Chromium vs. Iceweasel

falldown · 2012-05-15 18:14:06

^I know one would have to be installed by default for a suitable Live session.
I think a browser choice is as unobtrusive as all the other package options we have during cb-welcome.

Its not a suggestion to hinder #!... It's merely a suggestion to add the option of browsers.

Last edited by falldown (2012-05-15 18:16:24)

SabreWolfy · 2012-05-15 18:16:37

Which panel would you like?
Which terminal would you like?
Install Adobe reader?
Remove PulsaAudio and install ALSA?
Remove SLiM and install GDM?
OpenOffice or LibreOffice?
Emacs or vim?
PCMan or Thunar?
wicd or nm?
Install conky?
apt-get or aptitude?
xchat, irssi or none?

Last edited by SabreWolfy (2012-05-15 18:28:47)

VastOne · 2012-05-15 18:17:38

^ apt-get or aptitude... smile

falldown · 2012-05-15 18:17:59

SabreWolfy wrote:

^ Which panel would you like? Which terminal would you like? Install Adobe reader? Remove PulsaAudio and install ALSA? Remove SLiM and install GDM? OpenOffice or LibreOffice? Emacs or vim? PCMan or Thunar? wicd or nm?

Thats completely NOT what I was saying at all.

Neil · 2012-05-15 18:18:06

I've used both, but prefer Iceweasel. Don't care which is default, because I can change that if I want with little effort.

hinto · 2012-05-15 18:20:14

Originally I mentioned that it doesn't matter which browser you supply as default, since it's easy enough to install one.
Supply the smallest as default to minimize iso size. If the decision is made to ask which one you want as default during cb-welcome, you might as well not have one to start with. When you have firefox, opera, chromium, epiphany, etc all in the iso, you're getting dvd size. (well after a while).
-H

Edit: removed the '^' since it no longer applied to the previous post. (3 more jumped in before I posted)

Last edited by hinto (2012-05-15 18:21:15)

falldown · 2012-05-15 18:20:36

I don't believe what I suggested could have been taken anymore out of context then it has.

Anyway I prefer Iceweasel over Chromium.

VastOne · 2012-05-15 18:22:03

^ I do not think that SabreWolfy was replying solely at you falldown, but more as a whole in the discussion... I got what you were saying. smile

el_koraco · 2012-05-15 18:25:44

hinto wrote:

Edit: removed the '^' since it no longer applied to the previous post. (3 more jumped in before I posted)

You should have replaced it with 3k.

SabreWolfy · 2012-05-15 18:27:54

@falldown: My reply was not a personal attack on you. VastOne is correct in that I am addressing the whole discussion, but following on from what you posted above offering a choice. I've removed the "^" from my earlier post.

I was making the point that if a choice if offered for the browser, then why not a choice for any number of other things? Hence my argument that it is better to offer a single default. If you don't like it, then you change it as you want, just like with any of the other components.

Last edited by SabreWolfy (2012-05-15 18:29:26)

falldown · 2012-05-15 18:33:37

I just know that apt-get install (browser) is one of the first things that we do after install.. if we aren't satisfied with the default.
A very unobtrusive program that does not change our #! experience at all.. and yes it is a personal choice.
Another personal choice is "do I want java installed?"
"Do I want printer support?".. ect ect.

Not a big deal in IMHO. smile

Sorry VastOne and SabreWolfy.. kinda took it wrong. smile

Last edited by falldown (2012-05-15 18:34:56)

VastOne · 2012-05-15 18:38:32

^ No worries...

I felt the same way when Xfce was abandoned... It bothered me but a simple apt-get took care of the issue...

A different animal though as I do not think most people look at a Distro based on what browser is installed. Whereas any Xfce user will bypass #! simply because it does not offer it.

But I got over it, as the OB and simple cli based group kicked my arse well and good... roll

el_koraco · 2012-05-15 18:50:34

VastOne wrote:

But I got over it, as the OB and simple cli based group kicked my arse well and good...

