Browser for 10.5.8

[User Bp]

Hi all,

Can anyone suggest a decent browser for use on an old PPC Mini running
10.5.8? I've tried Opera, Safari and Firefox, none of them seem stable
and the dowload sites don't offer much guidance as to which version is
supported on such an old platform/OS.

Safari 5.0.6 crawls like a slug and tends to crash when Flash runs.

Firefox 3.6.28 seems faster, but can't deal with logging in to secure sites

Opera 10.63 is the quickest to run, but also first to crash.

The machine has 512 megs of RAM and does not seem to thrash the disk,
so I don't think it's a memory limitation.

If anybody's got a suggestion for a different browser or version I'd
be grateful. The auto-updaters don't seem to remember the existence of
PPC architecture and blithely download Intel-only binaries..

Thanks for reading,

bob prohaska

[nospam]

In article <vilain-76A620....@news.individual.net>, Michael

> You need to add more memory. I surprised your system runs at all on
> 512MB of memory. That's below the rock bottom minium 10.5.8 requires.

i have an old ppc mini with 10.5.8 and 512m memory and it works fine.
more memory is always nice but opening those old mac minis is a pain in
the ass.

it has safari 5.0.5 and an old version of firefox, neither of which
crash. i don't do much on it other than the occasional large download
when i don't want to leave my main machine on for hours. it's a nice
lightweight server.

[Erilar]

Turn off flash and use an old version of a browser? Have you turned on
virtual RAM? My old G4 is sill running OS 9.2.2 and it CAN still reach at
least some websites, but that's not what I use it for; it's my access to
older media.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[David Ryeburn]

In article <kmkl2c$6e6$1...@news.albasani.net>, User Bp <b...@www.zefox.net>
wrote:

> Can anyone suggest a decent browser for use on an old PPC Mini running
> 10.5.8? I've tried Opera, Safari and Firefox, none of them seem stable
> and the dowload sites don't offer much guidance as to which version is
> supported on such an old platform/OS.

iCab 5.0.5: <http://icab.macmagnus.de/beta/iCab505_64Bit.zip>

> The machine has 512 megs of RAM and does not seem to thrash the disk,
> so I don't think it's a memory limitation.

Get more RAM. The money (not very much) will be well spent. Even the
oldest PPC Mac Minis can take 1 GB, and starting in early 2006 they
could take 2 GB. Install the maximum amount your computer can use. Other
World Computing is a good source.

<http://eshop.macsales.com/MyOWC/index.cfm> will let you see what's
available for your model of the Mac Mini.

David

--
David Ryeburn
david_...@telus.netz
To send e-mail, change "netz" to "net"

[David Empson]

Michael Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:

> In article <kmkl2c$6e6$1...@news.albasani.net>, User Bp <b...@www.zefox.net>
> wrote:
>

> You need to add more memory. I surprised your system runs at all on
> 512MB of memory. That's below the rock bottom minium 10.5.8 requires.

Adding more memory is a good idea, but 512 MB is exactly the minimum
that 10.5 requires.

10.3 and earlier: 128 MB
10.4: 256 MB
10.5: 512 MB
10.6: 1 GB
10.7 and 10.8: 2 GB

I personally wouldn't want to use 10.5 with less than 1 GB of memory,
especially a web browser.

For a browser: I haven't tried it myself, but investigate whether
"TenFourFox" is a usable option. It is a PowerPC port of a reasonably
current version of Firefox, aimed at 10.4 but it also works on 10.5.

For Flash, I'd say get rid of it. The version of Flash which runs on
10.5 for PowerPC hasn't been updated for ages and is probably horribly
insecure, and too old to support a lot of recent Flash content.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[PhillipJones]

That for X.5 to Run says nothing about other application that happen to
be open

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjon...@comcast.net

[User Bp]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> WHy would you have Flash installed? At all?
>
Simply because many websites offer flash and a (very small) fraction of
them are useful. Is there an alternative?

The recurring theme in this thread is that more memory will help. That
seems an option worth exploring so long as it's cheap. The real fix is
to replace the machine.

