Is Dilo necessary?

Forum: DSL Ideas and Suggestions
Topic: Is Dilo necessary?
started by: llccjj

Posted by llccjj on Mar. 08 2006,06:37

If Firefox can run perfectly on DSL, what's Dillo for?

Posted by struppi on Mar. 08 2006,10:40

all these computer that can't run firefox ? all these computers that run firefox too slow to call it "surfing the web" ?

dillo fits perfectly into the dsl - philosophy.

Posted by clivesay on Mar. 08 2006,11:29

Quote (llccjj @ Mar. 08 2006,00:37)

If Firefox can run perfectly on DSL, what's Dillo for?

Try opening FF on something like a p133 with 24mb ram. You can click the icon, go eat lunch, take a shower and then come back to surf the web.

DSL is focused on older boxen and dillo is great for surfing on those machines and is also a good tool for documents like the getting started doc you see at the start of X.

It's really one of the staple apps in DSL unless another browser comes along that is as small and as fast as dillo with more features. There are other browsers out there but to date, no one here has found one that beats it yet.

Posted by Jeb on Mar. 08 2006,17:45

Development doesn't seem to want to make multiple distros for different machines.

With multiple distros, everyone could get what they want, along with dtripping out redundant applications.

Posted by doobit on Mar. 08 2006,19:29

Dillo is such a little thing. If you don't like it, just remove the icon from your desktop. You won't even remember it's there. Otherwise, if you use it, you might actually like it.

Posted by humpty on Mar. 08 2006,23:03

Dillo's great! It's much lighter on resources. You can use it with less worry if your running a lot of apps at the same time. :laugh:

Posted by WDef on Mar. 10 2006,12:03

I like Dillo and enjoy having it there in dsl, even if Firefox gets used more. It's fast and it's good for "quick look" surfing, and it's ideologically pleasing.

Apart from a copy and paste issue that soured me on it for a short time (which turned out to be some type of issue between dillo and scite.dsl BTW), it's fun to use.

As brilliant and indispensible as the Firefox star is, it's a greedy memory hog and something of a monster. So it's refreshing to remind ourselves that tiny and highly efficient programs like Dillo, - closer to the original unix philosophy - are still being developed.

Posted by Jonah Thomas on Mar. 26 2006,03:48

I kind of like the idea of making Firefox optional. that adds one more thing for people to choose, which is bad for new users. But it *is* a memory hog etc, and it uses a lot of space too doesn't it?

It makes sense to keep Dillo regardless, in case you need it. It makes less sense to jprovide Firefox regardless. Except that it's one more decision when there are so many already.

Posted by cbagger01 on Mar. 26 2006,05:56

I think we should junk Firefox, Dillo and netrik. They are ALL way too bloated.

All users should be forced to use "wget" to do their browsing.

Just kidding :laugh:

You can always go to extremes... but in having a full-featured web browser is a must-have these days.

If you really want to, you can build a house today without indoor plumbing but nobody else will want to live in it.

Posted by humpty on Mar. 26 2006,14:42

Quote (cbagger01 @ Mar. 26 2006,00:56)

If you really want to, you can build a house today without indoor plumbing but nobody else will want to live in it.

except for 'indoor plumbers' i guess :laugh:

i hear opera's smaller ??

Posted by mikshaw on Mar. 27 2006,03:20

Opera smaller than Dillo? I don't know what the installed size is, but you can get a general idea by comparing 5.8mb Opera download to 573k Dillo download.