technology

24072 readers

278 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

context@hexbear.net

SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net

gaycomputeruser@hexbear.net

Wakmrow@hexbear.net

SwitchyandWitchy@hexbear.net

The idea of lightweight browsers annoys me (hexbear.net)

submitted 6 days ago by Super_Lumalo@hexbear.net to c/technology@hexbear.net

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

All of these recommendations for Falkon, Palemoon, Seamonkey. Honestly? None of these really make a difference to me, and Falkon actually runs like shit while not really reducing resource use!

Librewolf genuinely runs perfectly for me while taking up slightly (like 10%) more ram and vastly less cpu time. And it being a fork of Firefox, I can easily use all the addons I need (or can afford) to browse the web.

With Falkon stuff barely worked, was slow, and features were missing. With Librewolf, h264ify and a Youtube video as an embed within a tab. I can watch 720p/30fps video without issue. It baffles me on why this concept even exists, when the problem that is the modern web creates is that you really can't make a new, much less lightweight, browser or engine.

And I don't particularly care for Ladybird.

Okay but what shitbox are you running?

Thank you for asking imaginary poster in my head. Intel Atom N2600 with 1GB of DDR3 ram. It sucks. And it is testament to me just how nonsensical lightweight web browsers are, I'm sure that it's Antix that is making it all work. Also I wrote this post on this shitty netbook and it's weirdly smooth happily enough.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Midnight_Pearl@hexbear.net 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

fwiw pale moon doesn't even pretend to be a lightweight browser; that's just a trait that people keep misattributing to it because it diverged from an old version of firefox.

[–] sawne128@hexbear.net 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I recently played with an old Dothan Thinkpad with 1 gb ram, and tried almost every different Linux browser there is. I think Pale Moon was the only browser where Youtube was somewhat useable, and it was generally faster than Firefox. I think this information will be very valuable to society.

[–] Midnight_Pearl@hexbear.net 4 points 6 days ago

since the platform code is single-process it does struggle a lot when you start opening multiple tabs of modern, JS-heavy sites on limited processors, whereas multi-process browsers handle that better but at the same time consume way more memory. so it's really good for limited RAM, but not quite so good for limited CPU.

personally i've found it to be kinda slow on my thinkpad X200, fairly usable on my X230 with AVX1, and a dream to use on my L13 with AVX2.

in any case, pale moon (and any other UXP browser) is goated mainly cuz of the modularity and freedom. the XUL addon ecosystem is insanely powerful and the browser is just customizable af without making unnecessary changes that break those customizations usually. it's also an actually-viable alternative to the web engine duopoly.