[GTALUG] All browsers suck: was Google is ruled a monopoly so Firefox is at serious risk

[Steve Litt]

Evan Leibovitch via talk said on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 12:23:27 -0400

>On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 12:17 PM Karen Lewellen
><klewellen at shellworld.net> wrote:
>
>The antitrust case is not about browsers.
>
>
>I know that. I was responding to Hugh's comment that the court action
>on search might affect Firefox funding.
>Even if Google is forced to change its funding model from "pay to be
>the default search" to something else, it cannot be seen to remedy one
>monopoly situation by creating another,

As a Linux user quite able to choose search engines and browsers, what
I find sad is that today all browsers suck, and Chromium sucks the
least.

There are two kinds of browsers:

1) Browsers respecting the html/css/js standards.

2) Browsers that wing it, delivering something other than what the
   author of the 100% validated web page desired.

Right off the bat, #2 are useful only for niche activity. Nobody has
the time to try dillo, figure out if they're seeing the information
correctly, and if not use a browser in the #1 group. So let's discuss
group #1:

Firefox is a sluggish, resource gulping pig that can bring a
well-resourced computer to its knees, and it needs weekly to monthly
maintenance to prevent its piggity from growing the way windows
registry piggity grows with time. In my opinion it's total junk.

IMHO Chromium is the best, but it's a pig that sucks and can bring your
computer to its knees with a few javascript-rich sites.

I used to be a big Qutebrowser fan, with its superior keyboard
interface, but the fact is it's piggier than Chromium.

Palemoon? I have no idea how good or bad it is, but it doesn't matter
because https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86 . 
I don't cooperate with that kind of projects.

Otter-browser fails miserably when trying to render the content at
Buick.Com. Sure, buick.com is a standards-hostile crap website, but
as a practical day in and day out life matter, we need to be able to
have a semi reasonable rendering of even these horrible sites.

Eolie seems OK, although the interface is a little bit tough to use (no
big deal), and it occasionally gets funky in rendering some sites
(youtube for instance). I haven't used it with tons of tabs though.

Epiphany has a user-hostile interface and from my experimentation can't
render even the simplest sites. It's broken.

Vivaldi renders OK and is about as piggy as Chromium.

Vimb seems to be a very good browser. It renders well and if you're
familiar with Vim, you have an excellent foundation for operating Vimb.
Be aware that Vimb has no tabs, so when you press t to "tabopen",
you're really creating a new Vimb process. In some situations this can
lead to a less efficient workflow. I have no data on how piggy or not
Vimb is.

Luakit is a small-resource browser with an unusual and hard to remember
user interface. It seems to render well. However, on my Void Linux
setup it's useless because it intermittently terminates with no message.

Fifteen years ago Midori was a hopeless piece of junk, but it's
improved steadily until now I'd call it "the little browser that
could". Not quite as univerally renderable as Chromium, it comes close,
with a smaller footprint. Its user interface is just like Chromium and
Firefox, so you'll instantly know how to operate it.

Opera seems like a decent Chromium replacement. I have no idea of its
resource usage.

The Surf browser doesn't work on my Void Linux setup. I can't input a
URL.

Netsurf can't render worth a plugged nickel. Useless.

MS Edge seems like a fairly competent browser on my wife's windows
machine, but it doesn't run under Linux.


BOTTOM LINE: You have to look long and hard for a decent browser, and I
wouldn't call any of them excellent. I'd say that Chromium is the most
likely to render "correctly" in iffy situations. Midori, Vimb, Vivaldi,
Opera, and Otter-Browser are all valuable in many situations.

SteveT

Steve Litt 

http://444domains.com