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!

21 Linux Web Browsers?

Roblimo posted more than 14 years ago | from the more-than-you-imagined dept.

Linux 174

brazilian brain writes "There's an interesting article at trix.net called "browsing the browsers". It's a quick review of 21(!) web browsers already available for Linux or being ported for this platform. From Lynx to Communicator, from Amaya to Mozilla, they are tested or briefly commented. Whenever possible, screenshots are provided. It's an original article by Ricardo Y. Igarashi, published by Linux in Brazil and now translated to English in order to share the data with the international Linux community. I hope you enjoy it."

cancel ×

174 comments

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

Netscape makes it hard to read Slashdot (2)

jrobertray (86711) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491106)

When I use the back button in Netscape, I'm almost always taken to the same randomly chosen spot near the top of the previous page, most certainly not the place I was when I clicked on a link.

This makes keeping track of where you've been reading here a real challenge, and is a big nuisance in general.

Why has this bug persisted for so long, and is there a cure?
--
Why Ah Must Scribble GNU

Re:This is a comparison of irrelevancies (1)

arcade (16638) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491107)

IMHO the browser comparison focuses on the wrong things. Frame support is not important, nor is anim gif support or interlaced gif support.

Hm, I don't completely agree with you there. First of -- both frame and table support IS important today, when so much of the web actually uses it. Support for graphics on the other hand is just a nice thing to have.

I'd like to know which render the pages correctly, according to spec. Which support CSS (according to spec)?

I agree. Those things should be considered carefully. The browser which follows the standards, in addition to having a decent user interface, is the one to go for.

of course, it should be *small* and *fast* too. :)

Which allow the user to specify their own style sheets, overriding the pages' layout?

Is that important? Why?

Which support content negotiation?

You mean like multiple language support and so on? Personally I would prefer to have the web in as few languages as possible. Preferably everything in english, and sites that concerns one nation only - in that nations native language.

As you may have noticed, I'm not natively english / american speaking. I'm sure my english writing / spelling and so on sucks. But that's not the important thing. The important thing is that its a HELL of a task to translate things into an umzillion different languages - only major corps with lots of money to hire translators OR major organizations with many helpers - would be able to translate to "everything".

The problem here, is that the bigger will get even bigger, and those who cannot cope and translate into enough languages .. will never become 'anything'.


--

Only 5 really count. (1)

Forge (2456) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491108)

Those 5 are;

Lynx for when you just need something fast and light.

Konqueror and Mozilla for the future 100% standards compliant and gorgeous colored and flash impregnated sites.

Netscape because it's the only working browser for a lot of sites now.

and finally EMacs, because with the Emacspeak add-on You can actually get a voice only interface which is essential for all those blind Linux hackers out there.

Linux for a web developer (1)

Lost Carrier (87801) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491119)

I work as a web developer, I code client- and serverside.

If it wasnt for Internet Explorer I would have abondoned my Win* machine for a long time, but since IE is the most used browser on the WWW I have to stick with it. Some might say get Solaris (cause IE works under Solaris). But that isnt the issue.

Some might say get Opera, it has fully CSS and DHTML support according to W3C. Yes it has, BUT the big but, the most users browsing the web uses IE and IE has its own CSS and DHTML model. Wich always tend to crash Netscape browsers.

Unfortunately I dont see anything that will change that really, IE for a free OS, dont think so.

Only alternative for me is to stick with only server-side programming. But that is to runaway from the problem.

I really hope NS5 and its new rendering engine will change all this. Then I can stick with my FreeBSD and Linux box for good!

Lost Carrier

Re:Not surprising (1)

arcade (16638) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491120)

As a server, Linux still has many places to sit, but on a corporate desktop, I'm sorry to say it's just not ready.

.. yet ..

I think the only things we need to make Linux ready for the corporate desktop is:

- A decent webbrowser. (mozilla / opera coming soon)
- A decent Email program (hmm.. kMail is usable, but not great)
- A decent Office suite (kOffice coming soon)

What more is really needed? *Really* needed? News programs is not that important to the 'big businesses' (i think?), aol instant messagers thingomajigs (or their equivalents) should not be a difficult thing to find, and so on. Quite frankly, I think we'll be ready for the corporate desktop within 6 months.



--

Re:MS IE for Linux - I'd use it, wouldn't you? (1)

Flavio (12072) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491121)

There must be something wrong with your library disposition and configuration.

I've been using Netscape 4.5 since it was released and it hasn't crashed on me even 5 times. I use it for at least 2 hours a day. I do leave Java turned off, though. It uses too many resources and it does tend to crash Netscape.

I agree with you that Netscape is inefficient but wanting MSIE for Linux is being way too radical IMHO.

Try fixing your libs. Good luck :)

Re:it still boils down to one (1)

Acronym (7913) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491122)

In the way of IRC clients, if you want the eyecandy, the obvious client to suggest is XChat; in my experience (in its' latest incarnation), it is featureful, stable, and not bad performance wise.

Personally, I find tkIRC to be very useable in X11, and it has the virtue of being usable with ircII scripts (it essentially being a TK front-end to ircII).

There is also Zircon, an irc client written entirely in TCL/TK, but I found it had some annoying misfeatures with respect to nicklengths (ircII hard-limits your personal nick-length at 8 without modifying the source, but Zircon refuses to let you op people through the menus without them having a nick of 8 characters or less).

Also, KVirc is meant to be extremely good; I have never used it, however.

Try http://www.irchelp.org for a list of clients to look at.

Hope this helps.

Acronym
(unrepentant ircII-in-an-eterm user)

The Dynamics of the Linux browser market (3)

RNG (35225) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491123)

OK, the (albeight very brief) comparison of the web browsers is nice. What this shows that we have a lot of partial implementations and a few solid good (ie: complete) browsers (at various stages of completion).

I think it is important that Mozilla eventually becomes a good/solid browser because it is the showcase for what open source can (or can't do). Looking at the usability of the last few mozialla builds, I can say that IMHO it's moving along OK and seems to be more stable everytime I download it. As such, I believe that the mozilla folks will eventually release a good, standards compliant browser. The key question here is: when? We have to run as fast as we can to catch up to MS and deprive them of the opportunity to bend the web to their own designs and currently Mozilla is the showcase product of that.

While I think the success of the Mozilla project is important for the obvious reasons (visibility, Linux should have an open source implementation of a key technology for the web, etc), I am not all that worried about the availablity of a proper browser under Linux. See, Linux right now has somewhere between 15-20 million users (as far as we can guess) and is doubling every year (even if it's not quite doubling it's growing like crazy). This means, that even should mozilla fail, there will be (in a year or so) a market of about 30-50 million potential users. I think this in itself will attract corporate interest: if you can get 20% of those users to pay you $20 (which is pretty reasonably for a decent browser if you have no alternative), you'd make somewhere in between $120M and $200M. Surely a potential customer base of such a size will continue to attract development efforts (if no decent free implementation is available).

Opera currently seems poised to become the alternative, commercial Linux browser if what I've heard about them holds true on their upcoming Linux port. I think Linux is big enough to attract software companies which can deliver a browser. Yes, it should be open source and this is where Mozilla comes in. I think however that no matter what happens, Linux will be able to operate on the web.

