End of 32bit linux chromium?

[wizard]

@xenial

I have a HP laptop, 1.66ghz Intel core 2 duo t5450 w/2gb ram about the same power as yours. It run fossapup64 9.5 quite well.

wizard

[xenial]

@wizard

I had tried fossapup64 before but was encountering high cpu usage.Upon perusal of this forum i discovered that picom and compton were causing cpu issues for some of us so i disabled both of those and voila fossapup runs like a charm with no cpu issues what so ever and i ran it for several hours constantly.

[peebee]

Snap have stopped provision of 32-bit chromium (blog announcement)

32-bit chromium is still produced by AlienBob for Slackware & Void Linux & Debian

The AlienBob version is most tolerant of older Pup builds (e.g. works on BionicPup32 + FocalPup32)
The Void Linux version needs Glibc >= 2.32 so only works on more recent Pups (e.g. ScPup32, ImpishPup32, VoidPup32)

Please consider sending AlienBob a donation if you use his version....

[spiritwild]

I've noticed the trend lately with iron and vivaldi. I run xenial 32 bit and I use firefox. I expect that they
will eventually go the same way. If not that, The PC itself will fail to support what is required.

It took a lot of work to get things the way I like them. It's been more a 10 creation of tinkering and personal preferences from puupy 4 onward. I have a 64 bit pup but I don't have the patience or time to dedicate like I once did
to start over. Soon enough I'll have move forward.

Hell, I did the same thing with DOS 25 or 30 years ago. I suppose my setup will become the equivalent of cassette tapes in the near future

[xenial]

@spiritwild
I found firefox 78esr runs the best on 32bit xenial.

[houndstooth]

@spiritwild
I found firefox 78esr runs the best on 32bit xenial.

I do not use it much, but I see in my notes Firefox 90 runs in Xenial. I think my latest version of Chromium there is the same, though I know newer are made (haven't seen them tested in Xenial). Chromium 90 is also hardware dependent I've found (iow, the same OS will run it or not if hardware supports).

My issue is a hearty 32-bit machine that will boot 64 but runs more smoothly in a 32.

How long/much can I use it for 32-bit browsing? Even if we have OS security, website compatibility issues grow.

Secondary to 32 is success getting it to sleep.

I can remove the battery in the hearty, but in a new 64 laptop the battery is not removable by design, so there is nothing I can do to preserve its state without hibernation which I have yet to attempt.

Sleep would just run the battery down.

Since I'm not willing to waste power, a sleeping machine with no or a removable battery is the only one I can use as an appliance which is essentially what I want, the machine I will use most, already setup & awake on-demand.

[houndstooth]

The art here is knowing the latest version of a browser compatible with any particular distro on standard hardware sans elusive dependencies, which will typically be newer than the last version in the repositories, heeding compatibility differences between installed & standalone.

We're driven to boot by compatibility, & making everything we boot compatible is too much work for users, while testing everything is too much work for open source creators.

I'm typing this wondering the last Cr version to work
in 32-Xenial, as Bionic is the last full Upup, & later 32s while looking good have wonky compatibility.

[mikeslr]

You might want to give the new --redesigned and constructed-- Midori Browser a try. It's discussed on this thread https://www.forum.puppylinux.com/viewtopic.php?t=9478 and as of 18 hours ago --Dec 16, 2023, 12:40 EST-- new 32bit versions were published, including a pet for Puppys.

The above link will also provide you with information of Midori's purpose and future intentions. A more graphically pleasing rendition is here, https://astian.org/midori-en/midori-11- ... ll-in-one/.

Seems to be a worthwhile project. I didn't think I needed another Web-browser. But Midori seems interesting.

[jrb]

I'm typing this wondering the last Cr version to work
in 32-Xenial, as Bionic is the last full Upup, & later 32s while looking good have wonky compatibility.

Surprisingly enough I have got peebee's ChromiumUBB.sfs to work in xenial32 by copying these files:

libfreeblpriv3.so
libmozsqlite3.so
libnss3.so
libnssutil3.so
libsoftokn3.so

from the latest 32bit firefox into /usr/lib. That's it, no other changes.

it's either the latest version or the next to latest, 119.0 in any case. I don't know where he got this build, none of the others I tried would work. I hope he keeps it available. Thanks once again peebee!

Oh yeah, I should mention that I'm typing this in it right now.

[jrb]

@spiritwild
I found firefox 78esr runs the best on 32bit xenial.

firefox esr now requires a much newer glibc. I forget exactly which.

Normal firefox only needs glibc 2.17 (tahr) so I suspect it will work in xenial for some time yet.

