Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

theringmaster · 2007-12-30 05:00:54

I just downloaded (via aur) the swiftweael package. Now this includes both icecat's (formerly iceweasel) and swiftfox's improvements. How cool! Comments?

Fackamato · 2007-12-30 16:13:39

What are the improvements? What's better than plain Firefox?

theringmaster · 2007-12-30 17:01:57

Fackamato wrote:

What are the improvements? What's better than plain Firefox?

From wikipedia:

Optimization

Swiftweasel is optimized using the following methods:

Binary code optimization

* Compiled with options that optimize for speed rather than binary size.
o Swiftweasel is compiled -O3,[1] (the highest level)
+ The resulting Swiftweasel binary is larger than Firefox.
o Firefox is compiled -Os[1](which is for binary size[2]).
* Binaries incorporate additional instruction sets.[3]
o Intel and AMD: SSE2, SSE, SSE3, and MMX[3].
o AMD only: 3DNow!
* Optimization specific to the build microprocessor architecture.[3]
o Intel 32bit: Pentium 4, Pentium 3, Pentium M, Pentium 3M, Pentium 2, Prescott.
o Intel 64bit: Nocona
o AMD: Athlon XP, Athlon, K6-2.
o AMD64: Athlon64, Opteron
* Compiled with newer version of GCC (Firefox 2.0 uses 3.3.2, Swiftweasel 2.0 uses 4.0.3).[1]

Increased Security

* Better protection from Buffer overflow attacks[4] (Swiftweasel 2.0 uses -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2; Firefox 2.0 uses gcc 3.x, which does not support this).[1]

Simplify

* Pango is included in the build to improve rendering.[5]
* IPv6 DNS lookups are disabled.[1] preventing slowdowns [3]
* HTTP pipelining is enabled by default.[3]Note that Fasterfox provides a GUI to adjust these settings.
* For full details, users can download source packages with all changes listed.

Last edited by theringmaster (2007-12-30 17:02:30)

Gilneas · 2007-12-30 17:06:09

It's not as bleeding-edge as Swiftfox is though, is it?

theringmaster · 2007-12-30 17:18:58

Gilneas wrote:

It's not as bleeding-edge as Swiftfox is though, is it?

well I'm using the latest version of it (which is current with firefix) so I'm happy.

and they do have a beta2 build as well.

Mikko777 · 2007-12-30 20:16:23

Seems totally useless and wasn't atleast swiftfox closed source?

As a sidenote ff3 is really nice and seems totally usable.

theringmaster · 2007-12-30 20:34:36

I don't think it's useless. It is notably faster. I would use plain swiftfox, but I don't like the weird licensing. Swiftweasel has all the optimizations that swiftfox has plus it's completely open. win/win situation.

and wasn't atleast swiftfox closed source

yeah and that's why they got into a bit of trouble. http://getswiftfox.org/

Last edited by theringmaster (2007-12-30 20:39:27)

Bebo · 2007-12-30 21:08:05

I currently use swiftfox, and I like it a lot, both because it at least _feels_ faster, and also because "Bon Echo" is just too ugly to live, both the name and the logo. Okay, I know that I could use firefox-branded from the AUR*, or just do some sed and cp to change these things, but that's also ugly (Why don't we make an Arch branded firefox, with a nice name ("Archfox" ) and a nice logo?)

I am (very slowly...) looking for a replacement for swiftfox, both due to the swiftfox licensing and also since the, er, swiftfox developer sometimes is too slow with updates for my taste. I found swiftweasel some month(s?) ago, and had a look at it. At the time the swiftweasel-pentium-4 and swiftweasel-pentium-m (these are the ones I would use) were orphaned and stranded at version 2.0.0.7. These PKGBUILDs do some really odd stuff to the start script, the $HOME/.mozilla/firefox settings are copied to a swiftweasel specific directory, so that firefox and swiftweasel have separate settings. Seems pretty useless IMO. The two swiftweasel builds that are up to date, swiftweasel-athlon-xp and swiftweasel-pentium-3 don't do this, so it wouldn't take much work to copy those PKGBUILDs and use them (I think, anyway...). gothicknight, who maintains some of the swiftfox PKGBUILDs, adopted some of the orphaned swiftweasel PKGBUILDs some time ago (including those I would use if they were up to date), and I'm eagerly waiting for some news there But, until then I'll continue to use swiftfox.

