LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 06-03-2017, 06:40 AM   #46
PROBLEMCHYLD
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 360

Rep: Reputation: 70

Ummmmmm nope!!!!! It plays very choppy. Is the reason I asked, I'm testing a lil bit more. Try and load pbskids/youtube and you'll see what I mean.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-03-2017, 11:08 AM   #47
cwizardone
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Distribution: Slackware64-current with "True Multilib." FreeBSD.
Posts: 3,486
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by PROBLEMCHYLD View Post
Ummmmmm nope!!!!! It plays very choppy.....
I'm not having any problems and have a YouTube video running as smooth as silk in another window as I type this post.
 
Old 06-03-2017, 12:15 PM   #48
Skaendo
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2014
Location: West Texas, USA
Distribution: Slackware64-14.2
Posts: 474

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwizardone View Post
I'm not having any problems and have a YouTube video running as smooth as silk in another window as I type this post.
I have no problems with YouTube on Pale Moon either.
 
Old 06-03-2017, 12:33 PM   #49
wpeckham
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2010
Location: Continental USA
Distribution: Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, RedHat, DSL, Puppy, CentOS, Knoppix, Mint-DE, Sparky, Vsido, tinycore, Q4OS
Posts: 2,226

Rep: Reputation: 893Reputation: 893Reputation: 893Reputation: 893Reputation: 893Reputation: 893Reputation: 893
I do observe that youtube seems to work a little better with the latest google chrome on Linux, but only if you have 1.5G or ram or more. It seems to suck some ram, but with that ram it does seem to do video better.
Have you other processes chewing up ram?
 
Old 06-03-2017, 04:22 PM   #50
ttk
Member
 
Registered: May 2012
Location: Sebastopol, CA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 528
Blog Entries: 21

Rep: Reputation: 549Reputation: 549Reputation: 549Reputation: 549Reputation: 549Reputation: 549
Youtube plays fine under Pale Moon here, too.

Unfortunately a lot of things can influence in-browser video playback -- other things eating CPU or RAM, too many flash objects loaded in various tabs/windows (a lot of ads contain flash these days), ill-written javascript loaded in other tabs, etc. Try closing some AJAXy tabs and killing your flash plugin process (it will respawn when you reload the youtube tab).
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-03-2017, 05:24 PM   #51
Ilgar
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Distribution: Slackware64 14.2, Slackwarearm-current
Posts: 959

Rep: Reputation: 104Reputation: 104
No problems here either. Like ttk said I would also recommend using something like NoScript to stop javascript-loaded sites from eating up your CPU power.
 
Old 06-03-2017, 05:47 PM   #52
PROBLEMCHYLD
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 360

Rep: Reputation: 70
Then it must be my settings or something. Thanks for the feedback, I'll be testing on a clean install and see if that makes a difference.
 
Old 06-04-2017, 02:45 AM   #53
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,936

Rep: Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409
this - which browser is lightweight(*) enough, yet does what i want - has been a constant dilemma for me for years...
the cons for both palemoon and firefox are opposite and obvious and seem to exactly outweigh their opposite pros...

i think i would have switched to a chromium-based browser long ago, if:
- there was a guarantee that it doesn't phone home to google (or in fact anywhere)
- all the addons i am depending on would exist in equal quality as for firefox (**)
- i wouldn't have to visit the google playstore to install them.

(*) i want to go on using NOT gtk3 and ALSA

(*) yes, i'm using palemoon. most addons can be installed straight from the addon pages (although some think they're incompatible, but one can just click "Install anyway" becasue palemoon devs have put some work into the compatibility), a few have separate versions for palemoon.

so please tell me, is it possible to have the user experience resulting from these addons:
- https everywhere
- noscript
- requestpolicy
on a non-firefox browser?
 
Old 06-04-2017, 02:53 AM   #54
Skaendo
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2014
Location: West Texas, USA
Distribution: Slackware64-14.2
Posts: 474

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
this - which browser is lightweight(*) enough, yet does what i want - has been a constant dilemma for me for years...
the cons for both palemoon and firefox are opposite and obvious and seem to exactly outweigh their opposite pros...

i think i would have switched to a chromium-based browser long ago, if:
- there was a guarantee that it doesn't phone home to google (or in fact anywhere)
- all the addons i am depending on would exist in equal quality as for firefox (**)
- i wouldn't have to visit the google playstore to install them.

(*) i want to go on using NOT gtk3 and ALSA

(*) yes, i'm using palemoon. most addons can be installed straight from the addon pages (although some think they're incompatible, but one can just click "Install anyway" becasue palemoon devs have put some work into the compatibility), a few have separate versions for palemoon.

so please tell me, is it possible to have the user experience resulting from these addons:
- https everywhere
- noscript
- requestpolicy
on a non-firefox browser?
Have you looked at slimjet?

