3 ms·
Requiring a full version of WebExtensions Firefox is a real deal-breaker in terms of memory hogging (that and only having an x64 Windows binary). Why not do wh
by Endy 8y ago
Requiring a full version of WebExtensions Firefox is a real deal-breaker in terms of memory hogging (that and only having an x64 Windows binary). Why not do what Pale Moon, SRWare Iron, Chrome-Opera, Vivaldi (i.e. Opera-Chrome 2), and others have done, and create a full browser based on the FF code instead of requiring a separate install?
Still, I think for all the major benefits of text-based browsing, Lynx, Links, and eLinks are still far preferable as lightweight solutions.
- tombh 8y agoBrowsh's raison d'etre is really about saving bandwidth. I first had the problem of bandwidth whilst living in Ladakh in Northern India, where I simply could not use the modern web. I expect Browsh not to be run on the same machine as the user, instead it runs somewhere where there is good internet and the user then accesses its output via either SSH/Mosh or the HTML service. Linking to FF/Chrome's libs is certainly an option and I agree a better approach, it's just a learning curve I wasn't willing to invest in.