On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 06:20:18PM -0800, Eric G. Miller wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 17:58:06 -0800, Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
[snip]
It's not for older/slower boxen though. I'd recommend *NO LESS* than a
PII-233, and think you'll be happier with a PIII-600+ CPU. For
* Rob Mahurin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 06:20:18PM -0800, Eric G. Miller wrote:
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 17:58:06 -0800, Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
[snip]
It's not for older/slower boxen though. I'd recommend *NO LESS* than a
PII-233, and
Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:
on Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 11:29 AM +0100, Karsten Heymann
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
* Seneca Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020201 11:05]:
David Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a very good reason for not wanting to install GNOME or another
on Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 11:29 AM +0100, Karsten Heymann ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
* Seneca Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020201 11:05]:
David Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a very good reason for not wanting to install GNOME or another
desktop manager. I tried GNOME about a month
On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 17:58:06 -0800, Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
[snip]
It's not for older/slower boxen though. I'd recommend *NO LESS* than a
PII-233, and think you'll be happier with a PIII-600+ CPU. For memory,
128 MiB minimum, 256 strongly recommended. Particularly under
* Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com spake thus:
I'll also strongly plug Galeon. If you're not violently allergic to
GNOME libs (and yes, it does suck in a whole mess of them, along with
all of Mozilla), it's an ass-kicking browser.
Just out of curiosity:
use (I can easily get over 100
* Seneca Cunningham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020201 11:05]:
David Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a very good reason for not wanting to install GNOME or another
desktop manager. I tried GNOME about a month ago, and it's performance
was similar to that of my 286 when windows 3.0 was installed
Karsten Heymann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, galeon depends on the gnome libs installed, but it does not depend
on gnome running. If your disk space is not a problem, you could try it
out. Apart from that, w3m and links are very cool too (and don't forget
netcat :-))
I use w3m, but does
I have a small system (100MHz pentium, 900M /usr, 1024K video ram) that I
want to access the internet on. A problem that I have is that when the
network that I use was set up, the gateway software that was decided upon
requires the browsers used to have java support. I can't get away from it, I
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 20:44:01 -0500
So I was wondering about if there are any good, _small_ browsers like
that. I tried mozilla on my system, and I had enough time to eat lunch
while it started up (I have since removed mozilla).
I have X4 installed and working, but I don't want to install any
On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 20:44, Seneca Cunningham wrote:
I have a small system (100MHz pentium, 900M /usr, 1024K video ram) that I
want to access the internet on. A problem that I have is that when the
network that I use was set up, the gateway software that was decided upon
requires the browsers
David Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 20:44, Seneca Cunningham wrote:
I have a small system (100MHz pentium, 900M /usr, 1024K video ram) that
I
want to access the internet on. A problem that I have is that when the
network that I use was set up, the gateway software
On Thursday 31 January 2002 05:52 pm, David Moore wrote:
[snip]
Try Opera. It's non-free, but it seems like what you want. I personally
would prefer Galeon, but that won't work if you don't want to install
GNOME.
there's a small browser (albeit non-free) called xbrowse that won't force you
There's always hotjava.
On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 17:44, Seneca Cunningham wrote:
I have a small system (100MHz pentium, 900M /usr, 1024K video ram) that I
want to access the internet on. A problem that I have is that when the
network that I use was set up, the gateway software that was decided
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 08:44:01PM -0500, Seneca Cunningham wrote:
| I have a small system (100MHz pentium, 900M /usr, 1024K video ram) that I
| want to access the internet on.
'links' is real small and lightweight
| A problem that I have is that when the
| network that I use was set up, the
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 20:52:15 -0500
David B Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 20:44:01 -0500
So I was wondering about if there are any good, _small_ browsers like
that. I tried mozilla on my system, and I had enough time to eat lunch
while it started up (I have since
On Thursday 31 January 2002 06:46 pm, csj wrote:
[snip]
http://www.browsex.com/
And like the real thing it's free (Artistic License). Says the site:
BrowseX has been written primarily in C and Tcl and clearly
demonstrates that Linux applications can indeed bridge to Windows. The
claim is
On 31 Jan 2002 20:52:19 -0500
David Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 20:44, Seneca Cunningham wrote:
I have a small system (100MHz pentium, 900M /usr, 1024K video ram) that I
want to access the internet on. A problem that I have is that when the
network that I use was
On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:43:11 -0800
ben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 31 January 2002 06:46 pm, csj wrote:
[snip]
http://www.browsex.com/
And like the real thing it's free (Artistic License). Says the site:
BrowseX has been written primarily in C and Tcl and clearly
On Thursday 31 January 2002 07:25 pm, csj wrote:
[snip]
Your earlier post said small browser (albeit non-free) called xbrowse.
Are there any religious reasons why the Artistic License is considered
non-free?
i actually meant to say non-deb. the coffee just isn't kicking in today.
ben
20 matches
Mail list logo
