on Tue, Apr 09, 2002, Phillip Deackes (gsmh@runbox.com) wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 14:22:25 +0200
> Luca Pasquali <keta@email.it> wrote:
>
> > Galeon is the only substitute that I've in mind by now, links rox :-)
> > keta
>
> Depends whether you do 'real-world' bowsing or not. There is no browser in
> Linux which can correctly display all web sites thrown at it.
Define "correctly display"? For standard HTML, there's no problem.
Ditto, if you want to abuse yourself by installing the plugins, most
flash, Java, and Javascript, though I disable these, and don't patronize
sites requiring same. Frankly, I don't think I lose much in the
bargain.
The unattainables are largely sites with ActiveX controls, and those
relying on or utilizing media formats not supported under GNU/Linux.
This gets to the question though -- are these "Web sites", in the sense
of pages displayed using hypertext transfer protocol per W3C standards,
or are they proprietary application data transfer platforms, locked to
Legacy MS Windows-centric designs. And where to such sites find
themselves if 40% of the Web, represented by AOL, turns left at
Albequerque?
The other incompatibles are sites which are specifically locked into
delivering content _only_ to a specified browser set. I note that many
of these sites also lock out web spiders....including Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=shop+site%3Awww.argos.co.uk
(Argos is a large UK-based retailer).
In general, setting the user-agent header bypasses the bulk of these
blocking actions, leading to additional navel-gazing over the
significance of weblog stats reporting high numbers for Legacy MS
Windows-centric browsers....
> AFAIK Konqueror, for example, can't display secure web pages,
Wrong.
In fact, Konqueror SSL support was reliable for quite some time before
Galeon / Mozilla PSM was generally available in Woody. One of the few
uses I *had* for Galeon was to browse SSL sites.
> ruling it out for things like on-line banking etc.. I need to use
> Opera, Galeon and Netscape 6 to cover most sites, and Netscape 4 is an
> indispensible backup because it usually displays those pages the
> others won't and the print quality is usually spot on.
>
> I have had many an argument with Linux zealots in the Opera newsgroups who
> tell me that Shockwave is a waste of bandwidth, that 'all these graphics'
> are totally unneccesary etc. etc. ad nauseum. I understand what they say,
> but that *is* the internet for most people, and they (and I) want to do
> real things which may have nothing to do with computers.
There are several very real reasons to promote use of non-Flash site
design:
- Accessibility -- mandated under the ADA in the US.
- Search index access.
- Vendor lock in.
It's amazing watching the cattle lining up for slaughter. C'est la vie.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act:
Because the Republicans had Enron.
http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/hollings.s2048.032102.html
Attachment:
pgppHyGiz9evU.pgp
Description: PGP signature