__________________________
* I _have_ used it when swiftfox lagged with a security update for some week(s), but even I feel that a nice name and logo is only worth so much compilation time

Last edited by Bebo (2007-12-30 21:10:18)

Mantaar · 2007-12-30 22:49:11

Well, just use the new FF beta. It's pretty sure it's both faster and lighter than any Firefox2. And it's been pretty smooth sailing around here. I tried Swiftfox only once and figured it's the most useless package on the planet [sic], since I was on Gentoo at that time and used GCC4 and all those --fomfg-optimizze flags, too. (well, not globally).

You can compile it on Arch, too and thus circumvent the bitchy Swiftfox license.

Or just use FF3beta3

Gilneas · 2007-12-30 23:40:35

Surely swiftfox is more than just a platform specific compile?

iphitus · 2007-12-30 23:48:17

Gilneas wrote:

Surely swiftfox is more than just a platform specific compile?

Yeah, it looks totally redundant. Half of the "optimisations" are just recompiling with a newer GCC which we do anyway, or compiling for a newer architecture -- and we get most of that benefit compiling for i686.

Then that just leaves -Os vs -O3, and a few easily changed configuration options.

In the end, most of the "benefit" people think they see in this, is placebo, or comparing against an ill configured default browser.

finferflu · 2007-12-31 00:51:10

I had used Swiftfox for quite some time when I was on Ubuntu, but when I went back to Firefox I couldn't tell the difference...

Gullible Jones · 2007-12-31 06:39:54

iphitus wrote:

Gilneas wrote:
Surely swiftfox is more than just a platform specific compile?
Yeah, it looks totally redundant. Half of the "optimisations" are just recompiling with a newer GCC which we do anyway, or compiling for a newer architecture -- and we get most of that benefit compiling for i686.
Then that just leaves -Os vs -O3, and a few easily changed configuration options.
In the end, most of the "benefit" people think they see in this, is placebo, or comparing against an ill configured default browser.

Also, let's not forget that the hard drive is a far bigger bottleneck than the CPU. -Os will in many cases make applications seem to run "faster" than -O3.

theringmaster · 2007-12-31 16:04:48

Gullible Jones wrote:

iphitus wrote:
Gilneas wrote:
Surely swiftfox is more than just a platform specific compile?
Yeah, it looks totally redundant. Half of the "optimisations" are just recompiling with a newer GCC which we do anyway, or compiling for a newer architecture -- and we get most of that benefit compiling for i686.
Then that just leaves -Os vs -O3, and a few easily changed configuration options.
In the end, most of the "benefit" people think they see in this, is placebo, or comparing against an ill configured default browser.
Also, let's not forget that the hard drive is a far bigger bottleneck than the CPU. -Os will in many cases make applications seem to run "faster" than -O3.

how so?

delphiki · 2007-12-31 16:55:02

Code compiled -O3 has better performance in the processor core, but its installed size on the hard drive is much larger than -O or -O2 optimized code. Given that hard drives don't have the same throughput as a standard RAM to CPU bus has, the hard drive becomes the benefactor of the memory "bottleneck" described here.

axion419 · 2008-01-04 18:17:09

on a sidenote, you can install kazehakase, then put in the optimizations of the mozilla engine.

open your ~/.kazehakase/mozilla/kazehakase/prefs.js file. Paste this into it, then save and close.

user_pref("content.notify.backoffcount", "5");
user_pref("network.dns.disableIPv6", true);
user_pref("network.http.pipelining", true);
user_pref("network.http.pipelining.maxrequests", 8);
user_pref("network.http.proxy.pipelining", true);
user_pref("network.prefetch-next", false);
user_pref("nglayout.initialpaint.delay", 0);
user_pref("plugin.expose_full_path", true);
user_pref("ui.submenu.delay", "0");
-----------

n8schicht · 2008-01-04 18:48:07

finferflu wrote:

I had used Swiftfox for quite some time when I was on Ubuntu, but when I went back to Firefox I couldn't tell the difference...

Me neither. I couldn't tell that it's 1 second faster while opening, browsing or closing. I had it running on 2 totally different machines, an AthlonXP 2GHz (32 bit) and a new Core2 Duo 2x2GHz (64 bit). I noticed no difference to normal Firefox. Maybe it's just me...

Gilneas · 2008-01-04 19:09:47

I'm using firefox nightlies again too, and I don't see a difference either.

DZello · 2008-01-04 21:08:57

I've build Firefox with my own mozconfig and compiled it with -O2. The most useful thing to disable is Pango. Rendering benchmark is 3 seconds faster using my build on my Athlon X2 4200+.

ac_add_options --with-system-nspr
ac_add_options --with-system-nss
ac_add_options --with-system-jpeg
ac_add_options --with-system-zlib
ac_add_options --with-system-png
ac_add_options --with-system-mng
ac_add_options --with-pthreads
ac_add_options --disable-tests
ac_add_options --disable-debug
ac_add_options --enable-optimize="-march=k8 -O2 -pipe -msse2 -fomit-frame-pointer -mtune=k8"
ac_add_options --disable-xinerama
ac_add_options --enable-default-toolkit=gtk2
ac_add_options --disable-xprint
ac_add_options --enable-strip
ac_add_options --disable-pango
ac_add_options --enable-xft
ac_add_options --enable-system-cairo
ac_add_options --enable-canvas
ac_add_options --prefix=/opt/mozilla
ac_add_options --with-default-mozilla-five-home=/opt/mozilla/lib/firefox
ac_add_options --enable-crypto
ac_add_options --enable-single-profile
ac_add_options --disable-profilesharing
ac_add_options --disable-gnomevfs
ac_add_options --disable-accessibility
ac_add_options --disable-installer
ac_add_options --disable-ipv6

Gilneas · 2008-01-04 21:20:03

Do you happen to know which option disables the need for Python for compiling?

ibrahim · 2008-01-05 23:12:13

To me the advantage of switweasel over firefox is that for some reason I never really bothered to investigate, adding feeds to liferea and emailing page links never worked in firefox for me (though emailing did on my work pc also running arch) but does in swiftweasel.

A funny thing about swiftfoxes restrictive licensing is that I came across a thread on another forum around time the time of the whole iceweasel/debian controversy, because they couldn't in good conscience use a non Free browser several users of another popular distro were switching away from firefox to... the even less Free swiftfox.

It's the thought that counts I guess

Zer0 · 2008-01-06 01:17:27

I believe that Swiftfox also disables Pango as a speed optimization. I too have switched back from Swiftfox to Firefox, mostly because of it's closed source. Swiftweasel seems like an interesting project but I think I'll just use plain ol' Bon Echo to FF3 stable is out

ST.x · 2008-03-06 12:06:39

Just wondering what I would have to do after installing to get nspluginwrapper flash stuff, and other plugins from normal firefox to work with this. thanks

senjin · 2008-06-25 18:28:47

Is there any significant difference between Swift* and Firefox built from ABS with my processor flag?

schivmeister · 2008-06-25 19:14:22

Please read what has been posted above; answer is there if you really mean significant.

Arch Linux

#1 2007-12-30 05:00:54

Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#2 2007-12-30 16:13:39

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#3 2007-12-30 17:01:57

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#4 2007-12-30 17:06:09

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#5 2007-12-30 17:18:58

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#6 2007-12-30 20:16:23

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#7 2007-12-30 20:34:36

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#8 2007-12-30 21:08:05

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#9 2007-12-30 22:49:11

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#10 2007-12-30 23:40:35

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#11 2007-12-30 23:48:17

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#12 2007-12-31 00:51:10

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#13 2007-12-31 06:39:54

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#14 2007-12-31 16:04:48

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#15 2007-12-31 16:55:02

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#16 2008-01-04 18:17:09

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#17 2008-01-04 18:48:07

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#18 2008-01-04 19:09:47

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#19 2008-01-04 21:08:57

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#20 2008-01-04 21:20:03

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#21 2008-01-05 23:12:13

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#22 2008-01-06 01:17:27

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#23 2008-03-06 12:06:39

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#24 2008-06-25 18:28:47

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

#25 2008-06-25 19:14:22

Re: Swiftweasel --> best of both worlds?

Board footer