WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: dillo_3.1_FLTK versus netsurf_3.10_GTK3  (Read 935 times)

Offline nick65go

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
dillo_3.1_FLTK versus netsurf_3.10_GTK3
« on: November 16, 2021, 11:26:03 AM »
Could you share what BIG differences do you find inconvenient in TC12_x86, between dillo_3.1 and netsurf_3.10 ?
I find no missing info in many pages which I visited. Just a little different layout pages because dillo is missing frames. 
Below I listed only the advantages (+) or disadvantages (-), but not common features.

netsurf 3.10 (GTK3):
+ support for frames and iframes
+ global history navigation
+ the HTML5 specification (by library Hubbub)
+ rendering PNG, GIF, JPG, BMP, ICO (but no SVG, TIFF, PDF)
+ early-stage JavaScript support Ducktape ??
+ paginated PDF ??
+ most of the HTML 4 and CSS 2.1
+ page thumbnailing (not compiled in TC version)


dillo 3.1 (FLTK 1.3) with HTTPS:
+ smaller total RAM
- only back/foreword history
- rendering only: PNG, GIF, JPG (but not BMP, ICO)
- cookie management; only before starting dillo
- no international fonts (Russian)
+ download management missing

 Until now the (+) for netsurf are HTM5, i-frames and better navigation. Are any more not listed features for you to prefer netsurf?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2021, 11:29:52 AM by nick65go »

Offline polikuo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
Re: dillo_3.1_FLTK versus netsurf_3.10_GTK3
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2021, 12:42:27 AM »
- no international fonts (Russian)

Dillo does support international fonts.

You just need some tweaking.

Load these 2 extensions on CorePure64: dillo-xft, fltk-xft

Offline nick65go

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
Re: dillo_3.1_FLTK versus netsurf_3.10_GTK3
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2021, 02:48:44 AM »
@polikuo: thanks for the tip, I will try it. In the mean time I talk about x86 (not x86_64).
Because if I use the browser in the machines with big RAM (> 1- 2MB), then the difference in RAM consumption between GTK2 and GT3 is 3 MB. So even dinosaurs like Firefox runs in 500 MB RAM.

My focus is/was in a secured environment (qemu), with minimal RAM requested. Because qemu RAM is taken from main host RAM (which maybe is needed for many independent VM). So the choise will be Xvesa (no need for UEFI in VM), smallest GUI kit (FLTK) and smallest browser (dillo). And should have [modern] internet SSL requested by web-sites etc.

I tested dillo-3.1 on arbitrary chosen sites, like bbc.co.uk and file://, in parallel with netsurf_3.10. And I shared my findings. I use only English menu/interfaces (smallest storage space in VM). The east fonts inside web-site [bbc.co.uk] pages (with Russian, Arabic fonts) where displayed OK in netsurf, but not in dillo.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2021, 03:06:03 AM by nick65go »

Offline nick65go

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
Re: dillo_3.1_FLTK versus netsurf_3.10_GTK3
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2021, 04:51:12 AM »
Another nasty problem nowadays is the dependency chain of NEW libraries. For using less RAM someone needs an old kernel version in a VM, because  qemu asks for "standard" /virtual devices (HDD, CDROM, NIC etc). No need for a ton of kernel drivers to compile.

But if a new "improved" dillo 3.1x version is linked to a (relatively) new libc (2.3x) instead of an old libc 1.x, then you can not "substitute" the lib chains (libc, fltk, etc) with old ones, because kernel API requested by libc 2.x functions is for the new kernel. That is the strong link kernel <-> libc correlation. I think I can not use a kernel 3.x with a libc 2.3 build for kernel 5.x

So basically all lib chain up to dillo should be re-compiled in an old environment (like tc 3,x -4.x) with the old kernel. Hm, I wish I am wrong, but I think nobody will do it for TC.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2021, 04:54:54 AM by nick65go »

Offline nick65go

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
Re: dillo_3.1_FLTK versus netsurf_3.10_GTK3
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2021, 03:20:55 PM »
I did a comparison in both TC12_x86 and TC12_x86_64, for parallel running dillo 3.1 and netsurf 3.9/3.10:
1. TC12_x86 provides dillo_3.1_FLTK and netsurf_3.10_GTK3.
2. TC12_x86_64 provides dillo-XFT_3.1_FLTK and netsurf_3.9_GTK3. (unfortunately is not available netsurf 3.10)

IMHO it is not a big difference between dillo and dillo_XFT; dillo-xft is better at popup/ annoying warnings about expired certificates.
 The business for CA valid certificates, issued by god-knows which "authority" bribing each other, then inventing others types of certificates etc, is non-sense war to me.

But netsurf 3.10 is better than netsurf 3.9 for some Est fonts (Russian, Arabic, etc). See the attached snapshots.
Personally I do not need these "alien" fonts because I do not understand these foreign languages anyway.

In the mean time I am tempted by dillo_3.02 (with libssl-0.8x) from TC_4.7, to see what I could gain / loose by using it in qemu.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2021, 03:27:16 PM by nick65go »

Offline nick65go

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
Re: dillo_3.1_FLTK versus netsurf_3.10_GTK3
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2021, 03:23:21 PM »
PS: and the TC12_x86_64 comparison here, because forum max. size restriction per post/attachment.