| 1 |
On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:07:11 me wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel da Veiga |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> <danieldaveiga@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > <francesco.talamona@××××.eu> wrote: |
| 8 |
> >> On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: |
| 9 |
> >>> Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less |
| 10 |
> >>> stable. |
| 11 |
> >>> |
| 12 |
> >>> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons |
| 13 |
> >>> (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. |
| 14 |
> >>> Seg fault sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, |
| 15 |
> >>> and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and |
| 16 |
> >>> re-emerge. |
| 17 |
> >>> |
| 18 |
> >>> Grrrrrr. |
| 19 |
> >> |
| 20 |
> >> Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes the |
| 21 |
> >> X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as molasses. |
| 22 |
> >> |
| 23 |
> >> Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux. |
| 24 |
> >> |
| 25 |
> >> greets |
| 26 |
> >> FT |
| 27 |
> >> |
| 28 |
> >> -- |
| 29 |
> >> Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17 |
| 30 |
> >> 21:01:33 CEST 2010 |
| 31 |
> >> Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total |
| 32 |
> >> aemaeth |
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > Well, guess I'm lucky then. |
| 35 |
> > I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other |
| 36 |
> > browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my |
| 37 |
> > personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't |
| 38 |
> > stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock, |
| 39 |
> > noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but |
| 40 |
> > still, I don't see it in a near future. |
| 41 |
> > |
| 42 |
> > -- |
| 43 |
> > Daniel da Veiga |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least |
| 46 |
> contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but |
| 47 |
> covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll |
| 48 |
> not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from |
| 49 |
> giving it a real try... |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job: |
| 52 |
> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcf |
| 53 |
> n?hl=en |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> Flashblock: |
| 56 |
> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaignabn |
| 57 |
> l?hl=en |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> Adblock: |
| 60 |
> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglido |
| 61 |
> m?hl=en |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it |
| 64 |
> seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything |
| 65 |
> else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long |
| 66 |
> time. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86. I tried Chrome |
| 69 |
once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster. I gave up on it |
| 70 |
because I was not sure if the browser was calling home with my browsing habits |
| 71 |
and if these were identifiable as coming from my machine/IP address. In other |
| 72 |
words I wasn't sure to what extent Google was recording my Internet journeys. |
| 73 |
-- |
| 74 |
Regards, |
| 75 |
Mick |
Archives