Re: w3m (Re: Netscape 6.2)

2001-12-10 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 01:48:36AM -0500, Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Monday 10 December 2001 12:57 am, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote: > > "Karsten M. Self" wrote: > > > Karsten's Iron Rule of Browsers: they all suck. > > > > > > http://kmself.home.netcom.com/GNU/Linux/FAQs/browsers.h

Re: w3m (Re: Netscape 6.2)

2001-12-10 Thread Brian Nelson
Alec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Monday 10 December 2001 12:57 am, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote: > > "Karsten M. Self" wrote: > > > Karsten's Iron Rule of Browsers: they all suck. > > > > > > http://kmself.home.netcom.com/GNU/Linux/FAQs/browsers.html > > > > > > ...but I take it back.

w3m (Re: Netscape 6.2)

2001-12-10 Thread Alec
On Monday 10 December 2001 12:57 am, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote: > "Karsten M. Self" wrote: > > Karsten's Iron Rule of Browsers: they all suck. > > > > http://kmself.home.netcom.com/GNU/Linux/FAQs/browsers.html > > > > ...but I take it back. Galeon Kicks Ass®. > > s/GNU\/// > > http://kmse

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-10 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:57:24PM +0700, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim (rms46@vlsm.org) wrote: > "Karsten M. Self" wrote: > > > Karsten's Iron Rule of Browsers: they all suck. > > > > http://kmself.home.netcom.com/GNU/Linux/FAQs/browsers.html > > > > ...but I take it back. Galeon Kicks Ass®. >

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-09 Thread Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim
"Karsten M. Self" wrote: > Karsten's Iron Rule of Browsers: they all suck. > > http://kmself.home.netcom.com/GNU/Linux/FAQs/browsers.html > > ...but I take it back. Galeon Kicks Ass®. s/GNU\/// http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Linux/FAQs/browsers.html -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-09 Thread Sridhar M.A.
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 01:15:56AM -0500, Hall Stevenson wrote: > * Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011209 00:57]: > > > > Is it apt-gettable from woody? no? I'm not interested :) > > It only appears to be available for 'unstable'. There may be unofficial > DEBs for woody out there th

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-09 Thread dman
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 01:15:56AM -0500, Hall Stevenson wrote: | * Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011209 00:57]: | > On Saturday 08 December 2001 07:56 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote: | > > | > > ...but I take it back. Galeon Kicks Ass?. | > > | > | > Is it apt-gettable from woody? no? I'm not interested

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-09 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 12:55:15AM -0500, Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Saturday 08 December 2001 07:56 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > on Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:55:12PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > * Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com) spake thusly: > > > > o

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-09 Thread Hall Stevenson
* Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011209 00:57]: > On Saturday 08 December 2001 07:56 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > ...but I take it back. Galeon Kicks Ass?. > > > > Is it apt-gettable from woody? no? I'm not interested :) It only appears to be available for 'unstable'. There may be unofficial DE

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread Alec
On Saturday 08 December 2001 07:56 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:55:12PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > * Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com) spake thusly: > > > on Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:34:25AM -0500, Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > Is

Galeon browsing habits (was Re: Netscape 6.2)

2001-12-08 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 10:27:51PM -0500, Hall Stevenson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > * Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com) [011208 20:02]: > > > > ...Considering a session can go over 100 tabs (really!), and rarely > > tops 120 MB, it's reasonably OK... > > I'd suggest that when you're done

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread Hall Stevenson
* Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com) [011208 20:02]: > > ...Considering a session can go over 100 tabs (really!), and rarely > tops 120 MB, it's reasonably OK... I'd suggest that when you're done reading a page, that you close it's tab !! Hall

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 11:16:14AM -0600, DvB ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > "Paolo Falcone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:34:25AM -0500, Alec wrote: > > > > >Is Netscape 6.2 any good? Is it worth installing? Any reason to >prefer it > > >to Netscape 4.77? How is it

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:55:12PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > * Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com) spake thusly: > > on Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:34:25AM -0500, Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > Is Netscape 6.2 any good? Is it worth installing? Any reason to pref