Thanks to all for your suggestions!

bob prohaska

[David Empson]

User Bp <b...@www.zefox.net> wrote:

> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >
> > WHy would you have Flash installed? At all?
> >
> Simply because many websites offer flash and a (very small) fraction of
> them are useful. Is there an alternative?

Short of finding alternatives to those web sites, not really.

If you need Flash, you basically need to be running a new enough
computer and OS that are able to run the latest version of Flash. For a
Mac that currently means any Intel Mac running at least 10.6.8.

> The recurring theme in this thread is that more memory will help. That
> seems an option worth exploring so long as it's cheap. The real fix is
> to replace the machine.

Given that it is a PowerPC Mini, the maximum memory which can be
installed is 1 GB, and it is a little ugly getting into the computer to
do the memory upgrade (if you haven't done an old-style Mini before).

Is it is worth the effort, given that you might still be somewhat
constrained for memory, and still can't use a recent enough Flash?

If you want to check memory prices, for reference this is what you need:

"184-pin PC-2700 DDR333 SDRAM"

Note that it is a full size DIMM, not a SO-DIMM. There is a single slot,
so you need a single 1 GB DIMM.

PC-3200 memory (DDR400) will also work, but it will be running at 333
MHz so there is no performance benefit.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[Patty Winter]

FWIW, I'm running Firefox 3.6.28 on Mac OS 10.4.11 and I just
logged into one of my secure financial accounts just fine. I
didn't try all of them.

I do have 1GB of memory in this MacBook, if that matters.


Patty

[nospam]

In article <kmn1if$jru$1...@news.albasani.net>, User Bp <b...@www.zefox.net>

wrote:

> > WHy would you have Flash installed? At all?
>
> Simply because many websites offer flash and a (very small) fraction of
> them are useful. Is there an alternative?

most have a non-flash version for ipad and android users, which will
show up automatically if you don't have flash installed.

> The recurring theme in this thread is that more memory will help. That
> seems an option worth exploring so long as it's cheap. The real fix is
> to replace the machine.

only if you can get the memory *really* cheap. it's not worth putting
money into a machine that old.

[nospam]

In article <vilain-998787....@news.individual.net>, Michael
Vilain <vil...@NOspamcop.net> wrote:

> There's no alternative if you turn off flash,

nonsense. of course there is. without flash you will get the non-flash
version of the site, the same version that would show up on an ipad or
android device, which also lacks flash.

some sites might not have a non-flash version, but the number of those
is rapidly dwindling. they *need* to have a non-flash version for all
the mobile users out there.

> other than to send email
> to the marketing department/company that set up the web site and
> complain. I view flash-heavy sites as worthless, for the most part.
> And companies that drank that Coolaid as "not getting my business".
>
> But you'll get over your dependence on Flash if you stop watch movie
> previews and videos on-line.

online movies haven't required flash for many years.

> You may have problems logging into bank or other secure sites. They
> tend to use the most common browsers. Crapcast had the gaul to tell me
> once that they'd support Safari 5 and MacOS 10.4, only earlier versions.

that might happen with older browsers. it has nothing to do with flash.

> You might also try Lynx. It's 100% text based. You won't be able to
> see anything but the text on web pages or log in to do banking or your
> taxes on-line, but you're not doing electronic banking, are you?

lynx is not particularly useful anymore.

[Patty Winter]

In article <slrnkou8fp...@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <518f0ead$0$52742$742e...@news.sonic.net>

> Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:
>> FWIW, I'm running Firefox 3.6.28 on Mac OS 10.4.11 and I just
>> logged into one of my secure financial accounts just fine. I
>> didn't try all of them.
>

>Then your bank's security sucks. Go to SSL Labs and run their test and I
>bet your bank gets a grade of F.

Ooh, easy money! How much are you putting up?


Patty

[Georg Schwarz]

User Bp <b...@www.zefox.net> wrote:

> Can anyone suggest a decent browser for use on an old PPC Mini running
> 10.5.8?

