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!

Linux: Browser Wars

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the it-never-ends dept.

Linux 352

Anderson Silva writes "LinuxToday has an article doing a pretty basic comparison on some of the major linux browsers. Although a nice article, and with a fair result, I still think Opera is the best browser available for Linux." I prefer knoqueror, although recent builds seem to have random hangs on images.google.com.

cancel ×

352 comments

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

One more po5t! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194754)

One more post than the last article!

lynx (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194755)

Simple is good.

CmdrTaco and I finally have something in common (3, Funny)

opeuga (208321) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194757)

We both like 'knoquers'.

Linux (-1)

ubertroll (153053) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194764)

oo oooo oo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo ooo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo oooo oo oo oo oooo
oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo
oo oo oo oooo oo oo oooo
oo oo oo ooo oo oo oo oo
ooooooo oooo oo oo oooooo oo oo

ssssss ss ss ssssss ss ss ssssss ss
ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss
ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss
ssssss ss ss ss sssss ssssss ss
ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss
ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss
ssssss ssssss ssssss ss ss ssssss ss

Re:Linux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194775)

+1, Informative

telnet (2, Funny)

Nastard (124180) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194769)

Telnet in on port 80 and do a manual get.

Anything else is for wussies.

Re:telnet (1)

gjohnson (1557) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194789)

make that netcat:

nc slashdot.org 80

Re:telnet (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194804)

I'd just noticed that myself. Bizarre.

% echo "GET / HTTP/1.0" | nc slashdot.org 80 | head | grep '^X-' | grep -v '^X-Powered'

X-Bender: Oh, so, just 'cause a robot wants to kill humans that makes him a radical?

X-Bender: OK, but I don't want anyone thinking we're robosexuals.

X-Fry: Nowadays people aren't interested in art that's not tattooed on fat guys.

X-Bender: Honey, I wouldn't talk about taste if I was wearing a lime green tank top.

X-Bender: Bite my shiny, metal ass!

Re:telnet (2)

interiot (50685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194943)

Or simply try this header viewer [delorie.com] .

Re:telnet (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194948)

Why, because you are too dumb to write good browser software yourself?

Most gifted people write tools to make their computers work for them as needed. I guess you aren't one of those people.

Re:telnet (3, Funny)

Nastard (124180) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194953)

Being a programmer does not make you intelligent.

The inverse is also true.

google (1, Informative)

Trollificus (253741) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194771)

Every browser I use randomly hangs on images.google.com. Even on my Windows machines.
It has nothing to do with Linux, or the browsers.

Spellchecker (5, Funny)

Ford Fulkerson (223443) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194772)

I prefer knoqueror


I guess slashcode still doesn't include a spellchecker.

Re:Spellchecker (0, Offtopic)

number one duck (319827) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194799)

Of course not! If you scroll up to the first post, for instance, you can see that its ID # is clearly mispelled as well!

Its silly to introduce a readability issue to crush trolls that were already below threshold 90% of the time, but what can you do...

Please tell me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194820)

Why do you call yourself "Number One Dick"?

Re:Spellchecker (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194886)

of course konqueror is going to be a correct spelling in the OED.

fucking moron

Re:Spellchecker (1)

nyteroot (311287) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194958)

well, i mean, when you get right down to it, im sure youre not going to find konqueror in your average dictionary.. hehe..

What it comes down to. (2, Insightful)

metalhed77 (250273) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194773)

since the site is slashdotted and i have no hope of reading the article i'll just post my opinion. I think i have to go with mozilla as the best linux browser, or more exactly, the gecko engine. The reason being that webdesigners will ONLY design for IE and Netscape since running IE is out of the question (yes i'm aware it runs on wine) netscape is the only logical choice. Unless you only read slashdot in which case even lynx is fine.

I admire the work the konqueror people have done, if they can get it to emulate IE exactly then they'll have a browser that's on par. Kinda like what opera did (trying to emulate IE) it just has to be more accurate, opera screws up on many pages, as does konqueror. Mozilla will render 99.99% of pages rightn (those that don't render right were made with netscape 4.x in mind), the others screw up much more often.

Why *Linux* Browsers? (1)

bXTr (123510) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194774)

All the aforementioned browsers run on other OSes, but they are called *Linux* browsers. Sure, makes sense to me.

Re:Why *Linux* Browsers? (1)

Spiral Man (33998) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194998)

linux browsers as in browsers that run under linux...

perhaps you shouldnt be so narrow minded and inflamatory. obviously they all run under different oses...