[mikewalsh]

@houndstooth :-

I have both FF 115esr AND Thunderbird 115 functioning very smoothly under Xenial32 7.5. I also have them behaving themselves under Tahr32 6.0.6. Apart from the kernel - both are running a 4-series k4.1.30 'huge' kernel, necessary for the audio chip to produce sound on this relatively new HP desktop rig - everything else about them is bog-standard, as they come OOTB.

I haven't yet tried the 32-bit version of Midori, but I'm happy to take mikeslr's word for it.......he doesn't often steer the community wrong. I need to produce a portable build of this anyway - for my own systems - so we shall see what we shall see.....

Mike.

[peebee]

it's either the latest version or the next to latest, 119.0 in any case. I don't know where he got this build, none of the others I tried would work. I hope he keeps it available. Thanks once again peebee!

It's the 32-bit Slackware-15.0 version as produced by Alien-Bob simply repackaged - credit to him.......
https://slackware.nl/people/alien/slack ... /pkg/15.0/

https://sourceforge.net/projects/lxpup/ ... /browsers/

[houndstooth]

@mikeslr (rhetorical) If I were commercial seeing a strong new advantage OR if there were a reasonable path to creating a superior new browser as a developer, I would be motivated.

(reality) There is no browser better than all others by every criterion that matters to me, though Pale Moon rates as high here as any other:

• Performance

• Installation Ease

• Glitchiness

• Footprint/Weight

• Exceptional Features

• Feature Bloat

• Google-Free

• Aesthetics

• Website Compatibility

What makes a new browser compelling? How does new Midori rate? I used an old WebKitGTK version long ago before I knew what I was doing. If I recall it was too light-weight for compatibility.

[houndstooth]

Surprisingly enough I have got peebee's ChromiumUBB.sfs to work in xenial32 by copying these files:

libfreeblpriv3.so
libmozsqlite3.so
libnss3.so
libnssutil3.so
libsoftokn3.so

from the latest 32bit firefox into /usr/lib. That's it, no other changes.

Current Chromium is working by pilfering current Firefox?

How do you determine those files?

[houndstooth]

@houndstooth :-

Apart from the kernel - both are running a 4-series k4.1.30 'huge' kernel, necessary for the audio chip to produce sound on this relatively new HP desktop rig - everything else about them is bog-standard, as they come OOTB.

For an intermediate user, I use so many browsers major changes have to be important or significant.

By significant example I mean: install dependencies for a Chromium version beyond one distro's default & it works for many others beyond & you remember it for years because it solved a big problem for you (concept implied in jrb's last post).

I'm booting Fossa today just for newer Python, the whole boot determined by one package, basically.

It's good to know a huge swapped kernel extends browser compatibility, but what is the reasonable limit for average users?

Tweaking isn't productivity unless your work is to tweak.

[jrb]

Surprisingly enough I have got peebee's ChromiumUBB.sfs to work in xenial32 by copying these files:

libfreeblpriv3.so
libmozsqlite3.so
libnss3.so
libnssutil3.so
libsoftokn3.so

from the latest 32bit firefox into /usr/lib. That's it, no other changes.

Current Chromium is working by pilfering current Firefox?

How do you determine those files?

Starting with:

Code: Select all

chromium

in a terminal gave me an error message about libnss3. Knowing that libnss3 in the latest firefox works with xenial32 I copied it into /usr/lib and then used trial and error to find what else was needed. I've done this before in the past. The libs in firefox are built to work with just about anything, like I say glibc 2.17, and are right up to date.

[mikewalsh]

@houndstooth :-

Current Chromium is working by pilfering current Firefox?

How do you determine those files?

Heh. It's, um.....well, it's NOT really something that can be taught, say from User A to User B.

Those of us that are interested in packaging/building things/making things work - @jrb knows exactly what I'm talking about! - research things every way imaginable online. We often discover sources for stuff in "out-of-the-way" locations, and other places that simply wouldn't occur to most folks......often linked-to on those "out-of-the-way" sites, and leading to other, even MORE obscure locations.

This kind of research is most definitely a skill-set. But in very much the same way as the country 'wise-man' who can tell what the weather's going to do by rubbing his nose/observing certain natural phenomena/going by the way he feels on a given day or at a certain time, it's not one that is easy to "pass on".

It's one of those things. You've either got the enthusiasm & "the knack", or.......you haven't. Sure, there are a number of standard "tools" out there to help with this stuff, but using them is only the first step; which is to say, determining what IS missing. NOW comes the fun part; tracking things down. Some folks are born researchers.....many are not, or don't possess the required patience or enthusiasm for going off on multiple wild goose-chases, just on the off-chance of striking it lucky!

Apologies if that comes across as rather "negative". I've simply tried to describe the issue the best way I know how..!

Much of it simply boils down to experience, when all's said & done. It's one of those things you just get the hang of over a number of years...

(shrug...)

Mike.

[jrb]

@houndstooth :-

Current Chromium is working by pilfering current Firefox?

