Tiny Core Linux
Off-Topic => Off-Topic - Tiny Core Lounge => Topic started by: Ulysses_ on April 04, 2011, 03:11:48 PM
-
Just made a list of all lightweight graphical browsers available. Has anyone got experience with any of them or opinions?
dillo
chimera2
arora
links
midori
dooble
netsurf
surf
How do they compare with supposedly fast chrome-based ones below?
iron (chrome minus the tracking)
chromium
chrome
-
Not forgetting Qt Web Browser - which is (under Windows) makes an excellent second choice i.e. just fireup and loads in seconds.
http://www.qtweb.net/ (http://www.qtweb.net/)
Portable Qt-based web browser. Customizable GUI. Privacy features.
QtWeb is a fast, lightweight and portable browser with some unique UI and privacy features. QtWeb is an open source project based on Nokia's Qt framework (former Trolltech) and Apple's WebKit rendering engine (the same as being used in Apple Safari and Google Chrome).
Now available for Windows, MacOS X, Linux and Unix for Intel platforms!
There is a linux/unix version that I have not got round to trying.
Will it run under TC? - don't know.
Linux & Unix Application (elf386): QtWeb-elf386.zip (13.4 MB)
Unzip and change 'QtWeb' file attributes to be able to execute application
Runs on Linux: Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva, RedHat, Oracle, OpenSUSE, Fedora, CentOS, ...
Runs on Unix: PC-BSD (Intel platform)
http://www.qtweb.net/downloads/QtWeb-elf386.zip (http://www.qtweb.net/downloads/QtWeb-elf386.zip)
Open Source
http://code.google.com/p/qtweb/ (http://code.google.com/p/qtweb/)
-
In my view opera9 (for everything with frames, javascript and flash) and dillo (for everything sane) are the best.
And I hate chrome.
-
+1 for Dillo
Doesn't work on all sites, but for the many that it does work on, you often get an better version of the page (IMO) than with Firefox, for example.
-
QTWeb for Linux works absolutely fine with TC. Also tested it with Flash Player plugin - absolutely no problem.
A nice and fast browser that renders all websites that I've tested perfectly but it is not really small (14 Mb binary).
-
QTWeb for Linux works absolutely fine with TC. Also tested it with Flash Player plugin - absolutely no problem.
A nice and fast browser that renders all websites that I've tested perfectly but it is not really small (14 Mb binary).
That's 42MB when un-upx'ed.
Appears to be a fork of arora.
-
42 :o is that with all libs static? Still would be huge...
-
linux-gate.so.1 => (0xb7efb000)
libjpeg.so.62 => /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.62 (0xb7ed5000)
libpng12.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpng12.so.0 (0xb7eb2000)
libgobject-2.0.so.0 => /usr/local/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 (0xb7e76000)
libSM.so.6 => /usr/lib/libSM.so.6 (0xb7e6f000)
libICE.so.6 => /usr/lib/libICE.so.6 (0xb7e5a000)
libXrender.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXrender.so.1 (0xb7e52000)
libfontconfig.so.1 => /usr/local/lib/libfontconfig.so.1 (0xb7e24000)
libfreetype.so.6 => /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6 (0xb7db6000)
libXext.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXext.so.6 (0xb7da9000)
libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib/libX11.so.6 (0xb7ca8000)
libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0xb7c94000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0xb7c90000)
libgthread-2.0.so.0 => /usr/local/lib/libgthread-2.0.so.0 (0xb7c8c000)
librt.so.1 => /lib/librt.so.1 (0xb7c84000)
libglib-2.0.so.0 => /usr/local/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0xb7ba1000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0xb7b8a000)
libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (0xb7acf000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0xb7aab000)
libgcc_s.so.1 => /usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0xb7aa1000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0xb7968000)
libuuid.so.1 => /lib/libuuid.so.1 (0xb7964000)
libexpat.so.1 => /usr/local/lib/libexpat.so.1 (0xb7943000)
libXdmcp.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXdmcp.so.6 (0xb793e000)
libXau.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXau.so.6 (0xb793b000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7efc000)
A bit surprised it is shipped upx'ed but unstripped.
Stripping with sstrip brought it down to 35MB.
-
Just to get a quick indication of size, I squashed the binary, which results in 18MB of size.
[NOTE: Such is not an optimal working solution, as QtWeb for portability reason by default places all dynamic user profile files into same dir as which the binary is run from, and of course that needs to be writable. It seems otherwise /tmp is used for dynamic files.]
Arora of which QtWeb seems to be a fork is 25MB from repo.
So, from this perspective, it suddenly looks no longer that bad for a binary which must be including at least webkit and QT.
After some more testing, I found following:
Running QtWeb upx'ed as shipped results in 40MB of initial (about:blank) res mem usage.
Running after un-upx'ing results in 11MB.
(Stripping and/or squashing do not seem to influence initial res mem usage).
:o
-
QTWeb for Linux works absolutely fine with TC. Also tested it with Flash Player plugin - absolutely no problem.
Besides from flashplayer I found it also opened an ogg file out of the box with the mplayerplugin I had already installed from before. :D
-
Just to get a quick indication of size, I squashed the binary, which results in 18MB of size.
[NOTE: Such is not an optimal working solution, as QtWeb for portability reason by default places all dynamic user profile files into same dir as which the binary is run from, and of course that needs to be writable. It seems otherwise /tmp is used for dynamic files.]
On further examination...
If QtWeb is symlinked into $PATH, and then just called by executable name, it seems to place all dynamic user profile files into pwd ::)
-
Remains to be seen how fast it is then, this QTWeb browser, compared with opera.
-
Remains to be seen how fast it is then, this QTWeb browser, compared with opera.
Both feel fast enough for me what concerns speed of operation.
I could not compare initial startup speed, as QtWeb would start with homepage, while when starting opera I would either have to agree to the EULA or continue with last session, so it would depend how many minutes it takes on how many hundreds of tabs open in how many windows :P
-
Just made a list of all lightweight graphical browsers available. Has anyone got experience with any of them or opinions?
dillo
chimera2
arora
links
midori
dooble
netsurf
surf
How do they compare with supposedly fast chrome-based ones below?
iron (chrome minus the tracking)
chromium
chrome
off topic, you might want to read the Why no one should use the „Iron“ Chromium fork (http://thoughtyblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/why-no-one-should-not-use-the-iron-chromium-fork/) article
back on topic: i tried dillo, qtbrowser and midori, midori seamed really nice but it was misbehaving
in the end i got so used to the chromium features that i can't live without them
i tried setting up firefox like chromium but it missbehaved so i came back
-
Dillo is really nice though there are some issues concerning compatibility with other web sites. Though the experience could be at par, if not even better, than Firefox and other browsers in my opinion.
I would like to see this as a full blown but still light weight browser. I am not sure though if that would still be light on computing resources.
I do not like Chrome as well.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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..
;)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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:
filetool.sh -d | egrep -v "Performing dry run|^Total|^$" | sort -n
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
;)
-
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.