Default browser

Forum Forums News Announcements Default browser

This topic contains 55 replies, has 25 voices, and was last updated by cyrilus31 Apr 22-6:32 am.

Viewing 11 posts - 46 through 56 (of 56 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #9097
    Member

    greyowl

    I have been reading about the sound issue with FF and the change from Alsa to PulseAudio for Linux. See: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1345661

    Would this be a detractor from having FF Quantum as the default browser?

    Dell Latitude D610 laptop (1.86 GHz, 2G RAM, 32 bit) - antiX 17

    #9186
    Moderator
    masinick
    masinick

    I would like to see a return of the SeaMonkey browsing suite.

    I checked out several of the alternatives mentioned.

    Palemoon used the least amount of memory and CPU of the major options, so if this is the most important factor then Palemoon should have high consideration.

    SeaMonkey came in second in terms of resources utilized.

    Firefox releases from 57 (Quantum) forward performed much better than Firefox 52 ESR, so if Firefox 60 is the next ESR release, that is a good sign.

    I’ve used both Firefox and SeaMonkey for many years, including a lot of the daily builds and I can vouch for them. When we choose a derivative of either of these classic code bases, such as a Palemoon derivative or some other Mozilla offshoot, current code and security updates may represent a concern unless we have people capable of merging current security changes into the source code.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by masinick.

    Brian Masinick

    #9188
    Moderator
    masinick
    masinick

    I found resource consumption of the Palemoon and Firefox similar to the numbers that greyowl reported.

    I didn’t encounter issues, but the items mentioned by greyowl, combined with less rigorous support than found in the standard Mozilla based products are consistent with my concerns about the code support and testing in Palemoon or other browsers with similar history. The amount of testing that both SeaMonkey and Firefox enjoy are of significant importance, perhaps more than the amount of memory saved by using other alternatives.

    Given this, if we want to stick with Firefox, use the most current release available when we issue our next system but or go to the somewhat more resource conservative SeaMonkey.

    Brian Masinick

    #9197
    Forum Admin
    rokytnji
    rokytnji

    Yeah. I went with Seamonkey 1st because of the pulse audio firefox default new feature for having sound.
    If we decide p4 is the minimum requirement to run AntiX Full Iso.
    I see no problem.
    Maybe include some different browser option in base iso and mention it is for p3 or p2 systems.

    That is my take on all of this. By the way. The main site Anti for AntiX? The forum link on the L/H side takes you to the old forum. Just a mention is all.

    Beer, Bikes, and BBQ. It's what we do
    Linux Registered User # 475019
    How to Search for AntiX solutions to your problems

    #9209
    Member

    X180A

    …If we decide p4 is the minimum requirement to run AntiX Full Iso. I see no problem. Maybe include some different browser option in base iso and mention it is for p3 or p2 systems.

    I like that idea. I can tell you that the performance difference between Firefox and Palemoon on my older systems was the determining factor. So far I have only done a couple of Full installations and a few installations of Base. However, on those systems running the Base one of the first things I did was remove Firefox and replace it with Palemoon. It was not a matter of preference but more a matter of necessity.

    I’m happy with antiX the way it is. The people behind the project have done a wonderful job. Still, it’s worth mentioning that I only first heard of Palemoon and Seamonkey on this forum after I described how Firefox brought antiX to a standstill on an old laptop.

    AntiX and MX are both great OSes. But if I have a machine powerful enough to run Firefox quickly and smoothly without consuming a lot of resources why would I choose to install antiX on that machine instead of MX? Or to look at it the other way, wouldn’t the deciding factors used in choosing antiX over MX also apply when choosing between a low overhead browser and Firefox?

    #9210
    Moderator
    masinick
    masinick

    One additional comment regarding browsers:

    The primary audience I believe that we should be concerned about when selecting the browser of choice is:

    1. The new user
    2. The user with limited resources on their aging system

    While I personally believe that the first item (the new user) is the most important, the second one (limited
    resources) is a close second – and possibly the main criteria if we go back to the origins of antiX.

    Whatever we do, I’m fine with it because I have the capability to download and install whatever I want.
    For example, just prior to writing this note (on MX-17 today), I went out and manually downloaded Waterfox
    (a Firefox-based alternative) and entered several manual steps in order to add the additional Waterfox repo,
    set the repo key, configure, and then install; no problem. People who have such skills do not need any
    specific consideration, except for their knowledge and suggestions.

    I trust completely in those who will make the final decision from the comments and ideas provided.

    Brian Masinick

    #9258
    Member

    roytobin

    Hi,
    Based on tip in this thread, I tried Firefox 59 (quantum). Wow.

    Desktop with 1 GiB mem, 2.1 GB swap partition, 2-core intel atom 1.6 GHz.
    OS: antiX 17

    Speedwise, ff 59 makes this wimpy machine tolerable. Browsing response
    is noticeably improved over ff 52 ESR, the out-of-box default for antix17.
    ff 59 hasn’t crashed or misrendered yet, and I’ve been using since Apr 4,
    2018 when I heard about it (thanks wildstar84).

    One does need to get audio working with ff 59 manually.

    To others with such wimpy machines considering antiX: if you can, give
    the OS some swap. Best is a raw partition on hard disk rather than a swap
    file on some filesystem. This allows the OS to move inactive pages out of
    RAM to disk (paging), freeing more RAM for the active tabs of browsing.
    Idea: have AntiX installer suggest a swap partition if RAM is less than
    1.5 GB and user intends to attempt “heavyweight” browsing?

    To antiX captains: thanks for soliciting community input. firefox 59 and
    pulseaudio are good. The “base” iso file fitting on CD (not DVD) is good.
    One can always install more/different software later via GUI or CLI.

    roytobin

    #9270
    Member

    seaken64

    I always use Seamonkey. Good on resources and still supports some FF add-ons.

    Sean

    #9272
    Member

    BobC

    Palemoon downloaded 104 mb. Antix-viewer is required anyway, which brings in QT5, so would there be major savings by using a QT5 webkit based browser?

    I see Otter, Opera’s replacement, is testing, but not in repos that I know of. I didn’t try it, just wondering. I did try the appimage but it says the openssl is not installed. It looks like it wants an older version, ie not 1.1. Getting it to work otherwise is probably beyond my ability unless its in a repo or something.

    I see the version of Qupzilla is 1.89 in the repo, and when I tried it a couple years ago it wasn’t stable, but am trying the 2.2.6 current version just to see if its better. I downloaded the appimage to run just to test it,to see if the webkit is now stable, because before all the webkit based browsers had trouble. It was 88 mb. So far, so good, no crashes and this machine is pretty stressed. Too bad its moving to KDE I guess.

    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by BobC.
    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by BobC.
    #9538
    Member

    bobbiecb

    I’m new here and been playing around with the browsers to find out which works best for me.

    First — thank you to the antiX team for making so many browsers available (via Package Manager and Synaptic). Well done!

    Second — Informal Feedback based on my use —

    Opera — fast and good page rendering. Plus a cool look and a couple nice features like integrated ad-blocker and free vpn. My choice.
    Chromimium/Slimjet — fast and good page rendering. It’s good to turn off anti-privacy settings deep in the Advanced tab. My 2nd choice
    Firefox ESR/Palemoon — fast and good page rendering. Probably not as fast as Opera or Chromium/Slimjet
    Dillo and Netsurf — fast but don’t render most pages correctly. I wouldn’t normally use these.
    Qupzilla — blew up on me using 2 different computers. Fast but flaky (at least in my use of it).

    #9566
    Member
    cyrilus31
    cyrilus31

    In addition to speed may I suggest to add privacy to the quality a web browser should have?
    I’m more concerned about speed as I love using old hardware but somebody on MX french forum spoke about Abrowser, the native Trisquel web browser, boasting its privacy policy.

    • This reply was modified 2 days ago by cyrilus31.
Viewing 11 posts - 46 through 56 (of 56 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.