Re: alternate web browser etc...
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 08:02, Bernard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi to Everyone,
> I wish to install an alternate web browser, else than the firefox clone
> (iceweasel v3.0.6) that I already have. Iceweasel does fulfill my needs and
> expectations, but, for various reasons, I wish to also have something else
> too, one of these reasons being that it would be initiated with alternate
> identities, mail addresses etc.. In the meantime, this would allow me to
> test something else, which is the reason why I don't plan to install
> 'Netscape' which is about the same as Firefox/Iceweasel, sometimes using
> same conf files, bookmarks and so on.
Netscape has been discontinued, and it was only (since 6.0) a slight
derivative of the Mozilla Suite (now SeaMonkey) or Firefox.
As a SeaMonkey user, I can assure you that it does not use the same
files as FF - they are in a separate directory. Furthermore, why not just
use Firefox profiles? They are easy to use and completely separate
from each other. Besides config, history and bookmarks being separate,
extensions are also separate.
> Why not 'Opera', even if it is not free (I doubt if it is very expensive) ?
> I may miss the knowledge of something better that Opera...
Opera has been gratis and ad-free since 8.5, it was and remains non-libre.
To those mentioning Epiphany, it is based on Gecko in older versions
(but shares no config files), but the new version (2.28, dev version 2.29
currently in Testing/Sid), it is based on Webkit.
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:26, mess-mate <email@example.com> wrote:
> I use firefox 3.6 beta4, works great without any problem about java and
> other plugins.
Besides SeaMonkey 2.0, I also rather like Firefox 3.7alpha, which has
plugins (read: Flash) in a separate process.
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 10:20, firstname.lastname@example.org
> All those browsers are working more or less fine, minus occasional
> problems with flash or java (I'm on amd64), but none come close to
> Iceweasel's + extensions features IMHO.
What problems have you had with Flash? I installed the 64 bit Flash beta
for Linux (just grabbed the .so and symlinked it), and it has given me
the best Flash experience I have ever had (not that that is hard).
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 17:41, Charlie <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:08:55 -0800 Jim McCloskey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> shared this with us all:
>>Google chrome is very good (as fast as was promised as far as I can
>>see). It's free in both of the relevant senses and it's packaged for
> Aha - didn't know it was licensed under GNU?
If you DL the Chrome binary package from Google there is an
EULA, but the code and Chromium is under the BSD license.