Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
Dieter Plaetinck wrote: can you give some examples of sites worth reading that don't work in webkit? actually it looks like webkit wins over opera right now. The only quirks i found were worse in opera. I'm amazed. going for uzbl. yey. -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:30:47 -0200 "Armando M. Baratti" wrote: > Strange, Midori (webkit based) works fine with http://www.lxde.org/ > here. Are you talking about some specific part of the site? > Or Midori has something other webkit based browsers don't? > > Using libsoup 2.28.1-1. > > > Armando nope. doesn't work for me. maybe they don't always send the content gzipped. refresh/reload a few times and you'll see I guess.
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
Dieter Plaetinck wrote: On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:05:11 -0800 Tobias Kieslich wrote: Don't jump to conclusions here. Inspecting the headers (..) yes this a known issue. libsoup doesn't support compression, and some sites send out gzipped content when they shouldn't. So lxde.org and others cannot be used on webkitGtk based browsers. Even wikipedia does it! but then again, I did ask for examples of *broken* websites that do not work well in webkitGtk, so this is a good example. (but libsoup should gain gzip support soon, I've heard). Please let me know more sites that do not work with webkitGtk for other reasons than this, both broken and correct sites are welcome. Dieter Strange, Midori (webkit based) works fine with http://www.lxde.org/ here. Are you talking about some specific part of the site? Or Midori has something other webkit based browsers don't? Using libsoup 2.28.1-1. Armando
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:05:11 -0800 Tobias Kieslich wrote: > Don't jump to conclusions here. Inspecting the headers (..) yes this a known issue. libsoup doesn't support compression, and some sites send out gzipped content when they shouldn't. So lxde.org and others cannot be used on webkitGtk based browsers. Even wikipedia does it! but then again, I did ask for examples of *broken* websites that do not work well in webkitGtk, so this is a good example. (but libsoup should gain gzip support soon, I've heard). Please let me know more sites that do not work with webkitGtk for other reasons than this, both broken and correct sites are welcome. Dieter
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
Don't jump to conclusions here. Inspecting the headers in th HTTP transfer exposes that the may send gzip content without setting a proper content-encoding. That might be cause by inproper caching setup on their side(they use squid) And the result they send is different from request to request: First try in midori failed. First curl -i returns gzip answer second curl -i returns html answer Second try on midori works So any conclusion that other browsers just work and webkit doesn't is based on assumptions -T PS: Have another example which page might not work in webkit?
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
Am Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:30:33 + schrieb Pierre Chapuis : > Le Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:59:42 +0100, > Gordon Schulz a écrit : > > > > compressed pages like lxde.org > > > On Mac right now - but my Webkit based Safari renders this page > > just fine. As about any page anyway. And so does Chrome. > > Surf on Arch renders it well too. > Epiphany and Midori can't handle it. -Andy
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
Le Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:59:42 +0100, Gordon Schulz a écrit : > > compressed pages like lxde.org > On Mac right now - but my Webkit based Safari renders this page just fine. As > about any page anyway. And so does Chrome. Surf on Arch renders it well too.
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
On 27.11.2009, at 18:56, Andreas Radke wrote: >> can you give some examples of sites worth reading that don't work in >> webkit? >> >> Dieter >> > > compressed pages like lxde.org On Mac right now - but my Webkit based Safari renders this page just fine. As about any page anyway. And so does Chrome. -- Gordon.
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
I use Opera-10 and it works fine. I don't get any updates stuff(unless I manually update) and I don't know what popups you are talking about(even after you can block them for sites).Regarding compatibility, Opera now works with 99% of the sites. Yes, with some sites it breaks then you can use chrome for example for those sites. What I liked most about opera is per site configuration flexibility.(I block flash on all sites except sites like youtube). Regarding firefox - clear your cache,history -- any browser with deep history(even chrome - check their bugs) will come to a crawl. And regarding dbus and all - they don't slow your system. And when you are on battery on mobile/laptop stop the dbus daemon :) , nothing breaks(assuming you are not running compiz, fancy gui stuff et.al. which you shouldnt when on battery) One more thing - regarding chrome - dont store any serious passwords on it yet... this is because passwords are stored in PLAIN TEXT(unlike firefox/opera) in the SQLite database(under ~/.config/google-chrome/Web\ Data) . I asked the chromium devs - they said it will be fixed in next milestone. Chrome, I think, with same webkit rendering will overshadow following two browsers, Midori . Arora On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Arvid Picciani wrote: > thank's for the first serious response... > > > Rogutės Sparnuotos wrote: > > With what you wrote above - no, no options. >> >> It sounds like you dump software as soon as you encounter any annoyance. >> > > point, sadly the annoyances usually come in large bulk as feature > "improvements" together with crucial updates, i actually want. Hence i > figured i want a browsers that is NOT based on the idea to make everything > WORSE. > > > Wouldn't it be wiser to workaround them, since annoyances (or small bugs) >> are always part of everything? >> > > i do that up so some degree where the workaround consumes more time then > stealing my girlfriends mac. Ie the ff workaround was avarage 1 day fixing > time each update since they managed to introduce workarounds for my > workarounds. > > > I guess writing a browser could teach one >> to live with bugs... >> > > yeah.. > > > I am sure you can disable those popups in opera (or stay with 9.64 for the >> time being, if you like opera). >> > > yeah thats unfortunately just one minor nuisance out of so many "features" > they add. and the older versions cant render web 2.0 crap. same lemma. > Again what popups? > Also since i used chrome i got spoiled by its simplicity (which they > managed to remove now in the latest version by adding more of those all so > useful "features"). > > > > What kind of I/O activity do you see with Firefox? >> > > disk i/o. It's flush() in a busy loop, says kernel wakup debuging mode. > well my kernel debugging skills are limited. > i solved it by sticking .mozilla on a ram disk. that worked until the next > memory leak bug, then kswapd died out the disk. I tried then mounting > .mozilla to vaporspace but it would just make ff crash constantly, so i gave > up. > > > How do you measure it? > > iotop. powertop. strace. > > > I don't see any problems on my side. >> > > no one does. the bug got rejected as "can't reproduce". which propably > means "buy a bigger disk faggot. everyone nowadays runs kde/vista/whatever" > bleh... > > ff always used an entire core, which i care less about because i have > another, but since i use chrome i got used to leaving my browser open. > > oh did i mention firefox now depends on dbus? > Call me whatever you want to, but i actively refuse to run any software > that starts user space dameons that starts user space dameons that start a > power consuming poll loop on my bluetooth device until either laptop or my > mobile phone die. > > IgnorePkg = dbus dbus-core gconf dbus-glib > > solves ALOT of power and network related problems. > Also it helps me choosing good software by ruling those out that think they > need to do _everything_ when i just wanted _one thing_. > > > > What sites were incorrectly rendered with webkit? >> > > ebay.de did. now it works. dunno who fixed it. > but you got a point there, it's been a while since i tried webkit. maybe it > improved significantly after chrome opensource'd. I'll try one of these > webking thingies again. suggestions? um actually i know, uzbl. will report > back if it still sucks as much as it did a few months ago. > > > Also, there's dillo. Small and fast, but no CSS floats, no javascript. >> > > the bad part is actually no javascript. since most sites are now unusable > without. ( and with, but meh) > > > -- > Arvid > Asgaard Technologies >
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
Am Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:56:40 +0100 schrieb Dieter Plaetinck : > can you give some examples of sites worth reading that don't work in > webkit? > > Dieter > compressed pages like lxde.org -Andy
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
Arvid Picciani schrieb: Hi, ever since ff3 turned firefox into unusable, i'm on the quest to find a usable browser. Chromium was quite decent for a while (after fixing the dbus dependency) despite it deadlocks when you mouse-move tabs (fortunately i dont do that anyway), but recently it started timing out on every second request. The answer from google was: deactivate your windows firewall, so well.. back to searching a browser. Basicly each and every firefox clone/fork/based browser has the same issues as firefox (100% disk i/o all the time even when idle), so those don't work. webkit based browsers can't render half of the internet properly. i wonder if somone cloned chromiums webkit thing and made a brwoser of it? uzbl is quite decent, i wish they'd use chromes rendering. opera would be awesome if it didn't have billions of popups and their "Upgrade to opera10" popup really made me uninstall opera. any options left? conkeror kazehakase (though both are mozilla based, they are reasonabbly fast).
