Palemoon browser

[sleddriver]

Thanks for posting Drew! FF is definitely NOT what it used to be. Then again, nothing is. Though changes aren't permanent, change is. Thus, the need to keep up, stay current and regularly evaluate. I was rather surprised to learn that the core of Thunderbird is deeply flawed, thus all the message format issues. I now understand why it's so frustrating to separate my text in a REPLY to someone else. When I researched this on Moz, I saw several hits-in-kind.

I've read in order to fix it, it will require this section to be completely reworked from scratch. Frustrating indeed.

This is 2015, right?

 

[Drew99GT]

Ublock has Fanboys social blocking and annoyance lists built in. It's under the "social" category of lists in the settings.

 

[Oldmoparguy1]

I gave up on Waterfox, (64 bit firefox), just too many little things to fiddle with. I'm back to Opera X64, V-32. I still use Opera V-12 occasionally for some things. At this moment, I have 23 tabs open and another 7 open in V-12.

 

[ClutchDisc]

I'll give Ublock a try again, thanks Drew!

 

[ClutchDisc]

Ublock working fine now, and the social media site icons are gone too. Thank you!

 

[blupupher]

Originally Posted By: Oldmoparguy1
I gave up on Waterfox, (64 bit firefox), just too many little things to fiddle with. I'm back to Opera X64, V-32. I still use Opera V-12 occasionally for some things. At this moment, I have 23 tabs open and another 7 open in V-12.

LOL, I am still on Opera v12, I just love it too much to update to the "new" Opera (it is just missing too much stuff).
My secondary browser is SRWare Iron (Chrome with all the tracking stuff taken out).
Never have been a fan of Firefox (I have tried Palemoon too a few years ago).

 

[glock19]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
This is one of the reasons I do not suggest Linux Mint to the dozen or so folks for whom I have installed OS's.


Can you elaborate? I thought that Linux Mint was open source and allowed community contributions.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: glock19
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
This is one of the reasons I do not suggest Linux Mint to the dozen or so folks for whom I have installed OS's.


Can you elaborate? I thought that Linux Mint was open source and allowed community contributions.


It is and they do; but it is still a very small team led by one dude around whom the whole project centres: Clement Lefebvre. I am very secure in the opinion that Red Hat (and CentOS) as well as the Debian community and Canonical are going to be around in some years time and that makes me feel better about having a large handful of people using something that I have told them will be good for them to use: They're not subject to the whims and circumstances of one person's life. (I am sure that Mint's excellent community of users and developers could and likely would keep Mint afloat. My point, I guess, is that I appreciate the stability of larger distributions and their communities.)

 

[Garak]

Occasionally, too, one does have to watch the odd Mint pitfall. It isn't Ubuntu and it isn't Debian, and sometimes things aren't working quite the way they should be. And, given that the support isn't quite as big as it is in those other communities, one occasionally finds oneself on one's own in figuring out what's wrong, much less fixing the problem.

Of course, I still like it and use it, and if something ever went royally off the rails, as it were, with respect to Mint, I could switch to something else very easily. Of course, not everyone else can, particularly if one has set them up and they're new to computers, or simply not good with them.

 

[Subdued]

I havent noticed any FF bloat but I have 12 gigs of ram and just use it as a browser and haven't poked around

 

[glock19]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: glock19
Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
This is one of the reasons I do not suggest Linux Mint to the dozen or so folks for whom I have installed OS's.


Can you elaborate? I thought that Linux Mint was open source and allowed community contributions.


It is and they do; but it is still a very small team led by one dude around whom the whole project centres: Clement Lefebvre. I am very secure in the opinion that Red Hat (and CentOS) as well as the Debian community and Canonical are going to be around in some years time and that makes me feel better about having a large handful of people using something that I have told them will be good for them to use: They're not subject to the whims and circumstances of one person's life. (I am sure that Mint's excellent community of users and developers could and likely would keep Mint afloat. My point, I guess, is that I appreciate the stability of larger distributions and their communities.)


I see your point about a sole developer holding most of the control and it's prudent to recommend distros you're comfortable with (that's why it's a recommendation). However, I would like to nitpick one point you made. Mint is a pretty large distro at this point. Distrowatch measures it as one of the most popular distros for the past year. With a large user base I'm fairly confident that the community would keep Mint alive if Clement went crazy, but I do realize that's a gamble.

http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: glock19
Distrowatch measures it as one of the most popular distros for the past year.


Distrowatch is a long way from being an effective measurement of which distros are most widely used. They qualify their own list as merely a list of which distros get the most unique pages hits per day.

Having said that, Mint is a monster of a distro with a wonderful community and an unparalleled history of listening to their users. I very, very, very rarely ever hear anyone complain about either the distro or the community. I hope more development communities begin modelling themselves after Mint's.

