Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

Nezmer · 2009-05-30 20:09:05

ammon wrote:

Why there is dependency on epiphany for network-manager?
I doesent make sense. I would use it i there could be clean install without half of gnome libs.

You can disable it . I have it disabled in epiphany-git .

Knives · 2009-05-30 21:59:03

ammon wrote:

Why there is dependency on epiphany for network-manager?
I doesent make sense. I would use it i there could be clean install without half of gnome libs.

I think the same.

A lot of archs packages have "depends" that coul just be "optdepends".

When you are trying to do a minimal system, you are almost forced to use abs or AUR.

And them install a lot of "makedepends".

Nezmer · 2009-05-31 00:52:47

Knives wrote:

A lot of archs packages have "depends" that coul just be "optdepends".
When you are trying to do a minimal system, you are almost forced to use abs or AUR.
And them install a lot of "makedepends".

Networkmanager is enabled by default in the build process . You can't put it as "optdepends" because the binary is linked against it .

Epiphany was always seen as a part of the gnome experience not as a standalone solution . The coming Webkit version might change that image .

"makedepends" can be removed after building the package .

dwindle · 2009-05-31 01:36:37

Back on the topic of an alternative for Firefox, I would definitely go with epiphany (and although I don't use the git version cause I'm lazy, I probably should). I've been using it full-time for a while now. I find it much faster and appealing than firefox.

SpeedVin · 2009-05-31 11:08:22

Hmm I use browser named Swiftweasel optimized for my processor and pgo version.
He a really fast and I don't need Xulrunner you can try it firefox extensions works and he have adblock intalled great borwser you can find it in AUR

Runiq · 2009-05-31 15:40:55

bernarcher wrote:

soupcan wrote:
Inxsible wrote:
uzbl
+1 for uzbl
Yet another +1.
Although you need some time to get used to its minimal concept. This turned out to be not too hard, however, once the script and config examples were understood.

+1 from me too. It takes a while to get it to do what you want, but from then on, it's a breeze.

Arm-the-Homeless · 2009-05-31 16:23:37

Runiq wrote:

bernarcher wrote:
soupcan wrote:
+1 for uzbl
Yet another +1.
Although you need some time to get used to its minimal concept. This turned out to be not too hard, however, once the script and config examples were understood.
+1 from me too. It takes a while to get it to do what you want, but from then on, it's a breeze.

+1 from me.

ravster · 2009-05-31 19:08:43

I use Conkeror, and I find it to be amazing. It might be because I just love using the keyboard (to the point where I use StumpWm), but you can use it with the mouse too if you want (you'll just have to learn a few key commands to be able to navigate.
The other great thing about it is that it gives me the most amount of screen-space I can get in any browser I've tried. Give it a shot

Wra!th · 2009-05-31 20:38:40

+1 for Conkeror. It's the shizniz! Imagine a Vimperator without the bagage (yes Firefox..I'm looking at you!)

raul_nds · 2009-05-31 23:56:09

Arora has a ncie feature that is loading flash "on-demand". Like when visiting Youtube, a button will appear saying "Load flash" and you can see the video. Cool for avoiding ads

karol · 2009-06-01 00:00:24

@raul_nds
Seems like flash-block for firefox :-)

madalu · 2009-06-01 04:19:07

Another vote for conkeror here. You can customize/program it to your hearts content and it has a lot of nice emacs-style keybindings (both for browsing and editing text).

For instance, I can mark, kill, yank text in this very text edit box. Or I can press C-i and fire up my favorite editor (guess which one).

Berseker · 2009-06-03 18:41:59

you can compile it without network-manager support (it is simple by using -Sb yaourt function )

DevoidOfWindows · 2009-06-04 21:29:06

Oh, right. I vote for Opera. I just installed Opera 10, and I am impressed. It is the fastest web browser I've ever tried. I don't even have to wait when I click on links. It's so fast that most of the time, I don't even get to see the rendering happen -- pages just pop up like toast.

Trent · 2009-06-05 00:09:47

Make that 6 votes for uzbl, even though I only started using it yesterday afternoon I love the design and it works great. I can see that it would take a bit of adjustment for somebody who is accustomed to (for instance) using lots of tabs, or the auto-complete features other browsers offer... but it works for me. What really sold me, to be perfectly honest, is that it works flawlessly with a tiling window manager (wmii) and doesn't have 100+ pixels of wasted space at the top.

Plus, for a project that's less than two months old, it sure seems stable. The only major issue I've run into is when a link uses Javascript to open a page in a new window. (Doesn't work.)

Opera is okay, but I first used it on... erm... I think it was Debian. Anyway, I had to install all the Qt libs to use it, and that turned me off. Haven't really looked at it seriously since then.

madalu · 2009-06-05 01:27:34

DevoidOfWindows wrote:

Oh, right. I vote for Opera. I just installed Opera 10, and I am impressed. It is the fastest web browser I've ever tried. I don't even have to wait when I click on links. It's so fast that most of the time, I don't even get to see the rendering happen -- pages just pop up like toast.

I'd love to know what you folks are doing to Opera to make it work so well. Mine is really laggy and memory hungry (more so than firefox) --- especially when scrolling (though I haven't tried 10 yet). But I'm also running it on a lowly netbook.

I'm also very curious to know how openbox folks using uzbl are managing multiple instances. I would like a really lean and modular browser, but I also don't want five windows cluttering my screen.

...and don't call me names for not using a tiling wm.

Trent · 2009-06-05 13:26:05

I'm also very curious to know how openbox folks using uzbl are managing multiple instances. I would like a really lean and modular browser, but I also don't want five windows cluttering my screen.

Openbox? I have no idea. You might try it with fluxbox or pekwm, both of which have tabbing, and see how it works out. Currently (with wmii) I hit Mod-S for stacking whenever I want to open more than a single browser (I've got one open now, as a matter of fact). You might also be able to find some kind of tool that will fake tabbing or stacking in openbox. If you are so inclined, you might even decide to write one.

Arch Linux

#26 2009-05-30 20:09:05

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#27 2009-05-30 21:59:03

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#28 2009-05-31 00:52:47

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#29 2009-05-31 01:36:37

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#30 2009-05-31 11:08:22

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#31 2009-05-31 15:40:55

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#32 2009-05-31 16:23:37

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#33 2009-05-31 19:08:43

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#34 2009-05-31 20:38:40

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#35 2009-05-31 23:56:09

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#36 2009-06-01 00:00:24

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#37 2009-06-01 04:19:07

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#38 2009-06-03 18:41:59

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#39 2009-06-04 21:29:06

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#40 2009-06-05 00:09:47

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#41 2009-06-05 01:27:34

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

#42 2009-06-05 13:26:05

Re: Firefox issues, looking for an alternative

Board footer