Re: Frustration made me do it.
> > >I often wonder about this; IIRC, FF used to advertise itself as
> > >"lightweight". Does it still do that? Was it ever accurate?
> >
> > It was lighter that the Mozilla suite that it "replaced". It was similar
> > technology, but just a browser. It lacked the HTML editing abilities, the
> > mail and news reader components, and a few other things. This significantly
> > reduced load times and initial memory usage.
> >
> > I still prefer konqueror, or chromium-browser if konqueror doesn't work on a
> > certain site. Still, I find myself using FF + ABP on a few flash-ad-ridden
> > sites.
>
> I have resisted installing konq, since I don't use KDE, and I have a
> perhaps irrational resistance to installing that first KDE package that
> will drag in all sorts of KDE libs and stuff. I've occasionally tried
> chromium, but it never worked very well, and I couldn't be bothered to
> investigate and figure out why.
Strange. Google-Chrome is the thing that keeps me on the web now -
the ONLY thing I miss in it is FF's handling of RSS feeds. But I'm
not going back to that bloat to get them back.
--
-- Frank --
Reply to: