Having a certification might impress some suits, but do *we* really care?
Most techs still make a choice based on facts and real-life requirements and experience instead of some certification. We like to do it ourselves, no?
These improvements *will* improve Linux. That's all that matters. Any certifications that might be the result of it are merely a side effect and not very important, to us.
The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are most definitely among my favourite books. I do not read a lot *shame on me*, but the quality stuff just gets to you.
My dad gave me a great set of these books during a deal we made during a ski trip (I gave him a copy of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe) and I was hooked since the very start. It is a real shame I didn't read this earlier, although, I am glad I read it *now*, because I have a lot more appreciation for my "first time" now than I would have had being a teenager.
Despite the evil MPAA, this will sometime be one of the DVD's I will own. With pride.
And, it you do a Custom install... you'll see it comes with Flash!
Ah, maybe things are better on Windows. On Linux there is no custom install, in fact, you untar into a package/ directory and cannot do more than run./netscape. Adding the --installer copies some old settings but that's it.
Sure, I do not want them to change Mozilla totally, but the main issues with Mozilla (being ugly and not totally mom-friendly yet) haven't been resolved yet and those two issues *are* something I'd expect of a brand.
Other than putting the "N" instead of the lizard and changing the startpage (which has some interesting migration info, check it) they didn't change a whole lot. It's plain Mozilla.
In fact, I was dissapointed by the amount of branding they did. I know it's only a preview, but I would've hoped to see the --installer convert more than my bookmarks. It didn't copy my Flash install and I doubt it even supports it. It hangs a lot on their startpage. not a good first impression.
I'll stick with 4.7x without Java for most tasks and the real Mozilla builds for the adventure.. this branded preview has little more to offer than Mozilla has.
Is it Mozilla, repackaged? I doubt that.. Mozilla is getting more stable and stable with every milestone but I wouldn't call it a beta yet (especially now that CSS rendering has been fucked up in the latest nightly builds).
I guess NS 6.0 includes some components of Mozilla, most noticably the Gecko renderer, but not all. Plus of course there'll be tons of old NS code to handle Flash, Java, etc etc. About 4Mb of overhead (comparing the 10Mb download to the 6Mb Mozilla download).
Oh well, I'm sure most of *us* will like it.
More important will be the public acceptance and attitude. And whether AOL will finally use Ns/Gecko in its products. How compliant IE 5.5's Tasman *really* is (the Netscape article on DevEdge seemed a tad biased.
Even if this won't pull Netscape out of the dark, it would be nice if we could start developing websites without compatibility hacks. That alone would be worth it IMHO.
At first, I thought this was another belated April Fools Joke. It sounds a bit trivial:
My DNA is what it is because it has been passed on by my ancestors. My surname is what it is because it has been passed on by my ancestors. That's why most of my family has similar DNA and why the male side of my family tree (going up from where I stand) has the same surnames.
Of course the correlation decreases using larger groups.. but it's still trivial.
I must admit that it's interesting to see how it can be applied in genealogy, the fidelity rate example was clever.
I hardly see a big problem with the current setup..
Most novice users will never ever compile their own kernel.
For those of us who do, make oldconfig will do fine for a simple kernel upgrade with no hardware changes. When you do have hardware changes, is make menuconfig really such a pain?
I think that the configuration might need to be re-catagorized for simplicity and accessibility, but I doubt whether XML or another technique will be magic pixie dust.
That would be a nice work around, but it doesn't cover the problem that starting an open source project is almost impossible without an existing codebase.
In case a project would *still* not be maintained, how much time and effort will Red Hat put into it? I understand you'll do basic maintainance and patches for project if/when noone else does, but this doesn't apply to very fresh ideas/projects.
Also, do you cooperate with parties such as Gnome (obviously?), KDE, etc? I could imagine that an abandoned Gnome or KDE project would best be taken over by someone active in a group related to the project.
Keeping a program alive is very important for open source.
However, I would hope the project will not just focus on existing code that has been abandoned, but will also deal with the following issues:
Maintained programs that could use more manpower but have been unable to harness more volunteers.
They could help such program to create a better development infrastructure (website, mailinglist, CVS.. kinda what SourceForge does now) but also with more developers.
Neat program ideas that simply haven't been turned in a project yet.
I realize it's hard (if not impossible) to start an open source project as such - in fact I noticed it myself. They could however start such a project on their own and then when there is enough momentum to open source it do so and guide it.
Alltogether this might be a very good thing though. All too often I come across dead projects on Freshmeat and regret that noone took over the project. (then again, there have been ocassions where months later the project reappeared and looked very healthy again, so one much be pretty sure a project is dead before trying to foster it)
The Mozilla project so far has produced more hype than code, and what code there is is buggy, unstable and nowhere near usable.
No, it's alpha quality -- and soon beta.
I agree, there is a lot of hype. Then again Mozilla is/will be the first browser with full support for the latest W3C specifications. Mozilla is/will be fast compared to the majority of other browsers. So there is hype. But there is also code.
When this beta comes out, thousands will rush to download and install it, only to switch back to their old browser a few days later as they get frustrated with the slow performance and inevitable crashes. It's a crying shame as otherwise it looks like a good browser - maybe the next attempt will get it right. And as much as we all hate Microsoft, at least Internet Explorer works and is compliant with all but the latest W3C standards.
I doubt I'll bother with this release, but I'm looking foward to the day when we see a great browser for Linux which delivers performance rather than hype. Thank you.
If you are looking for a Linux browser, then don't mention MSIE. Face it.. at least Mozilla *runs* on Linux. Perhaps Mozilla will not be the best browser for the Windows platform soon, but please name one browser for Linux that is better than Mozilla (other than Lynx or w3m) and I'll be happy to give it a try.
By the way, it's terribly immature to bitch about someone's code, especially when they offer you to improve it. If you seriously have issues with Mozilla, go to Bugzilla and file some bug reports. I did, and got very neat responses as well as bugfixes.
Please *do* bother with this release, it will improve the next.
Looks like Mozilla is almost there, although it will take a long time to go from beta to final.
I'm using the nightly builds quite often and although there has been a lot of progress the last months, Mozilla would not yet be accepted as browser by the masses.
A few of the issues:
Mozilla looks horrible. They'd better start working on some nice themes, because the default looks are crap. And so tells every friend I show Mozilla. I know that it's cute and looks like Netscape's portal, but it's just not pretty.
Mozilla crashes too often. Don't let the Beta1 progress list fool you: these are only release-stopping bugs. There *are* tons of other serious ones that need to be addressed first.
Mozilla is not MSIE. Harsh as it is, this *is* a problem. Even if Mozilla is better than MSIE, a lot of users will not even try it. MSIE does it's job good enough and the general public doesn't care about ethics (yet).
And there's probably even more...
But, Mozilla is open source so we can all help and address these issues. Mozilla is very cross-platform. Mozilla might/should/will? replace MSIE as browser component for AOL and gain instant market share. Other manufacturers can also ship Mozilla or even plain Gecko as browser component without paying a Microsoft fee.
It seems, on the surface, that this (or a similar law) would dramatically boost open source software. One sure way to kill proprietary software is to make it fatal!
This is the most common UCITA misunderstanding. It's not about closed or open source software. UCITA makes a distinction between software that is distributed under a shrink-wrap license and all other software.
Shrink-wrap distribution (and *only* SW-dist) is allowed to waiver all responsibilities, while other distribution (e.g. Internet downloads) automatically mean full responsibility for the author(s).
This would be a disaster for open source. The fundamentals of the open source development model (ESR's bazaar) *are* to release early and often and to release unfinished software to create an "itch" to improve it.
It's understandable many people associate the UCITA with open and closed source, but I wish more people would realize that's not what it's about and that that is exactly the reason it's so scary. UCITA does not only screw consumer rights, but also developer rights.
I am thinking that Red Hat and other companies that rely on the individual for contributions will loose ALL of their support if this law passes. I hope they realize this.
Which is exactly why they should care and why I wonder why they haven't shown any awareness yet. Red Hat and others rely on open source developers and therefore it's in their own best interest to help us fight the UCITA.
I'm too lazy to go through all that text, but it seems to me that this is all about commercial, closed-source software. Could someone please explain, what this means for opensource?
Actually, this is not about open or closed-source software at all. It's about making a distinction between shrink-wrapped distributed software and otherwise distributed software.
It does not even change a lot for shrink-wrapped software: most EULA's already waiver all liability and have odd clauses. The damning part of the UCITA is that liability is default and without a shrink-wrapped distribution you cannot dismiss that liability and distribute "as is".
