Otter Browser Dependency Issue

SolydXK is too quiet for you? SolydXK Enthusiast Editions, based on Debian Testing is for you! Here you can find news about Debian Testing and Unstable too, and also tests on SolydXK programs.
The support for SolydXK EE is provided by the community.
freecicero
Posts: 41
Joined: 29 Jun 2014 19:23

Otter Browser Dependency Issue

Postby freecicero » 13 Aug 2016 15:31

I have been installing otter-browser on my various linux distributions on several older machines, and finding that it is less bloated and runs faster.

http://otter-browser.org/

In Solydx 32 bit EE, however, I am running into Error: Dependency not satisfiable -qtbase-abi-5-3-2

I'd really like to run this on my solydx installation if possible - is there any possibility to get this added to the repos or ideas on how i might succeed?

thanks!

User avatar
grizzler
Posts: 2159
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 15:45
Location: The Hague, NL

Re: Otter Browser Dependency Issue

Postby grizzler » 13 Aug 2016 19:43

Wait until their packages catch up with stretch or try to install jessie's libqt5core5a package (which provides the 5.3.2 version of that virtual package) on your stretch system?

The latter will most likely fail, by the way, and in the uniikely event it doesn't fail immediately, it will probably make your system more than a little unstable... :(

Alternatively, hack the .deb file to remove the qtbase-abi-5-3-2 bit from the control file's dependency list and hope the 5.6.1 abi (which the stretch libqt5core5a uses) isn't too different from the 5.3.2 one. Nasty.

So, no real solution I'm afraid. Unless someone else has a better idea.

Edit
Another alternative: use the daily build from launchpad (Ubuntu). Not something I'd usually recommend, but this time it seems to work (I'm writing this in Otter). Package is here: https://launchpad.net/~otter-browser/+a ... d/10609435
All at your own risk, of course.
Frank

SolydX EE 64 - tracking Debian Testing

freecicero
Posts: 41
Joined: 29 Jun 2014 19:23

Re: Otter Browser Dependency Issue

Postby freecicero » 13 Aug 2016 22:05

Thank you Frank! The daily build version did the trick! And I take full responsibility for anything that happens to me! ;-) I know Solydx is not oriented toward older computers, but I have it on an old Toshiba satellite that strains under the weight of Firefox and Chromium. And of course there's the "rebel" side of me that just roots for the underdog and likes the less-followed path, and who hated to see the old opera given up.

Again, thanks!

User avatar
Zill
Posts: 1850
Joined: 13 Aug 2013 14:28
Location: Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Otter Browser Dependency Issue

Postby Zill » 14 Aug 2016 11:30

freecicero wrote:... I know Solydx is not oriented toward older computers, but I have it on an old Toshiba satellite that strains under the weight of Firefox and Chromium.
IMHO, SolydX is quite well suited to older computers as it runs very well on my six year old dual-core Celeron machine with 2GB RAM. However, I do agree that SolydX may struggle with much older machines and so I use even lighter distros, such as CrunchBang, for such machines.

It seems to me that, as machines improve their specs, they do demand ever more from the OS and so modern OS's are always increasing in size and complexity to keep pace with the increasing hardware requirements.

This is why it always puzzles me when users try to run the "latest and greatest" OS on older hardware, such as this case of running Testing on an old Toshiba satellite. I suggest that this machine may well be struggling to run smoothly on Testing, whereas it would probably run much better with an older release, such as Stable.

I know I do tend to "bang-on" about the advantages of running Stable, but, IMO, if there is nothing to be gained from running Testing then why do it? Newer kernels are needed to match modern CPUs but this is not the case with older hardware.

Of course, if a user really likes the challenge of getting the latest software running on old hardware then fine - enjoy the ride! And, of course, many genuine testers will feed info back upstream to help create the next Stable. My thanks, as a Stable user, do go to those testers who do help out development in this way.

freecicero
Posts: 41
Joined: 29 Jun 2014 19:23

Re: Otter Browser Dependency Issue

Postby freecicero » 14 Aug 2016 13:43

Zill I am running a Toshiba Satellite M50 with Pentium M at 1.73ghz and 1540 MB memory.

Since you have raised the subject, here is something I don't understand:

In your comparison between stable and testing, would I expect to see a performance difference in anything much other than bootup speed? Will loading programs be significantly different? I understand that a lighter desktop such as xfce should perform faster than kde than most everything, but am I really solving anything other than bootup and shutdown speed if I changed to something like Puppy linux with JWM?

Most of my real work is inside the browser or a word processor. Once those are loaded from bootup , which might be somewhat slower on solydx than on puppy, will I really see a difference in running the same program (such as libreoffice or firefox) on the two separate operating systems?

thanks

User avatar
Zill
Posts: 1850
Joined: 13 Aug 2013 14:28
Location: Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Otter Browser Dependency Issue

Postby Zill » 14 Aug 2016 14:22

freecicero: AIUI, KDE has more packages than XFCE which allows KDE to be the "blingier" DE with more eye-candy than XFCE. As these packages all involve software that needs to run if it is to be of any use, I also expect this will result in more processes running. IMHO, this is why KDE feels more sluggish than XFCE with similar hardware.

I use similar logic with Operating Systems in that the older systems were far simpler than the newer ones, with correspondingly smaller file sizes. I have no scientific justification for this but my experience over the years has taught me that OSs just get bigger and bigger. Inevitably, these will also require more running processes than earlier OSs and so I believe this is why they require more powerful hardware (both CPU and RAM) to run smoothly.

As the changes between releases are incremental, there probably isn't that much of a difference in hardware requirements between Stretch and Jessie, although the difference between Stretch (9.0) and, say, Woody (3.0) is probably quite significant!

Bootup/shutdown speed is something I never really consider as my machines run 24/7. However, as far as running programs such as LibreOffice or Firefox are concerned my opinion is that the lighter the system, with the fewest processes running, the better. This will then ensure that your wanted programs will have the maximum resources available. With modern, powerful, hardware, this probably will not make much difference. But with older, more limited, hardware this could be significant.

In summary, my (unqualified!) opinion is that, if the best performance is wanted, older hardware works best with older OSs. The only caveat I would add is that the OS must be still be supported - which is why I still run CrunchBang with its Debian Wheezy (old-stable) base.

As far as Puppy/JWM is concerned, just give it a try and then please report the results of your comparison back here. It would certainly be interesting reading. :-)

kurotsugi
Posts: 2225
Joined: 09 Jan 2014 00:17

Re: Otter Browser Dependency Issue

Postby kurotsugi » 14 Aug 2016 17:41

let's stick on the topic. it's not about the OS nor the DE. firefox and chrome are indeed heavy, especially for older system. IMO it would be more relevant to discuss what's the lighter replacement for them.

puppy and debian (generally all linux other than puppy) fundamentally works differently so it would be very difficult to compare both of them. you won't find any conclusion by comparing them so it's not a productive discussion.

neither will comparing stable vs testing. phoronix could give you all stats and graphics, the proof that newer linux have better better performance than the older ones, but I highly doubt it's what we want to achieve in our discussion.

User avatar
ilu
Posts: 2474
Joined: 09 Oct 2013 12:45

Re: Otter Browser Dependency Issue

Postby ilu » 14 Aug 2016 18:22

Zill wrote:However, as far as running programs such as LibreOffice or Firefox are concerned my opinion is that the lighter the system, with the fewest processes running, the better. This will then ensure that your wanted programs will have the maximum resources available. With modern, powerful, hardware, this probably will not make much difference. But with older, more limited, hardware this could be significant.
Even with newer hardware the difference is significant. Some users like to squeeze every bit of computing power out of a given system and they all agree that if you use a desktop like kde or unity you should at least disable all "bells and whistles" (all background prozesses, images, themes) or better install a second desktop because you feel the difference in ressource heavy applications (f.e. games or compiling). XFCE is generally considered to be a good compromise between lightweight and comfort. There might be lighter desktops but not many (I don't know JWM but puppy has a lot of other adjustments not just the desktop).
freecicero wrote:I understand that a lighter desktop such as xfce should perform faster than kde than most everything, but am I really solving anything other than bootup and shutdown speed if I changed to something like Puppy linux with JWM?
The number of running processes matters all the time, not just during load. The way windows are handled matters, the amount of eye candy and the number of windows you (or the program) open. Also file size matters (think big databases or a long master thesis versus short letters). It's not only a slow CPU but also slow graphics and not much RAM (main and graphic). If your system needs to use swap you'll feel it for sure.

That being said, puppy is optimized to run on even older and smaller systems. I don't think you need that much of "shrinking" but you'll have to try if you really want to know.
freecicero wrote:Most of my real work is inside the browser or a word processor. ... (such as libreoffice or firefox)
I think you are on the right track in choosing your apps carefully. Mozillas programs are gigantic and so is Open/Libre Office. Maybe you could have a look at Abiword and Gnumeric instead. I Know the 1-program-for-1-task approach is not en vogue anymore but do you really need all that integration just for writing letters (or whatever you do)?

freecicero
Posts: 41
Joined: 29 Jun 2014 19:23

Re: Otter Browser Dependency Issue

Postby freecicero » 14 Aug 2016 20:25

"let's stick on the topic. it's not about the OS nor the DE. firefox and chrome are indeed heavy, especially for older system. IMO it would be more relevant to discuss what's the lighter replacement for them. "

In regard to that, which did spur the topic, I had lost sight of this recently til I had a reason to use Opera 12 on a system with the newer browsers also installed and I saw that Opera 12 did run significantly faster.

I would continue to use Opera 12 but more sites are not working with it due to alleged security issues, so I have been looking at Midori and Qupzilla. Midori was giving me problems but Qupzilla seems to perform better without the problems, and that's when I came across Otter.

Maybe my threshold, sad as this is to admit, is that I need to be able to run Facebook but on the fastest browser possible. I used Slimjet with some success, but isn't that basically Chome? ARe there any modern browsers significantly faster than Firefox and Chrome?

kurotsugi
Posts: 2225
Joined: 09 Jan 2014 00:17

Re: Otter Browser Dependency Issue

Postby kurotsugi » 14 Aug 2016 22:03

chrome and firefox actually faster but :
- chrome is too big and heavy. you won't notice it's speed unless you have huge ram and powerfull cpu/gpu, while
- firefox ui is sluggish. it has powerfull machine under it's hood but the ui is significantly slower compared to other browser, especially those based on chrome/webkit.

so far the replacement could be categorized into :
1. the light and fast webkit based browser.
2. the powerfull chrome based browser.
3. firefox based browser.

webkit gives you the lightest browser as possible but the usage is limited. not every webpage will be showed correctly.

meanwhile chrome based browser will gives us better user experience at the cost of performance. they're based on chrome so they're tends to heavy. most of popular browser are based on chrome.

nothing much I can say about firefox based browser. they're almost similar to firefox and quite limited. I only know palemoon as example of this category.

so far people recommends
1. palemoon : because it's the only non chrome based browser which means it's lighter and fast.
2. vivaldi : a chrome based browser with lot similarities to opera. they were made by same people.
3. slimjet : another chrome based browser with lot of extra functionality
4. opera

I also heard people recommends otter but I don't know much about it.

I'd like to stressed that there are lot of chrome based browser but _they aren't same browser_ they're using some parts from chrome which open sourced but it's where their similarities end. some people might say that they're same but actually they're not.

if you ever use opera you'll understanf what I mean :3

User avatar
Zill
Posts: 1850
Joined: 13 Aug 2013 14:28
Location: Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Otter Browser Dependency Issue

Postby Zill » 14 Aug 2016 22:05

freecicero wrote:ARe there any modern browsers significantly faster than Firefox and Chrome?
Probably not! But if Firefox/Chrome seem too slow for you then maybe it is time to replace your aged Toshiba Satellite M50 with a more modern machine, or at the very least to max out the RAM which may give some performance improvement.

balloon
Posts: 164
Joined: 03 Apr 2014 03:53

Re: Otter Browser Dependency Issue

Postby balloon » 15 Aug 2016 00:59

I am in favor of the Pale Moon as a browser for the old PC.
It also exists Debian package. (MX Linux members offers)

http://linux.palemoon.org/

It should be noted that, although out the name of the CrunchBang,
this has been inherited officially to BunsenLabs now.

User avatar
ilu
Posts: 2474
Joined: 09 Oct 2013 12:45

Re: Otter Browser Dependency Issue

Postby ilu » 15 Aug 2016 10:14

I tried Konqueror but wasn't convinced (don't remember why) and Midori (couldn't display the pages I wanted to see).
I can recommend Qupzilla https://github.com/QupZilla/qupzilla/. It has it's limits on some complex sites (I don't remember which) but I'm using it for things like help pages and its really fast, even if I have many tabs open. I was actually thinking about making qupzilla my system default so that help pages from applications automatically open in Qupzilla (immediately) instead of in Firefox (fetch coffee while waiting).

So give Qupzilla a chance. It's actively developed and belongs into the webkit group kurotsugi mentioned.

User avatar
xendistar
Posts: 510
Joined: 08 Jun 2014 08:17
Location: Bournemouth, UK

Re: Otter Browser Dependency Issue

Postby xendistar » 15 Aug 2016 21:13

This thread has come along at the right time, I recently fell out with Firefox with an issue which I have had in the past where suddenly Firefox start to run slowly and jerky. I am running a i3 processor with 4gb memory running SoydX 64bit EE so not a slow machine. CAs for Chrome I find it is just hungry and greedy and I find that I have to continually restart the browser as the free memory starts to disappear and the swap files usage starts growing.

I have just installed Pale Moon so will see how that goes, failing that I will try Qupzilla

kurotsugi
Posts: 2225
Joined: 09 Jan 2014 00:17

Re: Otter Browser Dependency Issue

Postby kurotsugi » 16 Aug 2016 01:42

oops...missed that one. qupzilla is a good one from webkit camp :3


Return to “Testing Zone”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests