You are Here:
Linux Lite 6.6 FINAL Released - Support for 22 Languages Added - See Release Announcement Section



Slimjet vs. Qupzilla - opinions on which is a 'safer' web browser?

Author (Read 4352 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Slimjet vs. Qupzilla - opinions on which is a 'safer' web browser?
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2017, 05:35:14 PM »
 

elelme

  • Forum Regular
  • ***
  • 100
    Posts
  • Reputation: 11
  • Deleted
    • View Profile

  • Kernel: 5.x
Well, I caught Slimjet saving records of my searches and I couldn't figure out a way to clear it out.
Maybe if I had signed into it, it would have been cleaned by an extension, but it bothered me. It is basically CHROME.
Qupzilla, though, is being turned into the KDE konqueror-replacement.  Both did work well for me,
though Slimjet seemed to have a tiny advantage. Still, both are better than some browsers I have
tried in the past. Oh, and now I remember that Qupzilla (in GTK) did crash occasionally, as Paul said. But I think it
is written in QT now, or so I have been told, so it could be improved. Speaking of improved---
    I did get a chance to try the new Firefox, and it was nice, but am waiting for more experienced folks
to rate it, before I install.

UPDATE: New Firefox 57 seems really good. And, I found Vivaldi to be a good chrome browser.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2017, 08:38:22 AM by elelme »
 

Re: Slimjet vs. Qupzilla - opinions on which is a 'safer' web browser?
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2017, 02:53:12 AM »
 

Paul74

  • Occasional Poster
  • **
  • 88
    Posts
  • Reputation: 3
  • Linux Lite Member
    • View Profile

  • CPU: Intel Core I3 M380, core 2 Duo 8400, AMD x64 5000

  • MEMORY: 6Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: AMD Cedar

  • Kernel: 5.x
Hello,
I use Qupzilla.
I appreciate its speed ant its ease of use, its use less memory also.
I don't use Google search but Startpage (Ixquick) to have a better privacy.

The only problem : sometimes Qupzilla ended itself, but no messages about the reason of that, does any of you have experienced same problem ?
LL 4.8 running on Dell Optiflex 760
LL 4.8 running on Asus X52J
LL 4.8 running on Toshiba Satellite C670-14W
LL 3.8 (32 bits) running on HP Pavilion
LL 5.0 running on Samsung RV515
 

Slimjet vs. Qupzilla - opinions on which is a 'safer' web browser?
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2016, 11:51:43 AM »
 

m654321

  • Gold Level Poster
  • *******
  • 893
    Posts
  • Reputation: 86
  • Linux Lite Member, 'Advocate' & Donator
    • View Profile

  • CPU: Intel Pentium [email protected] (2cores) on an Asus X71Q

  • MEMORY: 4Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: Intel GM45 Express Chipset

  • Kernel: 4.x
In response to gold_finger and some other members, on the merits of Slimjet & QupZilla web browsers compared to Firefox, I had a go with both of these & compared them to Firefox for myself. I've been really impressed by their speed/snappiness in getting web pages up, compared to Firefox's lagginess when adblockers and/or other extensions are used.  I did try a third browser called 'Web' (formerly called Epiphany) but it was a bit too basic in its layout, though appears extremely light-touch too.
 
It seems to me that SJ has the edge over Qupzilla on general polish. However, as gold_finger pointed out, SJ is closed source whereas QupZilla is open source software.  Does this mean that we might know the risks of QupZilla (as code is freely available), but not of Slimjet (I assume it's a closely guarded secret??).  I'm wondering which is safer, e.g. privacy, malware, etc.  Does anyone have any personal views or experience on this... ???

Mike
« Last Edit: October 08, 2016, 07:25:15 AM by m654321 »
64bit OS (32-bit on Samsung netbook) installed in Legacy mode on MBR-formatted SSDs (except pi which uses a micro SDHC card):
2017 - Raspberry pi 3B (4cores) ~ [email protected] - LibreElec, used for upgrading our Samsung TV (excellent for the task)  
2012 - Lenovo G580 2689 (2cores; 4threads] ~ [email protected] - LL3.8/Win8.1 dual-boot (LL working smoothly)
2011 - Samsung NP-N145 Plus (1core; 2threads) ~ Intel Atom [email protected] - LL 3.8 32-bit (64-bit too 'laggy')
2008 - Asus X71Q (2cores) ~ Intel [email protected] - LL4.6/Win8.1 dual-boot, LL works fine with kernel 4.15
2007 - Dell Latitude D630 (2cores) ~ Intel [email protected] - LL4.6, works well with kernel 4.4; 4.15 doesn't work
 

 

-->
X Close Ad

Linux Lite 6.6 FINAL Released - Support for 22 Languages Added - See Release Announcement Section