Hi gurus,
We, Company 100 Inc., is pleased to announce the availability of long-waited Dorothy Browser open beta for Windows Mobile 6.x!
Dorothy Browser, built upon WebKit engine, the best of breed browser engine, delivers the real Web experience to your mobile devices with unrivaled performance.
As an official contributor and maintainer of WebKit engine for Qualcomm BrewMP in the WebKit development community, we are dedicated to deliver the best performing mobile browsing experience to WM phone users, inheriting all the benefits from the open source WebKit community.
Please try out our latest beta version of our Dorothy Browser on your WM phones and experience yourself its flying performance.
The open beta can be downloaded from our Dorothy Browser website.
BTW, if you happen to be present at MWC in Barcelona, please swing by our booth, located in Hall1, 1F05, and check out our Dorothy Browser Emerald demo, an enhanced version of Dorothy Browser with advanced UI/UX leveraging OpenGL ES H/W acceleration.
Thanks for your interest in Dorothy Browser and hope you all enjoy it!!
Should you have any inquiry about our browser, please feel free to contact us at contact at company100 dot net any time.
I found this by doing a quick google search... But is there any particular reason why you do not share the url yourself??
Not really. The forum does not allow junior members to specify any external URL or email address inside the message.
mrcrowley666 said:
I found this by doing a quick google search... But is there any particular reason why you do not share the url yourself??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see... http://www.dorothybrowser.com/
I have tried this on 3 different sites so far with very mixed results.
It locked up my phone completly while trying to access google.co.uk This happened on 2 seperate occasions.
I tried touch.facebook.com and it renders this site very nicely indeed. I was most impressed with this one.
I also tried the full facebook site facebook.com I found it was able to render this site completly just how my desktop computer would. Very impressive Text was readable after zooming just a few times, even though the text was still tiny. Very slick rendering. Its a tad jerky while moving around the page i suspect my device is struggling a bit with the requirments.
I noticed ram usage is very high. I only had 25 mb left when i checked. Haven't seen a program use this much ram before.
All in all it looks very promising.
BTW my device is Omnia i900 with wm6.5
Just downloaded and installed the WVGA version. Massive improvement over the closed beta! Pages seem to load pretty fast too. Installed on Storage Card.
Bugs noticed:
* Can't zoom in or out when a webpage is still loading - as soon as a I try to scroll the page resets to overview mode.
* Settings page doesn't always show current settings (ie. Enable/Disable buttons appear to be not selected)
Feature Requests:
* Zoom slider and/or pinch-to-zoom please.
* Option to set manually the browser cache location
* User agent customisation
* (Optional) Flash support
Eagerly awaiting the next beta release. Thanks
Looks promising to me.
I have one request... Flash!
Thus far the only browser I've found that supports flash is SkyFire .. and I suppose Mach5 but you gotta pay for that one. Anyway both of those are server based browsers.
FLASH FLASH FLASH.
Gawwd is it too much to ask to watch HULU on my PPC?
Hulu has even blocked Skyfire now....grrrr
Can't detect server on my Touch Pro 2 on metro pcs. I can use it (browser) via wifi...but no data connection.
So i will stick to Opera 9.7....
mrcrowley666 said:
I have tried this on 3 different sites so far with very mixed results.
It locked up my phone completly while trying to access google.co.uk This happened on 2 seperate occasions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm, I actually had a similar problem with another website - for some reason it loaded up really slowly / not properly either. Opening the same website in Opera Mobile 10 beta 3 had on the same phone with the same connection it had no issues.
Thanks! I've tried, and...it eats so much ram! I prefer Skyfire, who have flash support.
TechnoHippie said:
FLASH FLASH FLASH.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Opera Mobile 10 (now in beta 3) supports flash, YMMV. Plugins need to be enabled in advanced options.
Plugin support is a must for mobile browsers now - Dorothy needs it as well, to stand a chance.
this is starting to become pretty cool. Interface looks good and pages look great after they render. Please think about including flick scrolling cuz it would help make moving through pages easier. It also seems buggy when trying to pan around. I hope you continue updating good ol dorothy! Big improvement over recent upgrades! please update us frequently too
Company100, can u guys use like a newer build of the Webkit browsing engine or something? Would like to be able to use the HTML5-enabled versions of GMail and the Google Buzz mobile websites.
Thanks
Life Saver.. Sort of
My entire peer set uses Gowalla which is only available for iPhone, Android, BlackBerry... basically every platform but WinMo. This is the first mobile browser that works with that particular site for WinMo. I still use Skyfire as my main browser for my Pure, but I bet the Emerald release of Dorothy will change that. I also found it faster on the sites it could access VS. Skyfire. So if you can hear me Company100 PLEASE include me in the beta as soon as possible for Emerald.
Shalom,
SAB
WOOOOW, I'm very impressed. Really cool browser. Rendering is awesome.
But needs some improvements in cinetic scrolling! and the browser graphics. Looks like a 90-tech-underground-site-style. Keep it simple and clean. Less is more
What about longpress menus? Like press'n'hold on a link opens a menu where you can open in another tab. OHHH, just saw it now. No tabbed browsing...
If I remember correctly, Webkit is partly LGPL licensed, more specifically, webcore is, that I know. I am unable to find source code related to Dorothy's port of Webkit on Winmo.
I understand that LGPL can be linked to closed-source applications, but the library themselves must comply with the license, which states that the source code must be disclosed.
As Dorothy browser does dynamically links to webkit (webkit-ce.dll), they do not have to release the source code of the application itself, only the source code of their branch of webkit. I think it is generally considered okay to not release themselves the code if the same exact code is available from another project's website. Additionally, the source code has to be as easily accessible than the binaries.
This post may seem harsh, and I am sorry if my tone is mistaken. I simply am curious and am not thinking that they are deliberately making it hard to get the source code. I think it is not malice, but simply carelessness. Those license are not easy to abide to.
[EDIT]
I will contact them directly too, but I posted there because I may have been blind and didn't see the source elsewere...
samueldr said:
If I remember correctly, Webkit is partly LGPL licensed, more specifically, webcore is, that I know. I am unable to find source code related to Dorothy's port of Webkit on Winmo.
I understand that LGPL can be linked to closed-source applications, but the library themselves must comply with the license, which states that the source code must be disclosed.
As Dorothy browser does dynamically links to webkit (webkit-ce.dll), they do not have to release the source code of the application itself, only the source code of their branch of webkit. I think it is generally considered okay to not release themselves the code if the same exact code is available from another project's website. Additionally, the source code has to be as easily accessible than the binaries.
This post may seem harsh, and I am sorry if my tone is mistaken. I simply am curious and am not thinking that they are deliberately making it hard to get the source code. I think it is not malice, but simply carelessness. Those license are not easy to abide to.
[EDIT]
I will contact them directly too, but I posted there because I may have been blind and didn't see the source elsewere...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does it exist something most updated or this project is "died"?
Related
Just a question, not really to the Vibrant but it's the phone I have.
Anyways, at school (tech dept) we use a program that we use for job requests. We can use the client or a web based version. but the Web Based requires IE to work properly. I tried loading it on the Dolphin but it doesn't seem to work on that or the Default browser. Is there anyway to get this to work on Andy?
We are looking to get Android Tablets for the techs and would like to use it.
Really biggest question is... is the site coded in asp (.Net derivative or otherwise)...
Second would be, are you ALLOWED to edit the source to comment out the IE requirement. (Assuming the site does browser detection).
Honestly, doubt you could make it work easily.... Unless the webclient doesnt do browser detection and its just on paper "IE only".
I'm in the same boat, IE only webapp (.net and ajax). I use PocketCloud vnc app to remote into a windows box and run it that way. Works well for me.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
Haxel said:
Really biggest question is... is the site coded in asp (.Net derivative or otherwise)...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How is that a factor?
ASP, ASP.NET, et. al .NET back-end frameworks, don't require IE.
lol
Teamviewer is another app that works awesome as well. Just install Teamveiwer android app and teamviewer on your computer and you will be able to remote in without much difficulty.
Basically what we want to do is have the tablets and be able to use the web based version of the app to push things out to comptuers/look up work orders. The program is called Altiris. So third party apps like Teamviewer wouldn't be needed.
From Altiris we can push updates, programs via scripts to all computers on the domain, and apparently the app requires IE.. I don't have the exact details. I have emailed our lead guy working with Altiris to see if we can edit the tag for IE requirement or changing the browser check, havent' heard anything yet.
EDIT: Sorry for being kind of vague and short on the OP.
We use Alteris at my company as well and from a user perspective it is one painful app to have to deal with. When it scans the computer it slows down the user computer like nothing else.
presence06 said:
Basically what we want to do is have the tablets and be able to use the web based version of the app to push things out to comptuers/look up work orders. The program is called Altiris. So third party apps like Teamviewer wouldn't be needed.
From Altiris we can push updates, programs via scripts to all computers on the domain, and apparently the app requires IE.. I don't have the exact details. I have emailed our lead guy working with Altiris to see if we can edit the tag for IE requirement or changing the browser check, havent' heard anything yet.
EDIT: Sorry for being kind of vague and short on the OP.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sounds like it's using active directory roles to do various things via built-in windows mechanisms.
A start would be to authenticate your device on the domain. No idea where to begin with that, though.
What mrxela was probably trying to say is that it could be using ActiveX. Do you know if this is the case?
Ian
It's kind a pain, esepeically when it goes down. But it is useful.
ipugh said:
How is that a factor?
ASP, ASP.NET, et. al .NET back-end frameworks, don't require IE.
lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
... oh lol your telling me a joke right? Your giving me a question then guessing answer to it... that must be your intent.
Based on coding, Firefox for various reasons does not acknowledge the "shortcuts" in code (usually the main reason asp sites do not work in FF, or "undocumented" microsoft api calls). Other browsers have similar issues, or may have a different issue with the same piece of code. Any more detail than that serves no purpose. So yes, ASP, ASP.NET and the framework can REQUIRE/ONLY work in IE. Thats why it is a factor.
I'll report back with hopefully some answers to these questions
Haxel said:
... oh lol your telling me a joke right? Your giving me a question then guessing answer to it... that must be your intent.
Based on coding, Firefox for various reasons does not acknowledge the "shortcuts" in code (usually the main reason asp sites do not work in FF, or "undocumented" microsoft api calls). Other browsers have similar issues, or may have a different issue with the same piece of code. Any more detail than that serves no purpose. So yes, ASP, ASP.NET and the framework can REQUIRE/ONLY work in IE. Thats why it is a factor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are unequivocally incorrect.
To say that IE is more lenient on various standards is one thing, but to describe it in such a fashion that you have is completely wrong.
A browser is not making "api" calls to "undocumented" Microsoft libraries. lol.. Further, a browser is interpreting markup that is controlled by the developer. As far as I know, there are no back-end frameworks that limit or control what markup you generate.
This has zero to do with Microsoft, and a lot to do with browser-specific javascript or markup, etc.
But really, you're incorrect and to purport your answer as being a solution or a reason is not only wrong, but could potentially derail his efforts.
Ian
I wish I had more info on altiris, we reviewed it about 2 years ago and went with Landesk and SCCM combo. I dont remember much about it, if its AD integrated you may have other issues to add on to your plate along with the browser detection.
I might be able to find the old install CD on our share and see, but wouldnt be until Monday that I could go to the office to find it.
ipugh said:
You are unequivocally incorrect.
To say that IE is more lenient on various standards is one thing, but to describe it in such a fashion that you have is completely wrong.
A browser is not making "api" calls to "undocumented" Microsoft libraries. lol
This has zero to do with Microsoft, and a lot to do with browser-specific javascript or markup, etc.
But really, you're incorrect and to purport your answer as being a solution or a reason is not only wrong, but could potentially derail his efforts.
Ian
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
oooh you must be a programmer, thats great. Over thinking is a programmers strong point. I have to fix that kind of stuff all the time. Up until later in the posting you didnt even know the software he was using.
As far as "undocumented api", you can embed .NET applications into the site (as you should know)... along with vbscript ect ect. Which with proprietary software they can/have added such in and gone OOPSIE DONT APPLY PATCH X OR IT WILL BREAK. (Which BTW is why some calls remain "undocumented" as microsoft is not sure they wish to keep it in the current form for whatever reason.) This can and does involve microsoft, or am I mistaken C# and the like is microsoft engineered and is using their own proprietary interpreter (.NET). Even if it is server side, the client side matters. Not to mention if it uses ActiveX...
I was giving the poor soul warning on speed bumps he MAY run across. Take it as you will. This wasnt an epeen contest.
Haxel said:
oooh you must be a programmer, thats great. Over thinking is a programmers strong point. I have to fix that kind of stuff all the time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Engineer. And I correct people who are incorrect on a regular basis.
Ian
Just to clarify, I have the pleasure of having to use a web based in-house app built in CF, app was coded with to specifically check for firefox client and disallow any other clients. Yes, it can be changed fairly easy to work with other browsers, but that's on infinite back-burner...
Another set of web apps is built in .NET with third party ajax modules. It does not run a client check, but no browser except IE6 and above is able to even load these applications. .vb code behind does not exist so no one can even begin to touch anything without messing up another process.
VNC and desktop clients are your ray of hope when you are knee deep in doo doo!
The Web Address/website needs Active X and has a .cab file that gets installed to use the Altiris web client..
Bump.
So if this site requires Active X to run properly is there a way to run it on a different browser or in Stock Android Browser?
presence06 said:
Bump.
So if this site requires Active X to run properly is there a way to run it on a different browser or in Stock Android Browser?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Active X is a Microsoft only technology and IE is the only browser that supports it. There are ways to do most things that can be done with Active X using other client side technologies and in some cases plug-ins, but it requires more work and a larger support footprint on the part of the developer. If the developer does not support or provide a plug-in for your browser or have an alternate page that will do the same thing in javascript then you are going to be stuck with IE.
On the Android mobile platform having add-on or plug-in ability means either using Dophin HD, or Firefox Mobile (used to be Fennec). However, this is a moot point since it sounds like the developers have chosen not to support the platform.
This is where pressure from clients that have purchased their software comes in. With the right pressure they may add the ability or at least put it in the roadmap for a future version, but for right now you are most likely stuck with Internet Exploder.
Not to sure if anyone has heard of Hexxeh before but here is a short wiki descript regarding Chromium OS builds: "By May 2010, compiled versions of the work-in-progress source code had been downloaded from the Internet more than a million times. The most popular version was created by Liam McLoughlin, a 17-year-old college student in Manchester, England, posting under the name "Hexxeh". McLoughlin's builds boot from a USB memory stick and included features that Google engineers had not yet implemented, such as support for the Java programming language"
Anyhow several Google videos show that he has successfully managed to boot one of his Chromium OS builds called "Flow" on a tablet. And was wondering if anyone has thought about doing this.
His main website: http://chromeos.hexxeh.net/
I've used Flow on a laptop. Not very useful on a tablet - it's basically just a back end for a web browser, with no (well, minimal) apps. Useful for giving to the kids to play web games without breaking your system. However, using the Android OS built for tablets you get access to all the apps.
Looks like someone is working on it!
http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/chrome-os-tablet-from-acer-outed-by-bug-reports-20110428/
http://www.htcdev.com
Finally! I can now sit down and make some pen apps....Well, when I get time anyway.
Does anyone know if this means an Android 3.X update is coming to the Flyer too then?
What kind of apps do you want to develop?
Productivity. I'm a web developer and designer, so I want to build some apps that will help with that... Ie. marking up comps and such.
Granted, I can just scribble over a page in the web browser, but I want just a few more features to that. Saving layered files is important, but also text annotations and such too. Possibly the ability to make a slideshow too.
Don't know just yet, but those are some immediate ideas.
I'm also hoping that the Autodesk sketch app gets updated for use with the pen too.
Well, the sample code pages for the pen show screenshots with honeycomb! So they have to have it working... I just hope they release it soon (and that it still runs as fast).
...
Note: the Pen API targets Android 3 and above only - except where noted below for the low level api where a compatibility example is provided.
...
Crap. Seriously? They release an SDK that we can't use (fully at least) because the devices aren't updated yet. Awesome.