Opera Slow? (4, Informative)

Rura Penthe (154319) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194776)

From the article: Opera is slick, but it's page rendering is nothing short of horrendous. Galeon performed well in all tests, and, aesthetics aside, it's a good choice.

I haven't noticed this myself...In my experience Opera has (almost always) been very fast in rendering HTML for viewing. Its only problem is that it waits for images to load before it displays anything past the image tag in question. Perhaps this was why it took so long to load the page in the test.

Re:Opera Slow? (2)

grammar nazi (197303) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194786)

I think that since Galeon's aesthetics match that of the current gtk+ theme, it should be given a more positibe view. I use a graphite Aqua theme and I believe that Galeon is the most pleasing because it matches the rest of my desktop.

Re:Opera Slow? (2)

jacobito (95519) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194829)

Looks are subjective, of course, but I too disagree with the author's opinion that Galeon is the worst looking of the lot. If GNOME is your desktop, then Galeon looks and feels native, which is important to me for some reason. This is why I also tend to use IE (gasp!) when I'm using Windows. At any rate, just about all of the current Linux web browsers have come a long way, so whatever you choose is going to be a good choice.

-jacob

Re:Opera Slow? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194971)

Yeah, I don't where he got the 127 seconds for Opera to load slashdot. It's close to 5 seconds on mine. Opera is the fastest browser I've seen. Netscape? Nah. Uh-uh. Mozilla? Better with the last two releases, but Opera is still faster. My biggest complaint with Opera is that there many pages that don't render correctly or completely. They claim to be the most W3C compliant browser, so it must be poorly written pages, right?

Less crappy browsers (4, Insightful)

Dreven (207178) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194780)

This proves once again, that there still isn't a good browser for Linux. So we have to decide on which one is less crappy, and not which one is better.

I don't understand why this is so. It sickens me that browsing on windows with IE is more stable then anything on the linux platform. Its just not right.

Re:Less crappy browsers (2, Insightful)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194813)

Well, when Windows and Internet Explorer are around 85% of the marketshare for web browsing, small wonder why most web designers usually test against IE and Netscape Communicator 4.7x versions for rendering accuracy.

Hopefully, web designers will add Mozilla 1.0 to the list by late this year. (crossing fingers)

Re:Less crappy browsers (1, Interesting)

Quazion (237706) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194835)

IE more stable ? since i use Mozilla 0.9.3 it hasnt yet crashed, but IE 5.5 crashes nearly everyday on my work where i use WinNT4. (nothin a simple kill and restart doesnt fix)

The only thing i like more about IE over Mozilla is the fast booting and it fast opening of new windows, for everything else Mozilla is a very GOOD browser if you ask me and really good to use for everyday browsing.

Re:Less crappy browsers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194860)

If IE 5.5 is crashing on you everyday, you have obviously fucked your workstation up. Don't blame MS for your own stupidity.

Re:Less crappy browsers (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194955)

bullshit.

Re:Less crappy browsers (1)

flacco (324089) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194838)

This proves once again, that there still isn't a good browser for Linux. So we have to decide on which one is less crappy, and not which one is better.

Say what?

I prefer Mozilla on Linux AND Windows.

IE Stable? You're dreaming. (1)

chill (34294) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194863)

I have IE 5.5 sp2 installed on a Win98 partition and 5.5 sp1 installed on a Win95 box. The Win98 partition copy will crash (kill IE) on the average of 4 to 5 times a day (in a 5-6 hour period). The Win95 one is more stable -- one crash a day, maybe.

Konqueror (2.1.1 or 2.2) doesn't crash, period. I've used it for days straight before logging out with as many as 6 windows open and it doesn't crash.

Start hitting the "stop" button while complex pages are loading and IE 5.5 will start to barf.

Konqueror isn't perfect (nothing is), but it is one of the best -- most stable, decent speed and good compatibility.

Re:IE Stable? You're dreaming. (1)

SLi (132609) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194950)

Konqueror isn't perfect (nothing is), but it is one of the best -- most stable, decent speed and good compatibility.

And the only one with anti-alias support, I think.

Re:Less crappy browsers (2, Interesting)

mz001b (122709) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194965)

This proves once again, that there still isn't a good browser for Linux. So we have to decide on which one is less crappy, and not which one is better.

I don't think this proves that at all. I have been happily using Mozilla since version 0.8, and I like 0.93 much better than anything else I've tried. This of course is my opinion, some people like Konquerer (sp?) but I would say that there are good browsers for Linux.

Mozilla has been very stable for me. I have not had any crashes. I encourage you to evaluate the browsers for yourself.

Loading time for a browser is a non-issue for me. I load it once and that's it. I don't have to do that again until I reboot. There are other measures that I would have like to see in this comparison, like adherence to the stardards, implementation of different features. One /. page is not the end all of HTML rendering.

Pentium 166, 32 MB Ram? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194781)

Wow, that's a useful test setup.

Re:Pentium 166, 32 MB Ram? (2, Insightful)

CaseyB (1105) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194797)

No kidding. You might include a low end machine for an extra data point, but having it as the only machine is just plain idiotic. The tests are useless if they're not run on typical hardware. Especially with the price of RAM where it is -- testing apps on memory-contrained machines is pointless.

Re:Pentium 166, 32 MB Ram? (2)

msaavedra (29918) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194957)

Yeah, I don't know what that guy was thinking. Mozilla ( and galeon and skipstone, by extension), was written with at least a P-233, 64MB RAM in mind (see here [mozilla.org] ), and all the binaries I've seen have actually been optimized for i686. It wouldn't surprise me if the other browsers were similar.

knoqueror? (2)

AntiNorm (155641) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194783)

knoqueror

You must mean konqueror :P.

Anyway, I really like Konqueror as well, except for the fact that it seems to like pulling things out of the cache instead of downloading them as it should. Yes, this speeds things up, but on frequently changing sites such as /. [slashdot.org] and Fark [fark.com] , it gets to be a pain. I've been using Netscape lately, but as everybody knows, it has stability (and bloat) problems.

Re:knoqueror? (1)

gjohnson (1557) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194807)

Man I really dislike konquerer. I can't stand the user interface. As a random example, emacs editing does not work in the URL box. Maybe there's a way to change it, I don't know. Also I think it's pretty ugly. I do use it from time to time when mozilla won't work. dell.com has some forms which just don't work in mozilla. Probably broken html, but anyway...

the hangs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194791)

> although recent builds seem to have random hangs

I gots tha haaangs soooooo sooooooooo baaad
*blues riff*
That woman done stopped suckin' me off
Befo' I was able to bust a nut
*blues riff*
I gots tha haaaaaaaangs... yea' lo'dy i gots the haaangs

Netscape 4.7x is it until Mozilla 1.0? (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194794)

I think for compatibility reasons, Netscape 4.7x releases are pretty much the best browser in terms of rendering accuracy. At least on the Windows side, Netscape Communicator 4.78 is still a bit better than Netscape 6.1 in terms of rendering most commercial web pages.

I hope that once Mozilla 1.0 is released later this year it will become the basis for the new standard for web browsers running under Linux.

While I do applaud Opera's small system requirement footprint, it has some trouble rendering the more complex commercial web pages.

Re:Netscape 4.7x is it until Mozilla 1.0? (3, Informative)

jchristopher (198929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194924)

Please. You should see the tricks we have to pull at work to get Netscape to render properly. It has tons of things wrong.

One of the most glaring is that it won't render table cells with no content, so you have to put a non-breaking space in every empty cell. It also screws up table widths.... I could go on and on... ask anyone who works on web application development, they will tell you, Netscape sucks.

If it looks good on your machine in Netscape, it's only because someone slaved away to make it that way.

This guy needs to develop some aethestic sense (4, Interesting)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194798)

The author of this article referes to Galeon as "nasty" and "tacky". I'm looking at a Galeon window right now, and it has only six small icons, a URL bar, the throbber, and standard GNOME menubar. I think it looks very minimal and tastful.

The author says Opera is clean and simple. In my eyes, Opera is horrible. It's default screen is covered with 500 different widgets. When you load a page, they all start whizzing and moving around. It's very distracting. Opera doesn't look at home on GNOME nor KDE, which just adds to its problems. Opera, with its adverts and grotesque widgets, is a visual insult.

Re:This guy needs to develop some aethestic sense (1)

mrmag00 (200868) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194923)

To add to this, last I checked Galeon is GTK/Gnome-ish. So if you don't like the default style why not use a fricken theme other then the default?

I tried galeon a while ago and I found it to be very nice, but I still prefer mozilla because it supports javascript very well/themeable/mail-news clients/etc. Lots of people claim this is bloatware, I just find it featureful. The composer is the only thing that I would do away with.
Just my 2cents...

Re:This guy needs to develop some aethestic sense (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194979)

I don't have the same complaint with the widgets, and I've figured out how to hide the ad. I just open a 'find' box and place it over the ad. It's an almost perfect fit, and it's always on top.

hello (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194800)

I strictly use only MS Internet Explorer becuase that's the only browser that doens't try to steal my flamberge.

Monochrome (1)

wilper (103281) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194806)

Anyone that knows any browser that is "good" on monochrome displays?

I tested quite a few, and ended up using Netscape, in spite of it inverting all pictures making them look like negatives. :-)

Links ? (1)

Quazion (237706) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194821)

Textmode browsing, who needs pictures anyways ;)

Re:Monochrome (1)

wilper (103281) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194890)

Textmode browsing is ok as long as the pages are clean. But ppl use way to much fancy features these days for it to be very practical.

I were still using lynx a few years ago, but it became harder and harder to see all the pages I wanted to, so I moved to Netscape.

I even find myself using IE over vnc every now and then to see those really ugly pages.

loading slashdot?... (5, Interesting)

gkuchta (451185) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194809)

Slashdot uses a lot of tables on the pages which can take a while to render, so what better test for a browser. Obviously this is a pretty extreme test as most pages are nowhere near as big.

Opera: 127 seconds
Konqueror: 57 seconds
Mozilla: 71 seconds
Galeon: 64 seconds
Skipstone: 57 seconds (Note: Browser crashed on first attempt.)
Netscape: 34 seconds
Winner: Netscape Navigator


These load times are absurd. Is this guy connected to the internet via a 300-baud phone-coupler attached to a telephone line spliced together with paper clips? I'm on a cablemodem, and it takes less than two-seconds to fully load slashdot. I think it took about 9 or 10 when I was on a dialup. Anyone else think these figures look a little inflated?

Re:loading slashdot?... (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194817)

/me raises his hand

Re:loading slashdot?... (2)

icqqm (132707) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194845)

"Anyone else think these figures look a little inflated?"

Depends. He said it was a 360kB page (supposedly a story with comments, not the homepage). So pick a page with a similar size and see what you come up with.

Re:loading slashdot?... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194849)

Read the article again. It sounds like he was loading a saved page off his machine, rather than getting it over the net. Even if he left out a decimal point, there's no way those numbers are even close to realistic.

Re:loading slashdot?... (2, Funny)

mmcshane (155414) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194858)

For this test, I took a 370kb page from Slashdot page. I saved the page out, rather than use it on the site, since comments could be added on the site which would skew the results.
It's even worse than that - it took him that long to render pages off his own disk. Apparently he was rendering Shrek in the background.

Re:loading slashdot?... (5, Informative)

rho (6063) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194861)

He saved the page to local disk -- network time had nothing to do with it.

However, his hardware did: a Pentium 166. My main machine is a P-133, and I normally see such load times on complicated sites. While I could use a faster computer, a slower one is a good indicator of when your HTML is getting out of hand and that it's time to stop dinking with it.

Regardless, I still use Netscape 4.7x for these reasons -- it's fast, relatively stable while Mozilla on a P-133 is a complete joke.

Re:loading slashdot?... (2)

garcia (6573) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194880)

In my recent experience w/the above browsers (minus Skipstone and Galeon) Netscape is still the overall winner.

Konq is great and all but it still renders some pages incorrectly, crashes quite a bit (I haven't done much testing on the latest and greatest but I will), and in general causes me a lot of headaches w/all the shit it loads (I don't run KDE)

Netscape (the latest 6.whatever) works well, it rarely crashes (once since I have dl'd it), it is fast, and it loads the pages that I look at just fine.

Mozilla has frequent crashes and is ungodly slow for whatever reason.

Opera. UGH. First of all it is horribly crowded, 100 things going on at once, and it crashes when I try to load just about any page.

I don't know what the hell the guy is talking about w/the load times. I have DSL and it takes only a few seconds to load everything.

I wish that there was a "MS HTML" compatible browswer out there that would just bring us up to speed w/the rest of the world.

Just my worthless .02

Re:loading slashdot?... (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194905)

Opera. UGH. First of all it is horribly crowded, 100 things going on at once, and it crashes when I try to load just about any page.

