- Dillo-dev - lists.mailman3.com

Re: [Dillo-dev] Re: reason for Dillo's existence

by Philippe Laporte

ext Jamin W. Collins wrote: >On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 05:26:15PM +0300, Philippe Laporte wrote: > > > >>I read that stuff but still am not clear about why it exists if its >>goal is to compete with Konqueror. It's obvious that you should have >>Konqueror and Mozilla, but it's not obvious that you should have dillo >>and Konqueror. >> >> > >How is it obvious that I (or anyone else for that matter) should have >Konqueror or Mozilla? Both of these are diametrically against what I'm >looking for. I don't run KDE and don't want it's bloat (yes I see it as >bloat) on any of my systems. Mozilla is just bloated in it's own right. >Firebird (Phoenix) has potential, but is still much to massive for a >browser in many places. > > > >>Is it Dillo's goal to support CSS and Javascript? How about https? >> >> > >AFAIK, eventually yes. > > > >>Do Dillo people believe you can call something a web browser if it >>does not have support for these? If yes, then it is targeted for a >>different, limited usage. >> >> > >Sure. Why not, it browses. So it doesn't have access to some of the >newer features of web sites, but it still works amazingly well. > > > >>What would you say is the distinctive point between Dillo and >>Khtml/Konqueror? It is not true that C code is faster than C++ >> >> > >Memory footprint. > > OK, I get the purpose of dillo. Good job is the least I can say, and carry on! And Chris, this is no trolling. We are not all americans out there. Expect different ways of expressing reality.

May 8, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] reason for Dillo's existence

by Chris Palmer

Let's not feed the troll. -- Chris music is what numbers feel like San Francisco, CA http://www.nodewarrior.org/chris

May 8, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Re: reason for Dillo's existence

by Jamin W. Collins

On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 05:26:15PM +0300, Philippe Laporte wrote: > I read that stuff but still am not clear about why it exists if its > goal is to compete with Konqueror. It's obvious that you should have > Konqueror and Mozilla, but it's not obvious that you should have dillo > and Konqueror. How is it obvious that I (or anyone else for that matter) should have Konqueror or Mozilla? Both of these are diametrically against what I'm looking for. I don't run KDE and don't want it's bloat (yes I see it as bloat) on any of my systems. Mozilla is just bloated in it's own right. Firebird (Phoenix) has potential, but is still much to massive for a browser in many places. > Is it Dillo's goal to support CSS and Javascript? How about https? AFAIK, eventually yes. > Do Dillo people believe you can call something a web browser if it > does not have support for these? If yes, then it is targeted for a > different, limited usage. Sure. Why not, it browses. So it doesn't have access to some of the newer features of web sites, but it still works amazingly well. > What would you say is the distinctive point between Dillo and > Khtml/Konqueror? It is not true that C code is faster than C++ Memory footprint. -- Jamin W. Collins This is the typical unix way of doing things: you string together lots of very specific tools to accomplish larger tasks. -- Vineet Kumar

May 8, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Re: reason for Dillo's existence

by todd

On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 05:26:15PM +0300, Philippe Laporte wrote: > > > ext Jamin W. Collins wrote: > > >On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 12:48:02PM +0300, Philippe Laporte wrote: > > > > > > > >>This is not the argument I'm looking for since obviously reduced > >>functionality implies reduced complexity implies quite hopefully > >>increased reliability. > >> > >>I'm not trying to be nasty here. So it's not the goal of dillo to be > >>compliant with web content? > >> > >> > > > >Have you read the Dillo home page? Particularly: > > > > http://dillo.auriga.wearlab.de/funding/ > > > >This site outlines much of Dillo's "reason for being". Specifically: > > > > Keeping dillo up to date with the dynamic underlying technologies to > > meet the main objectives, becomes the long term goal. > > > >I believe that should answer your question. > > > > > I read that stuff but still am not clear about why it exists if its goal > is to compete with Konqueror. It's obvious that you should have > Konqueror and Mozilla, It is? > but it's not obvious that you should have dillo > and Konqueror. How about no Konq at all? > > Is it Dillo's goal to support CSS and Javascript? How about https? Do > Dillo people believe you can call something a web browser if it does not > have support for these? If yes, then it is targeted for a different, > limited usage. > > What would you say is the distinctive point between Dillo and > Khtml/Konqueror? It is not true that C code is faster than C++ > > Thanks, > Philippe [I am not a Dillo developer] Apparently you didn't read the information in the provided link, http://dillo.auriga.wearlab.de/funding/. I could copy and paste the answers to most of your questions from those pages here, but I'm feeling lazy today, para variar. Todd