Mint is certainly a large distro and one that is widely used; but I don't even think they could survive if they have to host their own software repositories. The bandwidth alone they tax Canonical's Ubuntu repositories with must be astounding. A very large majority (read: darn near all) of Mint's software comes directly from Ubuntu's servers. It's a nice derivative, but in terms of stability and support I don't see it as a viable long-term thing I'd want to support for others.

 

[glock19]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: glock19
Distrowatch measures it as one of the most popular distros for the past year.


Distrowatch is a long way from being an effective measurement of which distros are most widely used. They qualify their own list as merely a list of which distros get the most unique pages hits per day.

Having said that, Mint is a monster of a distro with a wonderful community and an unparalleled history of listening to their users. I very, very, very rarely ever hear anyone complain about either the distro or the community. I hope more development communities begin modelling themselves after Mint's.

Mint is certainly a large distro and one that is widely used; but I don't even think they could survive if they have to host their own software repositories. The bandwidth alone they tax Canonical's Ubuntu repositories with must be astounding. A very large majority (read: darn near all) of Mint's software comes directly from Ubuntu's servers. It's a nice derivative, but in terms of stability and support I don't see it as a viable long-term thing I'd want to support for others.


Fair enough, thanks for explaining.

 

[BearZDefect]

I suspect Canonical is indirectly supportive of Mint.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: BearZDefect
I suspect Canonical is indirectly supportive of Mint.


I am certainly not seeing the dots connected, there.

Mint already uses about 95% Ubuntu packages (that are downloaded from Ubuntu's servers, using Ubuntu's bandwidth) all while playing the role of alternative to Ubuntu; and taking away some pretty considerable (desktop) market share.

Ubuntu is open source and encourages the production and distribution of all derivatives; it being a derivative distribution itself! In that sense, they are supportive of all of the dozens of derivative distros that are based entirely on Ubuntu.

I think the relationship is testy at best , though, if interviews given by Clement from Mint are to be taken at face value. I think Canonical even wanted to bill him considerably at one point for using so much of their bandwidth. Canonical's revenue comes from support contracts and cloud services, which Mint doesn't touch.

The same sort of deal seemed to exist between Red Hat and CentOS for a good long while and now they are on cooperation somehow.

 

[BearZDefect]

Thank you for clarifying that. I thought that Mint is in the same market as Ubuntu desktop for consumers, people who do not buy support contracts or business cloud services.

RedHat vs CentOS seemed different to me. CentOS was used extensively by large web hosting companies, in other words, by businesses from whom RedHat wanted to draw income.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: BearZDefect
Thank you for clarifying that. I thought that Mint is in the same market as Ubuntu desktop for consumers, people who do not buy support contracts or business cloud services.


Well, they kind of are; but "people who do not buy support contracts or business cloud services" aren't much of a market! Mint is someone's hobby that got out of control and does not challenge Canonical's revenue in any way.

Ubuntu has always offered their OS for free ("free" as in both "no charge" and as in "freedom" or "free to modify and re-distribute") so there are dozens of Ubuntu derivatives out there. Some of these are endorsed by Canonical (Lubuntu, Edubuntu, Xubuntu, Ubuntu GNOME, Ubuntu MATE, etc.) and receive some resources from Canonical. Of all the others, Mint is the only one to have gotten so popular that there is even a discussion about them "being in the same market". Canonical has always been extremely encouraging to any person or party that would like to create a derivative distro. I currently use this tool to create what might technically be a derivative (I keep all of the branding; I just customize the install to include codecs, extra tools, etc.) for use installing for friends, family and neighbours. If I re-branded my derivative and my new distro's user base went from approximately a dozen to a few million then I'd be like Mint!

They're all free in every sense of the word; and "sharing" is a lot more important in the world of free software than "competing" as the whole point of F/LOSS is to give and share, not to exploit for self-serving purposes. I think at some point, though, Canonical, while being extremely friendly in allowing derivatives to use their servers to serve packages, found Mint's volume of bandwidth a little more than inconvenient. To this day, though, Mint's main releases are all based directly on Ubuntu's LTS releases and they track the Ubuntu repositories directly.

Originally Posted By: BearZDefect
RedHat vs CentOS seemed different to me. CentOS was used extensively by large web hosting companies, in other words, by businesses from whom RedHat wanted to draw income.


Yes, this is well-observed. I think Red Hat may have seen some value, though, in having a hand in improving - or at least standardizing the quality of - a derivative that was being used by a *lot* of businesses that had determined they did not need Red Hat's support contracts.

Red Hat's OS is free as well. You cannot install the compiled binaries they've made without first purchasing a support contract but you are free to compile your own OS from their source code, given you remove their branding. This is what CentOS and Scientific Linux have done.