Try the Windows version. It's much more stable, and faster. And has the nifty gesture navigation that I can't live without after using it for a few months now...

Re:loading slashdot?... (2)

jchristopher (198929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194883)

I'm using Opera to read this very article, and there is no way his numbers are correct. I'm on a slower DSL line, on a Celeron 333 RedHat box. The article loaded in about 3 seconds, measured from the time I clicked the link to the time it was fully rendered on screen. It's way faster than Mozilla or Netscape when loading the same pages.

Re:loading slashdot?... (1)

gkuchta (451185) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194909)

I have a p200 here, with 32MB of old EDO ram. Loading slashdot, from the remote server, takes 8 seconds. 7 with mozilla 0.9.3.

Re:loading slashdot?... (1)

Molf (265303) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194922)

Well, I just randomly picked an article from a couple of days ago (Loki speaks up on chapter 11). I'm on dialup, so it took several seconds to download (~15-20ish seconds). Opera then rendered it in less than a second. Mozilla started rendering it as it downloaded, so it was hard to compare, but reloading from cache was marginally slower in Mozilla. I only recently upgraded my machine however, from a 166/32. On that, Mozilla was almost unusable becaause of the RAM shortage, though the processor was easily fast enough to do the actual rendering at perfectly acceptable speeds. The 0.9.x releases were usable under Win95, as I didn't have the vast amount of RAM used by X to worry about; slow to load, but not bad when in use. Basically, the Gecko engine is *sweet*, but Mozilla itself usues to much RAM for sub-low-end machines. Opera OTOH, is a different story. Even on antique hardware it runs incredibly fast and renders like a wild thing. It is also a tiny app compared to other graphical web browsers. Basically amazing; if I hadn't upgraded my machine shortly after, I would have paid for the no-ads version, because it is obviously a wonderfully written piece of software. As it is, I've taken to running Mozilla (0.9.3 at the moment) as I find it faster, stabler, less ugly, and more accurate than NS4.7x. The biggest problem with both of these is too strong standards-compliance, given that most web pages contain errors, often because they are designed to render properly in broken browsers.
Molf

"Vast Amounts of RAM Used by X" (3, Insightful)

jonabbey (2498) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194977)

Sorry, the amount of memory used by XFree86 isn't really all that much. What you're seeing when you see huge memory usage for X in top is because the X process has memory mapped your video card's graphics RAM into its memory space, several times over.



On my 32 meg GeForce2MX card, top shows X taking up 135megs of RAM. On a friend's system with an old school 2 meg VRAM card, X is only shown taking up 4-5 megs of RAM.



X is actually pretty damn memory efficient. Remember it was originally created when a workstation might have had one megabyte of memory, total. If you have a lot of windows open at high color depth, there will be some real RAM taken up to store those bitmaps, depending on whether you have 'save unders' enabled, but that's a function of all of the programs you have running, more than of X's inefficiency, even if the memory is counted against the X server process and not the X programs themselves.



FWIW.



I still think that the browser tests covered here are rather meaningless on a 32 meg machine. These days, browsers will take up close to a full 32 megs of RAM on a UNIX system, especially with the 'cache in RAM' option of Mozilla and Netscape. These days, when you can get 512 megs of PC133 RAM for less than fifty bucks, it just doesn't make sense to worry about 32 megs here or there, anymore.

Re:"Vast Amounts of RAM Used by X" (2)

jonabbey (2498) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194985)

Gah, looks like the new Slashdot decided to no longer default to 'HTML Formatted' for my posts, so the <p> and </p> tags I put in blew up.

Blech.

Totally meaningless (5, Insightful)

randombit (87792) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194810)

The Mozilla version shipping with Mandrake 8.0 is 0.8.7. While stability is pretty much unchanged since then, Mozilla has gotten noticably faster during the 0.9.x cycle. 0.9.1 is usable on a 350 Mhz Pentium II... sort of. 0.9.3, while still being slower than Navigator 4.77, isn't bad at all. It's finally fast enough that I can use it as my normal, day-to-day browser (I was using Nav 4.77, because while it was unstable as hell, at least I didn't have to wait 20 seconds for a page to load).

I imagine that simliar situations are true for at least one or two of the other browsers compared. Development on Mozilla, especially, is happening very fast and comparing something current 6 months ago is not, IMHO particularly meaningful.

