Browser replacement? (Solved, for now!)

Message
Author
User avatar
penguin
Posts: 260
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:15 pm

Re: Browser replacement?

#21 Post by penguin »

try opera !
try slimjet!

User avatar
Gordon Cooper
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: Browser replacement?

#22 Post by Gordon Cooper »

I am quite happy with Pale Moon
Backup: Dell9010, MX-19_B2, Win7, 120 SSD, WD 232GIB HD, 4GB RAM
Primary :Homebrew64 bit Intel duo core 2 GB RAM, 120 GB Kingston SSD, Seagate1TB.
MX-18.2 64bit. Also MX17, Kubuntu14.04 & Puppy 6.3.

User avatar
Stevo
Developer
Posts: 12774
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: Browser replacement?

#23 Post by Stevo »

Bierhundt wrote:Qupzilla has some issues for me, so I'm trying out Seamonkey for a while. I gotta say that Seamonkey is much faster at rendering the pages than Qupzilla IMHO, Qupzilla often hangs up trying to load, and really rendered my FB page badly. Just my 2 cents worth!
Too bad...is that Qupzilla or qupzilla-appimage?

Bierhundt
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:12 pm

Re: Browser replacement?

#24 Post by Bierhundt »

Stevo wrote: Too bad...is that Qupzilla or qupzilla-appimage?
Ummmm I don't know for sure, I think it was just plain Qupzilla - whatever it was, it ran dog-slow. I'll have to shut down Seamonkey and start Qupzilla to see if I can find out. BRB in a few. I didn't get rid of it, to give me time to assess Seamonkey (try it before you buy it!) and see if it was a better fit, even tho it's a whole lot of Mbs like FireFox. I guess a small browser footprint isn't going to work for me :bawling: .

User avatar
Stevo
Developer
Posts: 12774
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: Browser replacement?

#25 Post by Stevo »

Since Qupzilla uses a Qt 5 library as the "Web Engine", and those are impracticable to update in Debian to fix any security holes, Debian recommends against using any web browser that uses an outside engine that can get outdated. This includes qupzilla, midori, otter-browser, and so on. We build qupzilla-appimage to at least provide a current version for 64-bit users...it uses Qt web engine 5.10.1 instead of 5.6.X. Other browsers that build an internal engine include Firefox, Seamonkey, Pale Moon, and the Chromium-based ones, and those fix security bugs as they come up.
Last edited by Stevo on Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bierhundt
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:12 pm

Re: Browser replacement?

#26 Post by Bierhundt »

Stevo wrote:Since Qupzilla uses a Qt 5 library as the "Web Engine", and those are impracticable to update in Debian to fix any security holes, Debian recommends against using any web browser that uses an outside engine that can get outdated. This includes qupzilla, midori, otter-browser, and so on. We build qupzilla-appimage to at least provide a current version for 64-bit users...it uses Qt web engine 5.10.1 instead of 5.6.X. Other browsers that build an internal engine include Firefox, Seamonkey, Pale Moon, and the Chromium-based ones, and those fix security bugs as they come up.
As you asked before, which Qupzilla did I download, this is the info from About:
Application version 1.8.9
WebKit version 538.1
© 2010-2015 David Rosca
http://www.qupzilla.com
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/538.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) QupZilla/1.8.9 Safari/538.1

Until I can find a minimalist browser (links and elinks are out!), tha will work for me, I'll keep Qupzilla in the background and jsut use Seamonkey for my browser. It's nice to have a spare if one goes out. I used to use Links for a backup, but since Qupzilla is already installed, I'll keep that for now. You'll have to pardon me for being so slow, I'm trying to eat my lunch and think at the same time - not working out too well ATM.

User avatar
anticapitalista
Developer
Posts: 4160
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:40 am

Re: Browser replacement?

#27 Post by anticapitalista »

The Internet is loaded with so much heavy stuff that it is almost impossible to find a modern browser with a low (RAM) footprint.

For example, my laptop is now using 817MB RAM, running the latest firefox-esr.
Firefox-esr is using 740MB of that RAM!!!

I have tried all the 'light-modern' browsers and only 2 drop the RAM significantly - Seamonkey and palemoon.

Palemoon is using 214.7 MiB RAM.

Seamonkey is using 201.8 MiB RAM.
anticapitalista
Reg. linux user #395339.

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX with runit - lean and mean.
https://antixlinux.com

Bierhundt
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:12 pm

Re: Browser replacement?

#28 Post by Bierhundt »

anticapitalista wrote:The Internet is loaded with so much heavy stuff that it is almost impossible to find a modern browser with a low (RAM) footprint.

For example, my laptop is now using 817MB RAM, running the latest firefox-esr.
Firefox-esr is using 740MB of that RAM!!!

I have tried all the 'light-modern' browsers and only 2 drop the RAM - Seamonkey and palemoon. (but not by that much)
Yeah, I looked around before I settled on Midori and Qupzilla, and there wasn't much that CNET and other mags/articles could say for minimalist browsers, other than the text-based ones like Links and e-Links. So I guess it will be Seamonkey for me, and if what Stevo says about the plain Qupzilla not keeping up, I'll probably get rid of it and download Links to have for a backup, I'm going to wait to see which Qupzilla I installed to see if it's the good one or the bad one ;>). Not being a Guru/Geek, I need a backup 'cuz I can't fix things when they go t-u!

User avatar
i_ri
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:26 am

Re: Browser replacement?

#29 Post by i_ri »

hello Bierhundt and everyone
for firefox and seamonkey look into "about:memory" address bar location
Show memory reports "Measure"
and in seamonkey I play with clicking Free memory "Minimize memory usage" does it do anything for You?

User avatar
Stevo
Developer
Posts: 12774
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:07 pm

Re: Browser replacement?

#30 Post by Stevo »

Please try qupzilla-appimage 2.2.6 from our test repo if you're running 64-bit. It is greatly improved from the old 1.8.9. If you must stick with 32-bit, at least try the 2.1.2 version from our test repo, though I'm inclined to move both of those to main.

Post Reply

Return to “General”