Chromium 65 .sfs for Tahr onward (32-bit)

Moderator: Forum moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
JASpup
Posts: 1653
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:52 am
Location: U.S.A.
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 89 times

Chromium 65 .sfs for Tahr onward (32-bit)

Post by JASpup »

This first version .sfs is tested to run in Xenial & later Upups to present:

If you install this DependencyPack, Chromium 65 Tahr version will work in Tahrpup.

On the Whiz-Neophyte Bridge
Linux Über Alles
Disclaimer: You may not be reading my words as posted.

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:06 pm
Has thanked: 345 times
Been thanked: 146 times

Re: Chromium 65 .sfs for Tahr onward (32-bit)

Post by greengeek »

Thanks for this.

Working well in a Tahr32 6.0.6 derivative.
Cheers!

User avatar
amethyst
Posts: 2357
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 6:35 am
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 477 times

Re: Chromium 65 .sfs for Tahr onward (32-bit)

Post by amethyst »

@greengeek
Just a mention here (I know you want to hang on to Tahr but...). I have Chromium 90 and it runs OOTB with Xenial without any upgrades needed. Later versions of Chromium may also run (haven't checked). Couldn't get Chromium 90 running with Tahr even with upgrading glibc and the dependencies listed here. I use Palemoon but need to use Chromium sometimes to access all features of some google-related sites so it seems a bit of a necessity. Chromium 65 could be too old and restrict functionality.

User avatar
greengeek
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 11:06 pm
Has thanked: 345 times
Been thanked: 146 times

Re: Chromium 65 .sfs for Tahr onward (32-bit)

Post by greengeek »

amethyst wrote: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:51 am

Chromium 65 could be too old and restrict functionality.

Yes, very true. However - being an old fart I don't do much on social media and generally don't need anything more than email, Facebook and banking sites (No Netflix or Twitter etc) and of course the Puppy linux forum.

I love the older pups and my heart prefers to stick with what works for me - rather than being forced by websites to keep up with their ad-hoc changes.

Occasionally I resort to a 64bit pup with modern browser if a particular site is being stubborn and won't allow access with a 32bit browser. But you know what - i have noticed a strange phenomenon where many sites recognise that my browser is paleolithic and they simply offer me a more basic version of the website. It seems that sometimes the older the browser the better the response from the website. Go figure.

And if a website absolutely demands that I upgrade - then that website is dead to me. I contact the web administrator and tell them why i am no longer using their services.

Sometimes they improve their website so that my older browsers can continue to access them - but sometimes they show me the middle finger.

So far I haven't found any significant website that i really need enough to turn my back on 32bit browsers (given that I have no desire to pay for Netflix etc, or to offer over personal information just to read the news). There are plenty of free websites that are very entertaining and educational - and I do pay for access to thebfd.co.nz which i consider New Zealand's premiere news and commentary site. I support them because they offer heaps of free content but also great quality paid content and they have avoided falling into the trap of being "paid for" media parroting government lies.

And the strange thing is their website does not work well with the newest browsers anyway. Some webmasters are dinosaurs like me :-)

Post Reply

Return to “Browsers and Internet”