How do you determine those files?

Those of us that are interested in packaging/building things/making things work

Or are just downright obsessive.

[houndstooth]

Starting with:

Code: Select all

chromium

in a terminal gave me an error message about libnss3. Knowing that libnss3 in the latest firefox works with xenial32 I copied it into /usr/lib and then used trial and error to find what else was needed. I've done this before in the past. The libs in firefox are built to work with just about anything, like I say glibc 2.17, and are right up to date.

Trial & error? That might happen.

32 Chromium 112 is in the Bionic repository. It runs with error messages (not heavily tested).

Xenial wants: GLIBC_2.27, NSS_3.30, NSS_3.31

Specifically files: /lib/libm.so.6 & /usr/lib/libnss3.so

For some reason both the 3.30 & 3.31 NSS versions are supposed to be available in the same spot. I'll assume the newer is good enough.

Some version of Firefox should be right for these dependencies?

I need to breathe some life into this Puppy.

[jrb]

I need to breathe some life into this Puppy.

@houndstooth I'm not sure whether you just want to continue using xenial32 or go through the painful process of chasing down multiple (sometimes very multiple) dependencies.

As I mentioned above xenial will already run the latest firefox (not firefox-esr!!!). With the addition of the firefox libs I mentioned above it will also run Alien-Bob's version of the latest Chromium.

PeeBee has provided links to both his browser packages, which contain both the latest firefox (I'm typing in it now, running in xenial32) and the latest Chromium (which I also have running in xenial32 at the moment), and Alien-Bob's. See above.

I could tell you how to boost the Glibc, I've got a 2.36 package built, which I tried before I found peebee's package, but all the other versions of Chromium I found wanted far more than that.

I think xenialpup has many more years of useful life. It uses very little ram, much less even than bionicpup and has a very full repository. I've got it running well on my 10 and 5 year old grandchildren's 32bit computers with these portable apps:

• Portable32-calibre-3.48.0
  Portable32Firefox32
  Portable32-flashplayer
  Portable32-fltk1.3-games_1.3.3-7_i386
  Portable32-FreeOfficeMin
  Portable32-wine-3.6_v3.1
  Portable-goodsol2k
  xen32-mupdf
  xen32-tuxpaint
  xen32-xpaint

What more do you need?

Good luck and enjoy. J

[jrb]

It occurs to me that I may be giving incomplete instructions.
So, to run the latest firefox in xenial32:

• Download https://sourceforge.net/projects/lxpup/ ... s/download
  Click on the firefox.sfs and choose install and yes to copy.
  Go to the internet menu and choose FireFox.

To run the latest Chromium in xenial32:

• Copy libfreeblpriv3.so libmozsqlite3.so libnss3.so libnssutil3.so libsoftokn3.so from /opt/firefox to /usr/lib
  Download https://sourceforge.net/projects/lxpup/ ... s/download
  Click on ChromiumUBB.sfs and choose install and choose yes to copy.
  Go to the internet menu and choose Chromium

To update you should be able to download new versions of firefox.sfs and ChromiumUBB.sfs and place them in your frugal install directory.

Good Luck, J

[mikewalsh]

@houndstooth :-

I wouldn't worry too much about "error messages" with any of the Chromium-based browsers.

They spit 'em out like there's no tomorrow, but this is all perfectly normal for these browsers.....even when they ARE "happy". Google - thru its R&D arm, the Chromium Project ( where all the new, cutting-edge ideas are tested) - designed them this way. Primarily done for the benefit of developers, it gives an ongoing, 'real-time' debug report in the terminal all the time the browser is active.

Those not "in the know" often get quite alarmed by this.....

@jrb :-

My own Xenialpup32 , I've upgraded the glibc to Busterpup's 2.28. Kernel-wise, I'm using the k4.1.30 'huge' kernel from the repo at archive.org (this seems to work best with the hardware in this fairly modern HP desktop rig.....especially the audio chip).

I don't know what CPU your Xenial machine has.....most built in the last 20 years are 64-bit capable. Anyways; you might be interested in this:-

Run 64-bit apps in a 32-bit Puppy

It works very well in Xenial32 (thanks to mikeslr for the tip!) using the Fossapup64 k5.4.53 kernel. I have a separate build of this set-up aside from my "standard" Xenial32. This then lets you run most modern 64-bit browsers, and pretty well all the 'portables' I've put together over the last few years.

It's a different, but highly functional approach from peebee. Works, too!

Mike.

[houndstooth]

@houndstooth I'm not sure whether you just want to continue using xenial32 or go through the painful process of chasing down multiple (sometimes very multiple) dependencies.

As I mentioned above xenial will already run the latest firefox (not firefox-esr!!!). With the addition of the firefox libs I mentioned above it will also run Alien-Bob's version of the latest Chromium.

