Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Wed 23 Oct 2019, 21:54
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff) » Browsers and Internet
'Portable' Palemoon - v28.2.2
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 2 of 3 [33 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
fredx181


Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Posts: 4125
Location: holland

PostPosted: Thu 31 Jan 2019, 12:45    Post subject:  

Here's a thread with info about how to solve some possible issues with the latest Palemoon.
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=115266
For users running on machines with Intel graphics, but probably not all Intel graphics are affected, (I have it also, but no such problems for me)

Fred

_________________
Dog Linux website
Tinylinux blog by wiak
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
backi

Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 1779
Location: GERMANY

PostPosted: Sun 03 Mar 2019, 11:42    Post subject:  

Hi !
I am not really satisfied with new Versions of Palemoon 28.xxx.
Since all my Add-ons ( Imtranslater-Ublock Origin-Umatrix -Disconnect- Open With ) no longer working and could not find any adequate Substitute ......it does not make any sense for me to use it ( any longer ) .
Lack of Ublock and Umatrix makes this new Version really slow .

So I now did (re) discovered Firefox Quantum again .I am amazed how blazing fast it works .......of course all my Add-Ons are working too .
Also just switched back to Palemoon 27.9.4 and all my Frustrations are gone and my Add-Ons are also back again .

Did give Palemoon 28.4 a real fair Chance.........but sorry .......maybe later ....
What`s your Experience/Opinion ?

Btw:Switched all my Internet Browsers and Thunderbird to "Portable" Versions .

Dont know if there is any Advantage ( beside of being "portable" ) in it or if there are any ( hidden ) Downsides to it . Maybe anybody can explain .
But somehow i like it this Way .

Regards !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Semme


Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 8021
Location: World_Hub

PostPosted: Sun 03 Mar 2019, 12:38    Post subject:  

Backi, check this out on PM 28.4.0! >> http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=1020121#1020121
addons_archive.jpg
 Description   
 Filesize   34.35 KB
 Viewed   513 Time(s)

addons_archive.jpg

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
a_salty_dogg


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 181

PostPosted: Sun 03 Mar 2019, 12:40    Post subject:  

@ backi

The current latest Ublock Origin version compatible with Palemoon can be found by going to this page and scrolling down to the first entry headed (in large blue font, thus) "firefox-legacy-x.xx.x.x", then clicking on "uBlock0.firefox-legacy.xpi" and installing in the usual way.

EDIT - Sorry Semme, our posts crossed! Embarassed
Though many thanks to you and 666philb for that link and add-on, didn't know about it
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
backi

Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 1779
Location: GERMANY

PostPosted: Sun 03 Mar 2019, 13:22    Post subject:  

Hi Salty Dog -----Semme !

Thanks for Advice ....... so i got all my Add-ons working on Palemoon 28.4 .

But........still not convinced from Version 28.4 -----
Made some Test....... even Palemoon 27.9.4 is definitely snappier----
Using 64 Bit Versions on a Dell Precision M6600 with enough Horsepower .....
As a ( former) hard-core Palemoon User ..... sorry but i have to say..... Firefox Quantum is a Beast...........can`t be beat by Palemoon (in my Case ) ......lightning fast .....easy on Cpu .....low on ram (on a 64Bit Os ....posting now from it on Devuan Dog with E17( in Reality E22) Enlightenment Desktop ) .

Seems i am back now to Firefox .....unless someone can give me some real good Reasons to keep Palemoon which i doubt that it will happen .(means .....make it faster )
Probably Palemoon is better for older Laptops which is (no longer ) the Case for me .
Maybe later (again) .

Edit :
O.K Palemoon 27.9.4 and Firefox are nearly equal fast .......but 28.4 still a Problem Child .
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
6502coder


Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Posts: 646
Location: Western United States

PostPosted: Sun 07 Apr 2019, 20:34    Post subject:  

I added Mike's portable PaleMoon PET to a frugal install of SailorE's Slacko583, along with Mike's GTK3 PET, updated to the current PaleMoon 28.4.1, and find that the performance is surprisingly good on my ancient 1.GHz Celeron M laptop. I had about given up trying to find an up-to-date browser that would run decently on YouTube on this hardware. Nice job, Mike!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 5493
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Mon 08 Apr 2019, 10:15    Post subject:  

6502coder wrote:
I added Mike's portable PaleMoon PET to a frugal install of SailorE's Slacko583, along with Mike's GTK3 PET, updated to the current PaleMoon 28.4.1, and find that the performance is surprisingly good on my ancient 1.GHz Celeron M laptop. I had about given up trying to find an up-to-date browser that would run decently on YouTube on this hardware. Nice job, Mike!


You're very welcome, mate. Fred deserves a wee bit of credit too, though, for coming up with the 'portable-FF Quantum' that inspired me in the first place.

Enjoy!


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY 'PUPPY' PACKAGES

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
nic007


Joined: 13 Nov 2011
Posts: 3079
Location: Cradle of Humankind

PostPosted: Sat 07 Sep 2019, 06:15    Post subject:  

I have a question with regards to these portable versions. As I Inderstand it, it is self-contained running from a folder wherever you place it. Do these versions run in preference to the base sfs (as in layer of system operation) with regards to newer glibc's, etc? Pets load "on top" of the base sfs and sfs addons at "lower level" in comparison to the base sfs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
watchdog

Joined: 28 Sep 2012
Posts: 1925
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Sat 07 Sep 2019, 06:31    Post subject:  

I know that you can't perform a glibc upgrade with an sfs: you have to install a working deb or pet file. The new glibc must be at top level. So I think that these portable versions run at top level with preference to the base sfs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
nic007


Joined: 13 Nov 2011
Posts: 3079
Location: Cradle of Humankind

PostPosted: Sat 07 Sep 2019, 08:12    Post subject:  

watchdog wrote:
I know that you can't perform a glibc upgrade with an sfs: you have to install a working deb or pet file. The new glibc must be at top level. So I think that these portable versions run at top level with preference to the base sfs.


