FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-19-2010, 01:10 PM
Camaleón
 
Default Frustration made me do it.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:31:29 -0500, Carl Fink wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:03:44AM +0000, Camale?n wrote:
>
>> I have to stick with Icedove because is one of the two MUAs I know that
>> can handle html e-mails in Linux. The second is Evolution, but I think
>> is even slower than Icedove.
>
> Mutt works great.

I know. I use it.

But does not suit for my daily business-work needs.

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: pan.2010.11.19.14.10.41@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.11.19.14.10.41@gmail.com
 
Old 11-19-2010, 03:26 PM
Michal
 
Default Frustration made me do it.

On 19/11/10 05:37, Dan Serban wrote:

After years of running the mozilla suite (remember when you couldn't
refresh a POST document in mozilla 0.6?) and begrudgingly moving to
Firefox, then falling in love with iceweasel. Today, sad as it is,
is when I feel that I must announce that I decided to:

# aptitude purge iceweasel icedove

I will spare you the minute details for my decision, but I
assume most of you experience the same frustrations I do. The
increasing bloat, the never enough memory (16gb real, 32gb swap) being
happily claimed by a single tab and xul-runner eating it all.

Icedove likes to make my computer behave like a 386 (downloading
and indexing millions of IMAP messages.. heck, it's _why_ I use IMAP
:/).

I now have chromium and claws at my beck and call. Man.. are they
ever fast.

Just thought I'd make some noise and share, I feel so free. o/


Funnily, on the Windows 7 boxes I have I chucked Firefox for IE9 64bit
Betas. The speed increase I get is MASSIVE. Missing some addon's which
annoys me, but it's better then the constant problems I see with Firefox



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4CE6A54C.7040800@sharescope.co.uk">http://lists.debian.org/4CE6A54C.7040800@sharescope.co.uk
 
Old 11-19-2010, 04:37 PM
"Carl Fink"
 
Default Frustration made me do it.

On Fri, November 19, 2010 11:26 am, Michal wrote:

> Funnily, on the Windows 7 boxes I have I chucked Firefox for IE9 64bit
> Betas. The speed increase I get is MASSIVE. Missing some addon's which
> annoys me, but it's better then the constant problems I see with Firefox

You should be comparing to the FF 4 betas. They've also been working on
speed increases.
--
Carl Fink carl@finknetwork.com


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: a1a12424eaed11b6fcadee86813f1efc.squirrel@mail.pan ix.com">http://lists.debian.org/a1a12424eaed11b6fcadee86813f1efc.squirrel@mail.pan ix.com
 
Old 11-19-2010, 05:20 PM
john
 
Default Frustration made me do it.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:26:52 +0000
Michal <michal@sharescope.co.uk> wrote:

> On 19/11/10 05:37, Dan Serban wrote:
> > After years of running the mozilla suite (remember when you couldn't
> > refresh a POST document in mozilla 0.6?) and begrudgingly moving to
--------------snipp> >
> > Just thought I'd make some noise and share, I feel so free. o/
> >
> >
> Funnily, on the Windows 7 boxes I have I chucked Firefox for IE9 64bit
> Betas. The speed increase I get is MASSIVE. Missing some addon's which
> annoys me, but it's better then the constant problems I see with Firefox
>
I thought I was alone in this, I've also ditched Iceweasel. I've
found claws-mail to be just fine, and have recently dropped Gnome and
replaced it with xfce. Gnome has grown fat and sluggish - far too
slow for my eight-year-old desktop (P4)

John.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20101119132021.5193527e@debian.song">http://lists.debian.org/20101119132021.5193527e@debian.song
 
Old 11-19-2010, 06:04 PM
Andrei Popescu
 
Default Frustration made me do it.

On Vi, 19 nov 10, 05:49:13, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>
> Haven't switched to IMAP yet, still on Gmail at this point.

And what's the problem? I use Gmail via IMAP just fine.

Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 
Old 11-19-2010, 08:13 PM
Celejar
 
Default Frustration made me do it.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:03:44 +0000 (UTC)
Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:37:32 -0800, Dan Serban wrote:
>
> > After years of running the mozilla suite (remember when you couldn't
> > refresh a POST document in mozilla 0.6?) and begrudgingly moving to
> > Firefox, then falling in love with iceweasel. Today, sad as it is, is
> > when I feel that I must announce that I decided to:
> >
> > # aptitude purge iceweasel icedove
> >
> > I will spare you the minute details for my decision, but I assume most
> > of you experience the same frustrations I do. The increasing bloat, the
> > never enough memory (16gb real, 32gb swap) being happily claimed by a
> > single tab and xul-runner eating it all.
>
> Mozilla products are memory/CPU hogs, yes. I hope newer versions can
> correct that.

I often wonder about this; IIRC, FF used to advertise itself as
"lightweight". Does it still do that? Was it ever accurate?

Celejar
--
foffl.sourceforge.net - Feeds OFFLine, an offline RSS/Atom aggregator
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20101119161324.2ed2f1a8.celejar@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/20101119161324.2ed2f1a8.celejar@gmail.com
 
Old 11-19-2010, 08:23 PM
Petrus Validus
 
Default Frustration made me do it.

> > Mozilla products are memory/CPU hogs, yes. I hope newer versions can
> > correct that.
>
> I often wonder about this; IIRC, FF used to advertise itself as
> "lightweight". Does it still do that? Was it ever accurate?

Maybe at version 1.0...but it just seems to become more and more bloated
with each release. Quite disappointing, really.

How does Seamonkey fare at performance/resource handling? Is it any
better than FF? I haven't used it in quite some time.
--
Petrus Validus
Petrus.Validus@gmail.com
If there isn't a way, I'll make one.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 1290201824.27359.61.camel@Axon.8EEWS">http://lists.debian.org/1290201824.27359.61.camel@Axon.8EEWS
 
Old 11-19-2010, 08:26 PM
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr."
 
Default Frustration made me do it.

In <20101119161324.2ed2f1a8.celejar@gmail.com>, Celejar wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:03:44 +0000 (UTC)
>Camaleón <noelamac@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:37:32 -0800, Dan Serban wrote:
>> > After years of running the mozilla suite (remember when you couldn't
>> > refresh a POST document in mozilla 0.6?) and begrudgingly moving to
>> > Firefox, then falling in love with iceweasel. Today, sad as it is, is
>> > when I feel that I must announce that I decided to:
>> >
>> > # aptitude purge iceweasel icedove
>> >
>> > I will spare you the minute details for my decision, but I assume most
>> > of you experience the same frustrations I do. The increasing bloat, the
>> > never enough memory (16gb real, 32gb swap) being happily claimed by a
>> > single tab and xul-runner eating it all.
>>
>> Mozilla products are memory/CPU hogs, yes. I hope newer versions can
>> correct that.
>
>I often wonder about this; IIRC, FF used to advertise itself as
>"lightweight". Does it still do that? Was it ever accurate?

It was lighter that the Mozilla suite that it "replaced". It was similar
technology, but just a browser. It lacked the HTML editing abilities, the
mail and news reader components, and a few other things. This significantly
reduced load times and initial memory usage.

Much of the memory usage can be blamed on aggressive per-tab caching of
webpages and/or extensions or plugins. Still, I find FF to cause me more
problems than my other browser options, but having it around is essential for
some sites, it seems.

I still prefer konqueror, or chromium-browser if konqueror doesn't work on a
certain site. Still, I find myself using FF + ABP on a few flash-ad-ridden
sites.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
 
Old 11-19-2010, 08:39 PM
Jonathan Dlouhy
 
Default Frustration made me do it.

On 11/19/2010 04:23 PM, Petrus Validus wrote:



Mozilla products are memory/CPU hogs, yes. I hope newer versions can
correct that.


I often wonder about this; IIRC, FF used to advertise itself as
"lightweight". Does it still do that? Was it ever accurate?


Maybe at version 1.0...but it just seems to become more and more bloated
with each release. Quite disappointing, really.

How does Seamonkey fare at performance/resource handling? Is it any
better than FF? I haven't used it in quite some time.


Don't all the addons most folks use slow FF down even more?

--
Jonathan Dlouhy
---------------------------
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4CE6EE92.6050603@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4CE6EE92.6050603@gmail.com
 
Old 11-19-2010, 10:21 PM
Camaleón
 
Default Frustration made me do it.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:13:24 -0500, Celejar wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:03:44 +0000 (UTC) Camaleón wrote:
>
>> Mozilla products are memory/CPU hogs, yes. I hope newer versions can
>> correct that.
>
> I often wonder about this; IIRC, FF used to advertise itself as
> "lightweight". Does it still do that? Was it ever accurate?

I'm not in the best position to speak about Mozilla products because I
wouldn't be objective (still using old versions of both, Iceweasel
-3.0.x- and Icedove -2.x-) but true is that Mozilla products (Netscape
Navigator suite) has never been known by its good management of memory :-)

Is Firefox "lightweight"? Well, it has a small footprint in the system
(~10 MiB, which is not bad for what provides), but overall I'd say "no".
I've worked with konqueror (and now also Epiphany) and konqueror
performed a better job in many aspects, not only with memory management.

top - 00:18:38 up 16:27, 2 users, load average: 0.12, 0.03, 0.01
Tasks: 131 total, 3 running, 128 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 1.1%us, 0.2%sy, 0.0%ni, 98.6%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 8201264k total, 1536164k used, 6665100k free, 54368k buffers
Swap: 2104472k total, 0k used, 2104472k free, 832752k cached

3369 sm01 20 0 548m 113m 25m S 0 1.4 3:19.36 liferea-bin
3466 sm01 20 0 624m 107m 28m S 0 1.3 2:52.77 icedove-bin
9712 sm01 20 0 558m 101m 24m S 0 1.3 0:19.99 firefox-bin
...

"200" MiB of ram for just 2 applications (mozilla based) is excessive. And
I only have 2 tabs opened :-/

Greetings,

--
Camaleón


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: pan.2010.11.19.23.21.21@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.11.19.23.21.21@gmail.com
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:16 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org