So, you're still using BloatFCE? big_smile

VastOne · 2012-05-15 18:52:12

Indeed... no sacrificial virgins/lambs Round Here.... big_smile

reference ...

Counting Crows - Round Here (acoustic)

hinto · 2012-05-15 18:56:05

What is bloat on a quad core with 8 gigs of ram? wink
-Hinto

VastOne · 2012-05-15 18:57:04

^ Precisely... As machines get bigger better and stronger for less, retro is en vogue... roll

ivanovnegro · 2012-05-15 18:57:48

machinebacon wrote:

I don't like either, but IW/FF gets my vote as default if that matters (except of being unable to open mails in hotmail, but that's Claws job).

I guess it is blocked, at least with Privoxy Hotmail does indeed not open mails, you have to change the preferences. I can open everything from Hotmail.

I am a Fox user. big_smile Sometimes I play with minimal browsers but not for real work.

So, I would give my vote to the Weasel. It is supported by Debian in a better way through the Mozilla repo instead of Chromium that will stand still ones Wheezy/Wallie gets freezed.

SabreWolfy · 2012-05-15 18:57:54

hinto wrote:

What is bloat on a quad core with 8 gigs of ram?
-Hinto

KrunchBang, the KDE variant? smile

TitanMech · 2012-05-15 19:01:41

SabreWolfy wrote:

KrunchBang, the KDE variant?

Actually i added most of the KDE stuff to crunchbang, i was amased by the speed, and how little resources it used.

I remember out of my netbooks 4 cores, overall only 5% more cpu was used on KDE, than OpenBox at Idle, and only 4-6% more ram

SabreWolfy · 2012-05-15 19:07:04

^ That's interesting, because I've read about Kubuntu installations taking 500MB+ or RAM.

Sorry corenominal -- we're derailing your thread...

Last edited by SabreWolfy (2012-05-15 19:07:19)

bozhkov · 2012-05-15 19:33:40

I quite often have to use my uni's proxy to connect, and Chromium has quite a few issues because in #! there is no gnome or kde-esque network settings manager. Simply because of that, and because there is no good way to set Chromium to open links at the background, I vote Iceweasel smile

SabreWolfy · 2012-05-15 19:42:59

^ Good point. It's a pain; you have to pass proxy details as parameters to chromium IIRC.

Last edited by SabreWolfy (2012-05-15 19:43:31)

corenominal · 2012-05-15 20:07:30

Again, thank you all for your comments. I am finding it interesting to read all the different reasons why people prefer one over the other. What strikes me most is this, there is a lot more to it than just speed.

So anyway, Iceweasel seems to be the clear favourite and I am happy make the changes for the next Waldorf development release. Thanks again for your input smile

VastOne · 2012-05-15 20:10:08

^ A leader who listens to his peeps... My vote for whatever you want to run for... PM possibly?

SabreWolfy · 2012-05-15 20:11:04

^ Pah! Then who would continue with #! development! yikes

CrunchBang Linux

SEARCH

#26 2012-05-15 18:14:06

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#27 2012-05-15 18:16:37

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#28 2012-05-15 18:17:38

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#29 2012-05-15 18:17:59

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#30 2012-05-15 18:18:06

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#31 2012-05-15 18:20:14

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#32 2012-05-15 18:20:36

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#33 2012-05-15 18:22:03

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#34 2012-05-15 18:25:44

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#35 2012-05-15 18:27:54

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#36 2012-05-15 18:33:37

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#37 2012-05-15 18:38:32

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#38 2012-05-15 18:50:34

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#39 2012-05-15 18:52:12

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#40 2012-05-15 18:56:05

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#41 2012-05-15 18:57:04

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#42 2012-05-15 18:57:48

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#43 2012-05-15 18:57:54

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#44 2012-05-15 19:01:41

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#45 2012-05-15 19:07:04

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#46 2012-05-15 19:33:40

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#47 2012-05-15 19:42:59

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#48 2012-05-15 20:07:30

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#49 2012-05-15 20:10:08

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

#50 2012-05-15 20:11:04

Re: Chromium vs. Iceweasel

Board footer