Web Browsers

Forum Forums General Software Web Browsers

This topic contains 111 replies, has 29 voices, and was last updated by rokytnji Sep 18-8:56 am.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 112 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #19387
    Member
    koolstofje
    koolstofje

    Min browser is it a new browser?
    Chromium based

    ps_mem.py on antixorum: 263.1 MiB + 109.6 MiB = 372.8 MiB min (5)

    Minbrowser looks good to my 🙂

    #19390
    Moderator
    masinick
    masinick

    Here is a link for those interested in the min web browser.

    https://minbrowser.github.io/min/

    Brian Masinick

    #19397
    Member
    Avatar
    andfree

    $ min
    min: /lib/i386-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.27′ not found (required by min)

    • This reply was modified 8 months ago by andfree.
    #19399
    Avatar
    Anonymous

    @ masinic:

    That’s the same link that was posted in #13576 from November 21, 2018 at 6:37 am.

    Unfortunately, if you wanna use the net, you’re only choices are the choice between Chrome or Firefox.

    I like Min and I like Epiphany (Internet, GnomeWeb), but they all, either are not working, or are missing some important features or are insecure.

    #19420
    Moderator
    masinick
    masinick

    The statement below, (at least as written) is absolutely inaccurate.

    There are countless Web browsers that are available and work just fine. For example, using either MX, antiX, or a slew of other Linux-based distributions, I can use either the released, Developer Edition, Alpha, Beta, or even Nightly builds of any Mozilla-based Web browser, including Firefox or Firefox-ESR, Seamonkey, Waterfox, etc.

    The list is similarly long for Chrome-based Web browsers – Google Chrome in many variations, from the common released version to any number of unreleased test versions; same with Chromium, Flashpeak Slimjet, Vivaldi, Brave, zombrero, and many more.

    Do you mean that only certain browsers are included by default, or that only certain browsers work on a particular system, particularly old 32-bit systems where the support for 32-bit images has sharply dwindled? If so, I can understand this, but receiving an Email message, without looking back to previous comments, I have no idea what you mean, so please clarify your intent and then I’ll understand better – regardless of what previous discussions may say.

    What functionality and security features do Brave and Flashpeak Slimjet lack? Same with Waterfox, Vivaldi, and Opera?

    @ masinick:

    That’s the same link that was posted in #13576 from November 21, 2018 at 6:37 am.

    Unfortunately, if you wanna use the net, you’re only choices are the choice between Chrome or Firefox.

    I like Min and I like Epiphany (Internet, GnomeWeb), but they all, either are not working, or are missing some important features or are insecure.

    Brian Masinick

    #19422
    Avatar
    Anonymous

    So — you are recommending something that you don’t even use or you use something, but don’t even know what.
    Your link is exactly the same that Anonymous (remember missTell?) posted already back in November.

    https://github.com/minbrowser/min/issues/440#issuecomment-338080554

    And — under ‘security’ we obviously understand something else.

    For me it was in a sense of: when an security update comes out today, I wanna have it today.
    Not tomorrow, not after tomorrow and also not a couple of days later.
    This you get only with Chrome and Firefox.

    In a couple of weeks or months, Epic will catch up (main version is the same as Chromium it’s based on, subversion differs). 😉
    That said — if they’re still around at the given time. 😉 Already second good laugh today. 🙂
    🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Most security holes are anyway found by Google research team and everybody is soon using Presto — Edge included.
    Opera and Vivaldi are fine, but they are not better then Chrome in one way but definitely worse in another.
    Opera has one feature that my seem promising — it includes VPN connection.
    On the other side, they miss the most valuable stuff from Chrome.
    Owned by Chinese is also not everybody’s piece of cake.
    And — if I need VPN, I’m choosing my provider.
    Microsoft’s Edge is soon ‘Edgium’…

    P.S.
    You forgot Pale Moon and ‘Yandexium’ on your list. 😉
    Netsurf, Dillo, Links, Lynx and some … 🙂
    Have fun surfing! 😉

    #19426
    Moderator
    masinick
    masinick

    Thanks, I believe I understand your perspective now, as well as your comments.

    Given your concerns, I understand why so few Web browsers are even worth your consideration. Thank you for the clear explanation.

    Brian Masinick

    #19430
    Avatar
    Anonymous

    Beside those ‘security concerns’, there are also other good reasons to stick with Chrome/Chromium.
    Google Chromes Web Developer Tools are irreplaceable and are inferior or missing in those clones.
    Also, Google is making the web standards. Whatever new feature comes out, Chrome supports it.

