SGI: Development

Firefox 10 Porting Progress - Page 2

mattst88 wrote: What the heck were they thinking when they started depending on technologies that our beloved IRIX doesn't have?! Don't they know how many IRIX users they have? I can't believe they'd alienate such a huge and important user-base like that. And, doing all of that over the objections of the many IRIX developers who begged and pleaded with them to just not use such a new (from the year 2000!) technology like Xrender.

To be serious for a moment, what did they accomplish by making this change ? On purpose, I keep up to date with Fireflop on Windows and use it at least half an hour a day. Version 11 here right now (Did Autodesk Disease strike Mozilla ? Straight from 3 to 10 ? Nice.)

From a user's perspective, it is not one bit better than version 2 on Irix. It doesn't crash as often but that's the only improvement. It still locks up, ignoring the user, if you load several slow sites in tabs. STILL , even though this behaviour was discouraged in 1995. Books were written about how to avoid this but our great wunderprogrammers at Mozilla apparently can't read. Are they are too busy incorporating "new technologies !" that don't achieve a damned thing to actually fix the fucking useless code ! ??

And oh ! the Javascript is 200 times faster ! That's nice. Now websites can add 200 extra javascripts to track me. That's a real improvement. Super, Mozilla. Thanks.

It's all well and good to sneer at users because we aren't current, uptodate, high-falutin' gofast groovy withit technogeeks but that voice would carry a little more weight if all this churn actually accomplished something. As it is, Firefox 11 is still shit. All the Xrender, gtk2, whizzbang lovely New Technology gimmicks in the book can't change that. Whacking one's wee-wee about how cool and groovy the latest greatest is, doesn't make the app worth spit.

Let's reposition this discussion to a different setting. I have a 150 mph race bike. The front brakes don't work very well. I come flying into turn 11 and grab a handful, get nothing, go down on my ass. Push the thing back to the pits and what does Mozilla want to do ? Install a halogen headlight and fuel injection. "It's great new technology ! You're just snivelling !"

No. I'm not snivelling. The Mozilla idiots don't fix the real problems but they do make their new versions unworkable on anything besides their own dream platform. That's why Phoenix exists - Mozilla was a loser twelve years ago and they are the same losers today. All they managed to do was destroy the product that people really wanted.

btw, Mozilla ? The Browser Wars were over fifteen years ago. You lost.
I wonder what's gonna happen when they catch up with Chrome - in terms of version numbers of course, since this seems to be how they still try to fight - by increasing them without any real improvements under the hood, I've given up on Mozilla some time ago, had to apologize only once (this morning actually) when Japanese Yahoo Auction said No to Safari and No to Chrome - their "wysiwyg" auction editor doesn't support either of my browsers, had to go to FF to shut it up, thanks Yahoo. I'm pretty sure they only meant support for IE [[vomiting]]

Oh, and Dillo, nah didn't have time, might give it a try sometime but haven't moved anywhere beyond failed attempts to compile fltk due to that XBOW messed up.
[click for links to hinv] JP: :Fuel: | :O2: | :Indy: || PL: [ :Fuel: :O2: :O2+: :Indy: ]
As you mention Firefox 2.0, it's a pretty accurate breakover. From all my memories (started using firefox in 0.7), 2.0 was the slowest version of firefox ever. Until 2.0 Firefox kept growing and got slower and slower, and starting at 3, they began pushing "new technologies" and the browser got faster again. And Firefox keeps getting faster in every version ever since.

I have nothing to complain about. Sure, it's pity for legacy platforms, but actually I can fully understand dropping legacy stuff for the good of a large majority of users.

PS: what's wrong with all those people arguing about version numbers? it's just naming. of course there are fewer changes between versions, but previously you had to wait >1y to get a feature, that was already developed.
kubatyszko wrote: I wonder what's gonna happen when they catch up with Chrome - in terms of version numbers of course, since this seems to be how they still try to fight - by increasing them without any real improvements under the hood, I've given up on Mozilla some time ago, had to apologize only once (this morning actually) when Japanese Yahoo Auction said No to Safari and No to Chrome - their "wysiwyg" auction editor doesn't support either of my browsers, had to go to FF to shut it up, thanks Yahoo. I'm pretty sure they only meant support for IE [[vomiting]]

It really looks like a rerun of the browser wars. I'm even back to using smartcache to get rid of all the crap that websites are trying to jam down my throat. ESAD, websites.

Oh, and Dillo, nah didn't have time, might give it a try sometime but haven't moved anywhere beyond failed attempts to compile fltk due to that XBOW messed up.

fltk was easy, even I got that to work :) It was the next step that caused difficulties ... anyway. As oreissig points out below us, lots of people are happy with the new browsers. If they want to do whatever they do, that's cool. I have no real complaint with friesflop 2.00.0000.00022 except that it crashes and locks up. The other options I've looked at require too much expertise, time and effort to get running. So I ordered a bigger hard drive and plan to put 2.00.000.22.000 up on cvs and start there. Strip a little crap out here, make an improvement there, fix a couple of the fatal flaws somewhere else, maybe borrow some repairs from other projects, see what can be done. The FoxTenFour project is kind of inspirational. Eventually it would be nice to rework that mess to fix the basic design flaws but even if that never happens, forward movement is better than falling behind. Even if it quit doing

Code: Select all

urchin 3% WARNING: core: firefox-bin: PID 57478, failed to write a  text area (core file deleted)
moz_run_program[36]: 57478 Bus error

on a regular basis, that would be an improvement.
oreissig wrote: PS: what's wrong with all those people arguing about version numbers? it's just naming. of course there are fewer changes between versions, but previously you had to wait >1y to get a feature, that was already developed.


There is probably quite a lot wrong with me I guess, but that's a subject for another topic....

Cheers
[click for links to hinv] JP: :Fuel: | :O2: | :Indy: || PL: [ :Fuel: :O2: :O2+: :Indy: ]
(Apologies to the original poster. If this were a mailing list, I'd have changed the Subject line.)

(snipped some butt-hurt trolling from your quote)

hamei wrote:
mattst88 wrote: What the heck were they thinking when they started depending on technologies that our beloved IRIX doesn't have?! Don't they know how many IRIX users they have? I can't believe they'd alienate such a huge and important user-base like that. And, doing all of that over the objections of the many IRIX developers who begged and pleaded with them to just not use such a new (from the year 2000!) technology like Xrender.

To be serious for a moment, what did they accomplish by making this change ? On purpose, I keep up to date with Fireflop on Windows and use it at least half an hour a day.

I don't know if you know what XRender is, so to make sure everyone's on the same page: it's a hardware-accelerated 2D rendering API for X dating back to XFree86 4.0.1 in 2000. So, by using it, they accelerate the rendering of webpages, specifically anti-aliased text. Of course you wouldn't see any benefits from this on Windows.

hamei wrote: From a user's perspective, it is not one bit better than version 2 on Irix. It doesn't crash as often but that's the only improvement.

Why do you think anyone upstream would care about IRIX? The people working on Firefox (and all other Free Software for that matter) are doing it because (1) they're paid by their employer to do so (ie, paid to care), or (2) because they've got a personal desire to do so.

If you expect that some employer should care about IRIX, then you're deluding yourself. But I don't think you think that. So, that leaves us with individuals who personally care about Firefox on IRIX.

Perhaps you should complain to them about how Firefox on IRIX sucks. That's only marginally more ridiculous than the current attitude that no one who works on Firefox knows what the fuck he's doing and if they'd only just listen to you (and perhaps support IRIX!) then everything would be right with the world.

hamei wrote: And oh ! the Javascript is 200 times faster ! That's nice. Now websites can add 200 extra javascripts to track me. That's a real improvement. Super, Mozilla. Thanks.

Although you may be too much of a luddite to recognize it, that is actually quite nice indeed. Maybe you don't care about sites like Gmail or any other Google site, or any of the benefits a JavaScript JIT compiler provides.

hamei wrote: It's all well and good to sneer at users because we aren't current, uptodate, high-falutin' gofast groovy withit technogeeks but that voice would carry a little more weight if all this churn actually accomplished something.

I think your view of how free software is developed is totally warped. You shouldn't expect someone to maintain something like IRIX support when they're (1) not being paid to do it, and (2) have no personal interest in it. If it's important to you, then you should help maintain Firefox on IRIX.


I wouldn't normally bother to respond to things like this, but I've noticed that this how dare they not support IRIX?! attitude around here way too much. I don't know if it comes from a weird sense of entitlement or from a lack of understanding of how the free software you're lucky to have is developed. The people who write it don't write it for you. They don't owe a thing to you and in fact you should be quite thankful that they did spend their time and effort to write something as complex as Firefox or gcc, which I often see bitched about around here), or any of the other countless free software projects that work on IRIX.

As IRIX heads into oblivion (eg, gcc 4.8 has dropped IRIX 6.5) it becomes easier to make the comparison to older operating systems like ULTRIX. Would it be reasonable for the last remaining ULTRIX user to complain loudly about how recent gcc doesn't support his DECstation 5000/240?

So, I don't know. If you care about free software continuing to run on IRIX then write some code, and if you can't write code then you could pay someone who can. If you can't do either of these, maybe ask nicely? If you can't do that, then you shouldn't talk at all.
My computers (incomplete)

Code: Select all

As IRIX heads into oblivion (eg, gcc 4.8 has dropped IRIX 6.5) it becomes easier to make the comparison to older operating systems like ULTRIX. Would it be reasonable for the last remaining ULTRIX user to complain loudly about how recent gcc doesn't support his DECstation 5000/240?


They are? Damn.
zizban wrote: They are? Damn.

it has already been obsoleted in 4.7 , so it's the normal way to go for gcc to remove obsoleted stuff in the next version
Oh well. Go, um, away for a few years and see what you learn. I guess this will make porting software a tad harder?
zizban wrote: I guess this will make porting software a tad harder?

In the very long term, yes probably. But it will take quite some time before GCC 4.7 is too old for software to build with it. I don't think this is a serious issue for at least the next 5 years. This thread here shows, that even now GCC is not the main issue when trying to build software on IRIX.
I think Portland, OR

_________________
[click for links to hinv] JP: [ :O200: :Fuel: :Octane2: :Octane: :O2: :Indy: :Indy: ] PL: [ :Fuel: :O2: :O2+: :Indy: ]
For Sale: 2*O200 M/B, 2*O200 PSU, 6*256MB O200 RAM, 2*O200 SCSI Backplane, 2*O200 MSC, DMediaPro DM-2 ( 030-1653-002 Rev. H , XT-DIGVID) with Octane XIO pull (Origin pull optionally available)
If it helps, I would copy my working development environment to a spare O350 with 4x700mhz and connect it to the Internet.

_________________
:Tezro: :Fuel: :Octane2: :Octane: :Onyx2: :O2+: :O2: :Indy: :Indigo: :Cube:
The fastest system I have is a Fuel. I would be willing to connect it up and provide NCommander access also. I have emailed him to offer assistance... let's see.

_________________
--
:Octane2: :O2: :O2: :Indigo: :Indigo: :Indigo: :Fuel: :Indy: :Indy: :Indy: :Indigo2: :Indigo2IMP:
I didn't mean to drop off the face of the planet but RL issues threatened to consume me on several fronts to the point I just went "ARGHBERHEW".

The linker issue is the most problematic. GNU ld simply can't generate largescale IRIX binaries without self-destructing, and without a 64-bit linker, we're kinda stuck. There was some references through Google that SGI released a 64-bit linker (that generates 64-bit binaries) but beyond that I have no idea where to find it. The file was called ld64x.

The other issues in Firefox is there's code that depends on Xrendr, but beyond that, I am not sure of the scope or scale of the issues involved with that. That being said, I did get Spidermoney fully working (with a *lot* of patching) to the point that it passed its test suite, so having a JS engine is definately possible. Given the work to get webkit working, it might be more benefitical if I take a stab at getting JavascriptKit (?)/JSC working which is the native webkit JS renderer.
NCommander wrote:
There was some references through Google that SGI released a 64-bit linker (that generates 64-bit binaries) but beyond that I have no idea where to find it. The file was called ld64x.

It's called 'ldx64':
Code:
janjaap@speedo:~$ ls -l /usr/lib32/cmplrs/ld*
lrwxr-xr-x  1 root sys     12 Apr 12  2011 /usr/lib32/cmplrs/ld32 -> ../../lib/ld
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root sys 707076 Feb  2  2008 /usr/lib32/cmplrs/ld64
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root sys 809360 Feb  2  2008 /usr/lib32/cmplrs/ldx64

janjaap@speedo:~$ file /usr/lib32/cmplrs/ld64
/usr/lib32/cmplrs/ld64: ELF N32 MSB mips-3 dynamic executable MIPS - version 1

janjaap@speedo:~$ file /usr/lib32/cmplrs/ldx64
/usr/lib32/cmplrs/ldx64:        ELF 64-bit MSB mips-3 dynamic executable MIPS - version 1

All part of a default install of compiler_dev_744m.sw.ld

From the release notes :
Quote:
3.2.1 New 64-bit built linker Under certain
circumstances the default linker (because it is
built in the N32 ABI) could run out of virtual
address space and exit with an error: "I/O
Error: Out of Space". To address only those
types of error, MIPSpro 7.4.1m provides an
experimental linker built as a 64-bit binary,
ld64x, which can be invoked as:

%cc -64 -Zl,x t.c

This linker cannot be used in conjunction with
-IPA and is only provided as a workaround when
encountering the above error.

