Re: light browsers

2016-05-15 Thread Roderick
On Fri, 13 May 2016, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: There is no safe bet here. Pick whatever you want, and you'll loose eventually. Or maybe you won't, but only if you are lucky enough. Parsing HTML manually is probably the safest option, albeit ugly. You will still suffer from bugs in your HTTP(

Re: light browsers

2016-05-13 Thread Francois Pussault
lynx has been mentioned in a previous mais on the list ;) don't remember who did but he did ;) > > From: Alex Ahn > Sent: Fri May 13 15:55:32 CEST 2016 > To: > Subject: Re: light browsers > > > Has anyone ever used rekonq?

Re: light browsers

2016-05-13 Thread Kevin Chadwick
> Has anyone ever used rekonq? I just came across these that have source code today http://www.palemoon.org/ https://www.waterfoxproject.org -- KISSIS - Keep It Simple So It's Securable

Re: light browsers

2016-05-13 Thread Alex Ahn
Has anyone ever used rekonq? On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:45 AM, jsg wrote: >I have been using links and links -g and am very satisfied with > speed/performance. >I have to use Midori/Firefox etc oscasionally not satisfied with speed/ > performance. > >Have not heard anyone hear mention

Re: light browsers

2016-05-13 Thread jsg
I have been using links and links -g and am very satisfied with speed/performance. I have to use Midori/Firefox etc oscasionally not satisfied with speed/ performance. Have not heard anyone hear mention Lynx?

Re: light browsers

2016-05-13 Thread Rubén Llorente
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: > Webkit1-based browsers (Luakit, Midori, surf, Vimb and Xombrero) use > unmaintained engine, so nobody fixes even known issues. People who care > about security should probably avoid these. I heard the developer of Surf (Webkit-1 based browser) say that he suspects th

Re: light browsers

2016-05-12 Thread Theo de Raadt
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff > wrote: > > You must face the reality: all web browsers are broken. Modern web > > rendering engines are too complex and too fast-moving to be securable at > > all. Mozilla and Google made every effort to ensure that nobody can > > ever b

Re: light browsers

2016-05-12 Thread Raul Miller
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote: > You must face the reality: all web browsers are broken. Modern web > rendering engines are too complex and too fast-moving to be securable at > all. Mozilla and Google made every effort to ensure that nobody can > ever be safe. A re

Re: light browsers

2016-05-12 Thread Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
sogal said: >> Basically anything that is using webkit is going to have issues: >> https://blogs.gnome.org/mcatanzaro/2016/02/01/on-webkit-security-updates/ >> >> This means, xombrero, luakit, probably all the others that aren't >> firefox and chromium. > > Thanks for the interesting link. > The

Re: light browsers

2016-05-12 Thread Thuban
> Firefox used to be nice, but I don't like the way it goes with > embedded crap such as Hello or even worse, the Pocket thing. > Indeed, but it's maybe the last web browser caring about its users, without selling them or asking them to pay. w3m already has been mentionned on the list. With some t

Re: light browsers

2016-05-12 Thread sogal
Le Thursday 12 May 2016 à 09:52:56AM, Aaron Bieber a écrit : > > sogal writes: > > > Le Wednesday 11 May 2016 à 10:26:03PM, > > 3sad68+aivzh013i5...@guerrillamail.com a écrit : > >> Hi, > >> > >> did anyone try Midori or other light browsers with

Re: light browsers

2016-05-12 Thread Aaron Bieber
sogal writes: > Le Wednesday 11 May 2016 à 10:26:03PM, 3sad68+aivzh013i5...@guerrillamail.com > a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> did anyone try Midori or other light browsers with good results ? > > You might want to give a try to xombrero. > It's webkit based an

Re: light browsers

2016-05-12 Thread sogal
Le Wednesday 11 May 2016 à 10:26:03PM, 3sad68+aivzh013i5...@guerrillamail.com a écrit : > Hi, > > did anyone try Midori or other light browsers with good results ? You might want to give a try to xombrero. It's webkit based and was "Built with security in mind" [0] When

Re: light browsers

2016-05-12 Thread Gleydson Soares
Hi, On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:26 PM, <3sad68+aivzh013i5...@guerrillamail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > did anyone try Midori or other light browsers with good results ? I've been using www/luakit for a long time on a thinkpad x40/i386. It is running fast and works just fine. html5

Re: light browsers

2016-05-12 Thread lists
> dillo is in ports www/dillo - a fast and light graphical web browser (no JS) [http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/ports/www/dillo/pkg/DESCR] "Dillo is a multi-platform graphical web browser known for its speed and small size. It is written in C and C++ and based on FLTK." [ht

Re: light browsers

2016-05-12 Thread Bruno Flueckiger
On 12.05.2016 00:26, 3sad68+aivzh013i5...@guerrillamail.com wrote: Hi, did anyone try Midori or other light browsers with good results ? Sent using GuerrillaMail.com Block or report abuse: https://www.guerrillamail.com/abuse/?a=TEhnBi0PU7Ebih2wvnENdQ%3D%3D Midori works fine. But if your

Re: light browsers

2016-05-12 Thread Craig Skinner
dillo

Re: light browsers

2016-05-11 Thread Predrag Punosevac
Somebody wrote: > Hi, > > did anyone try Midori or other light browsers with good results ? It has being a while since I tried Midori but last I recall it worked just fine. There is nothing "light" about it as it uses WebKit rendering engine. For a while I was trying to make

light browsers

2016-05-11 Thread 3sad68+aivzh013i5ui4
Hi, did anyone try Midori or other light browsers with good results ? Sent using GuerrillaMail.com Block or report abuse: https://www.guerrillamail.com/abuse/?a=TEhnBi0PU7Ebih2wvnENdQ%3D%3D