May 8, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Re: reason for Dillo's existence

by Diego Sáenz

I have a Pentium 150Mhz with 16Mb of RAM. Dillo is the only graphic browser i can use well. This is enought to me. By the things i have read in the dillo list it will suport CSS and https(there is a unoficial patch for this) Diego. El Thu, 08 May 2003 17:26:15 +0300 Philippe Laporte <philippe.laporte(a)nokia.com> escribio: ext Jamin W. Collins wrote: >On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 12:48:02PM +0300, Philippe Laporte wrote: > > > >>This is not the argument I'm looking for since obviously reduced >>functionality implies reduced complexity implies quite hopefully >>increased reliability. >> >>I'm not trying to be nasty here. So it's not the goal of dillo to be >>compliant with web content? >> >> > >Have you read the Dillo home page? Particularly: > > http://dillo.auriga.wearlab.de/funding/ > >This site outlines much of Dillo's "reason for being". Specifically: > > Keeping dillo up to date with the dynamic underlying technologies to > meet the main objectives, becomes the long term goal. > >I believe that should answer your question. > > I read that stuff but still am not clear about why it exists if its goal is to compete with Konqueror. It's obvious that you should have Konqueror and Mozilla, but it's not obvious that you should have dillo and Konqueror. Is it Dillo's goal to support CSS and Javascript? How about https? Do Dillo people believe you can call something a web browser if it does not have support for these? If yes, then it is targeted for a different, limited usage. What would you say is the distinctive point between Dillo and Khtml/Konqueror? It is not true that C code is faster than C++ Thanks, Philippe

May 8, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Re: reason for Dillo's existence

by Philippe Laporte

ext Jamin W. Collins wrote: >On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 12:48:02PM +0300, Philippe Laporte wrote: > > > >>This is not the argument I'm looking for since obviously reduced >>functionality implies reduced complexity implies quite hopefully >>increased reliability. >> >>I'm not trying to be nasty here. So it's not the goal of dillo to be >>compliant with web content? >> >> > >Have you read the Dillo home page? Particularly: > > http://dillo.auriga.wearlab.de/funding/ > >This site outlines much of Dillo's "reason for being". Specifically: > > Keeping dillo up to date with the dynamic underlying technologies to > meet the main objectives, becomes the long term goal. > >I believe that should answer your question. > > I read that stuff but still am not clear about why it exists if its goal is to compete with Konqueror. It's obvious that you should have Konqueror and Mozilla, but it's not obvious that you should have dillo and Konqueror. Is it Dillo's goal to support CSS and Javascript? How about https? Do Dillo people believe you can call something a web browser if it does not have support for these? If yes, then it is targeted for a different, limited usage. What would you say is the distinctive point between Dillo and Khtml/Konqueror? It is not true that C code is faster than C++ Thanks, Philippe

May 8, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Re: reason for Dillo's existence

by Jamin W. Collins

On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 12:48:02PM +0300, Philippe Laporte wrote: > This is not the argument I'm looking for since obviously reduced > functionality implies reduced complexity implies quite hopefully > increased reliability. > > I'm not trying to be nasty here. So it's not the goal of dillo to be > compliant with web content? Have you read the Dillo home page? Particularly: http://dillo.auriga.wearlab.de/funding/ This site outlines much of Dillo's "reason for being". Specifically: Keeping dillo up to date with the dynamic underlying technologies to meet the main objectives, becomes the long term goal. I believe that should answer your question. -- Jamin W. Collins This is the typical unix way of doing things: you string together lots of very specific tools to accomplish larger tasks. -- Vineet Kumar

May 8, 2003

Re: [Dillo-dev] Re: reason for Dillo's existence

by Philippe Laporte

ext Geek wrote: >> Hi, >> Would a Konqueror(Khtml) ported to GTK render dillo irrelevant, or >> is there really a spot out there for browsers with conformance to >> subsets of widely used web standards? >> >> I mean, why was dillo ever started? Would it have been started if KHTML >> had been ported to GTK at the time? >> >> Thaks, >> Philippe >> >> > >I'm glad it DOES exist - it is the only pure, 100% stable browser on many a >system and it's great for webmasters like me that want to check their X/HTML >code for "Any-browser" compatibility. > >Oh yeah, the speed thing is fantastic! Since loading 1300 fonts in my machine, >Opera went from firing up in six seconds to taking 23 seconds to load. Dillo >starts in 0.78 seconds! ;-) > >-- >Gregg > > This is not the argument I'm looking for since obviously reduced functionality implies reduced complexity implies quite hopefully increased reliability. I'm not trying to be nasty here. So it's not the goal of dillo to be compliant with web content? Thanks, Philippe

May 8, 2003

Re: reason for Dillo's existence

by Geek

> Hi, > Would a Konqueror(Khtml) ported to GTK render dillo irrelevant, or > is there really a spot out there for browsers with conformance to > subsets of widely used web standards? > > I mean, why was dillo ever started? Would it have been started if KHTML > had been ported to GTK at the time? > > Thaks, > Philippe I'm glad it DOES exist - it is the only pure, 100% stable browser on many a system and it's great for webmasters like me that want to check their X/HTML code for "Any-browser" compatibility. Oh yeah, the speed thing is fantastic! Since loading 1300 fonts in my machine, Opera went from firing up in six seconds to taking 23 seconds to load. Dillo starts in 0.78 seconds! ;-) -- Gregg

May 8, 2003

reason for dillo's existence

by Philippe Laporte

Hi, Would a Konqueror(Khtml) ported to GTK render dillo irrelevant, or is there really a spot out there for browsers with conformance to subsets of widely used web standards? I mean, why was dillo ever started? Would it have been started if KHTML had been ported to GTK at the time? Thaks, Philippe

May 7, 2003