From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Revell Subject: Re: [RFC] VM: I have a dream... Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:28:34 -0500 Message-ID: <1138231714.3087.66.camel@mindpipe> References: <200601240211.k0O28rnn003165@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <1138181033.4800.4.camel@tara.firmix.at> <20060125150516.GB8490@mail.shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Bernd Petrovitsch , Horst von Brand , "linux-os (Dick Johnson)" , Diego Calleja , Ram Gupta , mloftis@wgops.com, barryn@pobox.com, a1426z@gawab.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mustang.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.3]:24459 "HELO mustang.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932218AbWAYX2e (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jan 2006 18:28:34 -0500 To: Jamie Lokier In-Reply-To: <20060125150516.GB8490@mail.shareable.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 15:05 +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > > ACK. X, evolution and Mozilla family (to name standard apps) are the > > exceptions to this rule. > > Mozilla / Firefox / Opera in particular. 300MB is not funny on a > laptop which cannot be expanded beyond 192MB. Are there any usable > graphical _small_ web browsers around? Usable meaning actually works > on real web sites with fancy features. "Small" and "fancy features" are not compatible. That's the problem with the term "usable" - to developers it means "supports the basic core functionality of a web browser" while to users it means "supports every bell and whistle that I get on Windows". Lee