×

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!

A Linux 'Browser War' in the Making?

Roblimo posted more than 14 years ago | from the competition-is-good-good-good dept.

Linux 401

We all know about Mozilla. It's one of the major 'poster children' for the entire Open Source concept. Build 9, Build 10, Build 11, and so on. Someday there will be a Mozilla that will run without crashing, and we'll love it. Someday. Then there's Opera's Linux - and BeOS, Mac, EPOC and OS/2 - ports. Over the last week we've had 100+ readers submit the news that (proprietary shareware) Opera for Linux is close to beta release. But there's another potentially exciting Linux browser in the works that has hardly gotten any publicity. (continued)

I learned about the new KDE browser project almost by accident. The concept is only a few months old, and active work on it only started a few days ago. Konqueror - "Konq" for short - is not the spotty KFM utility included in the current KDE release, but a whole new code base.

The people working on Konqueror are worried about getting too many people's hopes up too hard and fast; if they do, and if they run into Mozilla-type slowdowns, they'll end up with plenty of egg on their faces. All they're willing to show the world at this point is this screenshot.

It's amazing how far Konqueror has come in almost no time, especially when you realize that this is a purely volunteer project with just a few members, not a big deal with big money from a big company like AOL/Netscape behind it.

Are there other Linux browsers in the works? Good question; if you know of one, please tell us about it.

Another question: Would more volunteers help Konqueror? Perhaps, perhaps not; the KDE developers aren't sure that more bodies would necessarily help.

Should we all get behind Mozilla and push? Yet another good question - and one that's been hashed to death all over the place but hasn't been fully answered yet.

Whatever the answers, I believe most Slashdot readers agree on one thing: that a better Linux browser would be a Good Thing(tm).

We have a little poll about Linux browsers to the right of this story. And, as always, your thoughts on the subject are more than welcome.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

401 comments

Competition is good (5)

slk (2510) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528193)

What the browser space really needs is competition, on all fronts. Companies and projects should be competing to make the fastest, most stable, most compliant browser with the best user interface. Mnemonic and several other free browser projects were effectively killed by Mozilla.

We shouldn't have all our browser eggs in one basket, any more than we should all be using the same operating system or text editor. Especially with open source browsers (but even with closed source ones), competition brings about innovation, as well as better code and, in the end, a better browser.

If one browser supports PNG, then they all will feel the need to support PNG. If another one is 100% compliant with the HTML 4.0 spec, then they all will feel the need to be compliatn. This competition is going to be the best thing that's happend to browsers, on any platform.

Personally, I look forward to trying out all the new browsers (konquerer, opera, and mozilla), as well as the old favorites (w3m, lynx, and netscape), and using whatever's best. Especially if it's open source, I'd also look forward to contributing bug fixes and new code. However, this means a relatively small and clean open source project, not that 120MB of C++ monstrosity called Mozilla.

Konqueror should use the Mozilla Layout Library (5)

hattig (47930) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528194)

Is it just me, but the layout engine in Mozilla is pretty damned good by all accounts, it is the stuff surrounding it that cacks up all the time.

So wouldn't it make sense to use the Mozilla layout engine inside of Konqueror, and also to use that layout engine as a standard html widget for all of the different programs that display html to some extent? That way, all (bug hunting and fixing) resources will be focussed of one code base, instead of having loads and loads of different code bases around?

Or maybe it is just me being hopeful!

Just the idea of a standard libhtml widget would be great for Linux and other Unix variants. Why reinvent the wheel indeed!

Oh well... there will always be two or three competing things in the Linux world it seems (gtk vs. qt, KDE vs. Gnome, Mozilla vs. Konqueror, etc)... it is when they are merged that the trouble occurs... look at gcc.

In all honesty... (1)

bconway (63464) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528195)

I don't really care what browser I use as long as it's stable and usable. I currently use Netscape 4.7 128-bit. By definition, it is slow, sluggish, and full of bugs, but I have found there to be a great increase in stability since the 4.6 series. It no longer crashes every couple of days of being running without restart. When something better comes along I'll use that, but until then, I'll stick with what works. There's no real reason to be partial just for a name's sake, in my humble opinion.

Other browsers that work with linux (3)

scrutty (24640) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528196)

I can think of
  • mnemonic
  • gzilla
  • hotjava
  • arena
  • amaya
  • lynx
  • Star Office
  • w3
Right off the top of my head. I am only too sure there are others.

Note that this list does not seek to compare or champion any of the browsers mentioned, a few of them are very sucky indeed. I just thought I'd mention them. Certainly in the linux world there hardly ever seems to be a lack of choice. Celebrate Diversity !

we need a "i use windows and want mozilla" option (1)

ostiguy (63618) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528197)

using IE cuz of stability, hate spending so much time worrying about BROWSER SECURITY VULNERABILITIES. Love the look and feel of Netscape of old, but 4.5+ crashes *way* too often.

If mozilla happens, anyone can take that code and modify it as they wish. No need to reinvent the wheel. Unless the konqueror people can come forward with a anti mozilla manifesto that so explicitly explains why their needs cannot be fulfilled within the mozilla project, then it appears as a waste of effort to me.

matt

There's also "Armadillo" (formerly gzilla) (3)

Booker (6173) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528198)

Not to fan the widget wars or anything.... :)

There's another one out there - haven't played with it for a while, but I don't see it get much press, either. It's Armadillo [gzilla.com] - a GTK+ based browser written in C.

----

Short and Sweet (1)

IS lackey (96555) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528199)

What we don't need is a huge browser that can do everything under the sun. I would be very happy with just the ability to browse html pages and maybe have plugins for all of the assorted multimedia expansions added to web pages over the years. The main point being the main browser, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't need to do an awful lot more then have a display window and a forward, back, stop, refresh, and home button toolbar.

And I'll raise you plug-ins (1)

Oates (18921) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528200)

Personally, I loathe and despise plug-ins. But I've come across too many pages that need them in some form or another. Today, I'm doing about 70% of my home browsing on Netscape 4.61 (with plug-ins that crash), the remaining 30% with KFM/Konquerer from KDE 1.1.2.

But what I find I'm missing is the capability to add plug ins. I don't really want to have to use them--but sometimes, the site I'm going to absolutely requires the plug in (for instance, I wanted to find out what "verio.com" was after I got a port scan from one of their IPs--I couldn't view the homepage without Flash). It's a necessary evil today. What would be involved in porting the Netscape plug in specification to an open source browser?

