[sf-lug] SF-LUG meeting Sunday + a bit more

[Bobbie Sellers]

On 09/28/2017 12:49 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Bobbie Sellers (bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com):
>
>>      Besides Palemoon you can try Qupzilla.
> Bobbie, have you been trying Qupzilla?  I'm curious, and would value
> your opinion.
         No Rick, I have been using it on a daily basis.  Its primary 
virtue is size.
      I am also using Palemoon frequently and Firefox 55.0.3 (64-bit) on 
a daily basis
and for all work that requires as much security as I can manage.
     All three are loaded right now as try to finish other stuff so I 
can have time
to amuse myself.
     Using is obviously not testing but I take care of a lot of my 
entertainment,
mostly manga, from Qupzilla and Palemoon.  As for memory I have 12 Gibibytes
which should be enough if they get the sand-boxing version out before I can
find the time to drop dead.

     A lot of the Linux compatible browsers you mention are not available in
the PCLinuxOS64 repositories though I am thinking of seeing if I can get
Lynx from the said repositories.
>
> I've probably mentioned before that I maintain a complete list of known
> Web browsers for Linux at
> http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/kicking.html#linuxbrowser , and that
> includes ultra-brief characterisations of most of them, usually just a
> word or two.  _But_ that's generally gleaned from online descriptions
> rather than personal experience.
>
> The lightweight browsers (Qupzilla, Dillo, Xombrero, Uzbl, Luakit,
> surf+tabbed, qutebrowser, Vimprobable, lariza, Arora, Midori, NetSurf,
> Liri Browser, links in graphical mode) are all delightfully fast &
> small, but necessarily shy of features.  Palemoon, by contrast, is rare
> in being a Mozilla-family browser (uses a local fork of Mozilla's Gecko
> rendering engine) that is full-featured and intends to retain the XUL,
> XPCOM, and NPAPI plugin support code that Firefox is discarding with the
> effect of deactivating most Firefox extensions and all Firefox theming.
>
> It's possible that Mozilla.org will recover eventually from the
> massive disruption with the current transition to WebExtensions.
> Certainly, Firefox's upcoming ability to support real sandboxing and
> each tab being a separate process will have advantages (at real cost in
> RAM suckage), and maybe WebExtensions' inability to support any kind of
> theming will eventually get solved.  In the medium term, what I'm seeing
> is a lot of people saying 'Actually, I like my XUL/XPCOM extensions'
> wanting to move sideway -- and not to light Web browsers that, for all
> their advantages in speed/size, can't do that.

     Well I like full featured stuff as well but will use as many 
browsers as the OS and the
hardware can manage.  I do not care for Google Chrome and its Google 
dependence but I have
it on the hard disk and if someone comes up with something that GC is 
good for or that
only can be seen/heard with GC I might start it up despite my personal 
feelings.

     bliss