Re: Frustration made me do it.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 14:55, <teddieeb@tmo.blackberry.net> wrote:
>
> Example, Lxde doesn't have the bloat of KDE4, but is still running ontop
> of the same core enviroment of the KDE system native to the OS, (e.g.
> Lxde in squeeze has the same underlying and crappy menu and
> configuration systems at KDE4, trying to tweek the system is like going
> on a major quest and it doesn't have anywhere near the customization
> options KDE3 had.)
Totally wrong. LXDE is Openbox and some other things, nothing at all
to do with KDE, either 3 or 4. If anything, it has slightly more to do with
Gnome, as it uses GTK apps.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 18:02, Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 00:35:37 +0000
> Nuno Magalhães <nunomagalhaes@eu.ipp.pt> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> I use Iceweasel with ADP and NoScript and that's it. Sometimes i get
>> in trouble with flash-sites and sometimes my cpu will spike 'cos of
>> some tab, but i think it's the most all-round browser i have. I'll use
>> 30 tabs max, and don't like to keep flash tabs open, so i can't say i
>> use it extensively.
I guess it is the difference between mainline and IW, but I never see
actual stability issues until >100 tabs. Maybe with a lot of Flash, but
not even then since OOPP showed up.
> My policy, for stability and privacy, is to run two instances of FF.
> My main one has no scripting allowed (NoScript with basically no
> exceptions - perhaps I should just entirely turn off Javascript in FF),
> no Flash, no cookies, etc. I tend to keep dozens of tabs open here.
> My secondary has some scripting (managed with NoScript), Flash (managed
> with FlashBlock) and cookies on a case by case basis. I generally keep
> very few windows open at a time, and quite frequently clear all private
> data.
Why bother with Flashblock? AFAIK NoScript is more flexible than Flashblock
at blocking Flash.
Cheers,
Kelly Clowers
Reply to: