[SOLVED] Simple Browser for old version of Ubuntu (10.04) on old Netbook (EeePC 1005PE, Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N450, 2GB RAM)

rm_-rf_windows · 09-02-2017, 06:08 AM

Hi all,

Are there any browsers or simple work-arounds to be able to surf the Net on my old EeePC on Ubuntu 10.04?

Many sites give a message indicating that their site won't display properly or work properly on my browsers (I have several installed, but older versions).

For example, when consulting Facebook, the small chat window does not display or else I have to magnify in which case the window is unmanageable.

I cannot apt-get update or upgrade because there is no longer any support for Ubuntu 10.04.

I LOVE Ubuntu 10.04 GNOME, please answer my specific question, I am well aware of the fact that the best solution is another Linux distro and am working on that possibility separately. In any case, my Ubuntu10.04 is very good, and I will conserve it along side any other Linux distro installation. I want to see if I can get a working browser on my present Ubuntu 10.04 set up because all else is perfect on it.

Many thanks in advance,

RM

Keruskerfuerst · 09-02-2017, 06:15 AM

You can try to install the latest ESR version (52.3.0) of firefox on top of Ubuntu 10.04.

rm_-rf_windows · 09-02-2017, 06:44 AM

Many thanks Keruskerfuerst,

I already tried more recent versions and have just tryed what you have said.

Either I'm doing something wrong, or else there are dependency issues.

Here's what I get:

Code:

user@user-laptop:~/Desktop/new/firefox$ ls
application.ini     firefox-bin         liblgpllibs.so    libnssckbi.so    libsoftokn3.so     removed-files
browser             fonts               libmozavcodec.so  libnssdbm3.chk   libssl3.so         run-mozilla.sh
chrome.manifest     gmp-clearkey        libmozavutil.so   libnssdbm3.so    libxul.so          Throbber-small.gif
crashreporter       gtk2                libmozgtk.so      libnssutil3.so   minidump-analyzer  updater
crashreporter.ini   icons               libmozsandbox.so  libplc4.so       omni.ja            updater.ini
defaults            icudt58l.dat        libmozsqlite3.so  libplds4.so      platform.ini       update-settings.ini
dependentlibs.list  libfreeblpriv3.chk  libnspr4.so       libsmime3.so     plugin-container
firefox             libfreeblpriv3.so   libnss3.so        libsoftokn3.chk  precomplete
user@user-laptop:~/Desktop/new/firefox$ ./firefox
XPCOMGlueLoad error for file /home/user/Desktop/new/firefox/libmozgtk.so:
libgtk-3.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Couldn't load XPCOM.
user@user-laptop:~/Desktop/new/firefox$

Any suggestions?

Keruskerfuerst · 09-02-2017, 06:46 AM

Which gnome version uses Ubuntu 10.04?

rm_-rf_windows · 09-02-2017, 06:48 AM

Code:

user@user-laptop:~/Desktop/new/firefox$ gnome-session --version
gnome-session 2.30.0
user@user-laptop:~/Desktop/new/firefox$

Keruskerfuerst · 09-02-2017, 06:50 AM

Firefox 52.3.0 depends on GTK 3.

Do you know, which version of Firefox still uses GTK 2?

You can also try to install GTK 3.0 lib on your Ubuntu 10.04 system.

ondoho · 09-02-2017, 09:48 AM

^ try palemoon. still uses gtk2.

but i fear you won't have any luck.
the problems only START with the gui toolkit.

rm_-rf_windows · 09-02-2017, 10:59 AM

Many thanks, Keruskerfuerst!

version 45 of Firefox is the answer to your question and the solution to my problem, and it seems to work much better (time will tell). I'll try to install other browsers based on a similar process (GTK 2). I like to have several browsers, sometimes things work better on an alternative browser.

Two questions...

1/ Regarding applications in general, other than GTK 2, what are other dependencies that I have to watch out for? That is, if I want to install the latest compatible version?

2/ I'm going to uninstall Firefox 20.x which was installed into the system with menu chort-cuts, etc. using apt-get. How can I manually make it so that my new installation appear in the "Applications" menu? And how can I make it so that typing "firefox" in the terminal opens the app? (and similarly with apps in general)

Many thanks again!

