Slashdot Mirror
A Linux 'Browser War' in the Making?
I learned about the new KDE browser project almost by accident. The concept is only a few months old, and active work on it only started a few days ago. Konqueror - "Konq" for short - is not the spotty KFM utility included in the current KDE release, but a whole new code base.
The people working on Konqueror are worried about getting too many people's hopes up too hard and fast; if they do, and if they run into Mozilla-type slowdowns, they'll end up with plenty of egg on their faces. All they're willing to show the world at this point is this screenshot.
It's amazing how far Konqueror has come in almost no time, especially when you realize that this is a purely volunteer project with just a few members, not a big deal with big money from a big company like AOL/Netscape behind it.
Are there other Linux browsers in the works? Good question; if you know of one, please tell us about it.
Another question: Would more volunteers help Konqueror? Perhaps, perhaps not; the KDE developers aren't sure that more bodies would necessarily help.
Should we all get behind Mozilla and push? Yet another good question - and one that's been hashed to death all over the place but hasn't been fully answered yet.
Whatever the answers, I believe most Slashdot readers agree on one thing: that a better Linux browser would be a Good Thing(tm).
We have a little poll about Linux browsers to the right of this story. And, as always, your thoughts on the subject are more than welcome.
What the browser space really needs is competition, on all fronts. Companies and projects should be competing to make the fastest, most stable, most compliant browser with the best user interface. Mnemonic and several other free browser projects were effectively killed by Mozilla.
We shouldn't have all our browser eggs in one basket, any more than we should all be using the same operating system or text editor. Especially with open source browsers (but even with closed source ones), competition brings about innovation, as well as better code and, in the end, a better browser.
If one browser supports PNG, then they all will feel the need to support PNG. If another one is 100% compliant with the HTML 4.0 spec, then they all will feel the need to be compliatn. This competition is going to be the best thing that's happend to browsers, on any platform.
Personally, I look forward to trying out all the new browsers (konquerer, opera, and mozilla), as well as the old favorites (w3m, lynx, and netscape), and using whatever's best. Especially if it's open source, I'd also look forward to contributing bug fixes and new code. However, this means a relatively small and clean open source project, not that 120MB of C++ monstrosity called Mozilla.
ERROR: Null
Is it just me, but the layout engine in Mozilla is pretty damned good by all accounts, it is the stuff surrounding it that cacks up all the time.
So wouldn't it make sense to use the Mozilla layout engine inside of Konqueror, and also to use that layout engine as a standard html widget for all of the different programs that display html to some extent? That way, all (bug hunting and fixing) resources will be focussed of one code base, instead of having loads and loads of different code bases around?
Or maybe it is just me being hopeful!
Just the idea of a standard libhtml widget would be great for Linux and other Unix variants. Why reinvent the wheel indeed!
Oh well... there will always be two or three competing things in the Linux world it seems (gtk vs. qt, KDE vs. Gnome, Mozilla vs. Konqueror, etc)... it is when they are merged that the trouble occurs... look at gcc.
I don't really care what browser I use as long as it's stable and usable. I currently use Netscape 4.7 128-bit. By definition, it is slow, sluggish, and full of bugs, but I have found there to be a great increase in stability since the 4.6 series. It no longer crashes every couple of days of being running without restart. When something better comes along I'll use that, but until then, I'll stick with what works. There's no real reason to be partial just for a name's sake, in my humble opinion.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
- mnemonic
- gzilla
- hotjava
- arena
- amaya
- lynx
- Star Office
- w3
Right off the top of my head. I am only too sure there are others.Note that this list does not seek to compare or champion any of the browsers mentioned, a few of them are very sucky indeed. I just thought I'd mention them. Certainly in the linux world there hardly ever seems to be a lack of choice. Celebrate Diversity !
-- Oh Well
using IE cuz of stability, hate spending so much time worrying about BROWSER SECURITY VULNERABILITIES. Love the look and feel of Netscape of old, but 4.5+ crashes *way* too often.
If mozilla happens, anyone can take that code and modify it as they wish. No need to reinvent the wheel. Unless the konqueror people can come forward with a anti mozilla manifesto that so explicitly explains why their needs cannot be fulfilled within the mozilla project, then it appears as a waste of effort to me.
matt
There's another one out there - haven't played with it for a while, but I don't see it get much press, either. It's Armadillo - a GTK+ based browser written in C.
----
What we don't need is a huge browser that can do everything under the sun. I would be very happy with just the ability to browse html pages and maybe have plugins for all of the assorted multimedia expansions added to web pages over the years. The main point being the main browser, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't need to do an awful lot more then have a display window and a forward, back, stop, refresh, and home button toolbar.
Personally, I loathe and despise plug-ins. But I've come across too many pages that need them in some form or another. Today, I'm doing about 70% of my home browsing on Netscape 4.61 (with plug-ins that crash), the remaining 30% with KFM/Konquerer from KDE 1.1.2.
But what I find I'm missing is the capability to add plug ins. I don't really want to have to use them--but sometimes, the site I'm going to absolutely requires the plug in (for instance, I wanted to find out what "verio.com" was after I got a port scan from one of their IPs--I couldn't view the homepage without Flash). It's a necessary evil today. What would be involved in porting the Netscape plug in specification to an open source browser?
I guess I'd also like a clean Java implementation that doesn't crash (like Netscape does far too often), but I'm betting Konquerer will make me very happy.
Chris
http://www.w3.org/Amya
Looks like it uses a BSD-type license: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html #Copyright
I think it was Jamie Zawinski who said that every application seeks to expand until it can read e-mail. I would add the corollary that the really bloated applications expand until they can browse HTML.
For example: there is Emacs/W3, which just released version 4.0. To quote the Freshmeat entry: Emacs/W3 is a full-featured web browser, written entirely in Emacs-Lisp, that supports all the bells and whistles you will find in use on the web today, including frames, tables, stylesheets, and much more. Emacs/W3
Now, I happen to use XEmacs. It's my favorite editor. I couldn't code without it, debug without it, or even read e-mail without it. But I can browse the web without it, and I think building an emacs-based browser is just way over the edge.
As the wise man said, though, Your Mileage May Vary.
--JT
I'd rather see one effecient, stable browser than a bunch of bloated, bug-ridden browsers. Support for Netscape plug-ins (Flash, Shockwave, Quicktime) would be nice, too.
I've never forgotten how a couple of innovations can make a product near useless. Mozaic and Netscape killed Lynx for me. I got used to it and grew to like Netscape. Regretfully, I find myself using Explorer now, and actually liking it. It makes me sick that I like it.
What is needed, in my opinion, is for some brave group of programmers to follow along with Microsoft's version of a browser, replicate it, and embrace it and extend Explorer so thoroughly that it tucks it's tail between it's legs and yelps back to Redmond.
I think that is the only way that Linux can really get a good foothold as a popular desktop OS - to fight fire with fire.
That's simple. Just because Mozilla is open source now doesn't mean it will be open source later. If I was a KDE developer, I would want to rely on as few codebases as possible.
--
Chris Dunham
http://www.tetrion.com/~chameleo/index.html
For those of us who don't fancy a GUI, check out http://apps.freshmeat.net/homepage/928951047/ it's a console web browser that supports frames (in converts them into a table, and then renders the table)... it even supports SSL...
This looks pretty amazing - a small browser using OTCL (an object-oriented TCL extension from MIT) that supports HTML 3.2, a full array of image formats, and SSLEAY connections. No frames yet, but that may be a plus... http://nestroy.wi-inf.uni-essen.de/wafe/Cineast
Well, if the Linux version of the browser is anything like the new BeOS browser expect the following.
1. A NON-MDI Browser!!
Yes, you got it. I have been long used to the Netscape/MS modal (each browser window apears to be its own running program/window).
2. Fast.
I was VERY surprised on how fast the browser rendered. Again, this is on the BeOS. Seems like everything on that OS is just damn fast.
3. Facelift on browser.
All of the buttons, graphics etc. have gotten a major facelift. The new browser really has a 'next-gen' feel to it.
4. More compatible.
I have gotten on different sites that gave my windows version of 3.6 problems, ran fine with the browser I played with.
5.. (And the strongest point in my opinion..)
IT IS SIMPLY A BROWSER... and it does that well!
If you want to use it to read your email , better have a hotmail account. I can't speak for anyone but myself.. but I -love- the idea of a lightweight browser that does nothing more than what its intended to do.
Honestly I am surprised that Opera has not moved into this market earlier.
But.. as with the good, must come the bad.
1. Crashed a few times.
Duh, its a beta.. and BeOS has not proven to be the most stable OS. (Though, crashes no LESS stable than Netscape..)
2. Nagware.
Yeah, won't kill me to pay for it.
3. Closed source..
(Doesn't bother me that much, I have been working hard to learn C++
Anyways, all of the points where based off what I saw of the BeOS release of the next gen Opera browser. Hopefully I will be pleasantly surprised with the linux beta.
Also, this was not intended as a MOZILLA vs OPERA flame bait.. etc.
Cheers!
Back up in the URL, and try these links:
khtml web page
Front page to screenshots
Another screen shot
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
See the Mnemonic Web Site; this is, admittedly, pretty vaporwarish...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
The real solution to the browser wars is to make all browsers run around a java renderer. It makes no sense reinventing the whel for every platform, as a lot of the code requires poring, ifdefs and the like. A Java browser solves many problems and would be feasable with the JDK 1.2.2 release from Blackdown in the future, and the JIT compiler from Inprise. This way, the only upgrade to your browser you would need is a download of the new JDK from sun or Blackdown. Writing a functional browser in Java is very simple, and can be done in a few days by a skilled Java programmer. With this sort of system, we could worry less about who builds the better renderer. "Opera loads each page, .1% faster", "mozilla loads pages with applets .5 seconds faster" would be heard no more. If this was a sucessful mission, programmers could focus on actually putting something interesting into your browser. Like a page that went to slashdot in the morning for you and stripped away the articles and ads that do not fit your interest, or did other cool things.
Live Free or Die Trying
- Kill Yourself, spare us all! -
This all sounds very cool, and I look forward to playing with the final thing, but who out there thinks that the existing KDE file manager is actually pretty damn useful as a lightweight web browser? It can render Slashdot just as nicely as that screenshot, and I've yet to see it crash (in fact it ranks right up their with Lynx on the stability front, which is most unusual for a graphical browser :-)
The only two problems are that it is a little sluggish at downloading (the HTML widget is plenty fast, but pulling down pages is much slower than eg. Netscape), and that a few form related things don't work entirely right, for example I was unable to post this comment using it (although I did sucessfully use it to view the article and comments), because the "reply" button was missing from my display.
It's hard enough to support HTML 4, CSS 1 and 2, XML, DOM etc. But a real browser also has to emulate the bugs on IE and Netscape too. The only browser that comes close is Opera and it still chokes on many popular websites. Therefore I agree with the layout engine "gold standard" idea. The work should be getting CSS 2 and CSS 3, emulating IE/NS proprietary stuff -not doing the whole thing from scratch. Because unless you want a help file browser, you're not going to browse the real web.
---
Somebody said crash. Well I have been browsing with this latest nightly build for 2 hours without a crash. People should atleast try an app before making conclusions on the basis of what other people and media is saying. It seems that the author is impressed by the picture of Konq (If you wanna see some cool pics of Mozilla at work try mozillazine.org). Are the kde guys supporting things like CSS1, Javascript, CSS2, XML etc ? Mozilla is still light years ahead of IE 5.0 in its modularity and support of standards (again checkout a new review by XML.com, the page is linked from mozillazine.org) Mozilla score was in 30s while IE score was 8.5. To answer your question about pushing Mozilla, yeah go ahead do it, the more people we will have the faster Mozilla will reach its final releases. --Posted using Mozilla--
Don't forget Lineo's embrowser. It runs on Linux' fbcon, and is very small (embrowser + a Lineo's embeddix Linux dist fits in 5 megs uncompressed).
Works pretty well for embedded systems (though it isn't open source).
-Erik -- --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
Also, I think it's worth saying that almost every browser that currently exists is based on (and actually credits, if you'll check those trusty About dialogs) NCSA Mosaic.
Just food for thought.
The wheels keep turning, but the rat in the cage is already dead.
Actually there are a couple of other web-browsers out there, and some of them are written in Java. IMHO the best of these is currently the ICEBrowser by ICEsoft at http://www.icesoft.com/. What I like best about it is that it is actually quite fast, despite being written in Java. And as for following standards it is pretty up-to-date and comparable to Netscape, Mozilla and Internet Explorer.
Some not-so-nice things though, it is a commercial product and not a free browser at the moment. The ICEsoft focus is also on making an embeddable browser for other products and as such doesn't have a glossy interface.
It is currently in (downloadable) beta right now and is supposedly going to be released first thing in december which might be a place to stop by then..
But still it is an important browsing-alternative for those keen on Java.
There are lots of other browsers, if one just looks.
There's W3C's Amaya, and their orphaned Arena browser. Sun has HotJava. There's Netscape and Mozilla (of course). Lynx. Mosaic is still around. I remember something called "dozer" (or was that an HTML editor?) as well. Star Office also contains a browser within it.
There are probably a few projects that I haven't heard about.
It makes sense for KDE and Gnome to incorporate browser technology into their desktop environments.
What would be bad for everybody would be if every one of these started to extend HTML with their own proprietary features (Netscape's CENTER tag comes immediately to mind, but there are plenty of other culprits here).
If I can sit down at any of these browsers, and once I figure out how navigation works (click on links for graphical browser, TAB and ENTER for lynx, etc.), I should be able to surf on any and all of these. And all pages should render as best as possible on every one of these browsers.
This means that JVM's need to be standardized, JavaScript implementations need to be compliant to some standard, or else we will be in a tower of Babel where everybody can talk, but nobody can hear what anybody else is saying.
To see what I'm talking about, just browse some of the comp.infosystems.www.* newsgroups, and listen to all the complaints about how Netscape and IE disagree on the rendering of this-and-that, and multiply it by the sheer number of browsers that are still coming out.
I welcome all browsers, even newcomers. But this isn't 1993... there are standards that they are expected to adhere to.
I know the complaints...
HTML (what version? 3.2, 4.0? hmmm?). CSS (1 or 2?). JavaScript. Java (1.02? 1.1.x? 1.1.x + Swing? 1.2?). HTTP (1.0? 1.1?). You name it.
Well, the best thing would be to support as many of these as you can; usually the newer versions are backward compatible. If not, there is usually some way to specify which version something is written to; support as many and as much as you can.
This is a tall order for a web browser nowadays, and the weight of these requirements has been very apparent in the Mozilla development. But your users will love you for it.
--
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
These projects are competing for the same niche, true, but regardless of whether Konq takes off as the "one true linux browser" (which isn't likely, IMHO), it will gain a good share of eyeballs as KDE's file-mangler (kfm, r.i.p.).
Opera might be neat-o-keen, but I think more than a few longtime Navigator/linux sufferers might look sideways at it's being developed first on Win32 and then ported.
At least we're going to have some good choices without too many trade-offs. No more having one browser for most things but rebooting to use IE on that one page you can't live without.
BTW: That snapshot of Konq looks NICE. Somehow makes slashdot look even smoother than it normally does. I want it. Oh yes, I want it bad.
--Threed
They're trying to support too much.
Mozilla has support for everything. Everything from email to the kitchen sink is part of the codebase.
It's gotten so badly bloated now that I hesitate to call it a browser anymore. All I want my browser to do is to display web pages, run some java/javascript, and support plugins for objects in a page. That's it. No more, please.
Look at the mozilla modules list:
-E-mail/news? I'd really prefer that to be a separate program that can open my web browser if needed, thanks.
-Dialup? I've already set that up, thanks again.
-Embeddable Web Browser? What the heck are you embedding that in?
-HTML to Text/PostScript Translation? Wouldn't this really be better as a separate program? How about saving using HTML? Simpler, eh?
-PerlConnect (Perl and JavaScript connection )? What the heck is this for?
And all the other stuff there. It just seems to me that they're not developing a browser anymore, they're developing an application suite.
Start with a simple architecture, and work up from there. Ahhhhh, would be nice.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
we'll just have to ask microsoft to make an IE client for linux. We'll just have to tell them it's for "winlinux", I'm sure they'll understand.
My personal opinion is that the mozilla project needs to focus more on fixing the browser before they add things like a html editor/news/mail reader. but since they've already added those things...mozilla should enforce a feature freeze on the current milestone.
but thats just my opinion
Is it just me, or does this screenshot for the new KDE web browser look pretty much the same as the current one?
;)
I can hardly contain my excitement.
Just wondering - why this particular boring screen shot... just to show us that despite the changes, it's still working?
I think we should push mozilla.
.... ....
Mozilla is a good project for all other Web browser projects, because it's open source. Mozilla has been over the fire for more than a year now and the code is beginning to get debuged and optimized. The mozilla project is build in such a way that non technical people can help, because to help the mozilla project you just need:
1) A supported OS (which there's plenty of a bit less if you want binaries).
2) A web connection (to fecth Mozilla)
3) A e-mail to submit bug repports.
