- This topic has 25 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated Feb 8-8:26 pm by Anonymous.
-
Posts
-
fusion809
Hi,
I realize that Firefox is a great, extensible browser but it’s a real RAM hog and I’m wondering why the antiX developers decided to use it as the default on a distribution that tries to be as light as possible. To be clear I know how to change browsers on my own antiX system, I’m just wondering why antiX developers chose to use Firefox as the default browser for antiX when lighter but still beginner-friendly browsers like Midori exist.
Thanks for your time,
Brenton
rokytnji
We have dillo and links2 also included. Or did you fail to notice this. Besides. We cannot reply with much till a
inxi -Fis at least posted for us to see your gear and install.
Edit: One has to cave into the masses with familiarity also. Midori has been a pain the butt for me on my P3 IBM T23 . Install from synaptic to see what I mean.
FWIW, I’m currently testing Bodhi Linux 3.0, which uses as its default browser Midori 0.5.10. It’s crashed several times, under undemanding conditions.
We used to use Qupzilla. But nothing but complaints using that also.
- This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by rokytnji.
- This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by rokytnji.
Sometimes I drive a crooked road to get my mind straight.
Not all who Wander are Lost.
I'm not outa place. I'm from outer space.Linux Registered User # 475019
How to Search for AntiX solutions to your problemsAh yes, I saw them. Links2 is more command-line oriented though. As for dillo well there are less user-friendly ones, but still I’m surprised Midori isn’t there as it’s a nice compromise. Didn’t realize such stability issues existed with Midori, I’m running Arch Linux as my host and Midori runs perfectly under it and under Bodhi it ran fine for me. Midori’s got both user-friendliness and minimalism. But I take your point, there are light options, even if they are a little extreme ones. As for your request for inxi -F, I’m just running it in a VM, and it’s got 4 GB RAM allocated to it (and I can go up to 12 GB RAM, only allocated 4 GB because that’s all it needs at most), so it’s not so much a concern related to my personal situation. I was just curious about this, hoping I could help make a slight improvement to this great distribution that’s all :). Sorry if I’ve upset you (which I’m mostly basing on your second sentence the “Or did you fail to notice this”, seemed a little annoyed or angry to me), as it’s not intended.
- This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by fusion809.
- This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by fusion809.
rokytnji
No. Not upset. I am a Linux using biker/motorcycle dude with tattoo’s and sometimes come across a little crude on computer forums.
I try and answer questions in my gruff ways. Sorry if I upset you. It was not my intention. I am not a mind reader. So I don’t know what you know till you post it. Hence the ” In case you did not notice” statement.
So now you know me a little better because I respond with more info. It is the holiday here for me. So I will not be as long winded as I usually am. Happy Thanksgiving if you have one. I will be enjoying mine. Rok.
Sometimes I drive a crooked road to get my mind straight.
Not all who Wander are Lost.
I'm not outa place. I'm from outer space.Linux Registered User # 475019
How to Search for AntiX solutions to your problems
BitJam
In the past we tried really hard to switch to a lighter browser but we got flooded with legitimate complaints and unhappy reviewers. It’s an unfortunate situation but we are stuck with it. I think it is easier for folks when we give them a browser that works like they expect while we provide an easy path to switch to something lighter for those who want it. Market forces seem to be driving web-sites and browsers towards more and more massive complexity and bloat. I admit it can seem kind of silly to have a system that works on 250M RAM when the browser can happily eat up several Gig or more.
Context is worth 80 IQ points -- Alan Kay
cyrilus31
And do not remember that Midori is no longer developed (last version was released more than two years ago) so I would not count on it too much.
Falkon (formerly Qupzilla) seems much more up to date
- This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by cyrilus31. Reason: typo
- This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by cyrilus31.
QupZilla is significantly heavier than Midori (my tests on Arch Linux show Midori uses 45.6 MiB RAM while QupZilla used 171.5 MiB), and while there hasn’t been a new release of Midori in 2 years it is still actively developed, you can check out the repo (http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~midori/midori/trunk/files) if you don’t believe this. I was going to suggest Pale Moon as a compromise, but it turns out based on my tests on Arch it’s even heavier than QupZilla.
rokytnji
QupZilla is significantly heavier than Midori (my tests on Arch Linux show Midori uses 45.6 MiB RAM while QupZilla used 171.5 MiB), and while there hasn’t been a new release of Midori in 2 years it is still actively developed, you can check out the repo (http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~midori/midori/trunk/files) if you don’t believe this. I was going to suggest Pale Moon as a compromise, but it turns out based on my tests on Arch it’s even heavier than QupZilla.