Lastly a few comments (responding to other posts):

  • Would I use IE under Linux? No Way in Hell. Unless MS guarantess that they will respect web standards. Knowing MS, this will not happen anytime soon. For me personally, the choice is Just say No!
  • Browser JVM quality: I couldn't care less. IMHO Java on the client/browser is a dead duck ... Java on server is where it's alive and well ... BTW, netscape under Linux is very stable once you turn off Java (although a proper JVM would be nice).
  • Linux in general: the more it grows (and it's use is expanding like crazy) the weight it carries ... already it has long since passed the stage where companies can ignore it. It's weight will only increase. This weight will attract businesses, developers and lots of other folks.

Frequent hangs and crashes (1)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491124)

Put this in your .profile if you're using bash:

alias kns="killall -9 netscape ; rm -f ~/.netscape/lock"

It is sad, but using Netscape nowadays requires preparations like these. (turning off Java helps a lot as well)

Re:MS IE for Linux - I'd use it, wouldn't you? (2)

sparks (7204) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491125)

What libc setup do you have to get such good results? (Although I think you've essentially conceded my point by disabling java because "it does tend to crash Netscape").

I've run Netscape 2+ across at least a dozen machines with various slackware, debian, and SuSe distros. Netscape has been pretty much awful over all of them.

The only thing that playing with your libraries seems to offer is a choice of which particular set of bugs you would like to encounter. "How would you like to crash today?".

At the end of the day, the current distribution of SuSe runs everthing - everything perfectly, except for the latest version of Netscape, which crashes constantly. That's not my problem. It's not even SuSe's problem. It's a Netscape problem. And Mozilla doesn't seem to be making any headway towards fixing this.

Re:MS IE for Linux - I'd use it, wouldn't you? (1)

sanderb (9539) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491126)


I recognize a lot in your story, wrt using/ crashing Netscape on Linux.

However, I'm afraid (and this is really too bad) the frequent crashes and DNS lookup hangs (I thought this is fixed now with the DNS helper process) are limited to Netscape on Unix. On Windows, again I am as sorry about this as the next guy, several Netscape versions are solid as a rock (Netscape 4.51 is a good example).

So there is no need to port IE to Linux, we just need to port the Netscape of Windows to Linux.

Re:This is a comparison of irrelevancies (1)

ajk (944) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491127)

First of -- both frame and table support IS important today, when so much of the web actually uses it

I agree, table support is important. But frame support is not - except that if a browser supports frames, it should allow me to turn that support off. Any site that does not work without frames is broken. The NOFRAMES element is there for a reason.

Which allow the user to specify their own style sheets, overriding the pages' layout?

Is that important? Why?

It is important. It would lower my blood pressure when visiting sites that specify too small fonts or unreadable colours (dark blue on black, anyone?). And it would allow me to specify that I don't like a text line to be much longer than 40 em, and that I prefer to have some margins on a page. To mention a few things.

You mean like multiple language support and so on? Personally I would prefer to have the web in as few languages as possible.

Well, I don't agree with you there. I like to read Finnish when I can. Content negotiation is wonderful magic when it is used efficiently.

The important thing is that its a HELL of a task to translate things into an umzillion different languages

I know. I translate Debian web pages to Finnish.

only major corps with lots of money to hire translators OR major organizations with many helpers - would be able to translate to "everything".

Why would you need to translate everything?

What are the current top 5 Unix browsers (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491128)

What are your top 5 Unix browsers? I am talking about the browsers currently in development, not the ones that stopped development several years ago as this review included. Then a comprehensive review of these browsers can be done, seeing which one supports what standards, available plug-ins, level of png support etc.

Graphical Browsers

  1. Netscape Communicator 4.7
  2. Mozilla M11 --> Navigator 5 within 6 months(?)
  3. Konqueror (within 2 months)
  4. Opera for Linux (1 year away?)
  5. That SVGAlib browser featured
Console Browsers
  1. w3c - tables / frames looking very nice
  2. Lynx - the classic powerful text browser
  3. Emacs

Of course, you might disagree. What should happen then is a good review of the top browsers should be written to compare their features. Not a review of gif support etc, which misses the point completely!

already /.'d (0)

daemonchild (101472) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491131)

that was fast...

Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 Professional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491133)

...Is the best damn browser out there. It's fast and supports all major standards, etc.

Linux sucks for web browsing / client use. It's still a server OS as much as people want to argue...

EScape? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491135)

What about this escape thing the FSF was working on? Or have they abandoned it? I think you can find it on the GNU alpha FTP server.

AND THE BEST BROWSER IS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491137)

It starts with an "L" and ends with an "X"

oops...never mind (1)

daemonchild (101472) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491139)

Sorry...got a "not responding" the first time and assumed the worst.

Anyways. Was surprised to see so many linux browsers. I was under the impression there were far fewer than that. Good to see that they're coming along nicely...maybe there'll be some healthy competetion for Mozilla when it comes out. As it stands now, tho, with all but a handful of those on the having no frame support, i think i'll stick to netscape (untill Mozilla, of course).

Re:Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 Professional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491141)

Hey, flame-bait!

O.K, maybe not, i have to agree on the point that Linux does not a good desktop OS make. But at least if you do use Linux on the desktop (I do), you can use an industry standard browser (Netscape) Although it is a memory hog, and it is a little unstable.

As for IE "supports all major standards", whos standards though? Standards that only M$ themselves support? DHTML anyone?

On another note, i didn`t notice Konqueror in the list...

Re:Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 Professional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491143)

I'm taking the bait. You suck you dumb shit.

Konqueror / Opera. (2)

arcade (16638) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491145)

Personally, I'm waiting for KDE 2.0 and Konqueror. If Konq. can't hack the job, then I'll go for Opera. The commercial non-GPL'd, Norwegian browser. Personally, I think i'll go for Opera in any case, since I really think its the best browser available.

However, its interesting to see that there are so many browsers available. I didn't know about any except Netscape, Arena, the KDE-thingomajig in addition to lynx.

Mozilla will sure be interesting. But I have a nagging feeling that I won't like it. I don't like netscape today (even though I use it, because of lack of alternatives.. hmm, maybe I should look closer at these 21 when I get home from work) - and I don't think I'll like mozilla when its released. But we'll see. :)



--

Sounds more than it is... (1)

Bartmoss (16109) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491147)

...most of the browser are not even close to viable alternatives to the "classics", ie. Netscape and lynx. Most of them render only a subset of html, and/or render what they do understand in odd ways.

I'd say, wait for Mozilla 5. The M11 release works great on my computer (ie, bombs only about every 15 minutes as long as you stay away from password-protected areas, compared to every 45 seconds of M10). Also, KDE 2.0's browser ought to be interesting.

But besides that, there's not much out there.

Re:Netscape makes it hard to read Slashdot (1)

Bryan Andersen (16514) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491148)

When I follow a link I use the middle mouse button to open a new window. The original stays where it was.

Re:This is a comparison of irrelevancies (1)

arcade (16638) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491149)

It is important. It would lower my blood pressure when visiting sites that specify too small fonts or unreadable colours (dark blue on black, anyone?)

Well, your claimed webpages that doesn't do "noframes" decently (iow display more than "this page require frame-support) is broken. I'll claim that pages with dark blue on black is broken ;)

But OK, i see your point here, even though we disagree about the frames.

Well, I don't agree with you there. I like to read Finnish when I can. Content negotiation is wonderful magic when it is used efficiently.

Even though I'm norwegian, I really prefer to read the web in english. At least when the original site is english. Its the same when I read books. If the author is english, I prefer to read the english books instead of those translated into norwegian. If the author is norwegian, its the other way around.

I recently found that Debian had suddenly gotten support for norwegian. And that the browser I was using had *shudder* set norwegian as the preferred language. My eyes nearly popped out of their sockets when I screamed 'noooo'. :-) I quickly changed the settings and reloaded.

I *DONT* want to read debians homepages in norwegian! :-)

.. And .. I *DO NOT* like to use programs that is translated to norwegian neither. Even though Opera is available in norwegian, I prefer the english version .. when I use windows that is.


--

tcp/ip stack for ZX Spectrum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491150)

http://www.fornax.sk/cgi-bin/projekty/show.pl?20

Re:MS IE for Linux - I'd use it, wouldn't you? (1)

DrJolt (1435) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491151)

I've noticed netscape is a lot more stable if you disable its disk cache (set to 0 in prefernces).

22... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491152)

Take a look at "links". A great new console browser, supporting tables: http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mikulas/links/

Re:This is a comparison of irrelevancies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491153)

You might not want or need FRAME support but it *is* part of the HTML spec. So, yeah, FRAME support is important.

Re:AND THE BEST BROWSER IS... (1)

Captain Zion (33522) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491154)

That's it! LaTeX!

(Ok, I know. I'm not funny)

This comparison is a little dated (1)

savaget (26702) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491155)

This comparison is a little dated as they have Netscape 4.5 which is a couple of versions behind the the latest Mozilla is at M11 (nearing 12)where the interface changed quite a bit since M10.

I will not give an opinion of Mozilla and Netscape here because most of you know how good or bad they really are, but I can comment about Amaya.

True enough Amaya may be very html compliant, but I found it to be a slow memory hog when trying to work with it. It seemed to have some serious memory leaks, even worse than Netscape.

I'd use it too. (4)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491156)

In a heartbeat. As long as it wasn't the same Internet Explorer monstrousity that Microsoft ported to Solaris and HP/UX. Ever see an Ultra 10 cave under the weight of a web browser? I have, while running MSIE 4.0 and 5.0 on it. My Sparc 5/170 at home can't handle it at any reasonable speed, yet it has no trouble with Netscape 4.x. I think a lot of the problem is that Microsoft basically ported Windows to the Sparc architecture along with Internet Explorer. (Why, for instance, does it come with its own TCP/IP shared libs? Aren't the Solaris standard TCP/IP C library functions simple enough to port to?) It really does feel like you're running some sort of emulator when you run IE on Solaris. Anything faster than a Sparc 10 mod 51 should have no problem running a web browser in X. Yet I've never seen even an Ultra that can handle IE.

I share your grief on the Netscape issue, though. Its error handling has got to be the worst of any program I've ever seen. I, too, am getting fed up with typing "rm ~/.netscape/lock"; I might as well set up a cron job to do it for me every 30 minutes. The problem, however, is that it's not just Linux that it sucks on. Netscape crashes reliably for me on every OS I've used it on: Irix 6.5, Linux 2.0 and 2.2, FreeBSD (both the native binary and a Linux binary running under emulation), Solaris, Windows 95, 98 and NT, and MacOS. Sometimes it'll take X with it (segmentation fault in the server on Irix), other times it'll cause the entire OS to slow to a crawl (Windows NT) and require a reboot. Other times, it'll just cause the machine to reboot (Mac OS 7). I'm convinced that nothing will save Netscape short of a complete rewrite; its code would simply be too buggy to be of any use without major walkthroughs and audits (which would probably take longer than rewriting the damned thing.)

I would love it if Microsoft ported IE properly to Linux. If it proved to be better than Netscape -- which it would not have a hard time doing, I daresay -- I'd use it.

- A.P.
--


"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

Re:Netscape makes it hard to read Slashdot (1)

savaget (26702) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491157)

Netscape has given me many problems, but the Back button has never been an issue here. I drop in here daily and have never had the back button bring me anywhere but back.

Mozilla on the other hand does exactly as you describe, if it does not crash first before I have the chance to reach for the Back button.

Re:Netscape makes it hard to read Slashdot (2)

Mawbid (3993) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491168)

Hmm. Are you saying your Netscape back button take you to the right place on the page you're returning to? Always? If so, I'd like to know precisely what version you're using because I'm tired of the open-in-new-window style I've had to adopt to get around this annoying and long-standing bug.
--

Re:MS IE for Linux - I'd use it, wouldn't you? (2)

Stonehead (87327) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491169)

The Solaris and HP ports of Internet Exploder were horrible, if I remember some posts in earlier threads about this. IE's power lies in the integration with the operating system, which is typically Microsoft. Porting IE to Linux in two days is impossible, and I don't think it will get a big userbase in the open source community.

In the beginning, IE was developed because of Netscape. The Netscape browser was an attack to Microsofts APIs, as Judge Jackson's Findings state. Microsoft has no reason to release IE for Linux - they won't make money and they won't improve image.

One offtopic thing: this is one of the messages that always get moderated up as insightful: "Microsoft may seem Enemy #1, but it indeed helps Linux towards standards." While that is a truth we don't always consider, we should take care of problems ourselves instead of begging MS to port IE.

Re:This is a comparison of irrelevancies (1)

ajk (944) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491170)

I *DONT* want to read debians homepages in norwegian! :-)

That's your choice. My choice is different.

Perhaps it'd be good if the ideal browser had a switch that allowed you to turn CN on or off, depending on one's mood ;-)

Re:Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 Professional (2)

bmetzler (12546) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491171)

On another note, i didn`t notice Konqueror in the list...

It seemed to be an older review. It listed kfm, along with, of course, Mozilla M10 and Netscape 4.5.

-Brent
--

Re:Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 Professional (0)

oki900 (60161) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491172)

I have to agree that IE is soo much better than anything in linux for web browsing. I design web pages and they are designed with IE in mind and anyone using something else is unlikely to be able to even access the pages at all. My disclaimer that pops up for netscape users is simply:


WARRING: you are using netscape, a now inferior browser due to it's desier to try to compete with microsoft instead of doing what it did best. It was crushed and hasn't worked properly since version 3. Please change your browser as soon as possible.


This comming from someone who hates microsoft should be seen as a profound statement. Sure you are going to want to flame this post, but you know that I am correct, and that had netscape not tried to keep up with all the features IE had and just kept to HTML standards and did it well like it had in the past people would still be looking at IE as that annoying program microsoft makes you install when you install windows, and not the better choice.


MAD props to the Mozila team though, Im excited to see the first non beta version, it's looking good, and even the beta seems to crash only about 10% as much as netscape does.


If practice makes perfect, and noone is perfect, why practice?

Re:Mozilla XML support (2)

Matts (1628) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491173)

From what I've heard (correct me someone if I'm wrong) XSLT isn't going to happen in mozilla for release. But you can do anything you like within the bounds of CSS + DOM + Javascript (see a long thread about this on xml.com).

Having said that - I think XSLT will come very quickly after release. There's already (IIRC) IBM and Sun working on implementing XSLT within mozilla, so I suspect a plugin will come fairly soon.

Re:Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 Professional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491174)

Perhaps browsers should have a button in the corner which automatically brings up a form email adressed to the current page's maintainer, making it easy for the irritated Dreamcast user (for example) to send "Dear GamesIsUs, I attempted to reach your Web site using the Dreamcast's browser, because I was eager to buy $300 worth of goods online. However, I was informed that the site required IE4 or greater and that I needed to upgrade my browser. Since there is no browser upgrade available, I was forced to order the goods from another company over the phone".

Lynx has a "send a comment to the document owner" command but I guess it's not widely used since, as far as I know, it only works if there is something like <LINK REV="made" HREF="mailto:user@somedomain.com"> in the HEAD section of the page.

The pages you want to complain about probably aren't the ones most likely to include that tag. :-)

Re:Konqueror / Opera. (1)

Afrosheen (42464) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491175)

Opera is weird. It snobbily renders W3C spec HTML, and as you'll find out very soon, people don't code their pages perfectly. They code them catering to netscape and ie's idiosyncracies. Most of the pages you view on a daily basis (generally commercial sites) will look broken and funky under Opera. Don't believe me? Get it for windows95 and see for yourself.
Don't get me wrong, I like Opera alot for it's quickness, stability, etc. However I think the designers were a little short-sighted by ignoring specialty tags designed for the Big Two.

Re:Netscape makes it hard to read Slashdot (1)

savaget (26702) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491176)

I am using Netscape Communicator Version 4.7, the whole package not just the browser on a stock RedHat 5.2 system under an older verion of WindowMaker.

I got my 4.7 version of Netscape(rpm) straight from the 5.2 updates on a Red Hat mirror.

w3m is neat (1)

rsidd (6328) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491177)

I was a heavy lynx user till I discovered w3m. Now it's
45%/45% (the other 10% being Netscape). w3m handles tables
very nicely (try reading www.gnome.org on lynx) and
you can use lynx keybindings if you like. On the other
hand it doesn't display pages partially while downloading
but only after it's received everything.

Re:Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 Professional (2)

bmetzler (12546) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491184)

If I was currently a moderator, I'd have moderated that last comment back up. It's really only mild flamebait, and there's a strong element of truth.

It might be "true", but you know very well that the poster only intended it as flaimbait.

Hopefully, Mozilla/Netscape 5 will fix a lot of these issues. I'm hearing hints from various places that Nav5's XML support won't be as complete as IE5's (anyone know?), and this worries me a little.

You want to check out the Netscape Standards Challenge [netscape.com] .

-Brent
--

You don't need to remove the lock (2)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491185)

rm ~/.netscape/lock seem a familar command to anyone?

Oddly, in 4.7, you don't have to, it checks to see if the pid is defunct before asking. It does ask for example if you launch it twice.


--

Re:Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 Professional (3)

Afrosheen (42464) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491186)

If you're going to be a web designer for a living, you might want to change that elitist attitude. You've already alienated ALL of your possible unix/linux/freebsd/beos users in one fell swoop, coding only for a browser available for a whopping 2 flavors of Windows. Get a cgi script that records browsers and OS types (hell get a counter from thecounter.com) and watch your stats. That'll give you an idea of who is looking at your pages with what. My personal, measley site has around 800 hits and it's an even split between IE and Netscape. Using code specific to either browser is only cool if you have an index page that javascripticiously snoops the browser type and forwards the user seamlessly to the 'coded for whatever' page.

Re:The Dynamics of the Linux browser market (2)

Gurlia (110988) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491187)

Hmm, you said that we need to get a browser for Linux fast, so that MS won't be able to "bend" Web design towards their products. Although I do agree that Linux needs a good browser, and soon, I don't think that will stop MS from bending Web standards... They're already doing that, and they will continue to do that. (Proof: see the dramatic increase in the number of *annoying* sites that use IE-specific code?) I guess what's important is that they aren't the only ones popular enough on the Web to be noticed in general. If they were, they'd be defining the Web, and then we'll really be in trouble. But if alternative browsers make enough noise out there -- ie., attract enough attention to merit consideration of compatibility by Web designers -- the non-IE websites won't pale into insignificance, and Web designers will think twice before making their sites 100% IE-based.

Mozilla XML Support (1)

smallpaul (65919) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491188)

Support for XML itself (the core spec) is trivial. Both Netscape and IE do well there.

Support for the DOM (the API to XML/HTML used by JavaScript) is harder. I believe both will have mostly equivalent DOM1 support when Mozilla is released.

Mozilla will do better with CSS/XML integration because they will do better with CSS standards compliance in general.

Mozilla is supposed to have XSLT support. It doesn't now but the code is under active development. The XSLT engine works standalone but now must be integrated with the browser. If they get this right, then their XSLT support will be one year more modern (read: standards compliant) than Microsoft's.

Netscape wins in use of XML for "other stuff" like menu customization, news feeds and so forth. That XUL stuff is butt-ugly but it is still XML!

All in all, I think that the XML picture is pretty positive for Mozilla and will become even better once more cooks get into the kitchen.

Paul Prescod

Re:Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 Professional (2)

Myddrin (54596) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491189)

I don't mean to be nosey, or opinionated or anything. I'm just asking an honest question...

Do your clients/bosses know you do this? Most business wouldn't be comfortable with losing ~30-40% of the market or having an opinion stated so blantantly. To be perfectly frank, if I saw something like that on a web page... I just wouldn't visit it ever again. I think there are alot of people that agree with me.

...that had netscape not tried to keep up with all the features IE had and just kept to HTML standards and did it well like it had in the past people would still be looking at IE as that annoying program microsoft makes you install when you install windows, and not the better choice.

Again no offense, I'm not flaming or anything...
However, you should be aware that Netscape is the one that started extending HTML. Sure they worked like the dickens to get their extensions to become part of the HTML standard, but the fact remains that from the begining they did extend html (remember the CENTER tag? or FRAME? or even tr/td where all netscape specific tags in the begining.)

Personally I disagree with you I've used IE3-5(mac(only to 4.5)/win), Netscape(mac/win/linux) and Opera(win)... and I still perfer Netscape. Sure there are standards that it doesn't support, and it crashes alot but it has two huge advantages over the others don't:

1) A very simple UI. Compared with the last few releases of IE, netscapes UI is very simple and efficient.

2) As you can see I use a mix of OS's, and having to deal with a consistent (mostly) UI across all three is really nice. (there are big diffs between IE4&5 and IE4.5 for the mac, btw).

Granted the above is just my opinion, and you are perfectly free to disagree....

RobK

Bill Gates Quote (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491190)


In the early/mid 90's bill stated that he would port MS software to any platform that had more than X users.

Statement was in response to a question asking if ms would continue to support Word on the Mac platform. Hint was that if Mac dropped below X users, than no more mac sw from microsoft.

I'm sure Linux has more users than the mac in the early 90's. Would really like to find that quote.....

Oh, almost forgot, I agree NS on linux totally sucks. Features are fine, great IMAP4 client but crashes are totally unacceptable. I think the "just turn off java" people don't realize how much this hurts Linux. I for one will not deploy Linux on any desktops at my workplace until there is a stable browser available.

I often tell people that Netscape is Linux's greatest Enemy.

Re:This is a comparison of irrelevancies (1)

radish (98371) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491191)


I agree, table support is important. But frame support is not - except that if a browser supports frames, it should allow me to turn that support off. Any site that does not work
without frames is broken. The NOFRAMES element is there for a reason.

Rubbish - many sites require frames for very good reasons. I personally try and ensure my sites are at least mainly usable without them, and I have some sites with no frames at all, but to say that sites using a standard, accepted tag are "broken" is way over the top. Why do people get in such a flap about frames anyway? Most mainstream browsers support them fine, navigation has been fixed (early Netscape frames nav was a mess), and they help provide a consistent interface without constant reloading of static elements.

If you are unable to access a site because it uses tags you don't *LIKE* you are free to ask the webmaster to do a version just for you....but if s/he doesn't then it's like it or lump it time IMHO.

... And SSL ought not to need be in the browser (2)

Christopher B. Brown (1267) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491193)

I find it somewhat appalling that this is still an issue.

SSL management should get pushed out to an SSL proxy, so that there would be common support for SSL for all browsers, whether they natively "do SSL" or not.

The point here is that by doing a proxy right, once, this eliminates the need to tightly integrate crypto into all of the web browsers.

Re:Linux for a web developer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491194)

Of course, Microsoft claims that IE 5 is fully compliant. Standards have to be vigorously respected so that the one browser approach of simplton can be used. Or everyone could start putting out two version of their pages!

Microsoft doing the same thing to Java as they did to HTML. Microsoft has made their own extensions to the Java language and are still calling it Java. If Sun would of been a little more generous with Java then this would not of happened, would this of happened if they would of made somekind of independant steering comittee or consortium of Java. Perhaps it is not to late to save Java.

sad but true - sm411420430357 (1)

goon (2774) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491197)

you are using netscape, a now inferior browser
the worst thing I'm finding with netscape is the older versions that a lot of our clients are using (.gov, madated to use only netscape) is that sites using certificates to authenticate are failing.

while MS has a stranglehold on the windows desktop, corporate users will continue use IE.

from a development point of view this is good, but from a technological standpoint I'd like to see a real competitor. It's worth noting there's a lot of wintel/ie users out there and it's difficult for competitors (free or otherwise) to break into this market.

Re:Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 Professional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491204)

This warning is stupid. I couldn't change to IE even if I wanted too, and if I ever see anything like that, I dont even go there, and if you sell ads, your missing out on MY eyeballs.

Re:... And SSL ought not to need be in the browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491205)

Where would this proxy run? On your own computer? Or, at your LAN gateway to the Internet? I would be concerned about the latter! (I don't want my co-workers to know my credit card numbers, strangely enough).

Actually, going slightly off-topic, I noticed that when you log into Amazon, you only need supply an e-mail address and password, and it'll assume the credit card details you entered last time. Great. I've only used the same e-mail address and password as I've used on several free services - my spam address, and something I can remember easily. Its not a bad password in its entropy. But I've obviously made a mistake in its management -- but I still think that Amazon should NOT be doing this. I wonder if I can get them to erase those details held online. It can only be a while before someone harvests this flaw....

Re:it still boils down to one (2)

Myddrin (54596) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491206)

Can someone explain to me why everyone is so gaga over opera? I don't mean this as a flame, I just think there is something I missed.

I downloaded it, played with it, and I found the UI to be confusing (the back and forward buttons are on the top menu, not on the window that it refers to, for example), and not well designed for how I browse the web. (I usually browse durning breaks of concentration, and flip back and forth between an IDE and a specific webpage... opera with it's mdi doesn't allow that easily.)

Sure it's small, but for the $30, I could get more memory, and sure it's fast, but even on my t1 at work the render time is swamped by the download time.

I mean honestly, could someone explain to me, I want to know what I missed!

Change to what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491207)

I haven't run a Microsoft platform system since IE decided to corrupt the system I was running on and lose the entire contents of that system for me. So Running IE is not an option for me unless Microsoft wants to port IE to the platform I currently run on. Which is exclusively Linux. Has been too for quite some time now.

When Netscape does crash for me (something that does not happen all that often really) I just xkill it and start it over. When IE decides to dine on someone's system, hey who knows what they'll have to go through to get up and running again? System integrity issues aside, I'd still rather run Linux. I like my individuality and would rather not be assimilated by the collective.

Whenever I see a website that tells me what browser I have to run in order to view it to me that's my que to hit the home button and go someplace else. So I guess I have never seen one of your sites? Also, I say to myself "what a dork, coding propretary HTML. Are they trying to lose viewers?"

Look at Slashdot. They don't care what browser you use. I could probably hold my connection cable against my tongue and get the content off this site. (I'll let you know New Year's Eve on that one) Good sites never discriminate against what browser the viewer chooses. What's that say about all your sites oki900?

What Redhat needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491208)

What Redhat really needs is a browser, perhaps that is why they are interested in mozilla. Of course, mozilla is open source but the source is still restrictively controlled by AOL. If Redhat could not buy mozilla from AOL they should not develope it. Here is my reasoning:

  1. Microsoft is trying to take command of the personal computer market through the internet browser market. Redhat is obviously a competitor to Microsoft.
  2. A good multi-platform internet browser would get a lot more people to notice Redhat sooner.
  3. Redhat's big product (linux) would benefit from such a browser.
Of course, true hackers are suppose to be a lazy bunch and do not like making stuff that already exists. Redhat wants to stick with Mozilla becasue it already exists. But there are many internet browser out there that are under the more attractive GPL. Redhat could foster one of those GPL browser into something really special.

Re:MS IE for Linux - I'd use it, wouldn't you? (1)

Grimwiz (28623) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491209)

I've been tracking MS IE development on
Solaris - there isn't any.
When a new version of IE comes out they
release a solaris version, but its so buggy
you've only got a 50/50 chance of even opening
the front page - it always dies within 2 minutes
of browsing for me (Solaris 2.6, recent patches).
Even with these problems I keep downloading from
the MS site and guess what... the file I download
doesn't change - between April and November 1999
the same unusable buggy IE5 was available.

This indicates that either no-one uses IE5 on
Solaris, or haven't logged any faults or that
MS don't care. Probably a bit of each.

Re:Not surprising (1)

radish (98371) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491211)



Depends on the corporation. Our desks run NT4 and there's no way they could be switched to Linux in the near future. Apart from the 3 important things you mention there are a whole raft of tools that different people use, from DTP to Presentation Graphics to Accounting & Payroll frontends, third party data interfaces (like Reuters & Bloomberg screens), and within the Systems group we need things like UML modelling tools, and requirements managment stuff. Now I'm not saying none of these are available on Linux (frankly I don't know) but even if one of them is missing it's a major headache, and to avoid a mixed desktop environment (which is Evil[tm]) it would probably prevent a Linux rollout. Add that to the cost of support and retraining....painful.

And no we don't need NNTP readers or instant messaging. And what about contact management? Scheduling? Workgroup calendars? Basically all the stuff in Outlook - we need all that. Desktop video conferencing? Linux probably has that actually...but you get my point!

Re:Not surprising (1)

birder (61402) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491213)

A decent Email program (hmm.. kMail is usable, but not great)
A decent Office suite (kOffice coming soon)


What more is really needed? Well for one you have to either have App duplication or 100% integration that doesn't cost money.
You can't use put up a mail server and go against the corporate model. We use GroupWise 5.2 accross the department. We'd need a GroupWise Linux client or we'd be stepping on people's fingers and that's a no-no.
We use SAP. Fortunately SAP has this just about coverd but we have other big business apps that are Win32 based. We're trying to move to web based corporate apps but certainly not in 6 months. Maybe WINE or something similiar will help. That's to be determined though.

Re:The Dynamics of the Linux browser market (1)

jon_c (100593) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491215)

I would like to know exactly what IE has that is not part of the WC3 standard. Although I am far from an expert, I often have conversations with people who are. Usually the conversation goes like this:

"DAMM!"
"what's wrong?"
"stupid netscape"
"ya ya, what is it this time?"
"freakin table doesn't show up, netscape doesn't support correctly"
"well just do it a way netscape likes it"
"dude, that would take forever! netscape doesn't like anything!!"

so from my casual observations, netscape doesn't support as many standards as IE. And if Microsoft's is "bending" standards into the browser, that would seem like a good thing.

-Jon

btw: we just had to re-design out site to work with netscape.

I want a browser, not the kitchen sink (3)

Billy Bo Bob (87919) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491216)

OK, I am really tired of Netscape, both on Windows and Linux. It is too big, slow and buggy. I want a fast light browser that does all of HTML/common graphics (png, jpeg, gif?) and takes (not comes with!) the common plug-ins, has optional Java support, has Java Script, does SSL and does nothing more. No mail, news, whats related, zillions of button bars, nothing. OK, maybe bookmarks.

I had hope for Mozilla, but it looks just as bad. I have hope for Opera, but it is not out. Can't we get some of these browser writers together to write a browser and not a full apps suite? And maybe the memory footprint won't be totally silly ...

it still boils down to one (3)

etherised (72853) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491224)

i have, at one time or another, tried most of the browsers mentioned in the article, and dropped them all -- all but netscape. why? with all its quirks, netscape is still the one with the features, the one where the menus actually work, the one that i trust when i'm doing my banking or trading stocks thru. i really really wish that the mosaic people hadn't stopped development on THE original graphical browser, but oh well. i eagerly await the finished version of either Mozilla or Opera. i am willing to pay (!) for a good fast browser that won't suck up my limited resources (but not too much!! :)

Re:AND THE BEST BROWSER IS... (1)

talldark (76086) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491225)

is that
"with an IN in the middle?

:)

Re:it still boils down to one (1)

arcade (16638) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491226)

i eagerly await the finished version of either Mozilla or Opera. i am willing to pay (!) for a good fast browser that won't suck up my limited resources (but not too much!! :)

Ever used Windows? With Opera installed? If you have, you ought to love it. :) I still remember having used Netscape and IE for ages. Then installing Opera and just.. 'woahh'. it was SMALL. It was FAST, and I *loved* the caching features.

After I converted to linux full time, I've been missing only four things. Opera, mIRC (or, for that matter, just ANY decent graphical IRC client), a decent newsreader, and a decent mailreader. Kmail is quite ok -- but I really miss a lot of things in there.

And newsreader, well, I use 'pan' nowadays. Its quite good .. but still VERY beta. (0.64, I think).

Anyways. If you pay for Opera, then you get a great program. :) Think its only about .. $30 .. or was that students-only? Don't remember.


--

Re:Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 Professional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491227)

Try Opera and shut yer hole.

Re:EScape? (1)

nhowie (38409) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491228)

No mention of it on the GNU software project page [gnu.org] , it did mention GNUScape (the em*cs browser), w3m and the mighty all-conquering lynx.

Of course, since there's an Emacs browser, here's a beta version of the vim browser:


function browse(url)
r !lynx -dump a:url
endfunction

Re:Sounds more than it is... (1)

arcade (16638) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491229)

...most of the browser are not even close to viable alternatives to the "classics", ie. Netscape and lynx. Most of them render only a subset of html, and/or render what they do understand in odd ways.

Does lynx support html 4.0 yet? I seem to remember that it failed to show my tables at all. It wouldn't even put the information 'flat' without tables.

That *really* annoyed me. :) But, I guess, if it isn't supported at the moment, it will be in the future.


--

Re:Sounds more than it is... (2)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491230)

Exactly. There are 4 browsers you might want or need at the moment:
  • Netscsape for all the pages that just won't work (yet) on any of the alternatives.
  • Lynx for fast and easy browsing and actually getting some information instead of eye-candy. And of course whenever all you have is the console or a telnet login.
  • KDE's browser to drag-n-drop downloads and to use a pretty okay graphical browser for the simple stuff.
  • Mozilla to test your own HTML4.0/CSS and for fun and giggles.
I use all four of these, depending on my mood, task.. Mozilla and Konqueror (the browser in KDE2) will replace Netscape some day but even though both projects look great and are quite useable already, they're not exactly there yet. And Lynx will always be around.

As for the other 17 browsers... Opera might get a nice niche market, StarOffice's internal browser is okay.. I haven't tried the rest recently so I don't have an opinion on those other than that I hope we will go to a situation with many different browsers and functionality/integration and only a few rendering engines.

ZX81 (1)

stuart_farnan (75498) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491231)

Does anyone know a good browser for the Spectrum ZX81?

Re:Sounds more than it is... (1)

arcade (16638) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491232)

As for the other 17 browsers... Opera might get a nice niche market

Actually, I think it'll be quite dominant. :) Its *SMALL* and its *FAST*. Damn, why should webbrowsers take up 10+ MB? I really appreciate it when my webbrowser is just that. A *Webbrowser*.


--

Re:EScape? (1)

Jonas ÷berg (19456) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491233)

Yes, as far as I know, it is abandoned. The FSF doesn't work on it any more and the last mail to the hackers list was in early 1998.

Where does it run? (2)

Christopher B. Brown (1267) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491234)

Obviously you need to have a secure path between your web browser and the proxy, as the proxy is going to store private data, so on your own computer is the answer to that, of course.

As for the Spamazon thing; consider:

  • There is some art to choosing passwords. Choosing badly is a bad idea.

    Happily, these days there are tools that are reasonably good at storing things you can't possibly remember. I pick formally random passwords, and cut/paste between a semi-secure application and the web browser.

  • The extent of the exposure to exploit at Spamazon is somewhat limited.
    • If you make interesting changes, such as to address, you are required to enter the credit card number.
    • They don't report back the credit card number.
    • They tend to send you email messages concerning impending orders.

    This all adds up to there being pretty limited room for dramatic, not-readily-cancelled, harvestable credit exploits.

Is that to say that they are provably providing a real secure system? No. But it's not more insecure than you giving a waiter/waitress your credit card to charge a restaurant bill.

For more secure, take a look at American Express' Blue, [americanexpress.com] which requires that for online sales, you have the credit card handy, and actually have it interact with one's PC. Win32-only, at this point...

Re:Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 Professional (1)

stuntpope (19736) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491235)

Sometimes I use IE. I used the Opera demo and loved it but didn't buy it. Usually I use Netscape 4.7. If ever I see a site with a warning such as yours, I quickly go away and never return. Funny, I've not noticed any big, successful commercial sites locking me out if I use a Netscape 4.x browser.

My employer has well over 10,000 employees nationwide, and when we recently did a complete NT rollout to get all users onto the same platform, guess what? We chose Netscape as the browser. The computers come with IE 4 on them, but we don't support it and won't be upgrading to IE5.

Multiply my company by others that have gone this direction, and you get a lot of eyeballs that won't be seeing your site(s). It's one thing to state "best viewed on IE" (I even hate those), but your statement editorializes. Do I need that? Certainly not!

Hint: in business, there's something called "professionalism."

Re:This is a comparison of irrelevancies (4)

slim (1652) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491236)

It's a sad state of affairs, but it seems the HTML "spec" is almost irrelevant. For every site which serves proper, compliant HTML, there are 3 which do not, and to be considered usable, a browser has to handle whatever shit is thrown at it.

Ever since I got involved (about 1993), the Web has been based on "it seems to work, it'll do" - and Mosaic and Netscape are partly responsible, by being so liberal with the HTML they were willing to accept and (attempt to) render.

Don't blame Tim Berners-Lee, his HTML was designed for a specific type of structured document. Tables, frames, BODY BACKGROUND=, these were all snuck in by Netscape, whereupon the W3C had their hand forced into including these features in later HTML specs.

I remember early CERN documents, which discussed the attribute=value pairs within an HTML tag. (to paraphrase) it said "In future, the <A$gt; tag might have an attribute which indicates whether the link is the next page, a footnote, an image, a reference to another part of the document, etc. A browser would do certain things with these attributes, whereas an application printing the document would use the information in a different way."

Has the HTML standard fulfilled that kind of promise? Nope. It's been shoehorned into a layout language, which is something it was never intended to do.

Here's hoping that XML fulfills its promise, and once again structure and layout are properly separated.

In the meantime, though -- formal "standards" don't matter one jot in the current browser market. While there's so much non-standard-compliant junk being spewed out by http servers, to succeed in the marketplace a browser has to accept it. Since a de-facto standard is no standard at all, I guess we have no standard.

(My apologies to the few sites still using pure, W3C compliant HTML. I salute you.)
--

IE + Windows 2000 Pro == NICE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491237)

I am been a linux user for a long time, I hate windows 98/95 But windows 2000 is so stable, and fast. I would rather use it than linux any day. Don't bother replying if you never even tried it.

Re:Change to what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491238)

I'd still rather run Linux. I like my individuality and would rather not be assimilated by the collective.

I hate to tell you - hating MS and being a Linux zealot are far, far, far from being the marks of an individual.

Re:MS IE for Linux - I'd use it, wouldn't you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491239)

"IE's power lies in the integration with the operating system, which is typically Microsoft"

KFM does the same thing (browser/file manager integrated with the rest of KDE) only much better and faster (at least in the 1.1.2 version).

It isn't a perfect web browser but displays 90% of pages correctly. Hopefully Konqueror will be even better (at least better than Nutscrape).

Well, there is an IE for unix... HP-UX and Solaris (1)

Cefwyn (76066) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491241)

This is probably flamebait but I might as well post it anyway =) There is a version of Internet Explorer for UNIX.. more correctly, for HP-UX and for Solaris. I use Solaris myself daily and I love using it. Anyway, tried the IE for Solaris, wasn't much faster than Netscape, a bit more stable. Outlook Express came with it and frankly, it sucked. Wouldn't support the æøå characters I use on my norwegian keyboard ;) also wouldn't let me make the @ symbol... a bit of a drawback in an email proggie eh? Might've just been a bad setup by me, wouldn't surprise me... Anyways, just my two cents, netscape is buggy and slow but it's the best that's out there :) -Cefwyn

Re:it still boils down to one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491242)

The newsreader you're looking for, I think, is GNUS [gnus.org] . Pgnus, the current version, is pretty good and has the features you want. The difficulty is in the massive amount of keyboard commands and initial configurations. The learning curve is about what you'd expect with an (x)emacs mode capable of dealing with serious networking, but I personally think it's worth it. It's very modular and can be extended fairly easily if you know emacs-lisp.

w3m is text based and support tables and frames! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491245)

Hey, take a look to w3m. Im' writing in it now. It does render thepages (in text!!) very good, you can even click on the link with the mouse (works under X, I'm on a Sun box now) and reder both table and frame. You can even scroll up and down adn letf right (if the page render bigger than the xterm =)

Re:MS IE for Linux - I'd use it, wouldn't you? (3)

Roundeye (16278) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491246)

It's a Netscape problem. And Mozilla doesn't seem to be making any headway towards fixing this.

I almost thought you weren't ignorant. For the umpteenth time: Mozilla is not Netscape. In fact, there is virtually 0 shared code between the two. Additionally, Mozilla (which should be considered a completely new application) is still in a pre-alpha state -- probably will be "alpha" in a couple of weeks -- and crashes about as much as Communicator 4.7 (a ".7" release of a RELEASED product).

I agree that Communicator is garbage. I don't agree that Mozilla is. Mozilla may not be a panacea, but it will expose Communicator and IE as the worthless crap they are.

Re:it still boils down to one (1)

RPoet (20693) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491254)

After I converted to linux full time, I've been missing only four things. Opera, mIRC (or, for that matter, just ANY decent graphical IRC client), a decent newsreader, and a decent mailreader.

Opera runs ok through WINE. It's a bit slow, though. mIRC runs _perfectly_ through WINE - no complaints whatsoever. For a decent news reader, try WINE'ing Free Agent, and you won't regret! There's also a new version of Kexpress around the corner. Some earlier versions of Eudora is also supposed to be WINE-able but I haven't tried it - KMail works for me, at least until Magellan is released.

MS IE for Linux - I'd use it, wouldn't you? (4)

sparks (7204) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491255)

First let me say that I love Linux and use it exclusively at home and have started to introduce it at work too. It's a great, well engineered, solid software platform. But when it comes to web browsing, it frankly sucks.

Netscape is just so full of bugs it's unreal. It crashes a lot. Every time a page contains a java applet or attempts to use a plugin you're sitting there with fingers crossed wondering if Netscape's going to crash.. again.

rm ~/.netscape/lock seem a familar command to anyone? And why does Even when it works, it's dog slow. It's table rendering takes forever. The java VM is so slow as to be unusable. And it really would be nice if the entire Netscape program (i.e. all the windows it might have open) didn't freeze up while it's waiting for a DNS lookup.

The fact is that Netscape is an embarassment to the Linux world. We tell people about this solid, reliable, crash-free computing environment, which it is, and then we sit them down in front of Netscape. And it crashes. And they give us strange looks, and decide to stick with Windows.

I would like to see Internet Explorer for Linux. IE is a fine web browser. It's not perfect, but it's vastly more stable than Netscape, and very much faster. And there are already Solaris and HP versions, so porting it to Linux would be the work of a few days.

Just think of the good publicity Microsoft would get if they released it. All us die-hard geeks would have to pause for a second and reconsider our feelings towards them. It would help in the ongoing anti-trust case. And people would use it.

Of course, there isn't much chance of Microsoft ever doing such a thing... which is exactly why they should. They should do it to prove that attitude wrong. If it is wrong of course...

Re:Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 Professional (4)

slim (1652) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491256)

If I was currently a moderator, I'd have moderated that last comment back up. It's really only mild flamebait, and there's a strong element of truth.

