"Safe" PDF reader?

Actually, if anyone wants to try Light Firefox
there are links he

https://sourceforge.net/projects/lig...7300827_win32/

I can't imagine why you chose to link to the
flaky technorms webpage.

I tried installing it.
Why is it making numerous attempts to contact
my ISP? And how did it get those IPs? I use
Acrylic DNS proxy, which should be getting
the DNS request if Light wants to call out.

On Wed, 31 May 2017 08:59:45 +0100, PeterC
wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2017 04:29:36 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

Can't someone produce a Firefox lite?

http://www.palemoon.org/

Version 26.5 was the final version to support Windows XP

That knocks it out for me.


--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com

On 31 May 2017 23:12:37 GMT, Mark Blain wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote in
:

Isn't Firefox open source?

Can't someone produce a Firefox lite?

Someone has.

https://www.technorms.com/38687/fire...ghtening-fast-
performance

Nice, but it seems very complicated to get:

"To download this latest, lighter build of Firefox, you’ll need to go
direct to the third-party developer’s page and add the .exe file to
your Google Drive account, which can be found in Google Code here.
Once here, click on the “download� link in the middle of the page."




--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com

Steve Hayes wrote:
On 31 May 2017 23:12:37 GMT, Mark Blain wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote in
:

Isn't Firefox open source?

Can't someone produce a Firefox lite?
Someone has.

https://www.technorms.com/38687/fire...ghtening-fast-
performance

Nice, but it seems very complicated to get:

"To download this latest, lighter build of Firefox, you’ll need to go
direct to the third-party developer’s page and add the .exe file to
your Google Drive account, which can be found in Google Code here.
Once here, click on the “download� link in the middle of the page."

Mayayana provided a link.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/lig...7300827_win32/

And if you wanted some other version, you could climb up
the link to a higher level.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/lightfirefox/files/

Paul

On Thu, 01 Jun 2017 09:09:31 +0200, Steve Hayes
wrote:

On Wed, 31 May 2017 08:59:45 +0100, PeterC
wrote:

http://www.palemoon.org/

Version 26.5 was the final version to support Windows XP

That knocks it out for me.

I'm using it quite happily, in fact I've just made it my default
browser, because I'm sick of Firefox hogging so many resources.
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

"Java Jive" wrote

| Version 26.5 was the final version to support Windows XP
|
| That knocks it out for me.
|
| I'm using it quite happily, in fact I've just made it my default
| browser, because I'm sick of Firefox hogging so many resources.

I'm also using it happily. In part I'm not worried
because I generally disable javascript. But also, I
think people forget that the online risks are not
generally with the browser itself (except for IE).
Flash is by far the biggest problem. Java. Acrobat
Reader. Microsoft Office. Silverlight. Sloppy
configuration. And of course, the thing that makes
it all possible: javascript.
The latest WannaCry problem exploited vulnerabilities
in networked computers that have been common
since the 90s and should already be blocked. (For
instance, DCOM/RPC ports should be blocked on
most machines.) And ironically, WannaCry was using
an install method that just causes XP to crash,
rather than be infected:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/30/1...re-blue-screen

In addition, many active exploits are 0-day, for
which the latest Firefox update is no help. As we
saw with WannaCry, our taxes dollars are being
spent on hiring techies to work as gov't spooks and
find new 0-days.

How many attacks actually exploit the Gecko
browser? I'm sure there are some, but they're not
top exploits. Anyone allowing script globally and/or
using plugins who thinks it's important to use the
latest browser is putting a chintzy lock on the
front door while they leave all the windows wide
open.

I'm using PM along with Firefox 38. Why 38? Not
really a particular reason. Every once in awhile I
try a newer version that's had time to get the
kinks out. I check to see how many things the
Mozilla people have broken or screwed up in that
version. If I can still use it in the way I like without
needing too many new extensions then I'll update.
I probably won't update to 52+ or whatever the
WebExtensions version is, because Mozilla are
breaking the entire extensions model with that
version. They're blocking extensions from full access
for security and stability reasons. That's a good idea,
up to a point, but it's analogous to Metro apps:
A sandboxed app is secure precisely because its
functionality is crippled.

On Wed, 31 May 2017 20:53:22 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

Actually, if anyone wants to try Light Firefox
there are links he

https://sourceforge.net/projects/lig...7300827_win32/

I can't imagine why you chose to link to the
flaky technorms webpage.

I tried installing it.
Why is it making numerous attempts to contact
my ISP? And how did it get those IPs? I use
Acrylic DNS proxy, which should be getting
the DNS request if Light wants to call out.

Well, I was interested - until I saw this. Perhaps I'll stick with PM.
I used to use Firefox ESR, then swapped to Cyberfox, but the latter is now
EOL as the developer is packing up to go and get a life.

Otter looks good and starts in 3s; PM is about 2½s and CF is about 7s. Any
heavily modded Firefox (same extensions as the others, all to get the
behaviour of ProperOpera v12.x) takes around 12 - 14s!
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

"PeterC" wrote

| Why is it making numerous attempts to contact
| my ISP? And how did it get those IPs? I use
| Acrylic DNS proxy, which should be getting
| the DNS request if Light wants to call out.
|
| Well, I was interested - until I saw this. Perhaps I'll stick with PM.

There was a discussion about this in the FF group
awhile back. I don't remember the details now. I
think there have been added functions to call home,
like "heartbeat", but I lost track of the details and
mostly settle for clearing all URLs in about:config.

"Mayayana" wrote in
news
I can't imagine why you chose to link to the
flaky technorms webpage.

That page best describes what features were removed, which most people
would want to know before deciding whether it's worth a look.

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
I'm using PM along with Firefox 38. Why 38? Not
really a particular reason. Every once in awhile I
try a newer version that's had time to get the
kinks out. I check to see how many things the
Mozilla people have broken or screwed up in that
version. If I can still use it in the way I like without
needing too many new extensions then I'll update.
I probably won't update to 52+ or whatever the
WebExtensions version is, because Mozilla are
breaking the entire extensions model with that
version. They're blocking extensions from full access

I believe the ESR version of 32 still allows the old type of plugins.

for security and stability reasons. That's a good idea,

Security/safety is often used as an excuse, though )-:. For example, the
type of automotive repair shop (usually of the "main dealer" variety)
who won't "for safety reasons" let the customer into where they're
actually working on the cars doesn't tend to get my custom.

up to a point, but it's analogous to Metro apps:
A sandboxed app is secure precisely because its
functionality is crippled.

That's quotable!

2
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I've always wanted to be happy, so I decided to be - Neil Baldwin

In message , "J. P. Gilliver
(John)" writes:
In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
I'm using PM along with Firefox 38. Why 38? Not
really a particular reason. Every once in awhile I
try a newer version that's had time to get the
kinks out. I check to see how many things the
Mozilla people have broken or screwed up in that
version. If I can still use it in the way I like without
needing too many new extensions then I'll update.
I probably won't update to 52+ or whatever the
WebExtensions version is, because Mozilla are
breaking the entire extensions model with that
version. They're blocking extensions from full access

I believe the ESR version of 32 still allows the old type of plugins.

Sorry, I meant the ESR version of 62.

[Still using 26 here!]
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Old soldiers never die - only young ones

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| I believe the ESR version of 32 still allows the old type of plugins.
|
| Sorry, I meant the ESR version of 62.
|
| [Still using 26 here!]

I think you meant 52?

In message , Mayayana
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| I believe the ESR version of 32 still allows the old type of plugins.
|
| Sorry, I meant the ESR version of 62.
|
| [Still using 26 here!]

I think you meant 52?


Yes! Oh dear. And I don't think I can blame the hardware! Anyway, yes, I
think the ESR version of (types carefully) Firefox 52 will still work
with the old type of plugin. 52 is also apparently the last version that
will work with XP. ESR is a sort of more stable version, intended for
institutions and the like, who want not to have to deal with the manic
updating schedule ordinary users have to: the ESR version seems to
change only every five or six normal versions (before ESR 52 was ESR
fortysomething, for example). I think there's sort of support (inasmuch
as there is any support for free software) for the ESR versions, for
longer than there is for the normal ones, i. e. they're supported until
the next ESR up.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it ain't broke, don't download updates.
- Al Drake in alt.windows7.general, 2015-4-4