Mozilla's nicest feature is that yoiu can help the development of it for your favorite platform even though you're not using the platform from where you browse the Net [making bug reports on the win32 version @ work also helps the Linux and others OSes versions].
If you want to get more involved you can.
First you help bugzilla by sorting bugs and norrowing their description. Everyone can do it.
You can even push the involvment further and decide to pick a bug and correct it since the source is yours to work on.
Mozilla is really getting a lot better these days, speedier, less and less bugs
Today a simple fix changed the numbers of memory link of one of the components from 163 to 29
none Yet.
When the Gimp 1.0 came out in early 1998 that spurred a frenzy of students to produce open source applications to equal The Gimp both in size and complexity, AudioTechQue, AbiWord, GnoMoney, Gnuotes, etc. One of these mega apps was Mnemonic, intended to be the world's first completely open source web browser. Mnemonic was mentioned on Slashdot every day and it was even predicted to kill Internet Explorer 4. Well a lot changes in 2 years. Hardly anyone using Linux today has ever heard of Mnemonic and most of those Gimp spinoffs have either died off or slowed to geological rates of progression.
Here's one to show you all what conditioned response will do to you. I pulled up the screenshot and immediately went for the scrollbar. I suppose that could indicate that the interface is well designed.
--
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
I have been using Linux on the desktop at work and at home (and taking $#!+ for it) for about 6 years now.
I think what we really need is plugin support for all the fancy stuff that works on windows.
The other thing that I hate about browsing in Linux is the fact that the Motif widgets are much larger than their Windows counterparts, which messes a lot of pages up, as well as the fact that pulldown lists cannot scroll. I'm kinda tired of chasing huge pulldown lists accross the screen.
On the other hand, web developers shouldn't put 400 - 500 items in a pulldown anyway, but thats another story.
Thanks,
Fiid.
Fiid - Ryhmes with Squid. Software Engineer
'cause it was the closest. Frankly I don't care who writes or develops my browser; what Io care about is that it runs ALL the sites that I want to visit. And this means (shudder) shockwave and (gasp) java and (tremble) javascript.
Now I'll state it plainly: I really wish webmasters would stick to plain html, and use dynamic content generation to implement gimmicks.
However, it seems that 90% of webmasters (apologies to the 10% of you who don't suck) don't realise that anyone would access their site using a different os/browser/plugin setup than they have. Many of my old friends from college are webmasters, and that wouldn't be so bad if they weren't all business majors with very few clues about computers.
But end of second rant of the day (see Minidisc story for the first).
So realising that it's impossible to educate all content creators, it is necessary for me to get a browser that understands everything they put out. and that means plugins.
I think perhaps Wine is the only realistic option here.
Johan
ALL WE NEED IS A WEB BROWSER. To browse the web! It doesn't need to read email, or newsgroups, or edit HTML, or do my laundry!
--- Dirtside
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
What happened to the Red Baron browser that was
bundled with RedHat 4.x? I can't believe that was just a one-off and abandoned. It worked great.
Why wasn't that open source, Redhat? It would
probably be pretty far along by now if only it
were out here.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I agree.
I wondered all the time when anybody will openly say that konqueror is a competition to the upcoming mozilla.
I used it most the time and actually have posted something on slashdot with it (and 1.1.2 does the cookies reliable).
One has to remember that a full slashdot commentary site (esp. with moderator functionality) is a real good hardcore-test for a html renderer.
I'm not sure on the size of Opera's footprint in Linux, but the BeOS version is about 1.5 MB, so I'd imagine the Linux version would be about the same size. The BeOS version is really fast and IMHO it displays some pages with tables better than Netscape and IE.
gzilla? I think it's gonna be the ultimate browser!
LONG LIVE ALPHA!!!
It doesn't matter what browsers are avaliable for Linux, what I really want is decent plugin support for things like Realvideo, shockwave etc that actually work without crashing the browser every time. That and stable java support that actually works out of the box.
Noble though the ideal of universally accessible web pages may be the fact is that many many sites these days are unworkable unless you have javascript, java, and the latest set of wibbleforce2000 plugins enabled.
Until this sort of support is widely avaliable for browsers under linux it will remain a second rate platform for web browsing.If you doubt this go to netscape.com and have a look at the plugin list for netscape under windows, then go and have a look at the plugin list for netscape under linux. I'm not suggesting that all of the 200 or so plugins avaliable are needed but the core ones most certainly are.
Silver
I think there should be a better support for higher resolutions in the good ol fashoned console. Basic linux is cool, but if we could get a better res on it, the web browsers like lynx could possibly do a good job at supporting pictures. Im pretty sure you can get extra lines by running a vga = enhanced command somewhere on startup.. but is this good enuf? Dont get mad at me if I say something stupid cause Im a Linux Newbie :P
*This space was intentionally left blank.
I'm glad to see there is growing potential for more decent web browsers for Linux - this has been a sore point for a lot of people for quite some time.
Unfortunately, I personally will probably be stuck using Netscape Navigator for some time. My job requires me access and use a number of web pages which are only accessible with 128-bit (cough cough) "strong" encryption. I haven't been keeping up with any of the other projects - does Mozilla (or anybody else) have plans to implement secure transmission in their browsers?
Here I thought we were going to be reminded about W3C's own effort, Amaya. -Robert
The article says they are using an entirely new codebase, and started working on it only a few days ago. Slashdot is not a trivial page to render, so they obviously have either been working on this project for a while, or are using the existing codebase.
What they should be working on is a lightweight HTML rendering widget that all programs can use to display their help files and any other output that would be useful as HTML. They do not need to create a browser with all the bells and whistles of Mozilla, IE, or Opera, and quite frankly, I don't think they could. Those heavyweights have been in the browser business for a long time.
Lastly, what happens when Mozilla does come out with a stable standards compliant king of all other HTML applications browser. Is it really worthwhile to try and compete with AOL/Netscape?
Sig goes here
You forgot to mention Mnemonic. More details at
http://www.mnemonic.org/.
-- Daniel Spiljar
http://www.inficad.com/~nytehorse/konq. html Slashdot looks even better now that the color bug is fixed.
I have been a registered Opera user (win32) for nearly two years now. I just wanted to tell everyone that is BEGGING for something that's 'just a browser, nothing more, nothing less' that Opera should fit the bill, if their Linux port as as good as their current line-up. The interface is great, yet versatile. It has a good set of features that help you *browse*, not read mail, not read newsgroups, and not author web pages. It's got a very small footprint, memory and size wise. And the folks at Opera are very humble and seem to invite the competition. I can't recall ever seeing a netscape link on any Microsoft site, but Opera practically begs you to download IE and Netscape before you try out Opera.
If you currently run a supported platform, do yourself a favor and download it now. If you told me two years ago that I'd pay 30 or 35 bucks for a web browser, I'd have called you a buffoon. Now look at me. I guess *I'm* the buffoon.
http://www.operasoftware.com
-Mattyj
I am not a C++ coder. Yet. And I know I'm totally oversimplifying the situation in my quesiton. With that in mind, maybe someone more enlightened than I could answer me this: Could it be possible for an industrious group of coders to grab the mozilla layout engine and wrap a simplistic UI around it, effectively creating what I see many people here asking for? ... A lightweight-but-functional browser-only browser, minus all the crap?
I used to be a big fan of the Mozilla project, but every screenshot that I see, I end up saying, "What is that mess over in that sidebar there? I don't want that. Can't they just finish the friggin renderer?"
Just a thought -- while the non-GPL browsers are certainly problematic, what could easily send even IE & Netscape on their way, IMNSHO, would be abrowser that was actually HTML spec (latest) compliant. And if it was GPL'ed, it would be even better. Once a "spec-browser" is implemented, adding support for non-spec things, like plugins, IE extensions, etc, could be added as modules.
*shrug* My $0.02.
--The Wandering Bard--
Don't get me wrong, choices are a good thing. I am just tired of trying to design pages that look and function the same in different browsers. What we need is a browser that supports the standards as defined by the W3C and the RFC's. Once we have that, then add the "niceties" like JAVA, Shockwave, or whatever makes your eyes happy.
Finally, once this miracle browser is in place, Linux needs members to participate in the W3C to make sure their browser supports the upcoming "standards" and doen't get left behind.
The only difficulties I've encountered is when accessing a page that wants a username and passowrd... at that point in time, you get an error sayign access is denied,... howevever, if you put http://user:pass@securesite.com/phil/index.html it works! KDE rocks!