Um, well more importantly... They also have kernel sources for their devices available for download from htcdev.com and a "coming soon" on, apparently a web based, bootloader unlocker. Cool!
Not so good...
Android apps on Chrome OS: hands-on and initial thoughts
http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/06/17/android-apps-on-chrome-os-hands-on-and-initial-thoughts/
As expected.....
lollyjay said:
Not so good...
Android apps on Chrome OS: hands-on and initial thoughts
http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/06/17/android-apps-on-chrome-os-hands-on-and-initial-thoughts/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay but you do realize it's on an unstable dev build on a Chromebook with one of the lowest-end processors in a Chromebook (ARM Rockchip)? Until it gets in the stable build and is also tested on other hardware (like the x86 Pixel), I wouldn't judge it too much.
Also, the privacy issues with ChromiumOS(not just ChromeOS), prevent it from being a real threat.
moriel5 said:
Also, the privacy issues with ChromiumOS(not just ChromeOS), prevent it from being a real threat.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not about the "threat" (let's not be religious here) - it's about the options.
I honestly prefer a google supported OS with google supported hardware instead of a hack like Remix OS.
Chromebooks are amazing tools. I am expecting Android apps on Chromebooks to cause a very deep disruption in the PC market.
note the asus flip is the only chromebook with arm chip in the 3 ones that get the m53 dev update.
so i assume for the moment only the arm code is ready.
from what i know google does not want to use the android x86 open source project to make their x86 compatibility layer unlike remix os
this explain why no other chromebook have the playstore for the moment.
and yes this asus is only to show the extreme lower end part of chromebooks.
wait until the x86 code they are building is coming...
it will be another story.
you want to be scared?
imagine cloudready or just chromium os for pc
with playstore inside
if it comes.
or29544 said:
It's not about the "threat" (let's not be religious here) - it's about the options.
I honestly prefer a google supported OS with google supported hardware instead of a hack like Remix OS.
Chromebooks are amazing tools. I am expecting Android apps on Chromebooks to cause a very deep disruption in the PC market.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't worry, while I am deeply against Google's behaviour in matters such as privacy, I do agree that if someone absolutely wants to use Google, he/she should be able to.
What I was referring to was being locked to sending personal data to Google, some of it unwantedly.
I think that ChromeOS, or at least ChromiumOS, should at least allow you to create a local owner account, with connecting to Google as an option, should you wish to.
Had that been an option, then I would have been of the same opinion as you.
Anyway remix for the moment make a really bad desktop.
Without a way to select sound inputs and outputs most of the time we got no sound or sound in the wrong output...
Also it need to change resolution on the fly like most os does...or just change screen scaling because remix os on some screens is not usable at all...
And what about include a desktop grade browser that support extensions.because remix browser is as useless as edge for the moment.
The things is ,chrome os have all those fixes already inside.
tailslol said:
Anyway remix for the moment make a really bad desktop.
Without a way to select sound inputs and outputs most of the time we got no sound or sound in the wrong output...
Also it need to change resolution on the fly like most os does...or just change screen scaling because remix os on some screens is not usable at all...
And what about include a desktop grade browser that support extensions.because remix browser is as useless as edge for the moment.
The things is ,chrome os have all those fixes already inside.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with about half of what you said.
However, changing the DPI on the fly may have to wait until Android N.
And while I don't think that a browser has to have addon support, I do prefer it that way.
By the way, Firefox for Android supports both addons and themes, as well as plugins and addon frameworks (e.g. Greasemonkey), so technically you could put it on RemixOS.
And I thought RemixOS doesn't have it's own browser, rather arriving with the AOSP Browser?
I personally prefer Lightning Browser on Android, it's so light without comprimising on absolute necessaties.
All the rest, you're right, there already tools to those on the fly (with root).
moriel5 said:
I agree with about half of what you said.
However, changing the DPI on the fly may have to wait until Android N.
And while I don't think that a browser has to have addon support, I do prefer it that way.
By the way, Firefox for Android supports both addons and themes, as well as plugins and addon frameworks (e.g. Greasemonkey), so technically you could put it on RemixOS.
And I thought RemixOS doesn't have it's own browser, rather arriving with the AOSP Browser?
I personally prefer Lightning Browser on Android, it's so light without comprimising on absolute necessaties.
All the rest, you're right, there already tools to those on the fly (with root).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well now it comes with chrome included.about firefox well i never used on android.
but in case of need of flash or silverlight for old sites i dont think it will handle them with addblock in same time.
root and tools in remix is another story,mostly because this is not easy,and most of those tools just not work on remix,for example on remix to be able to patch sound you need to change the kernel...
not stability or update friendly.
and not usable by everyone.
so i think google will go to the right way here.
but remix?
lets just say remix should count the month or year it have left.
tailslol said:
well now it comes with chrome included.about firefox well i never used on android.
but in case of need of flash or silverlight for old sites i dont think it will handle them with addblock in same time.
root and tools in remix is another story,mostly because this is not easy,and most of those tools just not work on remix,for example on remix to be able to patch sound you need to change the kernel...
not stability or update friendly.
and not usable by everyone.
so i think google will go to the right way here.
but remix?
lets just say remix should count the month or year it have left.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You brought some very important points, however I have to say that I disagree with you, since:
1. Jide could always update the kernel to support on the fly audio channel switching.
2. 3rd party developers could do the above.
3. RemixOS is still in beta, and literaly is reinventing the wheel when it comes to Android, so instabilities are to be expected.
About #3, some of what RemixOS is doing is becoming redundant with the native Android APIs in MM and N, so if Jide chooses to yse the native APIs, then RemixOS will become much more stable.
FF can can handle Flash fine with an adblocker (I recommend uBlock Origin), however you need a patched version of Flash for it run at all on Android 4.4 and up.
And by the way, Silverlight is unsupported on both Android and ChromeOS.
Please don't think I'm bashing you, or being zealous.
I'm just trying to answer all the points, and I have a tendency to be formal.
I personally would love to use ChromiumOS, however the mandatory Google owned user policy (the owner account has to be connected to Google), prevents me from doing that.
I need the owner account to be strictly local, plus other reasons which will take several days or weeks to explain.
Thanks for telling me that RemixOS comes with Chrome, by the way.
moriel5 said:
You brought some very important points, however I have to say that I disagree with you, since:
1. Jide could always update the kernel to support on the fly audio channel switching.
2. 3rd party developers could do the above.
3. RemixOS is still in beta, and literaly is reinventing the wheel when it comes to Android, so instabilities are to be expected.
About #3, some of what RemixOS is doing is becoming redundant with the native Android APIs in MM and N, so if Jide chooses to yse the native APIs, then RemixOS will become much more stable.
FF can can handle Flash fine with an adblocker (I recommend uBlock Origin), however you need a patched version of Flash for it run at all on Android 4.4 and up.
And by the way, Silverlight is unsupported on both Android and ChromeOS.
Please don't think I'm bashing you, or being zealous.
I'm just trying to answer all the points, and I have a tendency to be formal.
I personally would love to use ChromiumOS, however the mandatory Google owned user policy (the owner account has to be connected to Google), prevents me from doing that.
I need the owner account to be strictly local, plus other reasons which will take several days or weeks to explain.
Thanks for telling me that RemixOS comes with Chrome, by the way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no it is ok,you made some point but for android n it is wait and see on what will be available in the final version.
remix was good to kick the bee hive i think
it kinda made move the big name os and things are starting to change,but as always in the long run it is another story.
Chrome OS isn't open source and the framework for Android apps on it isn't too; which means only Chromebooks, and always online is part of owning one.
Google is already taking Android down that same path more so on MM and up.
for example with permission controls(enforcement) I would like to use a word processor and one of the permissions is location so i block that but guess what can't use app until i enable location again. have to use google app installer instead of aosp, etc ...
Windows as a service =$hitty Windows (always on even if you use a local account only)
Ubuntu= Unity was ok for 12.04 LTS(went downhill from there)
Android can be viable without Google Apps/services(despite perception) there is Fdroid and XDA labs; Chrome and Chromium can not.
Maromi said:
Chrome OS isn't open source and the framework for Android apps on it isn't too; which means only Chromebooks, and always online is part of owning one.
Google is already taking Android down that same path more so on MM and up.
for example with permission controls(enforcement) I would like to use a word processor and one of the permissions is location so i block that but guess what can't use app until i enable location again. have to use google app installer instead of aosp, etc ...
Windows as a service =$hitty Windows (always on even if you use a local account only)
Ubuntu= Unity was ok for 12.04 LTS(went downhill from there)
Android can be viable without Google Apps/services(despite perception) there is Fdroid and XDA labs; Chrome and Chromium can not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it is true actual chrome os is closed source,but they use a open source base (chromium os)
and distro like cloudready or arnoldthebat are clearly advanced already.
i just hope someone will figure a way to port the android part on those distro.
but stock android N x86 will already be something good.
Maromi said:
Chrome OS isn't open source and the framework for Android apps on it isn't too; which means only Chromebooks, and always online is part of owning one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, Chromium OS is open, however your're locked to Google there.
Maromi said:
Windows as a service =$hitty Windows (always on even if you use a local account only)
Ubuntu= Unity was ok for 12.04 LTS(went downhill from there)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Using the Enterprise edition allows you more freedom, however, I still can't disable Cortana.
I like Unity 8, however Canonical is right now at crossroads, and they seem to be edging the same path as Google, Microsoft, and others.
By the way, I mainly use Gnome 3.20 as well as Budgie, since I mainly use Antergos (as well as Solus OS).
Maromi said:
Android can be viable without Google Apps/services(despite perception) there is Fdroid and XDA labs; Chrome and Chromium can not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't use most of the GApps, however Chromium does run without GApps, you just can't connect it to Google without GApps.
And I don't always use F-Droid, however this post is through XDA Labs.
And I have nothing against closed-source and/or paid software, while at the same time supporting FOSS.
moriel5 said:
Actually, Chromium OS is open, however your're locled to Google there
I don't use most of the GApps, however Chromium does run without GApps, you just can't connect it to Google without GApps.
And I don't always use F-Droid, however this post is through XDA Labs.
And I have nothing against closed-source and/or paid software, while at the same time supporting FOSS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When I said chrome and chromium i was talking about OS's not the browsers
I'm not against closed source. Remix OS is one.
Maromi said:
When I said chrome and chromium i was talking about OS's not the browsers
I'm not against closed source. Remix OS is one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know, I was just pointing out that there is an open-source version of Chrome OS.
And thanks, I didn't notice I had made a spelling mistake until I saw it in your quote of my previous post.
It should be "locked", not "locled".
I guess we all reach one point in life sooner or later when we stop being ideologists and start being consumers. I used to care and tinker with all my software and all my devices, tuning and optimizing, caring for a device like it was a pet. I was switching linux distros like clothes, writing my DOS drivers and optimizing memory usage in config.sys - nowadays I don't care. I want Android on my system just to stick to the same UI as my tablet and phone. I want Android for the apps, not for the ideology. I couldn't care less if my user is "owned" by Google - I can handle my own privacy.
Having said that, if Google or Jide will be the first to offer Android on desktop for me - I will use it. If Chromebooks will - I will use them. I am too lazy to think about open source. Just give me something that works and it's fine for me. No matter how much we delude ourselves, RemixOS doesn't work for now. I can't be expected to throw my nVidia card just because nVidia is closed source and gives no **** about the community.
or29544 said:
I guess we all reach one point in life sooner or later when we stop being ideologists and start being consumers. I used to care and tinker with all my software and all my devices, tuning and optimizing, caring for a device like it was a pet. I was switching linux distros like clothes, writing my DOS drivers and optimizing memory usage in config.sys - nowadays I don't care. I want Android on my system just to stick to the same UI as my tablet and phone. I want Android for the apps, not for the ideology. I couldn't care less if my user is "owned" by Google - I can handle my own privacy.
Having said that, if Google or Jide will be the first to offer Android on desktop for me - I will use it. If Chromebooks will - I will use them. I am too lazy to think about open source. Just give me something that works and it's fine for me. No matter how much we delude ourselves, RemixOS doesn't work for now. I can't be expected to throw my nVidia card just because nVidia is closed source and gives no **** about the community.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm something in the middle, and I hope it will stay like that.
