Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Mozilla The Internet Businesses Apple

CaminoBrowser.org Launches 126

Samuel Sidler writes "Introducing CaminoBrowser.org, the new Camino project site. The pages have been completely revamped with up-to-date information, useful and easy-to-read support pages, and, of course, pretty pictures. Months of effort have gone into creating a truly excellent site. While the product pages will remain hosted at mozilla.org, our new website will be the home of the project and all support/development information as well as up-to-date news and information."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CaminoBrowser.org Launches

Comments Filter:
  • Slick (Score:2, Interesting)

    by billybob ( 18401 )
    I agree that's a slick looking site. I didnt even know camino was still being developed :P Looking at the screenshots there's lots of improvements since I last saw it (0.7), but on the Mac side, Safari does everything I need. Sorry :P

    I mainly use Firefox on Windows anyways (as my main browsing experience). Good to see this baby still in development though. I remember how excited I got back in the 0.1 and 0.2 days everytime a new release came out :)
    • Re:Slick (Score:1, Interesting)

      by ravidew ( 456067 )
      Not being fortunate enough to own a G5, how does Camino stack up against Firefox: is it Firefox for the Mac?
      • Re:Slick (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Kraeloc ( 869412 )
        I would think Firefox would be Firefox for the Mac. It is very nice, though, primarily because it's a lot lighter on the usage of system resources.
      • Re:Slick (Score:2, Troll)

        by Trillan ( 597339 )
        No, but many Mac users don't want Firefox for the Mac. Even if it behaved well and fit in with the theme of the OS, which it doesn't.
        • Now, where do you get that idea? My Firefox runs great, and looks right at home among my X11 apps and terminal windows ;) Seriously, though, Firefox does work for Mac. It runs a tad faster than Safari, and has compatability with nearly all plugins that are supposedly Windows-only. I mean, really, I don't see anything at all wrong with it.
          • Oh, I agree. There's nothing really wrong with it.

            But that doesn't mean I want to use it as my default browser. It's just a little too buggy, and not Mac-like enough (both in appearance and in keyboard bindings).

            Depending on my mood, I use either Safari or a recent Camino. Camino 0.82 doesn't work well with Google maps, so I tend to use a nightly... until I start to run into problems, then I either go to another nightly or Safari.

          • The 'tad faster than Safari' only applies if you have a newer Mac with lots of Mhz, unfortunately. My 500mhz G3 has a fast disk and lots of RAM, and for moderate-to-heavy desktop use can keep up with anything but a G5 for most tasks -- but the CPU-usage difference between Safari and anything Gecko-based is pronounced, just as it was between Moz and Konqueror on my K6-2 450 box 3 years ago. Gecko is a CPU-hog, and always has been.

            This is more important on Macs than other platforms, I think, because it's o
        • Well, I use Firefox on my Windows PC, and I love it. But using it on my Mac just didn't work out- I'm used to hitting the "backspace" button to go back, which for some reason doesn't work on the Mac. So I abandoned Firefox in favor of Safari, which does other things that bug me. It especially lacks plugins like Adblock that I have come to rely on on the other computer.

          So right now I can't say there are any browsers for the Mac that I like. I remember trying Camino long ago, I'll have to download this v
    • Re:Slick (Score:4, Interesting)

      by revscat ( 35618 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @10:53AM (#12011526) Journal

      Looking at the screenshots there's lots of improvements since I last saw it (0.7), but on the Mac side, Safari does everything I need.

      My only problem with Safari is that it is so noticeably slower on HTTPS connections. I use a G4 at work, and any time I need to use an HTTPS connection I use Camino because Safari drags so much. It's not so noticeable at home where I have a 1.8GHz G5, but when on slower machines (including my mom's iBook), Safari just drags on secure connections.

  • Ok, we have clones (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Monday March 21, 2005 @10:54PM (#12007705) Homepage Journal
    can we now have some innovation? I remember reading a scientific paper, around 1999, which showed that 90% of web browser users hate "history". They use the back button, hardly ever use the forward button and get annoyed as hell when they lose an entire "forward history" because they happened to click on a link after they went "back". Every browser on the planet (probably, maybe, probably not Opera, don't flame me) still has this annoying behaviour. The paper found that the best "history" was a pictorial one that actually showed the user when and how they got to a page with a thumbnail of that page as each node in the tree. That was pretty damn cool! Unfortunately I don't have it for FireFox or any of the many clones.