Camino

--
Georg Schwarz http://home.pages.de/~schwarz/
georg....@freenet.de +49 170 8768585

[PhillipJones]

Georg Schwarz wrote:
> User Bp<b...@www.zefox.net> wrote:
>
>> Can anyone suggest a decent browser for use on an old PPC Mini running
>> 10.5.8?
>
> Camino
>

Good choice

also you may have to hunt but Mozilla keeps (or did) older versions of
SeaMonkey, FireeFox, or Thunderbird.

[PhillipJones]

For RAM for your machine definitely will be cheap.

[PhillipJones]

Should have no problems if your machine is like the Original Poster (OP)
has.

[Ant]

On 5/12/2013 1:21 PM PT, PhillipJones typed:

>>> Can anyone suggest a decent browser for use on an old PPC Mini running
>>> 10.5.8?
>>
>> Camino
>>
> Good choice
>
> also you may have to hunt but Mozilla keeps (or did) older versions of
> SeaMonkey, FireeFox, or Thunderbird.

But what about updates for those security issues in these old web
browsers? AFAIK, Mozilla doesn't patch these old versions for Mac OS X
10.5.x. Does Camino still gets security updates?
--
Happy Mother's Day to all moms/mas/mothers/queen ants! ;)
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[Patty Winter]

In article <kmotrv$66q$3...@news.albasani.net>,

PhillipJones <pjon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Patty Winter wrote:
>> FWIW, I'm running Firefox 3.6.28 on Mac OS 10.4.11 and I just
>> logged into one of my secure financial accounts just fine. I
>> didn't try all of them.
>>
>> I do have 1GB of memory in this MacBook, if that matters.
>>

>Should have no problems if your machine is like the Original Poster (OP)
>has.

I don't have a problem; Bob does. And his machine only has
512K of RAM, which some have suggested is what's causing the
problem. Hence I thought it relevant to point out that my
MacBook has more RAM.


Patty

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

I wouldn't want to try running 10.5 in less than 4GB, personally. Not
with modern browsers and especially Flash - which I agree is better
avoided in 10.5 and with very limited RAM.

Anyway - my vote is for Camino <http://caminobrowser.org/> which is
modern, updated, and has a minimum system requirement of OS X 10.4.
There isn't much in the way of addons, but it works very well.
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> On 5/12/2013 1:21 PM PT, PhillipJones typed:
>
> >>> Can anyone suggest a decent browser for use on an old PPC Mini running
> >>> 10.5.8?
> >>
> >> Camino
> >>
> > Good choice
> >
> > also you may have to hunt but Mozilla keeps (or did) older versions of
> > SeaMonkey, FireeFox, or Thunderbird.
>
> But what about updates for those security issues in these old web
> browsers? AFAIK, Mozilla doesn't patch these old versions for Mac OS X
> 10.5.x. Does Camino still gets security updates?

Camino's <http://caminobrowser.org/> latest version supports OS X as far
back as 10.4.

[Ant]

On 5/12/2013 2:24 PM PT, Patty Winter typed:

> I don't have a problem; Bob does. And his machine only has
> 512K of RAM, which some have suggested is what's causing the
> problem. Hence I thought it relevant to point out that my
> MacBook has more RAM.

KiloBytes? :P

[Patty Winter]

In article <euadnbpQJa_ahQ3M...@earthlink.com>,

Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>On 5/12/2013 2:24 PM PT, Patty Winter typed:
>
>> I don't have a problem; Bob does. And his machine only has
>> 512K of RAM, which some have suggested is what's causing the
>> problem. Hence I thought it relevant to point out that my
>> MacBook has more RAM.
>
>KiloBytes? :P

Sorry. :-) 512MB.


