Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Web Browsers Reviewed

Posted by timothy on from the no-matter-transfer-plugins-yet dept.

scubacuda writes: "A while back, Slashdot posted a Rob Valliere's Linux vs. Windows review. Since then, he has posted a 2002 Linux Web Browser Review." This is a great , straightforward round-up of current web-browsing options, as shipped with distributions. Note though that none of these browsers are static -- Konqueror's CVS version, for instance, now includes tabs and other goodies. So bear your own downloading and installation habits in mind.

10 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm... by Yoda2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    And it looks like even if you remove these web browsers, Linux will still work.

    1. Re:Hmmm... by PeterClark · · Score: 5, Funny

      But if you remove either KDE or GNOME, you will be unable to access your files. :)

      My two cents: I'm using Galeon with KDE (or, in the words of a fellow LUG member at an InstallFest, "You're doing what?) The reason being, of course, is that I love Galeon's tabs. I mourned the lack of tabs in Konq, but will most definitely go try it out once KDE 3.1 is out.

      :Peter

  2. 256 MB? No way! by oever · · Score: 4, Funny

    While all of the browsers run surprisingly fast on slower CPUs, you need 256MB of RAM for Red Hat 7.2 with the KDE desktop.

    This is nonsense.
    198 MB is enough to work comforably.

    --
    DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
  3. Re:I'm happy with IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Personally, I'm happy with IE6 on YOUR Win2000 and XP boxes also....

  4. How far these browsers have come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    since February, huh?

    I can't wait to get the new Redhat 7.1. Anyone have a review?

  5. Missing by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Funny

    My browser is missing!

    Even though the rendering engine could use some work, they didn't bother to review

    telnet sitename 80
    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:Missing by ajs · · Score: 3, Funny

      You've got to be kidding! This browser sucks. It doesn't have tabbed-browsing, themability, popup ads, cookies, branding or even a pull-down for reporting bugs! Clearly this browser is for those losers who wish to see that *shudder* "content" stuff.

      Go back in your hole you accademic hack! ;-)

      PS: It doesn't render CNN.com correctly. Crap, just like I said.

    2. Re:Missing by nrosier · · Score: 2, Funny

      While it works very well on normal web-sites, it's very slow on SSL. I've got a hell of a time decyphering it...

    3. Re:Missing by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Funny
      I sort of laughed until I realized that's how I check my e-mail at work (as someone pointed out on slashdot the other day). Check your mail anywhere - no browser, mail client, or window enviornment needed.

      That's highly inconvenient when you get a VBScript virus. You have to pull out your paper address book manually step through the code to figure out who to forward it to. Then you have to tediously type in the multiple commands to propagate the message. Correctly handling the binary attachment payloads is a bitch, as well.

      Computers were invented to automate things and make things easier. Your life would be much easier if you got some modern software!

  6. Re:Somewhat off-topic, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    the Pornzilla enhancements, coupled with the general greatness of RC1, have convinced several of my male friends to make the switch...