Con: You still use the addons from the google store. (I don't know of any other places to get addons for it)
 
Old 06-04-2017, 03:28 AM   #55
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,936

Rep: Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409
yes, another of these closed-source projects.
see my first point:
- there was a guarantee that it doesn't phone home to google (or in fact anywhere)

anyhow, i have not seen an equivalent to neither noscript nor requestpolicy for chromium-based browser yet.
 
Old 06-04-2017, 10:30 AM   #56
cwizardone
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2007
Distribution: Slackware64-current with "True Multilib." FreeBSD.
Posts: 3,486
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860Reputation: 860
I've been using blink (chromium) based Vivaldi, along with widevine to stream video from Netflix.
This morning, after reading through this thread, I noticed that even if you manually clean all personally data, including the cache, the cache or whatever is holding the information, is not really cleared. So, I went to the app store and installed Click&Clean which I've used with Firefox and Pale Moon. It adds a new wrinkle. Once you tell Click&Clean to clear your data, it automatically opens a new tab and takes you to the google search page. I couldn't find a way to turn that off, so I removed Click&Clean and will continue to only use Vivaldi for Netflix. I don't trust it for anything else.
 
Old 06-04-2017, 10:58 AM   #57
bassmadrigal
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Newport News, VA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,106

Rep: Reputation: 2078Reputation: 2078Reputation: 2078Reputation: 2078Reputation: 2078Reputation: 2078Reputation: 2078Reputation: 2078Reputation: 2078Reputation: 2078Reputation: 2078
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
so please tell me, is it possible to have the user experience resulting from these addons:
- https everywhere
- noscript
- requestpolicy
on a non-firefox browser?
https everywhere is available. If you don't want to get it from the Chrome addons store, you can download it directly from the EFF (towards the bottom of the page).

I don't think noscript itself is available, but there is something called ScriptSafe, which I imagine is similar. Again, if you don't want it from the Chrome addons store, you can grab the zip from their github, extract it to a folder. Then, you'll probably need to enable developer mode for extensions, which should allow you to install an unpacked extension or to pack and extension. The first would install it from a folder, the second would take the content from a folder and create the .crx file, which you could then install normally.

I'm not sure if there's any equivalent extension of requestpolicy, but it looks like uMatrix might handle both noscript and requestpolicy in one extension. You can actually import your whitelists from both into uMatrix. He has instructions on how to install it manually, which is basically a much better worded version of what I wrote above.

So, if you can find a Chromium-based browser that fits your needs, it looks like your extension needs will hopefully be fulfilled.
 
Old 06-07-2017, 01:26 AM   #58
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,936

Rep: Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409Reputation: 1409
thank you, bassmadrigal, for the detailed answer.
recommending uMatrix might have just been what I was looking for.

i will have to venture into this developer mode to install addons.

in the past, i had been interested in the inox set of patches for chromium; for archlinux users there's a PKGBUILD on the AUR, which makes things much easier.
unfortunately it hasn't been updated for a while, we'll have to see if it still compiles with the newest chromium.
 
Old 06-10-2017, 03:52 PM   #59
PROBLEMCHYLD
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 360

Rep: Reputation: 70
Here is an example of what I mean. Fast to others might mean slow to me and vice versa. I have 4GB ram on this system, this is my wife computer. Its a HP Pavilion dv2000. Mines is a C700 Compaq with 2GB. I was asking what type of tweaks/optimization you use to get it to load and run smoothly? I can always avoid it, but I thought I would give it a second chance. The images should be self-explanatory. Look at the time in the images as well in the upper right corener.

Last edited by PROBLEMCHYLD; 07-29-2017 at 08:45 PM.
 
Old 06-11-2017, 10:55 AM   #60
khronosschoty
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2008
Distribution: Slackware64-14.2
Posts: 224

Rep: Reputation: 63
Also you can find a built Pale Moon Slackware package here: http://repo.khronosschoty.org/Slackw...6_64-5_SBo.tgz
 
  


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 Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
what's the best way to import Firefox bookmarks to Pale Moon? newbiesforever Linux - Software 14 01-30-2017 02:08 AM
[SOLVED] Pale Moon vs Firefox storkus Slackware 35 09-07-2015 01:47 PM
LXer: Want Firefox without Australis? Try Pale Moon LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 08-01-2014 08:51 PM
Pale Moon - A firefox fork coralfang Linux - Software 9 07-16-2014 01:52 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35 AM.

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