Web Browsers

[Member koolstofje]

Helpful

Up

0

::

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 🙂

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

0

::

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

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

--
Brian Masinick

[Member andfree]

Helpful

Up

0

::

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

• This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by andfree.

[Anonymous]

Helpful

Up

0

::

@ 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.

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

0

::

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?

Anonymous wrote:

@ 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

[Anonymous]

Helpful

Up

0

::

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! 😉

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

0

::

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

[Anonymous]

Helpful

Up

0

::

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.

[Member Mynaardt]

Helpful

Up

0

::

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 4 years, 1 month ago by Mynaardt.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by Mynaardt.

What have the Romans ever done for us?
Apart from: sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, fresh water, and public health?

[Member ile]

Helpful

Up

0

::

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

[Anonymous]

Helpful

Up

0

::

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.

[Anonymous]

Helpful

Up

0

::

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.

[Member ile]

Helpful

Up

0

::

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.

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Mozilla to release a new Firefox version every four weeks starting next year | ZDNet
https://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-to-release-a-new-firefox-version-every-four-weeks-starting-next-year/?ftag=TREc64629f&bhid=23403047214997188432561399691618

--
Brian Masinick

[Member greyowl]

Helpful

Up

0

::

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 D620 laptop with antiX 22 (64 bit)

[Author]

Posts