    That's one aspect of a web browser, there's dozens more. I kinda feel like tabs are the last real innovation for web browsers. Kinda like cup holders in cinemas. Guess I should be greatful it didn't take 30 years.

    • by guet ( 525509 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @03:49AM (#12009608)
      Actually, I've just been looking at history for a different kind of program, and was surprised by how counter-intuitive the browser ones are when I examined them. The Safari one doesn't reflect the menu, and removes previous moves when you take a positive action and aren't at the top of the history stack.

      An easy solution is to flip the history ahead of the current position and insert it before current when the user chooses a new site.

      ie (where '-' is current position and the user has come back to site c from site a)


      when the user clicks on new site f becomes


      because the user just came to c back through b and a, so to them a and b are behind them now.
      Rather than starting it again with


      As Safari does. Perhaps there are other orderings that make more sense - it'd be interesting to see how a lot of people use history, and how the current ones frustrate them - you don't have a link for that paper do you?
      • by QuantumG ( 50515 )
        Yeah, that's a pretty good idea! I was going to respond that there is no way I could find the paper in question but I think I did [psu.edu] :) There's a number of other papers that cover the same sort of studies that are cited on that page too.
      • Why so complicated? Dude, just timestamp every page visit and sort the menu by timestamp. Simple, consistent, effective.

        • You mean like the Firefox History sidebar does? :)
        • I wasn't talking about the order in the menu (which is obviously usually just sorted by date), but the order of the stack of locations which is used to navigate with the back/forward buttons.

          When you go back and forth it becomes more complicated to know where to insert new locations. Most browsers (including Firefox) take the easy way out and throw away all locations forward of the current location in the stack when the user clicks to go to a new site, so the stack of back options is often only a few locat
    • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @08:49AM (#12010650) Journal
      I couldn't agree more. I've always felt that browser history should be a tree, not a list, and that you should be able to navigate it graphically. At the very least, the forward button should provide a drop down list of potential destinations. Another thing that irritates me about browser history is the fact that (in most browsers I've used) opening a link in a new tab causes it not to inherit the history from the previous tab. Why can I not go back to the page I just came from when I have opened a link in a new tab and closed the old one? Sometimes I feel like beating browser developers to death with the principle of least surprise.
    • by Ilgaz ( 86384 )
      Mozilla fanatics will downmod me but, Camino is not a clone. It must be installed/supported/helped instead of Firefox.

      Its a native OS X application. If you use Firefox instead, you just have a windows/unix browser on OS X which is 5 years ahead of them.

      E.g. Omniweb here, while I write this reply, spell check is in action. It just calls spell check framework of the system.

      You wouldn't believe the "services" a mac user uses everyday. For me, a foreigner, its "one click answers" at first place.

      Opera does s
    • begun the software clone wars has.

  • by Guspaz ( 556486 )
    What does Camino offer that Firefox doesn't? The products seem to do much the same thing, and indeed, look virtually identical on the Mac.

    I guess my question is, why would somebody want to use Camino over Firefox?
    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kraeloc ( 869412 )
      Speed. Speed speed speed. Camino uses a small fraction of the resources that Firefox does.
      • So why not improve Firefox until it uses similar resources to Camino? It seems a waste to divide developers among three browsers on one platform.
    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dolphinling ( 720774 )

      (IIRC) Camino has native widgets. Firefox uses custom ones.

      • Camino has native widgets. Firefox uses custom ones.

        Yeah, but...so what?
        • Re:Why? (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          custom widgets don't behave like native widgets. if you still don't get it, please never write mac software.
          • custom widgets don't behave like native widgets. if you still don't get it, please never write mac software.

            No, I still don't get it, and no, I do not write Mac software. I'm an end user. Why should I be expected to know the programmatic reasons behind Camino to answer the question "why Camino over Firefox"?