Patty

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1l2t09y.1ojqin511cyovtN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>

> Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>
> >> On 5/12/2013 1:21 PM PT, PhillipJones typed:
> >>
> >> >>> Can anyone suggest a decent browser for use on an old PPC Mini running
> >> >>> 10.5.8?
> >> >>
> >> >> Camino
> >> >>
> >> > Good choice
> >> >
> >> > also you may have to hunt but Mozilla keeps (or did) older versions of
> >> > SeaMonkey, FireeFox, or Thunderbird.
> >>
> >> But what about updates for those security issues in these old web
> >> browsers? AFAIK, Mozilla doesn't patch these old versions for Mac OS X
> >> 10.5.x. Does Camino still gets security updates?
>
> > Camino's <http://caminobrowser.org/> latest version supports OS X as far
> > back as 10.4.
>

> Which was not the question.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? What exactly is it you imagine
"latest version" means?

[User Bp]

Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>

> Anyway - my vote is for Camino <http://caminobrowser.org/> which is
> modern, updated, and has a minimum system requirement of OS X 10.4.
> There isn't much in the way of addons, but it works very well.

Camino seems to be a considerable improvement performancewise. It'll
take some time to check stability, but this was a most helpful tip.

Thanks very much!

bob prohaska

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

You're welcome. I only switched from Firefox to Camino a couple years
ago because I absolutely needed a javascript blocker addon, due to my
habit of having several windows full of dozens of tabs open (the
javascript takes up amazing amounts of CPU if I don't leave most
javascript off till absolutely needed). But with fewer windows/tabs
open, I've found Camino runs well even on old PPC Macs.

[bi...@mix.com]

David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> writes:

> I personally wouldn't want to use 10.5 with less than 1 GB of memory,
> especially a web browser.
>
> For a browser: I haven't tried it myself, but investigate whether
> "TenFourFox" is a usable option. It is a PowerPC port of a reasonably
> current version of Firefox, aimed at 10.4 but it also works on 10.5.

Here's TenFourFox v17.0.5 idling with five windows open on OS 10.5 -

PID COMMAND %CPU TIME #TH #PRTS #MREGS RPRVT RSHRD RSIZE VSIZE
2189 firefox 0.0% 54:40.48 31 256 7424 174M 35M 297M 1538M

> For Flash, I'd say get rid of it. The version of Flash which runs on
> 10.5 for PowerPC hasn't been updated for ages and is probably horribly
> insecure, and too old to support a lot of recent Flash content.

TenFourFox does not support Flash. It does do HTML5 video, though.

Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number

[bi...@mix.com]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:

> lynx is not particularly useful anymore.

Sure it is. Here's a nicely done Mac version -

http://habilis.net/lynxlet/

Or, since his site is currently not responding -

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rT0cGb5xRbQJ:http://habilis.net/lynxlet/
and http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/22856/ to easily
grab a copy.

By the way, those who write software will get a
kick out of this -

http://habilis.net/appdna/ or
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KORwhPyI7vkJ:http://habilis.net/appdna/

| AppDNA is a small XCode shell script which efficiently packages
| a Mac OS X Application's source code into the application itself.
| The resulting embedded project directory is fully functional,
| allowing the code and resources to be examined, modified and re-
| built. The application is self-compiling when a Release build is
| performed.

Very clever stuff. As is his version of lynx...

[bi...@mix.com]

Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> writes:

> Anyway - my vote is for Camino <http://caminobrowser.org/> which is
> modern, updated, and has a minimum system requirement of OS X 10.4.
> There isn't much in the way of addons, but it works very well.

It's also the most Mac-like. For example, hold the option and
command keys down, put your mouse pointer on the browser's page
display, hold the mouse down and then move it to scroll around
the page. Even Safari won't do this, at least on the 10.5
system I'm currently using.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1l2tdd7.1syj2b13qc85rN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>

> Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> >> In message <1l2t09y.1ojqin511cyovtN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>
> >> Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> >> > Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> On 5/12/2013 1:21 PM PT, PhillipJones typed:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Can anyone suggest a decent browser for use on an old PPC Mini
> >> >> >>> running 10.5.8?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Camino
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Good choice
> >> >> >
> >> >> > also you may have to hunt but Mozilla keeps (or did) older
> >> >> > versions of SeaMonkey, FireeFox, or Thunderbird.
> >> >>
> >> >> But what about updates for those security issues in these old web
> >> >> browsers? AFAIK, Mozilla doesn't patch these old versions for Mac OS
> >> >> X 10.5.x. Does Camino still gets security updates?
> >>
> >> > Camino's <http://caminobrowser.org/> latest version supports OS X as far
> >> > back as 10.4.
> >>
> >> Which was not the question.
>
> > Are you being intentionally obtuse? What exactly is it you imagine
> > "latest version" means?
>

> The question was about security issues, not about what OS Camino
> supports.

The latest stable version 2.1.2 was released on March 14th 2012. The
latest nighly version which I prefer to use (because I like to
contribute with testing, and I've found Camino nightlies to be extremely
stable over the past decade) was released yesterday (no suprise there
given it's a nightly). If you're somehow concerned the stable version is
going to lead to your system being compromised (though I'd have to
wonder why), use the nightly. But - though I've only ever been tester of
nighly builds and a bug reporter for Camino - I can tell you Camino devs
have always been quick to respond to issues and I doubt they would leave
a version stable for so long if it had any serious security issues.

However if you're super concerned about security for some reason, I'd be
disabling Flash, Javascript and PDF viewing. Not worrying about a
browser version having been stable for a year. If in fact that is your
concern. I'm still a little foggy as to your issue. Did you think Camino
is no longer under constant development or something?

[nospam]

In article <kmrd3t$im$1...@reader1.panix.com>, <bi...@MIX.COM> wrote:

> > lynx is not particularly useful anymore.
>
> Sure it is. Here's a nicely done Mac version -

lynx doesn't work with a *huge* number of web sites, and for the ones
that do work, there are no graphics.

> http://habilis.net/lynxlet/

does not resolve.

> Or, since his site is currently not responding -
>
> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rT0cGb5xRbQJ:http://habil
> is.net/lynxlet/
> and http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/22856/ to easily
> grab a copy.

that's just the usual lynx. big deal.

[nospam]

In article <kmregv$f9b$1...@reader1.panix.com>, <bi...@MIX.COM> wrote:

> > Anyway - my vote is for Camino <http://caminobrowser.org/> which is
> > modern, updated, and has a minimum system requirement of OS X 10.4.
> > There isn't much in the way of addons, but it works very well.
>
> It's also the most Mac-like.

depends what you call 'mac-like'.

> For example, hold the option and
> command keys down, put your mouse pointer on the browser's page
> display, hold the mouse down and then move it to scroll around
> the page. Even Safari won't do this, at least on the 10.5
> system I'm currently using.

that requires two hands and is *more* work than just using two fingers
on a trackpad, using a scrollwheel on a mouse or a gesture on a magic
mouse, all of which work in any app.

also, the standard for that function was spacebar, not command-option.
finder used to do that until they repurposed spacebar for quicklook,
while photoshop still does.

camino also does not support inline pdf which is *not* mac-like.

[bi...@mix.com]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:

> lynx doesn't work with a *huge* number of web sites

Sure it does.

> and for the ones that do work, there are no graphics.

Well, Duh!!

> > http://habilis.net/lynxlet/
>
> does not resolve.

You might want to find a functioning name resolver -

; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> habilis.net
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 6, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; habilis.net, type = A, class = IN

;; ANSWER SECTION:
habilis.net. 10M IN A 67.205.40.242

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
habilis.net. 1d21h48m38s IN NS ns1.easydns.com.
habilis.net. 1d21h48m38s IN NS ns3.easydns.org.
habilis.net. 1d21h48m38s IN NS ns2.easydns.com.
habilis.net. 1d21h48m38s IN NS remote2.easydns.com.
habilis.net. 1d21h48m38s IN NS ns6.easydns.net.
habilis.net. 1d21h48m38s IN NS remote1.easydns.com.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns1.easydns.com. 1d9h24m44s IN AAAA 2001:1838:f001::10

> > http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rT0cGb5xRbQJ:http://habil
> > is.net/lynxlet/
> > and http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/22856/ to easily
> > grab a copy.
>
> that's just the usual lynx.

