WelcomeWelcome | FAQFAQ | DownloadsDownloads | WikiWiki

Author Topic: Opinions on lightweight browsers  (Read 25418 times)

Offline hiro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
Re: Opinions on lightweight browsers
« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2011, 07:30:54 AM »
Dillo needs more developers who care to implement CSS and improve SSL handling, but Javascript and plugins - I don't know if it's worth implementing it. Perhaps we can soon switch back to gopher when HTML5 gets adopted by major web sites.

Offline TheNewbie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: Opinions on lightweight browsers
« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2011, 04:46:39 PM »
Depends a lot on the end user; what's lightweight? In terms of download speed, those still under .5 Mbps might only consider browsers under 10 MB, while those with 1Mbps+ might be satisfied with 30MB (which opens up a lot of possibilities).

Moreover, the experience you're looking for is also very subjective. I myself can't stand the browsers under 3 MB (including deps), simply for their lack of support for very common features (i.e. CSS, JS, SSL, plugins, and... Flash!). This is definitely not the case for some, who can live entirely off text, going so far as to abstain from images, (HTML formatted) tables, lists, etc.

All depends on your point of view.

Offline coreplayer2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3020
Re: Opinions on lightweight browsers
« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2011, 02:51:38 PM »
I think text only browsers belong back in the halls of museums. 

QT browser is only 13MB compiled binary complete (thought they advertise 6MB which is relative only the windows version) QT runs great, compatible with every web site i've used and has customizable  security features.  I made an extension with it, added a plugin's folder for flash and an icon for the wbar :)   I like the browser a lot.

I have been adopting an old notebook so have been trying many browsers,   each have their benefits and pitfalls it seems.  So far I find Minefield v4  offers the best combination of appearance, feel, performance and compatibility.  Heck even flash 10 works with sound!!  and the whole package is light in size and resources, leaving plenty cpu cycles to spare when in use.

For now, my old 650Mhz pentium III  is more than happy with minefield v4 and flash10.  I think I'm done searching..

;)

Offline beerstein

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 530
Re: Opinions on lightweight browsers
« Reply #18 on: July 22, 2011, 08:05:51 AM »
Hi:
I like midori and I use it when I "feel" Firefox is slow.
Yesterday I tried the google chromium in TC 3.8.rc2

Here is what I discovered: Every time I used Chromium and closed
it down and wanted to start Midori, Midori did not not start. Error Message" instance of Midori is running...." (similar)
This is really strange. Please try to reproduce it and let me know.

Maybe Chromium and Midori are somehow related?
t(w)o be(ers) or not t(w)o be(ers) that is the question

Offline netnomad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
Re: Opinions on lightweight browsers
« Reply #19 on: July 22, 2011, 09:34:12 AM »
i know this case in combination with minitube and so on.

when this problem arises, you can solve this by deleting ~/.dbus.
sometimes you need root-privileges to delete this dir.

i didn't notice any negative consequences.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2011, 09:50:02 AM by netnomad »

Offline netnomad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
Re: Opinions on lightweight browsers
« Reply #20 on: July 22, 2011, 09:49:10 AM »
i used midori now for some months and i started to love it.
everything seemed to work fine...
but with version 3.6 some misfunctions started, especially the cache is displayed with artifacts,
f.e. if you follow a link backwards.
in the actual version of midori the cookies are not deleted after leaving the program,
although the setup "delete after exit" should delete cookies, too.

my main reason to return back to firefox was that i think the plugin "no-script" is essentially for security and privacy!
what i don't like in firefox are these huge cache-, sql- and journal-files,
so i configured and optimized a trimmed down set of files as my minimum requirement and
reload them at every reboot.
the biggest size has the no-script-plugin, the rest is o.k.!


« Last Edit: July 22, 2011, 09:52:09 AM by netnomad »

Offline roberts

  • Retired Admins
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • Founder Emeritus
Re: Opinions on lightweight browsers
« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2011, 10:01:37 AM »
After using any new browser, I always open an xterm and run  filetool.sh -d
Then I can see any large cache and sqlite files that I will consider to add to .xfiletool.lst,
Repeating this process I can easily keep by backups quick.
10+ Years Contributing to Linux Open Source Projects.

Offline vinceASPECT

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
Re: Opinions on lightweight browsers
« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2011, 09:18:00 PM »
the fastest fully compatable browser i used in Linux is Minefield closely
followed by epiphany. Opera is very fast but things don't work out of the box
like flash.

Vince.

Offline netnomad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
Re: Opinions on lightweight browsers
« Reply #23 on: July 23, 2011, 07:47:29 AM »
After using any new browser, I always open an xterm and run  filetool.sh -d
Then I can see any large cache and sqlite files that I will consider to add to .xfiletool.lst,
Repeating this process I can easily keep by backups quick.

hi roberts,
can you sort the output of filetool.sh -d,
f.e. to sort per size through pipe or per option?
... to find the really big growing files easily!

hi vinceASPECT
is Minefield just a rebranded Firefox or are there more differences?

thanks
« Last Edit: July 23, 2011, 07:50:29 AM by netnomad »

Offline ixbrian

  • Retired Admins
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 436
Re: Opinions on lightweight browsers
« Reply #24 on: July 23, 2011, 10:08:40 AM »
can you sort the output of filetool.sh -d,
f.e. to sort per size through pipe or per option?
... to find the really big growing files easily!
thanks

You can sort the output with a command like this:

Code: [Select]
filetool.sh -d | egrep -v "Performing dry run|^Total|^$" | sort -n

Offline Jason W

  • Retired Admins
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9730
Re: Opinions on lightweight browsers
« Reply #25 on: July 23, 2011, 01:44:30 PM »
Namoroka, Shiretoko, Minefiled4, and Minefield5 are built with the urlclassifier disabled, which means you don't have that ever growing urlclassifier.sqlite file, they do not create one.

And that makes a huge difference over time in backups or RAM usage if /home is in RAM.

Offline hiro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
Re: Opinions on lightweight browsers
« Reply #26 on: August 22, 2011, 08:15:43 PM »
dillo2.tcz has been updated and there's a now a new dillo3.tcz extension available. dillo2 itself is considered stable but built against unstable fltk2 whereas dillo3 has yet to see a stable release, but already uses the stable fltk 1.3 library.

You'll probably also want to enable automatic redirection and cookies.
Please read the online documentation in order to create you own configuration.

Have fun.

Offline cast-fish

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
  • hi there
Re: Opinions on lightweight browsers
« Reply #27 on: August 29, 2011, 01:29:29 PM »
netnomad

sorry for such a late reply.

Minefield is somekind of stripped down Firefox.

It's extremely stripped down
and very fast.

As far as i am aware, it still functions in the same manner as
Firefox but is simple more lean and much faster.

The win32 version of Minefield always seems real quik.

I like QT web browser but can't find the extension of it for tcl.

I have used qt browser for many years. It is a nice quick easy browser.

Thanks

V.


Offline coreplayer2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3020
Re: Opinions on lightweight browsers
« Reply #28 on: September 02, 2011, 03:01:20 PM »
You can always make an extension with the QT browser with a link and an icon like I did..  although I use minefield 4 or 5 now on pc's with limited resources.

;)

Offline netnomad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
Re: Opinions on lightweight browsers
« Reply #29 on: September 03, 2011, 03:18:40 PM »
now i test and use icecat, it's like minefield6 but uses some plugins that should enhance the security...
additionally i load every time a basic and clean set of standard config files for my surf-session.
no sql or data-collecting journals or other suspect databases...
completed with noscript and some ssh-tunneled-proxies,
i guess that it could be a modern and secure way of web-experience...
no flash or script as long as i don't need them, all multimedia-stuff in that cases when i really want them.
and perhaps the gnu-project or the eff audit the config on the security aspects, too.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 03:23:25 PM by netnomad »