Netscape source reality checks

Netscape source reality checks

Post by Sailesh Krishnamurth » Sun, 25 Jan 1998 04:00:00




> of curiousities.  I'd like to see how Netscape manages UNIX and
> Windows source in the same files.

There are three front-ends (x,win and mac), and most of the rest of the
code is cross-platform (xp).

Quote:>   * Sockets to the net are about the same in UNIX and Windows.

Things like sockets are provided by a core layer which implements this
for various platforms.

Quote:> So, if an organized Linux project for Netscape source gets under way,
> what is the first thing we're likely to do?  Rip out all the WIN32
> specific #ifdefs?

IMO, this is a bad idea. Netscape spends a lot of time ensuring that the
sources compile on all platforms at all times. I think this is a good
thing. Of course it's possible that somethings can be cleaned up.

--
Cheers
Sailesh (http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/krish/homepage.real.html)
Ph: (408) 257-7314

 
 
 

Netscape source reality checks

Post by Steven H. Parke » Sun, 25 Jan 1998 04:00:00



> > So, if an organized Linux project for Netscape source gets under way,
> > what is the first thing we're likely to do?  Rip out all the WIN32
> > specific #ifdefs?

> IMO, this is a bad idea. Netscape spends a lot of time ensuring that the
> sources compile on all platforms at all times. I think this is a good
> thing. Of course it's possible that somethings can be cleaned up.

Well, if we turned Netscape into a truely awesome browser, and then
integrated it in a sensible way  intoa real great GUI shell for UNIX,
then it would be a killer app that Windows didn't have.  Then people
would have a reason to run Linux instead of Windows. [As if they don't
already. :)]

Keep in mind that UNIX does things that Win32 can't.  Ever seen the Perl
port to Win32?  I think it is very likely that some great things will be
done with the Netscape code base that CANNOT be ported to Windows,
simply because Windows lacks certain functionality.

-SHP

 
 
 

Netscape source reality checks

Post by Rick Kwa » Sun, 25 Jan 1998 04:00:00


If you play with the W3C sample implementation source code on
both UNIX and Windows NT, what Netscape is doing raises all sorts
of curiousities.  I'd like to see how Netscape manages UNIX and
Windows source in the same files.

Some observations:

  * Sockets to the net are about the same in UNIX and Windows.

  * Windows WIN32 and X11 are two completely different beasts.

  * Files, windows, console (if any) and network sockets are all
    managed differently in Windows.  You certainly can't sit on
    the list of file descriptors with select().

So, if an organized Linux project for Netscape source gets under way,
what is the first thing we're likely to do?  Rip out all the WIN32
specific #ifdefs?

Alternatively, anyone out there want the responsibility to make sure
that the same source will build in a Linux/GNU environment and
WIN32/MSDEV environment?

Regarding proprietary components.  Can we find replacements for them?
(RSA, COSMOS, INSO, etc.)  Can we live without some of them?

A side note:  W3C is giving up on maintenance of the sample
implementation source code; they're trying to find a new home for
it, as was done for Arena.  With Netscape (Mozilla?) source coming
out into the open, comparison and integration of the two is going
to be really interesting.

--Rick Kwan

 
 
 

Netscape source reality checks

Post by James Youngma » Tue, 27 Jan 1998 04:00:00


  Rick> Regarding proprietary components.  Can we find replacements
  Rick> for them?  (RSA, COSMOS, INSO, etc.)  Can we live without some
  Rick> of them?

Have a look at ftp.replay.com.  Thankfully, that site is *already*
outside the USA.

 
 
 

Netscape source reality checks

Post by The Thought Assassi » Wed, 28 Jan 1998 04:00:00




> Keep in mind that UNIX does things that Win32 can't.  Ever seen the Perl
> port to Win32?  

"be grateful that There Is More Than One Way To Do It, because most of them
don't work in WIN32 perl"

I _think_ it was larry himself that said this:)

-Greg(no more offtopic than any of you guys:)

 
 
 

1. Double Checking Sun's Reality Check

Recently (I think it was yesterday) I saw a post by someone wondering
about an article from Sun lambasting the running of Linux on the z800. I
found this excellent refutation by Moshe Bar who also explains how he got
Linux S/390 running on his own personal box. An interesting read just for
that bit, I think.

http://www.byte.com/documents/s=7030/byt1015006951867/0304_moshe.html

Quote:
"Sun's article also says that Linux is really designed for the PC
architecture (ostensibly, the x86) and not for other platforms such as the
mainframe's S/390. And another argument against Linux on the mainframe is
that the Linux virtual memory manager is not suited to run within a
virtual computer like z/VM because its generous allocation of buffer cache
conflicts with I/O buffers already allocated by z/VM for its guest OS.

"That is pure nonsense. In the 2.4 kernels, buffer cache utilization is
much lower than in previous versions; most stuff goes into the page cache.
Actual paging for most commercial applications is close to zero. RAM is
cheap and abundant. In many years of consulting I have yet to see a
production-duty Linux server paging in any significant amount. Add to that
z/VM's capability to restrict the RAM allocated to the guest machine and
Sun's argument becomes null and void."

2. syquest syjet drive

3. Virtual Reality Modeling Language (Virtual Reality)

4. Is there a Chicago area LUG?

5. I had a reality check today :(

6. Remote X apps fall asleep for no reason??

7. OpenVMS and OE MVS - reality check

8. PC/TCP Question

9. Reality Check (re 16450 UART)

10. Cold feet or Reality Check?

11. Reality check.

12. Reality check: 8MB, Linux, and Internet

13. Reality Check