Mozilla starts with a simple architecture. It uses a light-weight, quick as lightning html rendering engine. Add xml support, javascript and their blossoming child XUL and you've got the beginnings of a great product. Add on to that a simple mail/news interface (btw, the browser does not rely on mail/news code, mail/news code is pretty lightweight and sits atop the browser)and you've got a very functional product. Add an open java interface so you can plug in the version you like and it's really starting to look sharp (but still simple). Read a little more before you judge mozilla. Not all modules are part of the default product and not all modules that are part of the product are as big as the name would suggest.
Konqueror isn't just a web browser, konq is what Microsoft's IE intergration/COM should be. Using the new Canossa(sp?) component API, I believe Konqueror is able to browse and/or render filesystems, samba shares, web pages, postscript, dvi, pdf, and plaintext. Given the rapid pace of development there's probably even one or two more by now.
What this topic should be is "khtml", KDE's html widget code which in this case is acting as a Konqueror component. Here's some more screenshots, displaying its current rendering ability...
Konqueror displaying various webpages
Konqueror itself
Konqueror displaying postscript
> I think what we really need is plugin support for all the fancy stuff that works on windows.
Damn straight we do. That's the biggest (only?) drawback to surfing on Linux. I've gotten my wife to prefer Linux over Windoze ("Linux never crashes! That's so cool!"), but every once in a while, she stumbles across a site that requires a plugin that's only available on Lose9X.
IMHO, having plugins are way more important than multiple browser choices. In fact, you could argue that plugins could help make a big push for Linux on the desktop.
To me, I don't care whether the browser is Mozilla, Opera, Konquerer or anything else, as long as is *fully* supports all the Web standards (HTML4, CSS, Java, JavaScript, XML etc.) The whole concept of the Linux community is cooperation and freedom. Let all the browsers exist and let the user pick the one they want.
Netscape has never been the only browser
;-)
;-)
for linux.
When I did not have a machine with 192M like now days and had to use a few megs from the otherwise overloaded server I used arena (quite unstable) or another now forgotten but actualy very good browser which was lurking along with arena on ftp.tuwien.ac.at (sorry forgot the name but I did not see it mentioned anywhere in the discussion
And I do not understand what is all the comotion. The first thing I tried after installing KDE earlier this year was to load slashdot. And it loaded pretty good
All konq needs is to read jabba droppings (sorry java). Than IE and mozilla are both dead...
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
It would be very easy to strip out all the other components and leave only the renderer. With the GTK and ActiveX control widgets, it'd be simple to plug the Mozilla engine into anything.
But I think people are overreacting to the presence of these apps... why not have one program as an internet suite? Considering that Mozilla is only a 5 Meg download right now (including all the debugging tools), I would hardly call it bloated.
I think Konqueror's main benefits can be enumerated succinctly: desktop environment integration and extensibility. Destop environment integration means that Konqueror will be (and, to a certain extent, is) the main tool in KDE for viewing folders, as well as being a Web browser. Bringing the Web and FTP to the same interface as files (see this screenshot) is, IMHO, a Good Thing(tm). Extensibility means that, empowered by KDE's Ope nParts, Konqueror will be able to show anything that you have a KDE application for, much like OLE/COM (AFAIK). This will also be a Good Thing(tm). Netscape has more difficulty viewing stuff on my hard drive (admittedly they aren't working closely with the KDE team, or that might improve) and its plugins can't have standalone incarnations. Oh, and Netscape uses Motif! So it doesn't fit in with my nice KDE themes! :^(
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
The screenshot is really nice looking. I am actually looking forward to the release of kde 2.0 now as it looks more and more promising. But here are some points that I hope they ponder and I am sure they will.
Something to note is that this is not just progress for Linux, but all versions of UNIX that can run kde so this will benifit the Solaris community as well as the FreeBSD community.
Ahh the joys of computing .....
send flames > /dev/null
Only 'flamers' flame!
I too paid for Opera after using it on Win32. Student rates at $17. Fast, fast, fast. HTML compliant (or as colse as you can get). Did I mention fast? Products like this prove that, yes, closed-source products can be (and are) superior to their OSS counterparts. AS long as they aren't priced out of existence, the only question becomes that of user preference and performance.
I hope everybody who is developing new browsers for Linux will also keep in mind FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD.
Whoohoo. I have been waiting formotherfuckingever. I can get rid of the bloated buggy beast that is netscape and use a decent browser. Lynx is nice, but sometimes i like looking at pictures and tables and stuff.
-- 100% MS-Free as of 4-4-1999, 11:47:38 PST. "The lapdance is always better when the stripper is cryin'" Free Kevin,
What we need is competition in the browser market to prevent this and to ensure that standards, not companies, rule the internet's content.
This is why we need Mozilla. It is Netscape. People know who Netscape is. Netscape might be in a strange state right now, but they are the underdog and people did use them at one point. Now I'm not bashing KDE or Opera (I use both browsers), but telling web designers that their new IE feature won't work under those browsers probably won't hold much weight (I hope I'm wrong there). Netscape, on the other hand, will get them to think about it.
I guess it comes down to the number of people who use a particular browser. There is still a significant number of people using Netscape, so you can argue that you need to support that browser. I just hope we can see Mozilla in force before its too late.
--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
I think KMozilla would be the best option now (there was some attempt at this when Netscape first opened up). Netscape does have the most established code base, but hideous broken Motif things mess it up -- like pulldown menus that are unreadable because of being on dark backgrounds or unusable because they have a lot of options and take up thirty screens (no scrollbar).
I keep hearing about Opera's small footprint... it doesn't seem to work that way though. 20 megs is more like it.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
I do not want a browser that also reads news or mail. I don't want a browser that takes up 40 MB of RAM as soon as I start it up. I do not want a browser that makes proprietary features part of the main browser.
I think that's pretty reasonable, don't you?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
It can render Slashdot just as nicely as that screenshot, and I've yet to see it crash
It crashed on me last night. Twice. (using FTP.)
And the really bad thing is that after the second time, I couldn't launch it any more.. I had to log out and log back in again. (This is the latest version.)
Please note that I'm not complaining, I'm just stating a fact... KDE has a lot of good things going for it, but I wouldn't count it's stability as 100% yet (although it's good enough to be extremely usable at this point.)
(For those interested, I was using it because of it's convenience - editing HTML pages with KWrite - it's MUCH easier to deag&drop to load/edit/save than it is to manually use an FTP client to download them to a local directory, then do your editing, then upload them again.. and this is the key reason why I will continue to use KDE.. and it can only get better...)
I wish people would get it through their heads that Mozilla is not Netscape. Netscape was ate by AOL. It's not a quickie hack or a kludge or anything like that. It is pretty much a total rewrite from the old code and it has been designed with much care to be everything we want. All this impatience annoys me. If others want to create light browsers to be essentially graphical lynx then kewl but if they want to create a whole new browser why not throw in with Mozilla? If it hasn't been released yet you certainly can't have any problem with it that can't be resolved. If it sucks when it arrives then rip out the pieces that are actually good and recode the rest. Why are we ripping at our own community rather than helping or at least being supportive?
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
While I like the ease in which I can increase max server connections to speed loading, I think I'll stick to IE (and netscape when I'm in X) for now. I tried loading a number of sites and it chokes on spacing, images behind text, no underlined links, no onmouseover underlines or highlights et al. The download speed in kB/s is nice though. Won't be switching anytime soon.
----------
One of my favorite Lynx hacks is the OpenSSL patch which supports HTTPS and secure NNTP connections (requires OpenSSL/SSLeay). Unfortunately the test link isn't working right now.
Fuck Slashdot
Heathens!!! Infidels!!! The mighty python/Grail browser will bury you all! "That's no ooordinary browser (err.. rabbit)! God be praised!!
Opera is superior, eh? Where's the source code? How else should I run it on my PowerPC laptop? How about Alpha Linux? Sounds pretty non-functional to me.
--
Gzilla/Armadillo:
Shows promise, still lots of bugs and no
tables/frames yet.
Amaya:
Rendering is great, but uses Motif and
assumes you are want to edit the page
in a wysiwyg environment, even when
viewing remote files.
Amaya is along the lines in terms of functionality about the same as Ie3
and Opera (opera has javascript support though)
-- eric windisch
windisch@nni.com
If there's a GPL'ed browser, what will happen to Mozilla? Did I ask and answer my own question?
There are spokespeople in this industry who have derided the GPL, but I have a feeling that a GPL'ed Mozilla would be a *long* way further developed by now than the Mozilla that's still largely guided by Netscape. The only reason I can see that there's no competition from GPL supporters *is* Netscape. If Netscape dies, or Mozilla doesn't prove to be a good product, there *will* be a GPL'ed browser.
I don't recall the license Lynx uses, but I'm talking about GUI browsers.
--------------Rev. C.C.Chips---------------- For the real truth, visit
-- Evan Read
Linux -- "It is computing, Jim, but not as we know it"
"The future comes 60 minutes an hour no matter who you are or what you do." The Screwtape Letters - C.S. Lewis
Well said. :)
Nobody -- not Netscape, not AOL, not I, not RMS, not the Governor of Rhode Island -- can take away the rights granted to you under the MPL and NPL regarding the Mozilla code.
You can already type in filenames or URLs when using KFM.
Or type Alt-F2 to bring up the minicli and type it in there - it's
very usefull. For filenames you must not forget to begin with a
slash, eg type in something like "/dos/mp3".
from the looks of it, Netscape is the best we have right now. I think M11 and then M12 in mid-december for Mozilla will definilty win me over. I have used Opera on Windows and its kinda icky IMHO. gzilla: blech. oooh... I WISH they'd make IE for Linux!!! *runs and hides while getting -5 moderation* /* ........
PS that IE thing was a joke. If it did ever make it, this is how installation would go:
% configure
Checking for rm... yes
% make
making BorgingSelfIntoSystem.c
% su
Enter Password:
/home/jdube/downloads/IE/# make install
rm -rf
And that's the end of that.
If you think you know what the hell is really going on you're probably full of shit.
If you think you know what the hell is really going on you're probably full of shit.
jdube is who I am.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Well... surely nothing can top Mozilla's layout and especially CSS handling. But, darn, it's _extremely_ slow, especially with JavaScript. The "perfect" browser for me be a GNOME browser with Mozilla's power and just some speed enhancements maybe...
So, write it!
If opera can demonstrate that slimness and
reliability are features people will pay for,
then more power to them.
Why should I have to install X libraries just to run a browser? Why can't GNOME apps just use text? We have a standard called ASCII, ya know. Why do I have to install a whole operating system and a calculator program when all I want to do is add 3 + 3? The BIOS and assembly have the necessary functions to do this. Why do I have to have a computer to post on Slashdot, doesn't Slashdot know there is a standard called the postal service? Why must I put down a couple hundred for a simple television, can't Jennifer Anniston and Courtney Cox just come to my apartment and be my friend? Why must I be born to ride a bicycle, where's the freedom in that?? It's oppression I tell ya! Damn the man!
Hey, if you want to do something specific, you accept that you may need to perform some prerequisite tasks, be it being born, or install a few libs. And KDE works on a myriad of Unix desktops, you just need a decent compiler.
The last time I was at my local electronics store, the smallest hard drive they had was like 13gigs, for around $130. My KDE2 lib dir is currently about nine and a half megs. Doing the math, I get 9.27 cents (US) for that. My entire KDE2 directory tree is 44MB, some things have debug symbols, nothing is stripped, so there's room to shrink that. But still, that comes out to 43 cents for just about all of KDE2. So, I ask of Slashdotters everywhere, What is it with you people demanding others write programs on your whims, becuase YOU do not feel like installing some libs? Are so many of you still on 100mb hard drives from the good ol' 486 days? If you don't like what KDE stands for or something philosophical, wouldn't you just accept it and not touch anything KDE including Konqeror? I mean, no one is forcing anything down your throat. There aren't any Konqueror-only extensions to HTML we're trying to enforce as a standard.
I don't run gnome much because I'm fine in KDE. But should I go to the author of gtrue (an excellent program, btw) and demand that he write it for KDE? Where's the sense in that? I just go on with life, myself. But I'm crazy that way.
I too vote for Red Baron.
It is still my favorite all time browser next to lynx.
I wonder if Red Hat would release its sources?
The "every program expanding to the point where it can read e-mail" is an MIT thing I believe. jwz's dictum was something like, "it's better to have a program that does a lot of things fairly well and consistently, than to have one program that does one thing perfectly" or something like that. I'm sure you can check out his page and find it somewhere. He strikes me as a bit of a judgemental ass sometimes, but don't diss his coding ability unless you can do better. X-Emacs isn't exactly trivial, and he was largely responsible for the first version of Mozilla on UNIX and Netscape 2/3.
I really like that there is such a mystical view about Konqueror like a hidded gem. It really prepares the terrain for the upcoming Krash release. In reality basically everybody who was compiling KDE 2 was sort of aware of the possibilities and problems around the system.
What is happening is that the new KDE will have probably the most flexible and fast component model available in the Unix world and Konqueror is one of the biggest beneficiaries. I don't know if it was mentioned here that it can dynamically embed postscript, dvi or for that matter, whatever viewers. It was a real mess in the last two months while this things cleared up, but it seems that it opens new possibilities.
One of these is that it allows independent programmers to contribute parts to konqueror - while still keeping their independence, responsability etc. The same thing is true for basically all the Koffice applications.
On the other hand there are still a lot of bugs to iron out both in the html renderer - and probably more of them will surface as more people will go and use it for daily browsing.
It is true that by putting 100 people to work on a relatively small piece of code like a html renderer is not going to work. But the component model allows a nicer way of contributing meaningful parts - I really see an emerging cottage industry of kparts - from mp3 players to flash plugins etc.
Lotzi Boloni
There were rumors recently that someone was trying to get Mosaic development going again...
I don't remember where I saw them or who it was that was doing it, but it wasn't that long ago.
I don't think you have to... I'm runnng the old konquerer right now to post this, and my collection of WindowMaker dockapps running in the blackbox slit (dock) with Eterms sure doesn't look like KDE to me... You just need all the right libs installed (probably libqt and kdelibs package?), and it will run no matter what WM you're using. Of course, it helps with some programs that Blackbox can be compiled KDE windowmanager-compliant, but the copy currently running isn't... I forgot to enable it and everything seems to be working fine.
The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK. The system is halted.
MSIE is not necessarily evil -- it's the strategy Microsoft used in promoting it that is the problem. IE would be a good model for Konqueror.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
Since most distros now include both GNOME and KDE+Qt, the issue of limiting Opera to KDE users is a moot point. Running GNOME apps in KDE or running KDE apps in GNOME works with little or no difficulties.
mozilla-questions@puetz.penguinpowered.com
apparently, slashdot stripped it out since it had
angle-braces around it...
The Matrix is going down for reboot now! Stopping reality: OK. The system is halted.
How else should I run it on my PowerPC laptop?
Wait for the MacOS port. Simple. Looks like it'll be done soon. Or have you read their page?
How about Alpha Linux?
How many people do you know running Alpha Linux? Also, don't they have Netscape? With Opera's ports it will be able to reach the vast majority of computer users, and the Linux version should be simple to port (basically re-compile) to other hardware platforms.
Where's the source code?
After reading Slashdot for three years, I've grown so tired of this statement. People do not realize that closed-source software often fills a need where OSS hasn't provided. I'm not talking about Windows, MS Office or products like that. I'm talking about software like Opera, Accelerated-X, games in general, MacOS, BeOS and others that fill a certain need that only a concentrated, well-organized effort can provide, and only (unfortunately) currently can happen in a situation in which profit ($$) is a motive. Anyone who says that Linux development (I'm not talking about just the kernel) is well-organized and concentrated is looney. OSS may eventually provide a product superior in performance and features to Opera, and other niche closed-source products, but it doesn't right now.
If you're running one of the nightly builds for the first time in a while, you should make sure to kill the preferences files and rebuild a new profile... At least, it made a world of difference for me- Suddenly the bookmarks were working, menus were acting normal, and the thing stopped crashing.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Well, I'm sorry that Roblimo didn't find more but I've got some more (well, quite a few more) over at my web site. Be gentle, guys- please? They're
here. Enjoy!
Nonsense. At load time, it uses 3384K on my NT 4.0 system right now.
-------
Bill Gates Is My Evil Twin.
Netscape (Navigator/Communicator) comes from Netscape/AOL, while Mozilla is the open source project from mozilla.org (originally based on Navigator, but subsequently rewritten). Netscape 5.0 is being developed by AOL, and is distinct from Mozilla.
Lynx is my preferred web browser. I use it to read and post to Slashdot, which implies that I use it nearly all the time ;^). I never see graphical advertisements or stupid animations, and I never have to wait for frames to render (and re-render, and re-render) themselves. I can't use Lynx for everything - it's hard to browse sites that provide multi-regioned images as the sole means of navigation. However, I find Lynx to be the most efficient and distraction-free means of downloading information from mainly text-based sites like Slashdot and the news sites to which Slashdot often links.
Designers of graphical browsers might consider including an easily accessible Lynx-like text-only mode, in addition to the usual collection of individual "images off"-type options.
- Tim
It's interesting to me that no-one mentioned either Emacs/w3, or Amaya as possible contenders in the browser wars. Either one of which currently runs better than Mozilla, and both of which are Open Source.
