Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #2624 > unrolled thread

Alternative browsers for the disgruntled

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Alternative browsers for the disgruntled RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-04 21:40 +0000
    Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled philo  <philo@privacy.net> - 2014-05-04 19:59 -0500
      Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-05 08:40 +0000
        Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-05-05 15:47 +0100
          Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-05-05 21:24 +0000
            Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-05-06 15:31 +0100
        Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-05-05 16:38 +0100
        Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled Randy Westlund <Vorzakir@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-05 15:45 +0000
    Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2014-05-06 19:31 +0300
      Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-05-06 20:52 +0100
    Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled Jon Lane <jon@dorsal.tk> - 2014-06-26 14:20 +0000
    Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-26 13:57 -0700
      Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-07-01 21:16 +0100
        Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled pfj@doesn't.exist.com (Peter James) - 2014-07-02 07:27 +0100
          Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-07-02 13:28 +0100
            Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-07-02 18:43 +0000
              Re: Alternative browsers for the disgruntled Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-07-02 23:51 +0100

#2624 — Alternative browsers for the disgruntled

From the «give me lynx or give me death» department:
Title: Unhappy with Chrome and Firefox? Here are some alternate web browsers
Author: Brad Linder
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 15:08:00 -0400
Link: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Liliputing/~3/e-B2JyW1vlQ/unhappy-chrome-firefox-alternate-web-browsers.html

Firefox is starting to look like Chrome and Chrome is taking steps toward
hiding URLs. While there are certainly some supporters of each move, there
are plenty of folks disgruntled by the changes. Fortunately, Chrome and
Firefox aren’t the only games in town. Opera, Maxthon, Safari, and even
Internet Explorer are all viable alternatives. And […]

Unhappy with Chrome and Firefox? Here are some alternate web browsers[1] is a
post from: Liliputing[2]
[image 3]

Links:
[1]: http://liliputing.com/2014/05/unhappy-chrome-firefox-alternate-web-browsers.html (link)
[2]: http://liliputing.com (link)
[3]: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Liliputing/~4/e-B2JyW1vlQ (image)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2625

On 05/04/2014 04:40 PM, RS Wood wrote:
>  From the «give me lynx or give me death» department:
> Title: Unhappy with Chrome and Firefox? Here are some alternate web browsers
> Author: Brad Linder
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 15:08:00 -0400
> Link: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Liliputing/~3/e-B2JyW1vlQ/unhappy-chrome-firefox-alternate-web-browsers.html
>
> Firefox is starting to look like Chrome and Chrome is taking steps toward
> hiding URLs. While there are certainly some supporters of each move, there
> are plenty of folks disgruntled by the changes. Fortunately, Chrome and
> Firefox aren’t the only games in town. Opera, Maxthon, Safari, and even
> Internet Explorer are all viable alternatives. And […]
>
> Unhappy with Chrome and Firefox? Here are some alternate web browsers[1] is a
> post from: Liliputing[2]
> [image 3]
>
> Links:
> [1]: http://liliputing.com/2014/05/unhappy-chrome-firefox-alternate-web-browsers.html (link)
> [2]: http://liliputing.com (link)
> [3]: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Liliputing/~4/e-B2JyW1vlQ (image)
>



Thanks for the links

I never even knew Maxthon was avail for Linux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2626

On Sun, 04 May 2014 19:59:32 -0500
philo  <philo@privacy.net> wrote:

> On 05/04/2014 04:40 PM, RS Wood wrote:
> >  From the «give me lynx or give me death» department:
> > Unhappy with Chrome and Firefox? Here are some alternate web browsers[1] is a
> > post from: Liliputing[2]

> Thanks for the links
> I never even knew Maxthon was avail for Linux


And I'd never even heard of it.  I notice the very first comment on
that article was what I'd come to say.  
//--Quote:
"and even Internet Explorer are all viable alternatives"

How can Internet Explorer be a viable alternative when it requires a
public announcement from the Department of Homeland Security advising
users not to use Internet Explorer for Microsoft to come up with a fix
for yet another serious security flaw?

"Friends don't let friends use Internet Explorer."
//--Quote

I'm actually a pretty happy Opera user since about 2000 or 2001 when a
friend introduced me to it.  I've never understood why it consistently
has such a low install base, but it's my go-to browser 9 times out of
10 (that last 10% is on Mac, where lately Opera has been a bit funky -
might be my OS that's the culprit).   When I first installed Linux and
was learning how to add packages (SuSE 7.1, so RPM), finding an RPM
package for opera sealed the deal for me on this alternative OS.  

I'm hard pressed to see much innovation in browser UIs these days, and
maybe that's a good thing - seems like all recent UI innovation has
made things worse, not better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2636

On 2014-05-05, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 May 2014 19:59:32 -0500
> philo  <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 05/04/2014 04:40 PM, RS Wood wrote:

[...]

> I'm actually a pretty happy Opera user since about 2000 or 2001 when a
> friend introduced me to it.  I've never understood why it consistently
> has such a low install base, but it's my go-to browser 9 times out of
> 10 (that last 10% is on Mac, where lately Opera has been a bit funky -
> might be my OS that's the culprit).   When I first installed Linux and
> was learning how to add packages (SuSE 7.1, so RPM), finding an RPM
> package for opera sealed the deal for me on this alternative OS.  
>
> I'm hard pressed to see much innovation in browser UIs these days, and
> maybe that's a good thing - seems like all recent UI innovation has
> made things worse, not better.

I've been using Opera for years too - starting with version 5 I think,
which was included on a CD stuck to a magazine.  That was the first step
that eventually led me away from Windows to Linux.

Recently my tastes have veered more towards minimalism; my main browser
now is "dwb" <http://portix.bitbucket.org/dwb/> with Opera as 'first
alternative' for pages that dwb struggles with - and "Lynx" of course
<http://lynx.browser.org/> for when all I want is the content
(eg RSS reading with "newsbeuter").

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2639

On 2014-05-05 14:47:05 +0000, Whiskers said:

> 
> Recently my tastes have veered more towards minimalism; my main browser
> now is "dwb" <http://portix.bitbucket.org/dwb/> with Opera as 'first
> alternative' for pages that dwb struggles with - and "Lynx" of course
> <http://lynx.browser.org/> for when all I want is the content
> (eg RSS reading with "newsbeuter").

That's interesting – it's a browser I've never heard of.  Sounds 
intriguing and I'm in the mood for something new.  Keyboard-heavy is a 
good thing.  I'm going to check it out!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2648

On 2014-05-05, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2014-05-05 14:47:05 +0000, Whiskers said:
>
>> 
>> Recently my tastes have veered more towards minimalism; my main
>> browser now is "dwb" <http://portix.bitbucket.org/dwb/> with Opera as
>> 'first alternative' for pages that dwb struggles with - and "Lynx" of
>> course <http://lynx.browser.org/> for when all I want is the content
>> (eg RSS reading with "newsbeuter").
>
> That's interesting – it's a browser I've never heard of.  Sounds
> intriguing and I'm in the mood for something new.  Keyboard-heavy is a
> good thing.  I'm going to check it out!

There's a continuous web forum thread about it here (RSS/Atom feed)
<https://bbs.archlinux.org/extern.php?action=feed&tid=95589&type=atom>
and here (web page) <https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=95589>
"dwb - a webkit web browser".

Have fun  :))

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2637

On Mon, 5 May 2014 08:40:35 +0000, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 04 May 2014 19:59:32 -0500
>philo  <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 05/04/2014 04:40 PM, RS Wood wrote:
>> >  From the «give me lynx or give me death» department:
>> > Unhappy with Chrome and Firefox? Here are some alternate web browsers[1] is a
>> > post from: Liliputing[2]
>
>> Thanks for the links
>> I never even knew Maxthon was avail for Linux
>
>
>And I'd never even heard of it.  I notice the very first comment on
>that article was what I'd come to say.  
>//--Quote:
>"and even Internet Explorer are all viable alternatives"
>
>How can Internet Explorer be a viable alternative when it requires a
>public announcement from the Department of Homeland Security advising
>users not to use Internet Explorer for Microsoft to come up with a fix
>for yet another serious security flaw?

 That's nothing new. I'll never forget secunia's stats on the
vulnerabilities of IE5, FireFox and Opera about 16 years or so back
when the Yank DoD had issued a memo warning all users in the Pentagon
to stop using IE and use a free alternative instead (on the basis that
_any_ alternative would be much safer and free would be best).

 At the time, according to secunia, IE had 75 known vulnerabilites,
some of which were several years old, of which 25 remained unaddressed
whilst for firefox it was 25/5 and Opera, very tellingly, 0/0. Sadly,
only the message 'It's got to be free' seems to have gotten through
and the inoccuous banner ad in Opera's free version apparently
disqualified it even though it was the fastest and least vulnerable
web browser 'money could buy'.

 It might have been a different story if Opera had been free sans
banner ad at that time but, by the time this became true, FireFox had
gained an unjustified reputation by recommendation that it was the 'Go
To' alternative to IE.

 When I compare the immunisation figures in SpyBot for FireFox, it
saddens me to see that it is immunised to the same level as IE whereas
Opera only has protection against 43 bad plugins suggesting (on
account it is offered some form of immunisation by SpyBot) that it
doesn't need such comprehensive immunisation measures.

 Since the usual motive for using an alternative to IE isn't so much
for UI innovations as to reduce the security issues of IE, it strikes
me that the vast majority of Firefox users are simply using it as a
'fashion statement' rather than as a rational choice based on its
actual security benefits.

 People like you and I seem to be a vanishing breed of clueful web
browser users who wouldn't give that festering PoS known as FF[1]
house room (ditto for google chrome which seems to be pushed onto
users via freeby security installers - there's some justification here
in getting the users to use _anything_ other than IE but a second or
third best alternative by a company now infamous for its data mining
exploits?).

>
>"Friends don't let friends use Internet Explorer."
>//--Quote
>
>I'm actually a pretty happy Opera user since about 2000 or 2001 when a
>friend introduced me to it.  I've never understood why it consistently
>has such a low install base, but it's my go-to browser 9 times out of
>10 (that last 10% is on Mac, where lately Opera has been a bit funky -
>might be my OS that's the culprit).   When I first installed Linux and
>was learning how to add packages (SuSE 7.1, so RPM), finding an RPM
>package for opera sealed the deal for me on this alternative OS.

 Yes, that's an important consideration. One of the first things I do
on a new Linux install is to install Opera and get rid of the
'fashionable' FireFox that's somehow become regarded as a standard for
most Linux distros (perhaps it's onlu Ubuntu based offerings trying to
pander to windows users' familiarity with FF[1] though).
  
>
>I'm hard pressed to see much innovation in browser UIs these days, and
>maybe that's a good thing - seems like all recent UI innovation has
>made things worse, not better.

 Yes, it's all rather sad to see linux desktop UIs follow Microsoft
down the rabbit hole when they should be offering an escape from all
that nonsense.

[1] Whenever I see the "FF" shorthand for FireFox, I can't help
feeling it's missing the letter S as in "For Fucks Sake (why
FireFox?)".
-- 
Regards, J B Good

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2638

On 2014-05-05, RS Wood wrote:
> And I'd never even heard of it.  I notice the very first comment on
> that article was what I'd come to say.  
> //--Quote:
> "and even Internet Explorer are all viable alternatives"
>
> How can Internet Explorer be a viable alternative when it requires a
> public announcement from the Department of Homeland Security advising
> users not to use Internet Explorer for Microsoft to come up with a fix
> for yet another serious security flaw?
>
> "Friends don't let friends use Internet Explorer."
> //--Quote
>
> I'm actually a pretty happy Opera user since about 2000 or 2001 when a
> friend introduced me to it.  I've never understood why it consistently
> has such a low install base, but it's my go-to browser 9 times out of
> 10 (that last 10% is on Mac, where lately Opera has been a bit funky -
> might be my OS that's the culprit).   When I first installed Linux and
> was learning how to add packages (SuSE 7.1, so RPM), finding an RPM
> package for opera sealed the deal for me on this alternative OS.  
>
> I'm hard pressed to see much innovation in browser UIs these days, and
> maybe that's a good thing - seems like all recent UI innovation has
> made things worse, not better.

Yeah, I can't recall IE ever being a viable browser.  Just when
people were starting to claim that it was better, there's news like
that...

I mostly switched from firefox to opera a few months ago.  I still
haven't moved over bookmarks and the like, but I use opera for most
of my graphical browsing, and I'm quite happy with it.  elinks is my
counterpart terminal browser of choice.