I guess I'd also like a clean Java implementation that doesn't crash (like Netscape does far too often), but I'm betting Konquerer will make me very happy.

Chris

Amaya (1)

Isaac-Lew (623) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528201)

Why not try Amaya?

http://www.w3.org/Amya

Looks like it uses a BSD-type license: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice.html #Copyright

Zawinski's Law, Redux (3)

kzinti (9651) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528202)

I think it was Jamie Zawinski who said that every application seeks to expand until it can read e-mail. I would add the corollary that the really bloated applications expand until they can browse HTML.

For example: there is Emacs/W3 [indiana.edu], which just released version 4.0 [freshmeat.net]. To quote the Freshmeat entry: Emacs/W3 is a full-featured web browser, written entirely in Emacs-Lisp, that supports all the bells and whistles you will find in use on the web today, including frames, tables, stylesheets, and much more. Emacs/W3

Now, I happen to use XEmacs. It's my favorite editor. I couldn't code without it, debug without it, or even read e-mail without it. But I can browse the web without it, and I think building an emacs-based browser is just way over the edge.

As the wise man said, though, Your Mileage May Vary.

--JT

Quality over Quantity (1)

Emule (31158) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528203)

I'd rather see one effecient, stable browser than a bunch of bloated, bug-ridden browsers. Support for Netscape plug-ins (Flash, Shockwave, Quicktime) would be nice, too.

maybe someday (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528204)

The problem is that, while they've got a lot of the superficial stuff in place, it'll be a couple of years at least before it can catch up to where Mozilla is now. They know that, and that's why they don't want to get people's hopes up so soon.

lynx r00ls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528205)

of course it does and of course I voted it. Though I d like to have a plethora of browsers to choose from.

What's needed is . . . (1)

mrdojo (88808) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528206)

I've been following browser technology ever since I stumbled upon the Internet and Lynx years ago. I remeber the day, horror upon horros, that The Discovery Channel unleashed it's site, all chock full of graphics, and it was damn near useless for me.

I've never forgotten how a couple of innovations can make a product near useless. Mozaic and Netscape killed Lynx for me. I got used to it and grew to like Netscape. Regretfully, I find myself using Explorer now, and actually liking it. It makes me sick that I like it.

What is needed, in my opinion, is for some brave group of programmers to follow along with Microsoft's version of a browser, replicate it, and embrace it and extend Explorer so thoroughly that it tucks it's tail between it's legs and yelps back to Redmond.

I think that is the only way that Linux can really get a good foothold as a popular desktop OS - to fight fire with fire.

Just a thought (0)

MISplice (19058) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528207)

I'm suprised they didn't name it KBE (K Browsing Environment)


Just a thought, no more, no less

Re:we need a "i use windows and want mozilla" opti (1)

Chameleon (5810) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528208)

That's simple. Just because Mozilla is open source now doesn't mean it will be open source later. If I was a KDE developer, I would want to rely on as few codebases as possible.
--
Chris Dunham
http://www.tetrion.com/~chameleo/index.html

console web browser -- w3m (2)

vkulkarn (4494) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528209)

For those of us who don't fancy a GUI, check out http://apps.freshmeat.net/homepage/928951047/ it's a console web browser that supports frames (in converts them into a table, and then renders the table)... it even supports SSL...

Re:Konqueror should use the Mozilla Layout Library (4)

Christopher B. Brown (1267) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528210)

That certainly sounds like a good idea; one not-so-minor problem; MLL uses the Mozilla Public License, which is not compatible with GPLed code as documented in the MPL FAQ: [mozilla.org]
18.How can GPL code be incorporated into the Communicator code base?

Under our reading of the GPL, it will not be possible to incorporate code covered by the GPL into the Communicator source code base. It is also not possible to use GPLed code and NPLed code together in a Larger Work. This is different for LGPL code. It is possible to create a larger work using LGPLed code that can then be used in conjunction with NPLed code through an API..

Cineast Project (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528211)

This looks pretty amazing - a small browser using OTCL (an object-oriented TCL extension from MIT) that supports HTML 3.2, a full array of image formats, and SSLEAY connections. No frames yet, but that may be a plus... http://nestroy.wi-inf.uni-essen.de/wafe/Cineast

I have used the new BeOS browser and loved it. (2)

Pengo (28814) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528212)


Well, if the Linux version of the browser is anything like the new BeOS browser expect the following.

1. A NON-MDI Browser!!
Yes, you got it. I have been long used to the Netscape/MS modal (each browser window apears to be its own running program/window).

2. Fast.
I was VERY surprised on how fast the browser rendered. Again, this is on the BeOS. Seems like everything on that OS is just damn fast.

3. Facelift on browser.
All of the buttons, graphics etc. have gotten a major facelift. The new browser really has a 'next-gen' feel to it.

4. More compatible.
I have gotten on different sites that gave my windows version of 3.6 problems, ran fine with the browser I played with.



5.. (And the strongest point in my opinion..)

IT IS SIMPLY A BROWSER... and it does that well!


If you want to use it to read your email , better have a hotmail account. I can't speak for anyone but myself.. but I -love- the idea of a lightweight browser that does nothing more than what its intended to do.


Honestly I am surprised that Opera has not moved into this market earlier.



But.. as with the good, must come the bad.


1. Crashed a few times.
Duh, its a beta.. and BeOS has not proven to be the most stable OS. (Though, crashes no LESS stable than Netscape..)

2. Nagware.
Yeah, won't kill me to pay for it.

3. Closed source..
(Doesn't bother me that much, I have been working hard to learn C++ .. and would love to contribute to an exciting project like this as a learning experience.. Mozilla (from the outside..) appears to be just a little to complicated to me.. oh well, if they don't want the eyes in their code. Their loss.


Anyways, all of the points where based off what I saw of the BeOS release of the next gen Opera browser. Hopefully I will be pleasantly surprised with the linux beta.

Also, this was not intended as a MOZILLA vs OPERA flame bait.. etc.

Cheers!

My thouhts (2)

killmeplease (50275) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528215)

The real solution to the browser wars is to make all browsers run around a java renderer. It makes no sense reinventing the whel for every platform, as a lot of the code requires poring, ifdefs and the like. A Java browser solves many problems and would be feasable with the JDK 1.2.2 release from Blackdown in the future, and the JIT compiler from Inprise. This way, the only upgrade to your browser you would need is a download of the new JDK from sun or Blackdown. Writing a functional browser in Java is very simple, and can be done in a few days by a skilled Java programmer. With this sort of system, we could worry less about who builds the better renderer. "Opera loads each page, .1% faster", "mozilla loads pages with applets .5 seconds faster" would be heard no more. If this was a sucessful mission, programmers could focus on actually putting something interesting into your browser. Like a page that went to slashdot in the morning for you and stripped away the articles and ads that do not fit your interest, or did other cool things.

Live Free or Die Trying

The existing KFM browser is actually pretty good! (1)

shawnhargreaves (66193) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528216)

This all sounds very cool, and I look forward to playing with the final thing, but who out there thinks that the existing KDE file manager is actually pretty damn useful as a lightweight web browser? It can render Slashdot just as nicely as that screenshot, and I've yet to see it crash (in fact it ranks right up their with Lynx on the stability front, which is most unusual for a graphical browser :-)

The only two problems are that it is a little sluggish at downloading (the HTML widget is plenty fast, but pulling down pages is much slower than eg. Netscape), and that a few form related things don't work entirely right, for example I was unable to post this comment using it (although I did sucessfully use it to view the article and comments), because the "reply" button was missing from my display.

it's really hard (2)

arielb (5604) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528217)

It's hard enough to support HTML 4, CSS 1 and 2, XML, DOM etc. But a real browser also has to emulate the bugs on IE and Netscape too. The only browser that comes close is Opera and it still chokes on many popular websites. Therefore I agree with the layout engine "gold standard" idea. The work should be getting CSS 2 and CSS 3, emulating IE/NS proprietary stuff -not doing the whole thing from scratch. Because unless you want a help file browser, you're not going to browse the real web.

Re:Zawinski's Law, Redux (1)

rlk (1089) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528218)

Actually, it makes eminent sense in its own way. I'll have to give 4.0 a try with GNU Emacs. Unfortunately, there are a few behaviors of XEmacs that I haven't figured out how to turn off that make it simply too unpleasant for me to use (the two most notably that you have to actually turn on the region -- I like the GNU Emacs behavior that the region is always active; I can't stand having to do something just to kill off a huge blob of text -- and that if you type with the region active the active region is replaced, rather than text simply being inserted. Grr...).

I do use emacs to read mail (rmail) and news (gnus), and it would be nice to really be able to do all my web stuff in that environment. Same reason that a lot of people like office suites, I guess.

That said, I would not want emacs lisp to be a scripting language; it simply wasn't designed for any real security. Personally I'd just as soon have no client-side smarts at all beyond rendering and supplying cookies on demand, but whatever.

would the Mozilla license allow it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528219)

The FAQ at Mozilla.org stresses that their license in incompatible with the GPL, so would using the layout engine in Konq be possible?

Crash!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528220)

Somebody said crash. Well I have been browsing with this latest nightly build for 2 hours without a crash. People should atleast try an app before making conclusions on the basis of what other people and media is saying. It seems that the author is impressed by the picture of Konq (If you wanna see some cool pics of Mozilla at work try mozillazine.org). Are the kde guys supporting things like CSS1, Javascript, CSS2, XML etc ? Mozilla is still light years ahead of IE 5.0 in its modularity and support of standards (again checkout a new review by XML.com, the page is linked from mozillazine.org) Mozilla score was in 30s while IE score was 8.5. To answer your question about pushing Mozilla, yeah go ahead do it, the more people we will have the faster Mozilla will reach its final releases. --Posted using Mozilla--

Lineo's embrowser runs on fbcon... (1)

andersen (10283) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528221)

Don't forget Lineo's embrowser. It runs on Linux' fbcon, and is very small (embrowser + a Lineo's embeddix Linux dist fits in 5 megs uncompressed).

Works pretty well for embedded systems (though it isn't open source).

Re:Competition is good (2)

Darth Maul (19860) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528222)

However, what about the browsers that feel they can "win" by adding "new features" that are NOT HTML standards? That's what Netscape did to win over Mosaic, wasn't it? I don't think that was necessarily a good move. In the fight to "win", the browsers will not compete by "being more compliant". I can only see the opposite happening.

P.S. - this was posted through Mozilla. GoMozilla!

a browser that WORKS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528223)

all i want is a browser that works =)

that being said, all the current browsers fall down somewhere, somehow...

so will konquerer. HOWEVER....... with Java support, the ability to view postscript and PDF files, integration with the desktop (well, the K desktop anyways), etc etc... konquerer should be great and will probably be what i end up using once kde2 settles down a bit...

kde apps have the tendency to be rather solid and fairly fast... (kde apps being apps written and coordinated by the kde team...)

i'm confident konquerer will follow in this tradition

Opera! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528224)

I like Opera's small footprint. In Win9x, it is only about 1.2MB. Any idea on the size of the linux port?

Re:we need a "i use windows and want mozilla" opti (1)

icebitz (114222) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528225)

Netscape isn't that bad - 4.7 crashes much less often than anything else I've seen/heard of, excepting only 'lynx,' and when it does crash, at least it doesn't take the rest of the machine with it, unlike most proprietary software.

Also, I think it's worth saying that almost every browser that currently exists is based on (and actually credits, if you'll check those trusty About dialogs) NCSA [uiuc.edu] Mosaic.

Just food for thought.

The wheels keep turning, but the rat in the cage is already dead.

-
ice [myip.org]

There are even more browsers (2)

Fufie (101098) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528226)

hi,

Actually there are a couple of other web-browsers out there, and some of them are written in Java. IMHO the best of these is currently the ICEBrowser by ICEsoft at http://www.icesoft.com/ [icesoft.com]. What I like best about it is that it is actually quite fast, despite being written in Java. And as for following standards it is pretty up-to-date and comparable to Netscape, Mozilla and Internet Explorer.

Some not-so-nice things though, it is a commercial product and not a free browser at the moment. The ICEsoft focus is also on making an embeddable browser for other products and as such doesn't have a glossy interface.

It is currently in (downloadable) beta right now and is supposedly going to be released first thing in december which might be a place to stop by then..

But still it is an important browsing-alternative for those keen on Java.

Other browsers... (3)

lar3ry (10905) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528227)

There are lots of other browsers, if one just looks.

There's W3C's Amaya, and their orphaned Arena browser. Sun has HotJava. There's Netscape and Mozilla (of course). Lynx. Mosaic is still around. I remember something called "dozer" (or was that an HTML editor?) as well. Star Office also contains a browser within it.

There are probably a few projects that I haven't heard about.

It makes sense for KDE and Gnome to incorporate browser technology into their desktop environments.

What would be bad for everybody would be if every one of these started to extend HTML with their own proprietary features (Netscape's CENTER tag comes immediately to mind, but there are plenty of other culprits here).

If I can sit down at any of these browsers, and once I figure out how navigation works (click on links for graphical browser, TAB and ENTER for lynx, etc.), I should be able to surf on any and all of these. And all pages should render as best as possible on every one of these browsers.

This means that JVM's need to be standardized, JavaScript implementations need to be compliant to some standard, or else we will be in a tower of Babel where everybody can talk, but nobody can hear what anybody else is saying.

To see what I'm talking about, just browse some of the comp.infosystems.www.* newsgroups, and listen to all the complaints about how Netscape and IE disagree on the rendering of this-and-that, and multiply it by the sheer number of browsers that are still coming out.

I welcome all browsers, even newcomers. But this isn't 1993... there are standards that they are expected to adhere to.

I know the complaints...

HTML (what version? 3.2, 4.0? hmmm?). CSS (1 or 2?). JavaScript. Java (1.02? 1.1.x? 1.1.x + Swing? 1.2?). HTTP (1.0? 1.1?). You name it.

Well, the best thing would be to support as many of these as you can; usually the newer versions are backward compatible. If not, there is usually some way to specify which version something is written to; support as many and as much as you can.

This is a tall order for a web browser nowadays, and the weight of these requirements has been very apparent in the Mozilla development. But your users will love you for it.
--

Re:Other browsers that work with linux (1)

recon1984 (108395) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528228)

That exist may available web browsers for linux. However, (read: big however) many are either heavy lacking in features or just plain suck.

Netscape: Works with most types of web applications; POST method, java, javascript,...
But is it a fat monolithic process, total static and prone to crashing. Plus, it not very open.

Mozilla: Shows promise, but still in heavy beta.

K browser: Lacks support for many web apps; java, POST method,etc. But runs cleaner than most.

Opera, which, in my opinion, is the best available for windoze, will be my browser of choose for Linux, unless they fail miserably on the port.

In though it is not free, it least it will be functional and stable, I hope.

Choices, not Wars (1)

Threed (886) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528229)

These projects are competing for the same niche, true, but regardless of whether Konq takes off as the "one true linux browser" (which isn't likely, IMHO), it will gain a good share of eyeballs as KDE's file-mangler (kfm, r.i.p.).

Opera might be neat-o-keen, but I think more than a few longtime Navigator/linux sufferers might look sideways at it's being developed first on Win32 and then ported.

At least we're going to have some good choices without too many trade-offs. No more having one browser for most things but rebooting to use IE on that one page you can't live without.

BTW: That snapshot of Konq looks NICE. Somehow makes slashdot look even smoother than it normally does. I want it. Oh yes, I want it bad.

--Threed

Why Mozilla is so badly broken (3)

Otto (17870) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528230)

They're trying to support too much.

Mozilla has support for everything. Everything from email to the kitchen sink is part of the codebase.

It's gotten so badly bloated now that I hesitate to call it a browser anymore. All I want my browser to do is to display web pages, run some java/javascript, and support plugins for objects in a page. That's it. No more, please.

Look at the mozilla modules list:
-E-mail/news? I'd really prefer that to be a separate program that can open my web browser if needed, thanks.
-Dialup? I've already set that up, thanks again.
-Embeddable Web Browser? What the heck are you embedding that in?
-HTML to Text/PostScript Translation? Wouldn't this really be better as a separate program? How about saving using HTML? Simpler, eh?
-PerlConnect (Perl and JavaScript connection )? What the heck is this for?

And all the other stuff there. It just seems to me that they're not developing a browser anymore, they're developing an application suite.

Start with a simple architecture, and work up from there. Ahhhhh, would be nice.


---

Re:Add to that Mnemonic (1)

scrutty (24640) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528231)

What do you mean add to that mnemonic? Surely that's the first one on my list ?

IE for linux (3)

_martini_ (77384) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528232)

we'll just have to ask microsoft to make an IE client for linux. We'll just have to tell them it's for "winlinux", I'm sure they'll understand.

My personal opinion is that the mozilla project needs to focus more on fixing the browser before they add things like a html editor/news/mail reader. but since they've already added those things...mozilla should enforce a feature freeze on the current milestone.

but thats just my opinion

Re:Competition is good (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528233)

The reports of Mnemonic's death are greatly exzaggerated.

Mnemonic is alive and well. It's coming along nicely. The reasona the website has not been updated much is because people are too busy coding, and they do not want to generate premature hype, and only want to attract "serious" developers at this stage - the core architecture is still subject ot revision. If you check out the developer mailing list archives, you'll see they're quite busy, with SSL support about to be introduced into the main tree.

Mnemonic is, arguably, a better architecture than Mozilla, though simply less far along the development process.

Screenshot looks familiar... (1)

bsiggers (57684) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528234)

Is it just me, or does this screenshot for the new KDE web browser look pretty much the same as the current one?

I can hardly contain my excitement. ;)

Just wondering - why this particular boring screen shot... just to show us that despite the changes, it's still working?



Pushing Mozilla (1)

Tsk (2863) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528235)

I think we should push mozilla.

Mozilla is a good project for all other Web browser projects, because it's open source. Mozilla has been over the fire for more than a year now and the code is beginning to get debuged and optimized. The mozilla project is build in such a way that non technical people can help, because to help the mozilla project you just need:
1) A supported OS (which there's plenty of a bit less if you want binaries).
2) A web connection (to fecth Mozilla)
3) A e-mail to submit bug repports.

Mozilla's nicest feature is that yoiu can help the development of it for your favorite platform even though you're not using the platform from where you browse the Net [making bug reports on the win32 version @ work also helps the Linux and others OSes versions].
If you want to get more involved you can.
First you help bugzilla [mozilla.org] by sorting bugs and norrowing their description. Everyone can do it.
You can even push the involvment further and decide to pick a bug and correct it since the source is yours to work on.

Mozilla is really getting a lot better these days, speedier, less and less bugs ....
Today a simple fix changed the numbers of memory link of one of the components from 163 to 29 ....

Once there was Mnemonic (2)

heroine (1220) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528236)

When the Gimp 1.0 came out in early 1998 that spurred a frenzy of students to produce open source applications to equal The Gimp both in size and complexity, AudioTechQue, AbiWord, GnoMoney, Gnuotes, etc. One of these mega apps was Mnemonic, intended to be the world's first completely open source web browser. Mnemonic was mentioned on Slashdot every day and it was even predicted to kill Internet Explorer 4. Well a lot changes in 2 years. Hardly anyone using Linux today has ever heard of Mnemonic and most of those Gimp spinoffs have either died off or slowed to geological rates of progression.

Re:IE for linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528237)

I suspect there will be one rather soon. You may recall that MainWin is going to be releasing a Linux port soon. MainWin is a toolkit/library for porting Windows apps to Unix... They license the source to Windows to make their toolkit. I have a feeling that MS used their product to come up with the Solaris version of IE. I'd expect they'll do the same on Linux once that version is working.

I feel like Pavlov's dog! (1)

dkh2 (29130) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528238)

Here's one to show you all what conditioned response will do to you. I pulled up the screenshot [ettrich.priv.no] and immediately went for the scrollbar. I suppose that could indicate that the interface is well designed.

--

Re:Competition is good (3)

richnut (15117) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528239)

What browser companies need to do is to meld the browser with the UI, like (dare I say it) Microsoft does. You have to admit there's some value in being able to type c:\mp3 or http://slashdot.org into the same window in a MS operating system and receiving the results you want. KDE has an advantage with Konquerer in that they have already spent a good amount of time learning how to handle files and applications and all they need to do is drop in a few more components to meet the level that IE is at. Netscape/Mozilla dont have that. They're designed as standalone utilities not integrated components. The web browser has become the consistent pervasive UI for computers, and the KDE folks are looking to capitalize on it. People on /. will always seek out niche utilities to do what we want. People who are not hackers will be able to flock to something like a KDE/Browser two-headed monster.


-Rich

What Linux Browsers Need. (1)

fiid (4432) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528240)

I have been using Linux on the desktop at work and at home (and taking $#!+ for it) for about 6 years now.

I think what we really need is plugin support for all the fancy stuff that works on windows.

The other thing that I hate about browsing in Linux is the fact that the Motif widgets are much larger than their Windows counterparts, which messes a lot of pages up, as well as the fact that pulldown lists cannot scroll. I'm kinda tired of chasing huge pulldown lists accross the screen.

On the other hand, web developers shouldn't put 400 - 500 items in a pulldown anyway, but thats another story.

Thanks,

Fiid.

Re:In all honesty... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528241)

No now it crashes just for fun-( If I didn't need to access a couple of sites that don't seem to work at all with 4.6 I'd go back. All I want is stable. I don't need no stinking new features. Please someone just give me stable. Please! If I wanted something that crashed I'd be running something from Microsoft!

I voted msie -- Meant wine (1)

jovlinger (55075) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528242)

'cause it was the closest. Frankly I don't care who writes or develops my browser; what Io care about is that it runs ALL the sites that I want to visit. And this means (shudder) shockwave and (gasp) java and (tremble) javascript.

Now I'll state it plainly: I really wish webmasters would stick to plain html, and use dynamic content generation to implement gimmicks.

However, it seems that 90% of webmasters (apologies to the 10% of you who don't suck) don't realise that anyone would access their site using a different os/browser/plugin setup than they have. Many of my old friends from college are webmasters, and that wouldn't be so bad if they weren't all business majors with very few clues about computers.

But end of second rant of the day (see Minidisc story for the first).

So realising that it's impossible to educate all content creators, it is necessary for me to get a browser that understands everything they put out. and that means plugins.

I think perhaps Wine is the only realistic option here.

Johan

Re:Zawinski's Law, Redux (1)

Our Man In Redmond (63094) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528243)

Perhaps, although I can think of two reasons why one might want to code a browser in Emacs Lisp:

1. I've corresponded with several people who are, depending on your point of view, either stuck with Emacs as their only environment or use Emacs all the time and hate to leave it. Primarily for the former, a browser you could use without leaving Emacs would make some sense. Especially if there's some sort of graphics capability. Reading User Friendly just sort of loses some of its appeal when you can't see the comics.

2. Because You Can (tm).
--

Multi-function programs are a BAD THING (1)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528244)

I hope to God that Konqueror will do one thing and one thing only: browse web pages. The reason Mozilla got so fscked up and is taking so damn long to come out is because they thought they needed to put in all the crap that bloated Communicator.

ALL WE NEED IS A WEB BROWSER. To browse the web! It doesn't need to read email, or newsgroups, or edit HTML, or do my laundry!

--- Dirtside

Get real, man! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528245)

Man, what are you on? If you read the blurb on mozillazine.org it say the following:
In XML.com's evaluation of non-validating XML parsers, James Clark's XP parser -- the one used in Mozilla -- came out on top with a score of 5 out of a maximum of 5. And, in David Baron's latest evaluation of browser CSS conformance, Mozilla is in the lead, by a wide margin. When you see the scores at the bottom of the CSS results table, in which Mozilla gets a 38 out of 104, realize that this is because CSS2 conformance is evaluated as well (CSS2 is not promised for the first release of Mozilla). In comparison, Opera 3.60 gets a 2.5, and IE5 garners a -8.5.

OK, so they're touting Mozilla for James Clark's parser, they're touting Mozilla for CSS support, etc. But if you've ever used or looked at Mozilla, you know it ain't there yet! It still doesn't look nor act as good as IE, even though IE doesn't have the best XML parser or full CSS support. So, man, get real!

red baron (2)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528246)

What happened to the Red Baron browser that was
bundled with RedHat 4.x? I can't believe that was just a one-off and abandoned. It worked great.
Why wasn't that open source, Redhat? It would
probably be pretty far along by now if only it
were out here.

Re:The existing KFM browser is actually pretty goo (2)

platypus (18156) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528247)

I agree.
I wondered all the time when anybody will openly say that konqueror is a competition to the upcoming mozilla.
I used it most the time and actually have posted something on slashdot with it (and 1.1.2 does the cookies reliable).
One has to remember that a full slashdot commentary site (esp. with moderator functionality) is a real good hardcore-test for a html renderer.

Re:Zawinski's Law, Redux (1)

Joe Rumsey (2194) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528248)

I thought W3 was silly for a long time too. I still do, for the most part, except that now VM knows how to use W3 to format HTML email. I'd still prefer it if people wouldn't send me HTML email, but now when they do, it actually gets formatted sensibly. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone sends me an emacs lisp virus in such a way that I don't even have to open the email, but hey, that would be cool enough I wouldn't even be all that upset when it wiped out my home directory.