Perhaps you should not be so lazy and read the text, or Richard M. Stallman's reaction to the UCITA.
This will take away consumer *and* developer rights. And there will be no turning to free software because the UCITA could possibly make some of the foundations of the bazaar model or open source idealism impossible or illegal.
Where are the major players. And with major players I do not mean the ones that lobby to support UCITA.
What is Red Hat doing to raise awareness and fight this? VA Linux? Troll Tech? The Mozilla team? Anyone?
You would think that any company relying on or dealing with open source would have some sort of statement on this. They must oppose this or they wouldn't be in this business. They must realize that this is bad for them, too.
We should not only fight this by contacting our representatives [something I could not even do at the moment being a European citizen], but we should also ask or maybe demand from the major players in the community to take a stand. As user, customer *and* developer.
So go ahead and ask the distributor of your favourite software packages or distribution for their statement. I did, and am eagerly waiting a reply.
Maybe not, since in that case 12-30-1998 would have been the last one. I kinda expected this post after the 11-19-1999 hype. Bummer we have to wait until 1-1-3111 now.
So what's the next hype? The countdown until Sun Sep 9 03:46:39 2001 when we'll hit 999999999 with time_t? Or want to wait a second for the big billion?
Applications and drivers is really all we need, IMHO.
While KDE and Gnome and the likes are not perfect, they definitely give the mainstream user a comfortable, usable GUI.
Installation procedures have been improving a lot too, just look at Caldera or Corel. Besides, there are tons of books such as Easy Linux that start with explaining drag-and-drop, so even the new computer users can probably learn Linux without a lot of obstacles.
What Linux continues to need though, is all the latest applications and drivers. The diversity of reasons not to use Linux I hear has shrinked to "I cannot run FavProg97" or "my DVD/webcam/whatever isn't supported".
There are many viable alternatives and workarounds for this problem, but to go mainstream Linux should no longer require workarounds. Native support, mainstream.
My mother thinks the computer at work is running WordPerfect. Since the has no interest in the OS and mostly types papers and letters on the computer, she cares about WordPerfect. I set up a Linux machine at home with KDE and WordPerfect and she continued exclaiming: "yes I run this at work too!", even when I showed some screensavers.
Linux was ready for my mother because it supported our hardware and ran the programs she wants to use in a solid, clean interface (KDE). Linux will be ready for mainstream use as soon as it supports most or all hardware and programs.
Things such as... www.domain.com/index.php3?q=page&dummy=yawn.html So I named my.html page a bit odd... wasn't there also an <isindex%gt; tag for stuff like this?
But if this was integrated into a browser... you would save bandwidth because lots of pages would be evaluated without an extra download, the page is loaded anyway.
Of course this idea will raise questions about privacy and the such, and the most popular pages would get evaluated most frequently (which isn't such a bad feature actually, some search engines work this way, they index cnn.com multiple times a day but put mypage.com on a lower priority).
First of all: yes, it is hilarious/wonderful/odd flaws like these exist in products.
Now, what's the big problem? You notice this as soon as you try and boot up the machine. It won't work, you return it. I admit that's more trouble than a consumer would have to go through and I know it out of experience because I once had a PC that wouldn't go further than the BIOS more than 9 out of 10 times.
Face it: I'd much rather have a product that doesn't work from the beginning so I can return it than a product that stops working after a short while. Then you are really in trouble.
On the other hand.. if this passes quality ensurance labs, what else has and will? Anyone care to speculate? (without naughty remarks about that other OS, please, I'm more interested in hardware flaws on my network and in my house)
This once more emphasises how important marketing has become (or remained) in the computer industry.
We all know how version numbers are inflated for marketing purposes. Using dates such as Windows 98 or October Gnome actually make sense though, being release dates not version numbers, which is a lot more comprehensable by the public.
However, it's not that simple anymore as product names are completely revamped as well. Windows NT is now called Windows 2000, the single-user variant will now be called Millennium instead. And now Windows CE is called Powered.
Looks like Redmond thinks that renaming a product throws away all the legacy and actually makes the product better. Unfortunately the marketing droids are actually able to sell that story to a lot of people too.
Exactly. There are 4 browsers you might want or need at the moment:
Netscsape for all the pages that just won't work (yet) on any of the alternatives.
Lynx for fast and easy browsing and actually getting some information instead of eye-candy. And of course whenever all you have is the console or a telnet login.
KDE's browser to drag-n-drop downloads and to use a pretty okay graphical browser for the simple stuff.
Mozilla to test your own HTML4.0/CSS and for fun and giggles.
I use all four of these, depending on my mood, task.. Mozilla and Konqueror (the browser in KDE2) will replace Netscape some day but even though both projects look great and are quite useable already, they're not exactly there yet. And Lynx will always be around.
As for the other 17 browsers... Opera might get a nice niche market, StarOffice's internal browser is okay.. I haven't tried the rest recently so I don't have an opinion on those other than that I hope we will go to a situation with many different browsers and functionality/integration and only a few rendering engines.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for taking your joke seriously.. I just don't see understand the value of making a system secure by making it practically useless.
Most techs still make a choice based on facts and real-life requirements and experience instead of some certification. We like to do it ourselves, no?
These improvements *will* improve Linux. That's all that matters. Any certifications that might be the result of it are merely a side effect and not very important, to us.
The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are most definitely among my favourite books. I do not read a lot *shame on me*, but the quality stuff just gets to you.
My dad gave me a great set of these books during a deal we made during a ski trip (I gave him a copy of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe) and I was hooked since the very start. It is a real shame I didn't read this earlier, although, I am glad I read it *now*, because I have a lot more appreciation for my "first time" now than I would have had being a teenager.
Despite the evil MPAA, this will sometime be one of the DVD's I will own. With pride.
Ah, maybe things are better on Windows. On Linux there is no custom install, in fact, you untar into a package/ directory and cannot do more than run ./netscape. Adding the --installer copies some old settings but that's it.
Sure, I do not want them to change Mozilla totally, but the main issues with Mozilla (being ugly and not totally mom-friendly yet) haven't been resolved yet and those two issues *are* something I'd expect of a brand.
In fact, I was dissapointed by the amount of branding they did. I know it's only a preview, but I would've hoped to see the --installer convert more than my bookmarks. It didn't copy my Flash install and I doubt it even supports it. It hangs a lot on their startpage. not a good first impression.
I'll stick with 4.7x without Java for most tasks and the real Mozilla builds for the adventure.. this branded preview has little more to offer than Mozilla has.
I guess NS 6.0 includes some components of Mozilla, most noticably the Gecko renderer, but not all. Plus of course there'll be tons of old NS code to handle Flash, Java, etc etc. About 4Mb of overhead (comparing the 10Mb download to the 6Mb Mozilla download).
Oh well, I'm sure most of *us* will like it.
More important will be the public acceptance and attitude. And whether AOL will finally use Ns/Gecko in its products. How compliant IE 5.5's Tasman *really* is (the Netscape article on DevEdge seemed a tad biased.
Even if this won't pull Netscape out of the dark, it would be nice if we could start developing websites without compatibility hacks. That alone would be worth it IMHO.
I'll be back when wget tells me it has [100%].
My DNA is what it is because it has been passed on by my ancestors. My surname is what it is because it has been passed on by my ancestors. That's why most of my family has similar DNA and why the male side of my family tree (going up from where I stand) has the same surnames.
Of course the correlation decreases using larger groups.. but it's still trivial.
I must admit that it's interesting to see how it can be applied in genealogy, the fidelity rate example was clever.
I think that the configuration might need to be re-catagorized for simplicity and accessibility, but I doubt whether XML or another technique will be magic pixie dust.
{
}
Then drop it off as unmaintained code. ;)
That would be a nice work around, but it doesn't cover the problem that starting an open source project is almost impossible without an existing codebase.
In case a project would *still* not be maintained, how much time and effort will Red Hat put into it? I understand you'll do basic maintainance and patches for project if/when noone else does, but this doesn't apply to very fresh ideas/projects.
Also, do you cooperate with parties such as Gnome (obviously?), KDE, etc? I could imagine that an abandoned Gnome or KDE project would best be taken over by someone active in a group related to the project.
However, I would hope the project will not just focus on existing code that has been abandoned, but will also deal with the following issues:
They could help such program to create a better development infrastructure (website, mailinglist, CVS.. kinda what SourceForge does now) but also with more developers.
I realize it's hard (if not impossible) to start an open source project as such - in fact I noticed it myself. They could however start such a project on their own and then when there is enough momentum to open source it do so and guide it.
Alltogether this might be a very good thing though. All too often I come across dead projects on Freshmeat and regret that noone took over the project. (then again, there have been ocassions where months later the project reappeared and looked very healthy again, so one much be pretty sure a project is dead before trying to foster it)
No, it's alpha quality -- and soon beta.
I agree, there is a lot of hype. Then again Mozilla is/will be the first browser with full support for the latest W3C specifications. Mozilla is/will be fast compared to the majority of other browsers. So there is hype. But there is also code.
When this beta comes out, thousands will rush to download and install it, only to switch back to their old browser a few days later as they get frustrated with the slow performance and inevitable crashes. It's a crying shame as otherwise it looks like a good browser - maybe the next attempt will get it right. And as much as we all hate Microsoft, at least Internet Explorer works and is compliant with all but the latest W3C standards.
I doubt I'll bother with this release, but I'm looking foward to the day when we see a great browser for Linux which delivers performance rather than hype. Thank you.
If you are looking for a Linux browser, then don't mention MSIE. Face it.. at least Mozilla *runs* on Linux. Perhaps Mozilla will not be the best browser for the Windows platform soon, but please name one browser for Linux that is better than Mozilla (other than Lynx or w3m) and I'll be happy to give it a try.
By the way, it's terribly immature to bitch about someone's code, especially when they offer you to improve it. If you seriously have issues with Mozilla, go to Bugzilla and file some bug reports. I did, and got very neat responses as well as bugfixes.
Please *do* bother with this release, it will improve the next.
I'm using the nightly builds quite often and although there has been a lot of progress the last months, Mozilla would not yet be accepted as browser by the masses.
A few of the issues:
Mozilla looks horrible.
They'd better start working on some nice themes, because the default looks are crap. And so tells every friend I show Mozilla. I know that it's cute and looks like Netscape's portal, but it's just not pretty.
Mozilla crashes too often.
Don't let the Beta1 progress list fool you: these are only release-stopping bugs. There *are* tons of other serious ones that need to be addressed first.
Mozilla is not MSIE.
Harsh as it is, this *is* a problem. Even if Mozilla is better than MSIE, a lot of users will not even try it. MSIE does it's job good enough and the general public doesn't care about ethics (yet).
And there's probably even more...
But, Mozilla is open source so we can all help and address these issues. Mozilla is very cross-platform. Mozilla might/should/will? replace MSIE as browser component for AOL and gain instant market share. Other manufacturers can also ship Mozilla or even plain Gecko as browser component without paying a Microsoft fee.
Mozilla will do just fine. Thanks, developers.
This is the most common UCITA misunderstanding. It's not about closed or open source software. UCITA makes a distinction between software that is distributed under a shrink-wrap license and all other software.
Shrink-wrap distribution (and *only* SW-dist) is allowed to waiver all responsibilities, while other distribution (e.g. Internet downloads) automatically mean full responsibility for the author(s).
This would be a disaster for open source. The fundamentals of the open source development model (ESR's bazaar) *are* to release early and often and to release unfinished software to create an "itch" to improve it.
It's understandable many people associate the UCITA with open and closed source, but I wish more people would realize that's not what it's about and that that is exactly the reason it's so scary. UCITA does not only screw consumer rights, but also developer rights.
Which is exactly why they should care and why I wonder why they haven't shown any awareness yet. Red Hat and others rely on open source developers and therefore it's in their own best interest to help us fight the UCITA.
If we are getting screwed, they will be too.
Actually, this is not about open or closed-source software at all. It's about making a distinction between shrink-wrapped distributed software and otherwise distributed software.
It does not even change a lot for shrink-wrapped software: most EULA's already waiver all liability and have odd clauses. The damning part of the UCITA is that liability is default and without a shrink-wrapped distribution you cannot dismiss that liability and distribute "as is".
Perhaps you should not be so lazy and read the text, or Richard M. Stallman's reaction to the UCITA.
This will take away consumer *and* developer rights. And there will be no turning to free software because the UCITA could possibly make some of the foundations of the bazaar model or open source idealism impossible or illegal.
What is Red Hat doing to raise awareness and fight this? VA Linux? Troll Tech? The Mozilla team? Anyone?