    The list of web browsers is pretty long:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers

    Theoretically, one has a huge choice, but from one or the other reason, it’s quickly getting shorter and shorter when one starts trying/using them.

    #20421
    Member
    Mynaardt
    Mynaardt

    I’m also rather partial to both Vivaldi and Opera.

    For my needs they do most anything (that I’m aware of) that Firefox or Chrome/Chromium can do.
    And at least for what I do for browsing, they both seem to run a bit faster and use a bit less RAM besides.

    I hadn’t heard of Min before now.
    I’ll check it out. It (usually) doesn’t hurt to try new apps…

    • This reply was modified 7 months, 1 week ago by Mynaardt.
    • This reply was modified 7 months, 1 week ago by Mynaardt.

    antiX is your computer's friend: always trust the antiX operating system

    #21907
    Member
    ile
    ile

    hello partsman and everyone
    it doesn’t hurt to try basilisk. modern. all videos so far play. pdf handling. bookmarks. downloads. trying it on 19-a2 works well. 64 bit only now. Threw skinny tabs on it. The palemoon experts around here have not pushed basilisk. it is quite okay into this light use so far. running the unzip out of a folder in /home. Have checked the sites where trouble has been encountered in the past,, it is working great; not a bit of fiddling to have the function.
    open single tab to antiXforum in each;
    250.2 MiB + 82.1 MiB = 332.3 MiB firefox-esr (3)
    341.4 MiB + 7.4 MiB = 348.8 MiB basilisk

    #21915
    Member
    Avatar
    skidoo

    In this post I’m not recommending.
    I am also not “arguing”, not trying to convince anyone to stop using browserX and start using browserY.

    Currently, for me the most appealing, most meritworthy “alternative” browser project is one which hasn’t yet been mentioned in this topic (and isn’t even listed on the wikipedia page that noClue linked) ~~ “uncloudium” (aka “ungoogled-chromium”)

    .

    Neither its exact set of applied patches nor the exact choice of as-shipped default preferences suit my usage, but the project provides a tailored-for-debian “source + build instructions” branch.

    Yes, it is (essentially) a “one man band” project… but so is antiX.
    Also, like antiX, the project has been underway across several years yet remains largely unknown ~~ a hidden gem.

    Yes, application of upstream security patches is delayed (typically around 2wks, check my math) and, yes, manual updates are probably necessary. Furthermore, manual installation//update of any browser extensions is necessary.

    #21917
    Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yes, application of upstream security patches is delayed …

    … is unfortunately the usual issue with everything except Chrome / Firefox.

    Linux only adds to the trouble.

    🙁 🙁 🙁

    * Today came the latest Firefox 67 out and my Windows & Mac are running it already.

    Disclaimer:
    It’s not supposed to be pro/contra Troll-Post … just ‘noticing’ the facts.

    #22639
    Member
    ile
    ile

    hello everyone
    64 bit on antiX19-a2
    follow-up with the basilisk[2019.03.27] and firefox[60.6.3esr] browsers.
    now consistent that basilisk runs lower on Mem.
    with equivalent two tabs
    264.8 MiB + 6.3 MiB = 271.1 MiB basilisk
    325.7 MiB + 96.3 MiB = 422.0 MiB firefox-esr (4)

    and then equivalent three tabs; basilisk reduced and firefox increased.
    259.0 MiB + 6.0 MiB = 265.0 MiB basilisk
    406.9 MiB + 88.8 MiB = 495.8 MiB firefox-esr (5)
    The two are VERY similar . basilisk on some sites gives a bit different page, very clean, appearance.
    now the three + two more tabs=five tabs in basilisk and the same three in firefox[increased in the minutes of typing this. it is the “about” window.]
    284.9 MiB + 5.9 MiB = 290.8 MiB basilisk
    418.1 MiB + 95.0 MiB = 513.1 MiB firefox-esr (5)
    Both great browsers.

    #27238
    Moderator
    masinick
    masinick
    #27239
    Member
    Avatar
    greyowl

    Thanks for the information on FF.
    I notice on the version list that the current esr is version 68.
    I am running antiX 17 and my FF is only updated to 60.9.0.
    Is it possible to get it to update to 68 when I do sudo apt-get dist-upgrade?

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

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 112 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.