Results 1 to 10 of 10
I am looking for a decent webbrowser for my laptop.
And here it the trick. My laptop doenst run X. Neither am I planning to do so.
I know Links. ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
- 04-07-2008 #1
Looking for Decent webbrowser
I am looking for a decent webbrowser for my laptop.
And here it the trick. My laptop doenst run X. Neither am I planning to do so.
I know Links. But that doesnt support Images and Javascript and Flash and Java-Applets.
Is there anyone out there that did take the time to implant that stuff?
If so, please let me know.
Thansk
Robin
(ps. If I could make FireFox run 100% on Framebuffer id be happy
)
- 04-07-2008 #2
Without X, your options are really limited. I think you should try elinks, but I don't think it supports flash.
- 04-07-2008 #3
- 04-07-2008 #4Linux Guru
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Córdoba (Spain)
- Posts
- 1,513
Well. It's not impossible, but don't expect anything that high-level like firefox.
As far as I know:
-You can use links -g, it can display graphics on framebuffer without a problem. It works with directfb and svgalib (I personally recommend directfb, since svglib required an additional kernel module to be loaded, to do exactly the same stuff).
-The support for javascript is limited, but it's not completely inexistent.
-Java support is zero for all console based browsers, including text ones and links -g.
-Flash support is zero as well. However, you can partially work around this by using mplayer to play flash videos (only flv, swf is not supported by mplayer).
There's been some work on making gtk work under framebuffer without X. I don't remember the name of the project though, and I don't konw how it works (but I remember seeing the gimp working over it). Qtopía is a similar project based on qt, though I doubt that will help you with firefox :P
The Xorg server is not that big, once you remove the sources. And if you really want to run firefox, the ram usage of X is the least of your concerns, because firefox can take many hundreds of megabytes itself making the X memory footprint ridiculous in comparison.
- 04-07-2008 #5
- 04-07-2008 #6Linux Guru
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Córdoba (Spain)
- Posts
- 1,513
Well, then you'll have to choose.
links -g can display graphics but it's javascript support is very incomplete, and useless for most purposes.
I think elinks is better in that regard (and in many more things), but it doesn't display graphics as far as I know. I think it uses the Mozilla's SpiderMonkey Javascript engine.
- 04-07-2008 #7Linux Engineer
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
- Location
- Ft. Polk, LA
- Posts
- 796
elinks is better for many things, it has better js support, tabs, colors, and various features that are nice. It's only text mode, however. Links, as already mentioned, has graphic support on the framebuffer. Probably your best bet is just to switch back and forth between those. What is wrong with running X I am wondering?
- 04-09-2008 #8
- 04-17-2008 #9Linux Engineer
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Vancouver
- Posts
- 1,366
w3m supports graphics and can be compiled with javascript support. it displays graphics correctly on my emacs; however, I'm going to recompile in javascript support and see if I can't get it working, x really chokes down my old laptop (128M!).
Operating System: GNU Emacs
- 04-17-2008 #10Linux Engineer
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
- Location
- Ft. Polk, LA
- Posts
- 796
What you can do is run X, give it a few virtual desktops that you switch with Ctrl+Alt+Fkeys and Alt+Arrows, run a maximized terminal on each desktop with no window decorations, and it's just like a high res console you can run X apps on.


Reply With Quote

