I can't understand why you would rate that feature as low priority. Mozilla claims to be HTML 4.0 and CSS1 compliant.
Actually you're right. I thought he was talking about the fact that you can change the buttons of the browser itself. I wasn't aware that he was talking about HTML4 buttons. In that light, it has absolute priority.:)
Their goal is to produce a browser that beats IE - in looks, flexibility, and rendering performance/spec compliance
Well, do you think they were successful so far?
But don't flame them just because you think you are more fit to command their team.:>
Did I make such a claim? You shouldn't take this so personal.
In any case, I just fetched the latest build from mozilla.org to see how they're doing. Here's a little benchmark I just did using netscape 4.76, Konqueror and mozilla.
The first line is the process of the respective browser just after startup. (ie. mozilla took 10 seconds). The second line is taken from 'ps -o time,comm,vsize,rss -a | grep...' after having loaded a 1'283KB slashdot-html file in each of the three browsers.
Now, it seems konqueror is not that much faster than I first thought, but its advantage is that you don't have to wait until the whole page is rendered before you see something.
On a side note I must say that the current nightly build of mozilla looks promising.
Perhaps the greatest strength Konquerer has over Mozilla is its responsiveness. It uses native QT widgets. Mozilla uses its own rendering engine to draw widgets, and there's really a big difference in terms of speed. However, you can do cool tricks in Mozilla that you can't do anywhere else. For examle, you can specify the color, background, or the size of your button. Neither Konquerer and IE can handle that as they use native widgets.
Well, this is nice, agreed, but exactly these "neat features" are very clear indicators that mozilla people don't set their priorities right. What's the point in customizable buttons when the application underneath is unusable?
As for correctness, Mozilla is much better than Konquerer. I don't have an example off the top of my head, but Mozilla always renders web pages correctly. It also has the best standard support of all the browsers in the market.
Yes, that's true. It's a HTML4 compilant renderer which is good. (Opera also conforms to HTML4 AFAIK.)
And finally, you need KDE to run Konquerer. That means if the sysadmin at my school isn't willing to install KDE, I can't use Konquerer at all. I'm sure the sysadmin will install Mozilla, though, because it's not as platform dependent as Konquerer.
I hope you know this is false. As I pointed out: I'm using Konqueror using Windowmaker. There is no need to run KDE2.0 for Konqueror.
I like some of the KDE apps, but I dislike KDE's attempt to copy the Windows GUI. Who on earth thinks this stupid 'start' button was a good idea? Gnome is not much better in this regard. Or why is everyone copying the Window-style filemanager? I think the old Amiga-style Diskmaster or Nextstep's filemanager were much better concepts.
I've tried KDE 2.0, and I'm just not impressed. Ok, so it's an improvement over KDE 1.x, but that's really not saying much. I found it slow and seriously prone to crashing.
That's strange. I have a quite different experience. Mozilla is still too slow and crashes way too often and Netscape's HTML renderer is terribly outdated. I've been using Konqueror for the past week and it servers about 90% of my browsing needs. It's relatively stable and very fast. (For instance, look at table rendering!)
KDE's problem is that they released 2.0 too early. IMHO it's barely in beta quality right now. (Example: If you compile it using mostly standard switches, a lot of KDE programs will print tons of debugging stuff.) But Konqueror is nifty, I use it under Windowmaker.
As for the much hyped Konqueror, well it's not bad, but it most certainly does not live upto its billing. Don't get me wrong, I realise the amount of work that's gone into it, but it is absolutely not a replacement for the likes of mozilla or opera (or even Netscape 4.x).
Question: What exactly is mozilla supposed to replace? I've been trying every milestone and while I like some of the ideas, overall the browser is not quite there yet. I really have the feeling they want too much to fit into the browser.
Historically, Microsoft made some pretty crappy software. Things are changing, however, and they don't deserve the flaming that they get on this site. Yes, they're closed-source. Hell, RedHat makes closed-source software. **MOST** companies make closed-source software. But in terms of stability and quality, Win2k and IE 5.01 are awesome products.
Just think about the huge amount of money flooding every day towards Redmond and think again how great Win2K and IE really are. It amazes me how people praise those products and forget at the same time the incredible amount of resources it takes Microsoft to create them. To me Win2K is less than impressive in that light.
That's why you have/var/tmp. It's on the local disc, won't be erased when you reboot, and it's much faster than tmpfs. (tmpfs has some bad overhead, you'll notice that as soon as you compare it directly.)
I have one problem with tmpfs: You can use it to drive your sysadmin insane. Just create a zillion of files in a subdirectory in/tmp. After a while the machine will be out of swap space even though 'df' tells you a different story. It's quite hard to track that down.
This is because you are using an old style UNIX traceroute. Old traceroute uses both ICMP and UDP packets (to port >32000, don't remember the port numbers exactly).
Try using 'traceroute -I slashdot.org', this forces tracroute to use ICMP only.
Slashdot Mirror
Hum, there is something similar available under UNIX with 'filerunner'. It's not as good as Diskmaster2, but conceptually, it's the same.
Actually you're right. I thought he was talking about the fact that you can change the buttons of the browser itself. I wasn't aware that he was talking about HTML4 buttons. In that light, it has absolute priority. :)
Well, do you think they were successful so far?
But don't flame them just because you think you are more fit to command their team. :>
Did I make such a claim? You shouldn't take this so personal.
In any case, I just fetched the latest build from mozilla.org to see how they're doing. Here's a little benchmark I just did using netscape 4.76, Konqueror and mozilla.
TIME COMMAND VSZ RSS
00:00:02 konqueror 17156 11364
00:00:23 konqueror 39236 32704 21s
00:00:01 netscape 20400 12196
00:00:25 netscape 47404 37072 24s
00:00:10 mozilla-bin 31648 22644
00:00:41 mozilla-bin 44388 35932 31s
The first line is the process of the respective browser just after startup. (ie. mozilla took 10 seconds). The second line is taken from 'ps -o time,comm,vsize,rss -a | grep ...' after having loaded a 1'283KB slashdot-html file in each of the three browsers.
Now, it seems konqueror is not that much faster than I first thought, but its advantage is that you don't have to wait until the whole page is rendered before you see something.
On a side note I must say that the current nightly build of mozilla looks promising.
Well, this is nice, agreed, but exactly these "neat features" are very clear indicators that mozilla people don't set their priorities right. What's the point in customizable buttons when the application underneath is unusable?
As for correctness, Mozilla is much better than Konquerer. I don't have an example off the top of my head, but Mozilla always renders web pages correctly. It also has the best standard support of all the browsers in the market.
Yes, that's true. It's a HTML4 compilant renderer which is good. (Opera also conforms to HTML4 AFAIK.)
And finally, you need KDE to run Konquerer. That means if the sysadmin at my school isn't willing to install KDE, I can't use Konquerer at all. I'm sure the sysadmin will install Mozilla, though, because it's not as platform dependent as Konquerer.
I hope you know this is false. As I pointed out: I'm using Konqueror using Windowmaker. There is no need to run KDE2.0 for Konqueror.
I like some of the KDE apps, but I dislike KDE's attempt to copy the Windows GUI. Who on earth thinks this stupid 'start' button was a good idea? Gnome is not much better in this regard. Or why is everyone copying the Window-style filemanager? I think the old Amiga-style Diskmaster or Nextstep's filemanager were much better concepts.
That's strange. I have a quite different experience. Mozilla is still too slow and crashes way too often and Netscape's HTML renderer is terribly outdated. I've been using Konqueror for the past week and it servers about 90% of my browsing needs. It's relatively stable and very fast. (For instance, look at table rendering!)
KDE's problem is that they released 2.0 too early. IMHO it's barely in beta quality right now. (Example: If you compile it using mostly standard switches, a lot of KDE programs will print tons of debugging stuff.) But Konqueror is nifty, I use it under Windowmaker.
As for the much hyped Konqueror, well it's not bad, but it most certainly does not live upto its billing. Don't get me wrong, I realise the amount of work that's gone into it, but it is absolutely not a replacement for the likes of mozilla or opera (or even Netscape 4.x).
Question: What exactly is mozilla supposed to replace? I've been trying every milestone and while I like some of the ideas, overall the browser is not quite there yet. I really have the feeling they want too much to fit into the browser.
Just think about the huge amount of money flooding every day towards Redmond and think again how great Win2K and IE really are. It amazes me how people praise those products and forget at the same time the incredible amount of resources it takes Microsoft to create them. To me Win2K is less than impressive in that light.
That's why you have /var/tmp. It's on the local disc, won't be erased when you reboot, and it's much faster than tmpfs. (tmpfs has some bad overhead, you'll notice that as soon as you compare it directly.)
/tmp. After a while the machine will be out of swap space even though 'df' tells you a different story. It's quite hard to track that down.
I have one problem with tmpfs: You can use it to drive your sysadmin insane. Just create a zillion of files in a subdirectory in
Alvi.
This is because you are using an old style UNIX traceroute. Old traceroute uses both ICMP and UDP packets (to port >32000, don't remember the port numbers exactly).
Try using 'traceroute -I slashdot.org', this forces tracroute to use ICMP only.