Is Firebox the only browster for Ubuntu?
Depending on the desktop there also Epiphany (http://projects.gnome.org/epiphany/) for Gnome and Konqueror http://www.konqueror.org/ for KDE. You may also install Opera http://www.opera.com/
There are litterally hundreds of browsers avaliable, and a lot of them are avaliable in the Ubuntu repositories.
BUT, the ‘best’ browser available on Linux (by a long stretch) is Google Chrome, this is a graph of the Javascript benchmarks, orange line is Firefox, Green line is Chrome. (graph shows time taken, so smaller is better)
I don’t agree personally. In my humble opinion it’s hideous and lacks features.
I don’t think Javascrpt is the defining factor of what makes a fast browser. It also doesn’t say anything about the security of Chrome. If we are going to go purely on “fastness” then surely links, lynx, links2 or something similar would win hands down as they can’t get bogged down by Javascript / images or styling.
At the end of the day it’s down to preference. I currently use Conkeror on both my Arch desktop and my Crunchbang laptop.
Javascript didn’t use to be the defining factor, however it is now and it’s getting more so all the time - which is why Google put so much effort into making Chrome’s JS engine so quick, and why FF are trying so hard to match them. The black line that’s just caught up with the Orange line is Firefox’s new V4 Javascript engine, whereas the Orange line is the current Tracemonkey JS engine …
If we were talking 5,10,15,20% you’d be right, but just consider the scale of the difference in performance between the different browsers. FF is the next best browser and it’s 2-3 times slower than Chrome!
Obviously lynx can’t compete as a real browser as it can’t display websites properly in a way that people generally want to read them, but that aside, yes, it certainly is quick (!)
As far as I’m aware FF and Chrome both sport all the same sorts of standard features, with the exception that Chrome has a built-in development environment that makes Firefox’s Web Developer / Firebug extensions look like a Child’s toy. That said, Firefox has a huge number of third party plugins available for it that Chrome does not, and it’s going to take Chrome a long times to catch Firefox on that score.
One other fundamental, Chrome runs each page as a separate process, so a page crash will at worst close down a tab, whereas on Firefox, it’ll kill the entire browser - another area in which FF are trying to emulate Chrome. (it’s in the next FF release apparently)
I don’t think Javascrpt is the defining factor …
I currently use Conkeror …
You are aware that Conkeror is mainly written in Javascript, and apart from Javascript the innards are basically the innards of Firefox ?? 
Yeah I know, but like I say it comes down to preference. When I say Javascript isn’t the defining factor, I mean plenty of web pages run fine without it.
In my opinion, I don’t think there is a “best” browser, only that IE is awful 
I mean plenty of web pages run fine without it.
I’m sure there are … but any I might of heard of?
Note; pretty much every major website / online application is now employing Javascript and is using it more and more all the time …
Okay, let me rephrase. Almost all websites can run perfectly fine without Javascript.Disabling it does not reduce functionality in any great way.
With HTML 5 + CSS 3 around the corner, Javascript is most likely going to become obsolete.
Note: This is speculative of course.
Almost all websites can run perfectly fine without Javascript
Twitter? Facebook? Zimbra? eBay? Amazon? Tesco?
c’mon, if it worked just fine then they wouldn’t bother with the Javascript!
With HTML 5 + CSS 3 around the corner, Javascript is most likely going to become obsolete.
I’m not sure what you’ve been reading, but it ain’t accurate! CSS3 has some nice transitions etc, but it’s not a programming language!
Not really true, Javascript adds convince, the ability to update pages automatically without a refresh is a big bonus for many content driven sites. However, disabling Javascript or using a browser without Javascript support will still happily load the pages and allow for updates with a page refresh.
No, but HTML5 is (client side). Considering people have already got Quake 2 to run entirely in the browser using HTML5 I would hazard a guess that it can / will end up doing more than Javascript.
Ok, there is so much more to Javascript than avoiding pages refreshes that I won’t go into it here, but although HTML5 is quoted as obsolescing the likes of Adobe Flash, MS Silverlight and Java FX, Javascript is PART of the HTML5 specification, indeed one of the quotes about the spec is that “HTML 5 promises is that JavaScript will become a multi-threaded language so that it executes more efficiently”.