Re:Totally meaningless (1)

mz001b (122709) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194980)

The Mozilla version shipping with Mandrake 8.0 is 0.8.7. While stability is pretty much unchanged since then, Mozilla has gotten noticably faster during the 0.9.x cycle

Umm...perhaps for you stability has not changed, but the release notes for the latest Mozilla build keep listing the bugs they fixed. For instance Mozilla 0.9.2 [mozilla.org] fixed 25 bugs over the previous version. This is largely due to the reporting from the growing user base. The reviewer should have made sure he used the latest versions of the browser in the comparison.

Also, I don't remember Mozilla ever officially releasing a 0.8.7 -- they went 0.8., 0.8.1, 0.9, ...

Re:Totally meaningless (1)

Darren Winsper (136155) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194992)

0.8.7? There was 0.8, 0.8.1 and then straight to 0.9.

Explorer? (5, Insightful)

yooden (115278) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194811)

A German magazine did a similar thing a while ago, only they included MSIE. It won hands on in every discipline from speed to adherence to standards.
A pity that it wasn't at least mentioned.

Re:Explorer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194848)

And seeing as it's now available for Solaris, Linuxtoday will probably have a version to test RSN.

Having said that, the "back" button is giving me trouble (i.e. it crashes IE). Hmm.

Re:Explorer? (1)

core10k (196263) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194871)

Me too! God damn is that annoying. It only seems to happen when I accidentally start loading a new page and then hit 'back' quickly. A threading problem, perhaps?

Re:Explorer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194881)

I hope have you submitted it to MS as a crash report...?

Re:Explorer? (1)

core10k (196263) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194962)

Nope. Internet Explorer 6 beta, when it crashes on that particular problem, doesn't pop up the lovely 'submit this bug' window, so I can't be bothered to submit it.

Re:Explorer? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194869)

Itz not l337 l1k3 l1nuxZ!!!!!!!

Re:Explorer? (1)

Darren Winsper (136155) | more than 12 years ago | (#2195002)

Please show me some docs showing IE being more standards compliant than Netscape 6, yet alone Mozilla.

Konqueror (1)

Grim Grepper (452375) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194812)

I think it's mandatory for Slashdot editors to prefer Konqueror as their primary browser.

But anyway, I'd have to agree. Mozilla is slow, buggy, and big, although it's improving. Netscape is Mozilla + AOL crap. Konqueror seems to be reasonably fast and stable, and doesn't do a bad job of rendering pages.

The Microsoft bashers may hate me saying this, but I'd love to see Internet Explorer available for Linux. Of course, it will never happen, but it would be nice.

Galeon Problems (3, Interesting)

Verloc (119412) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194815)

I'm using Galeon to read this right now 0.11.0, and while it's a really nice, clean interface, it does have some problems.

http://ska.about.com/library/cannabis/blccrolling. htm [about.com]

This is one of them. One of the two pop ups on this page crash it EVERY time. Without fail. I warn you, do not visit this in Galeon (unless there is some way of turning pop-ups off, which is entirely possible, I've never really delved too deep into it's guts.

But I like it MUCH better than Mozilla and Netscape. It just seems cleaner to me.

And for those of you visiting that web site in non Galeon browers, I did eventually figure out how to roll a joint without its help :)

Verloc

Re:Galeon Problems (3, Informative)

msaavedra (29918) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194919)

I tried this in Galeon-0.12pre3 and the link loads fine. Maybe the problem you are experiencing has been fixed. I imagine 0.12 will be out fairly soon, since pre3 seems pretty solid.


And by the way, yes, you can turn off pop-ups.

Another page to check out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194830)

Although not completely current, HardcoreLinux [hardcorelinux.com] reviews all the major browsers for Linux. It may be worth referencing since the other page seems to be Slashdotted. Here it is:


http://www.hardcorelinux.com/linux-browsers.htm

34 sec to render slashdot? (1)

Knobby (71829) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194832)

Page Rendering Times

For this test, I took a 370kb page from Slashdot page. I saved the page out, rather than use it on the site, since comments could be added on the site which would skew the results.



Slashdot uses a lot of tables on the pages which can take a while to render, so what better test for a browser. Obviously this is a pretty extreme test as most pages are nowhere near as big.





Opera: 127 seconds

Konqueror: 57 seconds

Mozilla: 71 seconds

Galeon: 64 seconds

Skipstone: 57 seconds (Note: Browser crashed on first attempt.)