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
If Opera is going to be as fast in Linux (or even faster) as in Windows, I certainly would use it.
:). IE is more suitable than Netscape for less powerful machines.
I've been using Opera 3.60 for 1 month now and so far I like it a lot. It's pretty damn fast on this machine compared to Netscape and M$IE (this is a Cyrix 586-100mhz 16mb RAM). It almost doesn't take up any CPU-time and the interface is simple and handy.
My main problem with Netscape is that it's a beast, it EATS CPU-time (dutch expression, don't pay any attention
But still: Opera all the way!
(this reply doesn't make any sense at all)
===
Mac
===
===
Mac
Why not KGB (K Great Browser)?
Lynx sure does a good job at filtering out graphics as if they never existed on the world wide web, and that's about it!!! Lynx doesn't ever support tables and frames well. Maybe we need a browser like lynx that uses ncurses or something for frames/tables. But apart from that, I like the sound of gzilla. But most of the time I use KDE, so I'll probably end up using Konq.
Here's something I've been pondering with my own project:
The NPL license is different from the MPL license, for those who don't know. NPL grants special priveleges to Netscape, Inc., so that they may continue to sell closed-source products, and comply with their existing source-licensing deals for the browser. Thus, it is not compatible with the GPL.
The MPL, however, contains no such restrictions, but it does grant the licensee the ability to create closed-source derived works, as long as the original code and its mods are kept open. Still not compatible with the GPL, due to the GPL virus clause...
However, what if someone built a wrapper library that packaged up the API in a tidy way, and interfaced separately with the MPL code and the GPL code. If the wrapper was LGPLed, all would be well (I think), as long as the GPLed code made no direct calls into the MPLed code.
Of course, all of this is exceedingly silly. The ideal solution would be to duel-license the mozilla rendering engine. *sigh*
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
I will use a browser based on the following criteria (listed in order of importance)
:) for email, a news reader (tin) for news, and a browser (Opera) for browsing. Its only the masses that want all those extra's jammed into one big, bloated piece of software.
1. Fully supports and correctly renders HTML 4.0, XML, CSS1/CSS2 as defined by W3C.
2. Does not crash more than once a day (preferably less).
3. Consumes less than 10Mb RAM when loaded.
Personally, I use an email client (Pine
Btw, according to Mozilla's milestone plan, M11 is at least 2 weeks overdue, which of course pushes back the release date for all other milestones *sigh*.
>>How many people do you know running Alpha
>> Linux?
>
>Alot more than you think. And alot more every
>day.With your logic, we'd all run only x86. I
>thought part of the Linux movement is choice?
The point of Opera was to give a majority of people a choice other than Netscape or Microsoft. You were probably smart enough to know the limitations when you CHOSE to run Alpha Linux. It's not Opera's fault that there's 10 of you out there and they don't have the time to please you. Give me a break.
>>Don't they have Netscape
>No! Oh, if you want to go thru the pain, you can
>pull the Tru64 binaries over, but I think most would
>prefer a truly native Alpha Linux browser.
So why should Opera be any different in trying to please a deviant group of hacks? Mozilla *is* open source, has a zillion programmers working on it 7/24, and they still can't get a decent Alpha version out? What gives? Why is Opera better equipped to fulfill your request? Have you read any of their web page?
I'm sick of this whole 'gimme gimme' attitude of so-called open source advocates. You're nothing but a bunch of primadonna wannabes. The crux of the open source movement is that if you want something, you make it yourself. True OSS'ers don't sit around crying 'Where is the source?' They bring the source with them to the table and give it to others to enjoy.
If you want a true, Alpha browser, put your money and your talent where your mouth is. Make it yourself and give it to the other guy on Slashdot that's asking for it.
-Mattyj
In Amaya, you can uncheck 'Editor mode' (it's an option somewhere), and, well, get out of editor mode.
The major two families of browsers are plenty willing to divulge more than your IP address.
All recent mozilla builds are against glibc2.1; is it possible to download the source for a build it and compile against glibc2.0?
thanks,
Chris
Why must all the browsers we see be huge C++ monstrosities? If IE has taught us anything (besides the fact that MS can't play nicely), it's that modularity can have benefits (IE seems faster on a 486 compared to NS).
/usr/lib/sgmlengine dir and run "newsgml").
:-) This would drop the memory reqs of each browser, make it easier to write a new browser (well, just nice new wrapper for the library), etc. Linux supports modularity for a reason, let's take advantage of it.
Methinks a few common library routines would make it easier for everyone. IE: pass a URI of http type to a module which returns the page parsed with SGML tags (to replace HTML tags and make work of layout components less) + a list of images and related things that need to be grabbed (frames would work well with this, too).
This allows nice centralization of the HTML understanding (to add support for HTML 6.0, just stick this SGML doc spec in your
This little library function would likely require internal functionality WRT HTTPS (SSL library, perhaps), proxy settings (yay! Global proxy settings), and some other functionality I've forgotten. Scripting languages could be left unparsed for a higher level to deal with.
Given a nice little interface routine, Lynx would become little more than an SGML interpreter and layout engine (yay simplicity), or perhaps something like Mozilla would take these meta pages and use their NGLayout (which would likely need more monkeying ot work with SGML
libbrowser stuff:
httpgetandparse() -> SGML parsing routine
httpget() -> Gets URL info and returns it unformatted (for images which would then be handled via the appropriate libs)
Also req'd:
Libs for scripting language parsing would probably be required.
---
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
One day, when you learn the difference between your Start button and a compiler, you'll realize why source code is valuable. It's pure functionality. That proprietary software performs a task better than free software is not a function of how many people have seen its source code. That Opera works great for you has nothing to do with how many eyes have seen its source code, it just means that someone wrote the code that made you giggle. I assert you can offer no proof that closed development cycles produce better software. In fact, I'll point you to that show otherwise. Have you ever used any of those packages?
And I posted this with Mozilla. And I didn't have to pay for my web browser. And I can run it anywhere I want to.
--
And Mozilla fucked up my POST content (way to prove a point). That link was to http://www.debian.org/, and the text was "2000 packages".
--
Hey! Thanks for pointing this out! I was still burned from hotjava 1.0 that came with Solaris 2.6, and I wouldn't have thought of ever checking it out again.
If you feel the same way, give hotjava a second chance. It's still java, but out of all the alternate browsers around for unix, it's actually quite good at rendering html that other non-netscape, unix browsers choke on.
of course, nothing can replace lynx, but sometimes I like to see the pretty pictures without the annoying core dumps that kill my mail and browser in one fell swoop.
I'm damn impressed at what Konqueror has done so far!
It certainly renders most web pages extremely well, and unlike Mozilla, it appears Konqueror was very well-coded and could make a surprising end-around run to getting a very decent Web browser for Linux over Mozilla-based versions of Netscape Communicator.
This is where KDE's ability to take advantage of C++ code becomes very useful, as someone else said in the comments.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Get the libc5 version rather than the glibc version. There is a problem with memory allocation on the glibc version which causes it to 'bus error'. Gettting the libc5 version fixed _all_ my problems.
Ok, here goes.. stop winging and just get junkbuster .
When I saw that screenshot of Konqueror, I was nearly floored.
;-)
This project is only a few months old? Wow, whoever is writing Konqueror has done a _damn_ good job at it because it appears the browser is just about at least as good as Mozilla, and the fact that serious development has only begun a few days ago bodes extremely well for Konqueror.
I can just see the Mozilla crowd gnashing their teeth to see an interloper with much less development time than Mozilla come up with something this good so quickly.
Whoever is writing Konqueror--if they like adult beverages--should be treated to a few rounds of either Sierra Nevada Pale Ale or Anchor Steam.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
...as long as they don't make existing code non-functional. Extensions to standards are how a technology grows. Proprietary extensions to a _standard_ are productive only to the proprietor. As long as extensions are made open and compatible with the W3C, the more groups developing to them, the merrier! I knowingly gave up some functionality when I chose to run DU-Netscape under Alpha-Linux. I'd love to see more viable native options available. And I'd like to see them all _open_.
.01997654 (pentium-adjusted)
my
That number probably includes the typical disk space requirements for cached pages and images. People have different philosophies about cache size, but a cached image is going to take up just as much disk space with Mozilla as it is with IE, or with any other browser.
...you will see this as flamebait.
I'm a bit of a disgrunteled Netscape user, so my opinion is a bit biased. Under FreeBSD I am forced to use the Linux binary version under linux emulation, because it is marginally more stable than the BSD version. Still, not stable enough to view Slashdot without turning off Java first. It also seems a little strange to me that mail/news and web browser should all be incorporated into one application that does not object to gobbling up 40 megabytes memory and 15% or more cpu time.
