tux99 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Seamonkey is fine if you like Netscape Navigator :D As opposed to Firefox being the dumbed down version of Seamonkey aimed at the general IT illiterate public, without all the useful extra config options that Seamonkey provides (which apparently would confuse non techies)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarecrow Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 Seamonkey is just fine... like a slow-motion variation of Opera. Chromium does not come in native 64-bit binaries, but this is no surprise: neither mozilla.org is providing 64-bit binaries of firefox- the user has to compile them by himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tux99 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 (edited) Seamonkey is just fine... like a slow-motion variation of Opera. I use both Opera and Seamonkey and I don't notice any speed difference (on older PCs, yes, Opera is faster but it's not noticeable on a modern dual core), maybe that's because Seamonkey has the invaluable 'adblock plus' plugin while Opera has to suffer all the flashy ads slowing it down... I wouldn't use any browser without 'adblock plus' as my primary browser. (and yes, that comes from someone who has a web site with a modest amount of ad banners on it, I don't care if my web site visitors use adblock, it's a free world and I didn't make my website to get rich, as long as it pays for the web hosting related costs that's fine for me! ;) ) Edited November 19, 2009 by tux99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rldev Posted November 19, 2009 Author Share Posted November 19, 2009 @ rldev- I've located an independently compiled and packaged 64-bit rpm for you. Thank you so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg2 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 You're very welcome. I'll mark this as solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yossarian Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Google Chrome is now available in Beta version for Linux, both 32 and 64 bit: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/w00t.html Right now only Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora and OpenSUSE versions are available. Does anyone think it is safe trying to install the rpm package for Fedora and OpenSUSE? Does anyone dare to try? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolf Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Does anyone think it is safe trying to install the rpm package for Fedora and OpenSUSE? Does anyone dare to try? :) I did try the rpm, google-chrome-beta-4.0.249.30-33928 (google-chrome-beta_current_x86_64.rpm) at http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/w00t.html I had google-chrome-4.0.223.5r29485-1mvt2010.0.x86_64 from Mandriva Turkiye http://forum.mandriva.com/viewtopic.php?p=740623&sid=816040c774f4e2bdac260f9f97bd7570#740623 installed with a release date of 27 Oct 2009 vs. 06 Dec 2009 for google-chrome-beta, so decided to try the newer build. There was no signature that I could find, so I ok'd the warning, and, since the package name is different, I guess, I had to uninstall the mvt program, first, due to conflicting files. It's ok and I've sometimes loaded google-chrome in case it can handle hulu.com better but I don't see that it does. I would expect if I'm opening a new Tab from link (middle-click), that page would display automatically but it doesn't and I don't see a place to configure it. I'd say it works fine, for what it is, but I won't use it, much. Thanks for the link! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarecrow Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 (edited) Works rather decently here. Using the devel branch from here although the 249 beta is also OK. My main complaint is that they are prebuilt and as such they can't be used with kgtk to get rid of the gtk+ file dialogs for better KDE4 looks. Other than that, they are fast and stable. Edited December 14, 2009 by scarecrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yossarian Posted December 14, 2009 Share Posted December 14, 2009 The shomaker goes barefoot... Apperantly chrome requires lsb package of version 3.2 or later. Running 2009.0, I only have version 3.1, so I can't install chrome on my machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now