On 21 Jun 2002 08:39:10 -0500
Jeremy Turner <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 18:47, Drew Parsons wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:24:21PM -0700, Gale Stafford wrote:
> > > Hi folks! This is not necessarily laptop-specific but perhaps one
> > > of you can help. I'm getting an error when trying to run the
> > > mozilla-install for Mozilla 1.0.
> > "mozilla-install" ? This sounds like you're using the installation
> > binaries from mozilla.org. Did you try "apt-get install mozilla" to
> > get the Debian compiled mozilla packages?
> Agreed. Mozilla 1.0.0 is in Sid and works pretty well!
I warn anyone who values system stability to think hard about using
Mozilla. It's painfully slow, a screen hog, and also has memory leaks;
and that's when it's it's working _right_.
When it's not working right it can not only crash itself, but can/will
crash the X session, put the processor into a loop, start processes that
refuse to be "killed," and crash the system, forcing unhealthy reboots.
Anyone using a machine slower than, say 600mHz with plenty of RAM, could
forget about it anyway, it's just too Bloated and Slow, even if coupled
with a very lightweight wm. Not to mention the effect that it has on a
laptop running off battery: could easily cut the battery time in half or
less versus using Links (I know it's an unfair comparison, I use it to
express my point about battery usage) due to all the disk
writing/swappping that invariably occurs. Just loading the program took
me about 20 seconds of hard-core disk usage when I had it installed, and
i have a very up-to-date machine, and built the thing from source so it
In my opinion, one pays too much in terms of performance, time, and
stability for what Mozilla offers in features.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com