No, it's not.

[nospam]

In article <kmrj0m$f9b$3...@reader1.panix.com>, <bi...@MIX.COM> wrote:

> > lynx doesn't work with a *huge* number of web sites
>
> Sure it does.
>
> > and for the ones that do work, there are no graphics.
>
> Well, Duh!!

that makes it useless with a significant number of websites.

surprising as it may seem, most sites have graphics and video, some
have streaming audio, and many depend on javascript. some still use
flash.

a few sites do work in lynx, but not that many and the user experience
is horrid anyway.

> > > http://habilis.net/lynxlet/
> >
> > does not resolve.
>
> You might want to find a functioning name resolver -

my resolver works fine. the site didn't load, which you said was the
case and why you provided the following two links:

> > > http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rT0cGb5xRbQJ:http://h

> > > abil
> > > is.net/lynxlet/
> > > and http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/22856/ to easily
> > > grab a copy.

however, now it does load.

> > that's just the usual lynx.
>
> No, it's not.

yes it is. it's just wrapped into a launcher app for those who can't
compile it themselves. it's still the same old lynx running in a
terminal window. he even explains how to launch it directly.

besides, links is better anyway.

[bi...@mix.com]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes, quoting me:

> > > does not resolve.
> >
> > You might want to find a functioning name resolver -
>
> my resolver works fine. the site didn't load

Words mean things. load != resolve.

> > > that's just the usual lynx.
> >
> > No, it's not.
>

> it's just wrapped into a launcher app for those who can't
> compile it themselves.

In other words, no, it's not the usual lynx.

[nospam]

In article <kmropn$gh6$1...@reader1.panix.com>, <bi...@MIX.COM> wrote:

> > > > does not resolve.
> > >
> > > You might want to find a functioning name resolver -
> >
> > my resolver works fine. the site didn't load
>
> Words mean things. load != resolve.

big deal. it didn't work for you either. i had to use the alternate
link you provided.

> > > > that's just the usual lynx.
> > >
> > > No, it's not.
> >
> > it's just wrapped into a launcher app for those who can't
> > compile it themselves.
>
> In other words, no, it's not the usual lynx.

it's *exactly* the same lynx, but with a launcher.

he even explains how to launch it directly, skipping his launcher.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <1l2ums6.m0bsdm1apbqidN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>

> Why? Because there is no information about its security and it is based
> on Firefox 3.6, which is *not* secure.

That's like saying Google Chrome is based on Safari. Camino isn't based
on Firefox. It is based on the Gecko 1.9.2 rendering engine which
Firefox 3.6 also used, amoungst other browsers.

> > However if you're super concerned about security for some reason, I'd be
> > disabling Flash,
>

> Yes, of course.
>
> > Javascript
>
> No, that's pretty silly. Jave, of course. Javascript, no.

No, that isn't even slightly silly. The vast majority of security issues
on the web revolve around javascript exploits. Though on the Mac I'm far
more concerned about javascript CPU usage than the miniscule amount of
security exploits affecting Macs.

> > and PDF viewing
>
> Yes, of course.

>
> > . Not worrying about a
> > browser version having been stable for a year. If in fact that is your
> > concern. I'm still a little foggy as to your issue. Did you think Camino
> > is no longer under constant development or something?
>

> I *know* that its engine is not under development and I do not see any
> information on security in Camino on their site. I am not saying it
> isn't secure, but security is not assumed, and Camino is a niche, so
> other sites that test browser security don't test Camino.

I easily navigated to the security section of Camino's bug reports from
Camino's main site.

> On the security test at http://www.browserscope.org/ Camino latest
> scores 9/17 on the security test, lower than IE 8 which scores 10/17, so
> Camino's score is very low. Safari scores 14/17. Chrome 24-26 score
> 16/17. It appears that Camino is not especially secure.

Then you should use what makes you happy and helps you to feel safe. I
used Camino full time for nearly a decade without a single security
incident, and continue to use it as a secondary browser. In fact I've
yet to have a single local (i.e. not some website having their logins
compromised on their end) security issue on my Macs since the harmless
AutoStart Worm in 1999 arrived on an infected MacAddict cover CD-ROM.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Opps. Turns out that while it was, Camino was very near death at the
writing of my above post <http://caminobrowser.org/>. Sad to see, as
Camino's UI was always the best looking of any modern web browser IMO.
Looks like it's the far less attractive Firefox from here on out.

[User Bp]

That is most unfortunate. Camino seems to work better on
my old Mac than any browser I've tried.

8-(

Thanks for your guidance,

bob prohaska

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Yeah I'll miss Camino - it has been installed on my Macs from when it
was still called Chimera - a long time ago! It became my main browser
around 2003 IIRC, and stayed that way till just a couple years ago when
I finally required addons with functionality Camino lacked. But I still
kept it around as a secondary and speedier browser.

The main thing I miss from Camino aside from it's lovely Mac-like UI, is
it used OS X's Keychain. I dislike how Firefox has it's own :-\

[User Bp]

Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>
> Yeah I'll miss Camino - it has been installed on my Macs from when it
> was still called Chimera - a long time ago! It became my main browser

That brings back some hazy memories! Seems to me I played with
Chimera, probably on FreeBSD, long ago. At that time it had a
very un-embellished, almost spider-web like screen display.

I had no idea Chimera begat Camino, thanks for the insight!

bob prohaska

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camino#History>. I've yet to like any of
the webkit based browsers. Goodbye Camino. At least I still have
Firefox, ugly and bloated though it may be.

[Ant]

On 6/16/2013 10:47 PM PT, super70s typed:

>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camino#History>. I've yet to like any of
>> the webkit based browsers. Goodbye Camino. At least I still have
>> Firefox, ugly and bloated though it may be.
>

> I'm a 10.4/10.5.8 user and I'm unable to log on to my bank's site with
> Camino (also Firefox 3.6.28).
>
> TenFourFox (a fork of newer Firefox versions) can do it with no problem.
>
> I guess one could always use Camino (or Firefox 3.6.28) primarily and
> then use TenFourFox for sites that have a more modern security challenge.

Why not use the latest Firefox v16 which is the last one to work in Mac
OS X 10.5.x? See
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-no-longer-works-mac-os-x-10-5
for the details.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-no-longer-works-mac-os-10-4-or-powerpc
says 3.6.28 is the last/final version for 10.4.x.
--
"After World War III, the ants will still be around." --unknown

[AV3]

On Jun/17/2013 1:4748 AM, super70s wrote:
> In article<1l43z2l.17c65okiotcetN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,

> jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:
>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camino#History>. I've yet to like any of
>> the webkit based browsers. Goodbye Camino. At least I still have
>> Firefox, ugly and bloated though it may be.
>

> I'm a 10.4/10.5.8 user and I'm unable to log on to my bank's site with
> Camino (also Firefox 3.6.28).
>
> TenFourFox (a fork of newer Firefox versions) can do it with no problem.
>
> I guess one could always use Camino (or Firefox 3.6.28) primarily and
> then use TenFourFox for sites that have a more modern security challenge.
>

Are you aware that Camino was recently discontinued? Never having been a
Camino user, I don't know if there is any limited support for any past
versions.


> ...


--
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
|| Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1l2szun.1yi94kl1aye2a5N%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>,

jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

>

> Anyway - my vote is for Camino <http://caminobrowser.org/> which is
> modern, updated, and has a minimum system requirement of OS X 10.4.
> There isn't much in the way of addons, but it works very well.

Site above shows EOL.

"Camino reaches its end
After a decade-long run, Camino is no longer being developed, and we
encourage all users to upgrade to a more modern browser. Camino is
increasingly lagging behind the fast pace of changes on the web, and
more importantly it is not receiving security updates, making it
increasingly unsafe to use."

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx