Slashdot Mirror

Turn off Javascript The problem with turning off Javascript is that some sites use Javascript legitimately. What would be nice is a more advanced mechanism for handling Javascript, such as a global on/off option and a list for specifying which sites shouldn't be processed by that filter. That allows the user a lot of flexibility; they can turn off all Javascript except for those sites where it is absolutely needed, or can leave Javascript on except for the few sites that they find to be too much of a hassle to navigate with it enabled.


With konqueror there is an option to do just this - and another one to disable cookies for individual sites which means for me I can autologon to Slashdot but doubleclick doesn't know me from adam!
Just a couple of the features ever browser needs....

tom.

hopefully konqueror will support https by now so I can bank online too.

Konqueror already supported HTTPS in 2.0. However if you are compiling it yourself you need have openssl installed before you run configure. More info here

No.

And that's not what the person was talking about: ... I wondered why it couldn't be turned into the next standard for online documents

To me, this is looking for a replacement for .PDF files, text files, and technical papers. I have no doubt that my favorite browser will support this easily, but the plug in system for most browsers is seriously broken, and adding mime types to them is a major effort. Due to this, new file formats like fractally compressed images (yes, I know the licensing problems hurt them as well) can't "break in", and the "Browser" has become painfully a http & html only program, plus a few things like http & text and http & image (Plus Flash, PDF, and bad Java implementations). New protocols aren't easily added without the upgrade of the monolithic browser, and old ones (like ftp://, gopher://, telnet:// or esoteric ones like tv://) are not supported well, or at all.

So, yes: LaTeX with its general descriptive tags would make an excellent markup language for papers, and no, it's not likely to be adopted.

--
Evan

This is not a troll, I'd genuinely like to know people's experiences. I have been comparing it to Galeon v0.8 and Konqueror 1.9.8 on Debian GNU/Linux on a 200 Mhz pentium with 32 MB ram.

• speed. Opera seems to be slower than Galeon or Konqueror. On simple pages, or w3c-conformant pages, they're all tolerably fast. On complex pages, Opera seems to fall behind. After about half an hour of browsing, Opera starts churning the hard disk (presumably the swap partition, since this is with disk cache turned off). Neither Galeon 0.8 nor Konqueror suffer from this (although Galeon 0.7.6 did).
• stability. When given lots of complex pages in succession, Opera seems slightly less likely to crash than Galeon 0.8, and slightly more likely to crash than Konqueror 1.9.8. This is based on the pages I have tried, YMMV.
• w3c conformancy. Can't comment much on this; I've heard all three are pretty good. Certainly, all three are probably better than most of the web pages out there.
• Internationalization. Opera is *terrible*. I have international fonts installed, but Opera doesn't appear to be able to render non-roman text! (Or maybe I just haven't worked out how to configure it). It replaces the Japanese, Greek and Korean on my page with blank spaces. The least I would expect is a question-mark! Galeon and Konqueror are both fine at this. (BTW Lynx (2.8.3) is really cool at this - give it a try! - it transliterates the Japanese and the Greek and certain Polish letters into letters which it can display).

If other people's experiences are anything like mine, I don't see how Opera 4 for Linux sells. (Ok, I wouldn't buy it anyway because it's non-free, I just wanted to know how it compared to Galeon and Konqueror; but I couldn't see any technical merit in it either).

Is there something which Opera is good at which I haven't noticed from the pages I read?

I don't know about Nautilus, but I'm pretty sure that Konqueror (the KDE file browser) is plugin-based, and has similar features to Nautilus, plus more.

Use Konqueror - it's fast, stable, renders everything, and uses Netscape plugins and Java.

Oh, really? And this isn't a modern browser... for what reason?

Full HTML4.0 compliance

Full ECMAscript 262 support (Javascript)

Java applets

Full CSS1 and partial CSS2 compliance

Full SSL support (with openSSL)
This is definitely the browser to use if you're on a unix system. It's great for those that want an open source browser that is lightweight (no email/news clients, as there are other KDE apps for that).

-Justin

Why not Konqueror? It works pretty well and looks good.

Netscape 4.x absolutely reeks of bugs on Linux, I can't imagine they'd be using that....but then what? Netscape would crash too much

What about Konqueror? KDE 2 was released not too long ago, which comes with Konqueror.

This would have the advantage that the browser crashing wouldn't take my 3 page email with it...

Besides: I don't want to use *their* email client, I want to use the client *I* like.

Konqueror works this way already.

Check out the latest KDE2 beta at www.kde.org or konqueror's own web site (with screenshots) at www.konqueror.org

Evolution : (magellan)
Gnumeric : (kspread)
Nautilus : (konqueror)

We all make mistakes sometimes. oh, and if you wanted to point out the great and innovative Bonobo technology (which KDE "doesn't have!") then take a look.

Damn, that sounds like a lot of extra work.
I would have just chosen one webrowser to do my slashdot posting, but that's just me.

Then you want Konqueror. It loads up in the blink of an eye (IE-like speeds), it's fast, and looks nice.