PeeBee has provided links to both his browser packages, which contain both the latest firefox (I'm typing in it now, running in xenial32) and the latest Chromium (which I also have running in xenial32 at the moment), and Alien-Bob's. See above.

It is funny you mention, at the moment I am using a hybrid archicture machine jostling, seeing how well it runs 64 vs. modernizing 32 specifically beginning with browsers.

Imagine a machine that runs 32 Tahrpup & 64 Fossapup with equal sufficiency.

I am in my highly customized 64puplet I use most & it is running well so I am leaning balanced.

I haven't tested all the PeeBee/Alien browsers but I recall a history of them not working with zero blame as I am typically NOT using one of the distros they are tested in.

I just ran Firefox 115 ESR in unmodified Xenial 32 with no problem. The same cannot be said for Chromium.

I could tell you how to boost the Glibc, I've got a 2.36 package built, which I tried before I found peebee's package, but all the other versions of Chromium I found wanted far more than that.

I think xenialpup has many more years of useful life. It uses very little ram, much less even than bionicpup and has a very full repository. I've got it running well on my 10 and 5 year old grandchildren's 32bit computers with these portable apps:

• Portable32-calibre-3.48.0
  Portable32Firefox32
  Portable32-flashplayer
  Portable32-fltk1.3-games_1.3.3-7_i386
  Portable32-FreeOfficeMin
  Portable32-wine-3.6_v3.1
  Portable-goodsol2k
  xen32-mupdf
  xen32-tuxpaint
  xen32-xpaint

What more do you need?

Good luck and enjoy. J

[houndstooth]

@mikewalsh Browser run errors seem to vary in severity, though 90% of the time functionality is hit or miss (it works or it doesn't), yet the odd times a browser runs but does not 'work' catch my attention.

[houndstooth]

Imagine a machine that runs 32 Tahrpup & 64 Fossapup with equal sufficiency.

I wrote too soon: Fossa will strain the fan. I needed it briefly for a new browser, still in the middle of this 32 browser hack project.

[houndstooth]

• Copy libfreeblpriv3.so libmozsqlite3.so libnss3.so libnssutil3.so libsoftokn3.so from /opt/firefox to /usr/lib

The first command line errors were for libnss3.so & libnssutil3.so. After those two were copied there was an error about not recognizing a command, but not requesting a specific library/dependency, which may mean the other shared object .so or a different error... 'til next round.

Enhancing our hackiness when I copy from Firefox to the system, I am not sure exactly which version of the dependencies I am copying, despite errors requesting specific versions. There are dates & file sizes for a start.

I was able to accomplish what I needed in Chromium 97 in Fossapup in a quick round, but newer 32 Chromium browsers need to happen. Chromium 90 was outdated.

[jrb]

• Copy libfreeblpriv3.so libmozsqlite3.so libnss3.so libnssutil3.so libsoftokn3.so from /opt/firefox to /usr/lib

The first command line errors were for libnss3.so & libnssutil3.so. After those two were copied there was an error about not recognizing a command, but not requesting a specific library/dependency, which may mean the other shared object .so or a different error... 'til next round.

Enhancing our hackiness when I copy from Firefox to the system, I am not sure exactly which version of the dependencies I am copying, despite errors requesting specific versions. There are dates & file sizes for a start.

I was able to accomplish what I needed in Chromium 97 in Fossapup in a quick round, but newer 32 Chromium browsers need to happen. Chromium 90 was outdated.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying but Chromium requires updated libnss3 and libnssutil3. The firefox versions of these libs have their own dependencies: libfreeblpriv3.so libmozsqlite3.so and libsoftokn3.so. I was only able to identify these by copying in all the libs from FireFox and then deleting until Chromium quit working.

As I noted previously it only worked with ChromiumUBB.sfs. None of the other versions of Chromium I tried were happy with this.

[houndstooth]

As I noted previously it only worked with ChromiumUBB.sfs. None of the other versions of Chromium I tried were happy with this.

I appreciate your commiseration on this. I want to use another Chromium but acknowledge the option.

My 1st attempt with all five shared object files I made a mistake: it appears a couple of them were in the /usr/lib/nss subdirectory while I put them all in /usr/lib.

I loaded them by .sfs, conveniently over-writing the default. If I recall it still wanted GLIBC_2.17. It wasn't obvious to me what to do then, no specific file in the error.

Then the unloaded .sfs didn't restore the default files to normal view. I am not sure exactly how white-outs work as it hasn't been an issue like this.

So you get a strong feeling of possibility, getting closer but no cigar as the saying goes.

Then I booted Bionic, trying to remember why I lean on Xenial. I think it's crisper with no LXDE, but Bionic is smaller so there are other trade-offs I'm sure.