Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Dillo (was "Opera vulnerability")

[Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Did you by chance compile it as static? That's probably explain why it's
so big. I usda have it installed and it certainly wasn't that big.
Otherwise I'll agree with your impression. Dillo is good for reading html
docs. Can't compare to Mozilla for standards compliance and features
though.

> I did compile it on Solaris.  No problems.  When I start it up from the
> command line, it continues to send info to stderr, so I start it like
> this...
>
> dillo >& /dev/null &
>
> ...to send the stderr to /dev/null (other wise it sends some text to my
> terminal every time I go to another web page!)
>
> It doesn't use a lot of memory.  I think their web page was misleading in
> saying "Dillo is small: source is less than 365 KB, and the binary is
> around 265 KB" because the source was 365 KB *gzipped* and my binary was
> about 6.4 MB (25 times the promised size).  It seems to use about 1/3 the
> memory of Netscape though, which is nice.
>
> It doesn't seem to be java enabled so some pages don't work at all.  It
> can't deal with frames properly.  It can't do ftp.  I don't think it can
> do https.
>
> That's my first impression.  Nice little browser, very fast compared to
> Netscape on the same platform, but not very full featured.
>
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion