/jp/ - Otaku Culture

[Anonymous No.]

Hey /jp/, what web browser do you use?

[Anonymous No.]

Waterfox and Nightly. Mostly nightly, but whenever nighty breaks shit I care about, I switch back to waterfox.

[Anonymous No.]

I use Chrome because I'm boring.

[Anonymous No.]

Microsoft.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122539
This but replace Waterfox with Aurora.

[Anonymous No.]

Firefox with ten thousand addons optimized for 64-bit platforms, compiled directly from the official Mozilla repositories using Portage package manager.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122555
Yeah, Netscape was pretty sick.

[Anonymous No.]

Pale Moon because for some fucking reason my other browsers like Firefox go full HURRDURR with East Asian Languages and it pops up as a bunch of gibberish

Why? Because of some shit about x86 or something, I don't know.

[Anonymous No.]

I use <ironic outdated browser>.

>✌ 2,305 people liked this.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122548
>>10122539
>waterfox
Placebo and unofficial branch that is poorly maintained.

>Aurora/Nightly
Extremely unstable bleeding edge packages that should not by used in day-to-day usage.

Why don't you just use Firefox stable? Do you enjoy instability? Maybe you'll tell me you're using Windows, too?

[Anonymous No.]

Web 2.0

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122539
There's people that actually use Placebofox?

[Anonymous No.]

Konqueror
Firefox
Chromium

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122549

This, although I only use 3 addons; also eLinks when I actually want to look something up instead of languish on *chan.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122563
change encoding dumbshit

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122563
What operating system do you use? It's clearly not the fault of the browser, more like missing fonts from your side.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122574
>Extremely unstable bleeding edge packages that should not by used in day-to-day usage.

I hardly ever have any problems with it at all. The only problem I'm having with Nightly right now is 4chansoundplayer doesn't work in it, and that's a pretty obtuse script so I can hardly fault anyone for that.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122592

>Implying I didn't fuck with the encoding as much as I could.

It still came up with a bunch of gibber-shit. Like I could go to famitsu.com and it wouldn't even load the ads.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122600
I just went there and everything looked fine on Firefox with encoding set to Unicode, ebin-mem-arrow-implying-kun.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122574
Nightly is in development, but breaks rarely for Amd64/x86; other platforms a shit. Aurora works for anything AMD64/x86 related as if it were stable, but may have problems with plugins and addons.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122600

just grab some CJK font packages using your manager, then.

[Anonymous No.]

Emacs-w3m.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122563

I would use pale moon instead of waterfox if it didn't fuck up omnibar.

For some reason searching one word without spaces adds a 3 second delay when it searches, while searching for two words (with spaces) it searches instantly.

Fuck if I know why. I need omnibar though.

>>10122574
I believe waterfox isn't even on linux, so that would be a dead giveaway, right masterh4ck0r-sama?

I don't use firefox stable, because it is noticeably slower to me than nightly or waterfox. Call it a placebo all you want, I can tell. The difference isn't much and I could see why people would prefer stability and compatibility over it, but I don't, simple as that.

>>10122580

It's not a placebo though.

>>10122596

Youtube link title is also broken in nightly right now.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122618
+1 upvote
emacs da best :D
and rms :D

[Anonymous No.]

I'm using Aurora. I'm going to switch over to Firefox 18 Beta on Monday.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122609
>>10122596
Do you even know what stable means? It isn't that your browser won't crash while randomly browsing. It means that the software is thoroughly tested, for security, bug-inducing features, errors and possible incompatibilities with other (stable) software. I use firefox also for development and it's very important for me that everything works as it should and not interfere with other tools.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122631
>I use firefox also for development

You're talking to people have no responsibilities and spend their time dicking around with shit that doesn't work because it gives them e-cred on /g/.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122643
>Anonymous
>e-cred
wut?

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122619
>noticeably slower to me than nightly or waterfox
>Call it a placebo all you want
Now son, it isn't just placebo, you're just lying to yourself. You're the perfect example of a delusion.

I can give you any documents you want, that will prove that waterfox or nightly isn't faster than ~100ms in loading pages or responsiveness or however you call it. It's a time difference impossible to notice for a human.

Well, continue using it, you're like a typical close-minded neurotypical that doesn't accept the objectivity and would rather live in his own delusions.

[Anonymous No.]

Opera.

Once every few years I'll try using Firefox or Chrome for a while, get disappointed, and come back to Opera.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122649
Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about. Go find a thread full of Arch users or something if you really don't.

[Anonymous No.]

Chrome, but sometimes I use IE because it vomits and dies when it runs into certain foreign language websites.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122631

But by the time anything is 'Stable' by anyone but Archloonix's standards, they're sort of stale.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122643

>dicking around with shit that doesn't work

[Anonymous No.]

Firefox stable, because it's stable and has more/better features than other browsers.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122662
I don't go on /g/.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122670
Arch Linux has no stable software. They don't even test it, they just take a package and mark it with a 'stable' mark, retarded, isn't it? That's what Arch Linux is all about, about retards.

And yes, true, stable takes time. Someone needs time to test all this shit. I don't need all these new fancy features so I'm fine with stable.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122655

So basically you're just calling throwing some ad-hominems?

Okay then, good argument.