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread DvB
"Jeffrey W. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 2001-12-08 at 12:37, Christoph Simon wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 13:55:12 -0600 > > Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > All browsers suck. Konqueror on my woody box is incapable > > > of displaying GIF89a's, Netscape 6.x

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread Jeffrey W. Baker
On Sat, 2001-12-08 at 12:37, Christoph Simon wrote: > On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 13:55:12 -0600 > Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > All browsers suck. Konqueror on my woody box is incapable > > of displaying GIF89a's, Netscape 6.x has problems displaying some > > CSS + tables pages (as in "

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread Christoph Simon
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 13:55:12 -0600 Dimitri Maziuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All browsers suck. Konqueror on my woody box is incapable > of displaying GIF89a's, Netscape 6.x has problems displaying some > CSS + tables pages (as in "some parts of the page are simply not > there"). Anything derive

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread Dimitri Maziuk
* Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com) spake thusly: > on Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:34:25AM -0500, Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Is Netscape 6.2 any good? Is it worth installing? Any reason to prefer > > it to Netscape 4.77? How is it different from Mozilla? > > I'd far and away recommend

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread Craig Dickson
Karsten M. Self wrote: > Netscape 4.x is a buggy, standards-busting, festering load of crap. It > was one of the worst things to happen to GNU/Linux -- It was pretty bad to the Win32 world too, since it pushed a good number of Netscape users over to IE. Craig

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread DvB
Alec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mozilla0.9.5 is probably the slowest browser I've ever come across. > As an example, on my K6-2 550Mhz & 256Mb RAM box, when I'm in > "Edit/Preferences" and click on "Fonts", it takes 2.5 seconds for the fonts> > menu to actually appear. C'mon! > > Again, in m

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread DvB
"Paolo Falcone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:34:25AM -0500, Alec wrote: > > >Is Netscape 6.2 any good? Is it worth installing? Any reason to >prefer it > >to Netscape 4.77? How is it different from Mozilla? > > If you're to install to a low-end machine, just go fo

Re: Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread Alec
On Saturday 08 December 2001 11:34 am, Paolo Falcone wrote: > On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:34:25AM -0500, Alec wrote: > >Is Netscape 6.2 any good? Is it worth installing? Any reason to >prefer it > > to Netscape 4.77? How is it different from Mozilla? > > Compared with 4.77, Netscape 6.2 is light-yea

Re: Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread Paolo Falcone
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:34:25AM -0500, Alec wrote: >Is Netscape 6.2 any good? Is it worth installing? Any reason to >prefer it to >Netscape 4.77? How is it different from Mozilla? Compared with 4.77, Netscape 6.2 is light-years away... with better HTML/XHTML standards compliance (NS 4.77 is

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread Karsten M. Self
on Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:34:25AM -0500, Alec ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Is Netscape 6.2 any good? Is it worth installing? Any reason to prefer > it to Netscape 4.77? How is it different from Mozilla? I'd far and away recommend Galeon. Mozilla and Konqueror round out the top of the full-featu

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread CaT
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:34:25AM -0500, Alec wrote: > Is Netscape 6.2 any good? Is it worth installing? Any reason to prefer it to > Netscape 4.77? How is it different from Mozilla? I haven't used Netscape in months. I find mozilla far more stable and capable. Major downside is that it does see

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-08 Thread Craig Dickson
DvB wrote: > Personally, I suggest using mozilla instead... NS6.2 is an older version > of Mozilla with netscape commercial stuff included. > I would probably suggest it over NS4.77 though I can't remember how good > that version of mozilla was. I think Netscape 6.2 is Mozilla 0.9.3. Definitely b

Re: Netscape 6.2

2001-12-07 Thread DvB
Alec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is Netscape 6.2 any good? Is it worth installing? Any reason to prefer it to > Netscape 4.77? How is it different from Mozilla? > Personally, I suggest using mozilla instead... NS6.2 is an older version of Mozilla with netscape commercial stuff included. I wou