Discuss a browser on the core distribution

[Spiral of Hope]

- do we need one?
- which one?

So far, we've had these ideas:

Dillo
  http://www.dillo.org/

Twibright Labs links
  http://links.twibright.com/

arora
  http://code.google.com/p/arora/

Midori
  http://www.twotoasts.de/index.php?/pages/midori_summary.html

NetSurf
  http://www.netsurf-browser.org/ (build instructions)

Opera (a static QT build)
  http://www.opera.com/

HV3
  http://tkhtml.tcl.tk/hv3.html

Fastpatx
  http://bitbucket.org/patx/fastpatx/wiki/Home
  http://patx44.appspot.com/fastpatx

Epiphany - maybe?
  http://www.gnome.org/projects/epiphany/

Our primary concerns are the program's on-disk size and dependencies (which is a size concern too).

It doesn't need to be an awesome browser.  We're just thinking of it for on-disk documentation and simple surfing like with the package management website, rpmfind, basic open source software websites, etc.  So JavaScript and CSS are nice, but not mandatory.

[KDulcimer]

Don't forget Midori or NetSurf. Especially NetSurf. It's pretty good, and as it's GTK+, it's pretty light.

[gri6507]

I've played with Dillo in the past. It was very lightweight and from what I recall had almost not dependencies.

[Willie Green]

I'm not sure what you mean by "core distribution", but I assume that it's something that's more fundamental and basic than the formal distros like TinyMe or Granular which will be based on Unity.

So if that is true, I would also assume that our choices would be limited to text-based console web browsers like Links, Elinks, Lynx, etc. and not browsers that would require installation of X and somekind of window manager and desktop environment.
And if that assumption is true, I would like to suggest including some other text-based apps, like Midnight Commander, which would also be handy.

Of course, if you mean something different by "core distribution", then I suppose the need for text-based console apps is less important.

[gri6507]

The "core distribution" that is being referred to here is indeed the "Unity Linux distribution". Since all distros based on unity will have X on them, unity also has X and thus, we are not limited to command line apps only.

P.S. We have already decided to include midnight commander as a "core distributed" package and I believe we are currently discussing adding lynx as well.

[Willie Green]

Thanks for the explanation.
I'm unfamiliar with "Twibright Labs links", but offhand, I think it's an intriguing option simply because it has both a text mode to run from console and a graphics mode to run under X.
I don't know how it satisfies other criteria, but I like that flexibility.

[Steel]

I'd suggest Opera.

It's small, well featured, quick and standards compliant.

[Spiral of Hope]

Opera is an intriguing choice because it's a complete suite.

On http://www.opera.com/browser/download/
I can choose 'Other/Static RPM' and at the bottom I can check 'Download this package in TAR.GZ format'
The filename reveals the gcc and qt versions.
opera-9.64.gcc295-static-qt3.i386.tar.gz

Btw, I checked our `smart --gui` and I notice that we have libqt3support4 but nothing else installed for qt3, so this definitely rules out a dynamic build.

archive size: 10,649,654
unpacked size: 28,614,656

Seriously, that's not light.


By the way, I saw that there's an opera which is statically-linked and built with gcc 4.1 made for the OLPC but usable on other Linuxes.

http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/show.dml/704304
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Opera (may be updated with a newer version)


Second btw:

I'd love to suggest using Opera mini:
http://www.opera.com/mini/
http://www.opera.com/mini/download/generic/
http://helpforlinux.blogspot.com/2008/12/use-opera-mini-in-ubuntu.html

.. but that would mean pulling Java in as a dependency.  Ouch.

[edit] removed brain fart

[KDulcimer]

There's one other browser I haven't mentioned called HV3. It hasn't seen development in quite a while, but it does a really good job, it's insanely fast, and it's quite small.

[Spiral of Hope]

I'd try it for myself, but I personally wouldn't suggest it for a distribution since it's alpha and hasn't had a checkin since March 2008.. but I'll list it nontheless.

[Zoltan]

I'm using lately the latest midori, witch is quite fast, really small, and improves quite frequently. Dillo is a good choice, but sometimes too slow for me, and sometimes renders ugly unusable pages. I have tried Arora, but it is still need a lot of improvements as Netsurf too. Opera is good, but too big and yes, there are java dependency. By the way, Midori is supported by XFCE, so it also helps for branching group.... I think we must choose such a browser, what doesn't need any extra libs to compile, except based on libs what we already have - like if you want a correct just browser, no plugins, and any extra's, try FastPatX, it is HUGE. Working fast, and no need to compile either. The biggest thing is not it's atomic size (3k, mass of ~50 lines pure and 110 lines the full code -   ), the code itself. This .py program basically deserves for pyqt learning curve, but for us - could mean freedom, and an build-browser base. On my fedora 11, it runs quite perfectly, and thanks for wget also could download. One glitch: you must enter full URL, and hit enter, or press go - else it calls just wget.
I know we trying to remove more and more dependency, but this only needs PyQt4, Wget, and Python 2.5+ installed and nothing else. I say building a core, witch based upon only python could result an really slick and pretty lightweight distro-base. What do you say guys?

http://blog.jjtcomputing.co.uk/2009/07/24/fastpatx-a-quick-and-simple-web-browser/
http://bitbucket.org/patx/fastpatx/wiki/Home

[Spiral of Hope]

wow, fastpatx is an interesting idea.

Maybe it would be much smaller than other browsers, but we would have to learn more about its dependencies.

I wonder if it can work on our new python-lite, so we can keep it very very small.

I also wonder if it will be good enough.  The reason we need a browser is so that people can authenticate.  Maybe some people will need to use SSL.  I wonder if fastpatx can do ssl.

[richardwest]

Nobody has replied to the first question, i.e. Do we need one?

I don't see any need to have a browser on the ISO, so long as there are a few alternatives in the repo, then the user can install his/her browser of choice. Bearing in mind that the user will be a developer not an end user. I don't see any need to make the ISO any bigger or bloated than the bare necessity.

[Spiral of Hope]

As I understand, some people need a browser in order to authenticate their net connection or proxy in the first place.  I don't know the details, as I've never been in such a situation.

[Willie Green]

Nobody has replied to the first question, i.e. Do we need one?

I don't see any need to have a browser on the ISO, so long as there are a few alternatives in the repo, then the user can install his/her browser of choice. Bearing in mind that the user will be a developer not an end user. I don't see any need to make the ISO any bigger or bloated than the bare necessity.

Well Richard, I'm not a "developer", but I would think that a simple browser, even if only text-based, would be handy for anyone using the core iso. If for no other reason than to access online information "in case" something else isn't "right". Or as a convenient way to view documentation contained on the iso itself.