LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > 2015 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards
User Name
Password
2015 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards This forum is for the 2015 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards.
You can now vote for your favorite products of 2015. This is your chance to be heard! Voting ends on February 10th.


Notices


View Poll Results: Browser of the Year
Chrome 67 12.67%
Chromium 45 8.51%
Conkeror 0 0%
Dillo 1 0.19%
dwb 1 0.19%
Epiphany 1 0.19%
Firefox 293 55.39%
Iceweasel 31 5.86%
Konqueror 1 0.19%
links/elinks 2 0.38%
Luakit 1 0.19%
lynx 3 0.57%
Midori 6 1.13%
NetRider 0 0%
Opera 14 2.65%
Otter Browser 4 0.76%
PaleMoon 18 3.40%
QupZilla 8 1.51%
rekonq 1 0.19%
SeaMonkey 26 4.91%
Uzbl 3 0.57%
w3m 2 0.38%
Iridium 1 0.19%
Voters: 529. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 01-09-2016, 07:37 PM   #46
teresaejunior
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2013
Location: /home
Distribution: Xubuntu
Posts: 105

Rep: Reputation: 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
oh, not at all (*)! there you go:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/inox/
and here are the patches themselves as a github repo:
https://github.com/gcarq/inox-patchset

(*) after compiling for many hours, i gave up on that and thought that even for newer hardware it must be a major strain, so i linked staright to the build.
I couldn't really find binaries in that page, actually! The tar.gz file in the "Download snapshot" link is just a very small package containing patches!
 
Old 01-09-2016, 07:54 PM   #47
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US, Earth, end border$! ◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,512
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1038Reputation: 1038Reputation: 1038Reputation: 1038Reputation: 1038Reputation: 1038Reputation: 1038Reputation: 1038
Anyone notice how chrome's "History" menu tries to be intrusive like google and think it should know what I want? Never does, always have to open the full "History"!
 
Old 01-10-2016, 09:55 AM   #48
teresaejunior
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2013
Location: /home
Distribution: Xubuntu
Posts: 105

Rep: Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamison20000e View Post
Anyone notice how chrome's "History" menu tries to be intrusive like google and think it should know what I want? Never does, always have to open the full "History"!
For me it actually shows only recently closed tabs. I use this History Menu instead! You can use it to search for your whole history too.

Last edited by teresaejunior; 01-10-2016 at 10:01 AM.
 
Old 01-11-2016, 06:15 AM   #49
teresaejunior
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2013
Location: /home
Distribution: Xubuntu
Posts: 105

Rep: Reputation: 14
The Iridium developers have answered the following:

Quote:
iridiumbrowser.de is contacted for the Safe Browsing/Antiphishing/Bad Plugin lists, a feature which we have deemed important enough to keep enabled by default. You can turn that off in the Settings.

(...)

The hackernews thread is ancient by now. The debugging thing mentioned there has been replaced in iridium-43 with an improved solution that does not involve iridiumbrowser.de anymore.
I think it is a good solution from their part. As for me, I already use the Safe Browsing and Antiphishing lists from uBlock, so I have these options disabled.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 01-11-2016, 08:53 AM   #50
cwizardone
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Distribution: Slackware64-current with "True Multilib." FreeBSD.
Posts: 3,413
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 804Reputation: 804Reputation: 804Reputation: 804Reputation: 804Reputation: 804Reputation: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by teresaejunior View Post
The Iridium developers have answered the following:



I think it is a good solution from their part. As for me, I already use the Safe Browsing and Antiphishing lists from uBlock, so I have these options disabled.
Thanks for that. Next time I boot over to ms-windows I'll check it out.
 
Old 01-12-2016, 01:10 AM   #51
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,802

Rep: Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by teresaejunior View Post
I couldn't really find binaries in that page, actually! The tar.gz file in the "Download snapshot" link is just a very small package containing patches!
i misunderstood your last post!
i thought you were complaining that there are only binaries, and no source to compile from.
fwiw, i have sometimes managed to compile things from source on a non-archlinux system, using an aur PKGBUILD as a blueprint.
that file contains all the info you need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iridiumbrowser
The hackernews thread is ancient by now. The debugging thing mentioned there has been replaced in iridium-43 with an improved solution that does not involve iridiumbrowser.de anymore.
sorry, but i find that a little foggy. "improved solution" sounds like a sales pitch.
i asked them (in that issue) what it has been replaced with.
 
Old 01-12-2016, 02:45 AM   #52
teresaejunior
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2013
Location: /home
Distribution: Xubuntu
Posts: 105

Rep: Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
i misunderstood your last post!
i thought you were complaining that there are only binaries, and no source to compile from.
fwiw, i have sometimes managed to compile things from source on a non-archlinux system, using an aur PKGBUILD as a blueprint.
that file contains all the info you need.
I tried compiling Chromium from Debian Unstable some months ago, and many many dependencies were missing. If I migrate away from Iridium, it will be probably in my next upgrade (but I hope it won't be needed).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
sorry, but i find that a little foggy. "improved solution" sounds like a sales pitch.
i asked them (in that issue) what it has been replaced with.
When I read this yesterday, I understood it didn't need to access external servers anymore, but reading it again, it is honestly a bit vague. I hope I was right, though!
 
Old 01-14-2016, 10:54 AM   #53
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,802

Rep: Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379Reputation: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by teresaejunior View Post
When I read this yesterday, I understood it didn't need to access external servers anymore, but reading it again, it is honestly a bit vague. I hope I was right, though!
thought about this a bit more; if malware protection is the only thing this is about, then it's something that firefox has, too. so ff, too, has a link to the google databases hardcoded. scary.
i really wonder what that "improved solution" is (still no answer on that github issue).
 
Old 01-14-2016, 10:59 AM   #54
teresaejunior
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2013
Location: /home
Distribution: Xubuntu
Posts: 105

Rep: Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
thought about this a bit more; if malware protection is the only thing this is about, then it's something that firefox has, too. so ff, too, has a link to the google databases hardcoded. scary.
i really wonder what that "improved solution" is (still no answer on that github issue).
Yes, from my own research a few weeks ago, there are at least these types of connection that Firefox does to Google by default (with the options to disable them):

Code:
/* Download web forgeries blacklist from Google
 * https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-malware-protection-work
 */
user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.enabled", false);

/* Download malware blacklist from Google
 * http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled
 */
user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled", false);

/* Exchange URL lookups for potentially unsafe downloads with Google
 * https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/39.0/releasenotes/
 */
user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.downloads.enabled", false);

/* If URL is invalid, display an error instead of querying Google
 * http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keyword.enabled#Caveats
 */
user_pref("keyword.enabled", false);
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 01-14-2016, 11:43 AM   #55
Rinndalir
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2015
Posts: 733

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Mine's not in there.
 
Old 01-15-2016, 09:39 AM   #56
cpuobsessed
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Distribution: Fedora, Ubuntu, Slackware
Posts: 56

Rep: Reputation: 15
No longer Chrome

I have used Chrome since it was released by Google, but this past year it has become quite bloated and resource hungry.
I have switched back to Firefox
 
Old 01-15-2016, 04:52 PM   #57
bobbib
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2015
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 15

Rep: Reputation: 3
I would prefer a single combined entry for Firefox & Iceweasel.
 
Old 01-15-2016, 04:58 PM   #58
273
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 6,602

Rep: Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbib View Post
I would prefer a single combined entry for Firefox & Iceweasel.
But which do you prefer?
Sorry, joking aside, why would you prefer that? Would you prefer to see Firefox win and fear it may not if Iceweasel is included? Do you think Iceweasel will get a small number of votes?
 
Old 01-15-2016, 05:18 PM   #59
bobbib
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2015
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 15

Rep: Reputation: 3
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by 273 View Post
But which do you prefer?
Sorry, joking aside, why would you prefer that? Would you prefer to see Firefox win and fear it may not if Iceweasel is included? Do you think Iceweasel will get a small number of votes?
I prefer the default one in a distribution, whether it's Iceweasel in Debian or Firefox in Ubuntu, and don't care for the logo
 
Old 01-15-2016, 05:23 PM   #60
273
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 6,602

Rep: Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882Reputation: 1882
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbib View Post
I prefer the default one in a distribution, whether it's Iceweasel in Debian or Firefox in Ubuntu, and don't care for the logo
This isn't a vote for a logo, it's a vote for a browser...
There's a[an ready long, long..] argument about whether Firefox and Iceweasel are "the same thing" but since they've different names and some of us prefer one more than the other...
Sorry, I see previous posts suggesting that that they could be included together much as Nightly could, really, be a separate choice also but there needs to be a distinction and it is how it is.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Browser of the Year jeremy 2013 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards 78 02-16-2014 07:32 AM
Browser of the Year jeremy 2010 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards 193 06-10-2011 10:26 AM
Browser of the Year jeremy 2007 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards 133 05-03-2008 09:50 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration