4 ms·
Every time I looked at DSL, I never understood the need to include 4 Web Browsers in a distro that supposedly prides itself on size.
by pharos92 10mo ago
Every time I looked at DSL, I never understood the need to include 4 Web Browsers in a distro that supposedly prides itself on size.
- avhon1 10mo agoSo you can use as little CPU and RAM as necessary to browse the page you want to read at any given moment.
- szszrk 10mo agoWhen you look at the actual list of those 4, it's not as hard to understand any more. It's Firefox, Dillo, Links2 and Netsurf GTK :) Dillo is something I'd love to daily drive like I did 20 years ago, but it would just fail on most modern websites. But it's what, 2MB in total (binary+libraries)? Links2 is text terminal oriented. No modern browser can do that natively at all. All competition is even smaller (w3m, lynx). Plus links2 can run in graphics mode, even on a framebuffer, so you can run it without X server at all. So Fx is the only "general purpose" browser on that list, but is just too big for old hardware.
- k3vinw 10mo agoAgreed. Why not have one installed by default and the other 3 could be recommended by DSL as alternatives?
- LeFantome 10mo agoThis is an effort to preserve RAM more than disk while still having software that works.