Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

10 Oddly Useful Specialty Web Browsers

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the pornovation dept.

Software 72

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Peter Wayner looks beyond Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari, and IE to uncover 10 alternative browsers that offer specialized advantages for 3-D searching, social networking, easy scriptability, powerful page manipulation, and the like. Each provides a targeted browsing environment, enabling users to browse Web tables into spreadsheets, browse leaner, browser in text, browse socially, browse musically, or browse smarter on the Mac. 'A purist might object that these hybrids are not much different from a standard browser with extra plug-ins. There's some truth to this, but not always — some of the unique capabilities can only be done deep inside the software. In any case, the job of parsing the terms and creating an exact definition of the Web browser isn't as much fun as embracing the idea that there are dozens of alternatives.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They forgot Pivot! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33997148)

http://getpivot.com/ [getpivot.com]

Re:They forgot Pivot! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33997508)

Troll?

Re:They forgot Pivot! (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#33998430)

Pivot? Microsoft only, and you have to have Vista with Aero. I suppose that I could load it onto a virtual machine, maybe. But, somehow, I'm not motivated to experiment with yet another Microsoft browser. I was kinda thinking about grabbing IE9, but I haven't even found the motivation to do that yet.

Re:They forgot Pivot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34000540)

Considering most people have "Microsoft" and Aero, it doesn't seem like a problem to me.

Re:They forgot Pivot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34000962)

Considering most people have "Microsoft" and Aero, it doesn't seem like a problem to me.

About half of MS users still use XP. So, no, that's not the case.

Re:They forgot Pivot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34000986)

Yeah, but they'll be off of XP soon enough. It's basically obsolete and deprecated. You can't get it anymore, and MS is only supporting it until 2014 or whatever.

XP is ancient by today's standards. Users need to get with the times, or get out of the game.

Re:They forgot Pivot! (1)

Custard Horse (1527495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34009402)

The same argument should work for Office 97 but lot of people still use it as 'it ain't broke'.

As for software becoming unsupported, there are plenty of companies that don't bother with windows updates as they are unrequired for day to day use. I regularly see XP installs which have not connected to MS since installation a few years ago.

Sitting behind an effective firewall and with fully managed local security policies, there is little risk in having an out of date installation.

Browsing in spreadsheets is not new (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33997156)

You've always been able to load a URL into a spreadsheet...

Re:Browsing in spreadsheets is not new (2, Insightful)

alzoron (210577) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997194)

You've always been able to load a URL into a spreadsheet...

I must have missed that feature while playing around with Lotus 1-2-3 and VisiCalc back in the 80s.

Re:Browsing in spreadsheets is not new (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997342)

You've always been able to load a URL into a spreadsheet...

I must have missed that feature while playing around with Lotus 1-2-3 and VisiCalc back in the 80s.

I think it was alt-shift-F3 + ctrl-shift-u + ctrl-alt-insert + ctrl-alt-shift-sys_request ... or something like that.

Re:Browsing in spreadsheets is not new (5, Funny)

amias (105819) | more than 3 years ago | (#33998024)

no no no , thats a special move in emacs that gives your cursor a rocket launcher

One page (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33997224)

All on one page [infoworld.com] .

Re:One page (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997276)

Re:One page (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997898)

>>>Lynx shows it looking at Slashdot

Familiar sight. I use Links at work. Makes the boss think I'm looking at some boring text-only code, rather than the web.

Re:One page (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#33998952)

And he had to SSH to another machine (look at the title bar) to run it and nab the screenshot because OS X doesn't ship with Lynx or Links. I generally don't miss it much but it's occasionally handy, especially the 'dump' option to render HTML as plain text.

Very Informative (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33997298)

Very good article . . .for some Affordable seo services [betawebsolution.com] please visit http://www.betawebsolution.com.

How about a "Facebook Firewall" browser? (2, Interesting)

david.emery (127135) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997312)

A browser that is specifically set up to completely firewall websites from each other?

Re:How about a "Facebook Firewall" browser? (3, Informative)

ya really (1257084) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997384)

Blocking connect.facebook.net in your hosts file (/etc/hosts or c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts) will probably take care of any third party meddling related to facebook or if you use Chrome or SRWare Iron (Chrome without the creepy google tracking) this [google.com] will do what you ask as well.

Re:How about a "Facebook Firewall" browser? (2, Informative)

ya really (1257084) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997392)

add "127.0.0.1 connect.facebook.net" (without the quotes) to your host file, just to clarify.

Re:How about a "Facebook Firewall" browser? (2, Interesting)

js3 (319268) | more than 3 years ago | (#33998306)

I put 127.0.0.1 facebook.com (and for www.facebook.com) and it's amazing how much my Back browser button gets messed up because almost every link on numerous websites foward to facebook.

Re:How about a "Facebook Firewall" browser? (4, Informative)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997472)

It used to, but it doesn't any more. Now you have to, at minimum, block static.ak.connect.facebook.com as well. I've installed AdBlockPro today to take care of it in a more sweeping way.

But I think David Emery was wanting a generalisation and just used Facebook as an example. I don't know how well common sites would work with external content blocked - whitelisting would be necessary at least for things like jquery.

Re:How about a "Facebook Firewall" browser? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33997674)

The Ghostery [ghostery.com] addon also blocks Facebook and most other tracking. IME, has worked invisibly; it's never stopped a webpage from working normally.

Re:How about a "Facebook Firewall" browser? (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001702)

If the reviews are to be believed, Ghostery has been sold to an advertising company and may be functioning as spyware

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9609 [mozilla.org]

From the Ghostery/Better Advertising Privacy Policy- "We collect user traffic patterns"; "we track click-through information, including IP addresses"; "We may place a text file called a 'cookie' in the browser files of your computer."; "We may provide personal information to or permit access to personal information by our vendors and service providers"; "If Better Advertising should ever file for bankruptcy or have its assets sold to or merged with another entity, information Better Advertising receives from you, from this website, is a Better Advertising asset and may be transferred."

Re:How about a "Facebook Firewall" browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34014806)

I believe that is for visits to their webpages
( http://www.betteradvertising.com/privacy_policy.html ), not the ghostery extension. ("This statement governs information you share with us, including personal information, when you use the BetterAdvertising.com website." and "This statement does not govern Better Advertising’s Services, the tools and services we provide...")

Longer text of the cites:

"We may track usage of BetterAdvertising.com to improve the services we offer and our website. We collect user traffic patterns throughout our website using text files called cookies which do not contain personal information. This information will only ever be collected to help improve website flow and usability. In addition, we track click-through information, including IP addresses, to our website from the reports and emails we send to our customers."

"We may place a text file called a “cookie” in the browser files of your computer. The cookie itself does not contain personal information, although it will enable us to relate your use of this website to information that you have specifically and knowingly provided."

I don't fully understand this part though:

"We do not share personal information collected on this website with third parties without your permission. We may provide personal information to or permit access to personal information by our vendors and service providers for the purpose of processing personal information on our behalf or where such access is relevant to assisting us.

But you are right about the problems if the company is sold, I wouldn't blindly upgrade to a newer version of ghostery if the company is sold, and certainly have no software set to auto-update.

Ghosterys privacy policy is at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9609/privacy/ and http://www.ghostery.com/privacy-bt

It seems to not connect to their servers if you don't turn "Tracker Fetch" (to periodically auto-update the list of trackers it can detect)
or "GhostRank" (to report trackers found on webpages). I wouldn't turn on those options if I where you.

If you download Ghostery from addons.mozilla.org then you don't have to visit www.ghostery.com but if you do anyway, go look at http://www.ghostery.com/privacy-dotcom

Re:How about a "Facebook Firewall" browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33997466)

It's called Firefox with NoScript.

Re:How about a "Facebook Firewall" browser? (1)

revealingheart (1213834) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997776)

There's the RequestPolicy [mozilla.org] extension for Firefox (and perhaps other Gecko-based browsers). This allows you to browse websites without third-party domains loading scripts, images and other media onto the page.

The upside to this is that you'll no longer be followed by social networking websites wherever you go. The downside is that you'll have to spend time changing the settings for some websites to work, as even CSS will be blocked when hosted on a different domain - the eternal vigilance problem.

You can also install CS Lite [mozilla.org] for cookies, BetterPrivacy [mozilla.org] for Flash cookies and NoScript [mozilla.org] , which makes it difficult to be tracked. An extra browser for when you want everything enabled temporarily (such as Opera or Chromium) works well together.

