Some comments on /. stuff :
> This is the part where I rhetorically ask why anyone would write a
> web browser from scratch, the goal of which is to render 100%
> syntactically correct webpages really really fast. Are there not
> enough existing web browsers whose goals are to render pages really
> really fast?
Oh, which ones ? On my P 120, which is my only computer, I
tried mozilla and its derivatives - they filled up my 56 Mb of RAM
just for loading and took a dozen of minutes to show up even a simple
page. This without counting the megabytes they took on my hard-drive.
So I had a few choices : either switch back to Windows 98 and Internet
Explorer, which *is* in comparison damn fast, or use Lynx on my
Debian.
Or finding another fast linux-graphical browser. I browsed the net. I
tested "browsers" like Chimera2, that no one ever heard about, and was
very upset with every browser I tried until I found Dillo.
Even if Dillo is very strict regarding HTML compliance of pages, it
is, as far as I know, the only Linux graphical browser working
correctly on legacy computers.
> But I have other things to worry about, and you have
> other browsers to choose from that render Slashdot just fine.
Yes - it works fine with Lynx.
I guess maybe we pushed the issue a little too hard - after all,
Slashdot is not the only website that doesn't display correctly on
Dillo. As the development philosophy is "stick to the standards",
I think we shouldn't care too much about badly formatted pages.
Maybe by version 1.0 we can include some kind of
"render_uglily_coded_webpage" function to deal with that, but as far
as I'm concerned I'm very happy with dillo the way it is.
I guess for people like me, who use old computers in everyday's life,
using Dillo+Lynx is a very good way of accessing a great part of
the web resources.
Best regards,
Mathieu
--
"Just living is not enough," said the butterfly,
"one must also have freedom, sunshine, and a little flower."
Hans Christian Andersen