[Anonymous No.]

With a fresh Firefox window my CPU temp is at 40C. An hour later it bounces around at 60C with the fan on full, and flash sends it critical. I can only go back to 40 by a restarting the entire application, closing to just one tab doesn't help.

Is this Firefoxs' lolmemoryleaks or is it me?

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122669
Oh wow, it looks like they fixed some of the websites it used to break on.

Still get garbage like "­—’e–‹Šï杁@u“Œ•û—dX–²@` Perfect Cherry Blossom.v," though.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122686
b-but people on /g/ w-will say you're s-stupid

spending hours trying to get your b-browser to work is cool...!

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122695
God, shut up.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122709

It's noticeably faster and I can tell with my human eyes and brain.

My argument has just as much credibility as yours, so why don't you shut-up?

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122655
How is 100ms not noticeable?

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122696
>memoryleaks
>CPU
Look for a logic here.
Also no, it's probably one of your plugins, like aforementioned adobe flash player which is a complete shit.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122714
I'm not that man.

Nobody cares about rational internet arguments for rational intellectuals like yourself.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122714
He wasn't even a person you replied to.
Not only me but another person think you're stupid. I never started an argument to begin with.

[Anonymous No.]

IceCat because it respects my freedoms.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122725
>>10122733

What exactly is stupid about what I'm saying, and not what you're saying? You basically just said "nuh uh" and insulted me personally instead of refuting what I'm saying. If anything, you're the fucking delusional ones.

I ran kraken (Mozilla's very own benchmarking program) on both nightly and firefox 17. Nightly worked fine running it, and I can't even type or scroll down the page without lagging like a bitch on firefox 17.

Here, the results speak for themselves, go fuck yourself and be dicks somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.]

Mostly Firefox but I like to use W3M on occasion.

[Anonymous No.]

Chrome because I just don't give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.]

Chrome.

Not a big fan of firefox, although I have it installed for certain things.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122698
For the first time I got off my retarded ass and changed the encoding settings and there are no problems now.

I'm a phenomenal retard. I can take solace only in the fact that the average internet user (a gibbering retard) is even more technically illiterate than I am.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122782
preview.tinyurl.com/ckcndev

Firefox 17 stable, compiled myself from the source.
CFLAGS="-march=core2 -O2 -pipe"

Wow, it's faster than nightly! It's a fucking benchmark you huge fucking idiot. Do a real test instead.

Also, where are the results of the waterfox? Decided to exclude them because they were all too low?

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122545
>>10122578
>>10122669
>>10122796
>>10122806
>chrome
Enjoy you're botnet.

[Anonymous No.]

Firefox stable with 15 addons. I refuse to use Gargle Cum.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122782

I don't even have waterfox installed on this computer.

Why don't you compile nightly yourself on that computer in an optimized way, and test it again next to that installation of firefox? What, afraid it would be faster?

Your comparing apples and oranges, apples being default versions of firefox/nightly, and oranges being custom compiled versions of firefox/nightly.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122841
>Gargle Cum
that's not very mature.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122835
Do you really think avoiding to use a browser will make you safe from Google's botnet?
How silly

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122835
Google already owns my anus. I don't care anymore.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122860

Meant to reply to; >>10122818. (Obviously)

[Anonymous No.]

Firefox

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122860
Then why do you argue that waterfox is faster when you have no way of testing it? Why don't you take firefox and nightly side-to-side and see how they fast they load pages, instead of figuring in milliseconds in obscure benchmarks?

I have no way of testing recent Nightly because there's no ebuild for it, and I'm no way in hell gonna make it just for you.
Obviously, Firefox stable at the version nightly currently is, will be faster in the benchmark and there's no argument for that.
I wanted to simply point out that it's retarded, giving benchmark, because as you can see they're extremely dependent on the way you install soft, where and how you run it.

That faggot probably doesn't even browse archive. I fucking hate assholes like that who think they know everything despite knowing nothing.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122877,2

>No way of testing it

I have other computers in this house you know? All I said was that I don't have it installed on this one, I could install it right now and test it aside it to if you really wanted.

>Obscure benchmark

It's fucking made by mozilla, do you have a more preferred benchmarking program that you would like to use?

>Obviously, Firefox stable at the version nightly currently is, will be faster in the benchmark and there's no argument for that.

Yeah, apparently only if you fucking compile it yourself optimally. But here we go again, apples and oranges. Especially so since I was talking about versions for windows, and you only just revealed that you're using (custom compiled) versions for linux.

Atleast with default versions for windows, nightly IS faster than firefox stable, that's a fact. Deal with it you fucking autistic cunt.

>Why don't you take firefox and nightly side-to-side and see how they fast they load pages

Okay, nightly loads pages faster for me. Done.

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122877,3
>Okay, nightly loads pages faster for me. Done.
Wow, you sure proved something. Now go make a video. And show me. Because I just got my old disk, connected it and installed Nightly and Firefox. And guess what? Page load was not even noticeable.
Weird.
What are you trying to prove? That bleeding-edge software is superior?

[Anonymous No.]

>>10122877,4
He originally said that Nightly ran faster for him than Firefox stable, and later I think he wanted to prove that you were full of shit for jumping on him over something so retarded.