Netscape: 34 seconds



WTF!!! 34 seconds to render /.? iCab on my mac is probably the slowest rendering browser out there right now (on a fat pipe, on a modem it rocks) and it renders the main page almost instantly! Please tell me this is simply a function of the low cost hardware that was used.. If not, I'll stick to OS X.. What am I talking about?, I'll stick to it anyway, but I'll feel bad for all you linux users out there..



Re:34 sec to render slashdot? (2, Insightful)

quartz (64169) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194855)

I wouldn't trust this particular article very much. They don't even mention the versions of the browsers tested. They say there's no direct way (w/o resorting to the "Settings" menu) in Konqueror to disable javascript and images, but sure enough, in my Konqueror (2.2) they're right in front of me (Tools -> HTML options). I dunno, I guess the article is a bit of a troll. And what better place for a troll than the Slashdot front page? :-)

Gimme a break... (5, Interesting)

quartz (64169) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194833)

From the article: Konqueror: Clean, simple and boring. Perfectly functional, with the bare minimum of fuss. The spinning KDE logo in the corner looks very nice, but of course adds nothing to your browsing experience.

Konqueror, boring? Gimme a break. It's completely themable and it doesn't even need its own themes like Mozilla, you can use general KDE themes. And it works wonderfully as a file manager (and network browser and PDF and manpage viewer), with smooth icon previews of HTML, ps, pdf, images and text files. You can split the view in however many sub-windows you want, you can even have a shell prompt as a subwindow. It has a full screen mode. Right now, I'm browsing with KDE and Konqueror in "Aqua" theme and it looks, well, let's just say you have to buy an Apple if you want something to look cooler than that.

And what's up with testing on a ridiculously outdated machine? P166, no MMX, 32 MB RAM? You've gotta be kidding me. If I wanted a browser that worked fast on this configuration, I'd have stuck with Netscape 3.0...

Re:Gimme a break... (1)

Lord Omlette (124579) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194916)

I thought linux prided itself on doing more with less? Doesn't that make this a valid test?

Of course a more valid test would have been to compare the results on a 'ridiculously outdated machine' and on a high end top of the line mofo.

Re:Gimme a break... (1)

Amon Re (102766) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194944)

You are the same people that will complain if the software doesn't run quick on older hardware.

Konqueror needs to stay current too.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194837)

It should also support the latest plug-in's for Netscape. I tried to go to the www.bttf.com web site as shown on the KDE screenshots pages, but the latest (and most easily available) version of Flash is 5.X. Konqueror only supports up to version 4.X. Sad.

ForgiveR

A Poor Review (2)

eAndroid (71215) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194841)

No one is going to take this review seriously. Not only does the author not give version numbers he also refers to Netscape Navigator as "Netscape". Was he testing the corporation itself?

Personally, I'd be more interested if Navigator 6.1 were compared along side 4.7x and Mozilla.

Re:A Poor Review (1)

Amon Re (102766) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194936)

Lets get real, no one calls Netscape Navigator just Navigator, everyone I have talked to calls it Netscape.

Re:A Poor Review (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194940)

It's called Netscape 6.1. Netscape the corporation got rid of the Navigator/Communicator part. It's still Netscape Navigator 4.08 or Netscape Communicator 4.7x, though. I do agree that this review is completely useless. Konqueror boring? And he actually likes Opera's non-standard icons and cluttered appearance? I don't, and I'm writing this with Opera on Windows! MSIE5.5/6 can't even play movie trailers in a decent format.

hehe (1)

Lord Omlette (124579) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194842)

"I prefer knoqueror, although recent builds seem to have random hangs on images.google.com."

I have no say in the matter, but I bet more people prefer konqueror than knoqueror...

Article on Linux Today, eh? (1)

Strike (220532) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194852)

Looks more like canadacomputes.com to me

Opera is awesome (1)

jchristopher (198929) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194862)

As a newbie to RedHat 7.1, I must say that Opera was easy to get installed.

I like it a lot, primarily because it seems to use the widgets (radio buttons, form elements, etc) that I've chosen in my Gnome setup, in contrast to some other programs. It's very mac-like in that way.

Although it is not open source, I don't particularly care - because I, like most people, wouldn't know what to do with the source if I had it.

Versions? (4, Insightful)

icqqm (132707) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194866)

I'm sorry, but aren't the versions of the browsers used somehow important to the story? Was it Mozilla 0.9, or 0.9.2? Netscape 4.08 or Netscape 4.7, or Netscape 6? Hard to tell what these tests mean, especially if not the latest versions of each browser are being used.

no text only browsers (and why?) (5, Insightful)

johnjones (14274) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194868)

why oh why where text only browsers not included ?

is this because their user base is small ?
I personally use it but I find that alot of people dont

because I find lynx the fall back GOD the page doent render in netscape or some fool has FSCK the HTML I just use lynx and away I go

really how much information (I am intrested in )is presented in pictures on the web
not much I am sure

lynx is my fallback king (-;
I use it when I telnet into places to check they can see stuff plus all I need is a telnet app which I can obtain for most OS's

what do you relie on to ALWAYS give you the web ?
(me its a telnet client and lynx)

regards

john jones

Konqueror holds the most promise (1)

ndogg (158021) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194879)

I will stick to Konqueror for a while. I have looked at the source code and it is very clean and easy to follow, cleaner and easier than most open source/Free projects out there (definitely cleaner than Mozilla.) When you have source code like that, development goes extremely fast. Features become very easy to code.

Besides, I find that Konqueror is a nice compromise between features and speed. It does not try to sway towards one end and exclude the other. Many other browsers have a tendency to do this sort of thing.

Uh geez... (0)

cmdrsed (472978) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194895)

Of course, leave it to Canada to completely screw up an article. Their load time 'benchmarks' are skewed since the browsers were tested on some sort of 386 hooked up with a baud modem to the internet. Thanks for the totally inaccurate article.

Re:Uh geez... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194978)

Get them hosers off the Internet, eh?

Bah (4, Insightful)

Enahs (1606) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194904)

Startup test, from blackbox, showed konqueror to be the clear loser. Well, duh, kdeinit wasn't running yet! A fairer test would have been in in konqueror's "native environment."



Hey, at least I didn't post a lame joke about the obvious misspelling. Get a life, people, willya?

What is so hard (1)

PRESIDENT BUSHCLIT (515272) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194914)

about writing a God-damned web browser?

Re:What is so hard (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194937)

A web browser is about as difficult piece of software as there is too write: it must be standards compliant, speak and understand 20 protocols, be resiliant to poor protocol implementations (otherwise the browser is blamed), stable and fast as hell. That's why it's so hard.

images.google.com (5, Funny)

Skynet (37427) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194915)

*CmdrTaco loads images.google.com*
*CmdrTaco types in "tux the penguin nude"*
*Penguin loads up in goatse position*
CmdrTaco: hmmmm....
*CmdrTaco types in "RMS nude"*
*Google locks...*
CmdrTaco: ^$%$#@!

thank gods for choices (2)

RestiffBard (110729) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194930)

I use galeon and konqueror mostly and the occasional skipstone (which is by the same guy that does gkrellm and pronto) mozilla, navigator and opera just seem to be the EMACS of web browsers. it always seems funny to me that in the Unix (one tool per job) world we have so many kitchen sink utils. vi, galeon or konq, enlightenment. I like to keep things simple looking if not simple.

About the Start-up time (1)

renoX (11677) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194959)

Konqueror 2.2 has an option to use the same process, for launching multiple brower.

So on my computer, its start-up time is about 10 seconde for the first window but only about 3 seconde for the next windows.

Oh and you can also start with a blank page instead of the "help page for konqueror".

The article doesn't say which release of Konqueror he is using though.

And with KDE 2.2.1 , I expect that the problem with the symbol relocation of shared libraries will be finally solved, right now the "solution/hack" is a bit flaky (cause problem with javascript).

Spoon full of browsers (1)

Captain Pooh (177885) | more than 12 years ago | (#2194975)

I've used Netscape, Mozilla, Opera, and even lynx. I like Mozilla since I first used it. I had a small problem with Mozilla viewing text on webpages, but that was fixed when I upgraded X to 4.10. Opera is okay, but the way it renders some webpages is totally wrong. I also used Netscape 4.7 and 6.0 but everytime I would go to a new webpage it would stick then load. So I just stuck with Mozilla, and as for lynx, it's good for when you can't startx which happen to me once.

Don't bother reading or posting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2194994)

...to this article unless you've tried Opera.
Opera puts the rest of the "Linux" browsers to shame.
Yes Konqueror and Mozilla have come far, bravo for their efforts.
But if you want speed, stability and flexibility in a small footprint, get Opera.

Oh, and why don't these developers forget about writing email clients, and file browsers and just write a web browser?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>