are we doing it like this? and is it that
this will leave us two versions of charon?

thanks
dharani

[9fans] mothra

[Richard Miller]

 From the Flogging a Dead Horse department:

By popular request (of matt@proweb.co.uk) mothra will now accept
and send cookies if /mnt/webcookies is accessible when mothra starts.
It will also now listen on plumbing channel "web" for URLs to fetch.

I've also fixed a few memory-corruption errors which should make
it somewhat more stable.

New version is in /contrib/mothra on sources.

It still doesn't handle tables, scripts, stylesheets, etc etc etc.

-- Richard