Re:How about a "Facebook Firewall" browser? (2, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33999682)

The funny part is even NoScript has a downside, as I went to one of those sites that told how easy it was to ID you by string (sorry I can't remember the name) and with NS I was something like 1-24,000 thanks to NS+FF version+OS whereas without anything my odds were something like 1-2.5 million thanks to so many not using NS. But the trade off of not dealing with drive by malware or a bunch of FB crap makes it worth being easier to pick out of a crowd for me, though YMMV.

CSSEdit (2, Interesting)

bckspc (172870) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997350)

I use CSSEdit [macrabbit.com] all the time. Its core is a Webkit browser that shows a live preview of CSS changes you make. It's great for AJAX-y, DHTML-y dynamically driven sites that don't always have HTML "pages" to debug.

It's a bit like the Web Developer toolbar for Firefox, but a standalone browser / app for OS X focused solely on CSS and, IMHO, a bit easier to use.

No connection to the company. Just a very satisfied user.

Dillo (2, Interesting)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997394)

Even though it lacks crucial features like JavaScript and plugins, one should try Dillo just to experience how extremely fast a graphical browser can be.

Re:Dillo (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33997406)

Can't you just get the same effect by disabling JavaScript and plugins in your preferred browser?

Re:Dillo (4, Informative)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997534)

No, you can't. I've programmed some features of Dillo myself and I look at the amazing work that the regular developers do. It is fast, memory-efficient and efficiency-centric. You can't compare a fully crazy assed GUIed application like Firefox, Chrome and IE (though Chrome is the least expensive of these three) with Dillo and FLTK. The Fast Light ToolKit makes it *really* fast and responsive -- similar to Chrome before all the fucktards started adopting it. Its CSS is increasing and there are *some* plans for basic Javascript. It is something else and I use it whenever I need real speed.

Of course you can just wget something and even make scripts to only get the text out of it, but then you'd just be "reading" the internet, which isn't enough for some things. Dillo is a much more advanced Links.

Re:Dillo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33997760)

My first thought was "dillo better be in this list!".

When my computer was crapping out and slowing to a crawl, dillo was the only one light enough to use, before I got the damn thing replaced. It really is nice that it's so fucking fast.

Re:Dillo (1)

belmolis (702863) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000162)

For me the main downside to Dillo is the lack of Unicode support.

Re:Dillo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34027858)

For me the main downside to Dillo is the lack of Unicode support.

I think you confuse Dillo with Links2 or something: http://www.dillo.org/FAQ.html#q1 [dillo.org]

Re:Dillo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34000494)

How does it compare to netsurf?

Re:Dillo (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997808)

Does Dillo work on Windows NT 5 or 6? (XP or Vista or Seven) I'd like to try it, but it appears it does not work.

Flock:

It abandoned Mozilla and went to Chromium. Is there still a facebook-friendly browser that uses Mozilla?

Re:Dillo (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 3 years ago | (#33998296)

You might like https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1833/ [mozilla.org] if you're looking for a mozilla-based addon that's Facebook friendly. It doesn't implement all of the features that Flock has/had, but it does implement the basic social networking aggregation into a sidebar addon for Firefox. :)

What I want is... (1)

Peter (Professor) Fo (956906) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997400)

A browser that will detect repeating structures in the DOM and parse them into segments. Then be able to select on elements with the possibility of export. Often people have to look through long lists of things where only a few are of interest. For example (a) detect the 'comment' structure in a slashdot page (without being told the template) (b) parse into title, who, text (c) offer (in this case) three search fields to select on and then (d) copy a selected one into the clipboard in XLM or append to a clippings file.

Re:What I want is... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33997492)

slashdot (and others) should be returning xml and using xslt to convert it into html.

They do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33997628)

They do that already. It is called RSS. Look into it.

In addition, xHTML is valid XML. It is simply XML with certain predefined elements for common uses (such as tables, headings, etc.) of a website. You don't really gain that much by trying to use XML and XSLT instead of xHTML (=XML) and CSS. Especially when the XSLT would simply - in most cases - convert the data to xHTML! And the content would need to be seriously restructured (believe it or not, the way that humans handle information is not 100% compatible with the DOM model of XML. You would need to pay a lot of thought to organizing the content in XML to get some more meaningful tags than "content" or such) You would be simply making your life harder by adding another layer of complexity in order to do... what, exactly? For 99% or so of websites, nobody would need the XML for anything, anyways. People only want their browser to display the content and xHTML does the trick fine.