Browsers all behave so differently that it seems necessary to have
at least two on hand at all times.  Page doesn't work for some
unknown reason? Check noscript settings.  Still doesn't work? Try
your next browser.  Not an ideal environment :/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2651

RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:

Assuming requirements for a browser are:

- Cross-platform, at least Linux, Windows 7, Android (or if not, then
  someone needs to come up with browser-independent sync with privacy)
- Sync
- Fire-and-forget ad-blocking

What else is there other than Firefox and Chrome (or Chromium)? Last
time I tried Firefox the sync wasn't working. Does Opera have working
fire-and-forget ad-blocking now? On Android too? I guess it's been a few
years since last I tried Opera. There were some fiddly ad-blocking
options back then as I recall.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2660

On 2014-05-06, Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> wrote:
> RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> writes:
>
> Assuming requirements for a browser are:
>
> - Cross-platform, at least Linux, Windows 7, Android (or if not, then
>   someone needs to come up with browser-independent sync with privacy)
> - Sync
> - Fire-and-forget ad-blocking
>
> What else is there other than Firefox and Chrome (or Chromium)? Last
> time I tried Firefox the sync wasn't working. Does Opera have working
> fire-and-forget ad-blocking now? On Android too? I guess it's been a few
> years since last I tried Opera. There were some fiddly ad-blocking
> options back then as I recall.

Give it a whirl <http://www.opera.com/>

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3881

On 2014-05-04, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> From the «give me lynx or give me death» department:
> Title: Unhappy with Chrome and Firefox? Here are some alternate web browsers
> Author: Brad Linder
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 15:08:00 -0400
> Link: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Liliputing/~3/e-B2JyW1vlQ/unhappy-chrome-firefox-alternate-web-browsers.html
>
> Firefox is starting to look like Chrome and Chrome is taking steps toward
> hiding URLs. While there are certainly some supporters of each move, there
> are plenty of folks disgruntled by the changes. Fortunately, Chrome and
> Firefox aren’t the only games in town. Opera, Maxthon, Safari, and even
> Internet Explorer are all viable alternatives. And […]
>
> Unhappy with Chrome and Firefox? Here are some alternate web browsers[1] is a
> post from: Liliputing[2]
> [image 3]
>
> Links:
> [1]: http://liliputing.com/2014/05/unhappy-chrome-firefox-alternate-web-browsers.html (link)
> [2]: http://liliputing.com (link)
> [3]: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Liliputing/~4/e-B2JyW1vlQ (image)

Firefox continues to be the best web browser on every platform I've used
it on.  If you're pissy about the looks, install Vimperator or
Pentadactyl and get a minimal vi-like interface... that still shows the
URL.  I believe you can combine it with the "download manager tweak"
extension to get a download manager that isn't baked in to the damn
navigation toolbar.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3885

On 2014-05-04 21:40:13 +0000, RS Wood said:

> From the «give me lynx or give me death» department:
> Title: Unhappy with Chrome and Firefox? Here are some alternate web browsers
> Author: Brad Linder
> Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 15:08:00 -0400
> Link: 
> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Liliputing/~3/e-B2JyW1vlQ/unhappy-chrome-firefox-alternate-web-browsers.html 
> 
> 
> Firefox is starting to look like Chrome and Chrome is taking steps toward
> hiding URLs. While there are certainly some supporters of each move, there
> are plenty of folks disgruntled by the changes. Fortunately, Chrome and
> Firefox aren’t the only games in town. Opera, Maxthon, Safari, and even
> Internet Explorer are all viable alternatives. And […]
> 
> Unhappy with Chrome and Firefox? Here are some alternate web browsers[1] is a
> post from: Liliputing[2]
> [image 3]
> 
> Links:
> [1]: 
> http://liliputing.com/2014/05/unhappy-chrome-firefox-alternate-web-browsers.html 
> (link)
> [2]: http://liliputing.com (link)
> [3]: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Liliputing/~4/e-B2JyW1vlQ (image)

I must say that Safari works great for me, especially when teamed up 
with Glimmerblocker and the Javascript Blocker plugin.  Firefox has 
always been a bit ugly to me (the font rendering looks like garbage for 
some reason) and it has never quite behaved like a real OS X 
application.

Aside from Safari, I also use Lynx every once in a while, but this is 
becoming more and more difficult with time.  I really wish it handled 
modern (aka CSS-infected JS-garbage-ified) sites more gracefully.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3949

On 2014-06-26, Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2014-05-04 21:40:13 +0000, RS Wood said:
>
>> From the «give me lynx or give me death» department:
>> Title: Unhappy with Chrome and Firefox? Here are some alternate web browsers
>> Author: Brad Linder
>> Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 15:08:00 -0400
>> Link: 
>> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Liliputing/~3/e-B2JyW1vlQ/unhappy-chrome-firefox-alternate-web-browsers.html 
>> 
>> 
>> Firefox is starting to look like Chrome and Chrome is taking steps toward
>> hiding URLs. While there are certainly some supporters of each move, there
>> are plenty of folks disgruntled by the changes. Fortunately, Chrome and
>> Firefox aren’t the only games in town. Opera, Maxthon, Safari, and even
>> Internet Explorer are all viable alternatives. And […]
>> 
>> Unhappy with Chrome and Firefox? Here are some alternate web browsers[1] is a
>> post from: Liliputing[2]
>> [image 3]
>> 
>> Links:
>> [1]: 
>> http://liliputing.com/2014/05/unhappy-chrome-firefox-alternate-web-browsers.html 
>> (link)
>> [2]: http://liliputing.com (link)
>> [3]: http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Liliputing/~4/e-B2JyW1vlQ (image)
>
> I must say that Safari works great for me, especially when teamed up 
> with Glimmerblocker and the Javascript Blocker plugin.  Firefox has 
> always been a bit ugly to me (the font rendering looks like garbage for 
> some reason) and it has never quite behaved like a real OS X 
> application.
>
> Aside from Safari, I also use Lynx every once in a while, but this is 
> becoming more and more difficult with time.  I really wish it handled 
> modern (aka CSS-infected JS-garbage-ified) sites more gracefully.

I'll repeat my earlier suggestion of dwb  ;))

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3951

Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:

> 
> I'll repeat my earlier suggestion of dwb  ;))
Forgive my ignorance, but dwb?

Peter

-- 
-
The e-mail address obviously doesn't exist.  If it's essential
that you contact me then try peterATpfjamesDOTcoDOTuk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3952

On 2014-07-02, Peter James <pfj@doesn't.exist.com> wrote:
> Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>> 
>> I'll repeat my earlier suggestion of dwb  ;))
> Forgive my ignorance, but dwb?
>
> Peter
>

<http://portix.bitbucket.org/dwb/>

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3954

On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 13:28:21 +0100
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:

> On 2014-07-02, Peter James <pfj@doesn't.exist.com> wrote:
> > Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 
> >> I'll repeat my earlier suggestion of dwb  ;))
> > Forgive my ignorance, but dwb?
> >
> > Pete
> 
> <http://portix.bitbucket.org/dwb/>
> 


I had another look at it.  It's basically a Webkit engine in a GTK
frame.  I'm not knocking it, and haven't yet tried it (I do plan to,
though) but at first glance it seems like I'd just as easily use
Konqueror, which is Webkit in a QT frame.  Without getting into widget
toolkit preferences, what are the advantages?  Looks like it has quite
a few keyboard shortcuts, which is good.    Also looks like there's a
nascent plug-in community, which is also good.

I get the feeling the original poster was hoping for a more javascript
friendly console browser (like links, lynx, elinks, or w3m).

There's Dillo, too - that's lightweight, but it barfs on anything even
remotely javascripty, if I recall correctly.  These days the whole WWW
is a cesspool of scripts and frameworks.  (It makes up for there being
so little information) :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3958

On 2014-07-02, RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 13:28:21 +0100
> Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-07-02, Peter James <pfj@doesn't.exist.com> wrote:
>> > Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> I'll repeat my earlier suggestion of dwb  ;))
>> > Forgive my ignorance, but dwb?
>> >
>> > Pete
>> 
>> <http://portix.bitbucket.org/dwb/>
>> 
>
>
> I had another look at it.  It's basically a Webkit engine in a GTK
> frame.  I'm not knocking it, and haven't yet tried it (I do plan to,
> though) but at first glance it seems like I'd just as easily use
> Konqueror, which is Webkit in a QT frame.  Without getting into widget
> toolkit preferences, what are the advantages?  Looks like it has quite
> a few keyboard shortcuts, which is good.    Also looks like there's a
> nascent plug-in community, which is also good.

Very simple configurable interface, nothing fancy at all.  Dwb doesn't
do IMAP or file browsing, just web.  Like Vi, the interface is 'modal',
which may take a little getting used to - but I like it.  Low resource
load.

> I get the feeling the original poster was hoping for a more javascript
> friendly console browser (like links, lynx, elinks, or w3m).
>
> There's Dillo, too - that's lightweight, but it barfs on anything even
> remotely javascripty, if I recall correctly.  These days the whole WWW
> is a cesspool of scripts and frameworks.  (It makes up for there being
> so little information) :)

Dillo is nice, but as you say is handicapped by lack of javascript
support (which for some people is of course a feature, not a problem).

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web