As for startup time (always the problem with normal Mozillas) - it is now much, much quicker than Netscape 4 on either Windows of Linux, and getting close to IE5 (which is the fastest starting browser I've ever seen, except maybe Lynx or something).

Then you haven't used Opera or Konqueror. But it's great that Gecko in its Galeon incarnation, which supports a much broader spectrum of web standards than either of the above, can compete in load speed. That's a really big hot buttom for me.
--

Then I installed the latest beta of KDE2 (which allows you to run konqueror under normal KDE). I am not going back. KDE just seems to have it sorted, and Mozilla just doesn't. All the features that don't work in Moz are there already in Konqueror. Plus, it doesn't slow my machine down to P75 speed. I wish Mozilla well, and I will download M17 for old times sake -certainly on my Windows partition, where its cookie-handling features surpass IE - but I do wonder if this is going to be a success.
----------------------------------
What are the weapons of happiness?

So, you don't like Netscape, that's fine, go out and find a copy of Opera or something. If you use Internet Explorer, you're being incredibly short-sighted, and you deserve the world you're going to get.

Sorry, but that is incredibly short-sighted. I'm an anti-Microsoft fundamentalist. I don't have any Microsoft products on my machine. But I have to admit that at this moment IE is a better, more stable, more standards-compliant, easier to use browser than anything we've currently got on Linux (except possibly Konqueror, which I hope to try soon). Mozilla M16 is almost as good, but not nearly stable enough.

It's a bad mistake when you're so blinded by your dislike of the opposition that you can't recognise where they actually are doing better stuff than we are.

Why are people flipping out about mozilla? It's not like you paid money for it. The developers working on it are doing so because they enjoy it and think it's a good thing for the future of free computing.

I agree, and I've sat out the last few rounds of Mozilla bashing -- especially since a recent bit of feature creep was the one I've been begging for since the project started.

But there's a major problem here. I don't go around bashing everybody with a project on Freshmeat that I don't think is up to par but it's wrong to think that whether or not Mozilla exists doesn't affect any other projects. It consumes a huge amount of community resources in coding and bug testing and its existence has discouraged others (except KDE) from building a decnt browser on their own. And reading MozillaZine and comments by Mozilla devlopers here suggests they're in complete denial. They need to realize that there's a major problem -- and if they don't, we all need to realize that.

What about HTML 4, CSS, Java, Javascript ? :-)
konqueror does much more than kfm did.

See http://www.konqueror.org for more info.

Yes, I wish I could rephrase my answer on that. I was totally surprised by the question - note that this was *before* the $3K thing, since the interview happened on June 1st.
I replied to "Why Qt uses the QPL and not the GPL", not really to "what to do about that alleged incompatibility" - sorry about that.

So, what do I have to say about that incompatibility ? That people should look at what they want/need. KDE is free and open-source, since it's GPL/LGPL. Qt is free and open-source, since it's QPL. Isn't that what you want to use ? Free and opensource software ?
RMS may find an incompatibility between those two licenses because of the way *he* interprets them, but remember that the GPL hasn't been tried in court yet, and interpretations vary. Why does everyone here (and elsewhere), dreaming of "freedom", blindly obey what RMS says about licenses ?
There _may_ be a slight incompability somewhere (I'm not a lawyer !), and I hope it will be solved at some point, but I don't see how that prevents debian from shipping KDE Qt !
Both are free to use, distribute, hack, etc. Isn't that what you want from free software ?
So stop the license crap, and benefit from all the free software that is available, including KDE, while lawyers tear their hairs off upon how to interpret a line in a license.

And I really wish people would stop talking about "non-free" for something that *is* free (in all meanings of the term).

Technically it is not really Konqueror supporting https but rather the kio_https module of KDE's kio system. Every KDE application can do HTTPS.

By the way, Mozilla can do HTTPS as well with the right plugins. Both have Java, Javascript support, render fast and almost with full compliancy to the specs. Konqueror can even do Netscape plugins such as Flash, I'm not sure about Mozilla but I expect that it will since it is ment to replace Navigator sooner or later.

And if that's not enough, w3m (Lynx only better ;-) can do it as well!

> Perhaps someone on the Mac platform will embed the rendering component into a native Mac app like they will being doing with GNOME and (I think) KDE. That is the optimal solution IMHO.
Yes. But I've never heard of the "and (I think) KDE" part. I doubt the Mozilla guys will create a special "Kozilla" rendering component when KDE2 will have its own very promising browser.

But maybe they'll do.

Konqueror is also 100% CSS-1 compliant, and mostly CSS-2 compliant. It's also able to render bi-di text, and to use Netscape plugins. Of course noone talked about it, everyone out there hate everything that start with a "K" (I even heard one day a moron lamenting because he's lost his kernel sources rpms by doing a rm -rf k*).

> Even KDE and gnome don't give you either the interface consistency or the attention to detail of the Mac cerca 1990. For all their technical bells and whistles, KDE and Gnome are still ugly, clumsy, and poorly designed.
This looks like flamebait. In my brother's uni, all student-accessible computers are Macintoshes, and I get lots of complaint from him about the poor GUI of Mac, and their stupid 1-button mouse, etc. Talking about user consistency, have you take a look at latest Quick Time's interface: it broke lots of standard for application interface, misuse widgets, and is now on the Interface Hall of Shame!

>> Linux *started* with at least the functionality of a late-80's user interface as soon as X compiled on it.
> Hmm... system wide, consistent cut and paste? A decent graphical file browser? Consistent keyboard shortcuts for common commands? multiple monitor support?
Multiple monitor support in 80's interface? in Win3.1? Ah! And for the "decent graphical file browser" stuff, existing ones on other platform weren't much handy at all.

> The fact is that most people don't have the time or the interest to learn the Unix CLI. Doing so is no small undertaking-- it takes days to become even basically functional, and months to master all its nuances. I can sit down in front of a Mac app I've never seen before, and start using effectively almost immediately. I can do that because Apple has worked hard to ensure that developers follow certain conventions in interface design, so that new apps work the same as my old ones. CLI's expect you to memorize an entirely new set of flags and options with every command.
I came to Linux with DOS experience, and didn't even need to learn basic command. The "entirely new set of flags of option" is what GNU long option fought. A brief look at `apps --help` is generally sufficient.
Moreover, Learning Unix CLI's subtle nuances is useful only for shell script porgrammers. Other just need to know the ls, cd, rm, cp, mv, mkdir and rmdir command.

> As for cutting and pasting, I'll take real cut-and-paste with a real clipboard any day. The standard X cut and paste is a nasty hack that should have died 10 years ago. I shouldn't have to worry about accidentally highlighting text before I've had time to paste copied text to its destination. And if Unix had a standard keyboard shortcut for "paste" you wouldn't lose more than a quarter-second in pasting.
That's why desktop environment like KDE and GNOME do have their own clipboard. And they do have standard keyboard shortcut: in KDE, Ctrl-X/C/V for cutting/copying/pasting. Only statically-linked motif apps like Netscape don't follow this scheme (use Alt instead of Ctrl). But Netscape is crap anyway, long live Konqueror.

> And forget it if you're planning on working with images, souds, video, spreadsheets, or even formatted text-- those are just too frivolous for our manly command line interface and our handy dandy middle-button paste.
if you want to display them while you're in runlevel 3, yes. But CLI's asset is it allow things complicated, boring and repetitive to be done by a script. Piping, extracting, redirecting output to input after modified it automatically by a Perl script. You can make pretty impressive stuff done this way, and it was how CLI was intended to be used. Of course, most things are easier to do with a GUI, but how can you ask for a GUI image viewer to display all images on a particuliar partition without some CLI tricks. I think all users use CLI in a terminal windows, and switch to it only when they need to.

Of course, some things may looks complicated to do with these tools. But these are things that are far more complicated to do in a Mac or Windows environment without these tools. If you don't like them, or don't know how to handle them, you can live without. There are these "ugly, clumsy and poorly designed" KDE and GNOME for user-friendly graphical computing. If only MacOS and Windows 98 were as "ugly, clumsy and poorly designed", they would be more useful.

A Web browser is a Web browser. A file manager is a file manager. A media player is a media player. Trying to combine these into one massive app is just a bad idea.

Am inclined to agree. They've done it because it's 'cool' and shows off the elegance of the underlying componentised design, I guess, but the very screenshots they use to show this off clearly demonstrate why this is a usability nightmare:

• http://www.konqueror.org/pics/konq_hy brid.png
• http://www.konqueror.org/pics/konq_of fice.png

Here you've got several unrelated applications munged together in panes of one window, with one menu bar and tool bar for all of them, but one status bar for each of them, which seems unrelated to the content pane. It's unclear how the panes relate to each other and how changes in one might affect the others and the rest of the system.

The advantage of this over having separate windows which the user can manage themselves? None AFAICT.

Konq's a great web browser though. I easily prefer even v1 to Netscape 4.

A Web browser is a Web browser. A file manager is a file manager. A media player is a media player. Trying to combine these into one massive app is just a bad idea.

Am inclined to agree. They've done it because it's 'cool' and shows off the elegance of the underlying componentised design, I guess, but the very screenshots they use to show this off clearly demonstrate why this is a usability nightmare:

• http://www.konqueror.org/pics/konq_hy brid.png
• http://www.konqueror.org/pics/konq_of fice.png

Here you've got several unrelated applications munged together in panes of one window, with one menu bar and tool bar for all of them, but one status bar for each of them, which seems unrelated to the content pane. It's unclear how the panes relate to each other and how changes in one might affect the others and the rest of the system.

The advantage of this over having separate windows which the user can manage themselves? None AFAICT.

Konq's a great web browser though. I easily prefer even v1 to Netscape 4.

"I have recently read that KDE 2.0 is suppposed to be highly componentilized also. Is KDE using something like bonobo? "
Yes indeed, KDE uses the very powerful component technology called KParts. It's mentionned on www.konqueror.org - you should really read it :-)
As to being a threat to Mozilla, that is certainly not the goal. Providing something that works well (in terms of rendering, memory usage, stability etc.), and providing a choice, are more the goals. And konqueror is much more than 'just' a web browser...