Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

alt-title, "I like old browsers"

HTTPS seems to be a deal-breaker for old browsers trying to load modern web pages. I read recently you can get around this by moving certificates, but ideally I would just like to run the oldest version of a browser that supports HTTPS.

Is anyone keeping such a list, or are there guidelines to go by?

I'm using SRWare Iron 25 and looking to run something newer: http://download1.srware.net/old/iron/linux/

Kudos to them and Vivaldi for keeping 32-bit alive.

Chromium 37 (May 2014) supports HTTPS...

HTTPS is a very old technology from late 1990s ... and it has evolved since then (addition of new ciphers, retirement of old ciphers, etc - this, among other things is what stops old web browsers from being able to connect to websites when using HTTPS).
But the usage of HTTPS was entirely optional.

Not so today. Many websites refuse to connect without HTTPS, and as consequence, you need a relatively new browsers with proper support for new HTTPS tech to be able surf the Internet.

The question that should be asked, perhaps, is when did they start to force people to use HTTPS? O_o

garnet wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 1:11 am Not so today. Many websites refuse to connect without HTTPS, and as consequence, you need a relatively new browsers with proper support for new HTTPS tech to be able surf the Internet.

The question that should be asked, perhaps, is when did they start to force people to use HTTPS? O_o

@garnet the circumstances I find less an issue than how to deal with them, and my how-to involves the oldest robust browsers that support the technology, just like the newest 32-bit browsers before discontinuation (ex, Chrome 48).

There's a sweet spot.

Today I was using Vivaldi 3.3 on Xenial32 and it's too heavy. 2x is probably a better landing but I'm still experimenting.

Netscape created HTTPS in 1994.

d4rkn1ght wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:43 pm Netscape created HTTPS in 1994.

The issue is the genesis of its widespread adoption and browser support.

Why ever upgrade, buy a new computer or software, if what you have works?

HTTPS is one of those drivers.

I used a lot of them, now using FireFox, Tor, Chrome, Dissenter, but my main browser... SLIMJET https://www.slimjet.com/

Fantastic for puppy, give it a try.

CHEERS

Maybe try this one:

Iron 'portable' browsers - 32- & 64-bit
viewtopic.php?f=90&t=771


"Portable" is the latest craze ...cutting edge

JASpup wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:54 am @garnet the circumstances I find less an issue than how to deal with them, and my how-to involves the oldest robust browsers that support the technology, just like the newest 32-bit browsers before discontinuation (ex, Chrome 48).

Ah, I see. In that case then you're aiming for a moving target. HTTPS is not a single technology, it's an umbrella for similar (but separate) technologies. In the beginning the "S" in HTTPS stands for SSL, and there were many variations of it, SSLv1, SSLv2, SSLv3 ... and then it changed its name to TLS, and there are many of them too, TLSv1.0, TLSv1.1, TLSv1.2, TLSv1.3 ... The point is, as new technology is introduced, the older ones get removed.

A browser from 5 years ago may support for SSLv3 (and older) and it will work with websites that support SSLv3 (and newer), and all seems to be okay, until you encounter a website that only supports TLSv1 and then you wonder why the browser is suddenly broken - why HTTPS works for one site and not for the other. Then 3 months later the same website that previously supported SSLv3 decided to drop support for it and only supported TLSv1 onwards and you wonder again why it worked before and it doesn't now.

The obvious solution that browser vendor says of course is always to use the latest version of the browser, but we all know it also comes with its own set of problems.

In any case, good luck with your search ^_^

Nice explanation, garnet.

JASpup, the following may not give you the same solution as hours and even days of experimentation; but will enable you to avoid spending that time so you can get on with your life.

As far as I know opera_12.16 (32-bit) remains the lightest-weight, fastest graphic* web-browser except that when it tries to open as web-page of a site which no longer supports it, it will take forever to even provide that information. There are many such websites, and even more which won't properly display. You can obtain a pet here: http://distro.ibiblio.org/puppylinux/pe ... es-common/ or just download any of the i386 packages from here, https://ftp.opera.com/pub/opera/linux/1216/, use UExtract to decompress the download and start opera by left-clicking its executable. I have it on my /mnt/home and use it to test whether I've properly configured the 32-bit Compatibility SFS in 64-bit systems. Occasionally, I'll see what it is still capable of doing. Avoid searching using google-search.
Almost all websites can still be opened with Mike Walsh's seamonkey-portables, either version. See my post here, viewtopic.php?p=6798#p6798
On the very rare occasions when you can't do something using seamonkey, try Mike Walsh's Iron portable, viewtopic.php?p=4865#p4865
The latter two are, by design and definition, portables; and opera is if you just unpack the package. All, if located on /mnt/home, only use RAM when you open them.

-0-0-0-0-0
* There are text-only web-browsers, e.g. https://lynx.browser.org/

Indeed, I have to agree with you Mike. One of the best explanations I've heard in a lomg while.

And Garnet is of course right about newer browsers bringing their own problems. I've lost track of the sheer number of 'workarounds' and 'fudges' we've had to employ here in Puppyland to keep the 'clones' viable. It's only a matter of time before the self-contained bunch of libs I use in Chrome, Iron and Vivaldi - which battleshooter very kindly helped me assemble for Chrome 3 or 4 years ago - decide they're no longer going to function. There's signs already of this happening with some of the newest Puppies; davids45 has already mentioned about the browsers wanting newer versions of one or two of these under peebee's SCPups.....

No rest for the "wicked".....which is one view taken of '3rd-party' packagers (like yours truly) by some browser vendors. I know they prefer you to use their product 'as-is', but it ain't always practical.....and Puppians are decidedly a very inventive bunch..!

Long may that continue.


Mike.

@mikeslr Tahrpup is my main edition, and I think Opera 12 is the version in the Quickpet.

I'm posting to you now in Chromium 34. Opera 45 is installed. They both run well - modern functionality, not too slow.

That's my inclination, the balance.

DuckDG is my search. Portables are nice.

I'm always clearing Google cookies.

Lynx is the first browser I ever used. It was pretty shocking.

@pp4mnklinux I've yet to try Dissenter or get Tor to load on Puppy or Linux, but that's my main browser on Windows.

I use Tor and a standby for all the pages that won't load.

pp4mnklinux wrote: ↑Tue Oct 20, 2020 5:52 am I used a lot of them, now using FireFox, Tor, Chrome, Dissenter, but my main browser... SLIMJET https://www.slimjet.com/

JASpup,

Tor is built from firefox. I don't know if your Tahrpup is the 64 or the 32-bit. Either way, to run the current version of tor your Puppy will have to have installed the gtk3 libraries. I think tahrpup32 already has them. If not, Mike Walsh provided a 32-bit version here so that the then-current firefox would run under older Puppies. http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 764#989764.

Downloading the 64-bit version of tor from its website, https://www.torproject.org/download/ is easy. To get the 32-bit version, go here, https://www.torproject.org/download/languages/.

They download as a tar.xz compressed package. Use UExtract on it and you'll obtain a (within) tor_browser_en-US (if US is what you selected) folder. You can rename and move it any place. But Tor expects not to be run as Root. Ignore the nice "start-tor-browser.desktop, and browse into the folder named "browser". Download the attached false tor-wrapper.gz. Rename it to just "tor-wrapper" (.gz added so that the Forum could handle it). Drop tor-wrapper into the "browser folder" and Left-Click it. Tor should start. May take a couple of seconds. .

There are a few other things you could do. I'm not sure that just the above procedure will give you sound. And it probably will cache files and create profiles in /root. The attached tor-wrapper was taken from my Tor-64bit folder. It is modeled after fredx181's portable ff-script. I don't recall if I wrote or flinched it. I do know that the Tor 64 folder includes in the "browser" folder a copy of the "extralibs" and any other folder found in firefox-portable and not included in the download from the tor-website.

P.S. Just tested. If the "extralibs" folder from firefox-portable isn't copied into the tor folder, both vimeo and youtube can be watched, but without sound. With the "extralibs" folder added, sound was generated.
I don't think creation of a "profiles" folder is required. Within tor's browser folder is TorBrower/Data/Brower and within it are both a cache and profile folder. Without creating any other folder running tor did NOT create either a /root/.mozilla or /root/.tor folder where which a "normal" firefox would do to preserve profiles. Nor was a /root/.cache/mozilla nor /root/.cache/tor folder created to store the caches from the websites I visited.

garnet wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 1:11 amMany websites refuse to connect without HTTPS, and as consequence, you need a relatively new browsers with proper support for new HTTPS tech to be able surf the Internet.

Many web sites miss out due to poor design/implementation. Meh! Clients pay money to have a web site designed/provided usually for the purpose to attract interest/customers. If the design locks out a range of potential visitors/customers then their business/purpose equally misses out.

For some, it can be like running a shop, but only permitting people wearing white shoes in. If they want to be so selective - it's their choice. If the business doesn't check that their web site is more accommodating - again their choice. Easy enough to do - check your web site using a basic browser such as lynx, and a mid-range browser, and a top-range/latest browser; And a range of devices, such as how it looks when using a phone, a laptop/PC and a large display device such as TV; And at a range of scale (zoom) level. Quite often I visit sites where the 'accept cookies' panel requires scaling down the resolution/zoom in order to see/click the 'Accept' button. Inconsiderate and often results in my moving on to another choice. Why bother with something where the publisher clearly isn't bothered (and there's massive amounts of such cases 'out-there'). Same for sites that require registration before access when there is no need for such. Most people wouldn't go into a shop where you first had to provide your name, address and phone number, similarly expecting visitors to register is a repellent. Also the response time is important, if it takes 10+ seconds to load a web page then many will simply 'move on'.

Right like rufwoof's spirit, think about what we're doing most of the time - text, graphics, and video - all fairly Internet mastered by the millennium.

The latest Chrome in the Lucid PPM (2012), 18, won't open Gmail even in html mode. Why? Is it really all about security?

Now top search websites are so bloated with media and intrusions you don't want to visit them. I'm always 'consenting' to the fine print.

If the data thereon solved The Riddle of the Sphinx, I might empathize, but you know, I can barely open my own local paper's website. Make it easy to access and expect subscription instead of loading the page with junk that foments aversion and distrust!

@rufwoof, you are so right!