Yes but it will be interesting to know how it achieves that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
nic007


Joined: 13 Nov 2011
Posts: 3079
Location: Cradle of Humankind

PostPosted: Thu 12 Sep 2019, 02:03    Post subject:  

Just as a matter of interest - Most browsers can be downloaded as self-contained tarballs from the official sites. These are actually portable versions already because all you need to do is to extract the tarball anywhere you like and run the application from its executable in the extracted folder.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 5493
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Thu 12 Sep 2019, 06:29    Post subject:  

nic007 wrote:
Just as a matter of interest - Most browsers can be downloaded as self-contained tarballs from the official sites. These are actually portable versions already because all you need to do is to extract the tarball anywhere you like and run the application from its executable in the extracted folder.


Mm-hm. Yes, I couldn't agree more. They do come in essentially 'portable' format already. But, as I've alluded to on many occasions, you're carefully overlooking the fact that if you use the browser, as is, on multiple machines, then on each & every machine it creates a new, fresh profile in each Pup's root directory.

As you yourself have said, you can indeed link a common profile between multiple Pups, especially on the same machine. That works fine; I've been doing that myself for a long time. And yes, you could copy that profile from machine to machine. That, too, would work.

I just think that the way these 'portables' run, the way Fred did them, are more convenient, that's all.....because you have your profile, all set up and ready to use, wherever you want to use it (without needing to copy over, or sym-link, or create fresh new profiles, etc, etc.)

Perhaps we are trying to 're-invent the wheel'..? I don't know. Each to their own, of course.


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY 'PUPPY' PACKAGES

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
nic007


Joined: 13 Nov 2011
Posts: 3079
Location: Cradle of Humankind

PostPosted: Thu 12 Sep 2019, 07:53    Post subject:  

Mike Walsh wrote:
nic007 wrote:
Just as a matter of interest - Most browsers can be downloaded as self-contained tarballs from the official sites. These are actually portable versions already because all you need to do is to extract the tarball anywhere you like and run the application from its executable in the extracted folder.


Mm-hm. Yes, I couldn't agree more. They do come in essentially 'portable' format already. But, as I've alluded to on many occasions, you're carefully overlooking the fact that if you use the browser, as is, on multiple machines, then on each & every machine it creates a new, fresh profile in each Pup's root directory.

As you yourself have said, you can indeed link a common profile between multiple Pups, especially on the same machine. That works fine; I've been doing that myself for a long time. And yes, you could copy that profile from machine to machine. That, too, would work.

I just think that the way these 'portables' run, the way Fred did them, are more convenient, that's all.....because you have your profile, all set up and ready to use, wherever you want to use it (without needing to copy over, or sym-link, or create fresh new profiles, etc, etc.)

Perhaps we are trying to 're-invent the wheel'..? I don't know. Each to their own, of course.


Mike. Wink

Mike. I'm not having a go at your portable versions, I just want to know more. For instance my previous question here which has not been answered yet (about the preference system "layer" of loading a portable version) and also - where are the palemoon files loaded ie. Profile , cache,etc, in root or where?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mike Walsh


Joined: 28 Jun 2014
Posts: 5493
Location: King's Lynn, UK.

PostPosted: Thu 12 Sep 2019, 09:28    Post subject:  

@ Nic:-

Mm. Huh. I'm really not the person to ask about the ins & outs of how precisely something works in Puppy.....specially not with regard to the various layers (which I honestly don't understand).

My approach to doing stuff like this in Puppy is that if I can get something to work- and can consistently reproduce that behaviour - then that's good enough for me. I'm then happy to share.

If I had to guess where the browser items are loaded from, I'd hazard a guess that it's pup_ro2; that seems to be the layer where most items appear to run from in Puppy. I'll say this, mate; your curiosity runs deeper than mine..! Laughing

I'm really not that concerned about the how or the why of things working, so long as they do! As long as they run, that'll do me...Smile


Mike. Wink

_________________
MY 'PUPPY' PACKAGES

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
nic007


Joined: 13 Nov 2011
Posts: 3079
Location: Cradle of Humankind

PostPosted: Thu 12 Sep 2019, 10:14    Post subject:  

Mike Walsh wrote:
@ Nic:-

Mm. Huh. I'm really not the person to ask about the ins & outs of how precisely something works in Puppy.....specially not with regard to the various layers (which I honestly don't understand).

My approach to doing stuff like this in Puppy is that if I can get something to work- and can consistently reproduce that behaviour - then that's good enough for me. I'm then happy to share.

If I had to guess where the browser items are loaded from, I'd hazard a guess that it's pup_ro2; that seems to be the layer where most items appear to run from in Puppy. I'll say this, mate; your curiosity runs deeper than mine..! Laughing

I'm really not that concerned about the how or the why of things working, so long as they do! As long as they run, that'll do me...Smile


Mike. Wink

All I want to know is if it takes preference to the base sfs, like installing a .pet would do or an adrv/ydrv. This is obviously important with regards to newer glibc's. My guess is that it doesn't and is being treated the same way in the layered system like an sfs-addon? BTW as information - With a frugal install the base sfs is loaded at /initrd/pup_ro2. If you are using a HDD, your savefile will be at /initrd/pup_rw. If running from external USB your savefile will be loaded at /initrd/pup_ro1 and your saves for the session at /initrd/pup_rw
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 3 [33 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Advanced Topics » Additional Software (PETs, n' stuff) » Browsers and Internet
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0732s ][ Queries: 13 (0.0113s) ][ GZIP on ]