Xenialpup64 CE 7.5 / 25 Nov 2017
Here's a strange problem that seems to be a kernel/Xenial Xerus base issue. I attempted to install my purchased copy of SoftMaker Office 2016, and it fails to load despite the absence of any errors (that I can see) during the install of the softmaker-office-2016_761-01_i386.deb. It is for both 32- and 64-bit Ubuntu/Debian distros, and I had no problems using it in TahrPup64 on the same machine (quad-core i700 2.6GHz, 16GB ram).
Menu entries, desktop files to each of TextMaker16, Presentations16 and PlanMaker16 all there but non-functioning, and attempting to call each from terminal gets the message:
But as far as I can see, that file is there, as shown in the screenie below. Even changing the filename to 'textmaker16' gets the same null result. A search of the interwebs gets me the SoftMaker page for Xerus install problems "I solved it after reading the following:Having trouble installing third-party .debs on Ubuntu 16.04?" http://forum.softmaker.com/viewtopic.php?t=15859, but no solutions there for me in the Puppy setup, as far as using the 'dpkg' command from terminal gets me - there is supposed to be a pre-existing "status" file there I think. Attempts to install using the tar,gz instead of the deb gets me identical results. So I think something is a little unhinged in the Xerus environment (and not just me). Does anyone else have a similar problem/solution for XenialPup64?
Final clues perhaps - the contents of the textmaker16.sh file: and a check on the Properties of the usr/share/office2016/textmaker file returns: - whoa, do I need 32-bit lib compatibility? Any suggestions welcome
UPDATE: The same SoftMaker deb installs absolutely fine in TahrPup (32-bit), have yet to re-install TahrPup64 to help with diagnostics. TahrPup64 savefolders from previous installs are present on this computer - with previously-installed SMO2016. When I accessed those earlier working files from within XenialPup64 I received the same load errors as outlined above - understandably, I guess.
Menu entries, desktop files to each of TextMaker16, Presentations16 and PlanMaker16 all there but non-functioning, and attempting to call each from terminal gets the message:
Code: Select all
root# textmaker16
/usr/bin/textmaker16: line 3: /usr/share/office2016/textmaker: No such file or directory
root# Code: Select all
root# dpkg -i softmaker-office-2016_752-01_i386.deb
dpkg: error: failed to open package info file '/var/lib/dpkg/status' for reading: No such file or directoryFinal clues perhaps - the contents of the textmaker16.sh file:
Code: Select all
#!/bin/sh
# A script to run TextMaker.
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$LD_LIBRARY_PATH:/usr/share/office2016/dpf /usr/share/office2016/textmaker "$@"Code: Select all
ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, interpreter /lib/ld-linux.so.2, for GNU/Linux 2.6.15, BuildID[sha1]=86b5077a06d4100cdbc7bfdc7efc0cfb0581b3ae, stripped, too many notes (256)UPDATE: The same SoftMaker deb installs absolutely fine in TahrPup (32-bit), have yet to re-install TahrPup64 to help with diagnostics. TahrPup64 savefolders from previous installs are present on this computer - with previously-installed SMO2016. When I accessed those earlier working files from within XenialPup64 I received the same load errors as outlined above - understandably, I guess.
- Attachments
-
- capture26983.png
- (27.44 KiB) Downloaded 1747 times
Search engines for Puppy
[url]http://puppylinux.us/psearch.html[/url]; [url=https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=015995643981050743583%3Aabvzbibgzxo&q=#gsc.tab=0]Google Custom Search[/url]; [url]http://wellminded.net63.net/[/url] others TBA...
[url]http://puppylinux.us/psearch.html[/url]; [url=https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=015995643981050743583%3Aabvzbibgzxo&q=#gsc.tab=0]Google Custom Search[/url]; [url]http://wellminded.net63.net/[/url] others TBA...
-
LateAdopter
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Fri 27 May 2011, 17:21
- Location: Reading UK
Hello Puppyt
64 bit linux will only run 32 bit programs if the kernel is built with 32 bit support, which it usually is, and the required 32 bit libraries are present, which usually are not.
Suggestions:
Try and find an amd64.deb package and install that.
Install your i386.deb 32 bit version on the 32 bit Xenialpup.
Since Xenialpup64 is alpha there is probably no 32bit libs package for it.
Notes:
If your package was built for Trusty Tahr it may or may not work on Xenial Xerus.
Puppy is Puppy first and Ubuntu, or whatever distro it was built from, second. So Xenialpup64 does not have Ubuntu user management or Ubuntu package management, hence no status file. But it can install .debs by its own methods.
64 bit linux will only run 32 bit programs if the kernel is built with 32 bit support, which it usually is, and the required 32 bit libraries are present, which usually are not.
Suggestions:
Try and find an amd64.deb package and install that.
Install your i386.deb 32 bit version on the 32 bit Xenialpup.
Since Xenialpup64 is alpha there is probably no 32bit libs package for it.
Notes:
If your package was built for Trusty Tahr it may or may not work on Xenial Xerus.
Puppy is Puppy first and Ubuntu, or whatever distro it was built from, second. So Xenialpup64 does not have Ubuntu user management or Ubuntu package management, hence no status file. But it can install .debs by its own methods.
Running 32-bit Applications
Hi puppyt lateadopter,
Sorry lateadopter, you may have missed the last paragraph of my post here: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 435#936435. Xenialpup64 can use the 32-bit libraries packaged as an SFS for Tahrpup64. But Xenialpup64 also requires either that files in /etc be edited per 666philb's instructions, or installation of the pet I attached to that post, which performs such edit.
Ubuntu, however, changed the method --and probably the necessry files-- to add the 32-bit structure to XenialXerus64 from the way it was done under Trusty Tahr64.Tahrpup64's SFS works, but not always.
If you look at / you'll see 3 folders, lib, lib32, and lib64. The only file within lib64 is a symlink to lib. Within lib is a symlink to a folder named x86_64-linux-gnu which takes you back to lib. Puppies don't like symlinks to symlinks.
Xenialpup64 occasionally suffers from the same failing sometimes experienced under Tahrpup54: When searching for files, sometimes Puppy takes the wrong path, ignoring the 64-bit libraries, or doesn't follow the path far enough. I suspect that it's failure to locate a bin file may be something similar, especially as --according to puppyt-- Softmaker was packaged and structured to run under either 32 or 64 bit OSes.Puppy may not be able to follow the paths Softmaker built.
The proper solution would be to build an 32-bit compatibility SFS/pet using Xenial64's debs in the same manner as Ubuntu did. That's beyond my capabilities.
The only work-around I can think of is to examine /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin. Does it contain either the executables or wrappers or symlinks to them? If not, try symlinking first; then, if that doesn't work, copying. Puppies are pretty insistent that executables, or symlinks or wrappers to executables be found "on the path": s bin or sbin folder, including /root/my-applications/bin.
Try starting a softmaker module by left-clicking its bin. If that will start it, make sure that the Executive argument in /usr/share/applications/xxx points to it.
Frankly, however, I'm not certain the effort to get Softmaker to run is worth it. My experience is that while Softmaker occupies less storage space than LibreOffice --even discounting LibreOffices extra modules-- LibreOffice uses Random Access Memory more efficiently than Softmaker Office. It's been a while since I used Softmaker and I don't recall if it defaults to some special file format. Can LibreOffice open files created by Softmaker using whatever special format Softmaker may have set as default. I know Softmaker can save files to both Microsoft's and LibreOffices default file format.
mikesLr
Sorry lateadopter, you may have missed the last paragraph of my post here: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 435#936435. Xenialpup64 can use the 32-bit libraries packaged as an SFS for Tahrpup64. But Xenialpup64 also requires either that files in /etc be edited per 666philb's instructions, or installation of the pet I attached to that post, which performs such edit.
Ubuntu, however, changed the method --and probably the necessry files-- to add the 32-bit structure to XenialXerus64 from the way it was done under Trusty Tahr64.Tahrpup64's SFS works, but not always.
If you look at / you'll see 3 folders, lib, lib32, and lib64. The only file within lib64 is a symlink to lib. Within lib is a symlink to a folder named x86_64-linux-gnu which takes you back to lib. Puppies don't like symlinks to symlinks.
Xenialpup64 occasionally suffers from the same failing sometimes experienced under Tahrpup54: When searching for files, sometimes Puppy takes the wrong path, ignoring the 64-bit libraries, or doesn't follow the path far enough. I suspect that it's failure to locate a bin file may be something similar, especially as --according to puppyt-- Softmaker was packaged and structured to run under either 32 or 64 bit OSes.Puppy may not be able to follow the paths Softmaker built.
The proper solution would be to build an 32-bit compatibility SFS/pet using Xenial64's debs in the same manner as Ubuntu did. That's beyond my capabilities.
The only work-around I can think of is to examine /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin. Does it contain either the executables or wrappers or symlinks to them? If not, try symlinking first; then, if that doesn't work, copying. Puppies are pretty insistent that executables, or symlinks or wrappers to executables be found "on the path": s bin or sbin folder, including /root/my-applications/bin.
Try starting a softmaker module by left-clicking its bin. If that will start it, make sure that the Executive argument in /usr/share/applications/xxx points to it.
Frankly, however, I'm not certain the effort to get Softmaker to run is worth it. My experience is that while Softmaker occupies less storage space than LibreOffice --even discounting LibreOffices extra modules-- LibreOffice uses Random Access Memory more efficiently than Softmaker Office. It's been a while since I used Softmaker and I don't recall if it defaults to some special file format. Can LibreOffice open files created by Softmaker using whatever special format Softmaker may have set as default. I know Softmaker can save files to both Microsoft's and LibreOffices default file format.
mikesLr
I installed Softoffice 2012 full, & had to add 32bit libs from Tahrpup one at a time in /usr/lib32 till it worked. (Tried textmaker in a terminal each time to see what was missing). In order for dpkg to work, you create /var/lib/dpkg/status & /var/lib/dpkg/info folders - don't recommend that tho. An i386 package is usually 32bit only. Some debs (which can be launched from ROX-filer) place items in /usr/lib64 - which corrupts Xenialpup, as its /usr/lib64 is just a symlink to /usr/lib. In these tricky circumstances, I run a CD/usb version & experiment without doing damage, building a list of missing files. As for Softmaker itself, it is quite MS-compatible (not its native formats), great for basic/everyday use, smaller, faster than other offices, so keep on trying.
Hi and thanks all for your input, sorry for my delayed reply. ozsouth I'm glad that there is a workaround, I'll have time later in the week to revisit the issue. I'm sure the same problem/solution will be needed for anyone wanting to use SoftMaker's Freeoffice (http://www.freeoffice.com/en) in XenialPup64, too 
Search engines for Puppy
[url]http://puppylinux.us/psearch.html[/url]; [url=https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=015995643981050743583%3Aabvzbibgzxo&q=#gsc.tab=0]Google Custom Search[/url]; [url]http://wellminded.net63.net/[/url] others TBA...
[url]http://puppylinux.us/psearch.html[/url]; [url=https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=015995643981050743583%3Aabvzbibgzxo&q=#gsc.tab=0]Google Custom Search[/url]; [url]http://wellminded.net63.net/[/url] others TBA...
Just got a PM from 666philb.
He has had computer problems, but is back with a working computer.
Xenialpup is still on his list of things to do.
He has a few things to work on with Tahrpup 32bit and 64 bit and he will be getting back to Xenialpup.
Xenialpup64 is alpha.
So, keep looking for and reporting bugs you find and any bug fixes you come up with.
He can use the help!!!!
Say thanks to his girlfriend!
He has had computer problems, but is back with a working computer.
Xenialpup is still on his list of things to do.
He has a few things to work on with Tahrpup 32bit and 64 bit and he will be getting back to Xenialpup.
Xenialpup64 is alpha.
So, keep looking for and reporting bugs you find and any bug fixes you come up with.
He can use the help!!!!
Say thanks to his girlfriend!
The things they do not tell you, are usually the clue to solving the problem.
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
When I was a kid I wanted to be older.... This is not what I expected
YaPI(any iso installer)
Slow copying to/from usb vfat - systemd?
I have found that copying to or from usb vfat partitions, particularly those over about 3gb, is extremely slow (80 byte files take 30 sec).
This is not a problem in Slacko64. Archlinux wiki suggests systemd issue. Workaround is to use ext2,3 or 4 (or ntfs if windows needs to read it).
Small 512mb vfat boot partitions many puppies use seem unaffected.
This is not a problem in Slacko64. Archlinux wiki suggests systemd issue. Workaround is to use ext2,3 or 4 (or ntfs if windows needs to read it).
Small 512mb vfat boot partitions many puppies use seem unaffected.
-
LateAdopter
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Fri 27 May 2011, 17:21
- Location: Reading UK
Hello ozsouth
I had a problem with USB devices, that I reported earlier, at the top of page 4
There seems to be something amiss with the supplied 4.6.3 kernel. A kernel 4.6.3, that I built using a Fatdog DOTconfig worked properly, with USB FAT partitions up to 700GB, that I use.
So it's probably a hardware specific driver configuration issue or maybe a problem with the version of kernel kit that Phil was using.
You could try the latest Fatdog 4.4 kernel from here:
http://distro.ibiblio.org/fatdog/kernels/710/
I haven't tried it in Xenialpup64, so I don't know whether it works.
Kernels 4.5 to 4.8 have gone EOL, so they are no longer maintained. 4.8 is surprising since it is the Ubuntu 16.10 kernel. Maybe it has a security problem they can't fix.
4.4 kernels are still maintained, though.
I had a problem with USB devices, that I reported earlier, at the top of page 4
There seems to be something amiss with the supplied 4.6.3 kernel. A kernel 4.6.3, that I built using a Fatdog DOTconfig worked properly, with USB FAT partitions up to 700GB, that I use.
So it's probably a hardware specific driver configuration issue or maybe a problem with the version of kernel kit that Phil was using.
You could try the latest Fatdog 4.4 kernel from here:
http://distro.ibiblio.org/fatdog/kernels/710/
I haven't tried it in Xenialpup64, so I don't know whether it works.
Kernels 4.5 to 4.8 have gone EOL, so they are no longer maintained. 4.8 is surprising since it is the Ubuntu 16.10 kernel. Maybe it has a security problem they can't fix.
4.4 kernels are still maintained, though.
No Evince, but how about mcomix ?
Hi escucha,
I tried to build an evince for xenialpup64 in a couple of different ways. Long story. Short version: No luck. So I looked for an alternative and found mcomix: http://www.webupd8.org/2016/03/mcomix-i ... eader.html
For my needs, which don't include comics, foxitreader does a good job.
I was able to use Puppy Package Manager to build an SFS. I set PPM's download folder to /mnt/home/mcomix64-xen. You'll find options under PPM's options. As I didn't want the debs to install automatically, I set "install to tmpfs". Setting these options are also recommended:Enable Building Blocks, skip package size, always redownload packages which exist, do not delete downloaded packages. Then type mcomix into the search box, select the one item PPM finds, change autoinstall to
"download all and dependencies" and click DO IT.
With all the debs in mcomix64-xen, I right-clicked that folder and --having previously installed PaDS with unrpm-all --that should actually be your first step-- I selected "combine to SFS". When PaDS finished doing its job, a window opened to /root, showing me that mcomix64-xen was there. SFS loaded it. It opened inviting me to open a comix. I don't have any.
So I don't know if it works.
If you are running without an Automatic Save, and using a SaveFile --not folder-- it is safe just to allow PPM to install mcomix and all its dependencies. If it doesn't work, you can shutdown without savings. My experience is that despite my precautions, some files sneak thru into my SaveFolder. That's one of the reasons I try running applications as SFSes first.
You'll find PaDS here: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 359#658359 and unrpm-all, here: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 751#940751.
Hope this meets your needs. If mcomix doesn't work, email me some links to downloadable comics and I'll see if I can figure out why not.
mikesLr
I tried to build an evince for xenialpup64 in a couple of different ways. Long story. Short version: No luck. So I looked for an alternative and found mcomix: http://www.webupd8.org/2016/03/mcomix-i ... eader.html
For my needs, which don't include comics, foxitreader does a good job.
I was able to use Puppy Package Manager to build an SFS. I set PPM's download folder to /mnt/home/mcomix64-xen. You'll find options under PPM's options. As I didn't want the debs to install automatically, I set "install to tmpfs". Setting these options are also recommended:Enable Building Blocks, skip package size, always redownload packages which exist, do not delete downloaded packages. Then type mcomix into the search box, select the one item PPM finds, change autoinstall to
"download all and dependencies" and click DO IT.
With all the debs in mcomix64-xen, I right-clicked that folder and --having previously installed PaDS with unrpm-all --that should actually be your first step-- I selected "combine to SFS". When PaDS finished doing its job, a window opened to /root, showing me that mcomix64-xen was there. SFS loaded it. It opened inviting me to open a comix. I don't have any.
So I don't know if it works.If you are running without an Automatic Save, and using a SaveFile --not folder-- it is safe just to allow PPM to install mcomix and all its dependencies. If it doesn't work, you can shutdown without savings. My experience is that despite my precautions, some files sneak thru into my SaveFolder. That's one of the reasons I try running applications as SFSes first.
You'll find PaDS here: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 359#658359 and unrpm-all, here: http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 751#940751.
Hope this meets your needs. If mcomix doesn't work, email me some links to downloadable comics and I'll see if I can figure out why not.
mikesLr
Hi mikesir,
Thanks for reply. Get evince as my prefered comic book reader from ubuntu repositories (without gui icons).
Ubuntu deb's fills my Tahr64 full install with many many unknown libraries making unstable performance for the neat Tahrpup.
The comic book have usually a .cbz or .cbr extension acording this a group of compressed files using zip or rar compressor, as we know.
zip and unzip are regular commands in our puppies nor rar, unrar must be installed in /usr/bin/ so .cbr files can be shown.
For training purposes, suggest the site:
https://digitalcomicmuseum.com/
Thanks for reply. Get evince as my prefered comic book reader from ubuntu repositories (without gui icons).
Ubuntu deb's fills my Tahr64 full install with many many unknown libraries making unstable performance for the neat Tahrpup.
The comic book have usually a .cbz or .cbr extension acording this a group of compressed files using zip or rar compressor, as we know.
zip and unzip are regular commands in our puppies nor rar, unrar must be installed in /usr/bin/ so .cbr files can be shown.
For training purposes, suggest the site:
https://digitalcomicmuseum.com/
[size=75]Trying Fossapup 64bit. Still daily work in Bionic64.[/size]
post subject
Hi escucha,
According to sourceforge, as of 2016-10-01, mcomix can handle the following file formats: "a variety of container formats (including CBR, CBZ, CB7, CBT, LHA and PDF)....Reads most common image formats, as well as PDF, ZIP, RAR, 7Z and LHA archives directly." https://sourceforge.net/projects/mcomix/
I'm not sure what's happening with unrar under Xenialpup64. On my system, Menu>filesystems>pfind finds two files. The one at /usr/local/apps is only a Rox-App "wrapper" which tests for the presences of unrar at /usr/bin and, if not found, says it has to be installed. But there is a unrar binary at /usr/bin which seems functional,
IIRC, I've unpacked rar files under Xenialpup64. It has UExtract builtin, which is supposed to be able to handle rar files as well as all those file types listed here: http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 357#717357. So my guess is that UExtract application included the /usr/bin/unrar binary. and no further action should be necessary.
mikesLr
According to sourceforge, as of 2016-10-01, mcomix can handle the following file formats: "a variety of container formats (including CBR, CBZ, CB7, CBT, LHA and PDF)....Reads most common image formats, as well as PDF, ZIP, RAR, 7Z and LHA archives directly." https://sourceforge.net/projects/mcomix/
I'm not sure what's happening with unrar under Xenialpup64. On my system, Menu>filesystems>pfind finds two files. The one at /usr/local/apps is only a Rox-App "wrapper" which tests for the presences of unrar at /usr/bin and, if not found, says it has to be installed. But there is a unrar binary at /usr/bin which seems functional,
IIRC, I've unpacked rar files under Xenialpup64. It has UExtract builtin, which is supposed to be able to handle rar files as well as all those file types listed here: http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 357#717357. So my guess is that UExtract application included the /usr/bin/unrar binary. and no further action should be necessary.
mikesLr
new backgrounds.
- Attachments
-
- xenial64.jpg
- https://www.mediafire.com/?rzb7h6tzmfds1e4
- (22.99 KiB) Downloaded 919 times
-
- xenial2-13.jpg
- https://www.mediafire.com/?rzb7h6tzmfds1e4
- (11.17 KiB) Downloaded 989 times
I eventually had to drop use of palemoon since it proved to be unreliable
on tahr32 & 64 and xenialpup64. One trick it plays is to simply exit
after starting a video (of unknown type but not html5 or flash). On
tahr which gets intensive use by my wife on social media, it sometimes
hangs so badly that neither ctrl-alt-backspace nor ctrl-alt-F2 have
effect. The PC must be powered down.
Why not supply the pups without browser and let the user select a
browser from a menu to be downloaded and installed? I find that
Firefox ("release" now at 51.01) works reliably on the intensive daily
use test, so that is my choice of the moment.
