Re: Netscape 6.2
On Saturday 08 December 2001 07:56 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> on Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:55:12PM -0600, Dimitri Maziuk
(dmaziuk@yola.bmrb.wisc.edu) wrote:
> > * Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com) spake thusly:
> > > on Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:34:25AM -0500, Alec (alec1976nyc@yahoo.com)
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-featured browser offerings for GNU/Linux. All three
> > > are feature-rich, standards compliant, stable, and extremely useable.
> > > Galeon's got polish and an attention to user-friendly detail which
> > > simply inspires awe and gratitude.
> > >
> > > Netscape 4.x is a buggy, standards-busting, festering load of crap. It
> > > was one of the worst things to happen to GNU/Linux -- the browsing
> > > experience is one of the more important aspects of personal computing,
> > > and we lagged the legacy MS Windows / Mac world for years. I'd give
> > > odds to say we're starting to lead again.
> >
> > <SIGH/> All browsers suck.
>
> 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®.
>
> > Anything derived from mozilla is a horrible memory hog
>
> 46MB currently, with about a dozen tabs open. Considering a session can
> go over 100 tabs (really!), and rarely tops 120 MB, it's reasonably OK.
> Memory's cheap. Galeon _doesn't_ appear to leak the way Netscape 4.x
> did.
Is it apt-gettable from woody? no? I'm not interested :)
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Reply to: