Talk:List of web browsers for Unix and Unix-like operating systems

Untitled

This page seems very unnecessary. Why have a page for Linux web browsers? The comparison for web browsers is fine for seeing what browsers support Linux/Unix.

I really think that if there's any information on this page that isn't already on Comparison of web browsers, it should be moved there and this page deleted. It's really very unsightly to have a seperate page for something that is a proper subset of either List of web browsers or Comparison of web browsers. 70.233.75.157 (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither Comparison of web browsers or List of web browsers include a supported operating system value. Danstoner (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I use Linux and was looking for web browsers for me to use and found this list quite useful.P2me 22:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Would Comparison of web browsers have been as useful (it's a bit more complicated, as it gives more details about the browsers, but that might be a feature if you're looking for browsers to use). Guy Harris (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that Sequerome is a web browser. Pardon me if I am wrong, but it seems that it is not exactly.

Shouldn't Galeon be marked as discontinued? PuercoPop (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A column of "Discontinued" (Y/N) would be useful.Gc9580 (talk) 01:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The discontinued browser are marked in the first column with a different color. mabdul 10:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with previous comment, a distinct column for status would be useful for sorting, etc. Color as an indicator is not accessible. Also the colors happen to be lost in my browser, they all look the same. I may try to add column "development status" with Active or Discontinued, etc. Danstoner (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Mac OS X browsers

Shouldn't Safari be in here as well as other OS X browsers? Mac OS X is a certified UNIX operating system. Brian Reading (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added these browsers to the list. If there are any issues, they can be discussed here. Thanks! Brian Reading (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the title of the page, they belong here. If somebody thinks they don't belong here, that suggests that the title of the page is wrong - they probably mean "List of web browsers for X11 on Unix-like systems" or something such as that. Guy Harris (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly helpful to include Mac-only browsers here. Yes, Mac OS X is "a Unix" but browsers based on vendor-specific APIs aren't really "Unix web browsers" as the inclusion of "Unix" seems, to me at least, to convey a sense of generality. At a minimum, single-platform browsers should be noted. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What about desktop-environment-specific APIs? If you don't have the KDE libraries on your system, I don't think Konqueror would run, for example. Guy Harris (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Probably not a bad idea to note the toolkit for every Unix browser, then. This page should be reworked as a sortable table, with engine and toolkit as columns. ⇔ ChristTrekker 00:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sort of like the tables in Comparison of web browsers? Guy Harris (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Similar to those, but with much less detail. Just the rendering engine (good shorthand for browser capabilities) and UI toolkit (pertinent to whether it will work (at all/very well) in your GUI or not, since Unix is not monolithic in the UI sphere). ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

XUL?

I'm not convinced all the Mozilla-derived browsers should be changed to list toolkit as XUL instead of GTK. I build from source occasionally, and I know that GTK is a dependency when I do. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WTAF? vandalism?

Mabdul, please explain your reversions, or I'll revert them back. I don't see how WP:WTAF can apply to external links. My edits are good faith. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

sry for the late response: I wasn't at home. You could take two mayor wp article: WP:WTAF and WP:REDLINK: both together explain that we couldn't really include all browsers. They have no article because of lack ressources, it's mostly not notable or it is advertisement. If links there the only condition then this list would really long. look in the histories of this article and of list of web browsers and recognize how much advertisement is! Write first articles and I won't remove the included links. I also will help to expand the article (if you see my contributions you will see that nearly every edit is for articles about browsers!) hope that explains my reverts. mabdul 00:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a list article. I don't see how a one-line entry to a browser in active development (not some long-forgotten single-developer hobby project) merits removal. There's not enough information for a full article, and it's probably not notable enough anyway. But complete removal? The policies you cite are about red links, not external links. They don't apply in this case. If they did, you'd never be able to mention anything on WP unless it had its own article already. I think it's pretty obvious that's not the intent.

You mention advertisement…would it make you happier to remove the link altogether? How does that benefit users of this site? If the problem is advertisement, then cite a policy against external linking as your rationale. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Opera changes from Presto to Chrome

It seems the Opera browser has changed engine from its own Presto to Chrome's engine. Could somebody in the know please look into it, for possible changes to the page? cheers/Rolf 85.231.111.136 (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)