RM

rm_-rf_windows · 09-02-2017, 11:15 AM

Ah, and yet a third question (see two previous questions in prior post), I was just about to inunstall the system version of Firefox using apt-get remove firefox and realized that when I launch the new version from the folder I downloaded it takes into account my preferences, bookmarks, etc., which must be in the hidden file in my home folder.

How can I uninstall the old version and conserve my preferences, bookmarks, etc.?

Or, is there perhaps a another better approach to do this?

Keruskerfuerst · 09-02-2017, 11:30 AM

Quote:

How can I uninstall the old version and conserve my preferences, bookmarks, etc.?

The folder with bookmarks and so on is located in your home folder and is a hidden directory.
.mozilla/firefox

If you want to be save, backup this folder and install the new version.

rm_-rf_windows · 09-10-2017, 08:59 AM

Ondoho,

Many, many thanks for recommending Pale Moon!

It's exactly what I was looking for!

Installed and works like a charm!

Any other browsers like that?

Any other SOFTWARE like that? I mean, software that works on old as well as new installations? Simple and universal?

Many thanks!

RM

jmgibson1981 · 09-10-2017, 09:24 AM

Is there a reason you don't upgrade to Ubuntu Mate 16.04? It is quite close to the old Gnome style and it's actually supported. 10.04 is not supported anymore.

rm_-rf_windows · 09-10-2017, 04:14 PM

Thanks for asking your question politely and for your patience, jmgibson1981. I really appreciate it. No irony here, I'm serious.

The simple answer is that I'm working on installing Lubuntu 17.04 at the same time (see this post). The idea, for the time being, is to conserve Windows 7 and Ubuntu 10.04 and to install Lubuntu or Mint Xfce along side on another partition. But I'm not going to dump my beautiful Ubuntu 10.04 installation before being convinced with another linux distro.

The thing is, I've been SO disappointed with "new and improved" distros and apps that fail to take into consideration the intuitivity and simplicity for users who are not interested in spending tons of time tweeking, or, for example, this new trend to treat a computer with a huge screen and a keyboard like a smartphone (Windows 10, for example). My favourite Windows OS is Windows XP. My favourite Ubuntu is 10.04. I installed Ubuntu 14.04 on another computer a few years ago and almost went nuts. Ditto with Windows 10. I don't understand why new OS and app designers don't, first and foremost, conserve all that is good in the old ones and take it from there!

I just love my old Asus EeePC 1005PE and Ubuntu 10.04 with Gnome (see this post). Almost everything works perfectly and does all I need it to do beautifully. I just recently started looking into solving certain problems (see my recent posts if you're interested, I had had hardware problems prior, battery and charger, and had stopped using my EeePC for several years, I recently solved the hardware problems, which is why I'm looking into resolving other problems now) If it's not broken, why fix it? (yeah, you're going to raise the point of all of my posts, and I agree, ideally, if I can find a simple, recent and maintained distro, it's much better. I agree, but for the time being I haven't been convinced by anything and prefer an old, unmaintained distro to the "new and improved" ones... and I'm learning things by doing what I'm doing).

Sorry, I imagine you can sense my frustration in what I have written above. To use an analogy, consider the bicycle (my personal opinion, I hope I don't come off as a condescending "lesson giver," I truly think this analogy is useful in expressing my point). The classic bicycle (Dutch style, for example) was solid, simple and reliable. The handlebars curved inwards so that the hands' natural position would be conserved while riding. All around comfortable, back straight. Simple, no gears, not needed, because when you pedal up a hill, you can stand up, pull on the handlebars at the same time in order to get more force, hands, arms AND legs! The whole body! The classic bicycle is solid and allows you to do this. Then they came up with the 10-speed, you now have to bend down in an uncomfortable position in order to be aerodynamic. If you use the upper part of the handlebars, no breaks (the original 10-speed without the added attachment to the breaks, I don't know how old you are or if you are familiar with the evolution of the bicycle). Thin wheels, higher tyre pressure, faster, but more fragile. Then they came up with the mountain bike, hands and arms in an unnatural position, quick-release wheels and saddle, you now need 3 locks for your bike. No fenders! If it rains, your soaked! Why a mountain bike or racing bike for city or pleasure riding?

Perhaps I'm off topic, perhaps not. Perhaps you can see my point, perhaps not. I'm not going to throw out my old classic bike so long as I haven't found another, more modern one that I'm satisfied with. My old bike might not be as fast or sexy, but does everything I want it to do beautifully, I enjoy riding it, and I don't get a sore back. If I can't buy new parts for it, I'll go to the junk yard or buy old bikes for parts :-)

I'll bet you're sorry you asked! :-) And had you asked using a more typical, frustrated, almost insulting tone, you wouldn't have got this long explanation! That's what you get for good manners!

Many thanks for your interest, and if you have any suggestions for my other posts, I'm all ears!

RM

Mike_Walsh · 09-16-2017, 02:26 PM

If you're looking for a really lightweight browser, you could do worse than to take a look at QtWeb:-

http://www.qtweb.net/

I'm a Chrome man, through and through. I've used it ever since the 'beta' release of Chrome was announced for evaluation and feedback, way back in Autumn 2007. The early versions were light as anything, super snappy and a real joy to work with.....and a definite eye-opener after FireFox, which even then was starting to get 'heavy'.

Unfortunately, all browsers have morphed into lumbering 'supertankers' as the years have gone by. That first version of Chrome tipped the scales at something in the region of 29 MB installed. The current 64-bit flagship (and you can only get it in 64-bit now) is around 230 MB.....

I have an old Dell Inspiron lappie, an original 1100 from 2002.Originally with a NetBurst-gen 'Cellie', 128 MB of RAM, a 20GB HDD.....and burdened with Win XP. (Nah, XP was pretty good.....just not on that machine..!) It's been upgraded just about as far as possible; a 2.6 GHz P4, 2 GB of RAM, and a 64GB IDE/PATA SSD. And a pair of 128 GB SanDisk 'nano' drives in the rear USBs for 'external storage'. But it's the P4 that's the bottleneck, good as they were in their day; unfortunately, it's a sedate experience running a modern browser on the old girl.

I tried QtWeb around a year ago. It's still on there; I gave XP the heave-ho at end-of-life, 'cos I was fed-up with it by that point in time. I currently quad-boot four 'Puppies', and run many apps from a common data partition, sym-linked into each one at the appropriate places (cuts down on duplication). I'll use Chrome where I have to (like for NetFlix; Chrome 39 has proved to be the lightest compromise for security & performance), but for general browsing, it'll be QtWeb. Every time. Runs like greased lightning.

Worth a look.....and I fancy most of us run at least 2 or 3 browsers. I run four, all Chromium-based (apart from QT, that is), since I beta test, and produce packages for the Puppy community.

Mike.

(BTW: I'm like you in some respects. I'm highly atypical, and don't give a hoot for this near obsession with 'supported versions', and 'everything must be up-to-date'. If this was Windows we were talking about, I'd agree in a heartbeat, but Linux, generally speaking.....it's nowhere near as critical. As long as your firewall's on and set-up properly, and you practice sensible on-line behaviour, you're fairly well covered. In 4 years of running Puppies like this, my machines have yet to be compromised...

And why do I need new kernels? 85% of this machine is 15 yrs old!

I shall probably get criticised for saying this.....)

ondoho · 09-17-2017, 12:13 AM

qtweb hasn't seen an update in 4 years.
let's just forget about it, please (although it would be a nice alternative otherwise) - you could just as well use dillo. mind, some people do, but...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike_Walsh

Unfortunately, all browsers have morphed into lumbering 'supertankers' as the years have gone by.

this is not true.
there is, however, some truth in it.
the INTERNET has morphed into something else in the past decades.
Browser engines (of which there's a very limited number, upon closer inspection) need to keep ahead with that, and are getting bigger.

so, let's say we're using webkit.
recent versions have been compiled for gtk2 or gtk3 or qt4 or qt5.
i guess that each version has a multitude of browsers built around them.