A lot of what you are talking about was gone over previously . Over here.
https://forum.mxlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=42828&start=40
https://forum.mxlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=38473
Seg Faults and all. Flash removals also.
HTH- This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by rokytnji.
Sometimes I drive a crooked road to get my mind straight.
Not all who Wander are Lost.
I'm not outa place. I'm from outer space.Linux Registered User # 475019
How to Search for AntiX solutions to your problemscyrilus31
QupZilla is significantly heavier than Midori (my tests on Arch Linux show Midori uses 45.6 MiB RAM while QupZilla used 171.5 MiB), and while there hasn’t been a new release of Midori in 2 years it is still actively developed, you can check out the repo (http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~midori/midori/trunk/files) if you don’t believe this. I was going to suggest Pale Moon as a compromise, but it turns out based on my tests on Arch it’s even heavier than QupZilla.
You must be joking. The vast majority of changes are automatic translations update. Almost nothing done during 2016 et nothing at all in 2017 (except snap packaging, wonderful…)
You can read this thread and particularly the answer from elementary OS founder. Midori is dead and potentially harmful
EDIT : sorry Roky did not see you answered just before
- This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by cyrilus31.
- This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by cyrilus31.
Thanks folks for clarifying why it’s not used. I see your reasons, Epiphany is also a lightweight browser, in fact I found its RAM usage was less than that of Midori. It is definitely actively developed as part of the GNOME Project.
cyrilus31
Anyway there’s a glimmer of hope. “It sounds like he is interested in doing a browser again at some point, but as I understand it Midori is currently dead”
So we can hope something from Midori’s creator.
As far as I am concerned, I only open 4-5 tabs in a session (don’t know how people have hundred tabs open at the same time) and 1 Go of ram is enough. But all modern webbrowser need lot of CPU ressources, and my old pentium 4 is not match for them.rokytnji
Meh. Stock sucks. In Linux and on Motorcycles. I customize both to fit my druthers/needs.
On my P3. I set it up way different than my I5 . Most everybody here lately has shown they run the latest gear. Only a few holdouts like me.
As for your request for inxi -F, I’m just running it in a VM, and it’s got 4 GB RAM allocated to it (and I can go up to 12 GB RAM, only allocated 4 GB because that’s all it needs at most),
Just for info. inxi works in VM also.
Sometimes I drive a crooked road to get my mind straight.
Not all who Wander are Lost.
I'm not outa place. I'm from outer space.Linux Registered User # 475019
How to Search for AntiX solutions to your problemsJust for info. inxi works in VM also.
Ya I was aware, the point wasn’t that I was concerned it wouldn’t work in a VM it was that my VM had lots of resources allocated to it so I wasn’t worried about how my own personal set up would handle Firefox (hence making inxi’s output irrelevant), I was asking a general question about whether a lighter browser should be used as the default on antiX. After all isn’t antiX meant to be designed to be suitable for older, resource limited, PCs?
- This reply was modified 5 years, 5 months ago by fusion809.
anticapitalista
As you already know, there really isn’t a lightweight modern browser out there that supports the features users (sometimes unrealistically on the old hardware they have) expect.
Firefox-esr is the best of a bad bunch IMO.Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.
Ya I’m seeing that, must admit I’m surprised given how heavy Firefox is. Epiphany is an option, even if it has some GNOME dependencies, it at least uses significantly less RAM than Firefox.
Guessing the pursuit of lightness and speed is why antiX uses SysV init instead of Debian 8 and later’s default, systemd. Unless, of course, antiX’s developers are just morally opposed to systemd (e.g. due to its Unix philosophy violations). Although even on that front I have a possibly better option to offer, but I suspect it would have already been considered by antiX’s developers, runit. runit causes systems to boot within seconds, significantly faster than SysV init and systemd. My Void Linux system running runit and i3 is incredibly fast and light. Uses less than 250 MB RAM easily. I also have a Gentoo system running runit that boots fast, runs fast and uses little resources with i3. runit is also in Debian’s official repos (https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=runit).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
