Hello all, ;)
I am testing Otter-browser for at least 2 months now. Installing all the new weekly builds available. (on my Xubuntu 14.10 daily dev). I am impressed with fast pace of development of Otter too.
My main wish is to test Otter-browser with latest WebKit nightlies (http://nightly.webkit.org/).
Would it be possible to implement new webkit for next Otter versions?
Or... Can you please provide manual for me how to use WebKit Nightly build it in my own Otter-43dev browser on my linux system. Thanks.
I'm not the expert here, but I'm afraid that making a new QtWebkit out of plain WebKit is probably not entirely trivial.
:hi: In short, useragentstring currently shows for Otter this:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/538.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Otter/0.9.03 weekly #43 Safari/538.1
What version is WebKit 538.1 ? Is it some upstream chanell, or stable branch? How is created QtWebkit from WebKit. Which sources are used? Is WebKit-r174650.tar.bz2 or any preceding build from nightly.webkit.org used for creating QtWebKt for Otter-browser?
Simply saying, I just want to know more about what core layout engine is used in Otter-browser and how this affect software development and release policy.
I believe that normally QtWebKit isn't something you build but something that comes precompiled with Qt. While you could build it, it probably wouldn't give you anything extra and it'd take up an awful lot of (CPU) time. There are some build instructions here (http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/QtWebKit). Also note that QtWebEngine will become the default in the future.
I found little bit more info I searched for on their release policy.
http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/QtWebKitReleases
http://qt-project.org/wiki/Branch-Guidelines
Thanks.
Going with Otter :knight:
I believe that normally QtWebKit isn't something you build but something that comes precompiled with Qt.
It's actually part of the source tarball. And it's not like QT 5 isn't a monstrosity on its own :right:
The source tarball for Qt, you mean? I don't think it comes with Otter. :P
Yes, the QT source. I think it is bigger than the source for most operating systems it runs on :right:
I like QtWebKit more than WebKit alone. :idea: It is good that your project do not rely completely on Google or Apple.
As I reviewed many user agent strings, :sherlock: it appears to me that Blink layout engine (now used in modern Chrome and modern Opera) is always self-identify itself with "AppleWebKit/537.36" with absolutely no change in core numbering since Blink started. In other words Chrome 32 (1 year or more old) has pretty same Webkit-Blink version like Chrome 40 dev. The same appers for modern Maxthon, SRWare Iron, Chromium, Opera, Konqueror, Epiphany, Midori, Arora and other, mostly horrible, chrome copies. Using Qt5 is therefore revolutionary effort to resist Google's monoculture. At least a try.
The Otter-browser with QtWebKit 538.1 should be actually newer than WebKit 537.36 in Chrome and others. Albeit the cores of QtWebKit, WebKit, Blink, are far from being the same. However, average user notice that they are. Almost! As the rendering of websites is so similar to each other. Otter, on the other hand, feels like old-Opera with improved security and speed. Keep it up!
:ko:
What annoys me about Midori is that it identifies itself with different AppleWebKit version numbers depending on what browser it tries to mimic, none of which has anything to do with the actual webkit version in use.
What annoys me about Midori is that it identifies itself with different AppleWebKit version numbers depending on what browser it tries to mimic, none of which has anything to do with the actual webkit version in use.
How do you know which actual version Midori use? Is it possible that Otter do that false by default too? I believe every browser should be proud of itself instead trying to pretend to be a "generic mess".
In case of Midori I have been able to manually add it via terminal to my repository. There is stable branch and dev. At least with dev version, there is possibility to "identify as Midori" (instead of "Default" settings, while other options are even more messy).
Albeit the cores of QtWebKit, WebKit, Blink, are far from being the same.
Even now, 18 months later, I'd say that Blink is just another Webkit for most intents and purposes. Although it did manage to fix one of my long-standing Webkit annoyances (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=13.msg28137#msg28137).
How do you know which actual version Midori use?
I built it all from source ( ok, via pkgsrc, but still :left: )
Is it possible that Otter do that false by default too?
Certainly possible.
I believe every browser should be proud of itself instead trying to pretend to be a "generic mess".
I agree completely.
In case of Midori I have been able to manually add it via terminal to my repository. There is stable branch and dev. At least with dev version, there is possibility to "identify as Midori" (instead of "Default" settings, while other options are even more messy).
That's the setting I'm using ( well, not right now obviously, but so far I didn't have the time & nerve to make webkit work on sparc64 )
@Josh M, QtWebKit cannot be directly compared to any version of upstream WebKit, AFAIK last big sync was done last year and since then they simply apply selected patches and add own fixes.
So it's more like a fork than just a port.
We could try to do our own fork of engine (easiest way would be to have a set of patches on top of upstream QtWebKit) but that would be very big effort (and pain for end users or people responsible for packaging), especially after Apple will abandon it in favor of WebKit2.
We can reconsider that in future, so far we have too limited manpower to handle it...
@Macallan, nah, in case of source code of Qt 5.4.0 beta all modules (except QtWebKit and QtWebEngine) are 491 MiB in total (including documentation which adds extra megabytes) while QtWebEngine (Blink) alone is 781 MiB and QtWebKit is 251 MiB.
@Emdek, Thanks for reply.