On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:56:36 me wrote: > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Mick <michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday 19 September 2010 18:07:11 me wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Daniel da Veiga > >> > >> <danieldave...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 03:21, Francesco Talamona > >> > > >> > <francesco.talam...@know.eu> wrote: > >> >> On Sunday 19 September 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > >> >>> Is it just me? Or does Firefox get slower every release? And less > >> >>> stable. > >> >>> > >> >>> I got myself up to the latest, and I cannot install my 4 add-ons > >> >>> (xmarks, AdBlockPlus, Noscript, Stumble-upon) without it crashing. > >> >>> Seg fault sometimes. I've got ECC memory, and no reported problems, > >> >>> and it does not help to clear the profiles (rename ~/.mozilla) and > >> >>> re-emerge. > >> >>> > >> >>> Grrrrrr. > >> >> > >> >> Ditto. Every time slower and less stable. And when it crashes makes > >> >> the X destop crash too, I use it with firebug and it's slow as > >> >> molasses. > >> >> > >> >> Looking forward to FF4, still not tried on Linux. > >> >> > >> >> greets > >> >> FT > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Linux Version 2.6.35-gentoo-r7, Compiled #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 17 > >> >> 21:01:33 CEST 2010 > >> >> Two 2.4GHz AMD Athlon 64 Processors, 4GB RAM, 9648.04 Bogomips Total > >> >> aemaeth > >> > > >> > Well, guess I'm lucky then. > >> > I used it since 2.x and never had any problems. Never needed other > >> > browser in Linux. Looking forward for 4.x, but still, 3.6.x is my > >> > personal choice. Don't like chromium, not enough extensions, can't > >> > stand Opera, Safari or Konqueror for the same reason. If flashblock, > >> > noscript and adblock were available at any browser I could try it, but > >> > still, I don't see it in a near future. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Daniel da Veiga > >> > >> Chrome's set of extensions is growing rather large, and at least > >> contains most of what anyone would need, a bit short of 'want', but > >> covers needs fairly well. If you don't like chrome's interface I'll > >> not argue, but if the extensions are the one thing stopping you from > >> giving it a real try... > >> > >> Not quite NoScript, but aims to do the job: > >> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpk > >> kcf n?hl=en > >> > >> Flashblock: > >> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gofhjkjmkpinhpoiabjplobcaign > >> abn l?hl=en > >> > >> Adblock: > >> https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbigl > >> ido m?hl=en > >> > >> The biggest reason I've taken to using chrome, though, is that it > >> seems (purely subjective) to render pages far faster than anything > >> else I've used, though I've not run opera or safari in a very long > >> time. > > > > Opera is faster than FF for sure both on my amd64 and my x86. I tried > > Chrome once (early days then) and I couldn't tell if it was faster. I > > gave up on it because I was not sure if the browser was calling home > > with my browsing habits and if these were identifiable as coming from my > > machine/IP address. In other words I wasn't sure to what extent Google > > was recording my Internet journeys. -- > > Regards, > > Mick > > I decided to forgo letting myself worry over what google is/isn't > getting regarding my internet usage around the time I started using > gmail, since I'm practically handing them more through that than any > access to my browser history or the like gives.
I use gmail too, but for sensitive information of commercial or private nature I use encryption and for very sensitive information I do not use gmail. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