Ideology and practicality/consumerism.
Android and open Source Chromium
I read that GOOGLE will never release Chromium OS with android support. What I am saying is unless someone hacks the Chrome os and pulls the OS apart to get the required files and what not to make a hacked copy of chromium with android it is NEVER going to happen.
How do I build a YouTube app for Windows 10 Mobile
I want learn how to build YouTube app
Help plz
Well you need to tell more info than just asking for help. What is the thing you need help with? What YouTube app you are talking about? AFAIK you need a source code for the app if you want to build it with Visual Studio so do you have it?
You need get YouTube API , using Visual Studio dev app.
https://visualstudio.com
李晓萌 said:
You need get YouTube API , using Visual Studio dev app.
https://visualstudio.com
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How is this?, And then what ?
I_am_Egyptian_and_proud said:
How is this?, And then what ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have any programming skills at all?
hene193 said:
Well you need to tell more info than just asking for help. What is the thing you need help with? What YouTube app you are talking about? AFAIK you need a source code for the app if you want to build it with Visual Studio so do you have it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have an idea for it. Somebody just need to wrap the m.youtube.com web mobile app to be more like a native app, since it's already almost feature complete, and its Material design already, so you guys won't bother much on design. And just maybe add some little native things there like Native Windows Video Player API and controls, maybe casting too, some CSS modifications on the web app's features and looks too, like making the tabs hide when you're scrolling down, and will show up when you scroll up again (just like the YouTube app) (which is not present on current mobile web app) or some custom animations too, ability to scroll through tabs with swipe (currently not possible on mobile web app's CSS rn), maybe a more native rewrap of dialogs on the mobile web app, native to Windows, I don't care if it's Material design on this aspect as since Windows design APIs is still incomplete btw, as long as it's responsive and interactable than the CSS ones, and also maybe native PiP on the app, ability to collapse the player/video page if you swipe down on it or tap collapse button, the whole video page will collapse and fade and the native player will be small at the side, also ability to dismiss it to end the remove or stop the video too.
The good thing with this is you wont need an access to YouTube API (I think) (which is also very restrictive and limited) since you're just wrapping some parts of the web app instead of remaking it.
This is all theoretical btw, since I know few of programming and developing bc I'm more of a UX designer myself. I hope this is possible. And hope someone brave see this idea and really do this. We'll back you with our support
PrinceKicksters said:
I have an idea for it. Somebody just need to wrap the m.youtube.com web mobile app to be more like a native app, since it's already almost feature complete, and its Material design already, so you guys won't bother much on design. And just maybe add some little native things there like Native Windows Video Player API and controls, maybe casting too, some CSS modifications on the web app's features and looks too, like making the tabs hide when you're scrolling down, and will show up when you scroll up again (just like the YouTube app) (which is not present on current mobile web app) or some custom animations too, ability to scroll through tabs with swipe (currently not possible on mobile web app's CSS rn), maybe a more native rewrap of dialogs on the mobile web app, native to Windows, I don't care if it's Material design on this aspect as since Windows design APIs is still incomplete btw, as long as it's responsive and interactable than the CSS ones, and also maybe native PiP on the app, ability to collapse the player/video page if you swipe down on it or tap collapse button, the whole video page will collapse and fade and the native player will be small at the side, also ability to dismiss it to end the remove or stop the video too.
The good thing with this is you wont need an access to YouTube API (I think) (which is also very restrictive and limited) since you're just wrapping some parts of the web app instead of remaking it.
This is all theoretical btw, since I know few of programming and developing bc I'm more of a UX designer myself. I hope this is possible. And hope someone brave see this idea and really do this. We'll back you with our support
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So what you want to do is create an appx with a webview inside with the uri m.youtube.com basicly, more complex app would be using Youtube API.
Please don't make a web wrapper :crying: . There are enough of those in the Store already and I'm pretty sure the YouTube APIs aren't that restricted, haven't you guys downloaded myTube already?
Instead, search for the YouTube Data API and figure out how to use HTTP requests to send/receive JSON to use data from Google into your app.
This is to want to reivent the wheel, poius ja exixte several clients of Youtube available in the store and for free