You would think that any company relying on or dealing with open source would have some sort of statement on this. They must oppose this or they wouldn't be in this business. They must realize that this is bad for them, too.
We should not only fight this by contacting our representatives [something I could not even do at the moment being a European citizen], but we should also ask or maybe demand from the major players in the community to take a stand. As user, customer *and* developer.
So go ahead and ask the distributor of your favourite software packages or distribution for their statement. I did, and am eagerly waiting a reply.
So what's the next hype? The countdown until Sun Sep 9 03:46:39 2001 when we'll hit 999999999 with time_t? Or want to wait a second for the big billion?
While KDE and Gnome and the likes are not perfect, they definitely give the mainstream user a comfortable, usable GUI.
Installation procedures have been improving a lot too, just look at Caldera or Corel. Besides, there are tons of books such as Easy Linux that start with explaining drag-and-drop, so even the new computer users can probably learn Linux without a lot of obstacles.
What Linux continues to need though, is all the latest applications and drivers. The diversity of reasons not to use Linux I hear has shrinked to "I cannot run FavProg97" or "my DVD/webcam/whatever isn't supported".
There are many viable alternatives and workarounds for this problem, but to go mainstream Linux should no longer require workarounds. Native support, mainstream.
My mother thinks the computer at work is running WordPerfect. Since the has no interest in the OS and mostly types papers and letters on the computer, she cares about WordPerfect. I set up a Linux machine at home with KDE and WordPerfect and she continued exclaiming: "yes I run this at work too!", even when I showed some screensavers.
Linux was ready for my mother because it supported our hardware and ran the programs she wants to use in a solid, clean interface (KDE). Linux will be ready for mainstream use as soon as it supports most or all hardware and programs.
Things such as... www.domain.com/index.php3?q=page&dummy=yawn.html So I named my .html page a bit odd... wasn't there also an <isindex%gt; tag for stuff like this?
Of course this idea will raise questions about privacy and the such, and the most popular pages would get evaluated most frequently (which isn't such a bad feature actually, some search engines work this way, they index cnn.com multiple times a day but put mypage.com on a lower priority).
It caused a big commotion because people were arguing they also had to pay the fee when they were using the CD-recordables for pure data, not music.
So this is not much different from the cassette.
Now, what's the big problem? You notice this as soon as you try and boot up the machine. It won't work, you return it. I admit that's more trouble than a consumer would have to go through and I know it out of experience because I once had a PC that wouldn't go further than the BIOS more than 9 out of 10 times.
Face it: I'd much rather have a product that doesn't work from the beginning so I can return it than a product that stops working after a short while. Then you are really in trouble.
On the other hand.. if this passes quality ensurance labs, what else has and will? Anyone care to speculate? (without naughty remarks about that other OS, please, I'm more interested in hardware flaws on my network and in my house)
We all know how version numbers are inflated for marketing purposes. Using dates such as Windows 98 or October Gnome actually make sense though, being release dates not version numbers, which is a lot more comprehensable by the public.
However, it's not that simple anymore as product names are completely revamped as well. Windows NT is now called Windows 2000, the single-user variant will now be called Millennium instead. And now Windows CE is called Powered.
Looks like Redmond thinks that renaming a product throws away all the legacy and actually makes the product better. Unfortunately the marketing droids are actually able to sell that story to a lot of people too.
alias kns="killall -9 netscape ; rm -f ~/.netscape/lock"
It is sad, but using Netscape nowadays requires preparations like these. (turning off Java helps a lot as well)
- Netscsape for all the pages that just won't work (yet) on any of the alternatives.
- Lynx for fast and easy browsing and actually getting some information instead of eye-candy. And of course whenever all you have is the console or a telnet login.
- KDE's browser to drag-n-drop downloads and to use a pretty okay graphical browser for the simple stuff.
- Mozilla to test your own HTML4.0/CSS and for fun and giggles.
I use all four of these, depending on my mood, task.. Mozilla and Konqueror (the browser in KDE2) will replace Netscape some day but even though both projects look great and are quite useable already, they're not exactly there yet. And Lynx will always be around.As for the other 17 browsers... Opera might get a nice niche market, StarOffice's internal browser is okay.. I haven't tried the rest recently so I don't have an opinion on those other than that I hope we will go to a situation with many different browsers and functionality/integration and only a few rendering engines.