On the other hand, as someone pointed out, "Because You Can" is a good reason too.

Mnemonic's not dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528249)

I know you said "effectively killed" in your post, which isn't the same as "absolutely killed". For those concerned, Mnemonic is still alive and living here: http://www.mnemonic.org/ [mnemonic.org]
One interesting thing they are doing is focusing on rendering mathematical equations.

Opera footprint (1)

Ryanwoodings (60314) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528250)

I'm not sure on the size of Opera's footprint in Linux, but the BeOS version is about 1.5 MB, so I'd imagine the Linux version would be about the same size. The BeOS version is really fast and IMHO it displays some pages with tables better than Netscape and IE.

Re:Konqueror should use the Mozilla Layout Library (1)

Wumpus (9548) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528251)

It is possible, with a component based API. Define the interface to the layout engine, using something like COM (or even a C++ class, although there are disatvantages to using C++) and write the UI to use whichever layout engine is available. Then, as long as layout engines support the API, you can mix and match user interfaces and layout engines.

This kind of design is what makes it so easy to drop IE5 into, say, a Visual Basic application, or any other Windows app that supprts OLE controls (or ActiveX controls, or whatever MS calls them this afternoon).

I've seen a coworker put together a voice activated web browser, in VB, with basic functionality, in about 10 minutes of work. Windows is built around components nowadays in pretty much the same way that Unix is built around text and pipes. As long as you have the right components, everything is scriptable to a surprising degree.

Never mind the browser, where's the plugins (1)

silver (790) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528253)

It doesn't matter what browsers are avaliable for Linux, what I really want is decent plugin support for things like Realvideo, shockwave etc that actually work without crashing the browser every time. That and stable java support that actually works out of the box.

Noble though the ideal of universally accessible web pages may be the fact is that many many sites these days are unworkable unless you have javascript, java, and the latest set of wibbleforce2000 plugins enabled.

Until this sort of support is widely avaliable for browsers under linux it will remain a second rate platform for web browsing.

If you doubt this go to netscape.com and have a look at the plugin list for netscape under windows, then go and have a look at the plugin list for netscape under linux. I'm not suggesting that all of the 200 or so plugins avaliable are needed but the core ones most certainly are.

browsers, servers, and standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528254)

Having lots of good browsers won't do much good if web servers continue depending on frobs that are specific to Netscape or M$. The prevailing attitute is that those are the only two worth bothering with, and the very notion of adhering to standards (like HTML) is foreign to many companies. Maybe if enough people send email to webmasters saying "I wanted to buy your product but your web server only works with specific browsers so I guess you aren't interested in my business", something might happen.

No need for GUI just possible a better console (1)

Mojo2k (114112) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528255)

I think there should be a better support for higher resolutions in the good ol fashoned console. Basic linux is cool, but if we could get a better res on it, the web browsers like lynx could possibly do a good job at supporting pictures. Im pretty sure you can get extra lines by running a vga = enhanced command somewhere on startup.. but is this good enuf? Dont get mad at me if I say something stupid cause Im a Linux Newbie :P

Speak for yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528256)

Alright, it does not have to do laundry, but if it could fold laundry, that might just be able to cut it.

need for browsers with encryption (1)

double_h (21284) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528257)

I'm glad to see there is growing potential for more decent web browsers for Linux - this has been a sore point for a lot of people for quite some time.

Unfortunately, I personally will probably be stuck using Netscape Navigator for some time. My job requires me access and use a number of web pages which are only accessible with 128-bit (cough cough) "strong" encryption. I haven't been keeping up with any of the other projects - does Mozilla (or anybody else) have plans to implement secure transmission in their browsers?

Re:Konqueror should use the Mozilla Layout Library (1)

elflord (9269) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528258)

Konqueror isn't so much as a browser as it is a shared library ( ie a html widget ). That is, to write a "browser" in KDE, you (more or less) just shove the html widget into a window. The KDE libraries are released under the LGPL.

Re:Why Mozilla is so badly broken (1)

rangek (16645) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528259)

-HTML to Text/PostScript Translation? Wouldn't this really be better as a separate program? How about saving using HTML? Simpler, eh?

I actually use these features quite often. Saving in html often results in missing images and such. Saving as Postscript preserves these things.

And it can't be done (easily) with a separate program that converts HTML to ps. Because the html is messed up as explained above.

Don't forget Amaya! (1)

drok (78225) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528260)

Here I thought we were going to be reminded about W3C's own effort, Amaya [w3.org]. -Robert

Re:Multi-function programs are a BAD THING (1)

elflord (9269) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528261)

I hope to God that Konqueror will do one thing and one thing only: browse web pages.

That's pretty much all it does and all it ever will do. When it needs another application ( such as a mail client ), it invokes the appropriate KDE application. So you can still respond to a mailto: link, but the code is not leeched to the browser. Ditto regarding newsclients.

Re:Konqueror should use the Mozilla Layout Library (2)

HunterD (13063) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528262)

Mozilla has an Embeddable browser. So really if Konq wanted to embed the browser it shouldn't conflict with any of the liscenses. All you would need to do is call the embeddable browser from a GPL program. The program at that point is in two distinct code bases.

For that matter, a program like neoplanet could be created for linux - it allows multiple rendering engines to be used (IE or Mozilla), but it is a seperate & distinct program.

If Neoplanet can incorperate mozilla's rendering engine without breaching the MPL - or releaseing the neoplanet browser under the MPL then there should really be no problem doing it with a GPL program as well.

linuxdot.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528263)

OK now its finally time to rename this site linuxdot.org. This would have been excellent news if you would have written this article at the time a usable beta came out for any alternative OS and not at the time when finally the linux port made a slow advance toward beta. This was true about half a year ago, when BeOS Beta 1 was released and M8 of Mozilla wasnt even out. But slashdot thinks it just worth mentioning when the linux beta is out. Now dont misjudge me as an BeOS evangelist (Im more Mac OS centered) it just the plain truth that the BeOS port is more advanced. If you want to see it with open eyes (not with penguin shaped sunglasses on) this article shouldnt be named after a single OS as Mozilla and Opera are developed for various operating systems and not just for Linux. If you look at Operas site, this article should have been about BeOS as BeOpera is at Beta 6 while the linux port isnt even half way done to be considered Beta. And what do we learn from this? It looks like I finally have to draw a line and search for another news site that looks at the world in a normal way and is not dedicated to "linux is cool" and "Windows sucks" -Im out of here.