Navigator is "good enough" for me, and since I need xterms, bash, vi, cron, mutt, etc to get my job done efficiently, I stick with Linux and therefore Navigator.

However, this means I have to put up with frequent hangs and crashes and "killall -KILL netscape; rm ~/.netscape/lock"s, when the Java VM ain't up to scratch. And this is on content that I *should* be able to view. I can do without ActiveX etc, since usually if the site requires ActiveX, it's of no interest to me anyway.

Browsing using IE *is* faster than Nav4.7, more reliable, and altogether an easier and more pleasurable experience (once you turn off that dreadful smooth scrolling).

Hopefully, Mozilla/Netscape 5 will fix a lot of these issues. I'm hearing hints from various places that Nav5's XML support won't be as complete as IE5's (anyone know?), and this worries me a little.

Two (almost opposite) things I hope happen:
  1. Mozilla/Nav5 are success, and prove that Free Software can be good GUI software for non-nerd end users.
  2. A surge in the popularity of dumbed-down browsers (e.g. mobile phones, web TV, "games machines", palmtops) lead to more content which
    does not rely on Java/Flash/DHTML/etc.


Perhaps browsers should have a button in the corner which automatically brings up a form email adressed to the current page's maintainer, making it easy for the irritated Dreamcast user (for example) to send "Dear GamesIsUs, I attempted to reach your Web site using the Dreamcast's browser, because I was eager to buy $300 worth of goods online. However, I was informed that the site required IE4 or greater and that I needed to upgrade my browser. Since there is no browser upgrade available, I was forced to order the goods from another company over the phone".

Enough letters like that ought to wake a few Webmonkeys up. BTW http://special.reserve.co.uk has already done the right (ish) thing and launched a sister site with the same content optimised for 640x480 TV screens.
--

Re:it still boils down to one (1)

arcade (16638) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491257)

I'm sure a lot of things runs OK through WINE, and I really support their effort. Its just that I want my applications to be written for linux / unix , not for windows.

And sure, Agent is kind of good.. but its not Good Enough. It misses a lot of features I really want out of a newsreader.

Oh, and mIRC. I'm sure its perfectly WINEable. But I still want a client written for linux / X instead. I'm using quirc at the moment, which is 'ok' .. but it has some NASTY memoryleaks.


--

Re:MS IE for Linux - I'd use it, wouldn't you? (1)

arcade (16638) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491258)

I would like to see Internet Explorer for Linux. IE is a fine web browser. It's not perfect, but it's vastly more stable than Netscape, and very much faster

Blargh. The only reason IE is big, is that micro$oft bundles it with windows. If not, then netscape would still have ruled, and Opera would have had a significant larger market share.

Have you ever tried Opera btw? In that case, for how long? Did you give it more than an hour chance? When you just start using it, you .. ohwell, you get hooked. :) it's .. *great*. :)


--

OCaml can be compiled (1)

TimoT (67567) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491259)

MMM 0.4.1 Browser writtem in OCAML (interpreted language). Despite that fact, it's really not THAT slow.

AFAIK, The INRIA implementation of OCAML can compile and bytecode-compile OCAML, so the bit about OCAML being interpreted is incorrect. see: caml.inria.fr [inria.fr] BTW, an OCAML entry won the ICFP contest this year.

Re:ZX81 (2)

slim (1652) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491260)

There's no such thing as a "Spectrum ZX81". The ZX81 was the precursor to the ZX Spectrum.

I doubt there's the browser for either, but I'm sure I recall mention somewhere of a TCP/IP stack and a WWW browser for the Commodore 64, the Spectrum's main rival. So you're not making as funny a joke as you thought you were :P
--

Re:MS IE for Linux - I'd use it, wouldn't you? (2)

sparks (7204) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491261)

> Have you ever tried Opera btw? In that case, for how long? Did you give it more than an hour
> chance? When you just start using it, you .. ohwell, you get hooked. :) it's .. *great*. :)

Yes, I have tried Opera. It looked really good, but unfortunately is completely useless for this office environment since it doesn't support NTLM proxy authentication. Like it or not, this is a requirement for many businesses.

On the other hand, I don't use any kind of proxy at home, so when the Linux version emerges I will certainly be buying a copy (it can't be worse than Netscape, right?)

Re:MS IE for Linux - I'd use it, wouldn't you? (1)

Yarn (75) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491262)

Netscape is just so full of bugs it's unreal. It crashes a lot.

Nothing crashes as much as Unreal in OpenGL mode.

:)

He's missing an important point... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491263)

Which of them support secure access methods? (e.g., SSL, https)? Is it just Netscape, all of them, or a random selection? He could at least say, that's one of my main considerations when choosing a browser. Also, where it was developed, so I can know that there is no sucky encryption key limit imposed.

Re:MS IE for Linux - I'd use it, wouldn't you? (1)

arcade (16638) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491273)

Yes, I have tried Opera. It looked really good, but unfortunately is completely useless for this office environment since it doesn't support NTLM proxy authentication.

That is when you send in a suggestion that they add that kind of authentication. :-) I'm sure they'll add support for it if enough people cry for it. (or maybe after ONE cry ;)



--

Re:Sounds more than it is... (1)

sTeF (8952) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491274)

I don't agree with you, but that's a matter of taste! i mostly use lynx, it's fast, reliable. i use w3m if there are too much frames or tables, but that's rather rare i use staroffice when i'm interested in the eyecandy, because it's less memory consuming than netscape, try opening 20 netscape windows at once! staroffice consumes much less memory in such cases! and i also use wget sometimes!

This is a comparison of irrelevancies (4)

ajk (944) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491275)

IMHO the browser comparison focuses on the wrong things. Frame support is not important, nor is anim gif support or interlaced gif support.

I'd like to know which render the pages correctly, according to spec. Which support CSS (according to spec)? Which allow the user to specify their own style sheets, overriding the pages' layout? Which support content negotiation? These are the questions I'd like to see answered, since those are the things that are important for the advancement of the Web.

Re:OCaml can be compiled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491276)

As far as I know, OCAML is one of the fastest functional language compilers there is.

Not surprising (1)

birder (61402) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491277)

As someone who is attempting to get management's approval to switch our groups PC's to Linux, this is something I've already come up against.

In a business environment you have to get the work done first and not be toying around hot fixing programs. We also can't wait year after year for features to catch up be they hardware or software.

As a server, Linux still has many places to sit, but on a corporate desktop, I'm sorry to say it's just not ready.

A good thing coming out of this article would be to have several of these independants form up and focus on ONE browser and get it working 100%.

Re:MS IE for Linux - I'd use it, wouldn't you? (1)

arcade (16638) | more than 14 years ago | (#1491278)

On the other hand, I don't use any kind of proxy at home, so when the Linux version emerges I will certainly be buying a copy (it can't be worse than Netscape, right?)

I forgot to add - Opera DO support proxies. But apparantly not "proxy authentification" or whatever. Using proxies is always a Good Thing if there are more than one computer attached -- especially if you've got limited bandwidth.


--

Re:This is a comparison of irrelevancies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1491279)

Also, which support XML fully, and which support .png's? I'm developing a website, and its frustrating to use jpegs more than twice the size of png's because a small yet significant amount of people won't be able to view them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>