So yes, with the advent of HTML5 you will be able to do ‘more’ in markup without having to resort to scripting, and you will see a more powerful client side scripting language, but that language is not “HTML5”, it’s just that the HTML5 specification includes Javascript and some enhancements to Javascript. In the words of Eric A. Meyer;
But HTML is not getting for loops or switch statements. That's going to stay with JavaScript. In that sense, no, HTML is not becoming a programming language.
…
Considering people have already got Quake 2 to run entirely in the browser using HTML5
I’m afraid this is headlineitus. Read more carefully;
"GWTQuake" took Jake2, and run it through Google’s Web Toolkit (a framework and compiler for writing web apps in Java) to convert it to a collection of HTML5 Canvas / Audio / Video and [b]JavaScript[/b].
Note that there is a lot of Javascript in GWT … !
Take a look at some of these articles which address HTML5 in more depth …
http://www.sencha.com/blog/2010/05/23/html5-now-with-20-percent-more-internet/
http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/03/why-html5-is-worth-your-time.html
http://www.webreference.com/authoring/languages/html/HTML5/
I will admit I had not really looked into the Quake 2 GWT port so I see I was wrong in making the assumtion.
However, the quote:
“HTML 5 promises is that JavaScript will become a multi-threaded language so that it executes more efficiently”
Means that the language itself will be more efficent, bringing all new browsers (after its release) down on Javascript rendering time.
Perhaps I have been misinformed on some things, but I still don’t see how Javascript rendering is the defining factor over what you state (albiet in inverted commas) is the ‘best’ browser.
I would have to say Firefox is the ‘best’ because it includes everything. Has pretty good rendering times, has a plethora of plugins and customisation options and good security features (which can be enhanced by plugins).
Chrome is still in its infancy compared to more established browsers, but there is very little in the way of customisation or extensability (sp?). So perhaps it’s the ‘fastest’ browser avaliable, but ‘best’ is only really an opinion projected as fact.
Please do not take this post as a flame, just my perspective. I will bow to the facts in your last post, but I just don’t agree with your opinion on what is best.
Means that the language itself will be more efficent, bringing all new browsers (after its release) down on Javascript rendering time.
Assuming all browsers implement the spec fully and bring in multi-threading, then they will all increase in overall performance … proportionally. On this basis alone, Chrome will still be 2-3 times faster than FF (!)
Perhaps I have been misinformed on some things, but I still don't see how Javascript rendering is the defining factor over what you state (albiet in inverted commas) is the 'best' browser.
Then spend a little time reading up on “what’s comming”. When M$ ditch M$ Office on PC’s and switch entirely to their new hosted solution, you might find that a factor of two or three speed difference when running ‘Word’ or ‘Excel’ simply makes Firefox a non-starter … just for example (!)
http://www.pcworld.com/article/168309/microsoft_office_vsgoogle_docs_a_web_apps_showdown.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jun/15/microsoft-office-web-app-reviewed
Chrome extensions API is here;
http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/getstarted.html
‘best’ is a truly subjective term and you’re quite right, it has no real meaning. Breaking it down, Chrome is the fastest and most reliable but Firefox currently has by far the most third party extensions. The latter however tends to mean that as a by-product, in practise, Firefox is generally even less reliable, even slower and FAR more insecure!
Just as a matter of interest, Google’s API is much nicer than FF and it has more built-on themes to choose from. It’s only a matter of time before Chrome catches FF on extensions, the question is whether FF can catch Chrome on speed and reliability (!)
Yeah, maybe I’m just stuck in my ways, but I really don’t like Chrome
I can’t believe you just mentioned an MS product as an example though 
Also, while obviously all browsers will speed up; the difference will not be as perspectively substantial as the time gets closer to instant rendering and beyond the speed our brains can notice the difference.
I can't believe you just mentioned an MS product as an example thoughSorry, but it's usually Windows users who stick to a given product just because they're used to it .. ;)
When NCSA Mosiac came out, I thought it was Wonderful! But when Netscape came out I’m afraid Mosiac was history …
as the time gets closer to instant rendering and beyond the speed our brains can notice the difference.You just had to go there .. (!) ;)
Bah, think I’ll go sit in the corner and wait for Firefox 4.0 to be release 
Awesome video… where do you find em (and before someone says “youtube”… it was a rhetorical question)
Bah, think I'll go sit in the corner and wait for Firefox 4.0 to be release
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/4.0b1/releasenotes/
But it’s not going to help (!)
When someone creates a nagios addon for Chrome, I’ll be able to switch. Till then, I’m stuck with Firefox