Time for a bounty to upgrade Odyssey (OWB)?
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    amigadave
    Posts: 2572 from 2006/3/21
    From: Lake Arrowhead...
    I wonder what the chances are for getting an update for Odyssey (OWB) web browser? Could we raise enough money for a comprehensive update that would bring it up to modern standards (or close), or even a bounty for a different browser, if one is available to port to MorphOS, which might be easier to maintain and keep up to date? I know Fab, Odyssey's creator has much less free time, now that he is a Father, but Fatherhood also includes increased monetary demands for baby clothes, food, diapers, etc., so perhaps if the bounty amount is high enough, Fab can be persuaded to dedicate some of his limited free time toward an updated Odyssey (OWB) for us.

    Does anyone here have frequent contact with Fab? I think it is obvious that MorphOS is in great need of an up to date web browser, and that Odyssey could be improved upon.

    What do the rest of you think of this idea of creating a new bounty for an updated Odyssey? Are there any other feasible web browser choices for ports to MorphOS?

    Edit: I think a constantly updated web browser is one of the applications for MorphOS that I would be willing to pay a yearly subscription fee, to keep it working, as standards change. I'm probably not alone in thinking this way, and maybe many MorphOS users would also subscribe to a payment schedule, to keep getting regular updates for Odyssey, or any other web browser ported to MorphOS, if the developer could keep it constantly working for us, as new standards or requirements arrive.

    [ Edited by amigadave 23.03.2019 - 13:22 ]
    MorphOS - The best Next Gen Amiga choice.
  • »23.03.19 - 22:17
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    polluks
    Posts: 431 from 2007/10/23
    From: Gelsenkirchen,...
    Full ack, a browser is more important than... an email client for example.
    Better not rely on Fab.
    Pegasos II G4: MorphOS 3.9, Zalman M220W · iMac G5 12,1
    Power Mac G3: OSX 10.3 · PowerBook 5,8: OSX 10.5, MorphOS 3.11
  • »24.03.19 - 01:18
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    NewSense
    Posts: 787 from 2012/11/10
    From: Manchester, UK/GB
    I agree as well, OWB is a core program for MorphOS, and requires regular updates to keep it relevant, which is no simple task, I would imagine, especially as it seems that WebKit is basically out-of-date anyway. It has to be funded somehow, as such a lot of maintainance requires recompense for anyone involved in carrying out these necessary updates.

    I would consider a yearly payment to be a fair option, or any other method of paying for the updates, so that it remains useable for the future of MorphOS.

    Maybe even users of Amiga OS4 could be persuaded to join the bounty or some annual, or any other type of payment option, as I believe they are suffering more with their older and thus more incompatible version of OWB.

    We are all in this together, as IBrowse v2.5, if it ever gets released, is not going to be a modern alternative to OWB, and no-one is looking out for us, so we must maintain it ourselves, with our own finances it seems.
    MacMini 1.5GHz,10,2,64MB VRAM,1GB RAM,Airport, Bluetooth,A1016 Keyboard,T-RB22 Mouse,DVD-RW-DL+CD-RW,Iomega MiniMax,Belkin 6 port 3 x Firewire/3 x USB2,MorphOS 3.11,Mac OSX 10.4/10.5,A1138+A1139 PwrBk MOS v3.11,Model 5,8/5,9, & PowerMac G5 2.3GHz (DP)
  • »24.03.19 - 04:21
    Profile
  • MorphOS Developer
    jacadcaps
    Posts: 1787 from 2003/3/5
    From: Poland
    Quote:

    polluks wrote:
    Full ack, a browser is more important than... an email client for example.
    Better not rely on Fab.


    Since we're in a trolling mode I see, let me tell you that I am looking into merging Fab's Odyssey into a 2017 state of WebKit with internetzel's patches included. If you guys feel like collecting some money for this cause will help - you are right. Do note, however, that any work I do is and will be exclusive to MorphOS.