Art
on tahr32 & 64 and xenialpup64. One trick it plays is to simply exit
after starting a video (of unknown type but not html5 or flash). On
tahr which gets intensive use by my wife on social media, it sometimes
hangs so badly that neither ctrl-alt-backspace nor ctrl-alt-F2 have
effect. The PC must be powered down.
Why not supply the pups without browser and let the user select a
browser from a menu to be downloaded and installed? I find that
Firefox ("release" now at 51.01) works reliably on the intensive daily
use test, so that is my choice of the moment.
Art
Firefox vs. (firefox) Light
Hi artsown,
You might want to consider Light, an optimized version of firefox. It's been my primary browser to over a month. Will run many firefox addons, if you need them. My post about it is here: http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 772#939772. But, you'll also want to look here:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 929#939929
mikesLr
You might want to consider Light, an optimized version of firefox. It's been my primary browser to over a month. Will run many firefox addons, if you need them. My post about it is here: http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 772#939772. But, you'll also want to look here:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 929#939929
mikesLr
post subject
Hi artsown,
My desktop is a Quad-core with 8 Gbs of RAM. Light as its name suggests doesn't necessarily mean that its capabilities have been significantly reduced. Paralleling Puppy's philosophy, its Devs have stripped out what they considered unnecessary bloat.
http://johnson-yip.com/2016/06/28/light ... b-browser/
"Light is a web browser which is based on Mozilla Firefox’s source code. But, it is a slimmed down version of Firefox with many of the components of Firefox slimmed down. Light can open its web browser faster and use less memory/RAM because its components are slimmed down."
Emphasis mine, which I take to mean Light leaves more RAM for simultaneously opening more tabs or conducting the operations I actually want. However,
"Some features found in the regular version of Firefox like crashreporter, skia, webm, opus, ogg, wave, webrtc, jsd, gamepad intl-api, accessibility, webapp, sync, healthreport, safebrowsing, pdfjs, identity, spellcheck, tabview, social, devtools, printing, webspeech, webgl, directshow, Pocket, Hello messaging, Share This Page, Web Developer tools, etc are not included in Light like the regular version of Firefox."
I'm not sure what effect that would have regarding its use for social media. Light appears to have dozens of addons relating to Facebook and Twitter.
"But, Light still has support for most Firefox themes, HTML5, JavaScript, Plug-ins like Adobe Flash, Java, and add-ons like NoScript, and Flash Block because Light is based on the latest version of Firefox. Light also has bookmarks, password save, history, tabs, private web browsing, text and page zooming, and other important features found in most web browsers."
mikesLr
My desktop is a Quad-core with 8 Gbs of RAM. Light as its name suggests doesn't necessarily mean that its capabilities have been significantly reduced. Paralleling Puppy's philosophy, its Devs have stripped out what they considered unnecessary bloat.
http://johnson-yip.com/2016/06/28/light ... b-browser/
"Light is a web browser which is based on Mozilla Firefox’s source code. But, it is a slimmed down version of Firefox with many of the components of Firefox slimmed down. Light can open its web browser faster and use less memory/RAM because its components are slimmed down."
Emphasis mine, which I take to mean Light leaves more RAM for simultaneously opening more tabs or conducting the operations I actually want. However,
"Some features found in the regular version of Firefox like crashreporter, skia, webm, opus, ogg, wave, webrtc, jsd, gamepad intl-api, accessibility, webapp, sync, healthreport, safebrowsing, pdfjs, identity, spellcheck, tabview, social, devtools, printing, webspeech, webgl, directshow, Pocket, Hello messaging, Share This Page, Web Developer tools, etc are not included in Light like the regular version of Firefox."
I'm not sure what effect that would have regarding its use for social media. Light appears to have dozens of addons relating to Facebook and Twitter.
"But, Light still has support for most Firefox themes, HTML5, JavaScript, Plug-ins like Adobe Flash, Java, and add-ons like NoScript, and Flash Block because Light is based on the latest version of Firefox. Light also has bookmarks, password save, history, tabs, private web browsing, text and page zooming, and other important features found in most web browsers."
mikesLr
Re: post subject
Sadly this is no longer true - the last version was 49RC and there has been no activity on the project since Oct 2016 - Firefox has in the meantime "progressed" to version 51....mikeslr wrote:........Light is based on the latest version of Firefox.
mikesLr
LxPup = Puppy + LXDEMain version used daily: LxPupSc; Assembler of UPups, ScPup & ScPup64, LxPup, LxPupSc & LxPupSc64