Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

BLizgreat! · 2017-11-19 13:05:26

Seen it mentioned by others in the thread, personally don't know much about it, if I'd ever tried it then I don't remember doing so, shrugs. So hopefully you reread posts related to Vivaldi, do some googling and/or somebody with experience decides they like it enough to pop up and talk about it or to re-type something they already typed about it ... whichever.

And now, back to griping about javascript or jquery ... all things inbetween and one of my personal most hated (and resource guzzling) of technologies FLASH < DIE, DIE FLASH, die, why won't you DIEEEEEEE !?!?! Anyway, who da hades needs to make a website that runs 84 javascripts on a webpg ?!?!?! What the hades are they doing with em all, why don't they do the right/considerate thing and throw such markup in the cyber trash where their website belongs !??!!

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-11-19 13:06:43)

martix · 2017-11-19 13:46:09

^Vivaldi is a kickass browser, especially for power-users. I guess it's focus is not really privacy/safety. On the other hand it can be of course "hardened" with the right extensions.

Trying to use multiple Firefox versions after I installed Quantum there was a strange issue I noticed: As BLiz! described, it's easy to have different versions of Firefox running at the same time (by starting "firefox" from the versions folder and using different profiles on the profiles manager page). While I tried out an ESR profile I used earlier in Quantum - which was working fine, apart from some add-ons - there was that "Sidebars" icon - I think out-of-the-box visible - on Quantum. After I closed Quantum and opened that same profile with the ESR version, it also showed that "Sidebars" icon. Actually, thinking about it, it's not surprising after all: The profile settings used by ESR got - partly - overwritten by the Quantum settings, which has the "Sidebars" icon on default. Using ESR again just used these new profile settings.

Btw it's also possible running Firefox and Waterfox at the same time. I like Waterfox' attitude (let's remove the junk).

I'm wondering: Is it possible to have only one Firefox version but running different profiles at the same time?

BLizgreat! · 2017-11-19 13:50:00

^ Absolutely, mentioned it in the his/her's profile thing or setting up a profile you want to use for a specific purpose ie: Web-dev w all related extensions or SUPER-SPY profile, with every friggin useful security/privacy extension running under it and then the "dailydriver" profile, slimmed down or tweaked for whatcha want it to use.

vasa1 · 2017-11-19 13:50:11

martix wrote:

... I'm wondering: Is it possible to have only one Firefox version but running different profiles at the same time?

From man firefox:

       -no-remote
              Don't connect to any other running  instances  of  firefox.  Use
              this  if  you want to run firefox in an entirely new process. By
              default, firefox will delegate a command to an  already  running
              instance.

may be of use?

Last edited by vasa1 (2017-11-19 13:50:43)

BLizgreat! · 2017-11-19 13:53:11

Just 2 more cents, one of the more practical uses of this is the his/hers profile. Don't know about you but don't want to wade through a buncha pinterest bookmarks or helloKITTY or whatever while am trying to find my worthwhile guy stuff. Nor errrrr, do I want her, errrrr finding my bkmarks and perusing my history of errrrrr, SOMElikeitnasty.com.

martix · 2017-11-19 14:14:05

vasa1 wrote:

       -no-remote

Fantastic, many thanks!

Starting Firefox via

firefox -p -no-remote

lets someone to have multiple profiles open with the same firefox version.

Lately, after reading about security stuff regarding Firejail, I'm not sure about using Firefox with Firejail.

BLizgreat! · 2017-11-20 03:01:12

^ Never done the Firejail thing, or chroot jail a browser, never had anything browserage compromised on anything gnu/Linux. View it as added overhead with some possible performance impact(depending) but as have never really had an interest in this ... not any kind of expert.

Random stats: FF v56.0.2 + noscript and 30tabs open, not that I/you really ever need 30-friggin tabs but still, ps_mem says.

187.9 MiB + 46.0 MiB = 233.9 MiB firefox
323.1 MiB + 40.3 MiB = 363.4 MiB Web Content

(597mbs and barely dinging my cpu, generally showing 98%+ idle in top.) Underscores why I'm keeping latest FF prior to Quantum until a working noscript replacement emerges. Open 30tabs with Chrome and see whatcha get. Hopefully a RAM upgrade and dual-quad proc, ya gonna need it. Errr well not that I doubt Chrome/ium can be tweaked as well. Just saying would make my teeth itch to see how much it'd be chowing down on system resources out-of-box, in this situation.

VLFF! I shall tame you Quantum, oh yes buddy, I shall tame you !

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-11-20 06:54:25

martix wrote:

Firejail

It provides a small measure of extra security and is very simple to implement so I would say that it is worth using but be sure to still maintain "safe" practices at all times.

FF v57 has e10s enabled by default (check about:support) so it's sandboxed anyway but another layer doesn't hurt.

I prefer www/chromium in my OpenBSD system because it's fully pledge()d.

EDIT: @BLizgreat!, the newer versions of FF (or any browser) always use more resources because they are capable of displaying more of the crap that web designers bloat their sites out with and attempting to fight this is like King Canute trying to ward off the tide.

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2017-11-20 06:57:37)

cloverskull · 2017-11-20 06:54:41

Yeah, I'm starting to feel a bit skeptical about firejail.

At this point I'm wondering if the only truly secure way to run an application fully sandboxed in its own name/uid/pidspace is via selinux. This is why I like android

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-11-20 06:59:49

^ Yes, it is safer to browse with a smartphone running Android, which is a sad state of affairs.

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2017-11-20 07:00:29)

BLizgreat! · 2017-11-20 09:10:58

Hoas, were on a disagreement roll fellow nixer.

As contents of that post show, am not trying to wade off the tide, am doing it and will do so with modern browsers or versions of Firefox too, well eventually and until a better option comes along I'm fine with v56 anyway. Mainly just a matter of waiting for noscript to port over. That'll take care of much of the overhead, headaches alone. If I have to, will find one or more work-arounds to achieve the same ends.

Though anything web-dev's implement, anyone with the desire and determination can take or leave as they please, whether that be server-side or client-side. Yep webz have definitely gotten heavier but that's to be expected, so has the supporting infrastructure in most places. It's the norm now for unlimited highspeed net access. Note: I don't approve of such bloat, if it doesn't serve some meaningful purpose and if there's a better way then folks should always utilize it instead. Really don't get the 84 js's .. whatever functions those are serving could almost certainly be done one of many better ways but that's up to x-site admin, shrugs.

Vll!

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-11-20 09:12:28)

martix · 2017-11-20 14:26:16

titan wrote:

so thought I would give Vivaldi a try and now 6 weeks later can't see me using any other browser any time soon.

Did you notice that after clearing all the cookies and all the cache entry, when you restart Vivaldi, there is

https://ssl.google-analytics.com/ga.js

in the cache (might be even more) and also a google-analytics cookie set automatically on the machine?

Edit: I think I found the culprit. It was probably because of the extension Video DownloadHelper. When it is installed, google-analytics gets started every time the browser is opened. It's a shame if extensions use something like that, but it happens all the time.

Last edited by martix (2017-11-20 15:36:44)

BLizgreat! · 2017-11-20 17:52:22

^ Good tip though, thanks for informing the rest of us. That's what I'm babbling about, he know's his enemy (da mighty Goog! in this case. ) Errrr ... well ok, saying Goog Inc is the "enemy" might be stretching it a bit but still ... @Martix says IN YER FACE GOOG!

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-11-20 17:56:36

BLizgreat! wrote:

Hoas, were on a disagreement roll fellow nixer.

Well, hey, it's not my fault you keep being wrong

I will concede that your valiant efforts do seem to make some headway but I still think your feet will get wet eventually 8o

BLizgreat! · 2017-11-20 18:14:01

You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, misguided as it may be you're still well within ya rights. Messing around, mostly.

It's not that big a deal, really don't need 30tabs open at any given time, was chasing down some tweakage info I've long been interested in, in fact pretty sure I had more than 1 instance of several of the same webpages open.

Still nice to know I can if want to and still have a web browser in 2017-18 that uses under 600mbs and almost no processor overhead. When it comes to Quantum and future FF, again, think a big step in keeping any added system overhead it's bound to bring in check will be the methods similar to what noscript does. Have actually seen it for myself.

Also as mentioned what it uses now is not out of line, with the other major browsers anyway, supposedly less to whatever degree, shrugs.

At this point I don't even do much by way of about:config tweaking anymore. Some tested and true but nothing like I used to be with it. Are some really interesting one's I've seen while digging around under FF's hood. Really do need to start dorking with more.

Stuff like dynamically compress FF's cache (person could control compression level), there's always the old cache or full profile to ram, which coupled with the above could bring some interesting mojo (zram/zswap-etc type stuff), compressed cache to ram etc blahblah.

Have long since taken to strictly limiting the size of any FF cache anyway, as have read only a small percentage of what's kept in it is ever reused and site owners not setting the correct expires headers anyway, so FF re-downloads the content of those sites fresh anyway. As such I'd rather avoid the not all that bad disk i/o involved. Mentioned I <heart> FF and think it's the best browser going and that's one of the reasons, most dang configurable thing anyone could ask for.

Really do hope Mozilla manages to stay in the game and hopefully even recover some of the MASSIVE amount of support they've lost losing battle after battle in the B-wars so far. Quantum is fine and like anything newest it's probably only going to get better as time goes.

VLFF!

