Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
reopen 364304
> severity 364304 wishlist
> tags 364304 wontfix
> thanks
#
>> Make it read:
>>
>> ! Description: Graphical web browser based on Mozilla
>>
>> REASONING
>>
>> Any browser based on mozilla engine cannot be called light weight. This
>> classification is better reserved for truly light weight brosers that
>> can be used with older hardware, still widely in use.
>>
>> E.g. dillo or "link2 -g' are light weight graphical browsers.
>> Opera and Firefox are 400 kilogram gorillas compared to them.
>
> It's "lightweight" in comparison to Mozilla. Lightweight also doesn't
> necessarily make reference to memory footprint. This is really
> bordering on a troll.
This is gross misuse of term lightweight. The Firefox is among the top
10 memory pigs that hog and drain all of the memory when it's being
running for months.
This is clear bug in the Description is completely misleading everyone
running calls like:
apt-get search light.*weight
To see what programs would announce itself to be light - to be used in
older hardware.
What was that "troll nonsense"? I backed up the reasoning with solid
data. I would call opera "morate lightweight", but not even that
warrants term "light weight".
Opera = almost 50 % ligter than firefox
Jari
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
6557 foo 15 0 18172 5780 4200 S 0.0 1.8 0:01.29 dillo
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
7227 foo 15 0 81692 24m 14m S 0.0 7.9 0:08.31 firefox-bin
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
7271 root 15 0 49088 22m 12m S 0.0 7.2 0:07.74 opera
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
7030 foo 15 0 91216 28m 16m S 0.0 8.9 0:22.05 mozilla-bin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
