A lightweight browser for reading docs is good _only_ if the engine is embed in the documentation browser — see what kde has done with konqueror. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to launch 2 browsers (Firefox for "monstrosities" and a second, lightweight one, for docs and lightweight sites), because Firefox + another browser launched at the same time doesn't makes things lighter. You would even prefer to read the docs in Firefox — only one process.
Le 02 août, 19:31:23 Ivan Vučica a écrit : > Context of this discussion is offering a representative desktop to users. > It started due to comments on osnews, right? > > If we are discussing what kind of browser we would have to offer to make > comments less negative, then something that cannot run "monstrosities" is > not the answer. > > Actual users want the "monstrosities". > > And JavaScript is not even the toughest nut to crack in these cases. DOM > and a zillion other standards are. > > For something that can browse docs on a Raspberry Pi, sure, SWK is good (I > didn't dismiss it in the previous email, I'm not doing it now). But unless > I can offer the browser to my aunt and she can use it to message my nephew > using Facebook, I cannot expect them to use it. And even if I replace > Gmail, I would be upset if I couldn't order stuff from Amazon. > > That is not even taking into account things like intranet services or > government websites. > > We can talk about Dillo or NetSurf or SWK in context of reading > documentation or tech enthusiasts being very, very aware of the > limitations. But not in the context of majority of users who have very > different needs than "I want to run this on RPi". If they are unable to > open "monstrosities", I would not consider solved the problem of the > browser on a reference GNUstep system or a live CD. > > On Wed, Aug 2, 2017, 20:05 Riccardo Mottola <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Ivan Vučica wrote: > > > That is, if we added manhours which we don't quite have, and SWK could > > > become usable on, say, top 50 sites of the modern web, it would no > > > longer be lightweight > > > > > > Would you consider it lightweight once it could run Facebook desktop > > > experience? Or Google Docs? No matter what one may think about > > > particular products, sites like this are what's important for a > > > regular user to consider something a browser. > > > > It should not support them! not in full experience at least... to use > > those monstruosities you can barely use Firefox. > > That is why I usually have two browsers installed on all of my systems. > > > > As I wrote, being an GNUstep version of NetSurf or Dillo would be a > > medium term goal for SWK+Vespucci and I think it would be useful and > > cater to people who like simple and fast thigns. > > As said, something I can run on my Raspberry easily. It should be > > capable of displaying GS documentation for example. Wikipedia "well > > enough" without full stylesheets. It should be able to make searches in > > things like duckduckgo > > > > No JavaScript or, medium-term, simple enough JavaScript to perform some > > basic operation that are useful > > > > Otherwise it would be indeed a full reimplementation. After all, there > > is not such difference in "weight" between the major browsers. I think > > Gecko is one of the best, but not the fastest. I don't like the chrome > > engine at all, even if it is embedded inside Opera, however it excels in > > certain things.. Even IE 11 has its superiority to the other two. But > > once you punch these through big interactive sites (like cloud sites) > > they all will require tons of memory and at least 2 Cores. > > > > I explicitely chimed in when I saw NetSurf cited. > > > > Riccardo _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
