Re: Lightweight Web browsers
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 06:04:08PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: Hi, I was looking for a lightweight web browser and I try tried all of those I could get in debs. Unfortunately, neither mozilla nor galeon nor konqueror are satisfactory in terms of memory usage (says less than 10 megs of RAM). However, I found a simple HTML browser called Encompass that takes far less memory than those I mentioned. Of course, it does not have all the feature these browsers can offer but it does handle HTML pretty well. I've build debs you can find there: deb http://people.debian.org/~jerome unofficial/ Tell me if you are interested to see it in debian. Thanks. I like it! Upload it please. :) Regards, // Ola -- - Ola Lundqvist --- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Björnkärrsgatan 5 A.11 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 584 36 LINKÖPING | | +46 (0)13-17 69 83 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / ---
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
Oh I know about ratpoison :) Of course one can always do the 'xterm' style of window managing (ie, extensive use of the -geometry option :) Nay, I haven't ever done even once -geometry thingy. Always maximise. Why not? Those apps can't do it sucks. :) (Though I'd really hope ratpoison could come over it, maybe a container alike applet for things such as Gimp etc.? Ie a lightweight xnest + a lightweight window manager(!!) would be helpful.) ohh my god, plus things as 9menu this ohh, this. ;) P.S. ratpoison really rocks, but please pay less attention on how you could kill the mouse. effort on this direction seldom gains IMHO. -- http://sourceforge.net/projects/dim .. Debian Chinese Input Method http://sourceforge.net/projects/cdlinux .. Debian running on Live! CDs http://njlug.sourceforge.net NanJing GNU/Linux User Group http://people.debian.org/~zw .. XEmacs Screenshots
Re: [RP] Re: Lightweight Web browsers
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 03:39:48PM +0800, zhaoway wrote: Nay, I haven't ever done even once -geometry thingy. Always maximise. Why not? Those apps can't do it sucks. :) (Though I'd really hope ratpoison could come over it, maybe a container alike applet for things such as Gimp etc.? Ie a lightweight xnest + a lightweight window manager(!!) would be helpful.) ohh my god, plus things as 9menu this ohh, this. ;) i never did understand why people create applications like the gimp. i hated it the first time i encountered visual basic. let's clone deluxe paint instead and never-ever touch that over featured multi window toolkit parent! what stops you from using Xnest and twm inside rp? P.S. ratpoison really rocks, but please pay less attention on how you could kill the mouse. effort on this direction seldom gains IMHO. nah! i thought so myself when i started running rp, but now i have realized. the rat is evil and bad. almost as evil as emacs and bash.
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
Omn 27-Apr-01, 15:46 (CDT), Christian Kurz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not only me. It's just that the Gnome Libaries install a bunch of packages and also need quite some disk-space. Therefor I and I think some other people too would like to know before if the software depends on that bunch of libraries or not. apt-get install foo shows all the new packages it's going to install before doing anything, giving you plenty of time to stop it. What's the big deal? Steve -- Steve Greenland [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read every list I post to.)
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:12:59PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe because they're bloated, take huge gobs of memory, and are designed only to emulate the mistakes and misdesign of a certain OS from Redmond? I too agree that Linux window managers and session managers should not aspire to emulate Microsoft, I'd rather see some newer and better ideas implemented instead. ion? ::snip? snip!:: -- ;; ;; Matthew Danish email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;; ;; GPG public key available from:'finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]' ;; ;; --xsdg -- ___ / What has four legs and an arm?\ \ A happy pit bull./ /http://xsdg.hypermart.net|[EMAIL PROTECTED]\ \___/
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:58:44PM +, Aaron Lehmann wrote: Now I agree that there's lots of bloat in Gnome, but I have to disagree with you about Glib. [...] Well, I've heard these arguments a lot and I agree with them to some extent. I [...] I think in principle glib may be a good idea, but it is overdone. IMO a major difference between glib and gnome libs is: % apt-cache show libglib1.2 | grep Size Installed-Size: 264 Size: 106184 With a bit of trickery, one could probably fit gftp-text on a diskette :) -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
Jerome wrote: Listen, I've packaged it in order to make available in debs for people willing to test it. Now, don't blame me about those gnome dependencies since [...] Please note that did not ITPed it since I'm not sure people except from me are interested in such a browser. And It does not seem to make you very happy. Unless people are interested to see it in debian I won't upload it. Please if you think it's useful do upload it. I've seen one person that'd like to have it, but you won't know about the user's not on devel... And please do not get annoyed by people that have mental barriers to be responsible for them selves and the (dependent) stuff hey download. *t Tomas P.
