| 1 |
On Wednesday 29 November 2006 22:46, Jorge Almeida wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Hans de Hartog wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Just to stay close to what you're used to: how about good old mozilla? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> That's something that isn't clear to me: Is Mozilla still actively |
| 6 |
> maintained? If so, what's the rationale for Firefox? I changed to |
| 7 |
> Firefox because I assumed Mozilla was going to disappear... And why all |
| 8 |
> the fuss about Firefox? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
fuss?? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
What's your LINGUAS set to? `emerge -vp mozilla-firefox` if in doubt? Also did |
| 13 |
you try the "Google.com in English" link? It's stored for me. (Perhaps it |
| 14 |
would help if you provided a link to the result page with useless brazilian |
| 15 |
links...) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Either way. The alternatives for X that I'm aware of are www-client/opera, |
| 18 |
kde-base/konqueror, www-client/seamonkey and www-client/epiphany. Seamonkey |
| 19 |
is the actively maintained replacement for Mozilla. Firefox was supposed to |
| 20 |
be a lightweight Mozilla that only does browsing as opposed to browsing, |
| 21 |
mailing, irc, calendar... I'd say they failed a bit with the lightweight bit. |
| 22 |
Hopefully it'll get better... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Personally I'm using firefox because I haven't figured out how to get any of |
| 25 |
the others to behave like I want them to. Konqueror, Epiphany and Opera are |
| 26 |
all a lot faster than Firefox though. Seamonkey I don't know about since I |
| 27 |
never really liked it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Bo Andresen |
Archives