    WTF and JSCore are already patched by the way. Digging through WebCore right now. There's a lot of stuff that is totally obsolete in Fab's patches so a feature set of any new browser will be different than the old one.
  • »24.03.19 - 09:03
    Profile Visit Website
  • Moderator
    Kronos
    Posts: 1880 from 2003/2/24
    Any specific reason why that would be a 2017 WebKit?
    What would we be missing compared to a recent one?
    What would that mean regarding future updates?

    Bout a bounty:
    What can we expect beyond the current OWB?
    Are we talking months, years or just "2 more weeks"?
    Are 50Zł enough? (*runs*)
    --------------------- May the 4th be with you ------------------
    Mother Russia dance of the Zar, don't you know how lucky you are
  • »24.03.19 - 11:17
    Profile
  • ASiegel
    Posts: 1135 from 2003/2/15
    From: Central Europe
    Quote:

    Kronos wrote:
    Any specific reason why that would be a 2017 WebKit?

    Because this happens to be most recent version that has already been adapted for big endian CPUs by internetzel for his "leopard-webkit" project.

    Quote:

    What would we be missing compared to a recent one?

    This is a bit of a loaded question. I think it makes more sense to focus on what can be gained from this, which is a browser engine that is 3 years newer than what you have on MorphOS now.

    With regard to general compatibility, a 2 years old version is not that much worse than a week's old version. Mainstream online services are not generally designed to only work with a tiny subset of browser versions that happen to be the most recent ones.

    If you know of a popular website that fails with our special 'tuned' 2014 version of Webkit, feel free to test it with leopard-webkit on MacOS. Chances are very good, the website will work.
  • »24.03.19 - 11:41
    Profile
  • Moderator
    Kronos
    Posts: 1880 from 2003/2/24
    Well "loaded question" or not, my 3rd one was the real issue here, would a 2017 WebKit turn into another deadend by 202x? Or will it be possible to trail behind bleeding edge for a longer time (aka a 2020 WebKit by 2022).

    I don't expect a definite answer, just wether there are some major roadblocks ahead.
    --------------------- May the 4th be with you ------------------
    Mother Russia dance of the Zar, don't you know how lucky you are
  • »24.03.19 - 12:01
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    Intuition
    Posts: 1050 from 2013/5/24
    From: Englistan
    Quote:

    jacadcaps wrote:
    Quote:

    polluks wrote:
    Full ack, a browser is more important than... an email client for example.
    Better not rely on Fab.


    Since we're in a trolling mode I see, let me tell you that I am looking into merging Fab's Odyssey into a 2017 state of WebKit with internetzel's patches included. If you guys feel like collecting some money for this cause will help - you are right. Do note, however, that any work I do is and will be exclusive to MorphOS.

    WTF and JSCore are already patched by the way. Digging through WebCore right now. There's a lot of stuff that is totally obsolete in Fab's patches so a feature set of any new browser will be different than the old one.


    This will include the PPC JIT for JavaScript I assume?
    1.67GHz 15" PowerBook G4, 1GB RAM, 128MB Radeon 9700M Pro, 64GB SSD, MorphOS 3.9

    2.7GHz DP G5, 4GB RAM, 512MB Radeon X1950 Pro, OSX 10.5.8, 500GB SSHD, MorphOS 3.9
  • »24.03.19 - 12:15
    Profile
  • ASiegel
    Posts: 1135 from 2003/2/15
    From: Central Europe
    Quote:

    Kronos wrote:
    Well "loaded question" or not, my 3rd one was the real issue here, would a 2017 WebKit turn into another deadend by 202x? Or will it be possible to trail behind bleeding edge for a longer time (aka a 2020 WebKit by 2022).

    I don't expect a definite answer, just wether there are some major roadblocks ahead.

    As you know, the major roadblock has been the fact that browser engine developers have abandoned big endian processor architectures. This is unlikely to change.

    While there have not been any updates for a year, it is still possible that internetzel will adapt a newer 2019 version of Webkit, which would simplify upgrading Odyssey to the latest and greatest Webkit as well.

