Re: light browsers

[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 good results ?
> >
> > You might want to give a try to xombrero.
> > It's webkit based and was "Built with security in mind" [0]
> 
> 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 xombrero "security" features lie in the default settings and the
possibility to harden them regarding to privacy issues.

But indeed, it seems that every single Webkit(Gtk) web browser is broken
which leaves us with very few choice.

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.

Chromium is Google related, not always for the best. [0]

IMO both of them are heavy and need a lot of add-ons to be usable.

[0] 
http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/06/not-ok-google-chromium-voice-extension-pulled-after-spying-concerns/

Re: light browsers

[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 in "whitelist" mode, it provides a fine grained, per-domain control
over cookies and JS activation and is highly configurable through a
well documented conf file (sane vim-like keybindings and mouse control
if needed).

I use it everyday, it's ok for general purpose even though some fancy
website design may appear broken from time to time.

[0] https://opensource.conformal.com/wiki/xombrero