Development :  K-Meleon Forum
K-Meleon development related discussions. 
Pages: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
why not use khtml?
Posted by: karlo
Date: February 13, 2005 03:36PM

why don't you use khtml?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: Pu7o
Date: February 17, 2005 02:24AM

because khtml and windows don't match?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: ra
Date: February 17, 2005 05:28AM

And what/where would be the benefits anyway? smiling smiley

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: karlo
Date: February 18, 2005 06:36PM

a new experience. because windows users are pissed off with gecko.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: Drahken
Date: February 20, 2005 12:34AM

There is a KHTML for windows project on sourceforge, but it doesn't have any files released yet. Having options is always good.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: guenter
Date: February 20, 2005 03:53AM

having trolls also - every forum should feed one.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: Drahken
Date: February 20, 2005 11:43PM

Just need to build a bridge for them to guard.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: Drahken
Date: February 21, 2005 03:30AM

Seriously though, I think his point was that khtml is supposed to be the fastest engine, and gecko has a reputation for being slow.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: rmn
Date: February 21, 2005 03:55PM

There's a working GTK port of Apple's Webcore KHTML. Since GTK has a Windows port, perhaps someday there will be a Windows port of a GTK port of a Mac port of a KDE app. Fun, isn't it?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: sensai
Date: February 21, 2005 11:33PM

I doubt that it would be funny, the result would be bloat imho. Some months ago I tested an irc-client based on gtk (don't remember the name yet, but I might have a look) which was slow, bloated, and presupposed having gtk installed (which is about ~14MB) to run and the result wasn't more than a buggy gui-environment.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: Drahken
Date: February 22, 2005 03:46AM

Just to make it even more fun, why not throw several layers of emulators into the mix. You could emulate a linux emulating a PC, emulating a mac, emulating a PC, with an x86 emulator (which doesn't emulate an OS, but allows you to install any x86 compatible OS onto the emulator), emulating a different flavor of linux, emulatoing unix, with a windows port of a GTK port of a mac port of a KDE port of a.............

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: Brian
Date: February 22, 2005 01:04PM

huh. wow.
i think k-meleon should stick with the gecko engine. despite its bulkiness, the gecko engine is widely supported and seems to be the most widely used html rendering engine out there(other than IE).
maybe some other person will come out with a khtml version of k-meleon or something if they have enough spare time. Who knows.

Brian

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: Drahken
Date: February 23, 2005 05:16AM

I would like to see some windows based browser that uses khtml, so just I can see how well it works.
Also, if khtml is as fast as the claims indicate (and doesn't sacrifice too much in the way of accuracy to achieve the speed), I think it would be a perfect compliment to k-meleon. KM is perhaps the smallest/fastest browser available for windows (not counting the text-only ones), but is hindered by the slowness and bloat of the gecko engine. If KM was coupled with a rendering engine that was also fast and lightweight, it could be an awesome browser.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: guenter
Date: February 26, 2005 05:37AM

gecko engine is IMHO smaller than msie engine - go mfc embed pages at mozilla -
- the bulky part is the chrome - k-m discards all chrome not needed
- that makes him light. kind regards

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: rmn
Date: February 26, 2005 05:32PM

I'm sure that when/if a KHTML port for Windows is available, there will be many small KHTML-based browsers. Until then, well, we can only wait.


> KM is perhaps the smallest/fastest browser available for windows (not counting the text-only ones)

You forgot Opera (especially earlier versions), OffByOne, and MfcEmbed. smiling smiley

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: Drahken
Date: February 26, 2005 08:47PM

Opera isn't smaller than KM (early versions perhaps, but not more recent ones). I don't count offbyone because it's incomplete in it's support of standards and whatnot, it's only about as adavanced as IE4 or NS3 (at least as of the last time I tried it, a few years ago). Never seen mfcembed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: guenter
Date: February 27, 2005 03:25AM

hi Drahken,
I agree k-m is the smallest modern full browser. (Operas that are smal are quite old)

haos latest has a mfcembed.exe that is operational.

(many experimental full Mozillas and some of the test 0.9 that preceded release are also accompanied by that exe - with k-m it is used for testing whether a bug comes from Gecko or k-m side of the new browser)

mfcembed.exe is the father of k-m in a way.
k-m is only bigger by the kplugins which are about 600 kb.
and about 90 kb that are in k-m.exe.
regards

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: mlog
Date: March 03, 2005 04:05AM

"(Operas that are smal are quite old)"

ugh? smiling smiley I dont understand..

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: guenter
Date: March 03, 2005 02:10PM

the older 3 and 5 version Opera browsers were small and full browsers.
but they are outdated by now. how old - just check via Google ; o )

sorry for my bad English

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: Jeff
Date: April 16, 2005 01:11PM

Huh? A fresh install of Opera is well under 5mb, can be kept and used under 4mb if you don't use mail/cache, and the installer is 1mb smaller than k-meleon's.
tongue sticking out smiley

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: root
Date: May 14, 2005 03:31PM

The Gecko engine itself is what is bloated IMHO.

Anyone who says it is not, well you must have never tried running any gecko-browser on pentium 1.

Does not matter if Windows or Unix, KM or Galeon or any of the other number of non-chrome interfaces (GTK etc). Any KHTML or WebCore browser will spank the Gecko into oblivion on that old Pentium 1.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: Eyes-Only
Date: May 23, 2005 01:05AM

I think one of the biggest problems is when you seem to open just about any Gecko file, be it in the chrome, or anywhere (from my experience anyway), you have a head of licensing information that can take up many, many lines---and then sometimes just a connecting URL to another file! So here you open a file that's 1,028kb in size only to find it's all licensing info for that!

What ought to be done instead (and I think Jan did this with one of his chromes---Guenter can correct me if I'm wrong?) was to cut out ALL that licensing info and place it into one independent text file, and thus cutting the size of that chrome down remarkably!

I recently did something similar with a theme I was just fooling around with in Mozilla Suite (Pinstripe---didn't have a clue what I was doing but did exchange icons), and just on the licensing info alone I cut 1 whole meg!

It does sort of make you wonder sometimes, "What if...?", now doesn't it? ;)

Amicalement,

Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge d'Acadie"

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: rmn
Date: May 23, 2005 12:06PM

I Am Not A Laywer (TM), but I doubt the legality of redistributing a GPL-covered file that is stripped off its copyright/license information. At least that's according to my understanding of GPL.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: fast sjonny
Date: May 25, 2005 08:00PM

Hi Eyes-Only,

Did you also compare the speed of your cleaned chrome (without the licencing) with the original?
I had a discussion a long time ago about it in the moz-newsgroup, and not everyone was sure if it would make a difference. But I have the feeling it is ;-)))

Jan

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: Eyes-Only
Date: May 25, 2005 11:04PM

Hi Jan, rmn,

@Jan: Actually, I doubt this would've made any difference at all, except in perhaps startup time of the Suite, and even then I doubt that it'd have done anything, as it was just a theme in the profile folder. On second thought, it wouldn't even have made a difference on startup time as it's just loading the files it sees in the script---so even if there are excess .png files in the .jar it makes no difference, other than in weight of the .jar. And that's what I was trying to cut down immediately was the kb size of the .jar file because I still wasn't sure (not being my own theme) what code was reading what file, etc.

@rmn: I seriously doubt this as well. What I mean is, in what I wrote was that the text was all being removed from each and every file. This text reads almost word-for-word the same, I think just being changed a little as the years went by and the license was updated---but it was never updated in that particular file from which you're deleting it. So get the updated license, put it in ONE txt file, and place that one txt file in your chrome directory, components directory, or wherever it's best needed (I vote chrome as people tend to go there the most) and as a header say that this is a blanket licensing of ALL necessary Mozilla files (or however those who speak legalese can best put it). Seems so that would cover it a lot better than the current system of adding a meg or more of the same licensing over and over and over... ad infinium, ad nauseum...

But that's just my 2½¢ and how I'd do it---and I'd attach my email and name as well. I can stand a few years in the pokey with 3 meals a day and my medical taken care of. ;)

Amicalement,

Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge d'Acadie"

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: guenter
Date: May 27, 2005 01:23PM

@ Jan - agreed; will be faster - not much but with a k-b for each block messurable.
& the size of a full additional chrome is = 10 secomnds here... @old p500.
& thx for the chrome U made = still in use. regards

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: fast sjonny
Date: May 31, 2005 12:21AM

May be interesting topic I opened about cleaning the Chrome.
On my windows-pc it took me hours doing it by hand....

http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/forum/read.php?f=1&i=26880&t=26880

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: karlo
Date: July 30, 2005 11:42AM

Why not try to use kHTML first on K-Meleon even start from scratch, and see the resutls... let's not jump into different negatove conclusions first....

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: Ash100000
Date: May 16, 2006 04:49AM

It would make sence because K-meleon. KHTML. Makes sence. Right?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: why not use khtml?
Posted by: Andrew
Date: May 27, 2006 04:23AM

No - I don't think we want to start over from scratch, which is what you would have to do to run K-Meleon using KHTML (assuming you could even do that) just because the first letter of the two match.

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2


K-Meleon forum is powered by Phorum.