    Also, if MorphOS eventually supports little endian processors, then this would remove said major roadblock for future OS releases once and for all but this does not help people who are attached to their PowerPC machines but would still like to use a newer web browser.
  • »24.03.19 - 12:32
    Profile
  • MorphOS Developer
    jacadcaps
    Posts: 1787 from 2003/3/5
    From: Poland
    Quote:

    Intuition wrote:
    This will include the PPC JIT for JavaScript I assume?



    That is out of scope at the moment. And depends on bigfoot entirely.
  • »24.03.19 - 12:56
    Profile Visit Website
  • MorphOS Developer
    jacadcaps
    Posts: 1787 from 2003/3/5
    From: Poland
    Quote:

    Kronos wrote:
    Well "loaded question" or not, my 3rd one was the real issue here, would a 2017 WebKit turn into another deadend by 202x? Or will it be possible to trail behind bleeding edge for a longer time (aka a 2020 WebKit by 2022).

    I don't expect a definite answer, just wether there are some major roadblocks ahead.


    Not going to commit to anything at this stage, sorry. There are two immediate benefits of the work I'm doing: a) getting a 2017 state of WebKit, b) having a clean patch. Fab's patch is HUGE and contains tons of bloat (like plenty of useless Qt files). This may make any work on future integrations a bit easier.
  • »24.03.19 - 13:17
    Profile Visit Website
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    koszer
    Posts: 907 from 2004/2/8
    From: Poland
    OK, long story short: Whom do I need to pay and how much?
  • »24.03.19 - 14:12
    Profile
  • MorphOS Developer
    jacadcaps
    Posts: 1787 from 2003/3/5
    From: Poland
    @koszer

    I think you should chill for now. I'm done reviewing/applying Fab's patch and will be attempting to build stuff soon. It may still turn out that nothing working will come of this though.

    But if you really want to support the work that I'm doing, Iris has a PayPal button.
  • »24.03.19 - 14:35
    Profile Visit Website
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    Intuition
    Posts: 1050 from 2013/5/24
    From: Englistan
    Quote:

    jacadcaps wrote:
    Quote:

    polluks wrote:
    Full ack, a browser is more important than... an email client for example.
    Better not rely on Fab.


    Since we're in a trolling mode I see, let me tell you that I am looking into merging Fab's Odyssey into a 2017 state of WebKit with internetzel's patches included. If you guys feel like collecting some money for this cause will help - you are right. Do note, however, that any work I do is and will be exclusive to MorphOS.


    You don't plan on giving any changes you make back upstream or to the leopard-webkit guy?

    I know you don't have to to comply with the licence but this makes me sad. :(

    [ Edited by Intuition 24.03.2019 - 14:30 ]
    1.67GHz 15" PowerBook G4, 1GB RAM, 128MB Radeon 9700M Pro, 64GB SSD, MorphOS 3.9

    2.7GHz DP G5, 4GB RAM, 512MB Radeon X1950 Pro, OSX 10.5.8, 500GB SSHD, MorphOS 3.9
  • »24.03.19 - 15:28
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    Intuition
    Posts: 1050 from 2013/5/24
    From: Englistan
    Quote:

    jacadcaps wrote:
    Quote:

    Intuition wrote:
    This will include the PPC JIT for JavaScript I assume?



    That is out of scope at the moment. And depends on bigfoot entirely.


    Oh I see.

    Hopefully he'll find the time and motivation to adapt his jit to work with your new build.
    1.67GHz 15" PowerBook G4, 1GB RAM, 128MB Radeon 9700M Pro, 64GB SSD, MorphOS 3.9

    2.7GHz DP G5, 4GB RAM, 512MB Radeon X1950 Pro, OSX 10.5.8, 500GB SSHD, MorphOS 3.9
  • »24.03.19 - 15:29
    Profile
  • ASiegel
    Posts: 1135 from 2003/2/15
    From: Central Europe
    Quote:

    Intuition wrote:
    I know you don't have to to comply with the licence but this makes me sad. :(

    Edit: Removed.
  • »24.03.19 - 16:21
    Profile
  • MorphOS Developer
    jacadcaps
    Posts: 1787 from 2003/3/5
    From: Poland
    Quote:

    Intuition wrote:
    You don't plan on giving any changes you make back upstream or to the leopard-webkit guy?
    I know you don't have to comply with the licence but this makes me sad. :(


    Upstream? You mean get them integrated by Apple? And what do you mean by 'not complying'? Which license are you talking about?

    I don't think there would be any changes the leopard-webkit guy would like to integrate since I am basically working off his branch.
  • »24.03.19 - 16:24
    Profile Visit Website
  • Moderator
    Kronos
    Posts: 1880 from 2003/2/24
    I guess you 2 missed the 2nd "to" in that sentence ;)

    Seems like that Intuition is implying that making your changes available is not mandatory.

    No idea wether thats really the case with the WebKit licence.....
    --------------------- May the 4th be with you ------------------
    Mother Russia dance of the Zar, don't you know how lucky you are
  • »24.03.19 - 16:29
    Profile
  • ASiegel
    Posts: 1135 from 2003/2/15
    From: Central Europe
    Quote:

    Kronos wrote:
    I guess you 2 missed the 2nd "to" in that sentence ;)

    Fair enough.

    Quote:

    Seems like that Intuition is implying that making your changes available is not mandatory. No idea wether thats really the case with the WebKit licence.....

    That is not generally the case. If you modify certain parts of Webkit, you must share these specific changes in order to comply with the license. Webkit uses both LGPL and BSD.
  • »24.03.19 - 16:37
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    KennyR
    Posts: 656 from 2003/3/4
    From: #AmigaZeux, Gu...
    Quote:

    jacadcaps wrote:
    Quote:

    polluks wrote:
    Full ack, a browser is more important than... an email client for example.
    Better not rely on Fab.


    Since we're in a trolling mode I see


    I'm not sure that's trolling, just poorly worded.

    It makes perfect sense not to rely on the goodwill of a single person for something as essential as a platform's only modern browser. For a start, that's not fair on Fab, who I assume has a life outside his computer and things he'd rather spend it on than update his software for free forever. Involving other people to lighten the burden, or failing that, then a bounty to reward that work seems reasonable enough to me.
  • »24.03.19 - 17:37
    Profile
  • MorphOS Developer
    jacadcaps
    Posts: 1787 from 2003/3/5
    From: Poland
    @KennyR

    Fab hasn't been active since the last bounty, so this is not a matter of lightening the burden but taking over.
  • »24.03.19 - 17:50
    Profile Visit Website
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    takemehomegrandma
    Posts: 2579 from 2003/2/24
    I think it’s a great idea! :-)

    Related to this, is a small-endian version of MorphOS still in the cards? At all?
    MorphOS is Amiga done right! :-)
    MorphOS NG will be AROS done right! :-)
  • »24.03.19 - 18:13
    Profile
  • Butterfly
    Butterfly
    bennymee
    Posts: 90 from 2004/4/14
    From: Netherlands
    Quote:

    NewSense wrote:
    I agree as well, OWB is a core program for MorphOS, and requires regular updates to keep it relevant, which is no simple task, I would imagine, especially as it seems that WebKit is basically out-of-date anyway. It has to be funded somehow, as such a lot of maintainance requires recompense for anyone involved in carrying out these necessary updates.

    I would consider a yearly payment to be a fair option, or any other method of paying for the updates, so that it remains useable for the future of MorphOS.

    Maybe even users of Amiga OS4 could be persuaded to join the bounty or some annual, or any other type of payment option, as I believe they are suffering more with their older and thus more incompatible version of OWB.

    We are all in this together, as IBrowse v2.5, if it ever gets released, is not going to be a modern alternative to OWB, and no-one is looking out for us, so we must maintain it ourselves, with our own finances it seems.


    Why not make it larger and include 68K too ?
  • »24.03.19 - 19:17
    Profile
  • ASiegel
    Posts: 1135 from 2003/2/15
    From: Central Europe
    Quote:

    bennymee wrote:
    Why not make it larger and include 68K too ?

    Because there is no AOS 68k port of Odyssey that could be updated to use a newer version of Webkit.
  • »24.03.19 - 19:34
    Profile