Re:Competition is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528264)

umm if you try typing ///home/luke or file:/home/luke (or whatever the directory/file is,..) in netscape,.. (GASP).. whats this? Im looking at the directory... be it,.. in a ftp type style

Something Doesn't Add up (1)

ecampbel (89842) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528265)

The article says they are using an entirely new codebase, and started working on it only a few days ago. Slashdot is not a trivial page to render, so they obviously have either been working on this project for a while, or are using the existing codebase.
What they should be working on is a lightweight HTML rendering widget that all programs can use to display their help files and any other output that would be useful as HTML. They do not need to create a browser with all the bells and whistles of Mozilla, IE, or Opera, and quite frankly, I don't think they could. Those heavyweights have been in the browser business for a long time.
Lastly, what happens when Mozilla does come out with a stable standards compliant king of all other HTML applications browser. Is it really worthwhile to try and compete with AOL/Netscape?

One thing that could kill Linux: non-GPL browsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528266)

I firmly believe that the lack of a full-featured GPL'ed browser (that's stable and efficient!!> is one of the major hinderances of Linux on the desktop. Ironic it is that one of the most important apps to Linux' success is not available as a viable open-source project. Furthermore, IE is quickly gaining popularity and people are increasingly depending on it's proprietary features. The only way the community can compete with IE is a free (as in freedom) codebase that has widespread support from developers worldwide. Mozilla's NPL just doesn't cut it. Once the mozilla project is done and Netscape adds in all the "trademarked/patented code", we'll be stuck with binaries again (unless we want a watered down version without security, etc.) The project I propose needs to provide an alternative for Windows users as well to upset MS's monopolizing of IE proprietary features. I envision a day when IE and Mozilla/Nav are both replaced by a GPL browser that EVERYONE uses. Plug-ins / scripts / etc. ?? no problem, there will finally be one standard! Isn't that what we always wanted?

Re:Once there was Mnemonic (2)

NettRom (39971) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528267)

Hardly anyone using Linux today has ever heard of Mnemonic...
I think that's sad. Partly of course because Mnemonic has a derivative of my C code in it, and partly because I believe in the availability of choice (I guess this link [home.sol.no] should say enough about just that).

I don't think everyone should push behind one browser, at least not all of the time. Push to get it released, yes, but not push to make it become a "standard" of it's own. Netscape used to be the "standard" browser, now it's IE4/5. The web designers/authors follow that "standard" and create content looking its best in that browser. How it looks in other browsers they often do not care much about.

And I think that's sad. Sad because people seem to like it that way, and they end up using the browser the creators use. Secondly because it leaves me with less options. I recently had a harddrive crash, and my old P75 isn't too keen on running X. Mail & news is done with emacs, so I had no trouble with that, but when I wanted to check out some web sites for my daily doze of news: forget it! There's no good structural markup so Lynx is badly choking.

I surely hope that Opera releases the text browser they mentioned before, so that Lynx gets good competition. From the screenshot it looked like a really nice browser, and a useful one for when I only have console access to my system.

As others have mentioned already, why not have a browser that simply does one job, and does it well. For me that's a good idea. Others might want other things, and that's what we have helper applications, plug-ins and the like for. They can add to the already existing platform and create the browser of their choice (add c00l skinz and great sound effects for extended pleasure).

I'm all for choice. Mozilla might become my preferred browser when it's out due to its support for standards, and the fact that it so far looks to be a fast browser. Or I might choose Opera 4 (for Windows) since 3.6 is a fast and standards compliant browser, so therefore v4 should become another fast and standards compliant browser. Maybe I'll end up on a Mac with iCab... who knows... but I want the options.

Re:Konqueror should use the Mozilla Layout Library (1)

elflord (9269) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528270)

KDE are using their own html widget as the standard html widget -- for all KDE programs anyway. There already is a "libhtml" widget. ( libkhtml ). GNOME have also implemented a html widget. As for "reinventing the wheel", it hasn't happened -- if I've heard correctly, the gnome html widget usedcode from khtml.

My bet is that we'll have two "standard" html widgets -- KDE and GNOME. They will be more or less the same besides the different widget sets used. I don't think anyone feels comfortable counting on Mozilla. I've been using linux for over 2 years, and I feel as though Netscape has been falling short of the mark the whole time.

Eagerly awaiting Opera (1)

mattyj (18900) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528273)

I have been a registered Opera user (win32) for nearly two years now. I just wanted to tell everyone that is BEGGING for something that's 'just a browser, nothing more, nothing less' that Opera should fit the bill, if their Linux port as as good as their current line-up. The interface is great, yet versatile. It has a good set of features that help you *browse*, not read mail, not read newsgroups, and not author web pages. It's got a very small footprint, memory and size wise. And the folks at Opera are very humble and seem to invite the competition. I can't recall ever seeing a netscape link on any Microsoft site, but Opera practically begs you to download IE and Netscape before you try out Opera.

If you currently run a supported platform, do yourself a favor and download it now. If you told me two years ago that I'd pay 30 or 35 bucks for a web browser, I'd have called you a buffoon. Now look at me. I guess *I'm* the buffoon.

http://www.operasoftware.com

-Mattyj

Re:Other browsers... (1)

haggar (72771) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528274)

Moderate this guy's post a bit higher, he listed them all!

Congrats lar3ry, good job!



Mozilla Lite? (3)

DataGrok (81077) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528275)

I am not a C++ coder. Yet. And I know I'm totally oversimplifying the situation in my quesiton. With that in mind, maybe someone more enlightened than I could answer me this: Could it be possible for an industrious group of coders to grab the mozilla layout engine and wrap a simplistic UI around it, effectively creating what I see many people here asking for? ... A lightweight-but-functional browser-only browser, minus all the crap?

I used to be a big fan of the Mozilla project, but every screenshot that I see, I end up saying, "What is that mess over in that sidebar there? I don't want that. Can't they just finish the friggin renderer?"

Re:One thing that could kill Linux: non-GPL browse (1)

dezmond (91081) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528276)

Just a thought -- while the non-GPL browsers are certainly problematic, what could easily send even IE & Netscape on their way, IMNSHO, would be abrowser that was actually HTML spec (latest) compliant. And if it was GPL'ed, it would be even better. Once a "spec-browser" is implemented, adding support for non-spec things, like plugins, IE extensions, etc, could be added as modules.
*shrug* My $0.02.

Re:Why Mozilla is so badly broken (3)

Chris Siegler (3170) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528277)

E-mail/news?

From a recent /. poll [slashdot.org], over twenty percent of /. users use communicator for their mail client. Now what do you think that is for the less knowledgable browsing public?

HTML to Text/PostScript Translation?

I convert to text all the time, and conversion to PS is nice when there are many embedded images and you would rather not fetch them all with wget.

Embeddable Web Browser?

If you mean the GTK+ mozilla widget, it's small and useful and was contributed code.

Re:Why Mozilla is so badly broken (1)

Keel (11611) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528278)

It would help emmensely if this functionality was more modularized a la object model. I believe Konqueror is based on the KOM object model so it derives its various functionalities from objects that are also available to other applications. An object is available to serve up HTML support for apps (clients) that need it; an object for displaying gifs, etc. For what it's worth, this is sort of what IE4 does, too. Unfortunately, I don't think Mozilla (or Netscape) are that forward-thinking.

----

Re:Competition is good (1)

mosch (204) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528279)

Actually, IIRC, my reason for switching from Mosaic to Netscape was that Netscape rendered the pages faster (didn't wait for all images to load to start the display).

I'm about 90% sure that was my logic in the switch. I certainly didn't care about :-)

Not more choices, more standardization (1)

rjaninda (58617) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528280)

Don't get me wrong, choices are a good thing. I am just tired of trying to design pages that look and function the same in different browsers. What we need is a browser that supports the standards as defined by the W3C and the RFC's. Once we have that, then add the "niceties" like JAVA, Shockwave, or whatever makes your eyes happy.

Finally, once this miracle browser is in place, Linux needs members to participate in the W3C to make sure their browser supports the upcoming "standards" and doen't get left behind.

Re:Competition is good (1)

mosch (204) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528281)

I certainly didn't care about the blink tag. Preview is at least semi-broken as it was included properly on preview.

Re:Konqueror should use the Mozilla Layout Library (2)

Ledge Kindred (82988) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528282)

But doesn't that paragraph imply that Konqueror couldn't be folded into Mozilla, and not vice-versa? If the MPL really means "this is freely available software" then the layout engine should be able to be embedded into other code with little restriction.

-=-=-=-=-

Re:The existing KFM browser is actually pretty goo (1)

philsky (85320) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528283)

The only difficulties I've encountered is when accessing a page that wants a username and passowrd... at that point in time, you get an error sayign access is denied,... howevever, if you put http://user:pass@securesite.com/phil/index.html it works! KDE rocks!

Re:Why you're wrong (3)

asa (33102) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528284)

Mozilla starts with a simple architecture. It uses a light-weight, quick as lightning html rendering engine. Add xml support, javascript and their blossoming child XUL and you've got the beginnings of a great product. Add on to that a simple mail/news interface (btw, the browser does not rely on mail/news code, mail/news code is pretty lightweight and sits atop the browser)and you've got a very functional product. Add an open java interface so you can plug in the version you like and it's really starting to look sharp (but still simple). Read a little more before you judge mozilla. Not all modules are part of the default product and not all modules that are part of the product are as big as the name would suggest.

Not just a web browser - and more screenshots (2)

Quigley (18976) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528285)

Konqueror isn't just a web browser, konq is what Microsoft's IE intergration/COM should be. Using the new Canossa(sp?) component API, I believe Konqueror is able to browse and/or render filesystems, samba shares, web pages, postscript, dvi, pdf, and plaintext. Given the rapid pace of development there's probably even one or two more by now.

What this topic should be is "khtml", KDE's html widget code which in this case is acting as a Konqueror component. Here's some more screenshots, displaying its current rendering ability...

Konqueror displaying various webpages [inficad.com]

Konqueror itself [inficad.com]

Konqueror displaying postscript [jorsm.com]

Uh, you forgot Mosaic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1528286)

Mosaic still works too.

Plugins - Right on! (1)

bigdogs (90229) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528287)

> I think what we really need is plugin support for all the fancy stuff that works on windows.

Damn straight we do. That's the biggest (only?) drawback to surfing on Linux. I've gotten my wife to prefer Linux over Windoze ("Linux never crashes! That's so cool!"), but every once in a while, she stumbles across a site that requires a plugin that's only available on Lose9X.

IMHO, having plugins are way more important than multiple browser choices. In fact, you could argue that plugins could help make a big push for Linux on the desktop.

Why must there be a browser war? (1)

rekle (89210) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528288)

To me, I don't care whether the browser is Mozilla, Opera, Konquerer or anything else, as long as is *fully* supports all the Web standards (HTML4, CSS, Java, JavaScript, XML etc.) The whole concept of the Linux community is cooperation and freedom. Let all the browsers exist and let the user pick the one they want.

I understand the commotion (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528289)

Netscape has never been the only browser
for linux.

When I did not have a machine with 192M like now days and had to use a few megs from the otherwise overloaded server I used arena (quite unstable) or another now forgotten but actualy very good browser which was lurking along with arena on ftp.tuwien.ac.at (sorry forgot the name but I did not see it mentioned anywhere in the discussion ;-)

And I do not understand what is all the comotion. The first thing I tried after installing KDE earlier this year was to load slashdot. And it loaded pretty good ;-)

All konq needs is to read jabba droppings (sorry java). Than IE and mozilla are both dead...

Re:Why Mozilla is so badly broken (1)

hadron (139) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528290)

HTML to Text/PostScript Translation?

Also known as "printing support." ;)

Re:My thouhts (1)

korr (32867) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528291)

The problem with this is that Java, at best, will only run about 40% the speed of native code. A better idea would be to release the source code to this layout engine, or better yet to have it as some sort of COM component that can be wrapped around by any browser. Because the source code is available, it can be ported to any platform fairly easily.

It would be cool to have 3 or 4 different layout engines out there, and being able to plug whichever one you want into your favorite browser.

If everyone would just follow the standards right to the letter, then it wouldn't matter which layout engine you used...they'd all look the same.

Yes you could (1)

MatriXOracle (33400) | more than 14 years ago | (#1528293)

It would be very easy to strip out all the other components and leave only the renderer. With the GTK and ActiveX control widgets, it'd be simple to plug the Mozilla engine into anything.

But I think people are overreacting to the presence of these apps... why not have one program as an internet suite? Considering that Mozilla is only a 5 Meg download right now (including all the debugging tools), I would hardly call it bloated.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...