SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
After a few months of development, the Pale Moon browser has released its latest iteration. Along with security features, the key release for this version seems to be centered around expanding the browser's media support.
Offtopic, but somehow relevant: they also published the results of their survey in March. The feedback says a lot about the browser's user base, and highlights the direction the team will take in the future.
[What browser(s) do you use? Do you use a separate browser for certain sites? Same browser for everything you access online? What browser differences lead you to use one browser over another? -Ed.]
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Oh, that sound of male ego. You travel halfway across the galaxy and
it's still the same song.
-- Eve McHuron, "Mudd's Women", stardate 1330.1
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday July 14 2017, @06:53AM (9 children)
I've been using Firefox since its inception and have stuck with it because of the extension ecosystem. That said, Firefox has become so bloated that it chews up nearly 100MB of RAM per open tab. What's more, it consistently uses 50% or more of CPU resources after being open for a few hours.
Even worse, support for it is poor on commercial websites like banks, travel booking sites, networking providers and others. As such, I've used both PaleMoon (although it has, or had, perhaps I'll try the new version) serious issues with HTML5 video rendering and Vivaldi.
Vivaldi works okay, but it (and PaleMoon) doesn't have the privacy/security extensions that Firefox does (e.g., Ghostery, HTTPS Everywhere, UblockOrigin, refcontrol, etc., etc., etc.).
IE/Edge and Chrome are just tools to spy on you. I do like having a graphical browser, even though lynx, et al are serviceable in a pinch.
So I'm not sure what I'm going to do moving forward. I slowed the descent into hell by using the Firefox ESR channel, but now that I'm at v52.2.1 it's getting to be more and more difficult to use, especially since there are specific sites that I *need* to use that just flat don't work with Firefox any more. :(
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Informative) by MostCynical on Friday July 14 2017, @09:20AM
uBlock Origin and HTTPS everywhere both working fine on Palemoon 27.4.0 for me.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @10:25AM (1 child)
My main problem is that they have a windows-centric view of things like cut and paste. It's not good enough to use windows cut and paste they want to remove unix cut and paste and in the process bolox it all up. Apparently they have a goal of unifying behavior across platforms so it works 'as expected' ie as it does on windows. What is more their license means that you are expected to ship their settings even if your platform would do things differently. All in all it doesn't operate as a native linux application and too much local changes need to be do each time I install.
They also break the 'no spaces in directory names' and 'no spaces in filesnames' rules because "it's so 1990's" despite no other programs on my linux boxen doing it.
They think they're modern but they need to meet the cluestick when it comes to linux. But I thought that about the freedestop/systemd crew as well, maybe they'll get on?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @03:18PM
>bolox
Found the non-Brit. It's spell "bollocks."
(Score: 3, Informative) by UncleSlacky on Friday July 14 2017, @12:16PM (2 children)
Vivaldi runs pretty much all extensions available for Chromium/Chrome - I'm running HTTPS Everywhere, uBlock Origin, Disconnect and Privacy Badger quite happily on Vivaldi.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @05:55PM (1 child)
what kind of windows using dumb ass uses a fucking closed source browser?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @06:00PM
actually he said chromium so maybe it is the ultimate in stupid. someone who should know better, still using a closed source browser. some manner of super whore, if you will.
(Score: 1) by loic on Friday July 14 2017, @02:58PM (2 children)
You know, it is not Firefox which became bloated, the web did. And furthermore Firefox memory usage is not linear. The first pages cost more memory than the additional. ones
About the CPU usage, that is always the same: you must have a badly behaving extension. Each time I have seen this (and complained about it, my bad...), it was a rogue extension.
Here I have been using it since 0.6, hated it through its dark ages (no, we have no memory leak, my good sir) and to its redemption (seems like we had a friggin' huge pile of memory leaks and fragmented memory, sorry!!!1 now it was fixed).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @08:11PM (1 child)
No, both did. A number of browsers use less resources than Firefox.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @02:02AM
"A number" is only technically true, as "one" is a number, which enumerates Lynx.
The rest are all comperable. Some specific scenarios will go one way or the other. I am not aware of a big-O single outlier now that Opera has taken the Dark Road, nor a meaningful outlier to the 0th and 1st degree scalars.