            Of course the custom widgets behave differently. Firefox is supposed to use the same widgets across platforms so it behaves consistently. Is the only difference that Camino conforms better than Firefo
      • So why write an entire browser instead of adding native widgets to the Mac port of Firefox?
        • A little history. (Score:5, Informative)

          by Xenex ( 97062 ) * <xenex@@@opinionstick...com> on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @06:35AM (#12010198) Journal
          "So why write an entire browser instead of adding native widgets to the Mac port of Firefox?"
          That's not what happened.

          Camino (then Chimera) was first released in January 2002 [mozdev.org]. Firefox (then Phoenix) was first released in September 2002 [mozilla.org], and said this about the Mac:
          Where's the mac version?
          There is no mac version. While Phoenix could be made to run on Mac without much trouble, we see no point in competing with Chimera. Chimera is the lightweight, standalone Mozilla browser solution for Mac OS X. We have received requests for a Mac classic version, and are considering the idea.
          Not until Firebird 0.6 in May 2003 [mozilla.org] was the Mac was officially supported. If you're going to 'blame' a project for duplicating effort, don't blame Camino.

          Also, an amusing aside: Dave Hyatt [mozillazine.org] started both the Chimera and Phoenix projects. Now he works fulltime at Apple on Safari [apple.com]...
    • Integrated Services (Score:5, Informative)

      by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @11:31PM (#12008012)
      Camino has built in support for a lot of the system wide OS X features like Keychain, the spell checker, Address Book, most of the cocoa services, and probably a few others I'm forgetting.
      • Does one really require a whole new browser to do these things? What about implementing support for these native services in extensions, and shipping them with the OSX port of Firefox? Or perhaps building them right into the Mac port of Firefox?
        • They've been trying to do this for over a year now, and still no good progress. To completely redo the FFox interface in standard cocoa widgets is hard to do and keep feature parity. Anyways, I thought one purpose of OSS was to have a choice? Camino is a slim, lightweight browser that does one thing -> Browse the Web. FireFox is now an ecosystem of a program, where you can browse the web, take notes, do ftp transfers and much more.
          • It's one thing to have choice among various OSS projects, but when you have the developers of ONE OSS group maintaining Mozilla Suite, Firefox, and Camino, it seems to me like there is a lot of work being duplicated, and one browser would end up a lot better with all developers working on it.

            They say that larger programming teams don't make better products, but I have to argue that, since with good use of CVS and a good bug database, the more people you have fixing bugs the better, so long as you have good
      • Those are nice, but you lose the wonderful extensions of Firefox.

        That's the real bummer that prevents me from using Camino.

        ExtraPrefs offers an Adblock-a-like, which helps, but some of the other extensions that I no longer care to live without just aren't there.

      • I just downloaded Camino, and I'm using it right now. Wheeres the freggin speal cheecker?

        I had heard that to use true native components in the browser window (rather than just painting native components to the browser), there would have to be hooks added to gecko. Of course this means as soon as Camino has real native widgets in the browser, so will firefox.

        Of course, that may not be true... but still... where are my red squigglies?
        • I believe you have to select "Check Spelling as I type" from a menu or something.
        • Don't know...I can't do my contextual spell checking in Hotmail like I can in FF. If anybody can help turn this on, let me know.
          • ravenspear was wrong, there is not support for spellchecking in Camino, precicely because it doesn't use truely native widgets with gecko. Spellcheck support was, until recently, planned for 0.9 but has since been pushed-back to a later version (along with other useful features, such as form auto-complete) because of how long it would take to finish - they want to release 0.9 sooner rather than later.
    • Re:Why? (Score:2, Informative)

      Camino's better integrated with OS X and probably fractionally lighter on the resource requirements. Integration can mean more than you think - until relatively recent nightly builds, the OS X version of Firefox didn't support the middle mouse button, for example.

      OS X manages things like proxies and other network settings as part of the OS, so you can relatively easily (but not seamlessly, alas) switch from Ethernet to WLAN to modem connections just by selecting the configuration you're using from the App

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Trurl's Machine ( 651488 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @07:50AM (#12010454) Journal
      What does Camino offer that Firefox doesn't? The products seem to do much the same thing, and indeed, look virtually identical on the Mac. I guess my question is, why would somebody want to use Camino over Firefox?

      MacOS X has two native API's - carbon [apple.com] and cocoa [apple.com]. Carbon hardly has any virtues of its own, it's main advantage is that its relatively easy to port old, non-Unix Mac applications to Carbon, so whenever anyone has any project that has its roots still in last century, he sticks with Carbon. This is not just the case of various Mozilla-derivative projects but also of - say - Microsoft Office for MacOS. Cocoa is the "native native" API and here's where MacOS X really shines. If you use MacOS X a lot, you tend to hate Carbon and favor Cocoa because Cocoa apps offer much better overall integration with systemwide services, such as your favorite spellchecker, they generally run faster and consume less resources. Camino is Cocoa, Firefox is Carbon.
      • Comparing Carbon and Cocoa is like comparing apples and oranges for most purposes. They are both nice and useful but usually for very different things. From a theoretical standpoint you might be able to say that the Cocoa API is better designed than the Carbon API, but in real life you normally need to use one or the other for certain tasks and the decision doesn't come down to which API is "better." Cocoa's problem: you can only use it with Objective-C and Java. If you're using straight C++ or C, you need
  • The pages have been completely revamped with up-to-date information, useful and easy-to-read support pages, and, of course, pretty pictures.

    Unfortunately they forgot to upgrade the bandwidth as well.
  • by FlipmodePlaya ( 719010 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @10:56PM (#12007724) Journal
    I recently stumbled upon Kazehakase [freshmeat.net], which uses GTK+ and is available for Linux. It's in many ways a superior Gecko browser for Linux to Firefox, mostly because it avoids the drawbacks of XUL. It has mouse gestures, full text search and thumbnailed history, RSS, better tabbing (drag and drop of them, they can be displayed vertically, etc.), and I believe some sort of benefit for Japanses speakers. Despite their limited development base, I really think Firefox's platform-specific alternatives (including Camino and K-Meleon) are superior to it.
    • It all comes down to the ease of installs. I'll be honest, I hesitated alittle before installing firefox on linux. I feared too many dependencies etc.

      • It all comes down to the ease of installs. I'll be honest, I hesitated alittle before installing firefox on linux. I feared too many dependencies etc.

        Huh, weird.

        It's just I've never heard of anyone having an attitude quite like that. That is, if Firefox demanded a bunch of crazy shared libraries that all had to be installed, that would blow. But like many applications like it, as well as all the Moz apps that you download from their site, they've got it all linked in there. And they have for years. Ju
        • Hardest thing I found when using firefox on gnu/linux (Ubuntu for those playing at home) was getting Java to work. And this was just because I didn't know where to install it and changing bash_profile etc. It took about 2 minutes to find this out and get it working.

          I was initially disapointed as I had become lazy running the fox under win32 and the "click here to install this plugin" goodness.

    • Native widgets can be a mixed bag. I don't use Camino primarily because it uses native widgets for it's form elements (or some approximation thereof) and just like Safari, these widgets don't seem to be keyboard accessible. I've tried basically every browser available for the mac and in the end I keep end up in Mozilla because being able to set and toggle select boxes, radios, etc is a priceless feature and without it I feel handcuffed (fingercuffed?)
  • I was extremely annoyed by Camino's old tabbing system arbitrarily refusing to display more than 15 tabs. (a year or two ago, someone complained that tabs didn't look nice when they got really closely packed, and one of the developers decided to 'fix' things by pulling a number out of his hat, and simply ignoring any attempts to open more tabs than that)

    Now that I can load up my morning webcomics with a single click again, I may actually switch back from safari to Camino.

    Also, Safari & Firefox don't l
  • ...It's awful hard to live up to the standards set by Firefox & Safari on the Mac!

    I'm a Firefox diehard, but I find myself still launching Safari on occassion, either due to a neccesaiity (For instance, I don't fee; that DEVONthinks applescripts integrate as well with Firefox as they do with Safari), or just out of the "Wow, it feels so 'lightweight'" feeling that it brings to the table. And this is Firefox we're talking about here! It ain't no slouch when it comes to speed.

    In fact, until v1 of Fi
    • The reason? The plugins! If Safari supported Firefox's plugins, I would be in a major dillemma(sp?) about which to use.