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
I too agree that Linux window managers and session managers should not aspire to emulate Microsoft, I'd rather see some newer and better ideas implemented instead. apt-get install ratpoison. it rocks. :) sorry, can't resist. ;) -- http://dim.sourceforge.net ... Debian Chinese Input Method http://njlug.sourceforge.net NanJing GNU/Linux User Group http://cdlinux.sourceforge.net ... Debian running on Live! CDs http://people.debian.org/~zw .. XEmacs Screenshots
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 10:34:02AM +0800, zhaoway wrote: I too agree that Linux window managers and session managers should not aspire to emulate Microsoft, I'd rather see some newer and better ideas implemented instead. apt-get install ratpoison. it rocks. :) sorry, can't resist. ;) Oh I know about ratpoison :) Of course one can always do the 'xterm' style of window managing (ie, extensive use of the -geometry option :) -- http://dim.sourceforge.net ... Debian Chinese Input Method http://njlug.sourceforge.net NanJing GNU/Linux User Group http://cdlinux.sourceforge.net ... Debian running on Live! CDs http://people.debian.org/~zw .. XEmacs Screenshots -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ;; ;; Matthew Danish email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;; ;; GPG public key available from:'finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]' ;; ;; pgpnuHGCjYnEt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
Christian Kurz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May I ask why you don't mention that this is a web browser for Gnome? This information would be helpful for people that look for a lightweight HTML browser, but don't want to install Gnome. For those people this browser will not be a alternative, since it pulls in the whole bunch of gnome libs. :( I mainly focused on low memory consumption, and Encompass meet this requirement. Then, mentioning Gnome usually make people think that the Gnome Desktop Environment is required to run the browser which is not the case. And unless you have disk space restrictions, I don't see the problem with installing gnome libs since these are shared between a growing number of applications. (Political reasons for not installing Gnome are not good reasons) -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
On 01-04-27 Jérôme Marant wrote: Christian Kurz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: May I ask why you don't mention that this is a web browser for Gnome? This information would be helpful for people that look for a lightweight HTML browser, but don't want to install Gnome. For those people this browser will not be a alternative, since it pulls in the whole bunch of gnome libs. :( I mainly focused on low memory consumption, and Encompass meet this requirement. Since maybe it wasn't obvious. I quite like to see software and especially a web browser that doesn't use much memory. Then, mentioning Gnome usually make people think that the Gnome Desktop Environment is required to run the browser which is not the case. Well, I think that's a wrong assumption that people make, but you can't change it. So maybe it should have been worded mentioned the dependency on the gnome libs. And unless you have disk space restrictions, I don't see the problem with installing gnome libs since these are shared between a growing number of applications. (Political reasons for not installing Gnome are not good reasons) Sarcasm So come on people, let's install all 6000 packages, because maybe we could use them once. /Sarcasm Well, I just try to keep my system as clean as possible, which includes for me that I also check the installed libraries. And every time I try one of those gnome apps, I'm astonished about the big bunch of libraries that I have to install. Therefor I would prefer applications that just depend on the GTK Libraries and not the Gnome-Libraries. Therefor I would prefer it to know in advance if an ITP'ed software could become interesting for me or not. Christian -- Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org) 1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853 pgpyWb9Ik8b2E.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
Christian Kurz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sarcasm So come on people, let's install all 6000 packages, because maybe we could use them once. /Sarcasm Listen, I've packaged it in order to make available in debs for people willing to test it. Now, don't blame me about those gnome dependencies since I'm not upstream. APT is ment to show you packages to be installed and does not force you to install. And apologies for not mentioning Gnome ... (since it seemed to bother you) Well, I just try to keep my system as clean as possible, which includes for me that I also check the installed libraries. And every time I try one of those gnome apps, I'm astonished about the big bunch of libraries that I have to install. Therefor I would prefer applications that just depend on the GTK Libraries and not the Gnome-Libraries. Therefor I would prefer it to know in advance if an ITP'ed software could become interesting for me or not. Please note that did not ITPed it since I'm not sure people except from me are interested in such a browser. And It does not seem to make you very happy. Unless people are interested to see it in debian I won't upload it. -- Jérôme Marant
