> On Thu, 25 Jan 2018, [hidden email] wrote:
>> Have you tried increasing datasize-cur and -max under "default:\"
>> in /etc/login.conf ? I have mine set to 2048M
> I have 512 MB there. My computer has 1024MB Ram. For what does firefox
> need so much memory?!
Mine is set to 2048M also. I almost never have Firefox crashes
esp. on newer builds from Landry Breuil as described here:
I Run three or four browser profiles simultaneously, use Gmail, Google
Docs, Google Sheets, etc. quite well. With Firefox Quantum it's even
more stable than Chromium which is the reverse of my prior experience
using Google services.
(1) "even *running* firefox on an i386 netbook with 1Gb of memory is
(2) "PS: No i can't do anything about the crashes or the OOMs ! Send your
reports directly upstream !"
The Browser is a program I need that needs by far much more resources
than any other program I need.
> > I only need a browser.
> Surf? w3m?
w3m is a phantastic tool! When it gets unbearable, I copy the location
from firefox and feed w3m with it.
I will try later surf.
iridium does not convince me till now. It seems to be a new browser
(different from chrome) as any linux distribution is a new operating
system. It seems to be slower than firefox, the window for everything
(url, search, etc) is a risk.
> > > I only need a browser.
> > Surf? w3m?
> w3m is a phantastic tool! When it gets unbearable, I copy the location
> from firefox and feed w3m with it.
> I will try later surf.
> iridium does not convince me till now. It seems to be a new browser
> (different from chrome) as any linux distribution is a new operating
> system. It seems to be slower than firefox, the window for everything
> (url, search, etc) is a risk.
I can vouch for surf, not too hard to get running, composes well with
other unix tools and it's built by the suckless community, so you know
they value a small footprint as well. But dont expect to have all websites
render and work flawlessly, it's browser engine wasnt the most up to date
last time I checked.
> > I have 512 MB there. My computer has 1024MB Ram. For what does
> > firefox need so much memory?!
I think that puzzles everyone. Browsers are often full of memory leaks
too. I haven't had any crashes on 57 or 58 btw.
I haven't checked quantum but priorly it used ~300 Megabytes before
opening a web page. Chromium was similar but in many processes. Edge
used far less but I guess it goes up with every additional feature
they add like drawing over web pages, extensions etc..
Over a decade ago, firebird used to use ~30 megabytes if I remember
Windows is terrible with hdd and ram usage, about a decade ago people
started marketing huge ram computers as it was apparent that it would
avoid Windows paging and thrashing so much. It's gone crazy since I
guess, though Windows update and installers are still terrible disk
users. Probably largely what has driven the SSD market too despite it's
downsides like capacity and cost (every time you boot or connect the
internet especially after being disconnected or off for a week, Windows
is crazy slow due to HDD contention).
You can try Otter-browser. It is a fork of the Opera browser. My bank
website and a few other websites refuse secure logins but in general it
I am using it on OpenBSD 6.1. It won't play videos until you install the
necessary plugins. Here is how to fix it.
The Otter Browser cannot play videos such as at YouTube
Go to YouTube and try to play a video. You will get an error
The fix is to install gstreamer1-plugins-good-1.* and
as root do the following:
PKG_PATH=https://mirrors.syringanetworks.net/pub/OpenBSD/6.1/packages/amd64/ # pkg_add gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.31p18v0.tgz
# pkg_add gstreamer1-plugins-libav-1.10.4.tgz
The above is only an example. Your OpenBSD system may have
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:13:47 +0000 (GMT)
> > (1) "even *running* firefox on an i386 netbook with 1Gb of memory
> > is unbearable."
> We still have a 1.73 Ghz 1.5 Gigabyte Ram laptop that does OK with
> firefox. It is running fvwm 1 as a desktop though which requires
> clicks occasionally for some windows to show these days?
Oh and evince maximise controls don't work at all because they have
somehow hidden the fvwm ones... clever breakage whatever they have
done. Haven't found another app with the same issue.
I was thinking of switching from fvwm to either fvwm2 or xfce (not a
gnome fan) but not sure now, atleast until those laptops are replaced. I
also love it's single config file and reliability (config screw ups and
load failures have happened on xfce in the past on Debian, many years
> I get continously this and other errors. In OpenBSD, in FreeBSD.
> I think it is time to change browser, but I distrust chrome as comming
> from data collector google.
> The problem is that those that make WEB pages decide more or less what
> browser I must use.
> What is the real alternative?
Try the commands in this order, see what you get with a recent snapshot:
Note, and beware Firefox IS dropping i386 and we all have issues with P3
and previous generations CPUs lacking SSEx (wtf). Landry Breul packages
the latest Firefox for many years, if only we could get a -noJS flavour.
> You can try Otter-browser. It is a fork of the Opera browser. My bank
> website and a few other websites refuse secure logins but in general it
> works well.
> I am using it on OpenBSD 6.1. It won't play videos until you install the
> necessary plugins. Here is how to fix it.
> The Otter Browser cannot play videos such as at YouTube
> Go to YouTube and try to play a video. You will get an error
> The fix is to install gstreamer1-plugins-good-1.* and
> as root do the following:
> # export
> PKG_PATH=https://mirrors.syringanetworks.net/pub/OpenBSD/6.1/packages/amd64/ > # pkg_add gstreamer-plugins-good-0.10.31p18v0.tgz
> # pkg_add gstreamer1-plugins-libav-1.10.4.tgz
> The above is only an example. Your OpenBSD system may have
> different versions.
> The Otter-Browser will now play videos
It will play videos on YouTube but not on BBC iPlayer.
> It will be slow, but you can increase datasize
> beyond physical RAM.
I have twice swap as memory. But that is not a solution. A program
that needs so much memory for nothing should leave my computer.
I suspect, it is a bug in firefox 56.0. Someone wrote that his
higher version never crashed. Iridium in my computer also did
not crash till now. Unfortunately, I cannot download at the
moment other brosers for testing.
> >For what does firefox need so much memory?!
> I have no idea why browsers need so much RAM, now.
They need it to compensate the lack of resources in the brain of
the programmers. Not only of browser programmers, but of the lot
of Web developers, many of them who lerned programming with
I thank the lot of ansers, but unfortunately the decision is difficult,
because it is not in the hand of the user. One must follow the mass,
use what the mass use, otherwise you cannot see the most complicated
pages, and the more important pages tend to be complicated (as
online banking). One could use an alternative with the render machine
of a wide spread browser, but as someone noted, surf, that has safaris
webkit, is not actualized and has rendering problems.
> # iridium&
>  14714
> # *** autoupdate was enabled, overriding with false
> iridium(14714) in free(): use after free 0x7e51b6a0
>  Abort iridium (core dumped)
Known issue. You'll need to try launching Iridium several times to
eventually get it to start (sometimes 5 times in a row for me on i386).
This issue was solved for the Chromium port shortly after the last
release, so I'll guess the fix will trickle down to the Iridium port
before the next release. (Someone running Iridium on -current to
confirm/infirm?) After launching, the browser itself is quite solid,
but tabs will crash from time on time, possibly because of memory
constraints, as I've seen signs of major leaking (eg. with video
streaming running for hours).
One note on SeaMonkey, as it was mentioned in this thread… While the
interface may seem bloated, the browser is currently the leanest
full-featured one, in my experience. First of all the Mozilla-based
rendering engine is not that bad to start with. Also SeaMonkey still
uses only one process for everything, so it's not that memory-intensive.
Being based on GTK+ 2.x also helps in this regard when compared to its
GTK+ 3.x siblings.
If you also need a full-featured mail client (as in capable of correctly
rendering HTML junk, checking SMIME/PGP signatures etc.) and an IRC
client, you'll get to take even more advantage of its monolithic design.
I have used it successfully for years on old hardware. The OpenBSD
port is very solid, thanks to the excellent work of Landry Breuil.
To get the latest version, you'll need to run -current though, and even
then, not all the latest Firefox security fixes will be included, as
Seamonkey's development is slower. So beware of all the security
implications of this, maybe compensate with NoScript and other tricks.
As a side note, have noticed Firefox Quantum made strides in reducing
memory consumption and has also become much snappier on OpenBSD for me.
I'm typing this on a 9-year old desktop which struggled with latest ESR.
To the point that sound in other apps (think light media players such
as Deadbeef or ffplay) was sometimes chopped when closing heavy tabs in
Firefox (confused as to why, this old workhorse has 8GB of RAM and a,
premium at the time, Intel SSD). If you are interested in trying
Firefox Quantum on 6.2, you should follow the instructions at