Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Thu 7th Aug 2008 05:35 UTC, submitted by Ali
Mozilla & Gecko clones The Mozilla and Nokia teams have been working hard to port Firefox 3 and the Mozilla Platform to Qt and there are now some solid results available from their efforts. An experimental build of Firefox Qt is available and you can download the sources from Mozilla's mercurial repository. The plan is to merge the Qt branch into the central Mozilla branch to make the port official.
Order by: Score:
Excellent initiative
by Liquidator on Thu 7th Aug 2008 05:49 UTC
Liquidator
Member since:
2007-03-04

I think this is great for those who use KDE. Using only one graphical library under one system is great to have for memory, but also for integration. Even with several addons such as gtk-qt-engine, or that "Save As" extension, Firefox wasn't as well integrated as Konqueror. Now it seems it's going to look like a KDE application.

I remember Firefox 1.0 had a Qt version, and it worked great in SuSE but then it wasn't updated anymore. I hope this is going to change now ;)

Kudos to the devs!

Reply Score: 9

RE: Excellent initiative
by Darkelve on Thu 7th Aug 2008 10:14 UTC in reply to "Excellent initiative"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

Yeah, I believe this also means that we (KDE users) are finally going to be able to store Firefox passwords with KWallet. B)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Excellent initiative
by KAMiKAZOW on Thu 7th Aug 2008 11:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Excellent initiative"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

I believe this also means that we (KDE users) are finally going to be able to store Firefox passwords with KWallet. B)

Why do you believe that that's being made? So far (as I can see) they only talk abet Qt, not KDE.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Excellent initiative
by Darkelve on Thu 7th Aug 2008 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Excellent initiative"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

Yeah, this is why:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=278343

And this: http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Feature_Brainstorming:Platform_Inte...

Perhaps more work is needed though. Or perhaps, I just understood it wrong... :x

Edited 2008-08-07 13:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Excellent initiative
by KAMiKAZOW on Thu 7th Aug 2008 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Excellent initiative"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

A feature request on Bugzilla doesn't mean that it will be implemented. Mozilla has open requests that are in some cases older than 10 years! That one is from 2005.
A brainstorming page in a wiki is no more credible than an open feature request.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Excellent initiative
by Darkelve on Thu 7th Aug 2008 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Excellent initiative"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

Well I meant at least know there is the *possibility* it will be fixed.

Although now that you meantion it... I think I mixed this up with a story about how the Firefox/Gecko engine could be used in Konqueror...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Excellent initiative
by cerbie on Fri 8th Aug 2008 15:03 UTC in reply to "Excellent initiative"
cerbie Member since:
2006-01-02

It's also a great initiative for those of us who don't use KDE for a desktop, but like things like save and open dialogs with useful buttons and menus, not just pretty breadcrumb nav buttons for the path...a non-GTK print dialog wouldn't hurt, either.

I will be looking forward to stable firefox-Qt packages in the future.

Reply Score: 2

Deja-Vue
by kloty on Thu 7th Aug 2008 05:58 UTC
kloty
Member since:
2005-07-07

Does anyone remember the days when Netscape released Mozilla as open source and the first thing some hackers did, was to port it to Qt? Took several nights and large amount of coffee, but it was a sensation at these times :-)

Here is the press-release from TrollTech http://trolltech.com/company/newsroom/announcements/00000007

Edited 2008-08-07 06:08 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE: Deja-Vue
by KAMiKAZOW on Thu 7th Aug 2008 10:54 UTC in reply to "Deja-Vue"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

I think the current Qt port is about the 4th attempt. I don't believe that it will be successful this time until I see a release version shipping.

Reply Score: 2

QT $ Mozilla
by OSGuy on Thu 7th Aug 2008 06:27 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

Wow this is good. QT should become the default toolkit for X.ORG - something like WIN32 for Windows. I just wonder, what will happen to the XUL GUI and apps requiring it including FF extensions?

That $ sign above was a typo and I can't seem to fix it.

Edited 2008-08-07 06:28 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: QT $ Mozilla
by ba1l on Thu 7th Aug 2008 07:37 UTC in reply to "QT $ Mozilla"
ba1l Member since:
2007-09-08

Basically, this version of Mozilla ports the underlying Mozilla platform (Gecko) to Qt. That includes XUL - so XUL applications (including Firefox) will work on the GTK version, or the Qt version. XUL's designed to be independent of whatever platform's sitting underneath it.

Same general idea as the Mac versions of Firefox 2 running on top of Carbon, while the Mac version of Firefox 3 runs on top of Cocoa.

I'll admit to not reading the article (site's down) - is this for Qt 4 or Qt 3? I assume 4, so this'd make a nice alternative to Konqueror on KDE 4 systems. As much as I like Konqueror, a version of Firefox that had reasonable integration with KDE (like the GTK version's integration with Gnome) would be great.

Reply Score: 8

Great news for KDE4
by kunaldeo on Thu 7th Aug 2008 07:49 UTC
kunaldeo
Member since:
2007-04-26

wow this will make KDE4 experience make smooth. Personally I hate few GTK widgets (apparently there are no alternatives for them).QT is the better toolkit but License is not very friendly as the case with GTK. So If somebody wants to build commercial product out of Firefox-QT he have to pay troll tech. Not the case with WxWindows or GTK.

This is the primary reason why majority of commercial and Open Source project goes with GTK or WxWindows and not QT.

Lets hope that the scenario will change.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Great news for KDE4
by danieldk on Thu 7th Aug 2008 09:34 UTC in reply to "Great news for KDE4"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

So If somebody wants to build commercial product out of Firefox-QT he have to pay troll tech. Not the case with WxWindows or GTK.


Sure, but the Trolltech folks need food to write such a great toolkit ;) .

This is the primary reason why majority of commercial and Open Source project goes with GTK or WxWindows and not QT.


There are plenty of commercial products using Qt, and as you know one of the two major *NIX desktop environments.

Though, I wonder what happens when Nokia pushes Qt more on mobile devices. Apple, Google (Android), and others don't require developers to pay fees to use a toolkit to write commercial applications for their smartphones. (Of course, there is a fee for providing apps through the Apple app store.)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Great news for KDE4
by kunaldeo on Thu 7th Aug 2008 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Great news for KDE4"
kunaldeo Member since:
2007-04-26

I agree with you.

QT is an excellent toolkit and it will need commercial support. I see KDE4 as an excellent example for possibilities around KDE4.

BTW. I have compiled the QT version of the firefox. Working good, excellent port considering this is the pre-alpha version.

http://picasaweb.google.com/kunaldeo2006/FirefoxQT/photo#5231714920...

http://picasaweb.google.com/kunaldeo2006/FirefoxQT/photo#5231714919...

http://picasaweb.google.com/kunaldeo2006/FirefoxQT/photo#5231714920...

I specially love the Save diaglogs. Because I hate GTK Save and Open dialogs.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Great news for KDE4
by Redeeman on Thu 7th Aug 2008 14:23 UTC in reply to "Great news for KDE4"
Redeeman Member since:
2006-03-23

wow this will make KDE4 experience make smooth. Personally I hate few GTK widgets (apparently there are no alternatives for them).QT is the better toolkit but License is not very friendly as the case with GTK. So If somebody wants to build commercial product out of Firefox-QT he have to pay troll tech. Not the case with WxWindows or GTK.

This is the primary reason why majority of commercial and Open Source project goes with GTK or WxWindows and not QT.

Lets hope that the scenario will change.

not so.. people can easily build commercial products with it, and not have to pay trolltech anything..

Reply Score: 1

RE: Great news for KDE4
by FunkyELF on Thu 7th Aug 2008 14:47 UTC in reply to "Great news for KDE4"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

So If somebody wants to build commercial product out of Firefox-QT he have to pay troll tech. Not the case with WxWindows or GTK.


That is only if there are changes to the underlying firefox or qt code. If your product is implemented as an extension or an add-on, then you're fine.

I like all these little license workarounds. Can't have the Nvidia driver link against Linux?...create an open source abstraction layer and you're fine.

Can't have ZFS link against Linux?...create an open source abstraction layer and link against that.

Can't link against a Qt based browser?...good thing that browser has an extension API.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Great news for KDE4
by aseigo on Thu 7th Aug 2008 15:26 UTC in reply to "Great news for KDE4"
aseigo Member since:
2005-07-06

This is the primary reason why majority of commercial and Open Source project goes with GTK or WxWindows and not QT.


where, exactly, are you getting your data from? because the numbers i have show a lot more commercial Qt apps out there than Gtk+ apps, and scads of open source projects.

if you're comparing the apps that commonly come to mind to linux desktop users, e.g. "vm ware, acrobat and firefox" vs "google earth and skype", i can understand how you might come to this perception.

but the reality is that Qt is use a lot more than Gtk is in industry.

Reply Score: 7

Crossing fingers...
by dimosd on Thu 7th Aug 2008 08:23 UTC
dimosd
Member since:
2006-02-10

I'll believe it when I see it, of course, but this would mean one step forward towards KDE Desktop World Domination :-)

Reply Score: 5

Speed.
by dsmogor on Thu 7th Aug 2008 09:25 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

I wonder how would it impact FF speed. I have high hopes positively. Where does it position Gecko cairo work?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Speed.
by squarebottle on Thu 7th Aug 2008 09:42 UTC in reply to "Speed."
squarebottle Member since:
2008-04-07

If they use the qt4 library (for KDE 4), then it'll probably be pretty darn efficient. From what I understand, qt4 is considerably faster and lighter on resources even with all the expanded functionality.

However, the really important thing to notice here is that Mozilla has decided to work with the KDE community and Nokia (who owns Trolltech, the developers of Qt). This is exciting news, and I hope they stay committed to each other.

Reply Score: 5

Not Too Much Point
by segedunum on Thu 7th Aug 2008 09:48 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Is it me or is http://browser.garage.maemo.org/ bringing up blank pages?

1. If this port is actually merged and maintained then it makes things somewhat better for KDE, as better integration should then be possible. It depends what they do with it. In all honesty, I would have preferred it if they hadn't bothered.

2. In the long run, it doesn't have too much of a bearing on KDE or even Gnome. Web browsers are better integrated into the native environment, and the Mozilla people have burned too many bridges with their lack of integration with Linux desktops (even Gnome) and their current preference for idiotic pestering of users over non-signed SSL certificates (which is merely to push people into paying money to CA authorities). KDE will eventually have a QtWebKit browser, and Epiphany already has a WebKit port.

Reply Score: 3

I don't understand Nokia
by KAMiKAZOW on Thu 7th Aug 2008 10:59 UTC
KAMiKAZOW
Member since:
2005-07-06

The page (chached version: http://72.30.186.56/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=http%3A%2F%... ) says:

Great work has been done by the Mozilla and Nokia mobile browser teams.

So Nokia ports WebKit to GTK and Gecko to Qt? WTF? Why not keeping Gecko GTK and QtWebKit on Qt? Why port the other way around?

Edited 2008-08-07 11:00 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Moist
by Havin_it on Thu 7th Aug 2008 11:26 UTC
Havin_it
Member since:
2006-03-10

is the only description I can give to my reaction. I feared my Linux Firefox experience was tainted forever by the enforced GTK-ness introduced by FF3. I've only ever found one visually-pleasing GTK theme to date (Aurora) and it has a number of visual bugs in Firefox: rounded widgets being 'boxed' in incongruous colour, buttons on the toolbar overlapping adjoining spacers, tooltips with text and background *the same colour* (how can that even be permitted to happen FFS?)

And as for gtk-engines-qt, no dice: checkboxes not updating their visual state, text-boxes with no border (therefore invisible in most cases), etc.

I couldn't dream of better news for the future of Firefox.

Reply Score: 6

The future of Nokia
by ultrabill on Thu 7th Aug 2008 12:06 UTC
ultrabill
Member since:
2008-08-07

- Nokia bought Trolltech (QT)
- Nokia bought SymbianOS
- Nokia is porting Firefox/gecko to QT

Symbian release will use Gecko instead of Webkit for their browser, that's all.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The future of Nokia
by KAMiKAZOW on Thu 7th Aug 2008 13:28 UTC in reply to "The future of Nokia"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

Symbian release will use Gecko instead of Webkit for their browser, that's all.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Why should someone prefer a rengering engine with worse performance than WebKit? On the desktop where it's not that significant, OK, but on mobiles?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The future of Nokia
by ultrabill on Thu 7th Aug 2008 13:42 UTC in reply to "RE: The future of Nokia"
ultrabill Member since:
2008-08-07

I don't know, maybe because Apple is too closed from Webkit.

Reply Score: 0

RE: The future of Nokia
by segedunum on Thu 7th Aug 2008 14:21 UTC in reply to "The future of Nokia"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Nokia, even outside of Trolltech, has been contributing a ton of stuff to WebKit, and Qt is using WebKit as its preferred engine.

Reply Score: 2

Interesting
by TQH ! on Thu 7th Aug 2008 13:41 UTC
TQH !
Member since:
2006-03-16

I'm a bit intrigued by this. So many questions, did they skip Cairo, did they make the ui threaded?

If they did I'll be looking very closely at what they have done. Either way I can pretty much guarantee that whatever they did is an improvement.

Reply Score: 1

Doesn't Qt Have WebKit?
by FunkyELF on Thu 7th Aug 2008 14:17 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

From what I understand, you can create a full blown, history, bookmarks, back, forward, stop, refresh webkit browser with 100 lines of code in Qt. They have made it trivial to create a Qt browser. Why port Mozilla to this platform?

To me that is just as silly as running KDE on Windows which already has a desktop environment, or running Qt in Java which already has platform independent libraries.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit?
by ba1l on Thu 7th Aug 2008 14:29 UTC in reply to "Doesn't Qt Have WebKit?"
ba1l Member since:
2007-09-08

No, the version of Webkit in Qt is unsuitable for building a full web browser in. I understand that it's missing a lot of features exposed by webkit itself that'd be needed for a fill browser UI, and it can't run plugins at all.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit?
by leos on Thu 7th Aug 2008 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit?"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

No, the version of Webkit in Qt is unsuitable for building a full web browser in.


I believe the Qt 4.5 snapshots have support for plugins. But you're right that the stable released 4.4 does not.
I can't think of anything else that's missing though. Arora is already a reasonable browser. If you run it with Qt 4.5 it does pretty much everything you would expect a browser to do.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit?
by ba1l on Fri 8th Aug 2008 07:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit?"
ba1l Member since:
2007-09-08

I stand corrected then. I had thought it was missing some other bits, but apparently it isn't.

Edit: According to to Arora site, disk cache isn't implemented until Qt 4.5 either. While you can get by without plugins, a disk cache is kind of important.

Edited 2008-08-08 07:49 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit?
by leos on Fri 8th Aug 2008 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit?"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Edit: According to to Arora site, disk cache isn't implemented until Qt 4.5 either. While you can get by without plugins, a disk cache is kind of important.


Yup. More info on that here: http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/2008/08/04/network-cache/

Reply Score: 2

RE: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit?
by aseigo on Thu 7th Aug 2008 15:28 UTC in reply to "Doesn't Qt Have WebKit?"
aseigo Member since:
2005-07-06

From what I understand, you can create a full blown, history, bookmarks, back, forward, stop, refresh webkit browser with 100 lines of code in Qt. They have made it trivial to create a Qt browser. Why port Mozilla to this platform?


so that no matter what web stack you choose (for whatever reason) you can still decide to use Qt. Nokia is evidently working on making Qt a viable option everywhere.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit?
by leos on Thu 7th Aug 2008 20:38 UTC in reply to "Doesn't Qt Have WebKit?"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

From what I understand, you can create a full blown, history, bookmarks, back, forward, stop, refresh webkit browser with 100 lines of code in Qt.


Depends how you define browser. The Arora browser, which is an improved version of the demo browser included with Qt 4.4 is about 10,000 lines of code, and it's fairly full featured. Getting a simple web view with back/forward is just a few lines of code, but adding the rest is still not trivial.

To me that is just as silly as running KDE on Windows which already has a desktop environment


KDE apps are being ported, not the whole environment (yes, it can be made to run, but I don't think anyone imagines people seriously using it).

or running Qt in Java which already has platform independent libraries.


Not for everything. Especially GUI and system integration wise, Qt has some advantages over the Java standard libs.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit?
by ari-free on Thu 7th Aug 2008 20:38 UTC in reply to "Doesn't Qt Have WebKit?"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

you're forgetting something. mozilla itself is a platform. And it is a platform not just for all the extensions that you can only get for firefox but also other mozilla based apps like songbird

Reply Score: 4

KDE 4
by motang on Thu 7th Aug 2008 14:50 UTC
motang
Member since:
2008-03-27

So will I be able to get this FF on Kubuntu running KDE 4? now that would be awesome! ;)

Edited 2008-08-07 14:52 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by AnXa
by AnXa on Fri 8th Aug 2008 08:29 UTC
AnXa
Member since:
2008-02-10

God has answered to my prayers...

Reply Score: 2