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 10:25:46AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: I mainly focused on low memory consumption, and Encompass meet this requirement. Yes, but only when you ignore the bloat from the horrible Gnome libraries that entangle it. Encompas doesn't take much ram, the ram is all taken up by libgnome, libgnomeui, libbonobo, libgnomevfs, libesd, libaudiofile, libgal, libgnomewebbrowser, etc... Then, mentioning Gnome usually make people think that the Gnome Desktop Environment is required to run the browser which is not the case. Not when people are clued. Installing gnome libraries is bad enough. And unless you have disk space restrictions, I don't see the problem with installing gnome libs since these are shared between a growing number of applications. Maybe because they're bloated, take huge gobs of memory, and are designed only to emulate the mistakes and misdesign of a certain OS from Redmond? Applications should be writen to be small and efficient. Gnome applications force you to install and put up with dozens of libraries that don't actually do anything useful (ex. Glib!!). (Political reasons for not installing Gnome are not good reasons) Umm, why the hell not?
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
Maybe because they're bloated, take huge gobs of memory, and are designed only to emulate the mistakes and misdesign of a certain OS from Redmond? I too agree that Linux window managers and session managers should not aspire to emulate Microsoft, I'd rather see some newer and better ideas implemented instead. Applications should be writen to be small and efficient. Gnome applications force you to install and put up with dozens of libraries that don't actually do anything useful (ex. Glib!!). Now I agree that there's lots of bloat in Gnome, but I have to disagree with you about Glib. Glib provides many handy routines (such as linked list management, and a threads API) for C programmers. Having Glib provide these routines is a much better choice than having each programmer write his or her own procedures to accomplish the same task. It reduces duplicate code and provides what is probably a much more efficient set of routines than what most people would write (not to mention a consistent API). It's bad enough that C has as many problems as it does, Glib is at least an attempt to make things more sane. -- ;; ;; Matthew Danish email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;; ;; GPG public key available from:'finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]' ;; ;; pgpMAseott7xB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 08:32:06AM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote: Yes, but only when you ignore the bloat from the horrible Gnome libraries that entangle it. Encompas doesn't take much ram, the ram is all taken up by libgnome, libgnomeui, libbonobo, libgnomevfs, libesd, libaudiofile, libgal, libgnomewebbrowser, etc... Which are all shared between any programs that use them and are likely to be swapped out if you don't need them. As opposed to a large amount of working space (true of Mozilla, especially) that's probably going to stay in memory. Maybe because they're bloated, take huge gobs of memory, and are designed only to emulate the mistakes and misdesign of a certain OS from Redmond? See, this isn't helpful. They're designed to produce a 'modern' desktop, not emulate Windows, and especially not the mistakes and misdesigns. (If you don't think a 'modern' desktop is a good idea, or Gnome's not a good implementation, then say that; don't accuse them of something that's blatently not true.) As a data point, the Gnome libraries which make up licq's Gnome interface together with gtk/gdk/glib are smaller than QT. Applications should be writen to be small and efficient. Gnome applications force you to install and put up with dozens of libraries that don't actually do anything useful (ex. Glib!!). If the options are: Spending forever working on a small, efficent program that depends only on Xlib and libc, including debugging all my own reinventions of the wheel, or Quickly releasing a working version that dumps a lot of GUI-prettification and minor details to the GNOME (or KDE) libraries, at the cost of depending on those libraries, which many of my users may be using anyway, I'll pick the second. My time is far more important than saving memory - my two-year-old computer has 128 MB - what's an extra 4MB of shared libraries. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored. - Joseph_Greg
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
Hi, On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 04:46:19PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: Please note that did not ITPed it since I'm not sure people except from me are interested in such a browser. And It does not seem to make you very happy. Unless people are interested to see it in debian I won't upload it. Just for statistics: I would be interested in it. Jochen -- Omm (0)-(0) http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/privat.html
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Now I agree that there's lots of bloat in Gnome, but I have to disagree with you about Glib. Glib provides many handy routines (such as linked list management, and a threads API) for C programmers. Having Glib provide these routines is a much better choice than having each programmer write his or her own procedures to accomplish the same task. It reduces duplicate code and provides what is probably a much more efficient set of routines than what most people would write (not to mention a consistent API). It's bad enough that C has as many problems as it does, Glib is at least an attempt to make things more sane. Well, I've heard these arguments a lot and I agree with them to some extent. I like several of the routines, but things such as g_malloc() and g_free() are equivilent to functions in the standard C libary. I am also very suprized that glib has types like gint, gshort, and gchar which are directly aliased to atomic types from the C language (guint32 for example is actually useful). gint is longer than 'int', won't get highlighted by default in an editor, and makes your code less portable away from glib. I think in principle glib may be a good idea, but it is overdone. --- This mail sent through the IMP demo site: demo.horde.org Find out more at http://www.horde.org/imp/
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 20:51:05 + (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Lehmann) said: them to some extent. I like several of the routines, but things such as g_malloc() and g_free() are equivilent to functions in the standard C libary. I am also very suprized Not at all. Why should we all define our own xmalloc() in every single program we write? Additionally, glib's memory management do some additional caching to aid performance, and has hooks to make it easy to debug memory management problems. Glib has all kinds of nice little features like this. that glib has types like gint, gshort, and gchar which are OK, maybe gint and such are pointless, but they were going for completeness here :). I forgive them. -- Eric Gillespie, Jr. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
On 01-04-27 Jérôme Marant wrote: Christian Kurz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sarcasm So come on people, let's install all 6000 packages, because maybe we could use them once. /Sarcasm Listen, I've packaged it in order to make available in debs for people willing to test it. Now, don't blame me about those gnome dependencies since I'm not upstream. APT is ment to show you packages to be installed and does not force you to install. He, I didn't blame you or anyone else for this, I just used some sarcasm around your statement about disk space. And apologies for not mentioning Gnome ... (since it seemed to bother you) Not only me. It's just that the Gnome Libaries install a bunch of packages and also need quite some disk-space. Therefor I and I think some other people too would like to know before if the software depends on that bunch of libraries or not. Well, I just try to keep my system as clean as possible, which includes for me that I also check the installed libraries. And every time I try one of those gnome apps, I'm astonished about the big bunch of libraries that I have to install. Therefor I would prefer applications that just depend on the GTK Libraries and not the Gnome-Libraries. Therefor I would prefer it to know in advance if an ITP'ed software could become interesting for me or not. Please note that did not ITPed it since I'm not sure people except from me are interested in such a browser. And It does not seem to make you very happy. Unless people are interested to see it in debian I won't upload it. Sorry, I forgot that when I wrote my statement. Christian -- Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org) 1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853 pgpc4qKV4tspW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
To quote Aaron Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED], I think in principle glib may be a good idea, but it is overdone. I think I disagree. Look down the road five or ten years. Maybe at that point, there will be a good reason for gint to be different from the standard C int, but yet backwards-compatible with older gints. So you're right - there's no reason for it now. But as it stands, glib has a lot less inertia than glibc; there's a lot less pressure to keep things the same for long periods of time. So I think they were right to go for completeness, and leave it open-ended. Better to build one ten-lane highway than build five two-lane highways(for lots of reasons, and the analogy holds). David Barclay Harris, Clan Barclay Aut agere, aut mori. (Either action, or death.) pgpW77l7kLroh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Lightweight Web browsers
On 01-04-26 Jérôme Marant wrote: However, I found a simple HTML browser called Encompass that takes far less memory than those I mentioned. Of course, it does not have all the feature these browsers can offer but it does handle HTML pretty well. I've build debs you can find there: May I ask why you don't mention that this is a web browser for Gnome? This information would be helpful for people that look for a lightweight HTML browser, but don't want to install Gnome. For those people this browser will not be a alternative, since it pulls in the whole bunch of gnome libs. :( Christian -- Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org) 1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853 pgpPOddeUQNTn.pgp Description: PGP signature