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
Arvid Picciani (2009-11-27 08:02): > Rogutės Sparnuotos wrote: > >With what you wrote above - no, no options. > > > >It sounds like you dump software as soon as you encounter any annoyance. > > point, sadly the annoyances usually come in large bulk as feature > "improvements" together with crucial updates, i actually want. Hence > i figured i want a browsers that is NOT based on the idea to make > everything WORSE. Well, if every upgrade brings 4 new features (1 for me, 1 for you, 1 for developers, 1 for marketing dept.), we have a universal and bloaty piece of software. And there's not much choice but to adapt, because browsers employ too much tangled-together technologies to stay small. > >Wouldn't it be wiser to workaround them, since annoyances (or small bugs) > >are always part of everything? > > i do that up so some degree where the workaround consumes more time > thenstealing my girlfriends mac. Ie the ff workaround was > avarage 1 day fixing time each update since they managed to > introduce workarounds for my workarounds. Does the Mac require no maintenance? Is it because you buy some 10.x version and there are no major updates afterwards? Isn't the same with something like Ubuntu LTS, where you install it with e.g. Firefox 2.x and stay with it for three years (and you get to know it's bugs during that time, and your workarounds aren't worked around)? > >What kind of I/O activity do you see with Firefox? > > disk i/o. It's flush() in a busy loop, says kernel wakup debuging > mode. well my kernel debugging skills are limited. > i solved it by sticking .mozilla on a ram disk. that worked until > the next memory leak bug, then kswapd died out the disk. I tried > then mounting .mozilla to vaporspace but it would just make ff crash > constantly, so i gave up. > > How do you measure it? > > iotop. powertop. strace. powertop doesn't complain on this server-ish desktop. I'll try iotop some other time. > >I don't see any problems on my side. > > no one does. the bug got rejected as "can't reproduce". which > propably means "buy a bigger disk faggot. everyone nowadays runs > kde/vista/whatever" bleh... "Not reproducable" usually means exactly what it says. And if the assignee can't reproduce it, you usually have to take initiative and start debugging, asking for help in the bug report on the way. Anyway, Mozilla's bugzilla is a huge and not too warm a place - you need a lot of patience there. > ff always used an entire core, which i care less about because i > have another, but since i use chrome i got used to leaving my > browser open. Here, Firefox (dressed up with Vimperator) is always open in the background. It is not too shy on memory and very slow to start up, but I see no disk/cpu activity even when I'm browsing (39 open tabs, javascript disabled with NoScript - things change when I start playing flash movies, running sites with bad javascript). Something must be wrong in your system. Did you try a LiveCD of some other distribution? Did you try binaries from mozilla.org? Did you try disabling Firefox's on-disk cache? Do you see the same symptoms with a clean profile and a clean session (no tabs open)? Do your problems happen only on particular sites? > > oh did i mention firefox now depends on dbus? > Call me whatever you want to, but i actively refuse to run any > software that starts user space dameons that starts user space > dameons that start a power consuming poll loop on my bluetooth > device until either laptop or my mobile phone die. I have something against dbus too, but that something is superstitious because I used Linux when dbus wasn't there and still don't see any good that it brings (but neither have I tried to find out). > IgnorePkg = dbus dbus-core gconf dbus-glib A strange line you have here. It's ok as long as you use it to catch the packages that depend on dbus and recompile them, otherwise you couldn't use qt, xulrunner, ... But recompiling them just to remove the dbus dependency is superfluous, because having dbus installed doesn't mean that it will be used or that the daemon will be needed. Even though Arch's xulrunner is compiled with dbus support, I think that Firefox doesn't use it yet and I believe that for now it is only made available for extensions (perhaps with plans to use it for notifications and talking to the network manager later). Anyway, no dbus daemons are running here, even though all the dbus* packages are installed as dependencies. > >What sites were incorrectly rendered with webkit? > > ebay.de did. now it works. dunno who fixed it. > but you got a point there, it's been a while since i tried webkit. > maybe it improved significantly after chrome opensource'd. I'll try > one of these webking thingies again. suggestions? um actually i > know, uzbl. will report back if it still sucks as much as it did a > few months ago. I'm using surf besides Firefox. Don't know what usage patterns it was made for, but I like it when I want
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
What about Netsurf? http://www.netsurf-browser.org/ 2009/11/27 Guus Snijders > 2009/11/27 Arvid Picciani : > > Dan Vrátil wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> if you don't need extra features > > no. i want a browser. > > > >> and you can live on just with basic browser > > yeah > > How about amaya? > http://www.w3.org/Amaya/ > > > mvg, > Guus >
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
2009/11/27 Arvid Picciani : > Dan Vrátil wrote: > >> Hi, >> if you don't need extra features > no. i want a browser. > >> and you can live on just with basic browser > yeah How about amaya? http://www.w3.org/Amaya/ mvg, Guus
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:38:18 +0100 Arvid Picciani wrote: > webkit based browsers can't render half of the > internet properly. i wonder if somone cloned chromiums webkit thing > and made a brwoser of it? uzbl is quite decent, i wish they'd use > chromes rendering. can you give some examples of sites worth reading that don't work in webkit? Dieter
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
thank's for the first serious response... Rogutės Sparnuotos wrote: With what you wrote above - no, no options. It sounds like you dump software as soon as you encounter any annoyance. point, sadly the annoyances usually come in large bulk as feature "improvements" together with crucial updates, i actually want. Hence i figured i want a browsers that is NOT based on the idea to make everything WORSE. Wouldn't it be wiser to workaround them, since annoyances (or small bugs) are always part of everything? i do that up so some degree where the workaround consumes more time then stealing my girlfriends mac. Ie the ff workaround was avarage 1 day fixing time each update since they managed to introduce workarounds for my workarounds. I guess writing a browser could teach one to live with bugs... yeah.. I am sure you can disable those popups in opera (or stay with 9.64 for the time being, if you like opera). yeah thats unfortunately just one minor nuisance out of so many "features" they add. and the older versions cant render web 2.0 crap. same lemma. Also since i used chrome i got spoiled by its simplicity (which they managed to remove now in the latest version by adding more of those all so useful "features"). What kind of I/O activity do you see with Firefox? disk i/o. It's flush() in a busy loop, says kernel wakup debuging mode. well my kernel debugging skills are limited. i solved it by sticking .mozilla on a ram disk. that worked until the next memory leak bug, then kswapd died out the disk. I tried then mounting .mozilla to vaporspace but it would just make ff crash constantly, so i gave up. How do you measure it? iotop. powertop. strace. I don't see any problems on my side. no one does. the bug got rejected as "can't reproduce". which propably means "buy a bigger disk faggot. everyone nowadays runs kde/vista/whatever" bleh... ff always used an entire core, which i care less about because i have another, but since i use chrome i got used to leaving my browser open. oh did i mention firefox now depends on dbus? Call me whatever you want to, but i actively refuse to run any software that starts user space dameons that starts user space dameons that start a power consuming poll loop on my bluetooth device until either laptop or my mobile phone die. IgnorePkg = dbus dbus-core gconf dbus-glib solves ALOT of power and network related problems. Also it helps me choosing good software by ruling those out that think they need to do _everything_ when i just wanted _one thing_. What sites were incorrectly rendered with webkit? ebay.de did. now it works. dunno who fixed it. but you got a point there, it's been a while since i tried webkit. maybe it improved significantly after chrome opensource'd. I'll try one of these webking thingies again. suggestions? um actually i know, uzbl. will report back if it still sucks as much as it did a few months ago. Also, there's dillo. Small and fast, but no CSS floats, no javascript. the bad part is actually no javascript. since most sites are now unusable without. ( and with, but meh) -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
On Friday 27 November 2009 09:59:55 Ian-Xue Li wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:51:36 +0100 Arvid Picciani wrote: > > - no webkit ( i need to visit non w3c compliant sites ) > > - no gecko ( i don't have a raid11 in my laptop ) > > - no opera ( i hate popups ) > > - no chrome ( unusable buggy ) Is it mandatory to have one browser only? for sake of security, I would use a separate browser for banking and another one for the rest. I do some web development professionally and have everything from firefox to konqueror/arora/rekonq available and use it as required. My current working combo is rekonq as far as possible and firefox if required. Rekonq does not play flash(dunno why, konqueror plays) is another big plus in my book. -- Shridhar
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:51:36 +0100 Arvid Picciani wrote: > - no webkit ( i need to visit non w3c compliant sites ) > - no gecko ( i don't have a raid11 in my laptop ) > - no opera ( i hate popups ) > - no chrome ( unusable buggy ) > > what is left? i think maybe lightweight browsers like dillo or netsurf. -- Ian-Xue Li
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
Robert Howard wrote: I don't understand why people want to use software that has no features. If something has more than one feature, people bitch about bloat. FF is not that bad nor is Seamonkey or any of the webkit stuff. On Nov 26, 2009 9:52 PM, "Thomas Bewick" wrote: Tobias Kieslich wrote: > > dillo, simplistic, bone simple, limitations on the functionality > Bottom... Seamonkey is quite fast. Although I am not using it now I have in the past and I know it is used extensively in Puppylinux because it is full featured and light weight, even including a mail client. Since it is developed by Mozilla it is very similar to FF in functionality but does not have all the extras that slow FF down. I agree that FF has gotten very bloated in the last few years, I think to compete with and explorer and make windows users happy. But as a result the browser is not what it used to be. I currently use chrome both on windows and in Arch and it runs the fastest of any others for me. Ouch!, But seriously. it is not the extra features that is a problem I have run it without any plug-ins, and chrome has lots of features. But honestly when I have run FF on my old pentium 3 it is very noticeably slower then other browsers. It runs my cpu out a lot higher than chrome. As computers have gotten faster if you upgraded you won't notice much difference in speed on anything because you have a enough resources to absorb it. But run those same things side by side on an old pc and it is very noticeable. I know that does not effect a lot of people, but it does some. I pointed out the same thing to reviewer of Ubuntu. They compared Ubuntu to Archlinux and said Ubuntu was not noticeably any slower, but they reviewed it on a new box. Arch is light-speeds faster then Ubuntu on this old thing, (I have used both) and why I use Arch. Ubuntu has serious "bloat" But Arch is built with only what I want in it, and as such is very fast.
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
I don't understand why people want to use software that has no features. If something has more than one feature, people bitch about bloat. FF is not that bad nor is Seamonkey or any of the webkit stuff. On Nov 26, 2009 9:52 PM, "Thomas Bewick" wrote: Tobias Kieslich wrote: > > dillo, simplistic, bone simple, limitations on the functionality > Bottom... Seamonkey is quite fast. Although I am not using it now I have in the past and I know it is used extensively in Puppylinux because it is full featured and light weight, even including a mail client. Since it is developed by Mozilla it is very similar to FF in functionality but does not have all the extras that slow FF down. I agree that FF has gotten very bloated in the last few years, I think to compete with and explorer and make windows users happy. But as a result the browser is not what it used to be. I currently use chrome both on windows and in Arch and it runs the fastest of any others for me.
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
Tobias Kieslich wrote: dillo, simplistic, bone simple, limitations on the functionality Bottomline, if you need the features live with the overload. In Linux there are three full featured rendering engines: - gecko - webkit - opera you ruled out all of them, so what's left has serious short comings. -T On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Arvid Picciani wrote: for those who don't want to read my long text completely here a short version: - no webkit ( i need to visit non w3c compliant sites ) - no gecko ( i don't have a raid11 in my laptop ) - no opera ( i hate popups ) - no chrome ( unusable buggy ) what is left? thanks Seamonkey is quite fast. Although I am not using it now I have in the past and I know it is used extensively in Puppylinux because it is full featured and light weight, even including a mail client. Since it is developed by Mozilla it is very similar to FF in functionality but does not have all the extras that slow FF down. I agree that FF has gotten very bloated in the last few years, I think to compete with and explorer and make windows users happy. But as a result the browser is not what it used to be. I currently use chrome both on windows and in Arch and it runs the fastest of any others for me.
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
dillo, simplistic, bone simple, limitations on the functionality Bottomline, if you need the features live with the overload. In Linux there are three full featured rendering engines: - gecko - webkit - opera you ruled out all of them, so what's left has serious short comings. -T On Fri, 27 Nov 2009, Arvid Picciani wrote: > > for those who don't want to read my long text completely here a > short version: > > - no webkit ( i need to visit non w3c compliant sites ) > - no gecko ( i don't have a raid11 in my laptop ) > - no opera ( i hate popups ) > - no chrome ( unusable buggy ) > > what is left? > thanks
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
Arvid Picciani (2009-11-27 00:38): > Hi, > ever since ff3 turned firefox into unusable, i'm on the quest to > find a usable browser. > Chromium was quite decent for a while (after fixing the dbus > dependency) despite it deadlocks when you mouse-move tabs > (fortunately i dont do that anyway), but recently it started timing > out on every second request. > The answer from google was: deactivate your windows firewall, so > well.. back to searching a browser. > Basicly each and every firefox clone/fork/based browser has the same > issues as firefox (100% disk i/o all the time even when idle), so > those don't work. webkit based browsers can't render half of the > internet properly. i wonder if somone cloned chromiums webkit thing > and made a brwoser of it? uzbl is quite decent, i wish they'd use > chromes rendering. > opera would be awesome if it didn't have billions of popups and > their "Upgrade to opera10" popup really made me uninstall opera. > > any options left? With what you wrote above - no, no options. It sounds like you dump software as soon as you encounter any annoyance. Wouldn't it be wiser to workaround them, since annoyances (or small bugs) are always part of everything? I guess writing a browser could teach one to live with bugs... I am sure you can disable those popups in opera (or stay with 9.64 for the time being, if you like opera). What kind of I/O activity do you see with Firefox? How do you measure it? I don't see any problems on my side. What sites were incorrectly rendered with webkit? Also, there's dillo. Small and fast, but no CSS floats, no javascript. -- -- Rogutės Sparnuotos
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
On Thursday 26 November 2009 16:38:18 Arvid Picciani wrote: > > any options left? > No not really. I think there must be a resource problem with your laptop though. I often run firefox and my system doesn't touch the drive unless I save something. I've run it on limited resource systems without a hitch too. Maybe you are trying to run too much os for your laptop? Perhaps if you cut back on the bling, you might be able to run a browser without your system disk thrashing. I've honestly never had that problem with FF and can't think of why else it would do it.
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Arvid Picciani wrote: > Daenyth Blank wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 18:51, Arvid Picciani wrote: >>> >>> what is left? >> >> lynx & co. > > i had less problem with loosing all the image crap, but lynx can't even > follow redirects... > > lynx ebay.com > HTTP request sent; waiting for response. > > haha > > you could try links instead
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
Ionut Biru wrote: IE. ie combines all the flaws of the other browsers into one single browser. i guess its a joke though. > you run out of options here. yeah ... i figured that much. i hoped there is a corner i missed -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
You can try dillo (but really the IE Is the best option after you removed all the other, IE run very well in wine) -- «Dans la vie, rien n'est à craindre, tout est à comprendre» Marie Sklodowska Curie.
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
2009/11/26 Arvid Picciani : > any options left? Browse gopherspace with lynx. -- Samuel Baldwin - logik.li
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
On 11/27/2009 01:51 AM, Arvid Picciani wrote: Dan Vrátil wrote: - no webkit ( i need to visit non w3c compliant sites ) - no gecko ( i don't have a raid11 in my laptop ) - no opera ( i hate popups ) - no chrome ( unusable buggy ) what is left? thanks IE. you run out of options here. -- Ionut
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 12:38:18AM +0100, Arvid Picciani wrote: > opera would be awesome if it didn't have billions of popups and > their "Upgrade to opera10" popup really made me uninstall opera. "billions of popups"? My opera experience is very different. And there is the option to disable the available updates check. Moreover with the last update they finally fixed the recent page loading issues.
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
Daenyth Blank wrote: On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 18:51, Arvid Picciani wrote: what is left? lynx & co. i had less problem with loosing all the image crap, but lynx can't even follow redirects... lynx ebay.com HTTP request sent; waiting for response. haha -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
On Friday 27 November 2009 00:43:24 Dan Vrátil wrote: > On Friday 27 November 2009 00:38:18 Arvid Picciani wrote: > > Hi, > > ever since ff3 turned firefox into unusable, i'm on the quest to find a > > usable browser. > > Chromium was quite decent for a while (after fixing the dbus dependency) > > despite it deadlocks when you mouse-move tabs (fortunately i dont do > > that anyway), but recently it started timing out on every second request. > > The answer from google was: deactivate your windows firewall, so well.. > > back to searching a browser. > > Basicly each and every firefox clone/fork/based browser has the same > > issues as firefox (100% disk i/o all the time even when idle), so those > > don't work. webkit based browsers can't render half of the internet > > properly. i wonder if somone cloned chromiums webkit thing and made a > > brwoser of it? uzbl is quite decent, i wish they'd use chromes > > rendering. opera would be awesome if it didn't have billions of popups > > and their "Upgrade to opera10" popup really made me uninstall opera. > > > > any options left? > > Hi, > if you don't need extra features and you can live on just with basic > browser functions I can recommend lightweight GTK webkit-based browser > called Midori. > > Homepage: > http://www.twotoasts.de/index.php?/pages/midori_summary.html > > Cheers, > Dan > Upps, I missed the part about Webkit...but I use it sometimes and I did not encounter any website that would not work (just minor problems, something you always meet with any browser). And of course, there is still Lynx as the last options...:-) -- - Dan Vrátil vra...@progdansoft.com ICQ 249163429 Jabber prog...@jabber.cz Tel. +420 732 326 870 http://www.progdan.homelinux.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 18:51, Arvid Picciani wrote: > what is left? lynx & co.
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
Dan Vrátil wrote: Hi, if you don't need extra features no. i want a browser. and you can live on just with basic browser yeah functions I can recommend lightweight GTK webkit-based browser called Midori. for those who don't want to read my long text completely here a short version: - no webkit ( i need to visit non w3c compliant sites ) - no gecko ( i don't have a raid11 in my laptop ) - no opera ( i hate popups ) - no chrome ( unusable buggy ) what is left? thanks -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
Re: [arch-general] usable browser?
On Friday 27 November 2009 00:38:18 Arvid Picciani wrote: > Hi, > ever since ff3 turned firefox into unusable, i'm on the quest to find a > usable browser. > Chromium was quite decent for a while (after fixing the dbus dependency) > despite it deadlocks when you mouse-move tabs (fortunately i dont do > that anyway), but recently it started timing out on every second request. > The answer from google was: deactivate your windows firewall, so well.. > back to searching a browser. > Basicly each and every firefox clone/fork/based browser has the same > issues as firefox (100% disk i/o all the time even when idle), so those > don't work. webkit based browsers can't render half of the internet > properly. i wonder if somone cloned chromiums webkit thing and made a > brwoser of it? uzbl is quite decent, i wish they'd use chromes rendering. > opera would be awesome if it didn't have billions of popups and their > "Upgrade to opera10" popup really made me uninstall opera. > > any options left? > Hi, if you don't need extra features and you can live on just with basic browser functions I can recommend lightweight GTK webkit-based browser called Midori. Homepage: http://www.twotoasts.de/index.php?/pages/midori_summary.html Cheers, Dan -- - Dan Vrátil vra...@progdansoft.com ICQ 249163429 Jabber prog...@jabber.cz Tel. +420 732 326 870 http://www.progdan.homelinux.net signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[arch-general] usable browser?
Hi, ever since ff3 turned firefox into unusable, i'm on the quest to find a usable browser. Chromium was quite decent for a while (after fixing the dbus dependency) despite it deadlocks when you mouse-move tabs (fortunately i dont do that anyway), but recently it started timing out on every second request. The answer from google was: deactivate your windows firewall, so well.. back to searching a browser. Basicly each and every firefox clone/fork/based browser has the same issues as firefox (100% disk i/o all the time even when idle), so those don't work. webkit based browsers can't render half of the internet properly. i wonder if somone cloned chromiums webkit thing and made a brwoser of it? uzbl is quite decent, i wish they'd use chromes rendering. opera would be awesome if it didn't have billions of popups and their "Upgrade to opera10" popup really made me uninstall opera. any options left? -- Arvid Asgaard Technologies
