Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

By Popular Demand: More Linux Browsers

Posted by michael on from the but-I-*like*-lynx dept.

Chris Halsall writes "Based on the great feedback generated by the posting of my Web Browsers under Linux article on /. and LinuxToday last month, WebReview has published an unplanned follow-up article covering four more browsers.

By Popular Demand: More Linux Browsers "

3 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. Mozilla and Browser Competition by Maul · · Score: 4
    The more browsers the better. There is no way you're going to make every single user happy with just one or two major browsers. Right now, most Linux users probably use either Lynx or Netscape 4.x. Lynx is great for text only browsing, but if you want the graphics, you need something within X.

    There are a good deal of browsers coming into the picture though. Opera, Konqueror, etc.

    And let us not forget that Mozilla is shaping up nicely. M13 is actually useable in most cases, and it renders pages rather nicely (and in most cases doesn't actually crash as much as Netscape 4.x). If they can stamp out the expected development bugs, get rid of the debug code (which slows it down a bunch), and get the thing released, I don't think Linux users will have too much to complain about.

    Even if Mozilla ends up ruling, I think we need as many browsers as possible on every platform. This will prevent any one browser from becoming too dominant, and also force web designers to actually write HTML according to W3C standards (something that is often ignored even by "major" web pages). I think the increase in browsers will be a good thing, overall.

    "You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"

    --

    "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

  2. How much is much? by Jose · · Score: 3

    case 1:
    You have a lowend pentium or a 486, with little RAM ( 16 MB). Running X, a WM, and some graphical browser, will make your system _crawl_!! Even if you are on T3 connection by yourself, web pages will load up very slowly, and the whole experience will just suck.

    case 2:
    You can't currently run X. If you are telnetted into some box, and want to grab a file off of freshmeat, or run a quick search on altavista, a graphical browser isn't even an option.

    case 3:
    You have a beefy box. But you have a some what slow connection (spent all your money on cool hardware ;) Pages load _way_ faster in lynx/links and w3m, and the only info you really want is the text anyway, unless you are surfing one-handed.

    case 4:
    you are hardcore. Who needs X anyway?!

    --
    The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
  3. If you like 'w3m', try 'links' too... by egnor · · Score: 4
    ... though it doesn't get nearly as much press, it has a lot of interesting features in its own right (like asynchronous table layout, background downloading, and a UI which I much prefer to w3m's).

    It still lacks some things (like cookie support), though. See the home page for more info.