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-11-20 19:37:30)

BLizgreat! · 2017-11-20 18:43:57

Also not sure if I'd pointed it out here or in another forum babbling about the subject. Mozilla's main target audience in all things development is window$ users, not nixers. Though any advances filter down nonetheless and a well skilled nixer, has plenty of advantages readily available in their arsenal as opposed to the avg M$ victim anyway.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-11-20 18:44:52)

BLizgreat! · 2017-11-20 19:08:16

Kinda cool, wasn't overly familiar with this stuff and meant to post it late last night. Ran into a major almost borked my pride and joy gnu/Nix OS situation, entirely self inflicted, being careless and messing around with stuff I didn't bother to fully understand and it side tracked me (FOR ABOUT 5 FRIGGIN HOURS !!!)until got my OS fixed and back to where it's supposed to be.

Anyway, having babbled all that, mentioned have installed FF v57 from the Lmde2/betsy repository. Went to set it as system default "sudo update-alternatives --config x-www-browser" and ? It wasn't there, no choice for it, just the firefox-esr thing. Errrrr, ok "locate firefox |grep /usr/bin*". Quickly showed me where the relevant thingys are located /usr/bin/firefox, ok well how to add it to alternatives ?

Why "update-alternatives" o course. So added it to the x-www-browser group and then chose it to be default for this.

Adding it.

sudo update-alternatives --install /usr/bin/x-www-browser x-www-browser /usr/bin/firefox 100

Note: I gave it a priority of 100, vs firefox-esr was @70 itself. You could use 70 instead of 100 if ya like and still choose it default anyway.

Ran "sudo update-alternatives --config x-www-browser" again, selected firefox to be it's default. Then confirmed with "update-alternatives --get-selections" to see that yep, it's set default and as manual mode for x-www-browser. Anything on the system which executes x-www-browser will now launch FF v57. Can change it or do stuff another way, this is gnu/Linux afterall.

Anyway just wanted to point this junk out for whoever may likely or find useful. Obviously some interesting things a person can do/learn about "update-alternatives" and associated commands and sys-admin'ing implications for this kind of thingy.

Vll!

Ps, also before anyone says anything, YES ... thingy is in fact a well recognized technical term. Totally appropriate in all IT circles to describe well errrrr, a thingy of course.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-11-20 19:13:03

BLizgreat! wrote:

update-alternatives

Yes, I love Debian's alternatives system, it's one of the things I miss most when using other operating systems.

For GUI fans there is the galternatives front-end (included in the BunsenLabs base system) that can be useful given the rather abstruse syntax of the command line version.

BLizgreat! · 2017-11-20 19:15:54

Also note, my 5hr frustration and pain festival I think convey's a couple important lessons for aspiring gnu/Nix system admin's everywhere.

LESSON 1) ALWAYS KEEP A BACKUP, put an effective incremental backup plan/procedure in place NOW, RIGHT NOW, DO IT, DO IT NOW. The Os/data you save might/will be your own. Same goes for your arse very likely. Ye shall be able to save your own quickly/easily vs the PAIN not doing so will bring.

LESSON 2) It's not borkage, it's an opportunity to learn and to un/bork it. Tried everything under the sun to recover the OS and eventually did so, try this, that ... this might do it, no ... hmmm 12 other things/attempts. Thus the 5 FRIGGIN HOURS !!! As this is also a great time getting much needed practice in your banging head on comp-desk technique. This leads me to a combo of both 1 & 2, lesson 3.

Lesson 3) Sometimes it's just better to go with option/lesson 1, restore in 10-12 minutes then hit the sack and not spend 5 FRIGGIN HRS screwing with lesson #2.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-11-20 19:43:47)

BLizgreat! · 2017-11-20 19:19:32

Oops, missed that Hoas and sincerely thanks, will check it out. Though imo and preference, there's a fine example of LESSON 4) If you want to really learn to do it right, do it via cli.

Though you/Hoas isn't kidding, commands involved in this type of thingy can be painful. Not that I know all that much about it YET. Could see even a 20yr sys-admin vet keeping a handy cheat-sheet reference nearby.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-11-20 19:22:11)

#121 2017-11-19 13:05:26

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#122 2017-11-19 13:46:09

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#123 2017-11-19 13:50:00

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#124 2017-11-19 13:50:11

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#125 2017-11-19 13:53:11

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#126 2017-11-19 14:14:05

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#127 2017-11-20 03:01:12

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#128 2017-11-20 06:54:25

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#129 2017-11-20 06:54:41

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#130 2017-11-20 06:59:49

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#131 2017-11-20 09:10:58

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#132 2017-11-20 14:26:16

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#133 2017-11-20 17:52:22

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#134 2017-11-20 17:56:36

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#135 2017-11-20 18:14:01

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#136 2017-11-20 18:43:57

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#137 2017-11-20 19:08:16

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#138 2017-11-20 19:13:03

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#139 2017-11-20 19:15:54

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#140 2017-11-20 19:19:32

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

Board footer