OSNews:

OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/20160/Qt_Port_of_Mozilla_and_Firefox_3 Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:37:04 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Excellent initiative http://osnews.com/thread?326012 http://osnews.com/thread?326012 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! Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Liquidator) Comments Deja-Vue http://osnews.com/thread?326013 http://osnews.com/thread?326013 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 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 05:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kloty) Comments QT $ Mozilla http://osnews.com/thread?326018 http://osnews.com/thread?326018 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 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 06:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (OSGuy) Comments RE: QT $ Mozilla http://osnews.com/thread?326025 http://osnews.com/thread?326025 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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 07:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ba1l) Comments Great news for KDE4 http://osnews.com/thread?326028 http://osnews.com/thread?326028 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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 07:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kunaldeo) Comments Crossing fingers... http://osnews.com/thread?326030 http://osnews.com/thread?326030 I'll believe it when I see it, of course, but this would mean one step forward towards KDE Desktop World Domination :-) Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dimosd) Comments Speed. http://osnews.com/thread?326038 http://osnews.com/thread?326038 I wonder how would it impact FF speed. I have high hopes positively. Where does it position Gecko cairo work? Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dsmogor) Comments RE: Great news for KDE4 http://osnews.com/thread?326039 http://osnews.com/thread?326039

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.) Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (danieldk) Comments RE: Speed. http://osnews.com/thread?326041 http://osnews.com/thread?326041 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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (squarebottle) Comments Not Too Much Point http://osnews.com/thread?326042 http://osnews.com/thread?326042 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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (segedunum) Comments RE[2]: Great news for KDE4 http://osnews.com/thread?326045 http://osnews.com/thread?326045 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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (kunaldeo) Comments RE: Excellent initiative http://osnews.com/thread?326046 http://osnews.com/thread?326046 Yeah, I believe this also means that we (KDE users) are finally going to be able to store Firefox passwords with KWallet. B) Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Darkelve) Comments RE: Deja-Vue http://osnews.com/thread?326048 http://osnews.com/thread?326048 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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (KAMiKAZOW) Comments I don't understand Nokia http://osnews.com/thread?326050 http://osnews.com/thread?326050 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 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (KAMiKAZOW) Comments RE[2]: Excellent initiative http://osnews.com/thread?326051 http://osnews.com/thread?326051

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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (KAMiKAZOW) Comments Moist http://osnews.com/thread?326054 http://osnews.com/thread?326054 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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Havin_it) Comments The future of Nokia http://osnews.com/thread?326060 http://osnews.com/thread?326060 - 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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ultrabill) Comments RE[3]: Excellent initiative http://osnews.com/thread?326071 http://osnews.com/thread?326071 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... :xEdited 2008-08-07 13:17 UTC Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Darkelve) Comments RE[4]: Excellent initiative http://osnews.com/thread?326073 http://osnews.com/thread?326073 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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (KAMiKAZOW) Comments RE: The future of Nokia http://osnews.com/thread?326074 http://osnews.com/thread?326074

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? Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (KAMiKAZOW) Comments RE[5]: Excellent initiative http://osnews.com/thread?326075 http://osnews.com/thread?326075 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... Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Darkelve) Comments Interesting http://osnews.com/thread?326076 http://osnews.com/thread?326076 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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (TQH !) Comments RE[2]: The future of Nokia http://osnews.com/thread?326077 http://osnews.com/thread?326077 I don't know, maybe because Apple is too closed from Webkit. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ultrabill) Comments Doesn't Qt Have WebKit? http://osnews.com/thread?326079 http://osnews.com/thread?326079 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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (FunkyELF) Comments RE: The future of Nokia http://osnews.com/thread?326080 http://osnews.com/thread?326080 Nokia, even outside of Trolltech, has been contributing a ton of stuff to WebKit, and Qt is using WebKit as its preferred engine. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (segedunum) Comments RE: Great news for KDE4 http://osnews.com/thread?326081 http://osnews.com/thread?326081

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.. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Redeeman) Comments RE: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit? http://osnews.com/thread?326082 http://osnews.com/thread?326082 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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ba1l) Comments RE: Great news for KDE4 http://osnews.com/thread?326084 http://osnews.com/thread?326084

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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (FunkyELF) Comments KDE 4 http://osnews.com/thread?326085 http://osnews.com/thread?326085 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 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (motang) Comments RE: Great news for KDE4 http://osnews.com/thread?326088 http://osnews.com/thread?326088

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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (aseigo) Comments RE: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit? http://osnews.com/thread?326089 http://osnews.com/thread?326089

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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (aseigo) Comments RE: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit? http://osnews.com/thread?326135 http://osnews.com/thread?326135

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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (leos) Comments RE: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit? http://osnews.com/thread?326136 http://osnews.com/thread?326136 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 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ari-free) Comments RE[2]: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit? http://osnews.com/thread?326137 http://osnews.com/thread?326137

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. Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (leos) Comments RE[3]: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit? http://osnews.com/thread?326180 http://osnews.com/thread?326180 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 Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ba1l) Comments Comment by AnXa http://osnews.com/thread?326185 http://osnews.com/thread?326185 God has answered to my prayers... Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (AnXa) Comments RE: Excellent initiative http://osnews.com/thread?326227 http://osnews.com/thread?326227 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. Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (cerbie) Comments RE[4]: Doesn't Qt Have WebKit? http://osnews.com/thread?326246 http://osnews.com/thread?326246

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/ Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (leos) Comments