      Agreed, one nice addition to camino functionality is the the extended preferences found here http://www.nada.de/mac/camino/cep.html [www.nada.de]

      The ExtraPrefs include a highly effective CSS based ad-blocking system, as well as features such as the ability to customize search engines, spoof your browser type, image control, window reuse etc.

      One nice thing about Camino tabs are their low profile -

    • by dn15 ( 735502 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @01:30AM (#12008898)
      On the other hand, if Safari follows KDE's lead (Safari's still based off Konqueror/KDE code, I believe), and ports the Moz rendering engine for use with Safari, they could, in theory at least, also make Firefox's plugins work also...
      The abundance of extensions for Firefox is in no small part thanks to the way the interface was handled (XUL.) Most of them would be useless in Safari even if it used Gecko, just like Camino can't currently use Firefox extensions either. To make them usable you'd have to adopt both the front-end and back-end of Firefox. And if you're going to do that, you might as well just use Firefox itself.
    • Unfortunately, you need to understand that Camino and Safari can *never* support Firefox extensions. Firefox extensions are written in XUL while both Camino and Safari use the native Cocoa environment. For this reason, you'll never get your extensions.

      On the other hand, the latest nightly builds of Camino support user-defined pref panels making the addition of new features very easy and completely configurable. If you're willing to write it, all those extensions can become pref panels.
  • by Goalie_Ca ( 584234 ) on Monday March 21, 2005 @11:08PM (#12007828)
    For a mac, firefox just doesn't cut it. I really love the extensions but i'm willing to live without them to have the power of the wheel mouse and other such useful things. Camino uses a nice native cocoa interface which makes a big difference in usability.
    • ill give you the interface, but exactly whats wrong with the way the mousewheel works? scrolls fine for me... unless you actually mean middle click, which is broken in the latest stable, but fixed in the trunk nightlies (of which im running a build with my own tweaks; ie. maximizing works the windows way. whats the point in a 128px gap on the right?)
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Scroll-wheels in OS X change focus with the mouse-cursor. This behavior extends to any app which is developed properly for OS X with the Cocoa toolkit. Most other apps (especially those ported from Windows or Linux) fail to behave this way, you have to click on something first before you can count on the wheel scrolling it. Using TextEdit on Windows drives me mad for this very reason. When I get home to my Mac, I want things to "Just Work."
    • This isn't flamebait. This is a valid and common concern amongst Mac users who look for interface consistency throughout their applications.
    • by dimator ( 71399 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @06:03AM (#12010083) Homepage Journal
      There's at least one extension that works pretty well under Camino, and once I installed it, Camino became a lot more responsive on my old-ish iBook. It's flashblock [macosxhints.com], and since I hate pretty much all flash, especially all the ads, this has been a great addition.

    • Actually, I worry about Camino. I find myself in a bit of a dilemma when it comes to browser choice in OSX. I like Safari because it's fast, slick, and includes features like built-in spellcheck. You know, generally it has the polish you'd expect from Apple, and I don't have a lot of problems with it.

      I like Firefox, especially for the fact that I can use the same browser on all my apps, but also for the extensions, and wide support among web-developers (it seems to me that Firefox is the second most sup

  • A new webpage is great but until the browser supports extentions its no good to me. browsing without adblock (amongst others) just doesnt feel like browsing anymore. why would one use camino over safari anyhow? exentions are the main reason i use firefox over safari; remove that from the equation and im not sure it would take much to make me swap
  • Cool website! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hopefully a new version of Camino will look this cool. I still like Camino most besides Safari, but lately I've been avoiding it because I hate to get attached to a piece of defunct software. Seriously, I thought Camino development was abandoned a while back, since it seems like it's been at 0.82 for friggin' ever. Now I can start using it again!

    Why Camino over Firefox? Camino is faster, uses fewer system resources, and has a beautiful Cocoa front end, meaning that it's GUI and widgets are all Aqua goo
  • Just downloaded 0.8.2 - first things first - glad to see that development is still ongoing with this browser. I had given it up for dead, though 0.8 was never deleted from my HD.

    I toggle between Firefox and Safari for the most part, but the one thing I love about Camino is it's speed. Firefox, by comparison, feels bloated - and Safari feels slow.

    I'm very anxious to see Camino hit the 1.0 milestone. Kudos to the developers.
  • Woohoo! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    God knows the best part about any browser is how good it's website is! Woohoo!
  • Camino looks better and renders faster, for sure. But the reason I use Firefox rather than Safari is the extension system, so it's still my browser of choice.
  • by lpangelrob2 ( 721920 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @02:09AM (#12009120) Journal
    I've had Camino 0.8 on my PB for a bit... it's been relegated to my 3rd browser, though. It's not a bad browser by any means.

    +Nicer tabs
    +Better scrolling
    +Better integration
    -No Mozilla extensions. :-(
    -So no way to block Flash or images natively
    +Much better preference panel
    +Pretty close functionality to Safari.
    +Fastest of the three, it seems.

    -A little glitchy at times
    +Very good extensions support
    +Works mostly the same as Firefox on other platforms
    -Integration with OSX not so good, nor is it supposed to be.
    -Slow at times.

    +Just works
    -No way to block annoying Flash popups

    Safari works for most things, Firefox works for the rest, and Camino sort of just ends up out there in case the first two don't work.

    • Here is a short tip on how to enable Flash blocking for OmniWeb and Camino:

      http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20050 313224837662 [macosxhints.com]

      I don't know about Safari or image-blocking, sorry.

    • I'm replying to you, but really, this is for everyone who complains about no flash/popup/ad/whatever blocking in Safari, as well as lack of serious tab control.

      Saft [softpedia.com]

      PithHelmet [culater.net]

      Yes, they cost money. Yes, they are worth it. No, I don't care if Firefox can do this for free.
    • >Safari:
      >-No way to block annoying Flash popups

      It won't fix everything, but a custom /etc/hosts file like this one [mvps.org] will kill a lot of ads, including lots of Flash. Takes a bit of work on OS X--you can't just 'sudo cat hosts.txt >> /etc/hosts', you have to 'sudo -s' and actually *be* root before you add their hosts file to yours. Not sure why, but once it's working, it's great.
      • you can't just 'sudo cat hosts.txt >> /etc/hosts', you have to 'sudo -s'

        I'm not anywhere I can test this right now but I can make some suppositions that might or might not hold up.

        It appears to me that the problem with your command is that the append redirection ('>>') is being executed by the same shell by which sudo is being executed. This means that it does not have the permissions that are granted by sudo to the child shell that executes the "cat" command. What you would want to do wou

  • For everyone who thinks Camino is speedy versus Firefox and Safari, you should search the mozillazine forums for arch optimized nightlys of it... The closest comparation I can make is when the roadrunner goes "Beep-Beep" and leaves the coyote in the dust. :P
  • Yes. They could have started by not ruining their nice design by using Jpegs [caminobrowser.org] for text.
    That aside it's a very nice site for a very nice browser.
  • choice for old Macs (Score:3, Informative)

    by BibelBiber ( 557179 ) on Tuesday March 22, 2005 @04:31AM (#12009740)
    This browser is certainly the best choice if you have Panther on something like an iBook 500 with just about 400MB Ram. Safari tends to be slow, FF doesn't scroll well and is too heavy for my system (and doesn't feel right under OS X) So Camino does really do a nice job. And if you feel that 0.8.2 is too old, why not use a nightly. They work perfectly most of the time.
  • ...and I've stated the reason before [slashdot.org].

    Why it has to be so hard to implement this kind of basic functionality? There are at least three bugs in Camino's Bugzilla that are related to this.
  • AFAICS (and I've just tried) Camino still doesn't support automated proxy configurations, eg load a .pac file from the Network preferences.

    Works with Safari and Mozilla but nothing else so far.
  • I have three browsers on my machine, Safari, Camino, and Firefox. I use them in that order.

    I would like to use FireFox more often, but the hideous Windows interface is unbearable. I can deal with it for a couple of sites every now and then than are broken under the other two, but that is about it.

    Camino is a great start, but does not offer the full features of the other two browsers. It would be unusable for day to day use, I think (I am sure there are people that use it day in and day out, but for me it

APL hackers do it in the quad.