Summa summarum: I think that you should leave such decisions to people more familiar with the concepts involved here (Markup languages, content management, webdesign...). ;)

Re:They do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33998220)

Summa summarum: I think that you should leave such decisions to people more familiar with the concepts involved here (Markup languages, content management, webdesign...). ;)

I think you should stop assuming you know how familiar other people are with things on the basis of a one-line comment, especially as you evidently didn't understand what it was saying (and yes, I can tell that because your several-line comment was incompatible with said understanding).

Shameless plug (3, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997436)

I recommend Mozilla seaMonkey. It has the same core engine as Firefox 4, but with the functionality/appearance of classic Mozilla Netscape, and only half the memory usage of FF (~150,000 vs ~300,000 kilobytes).

Another browser Ive tried is Mozilla Songbird, which is really more of a music player than a browser but it's good for those of us who like noise in our ears all day long.

Re:Shameless plug (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997554)

P.S.

Forgot about the Mac & Linux. I like Opera which stores its bookmarks online (can access them anywhere, even work). Mozilla Camino is also nice since it uses Mac's built-in tools/appearance.

Lightweight Ubuntu & Puppy Linux use Chromium, which is okay, but I still prefer seaMonkey.

Re:Shameless plug (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997748)

From the Puppy Linux FAQ:

Q: Why not use Firefox instead of Seamonkey?

A: "Yes, Firefox web browser, Thunderbird email and news client, Sunbird Calendar, and NVU HTML editor are useful programs. The Mozilla/SeaMonkey suite, with all of this functionality, is about 11M compressed, whereas the separate applications are each about 35M compressed. So, the live-CD, instead of being 60M would be 85M and would be too big to run in RAM in a PC with 128M RAM.

"Why are the separate applications so big compared with the Mozilla/Seamonkey suite? Simply because the Mozilla suite has a lot of common code shared by each module, whereas the separate applications have to duplicate that code. This creates a gigantic size bloat, not in the spirit of Puppy."

- Barry Kauler 2006
http://www.puppylinux.com/faq.htm [puppylinux.com]

Re:Shameless plug (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34005966)

I like Opera which stores its bookmarks online (can access them anywhere, even work).

Zat so? I've been using opera for several years, and I've never even suspected that it could do that. Is it documented somewhere? A quick check in in its Preferences stuff on my Mac and linux systems didn't turn up anything that looked relevant. Of course, it could be there, but I just don't recognize whatever words they use.

I've occasionally wondered if there might be some systematic way to learn about software features that you'd use if you knew about them. So far, the only heuristic I've found is to look for hints in online forums, and ask questions. Or state rashly that app A doesn't have feature F, to encourage people to call you an idiot for not knowing about it, and in the process, give you enough of a hint to find it. ;-)

Re:Shameless plug (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010670)

It was added with Opera 10.5 and is called Opera Link. Other useful features they added recently are Opera Turbo (speeds-up dialup/cellular connections) and Opera Unite (photo and file sharing). I use the Turbo feature a lot, since many hotels only come with slow connections.

http://www.opera.com/link/ [opera.com]

Supposedly Firefox 4 will have the same "store bookmarks online" feature, but I've not tried it.

Re:Shameless plug (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 3 years ago | (#34020764)

Thanks for the pointer (and the keyword); it looks like something worth experimenting with.

(And you didn't even call me an idiot for not knowing it. ;-)

So far, I've put off playing with FF4 due to a shortage of time and a surplus of other things to play with, but I'll probably try it sometime soon.

Lynx? (4, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997584)

For text mode browsing i would go use elinks, with good (text mode) rendering of pages, ssl support and a lot of other features, but not sure in which state are the latest version of lynx, links or w3m by now. There are plenty of text mode browsers, and speed is just one of the advantages.

Customizing Lynx colors (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997794)

FYI: Ubuntu has a dark background, light text Lynx setup by default.

If you prefer black text on white background (as do I), do this:

Copy the lynx.lss file somewhere (like a ~/.lynx dir)
cp /etc/lynx-cur/* .lynx/

Edit the lynx.lss file to comment out the 8th and 9th lines:
normal: normal: lightgray:black
default: normal: white:black

Then run lynx with "lynx -lss lynx.lss" or set LYNX_LSS to your personal lynx.lss file.

Which text mode browser? (1)

dlenmn (145080) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997920)

I've had occasion to need a text mode browser, and I think I used lynx, but I saw that there are a number of them. I recall looking for a good comparison of the different options, but I couldn't find one. What are they, and what are their strengths and weaknesses?

Re:Which text mode browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34011090)

I like w3m better than links/elinks.

No mention of emacs browsers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33997626)

w3 (emacs native) and w3m (interface to w3m) are both available in emacs so that it is not necessary to leave emacs to perform web browsing.

vimprobable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33997646)

vimprobable ftw!

Also check HTMLayout (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997690)

HTMLayout (http://terrainformatica.com/htmlayout/main.whtm) is not strictly a browser, but rather a toolkit to create UI in HTML+CSS.

they forgot one i know of (2, Interesting)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997824)

K-Meleon [sourceforge.net]

it uses mozilla's gecko engine, even more bare bones than firefox, a little rough around the edges but overall an ok browser. (windows only)

Re:they forgot one i know of (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997954)

I had a lot of problems with website rendering when I tried K-meleon last year.

Also had a tendency to crash, and even though it claims to "use windows standard" components for efficiency, I didn't see it using any less memory than Firefox.

No mention of Links? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997854)

What could be more odd or special than a text browser?

Re:No mention of Links? (2, Informative)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 3 years ago | (#33997976)

No mention of links, but they do mention its predecessor lynx in the article.

Notepad (2, Funny)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 3 years ago | (#33998388)

Notepad is my favorite specialty browser. You name the file (url).txt, and it instantly renders the website as a blank page- think of all the clutter you don't have to deal with! Plus, you can add in whatever text you want- ever wanted to make microsoft.com say "Linux rules!"? Well now you can! I can't imagine how anyone could want anything else.

Re:Notepad (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001804)

Notepad is my favorite specialty browser. You name the file (url).txt, and it instantly renders the website as a blank page- think of all the clutter you don't have to deal with! Plus, you can add in whatever text you want- ever wanted to make microsoft.com say "Linux rules!"? Well now you can! I can't imagine how anyone could want anything else.

The first thing people coming from FireFox will notice is the print feature really works!

uzbl?! (1)

sammyF70 (1154563) | more than 3 years ago | (#33998574)

No mention of Uzbl [uzbl.org] , the command line operated browser?

Re:uzbl?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33999534)

No mention of Uzbl [uzbl.org] , the command line operated browser?

I actually loaded this summary just to see if anyone mentioned uzbl.

You can hide the only visible UI element - the status bar - by pressing t, which makes it great for web apps. With no browser chrome and no unnecessary features, you get a nice almost-native feel (or as close as you're likely to get with a web app, anyway).

Why not wget? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33998724)

"The main reason people use Lynx is to download software while logged in remotely to a computer. People maintaining servers remotely swear by it."

Why wouldn't you just copy the link and wget?

I would like to mention elinks. (1)

Roobles (1880882) | more than 3 years ago | (#33998848)

I don't know why elinks doesn't get more recognition. It's an ncurses-based (console) web browser with tabs and support for basic javascript. It's easy to compile, even on windows, and even has support for the mouse. As soon as I found out about it, I stopped using lynx and links.

God's-eye view of the Internet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33999862)

How about Google Earth as a browser?

The forgot uzbl (1)

marienf (140573) | more than 3 years ago | (#34000040)

cheap jerseys (0, Troll)

nfl jersey online (1901968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34001128)

Many football fans want to wear a jersey of their favorite team or player, but it can be difficult to shop for right size one. Typically, our ootball jerseys [nfljersey-online.com] fits different than a normal website, so your regular shirt size might not necessarily be the same size as an NFL jersey [nfljersey-online.com] . Using a measuring tape, it is easy to figure out what size red wings jerseys [nfljersey-online.com] [nfljersey-online.com] will fit you best. http://www.nfljersey-online.com [nfljersey-online.com]

Put some Zinc in your browser. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34001670)

Does Zinc [www.zinc.tv] count as an alternative browser?

I use... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34001928)

Off By One by Homepage Software.

Browsing today's internet at a great speed on 80MHz seems like a specialty in the world of so-called "fast browsers" these days.

Conkeror (2, Interesting)

djupdal (629381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34002448)

I rarely see anyone mention conkeror, my favourite browser: http://conkeror.org/ [conkeror.org]

It is the only browser I have tried I can comfortably use without a mouse. Once you learn the emacs-like keybindings, browsing with keyboard is really fast.

they also forgot vis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34003948)

vis/space (http://vis.hfbk.net/) is a different approach to a browser in 3D.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?