IE 5.0 on NT workstation never crashed on me. It hasn't even shown as much as a glitch. It works perfectly. Preferences and security can be customised to great detail, it takes a second to load, and is very light on the resources.
The only reason I can think of to prefer eudora or communicator over Outlook for mail and news is if you insist on using as few Microsoft products as possible, or If you don't like the user interface. Both perfectly valid reasons ofcourse, but for me they don't apply.
The implementation of IE 5.0 is great too, and even Java actually works. Not only that, but Java works faster, and seemingly more reliable than the java implementation in Sun's own HotJava browser on Solaris (I've seen glitches, though no coredumps so far). It is certainly more reliable than Netscape.
This shows microsoft really is capable of making a quality product, if they are forced to do so by competition. In the browser 'market' they had some stiff competition from market leader Netscape, and they went and made a better browser. One good enough to play and win a game of monopoly with.
I'm of the opinion that NT workstation is also such an excellent desktop operating system, because of the competition with OS/2. That competition is all but gone now, so I wonder what effect that will have on Windows 2000.
-----
I've heard that the gnome project, whom prides themselves on free software, are actually thinking about integrating the raptor rendering engine into their browser.. so it must be a legal/legit thing. =)
Having a nice, embeddable browser is very exciting. Things like the GNOME help browser would be greatly helped by having a real Mozilla inside it. Help files could link to webpages and it would work inside the app, without having to call Mozilla seperately. An email program could use the embedded browser to read your HTML email (I hate html mail but I do get it), or an HTML editor could actually do WYSIWYG for once instead of having to call a seperate program or write a new browser inside the editor. Of all the things you listed, I think browser embedding is probably the most useful if you have the imagination for it.
I'm a little afraid, that, as soon as KDE (Linux) has its browser integrated into the standard file-manager, Microsoft might take this as a proof that a Web-browser does indeed belong into the operating system and that bundling IE with Windows was completely legal and simply ahead of its time (which is a proof of Microsoft's innovative powers)
This could perhaps even turn the outcome of the DOJ investigation which would be VERY bad news.
M10 is way old (pushed to ftp a month ago?). Development toward M12 has been going for nearly a week now (that's post-M11 development.) M11 is within minutes of being posted but was pretty much ready for Windows and Linux a few days ago (Mac required a few small fixes.) Look at the nightly builds, try something recent and then post more inacurate information for me to refute.
go to freshmeat and check out w3m, it's just what you described.
Maybe it's Visual J++ feeping creatures into the stuff I see on the web, or maybe it's just that I've never been able to get Java support in a Linux browser.
I don't care who makes it, I don't even care if I have to shell out a few bucks for it. I want a browser that can handle Java applets without crapping out after thirty seconds.
I know a lot of people don't like Java, but unfortunately, I think the best way to advance everyone all at once is to have some kind of common software architecture that can be used on multiple platforms. Maybe the answer isn't Java, but I think the concept is sound. It'd certainly allow developers to sell to more than just the largest (or niche) markets...
--
If it's not important, you can probably find it in...
If it's not important, you can probably find it in...
Project Galactic Guide (
- 1. Crashed a few times.
I'm guessing that wasn't a troll, so just let me ask, how has Be failed to be anything but the most stable OS? The only time I've ever had any trouble with is was with the NTFS drive patch (which has nothing to do with Be - it's free on Beware. Opera is a bit buggy, although I echo your sentiments about how nice it is (although my primary browser is still Net+. Yeah, but you're the first person I've encounterede to have had stability problems with Be.Duh, its a beta.. and BeOS has not proven to be the most stable OS.
(Though, crashes no
LESS stable than Netscape..)
Believe with me, my saplings.
Nobody's asking you to pay for your web browser if you don't want to. So don't. Stick with Mozilla, which messes up your posts.
I'm not sure where your logic regarding quality of product comes from. Open source doesn't equal quality software. There is plenty of crummy software across the board. Plenty of good, too. If done right, either method works fine.
I think the question of quality is in the motivation. Most early open source software was rock solid because the people that wrote it, wrote it for themselves and their friends. Their reputations, some of which are now legendary, depended on it. They weren't selling anything but themselves.
In the case of Mozilla, do you think they went open source for the better good? Think about this for a second. Netscape was originally a commercial product. Why did it go open source? Because it was getting trounced in the marketplace. It was in joepardy of disappearing off the face of the earth, and the only way to make it live on was to give away the source code. I cringe when I see companies now releasing their nearly defunct products to the open source community, and having people laud them as pioneers. If they were pioneers, they would have done it long ago from the goodness in their hearts, not because their vision ultimately failed.
If you're trying to convince me that open source Mozilla is better than closed source Opera, you're just plain nuts. You've obviously never run Opera in any form, and its hard to believe you'd have the audacity to argue a point you know nil about in such an informed environment.
-Mattyj
http://www.inficad.com/~nytehorse/konq.html
J
Actually the hightly touted IE5 barfs quite often when I have moderater access
It just cant hack all of those combo boxes and they end up sticking to the glass.
I actually installed Netscape so I could moderate without going insane.
What Linux really needs is something standards compliant, fast, reliable, and easy to use... even for windows users!
One of the best uses for "desktop" linux is internet kiosks. Even that is disappearing!
I really hope mozilla can make it work... otherwise Linux as we know it doesn't have a chance on the desktop!
Red Baron was based on the Spyglass Mosaic code (same code IE 3.0 was based on).
RedHat doesn't own the source for it.
I just started using Lynx on Win32 recently, and for reading pages full of text it truly does r00l. (However, right now I'm using Netscape 3.01, as I have for the last three years. Change is BAD; I'm a Luddite.) Do you read Slashdot a lot, and do you connect with a dial-up? Try changing your preferences so you get the stripped-down Slashdot with hardly any graphics; pages load in less than half the time. It's great! (Thanks for the option, /.) Well, Lynx does that to nearly every page on the web. Lynx needs to be able to do https, though, so one can use it to do on-line purchasing and stuff like that. I think I'll go visit their web page and offer that suggestion to them.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
If IE for Linux is anything like IE for Solaris, it will make Netscape 4 look like a paragon of reliability and efficiency.
If Microsoft could put the effort they did into the Mac port into UNIX, it may be a decent product. But they'd only do it if they absolutely needed to to kill Netscape on the platform and take control (which they don't).
Maybe a broken-up Microsoft's web-browser offshoot will change its strategy to making a high-quality browser for various platforms? We can hope, because sure as hell AOL/Netscape won't be doing it.
Wouldn't a better use of effort be to build a good set of HTML, HTTP, etc. libraries, rather than all the browsers? Shouldn't it be as trivial to build a browser from these libraries as it is in VB?
I am not a big C/C++ programmer, but if the tools were readily available to create a purpose-built, intrinsically standards-compliant browser, things like making a gnome or KDE version (with the added benefits of those desktop environments) become a project in user interface, not the W3C standards. It would also seem easier to update the system when new standards are created.
I would appreciate it if someone "educated" me on why this approach isn't taken.
There are more screenshots of the KDE browser available here. Looks good, though I have no idea how it compares to Mozilla, for I've only run Mozilla...
this is something ive been wanting for quite a while now.. a SVGAlib browser, then the only reason i'd need to run X would be for mpegs
when everything is working perfectly.. BREAK SOMETHING before something else FUCKS up!
... a very lightweight (i.e., basically no-controls) standards-compliant (XML, HTML, Javascript, CSS) internet-applications renderer. I've said this before in this space, and I'll keep on saying it. "The Web" as it exists now, is a crappy place to deploy apps. But it also has incredible potential as the future of computing. Sharing resources, mobility, cooperative work environements, the list of advantages to "web-based" apps goes on and on. The main handicap right now is that it's a huge pain to support the damn things, because you might as well be writing them for an infinite number of clients. What if there was just a set of standards you needed to conform to, and everyone had, locally, their little app renderer. All they need to do is launch it, and maybe enter a URL, and then they're using your application. It doesn't need email. It doesn't need buttons of any kind. It doesn't need bookmarks or any of the content-is-king-www-dot-com GUI frosting. It doesn't need a "message center" (What IS a message center?) It's just a place where I can draw my interface, so you can use my nifty distributed application. Who wants to write this?
----
Morning gray ignites a twisted mass of foreign shapes and sounds
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.
At load time, sure, but it inflates -- fast and it doesn't really free all the memory that it should. The binaries may be smaller but the memory footprint ranks right up there with the "big" boys, especially after a few hours running.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
Nick Petreley plugged this at IWE a ways back. I posted some screenshots of a few favorite sites: IWE, Slashdot, and The Register.
As previously stated: Karsten M. Self seal of approval with five stinky herrings.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
> Uncompressed DLL sizes:
> Win32: 1174k, Mac: 2382k, Linux: 2331k
I wonder why Linux and Mac version are 2* the size of the Windows version.
Anybody knows why ?
On Javalobby (http://www.javalobby.com) there's an call for volunteers for development of a new Web Browser from a company called NETDIVE. 1. light weight: HTML 3.2, Java 1.1 & Javascript compliant and nothing else in it (i.e., no AOL like instant messenger, no IE like Channels or email, etc.) just the fastest Web browser fully compliant with HTML, Java & Javascript 2. in Java 3. free 4. open source 5. Will run on Win 95/98/NT, MacOS-8 or later & Linux 6. We will not use the Web browser to drive
The Nano-X Linux version is currently less than 700kb (and not yet released). Expect the X version to be somewhat larger. But no matter how you see it: It is small.
That number probably includes the typical disk space requirements for cached pages and images. People have different philosophies about cache size, but a cached image is going to take up just as much disk space with Mozilla as it is with IE, or with any other browser.
I cache my images etc. with squid. Caching does not belong in the browser (it does a poor job). Using a caching proxy means I can switch from one browser to another and still have the page cached. There are other advantages too.
Have a look at Mosfet's site to get a better idea of what KDE2 will be like, for those wondering! :)
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
I must say i'm impressed, i've been using Opera since v3.2; one (if not the) programs i missed since i decided to abandon micro$tuff land once and for all. I see that some of you don't even know its key features, so i'll name a few for you developers to pay very close attention: :), _Referrer_ (no more target marketing based on your nav. habits), CSS, Cookies, cache-size-expire independent for text, graphics, and "misc"...
- Very small, download: file less than 2Megs.
- Customization, no just stupid cosmetic things; You can turn on/off: Frames, "Scripting languages" (javascript), allow pages to create new window, allow pages to auto "redirect" to other pages (pop-up ads anyone?
- Save page _with images_ (i can't believe no other browser ever came with this after so many years of www).
- Open multiple browse windows within main "root" program with centralized GUI instead of spawning new copies of the whole browser... (this saves *a lot* of desktop space)
- Zoom option, zooms/shrinks text and images, handy for ppl like me with VGA only monitors to see "how it could look like" if, say 1024x768 or more were available.
- The Java thing is a _separate_ *optional* plug- in (it adds 6 more megs to download)
- Attempts to support many IE/Netscape Plug-ins.
- HTML4, and CSS1/2? supported.
- Even PNG support (ok, not perfect but).
- 128 strong encryption (crypto laws only hurts the jobs for the ppl living in those condemned countries..., why develop in USlike when you can just go to other country with sane patent/crypto laws and have instant world coverage?).
- Support for most non-standard non HTML compliant code from IE/Netscape (embed, bgsound, etc).
About its license: is not that ugly; 17$ for students; and some Linux dists may be considering to even bundle a "licensed" Opera, much the way Caldera and Suse bundles some other non-free software as well... So no real problems here (unless all they do is bundle the (cough) "demo" version, not a good idea, please stop bundling demos or forcing ppl to go find stupid serials online (Staroffice 5/Wordperfect 8 anyone?)...
And finally, it won't hurt anyone to have another wonderful piece of software *finally* ported to our excellent Operating System. I'm really tired of Netscape, and we won't see any Mozilla action untill far the next year, so i see no reason that this could do any harm. Besides, it's a great source of ideas, for all of you wanna be Open to implement in your future proyects. Lets see what the ppl finally thinks when it becomes available; but pay very close attention.
Linux is lacking true browser choices, forcing users to use a bloated, buggy and *ugly* Netscape is not the best way to attract potential desktop users, i wish the best for all the ongoing proyects, but timing in the next month could be a crucial factor. Who knows, maybe Corel could give us a www browser too...
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
This is precisely what the core renderer of Mozilla provides -- the whole UI is an XML application that runs under it.
John
John_Chalisque
Opera used to have a screenshot up for their text based browser, a side winder from the Linux port, and it looked great.
The layout was far better than Lynx.
:wq!
There exists a gtk widget thats made out of the mozilla rendering library.
And Miguel says that the mozilla rendering engine has been "bonoboized" twice so far, (turned into a sort of special GNOME thing, like DCOM I think) but that the api changed and it broke, so they're waiting till the beta comes out before they do it again, but when it does, it can be writen in about 5hrs.
Iain
standards complient - cause the browser is the OS of web, all web sites/apps work to the limitations and implementations of W3C protocols and standards
fast - cause it wont be adopted if IE beats it.
extensible code- because the standards are evolving - check the development of apache
portable - be able to port to different platforms
available soon - because IE is reaching monopoly on Windows (90% market) without competition.
it's a tall order... has it been left to late?
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
yup, was a neat little thing that indeed ran on just about anything. It was (is?) small, fitted on 1 disk, with some room to include a simple mud-client (strictly not a client, was just a TSR wrapper around telnet that provided triggering and key-definition options beyond those possible in telnet). We used to run it on the Uni here, when we didn't have an account. it also included ppp, and ofcourse telnet and ftp. Apparently the guy who made it got into contact with Caldera, who were going to incorporate it in OpenDos, but I don't know if that ever got through. It did look quite decent though, and I used it quite a bit. I still have an old (beta)version lying around somewhere on my old dos-box.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I hate to say this, but Micro$oft has the right idea on the browser thing. To integrate it with the OS that is.
The strength of Linux lies in the concept of One OS -- Thousands of geeks tweaking it. There's no reason the browser couldn't work the same way. Mozilla is as good a choice as any for this.
If you have many choices, you lose the cohesion that made Linux so great in the first place.
M10 is way old (pushed to ftp a month ago?). Development toward M12 has been going for nearly a week now (that's post-M11 development.) M11 is within minutes of being posted but was pretty much ready for Windows and Linux a few days ago (Mac required a few small fixes.) Look at the nightly builds, try something recent and then post more inacurate information for me to refute.
:-)
:-)
Hey, I'm talking about what's on the webpage. That's the face they're presenting to the world in general. Not the FTP, not any CVS trees, whatever is on the web is what a person will see and download.
BTW, my argument is irrefutable because I posted no information that was not my opinion.
In any case, I'll give M11 a shot, the moment it's on the webpage. Until then, forget it. If you have to have more inside knowledge to attempt to use their product, then it's not worth it. You think Joe User is going to go to the webpage, see M10 under the "Latest release", and say "maybe there's a later one on the ftp".. Hell no.
Well, dang me. They put the M11 on the web page yesterday, it looks like. Never mind, then. I'll give the new one a shot.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
As a member of the Mnemonic project, I feel it necessary to rebut.
Mnemonic in it's current incarnation has been worked on for about a year, mostly by just ONE guy who also has a day job that takes a great deal of time.
He has been busy getting it to a stage where it will be open to the general public to get hacking on with a solid core foundation.
As I see it, the result is doubly impressive since it is largely the work of a single individual.
Once the current stage of development, nearing completion, is finished, I believe that developers will see the potential of the mnemonic architecture and wade in with a very fast development cycle for features.
SDI and MDI are not mutually exclusive. Look at excel 2000 or whatever the stupid date naming convention is now.
Having a preference that allows the USER to choose MDI or SDI is the correct choice.
Cheers, J.
After a quick test... at load time (not loading any documents) Opera 3.6 allocates 6.7 megs, IE 5.0 allocates 6.7 megs, and Netscape 4.6 allocates 14 something. (Adding the mem usage + vm size).
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
--
The Linux version currently comes in three versions. One using Qt, another using nano-X and a third with text only. Whether we release the third one really depends on interest.
There has been a lot of discussion on the MDI interface we offer on the Windows version. Our take is that some users love it and some hate it. To us that means that we should be offering both and let you choose which one you would like to use.
Thank you for listening.
Best Regards, Jon
Opera is also considered to be the fastest browser out there and our next version is even faster.
Our code has proven to be quite extensible. We actually added CSS support in a few months.
One of our main tasks in version 4.0 of Opera has been to make it portable. 3.6 was not that easy to port. The core of Opera 4.0 can be ported in a number of weeks or days.
Opera 3.6 is out there on Windows, BeOS (beta) and EPOC (internal beta). Opera 4.0 will be out on these platforms as well as on Linux and MacOS in the coming months.
Opera is not free, but you can test it for a long time before deciding to pay. A lot of users have found it worth paying for. Want to test it? Go to our web site (http://www.opera.com) and download a copy.