 | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) Well I dunno if you can do MORE on Linux (we ought to take this to .geek, Linux doesn't yet have the vast body of apps that Wintel does) but you certainly can do a lot of things faster. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger
|
| | | | On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:17:44 GMT "Larry Pieniazek" <lar@voyager.net> wrote concerning 'Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer': (...) it's true that the app base is not as big, yet... but considering what I use my home win95 for - basicly browsing (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) Which browser are you using on Linux that you would call "better" than IE5? Seriously. Every time time I try some flavor of Netscape product for Linux it just ends up making me run screaming back to browsing on Windows. In fact, I would rather (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) I love Linux, I hate Windows, but I have yet to see any Linux web browser other than Lynx which even comes remotely close to MSIE5 in how well it works. Netscape sucks, Mozilla sucks. But -- Mozilla will get better, and it will squash MSIE in (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | | (...) Have you looked at w3m? It seems like a better Lynx than Lynx.... (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'm amazed by how w3m can handle mouse clicks like that. :) Also pretty great to be able to pipe stdin to it. I wish it would keep stdin open like more does, though, to feed it streaming data. :) I had a lot of problems getting the popup menus (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm really curious as to why you believe that. Really. If Netscape were interested in or capable of producing an IE-killer browser, why haven't they done it already? Given the almost universally agreed-upon crappiness of Communicator 4.7 what (...) (24 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | (...) I believe that because I believe Mozilla that will, in the long run (if it hasn't already), attract better and more dedicated programmers, designers, and testers to work on it than MSIE. (...) Mozilla != Netscape (...) Mozilla != Netscape (...) (24 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | (...) You repeat this over and over again, as if simply stating it will somehow make it more obvious and more true. Mozilla may turn out to be more than a browser. But who is making it? (24 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 20:29:30 GMT Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote concerning 'Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer': (...) I think you're misunderstanding the point. Mozilla (the browser Todd is referring to) is _not_ written or sold by (...) (24 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yeah, it does. Thanks. So what that probably means is that within a year or so we'll have a version of mozilla that ultra-geeks know and love, maybe within 5 years we'll get some media hype, then we'll see normal people move over to it, some (...) (24 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) My understanding is that very little of it is based on Navigator code at this point. Early versions of Mozilla were, but then the developers decided that there was too much cruft and started over from scratch, this time with A Plan. This is (...) (24 years ago, 25-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Dan Boger
|
| | | | (...) I never used IE, and I will probably never will - unless they come out with IE for linux and then I'll give it a shot. I used to use NN and my MOC browser :P but now I've switched to mozilla, and I'm _very_ happy with it :) (...) errr... I'm (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) I can't get TrueType fonts to display correctly in Mozilla (a build from two nights ago). Do they work for you? I'm specifying 'times new roman' and 'courier new' and 'arial' for the three fonts (serif, monospace, and sans- serif, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | (...) as far as I can tell, mozilla has no problems showing any kind of fonts - though I never bothered to install to many. What X server are you using? As a rule, font problems are related to xfs, and not to the application... (...) nope, no tricks (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'm using the xfs that came with RHL 6.1... If I fire up xfontsel and look at arial, for example, and set the pxlsz to a variety of numbers, they all look correct and beautifully hinted. I can recognize individual character glyphs as being (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:07:53 GMT Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote concerning 'Re: Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)': (...) Serif: times 16 Sans Serif: Helvetica monospace: Courier 13 Dan (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Mozilla (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) I haven't gotten it to even build the last two nights. :) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Yeah, it does. And port-forwarding and other advanced features too. It's definitely the best ssh client available for ms windows. (Too bad NetTerm doesn't do SSH - it has such nice fonts....) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | (...) I'm using MindTerm, a GPL'd Java implementation of ssh: (URL) it doesn't seem to support sftp, it does talk scp (not sure how much better sftp is, though) and a buncha other features including port forwarding. Features list is at (URL) . Plus, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | (...) Okay, my bad. It looks like it does support sftp; it just doesn't call it that. Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 24-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| | | | |