_________________
Now this is a deep dark secret, so everybody keep it quiet :)
It turns out that when reset, the WD33C93 defaults to a SCSI ID of 0, and it was simpler to leave it that way... -- Dave Olson, in comp.sys.sgi

Currently in commercial service: Image :Onyx2: (2x) :O3x02L:
In the museum : almost every MIPS/IRIX system.
Wanted : GM1 board for Professional Series GT graphics (030-0076-003, 030-0076-004)
So what is the current status now?

_________________
--
No Microsoft product was used in any way to write or send this text.
If you use a Microsoft product to read it, you're doing so at your own
risk.
So, I'm still alive. I've had some real life issues, but I won't mind taking another attempt at building this monster if someone else wants to try and get me on a box.

It appears someone tracked down the binutils issue we were having making it possible for gld to work on IRIX. If this is indeed the case, then it is simply a matter of building it as a 64-bit-to-32-bit binary, sliding GCC under it, and going from there.

http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2012-11/msg00409.html
I'm laughing a little here, because this is a carbon copy of the problems we had between Fx4 and Fx5 with TenFourFox -- libxul was too large to link with a 32-bit ld. We now use a 64-bit ld, backported to 10.4+. If you can get 10 up, 17 should not be a problem.

Is there any way to get your changesets against -esr10?

_________________
smit happens.

:Fuel: bigred , 700MHz R16K, 4GB RAM, V12, 6.5.30
:Indy: indy , 150MHz R4400SC, 256MB RAM, XL24, 6.5.10
probably posted from Image bruce , 2x2x2.5GHz PowerPC 970MP, 8GB RAM, Mac OS X 10.4.11
plus IBM POWER6 p520 * Apple Network Server 500 * HP C8000 * BeBox * Solbourne S3000 * Commodore 128 * many more...
ClassicHasClass wrote:
I'm laughing a little here, because this is a carbon copy of the problems we had between Fx4 and Fx5 with TenFourFox -- libxul was too large to link with a 32-bit ld. We now use a 64-bit ld, backported to 10.4+. If you can get 10 up, 17 should not be a problem.

Is there any way to get your changesets against -esr10?


I'm pretty sure those changesets are gone, though I do have my original notes I took during the process plus this thread.

Rewriting the NSPR extensions will be a $#!@ pain, but I can probably do it mostly from memory (I had to add two members to a struct, modify the PRThread init function to calculate the offsets on the fly, and create getter functions, then patch SpiderMonkey in the right places).

If the linker is actually fixed (and I've learned more about toolchain development since I originally tried this), it shouldn't be TOO hard to solder on and make Firefox exist.

My biggest concerns were with Xrender, and properly ripping out WebGL, but there was no technical basis why the later simply couldn't be rm-ed, and the former ...

Well my understanding is apps requiring Xrender *do* work with the nekoware stub library; they just do all their rendering client-side and are slow.

Classic: I'd love to compare notes with your porting. Feel free to poke me on the official IRC channel.
Well, the NSPR part was the easy bit for us; it already worked with 10.4 in 3.6, so I just had to keep it that way. For WebGL, I just disabled it at the GfxInfo level since 10.4 doesn't support OpenGL 2 nor NPOT texture sizes.

Are you working off diegel's basis for 3.0.19, or did you do the NSPR bits yourself? The PRThread stuff sounds like it should be done to xpcom as well.

_________________
smit happens.

:Fuel: bigred , 700MHz R16K, 4GB RAM, V12, 6.5.30
:Indy: indy , 150MHz R4400SC, 256MB RAM, XL24, 6.5.10
probably posted from Image bruce , 2x2x2.5GHz PowerPC 970MP, 8GB RAM, Mac OS X 10.4.11
plus IBM POWER6 p520 * Apple Network Server 500 * HP C8000 * BeBox * Solbourne S3000 * Commodore 128 * many more...