Page 1 of 1
Current "portable" Chromium-based browser 'clones' for Puppy....
Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:14 pm
by mikewalsh
Evening, guys.
Since ATM I'm none too sure yet if Murga-Linux is coming back online again, I thought I'd post a bunch of links for my "portable" Chromium-based 'clones'. At least you can help yourselves if you want any of these, if nothing else!
Brave browser:-
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing
Google-Chrome:-
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing
SRWare Iron:-
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing
Opera:-
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing
Vivaldi:-
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing
Yandex:-
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing
Navigate through, & help yourselves to whatever takes your fancy.
I'm sure you all know by now, but I'll just repeat the instructions for these. Download; unzip; place anywhere you want. Click to open, click on "LAUNCH" to fire 'em up. Every one will create its profile inside the portable directory, and that's what makes these portable enough to run the whole thing from a flash drive if you have a mind to.....
Mike.
Re: Current "portable" Chromium-based browser 'clones' for Puppy....
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:35 am
by davids45
G'day Mike,
Thanks for these links - I "install" each portable in each 64-bit Puppy and most work without fiddling with lib files
.
"..most work.."
: I have trouble with Google-chrome and Opera in
some slackware-based Pups, mostly in relation to the version of libpangoft2-1.so.0. Version number coming with these portables has '4000' in its full name, whereas the one built-in to these Pups has '4400'. But it seems the LIBRARY path does not find the '4000' version in the portable directory so the portable fails with an error/fail message about the '/usr/lib64/...' libpangoft2-1.so.0 file it finds in the Puppy.
If I switch in a link to the "4000" lib file to replace the original libpangoft2 '4400', the portable browser now works, but then the Puppy fails and is unusable.
Bionic64 has '4000' built-in and
all portables work in Bionic64. There is also a '3800' version around in either some Pups or Portables just to add to my confusion.
Is there a 'pure' Chromium-Portable, by the way?
Sad about John Murga.
David S.
And Google_Chrome-78 NON-PORTABLE run-as-spot
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2020 9:40 pm
by mikeslr
In case you missed it, below Mike's signature are links to his Google-Drive and Mediafire folders. On them you'll find various applications he's made available. I'd like to bring one of those applications to your attention: Google_Chrome-78 which he's made available both as a pet and an SFS. "Kind-of" hidden under Browsers on his Google-Drive, as I had to look for it. This is the direct link,
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... QVfrDnr5w-.
Hope I haven't stepped on MIke's toes by beating him in posting about it. But I consider it as being one of the most important Web-browsers available to Puppies. Alone with firefox, these are the only web-browsers I have found which will honor the restrictions 'run-as-spot' is supposed to produce. That is, when an application is 'run-as-spot' it has permissions distinct from 'running as root' and lacks permission to access any folder other than the 'spot' folder. Consequently, any file you intentionally download, any file accidentally downloaded, or 'pushed' by a hacker can not access your operating system. Downloaded files also do not have 'root' permissions --can not be run as root. Using Google_Chrome-78 the spot folder is created in /home --which is on the same level as /root-- and any /root/spot folder is symlinked* to /home/spot. An included module to transfer files from /home/spot/downloads to /root/downloads and change permissions --perhaps after you examine what files are in /home/spot/downloads
-- places a launcher on the taskbar. The launcher also provides the choice of changing permissions of the files in /home/spot/uploads. You can add a 'bookmark' to rox's Right-click 'copy-to' module to facilitate copying files into /home/spot/uploads.
Although Google_Chrome-78 is now a couple of iterations behind the most current version, it remains fully functional. However, when I get a chance, I'll repost the instructions for updating it to the most current version: basically just case of substituting files/folders.
* If you desire the added protection running-as-spot from /home/spot gives, Google-Chrome should be installed/loaded before any other application which would locate the spot folder as /root/spot. The symlink will automatically redirect later 'installations' to /home/spot. But applications previously 'installed' might either be broken, or break Google-Chrome.
Re: Current "portable" Chromium-based browser 'clones' for Puppy....
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:38 pm
by mikewalsh
davids45 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:35 amIs there a 'pure' Chromium-Portable, by the way?
Uhh....no, is the short answer!
'Clones',
based on Chromium, are mostly available as ready-to-use packages. You d/l them, install them, click 'em to run/start. But (and peebee will back me up on this), you CANNOT download a 'generic', ready-to-run Chromium package from anywhere. It just isn't available as a .deb file, or owt like that which you can unzip & make use of the contents.
Most distros grab the source-code from the Chromium Project, and compile it specifically for their own releases & repos.
On top of which, 'pure' Chromium is pretty 'stripped-back' and 'barebones' compared to its offspring, Chrome. And even Chrome isn't top of the tree anymore in terms of sheer customization and user-friendliness; to my mind, Opera and Vivaldi between 'em hold that spot these days.
TBH, David, if I could have built a 'pure' Chromium-portable, I would in all likelihood have done so by now.
Mike.
Re: Current "portable" Chromium-based browser 'clones' for Puppy....
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:35 pm
by mikewalsh
@ mikeslr:-
Thanks for the recap, Mike. And no; I couldn't care less whether me or thee posts about anything; so long as there's a relevant post available on the forum
somwhere about any particular subject, it makes no difference whether you post first, or I do.
It's
not a contest, is it? If you think a response and/or explanation of anything of mine is merited.....feel free. If you've already explained summat, it saves
me having to do so!
Mike.
Re: Current "portable" Chromium-based browser 'clones' for Puppy....
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2020 1:12 am
by davids45
G'day Mikes,
Thanks for the replies.
I already have a portable Google-chrome running in all 64-bit Pups on this computer, plus the other Portables, the latest being a Firefox-ESR that seems quite good. I take it in turns to run one portable each day. Brave is nice, but the others are OK too.
I have Chromium only as a 'normal' browser running as a link to its bin file from my data partition (with occasional lib problems in some Pups). Seamonkey is done the same way (well, from its App Image) which is pretty trouble-free in 64-bit Pups, compared to Chromium and its off-shoots.
David S.
Re: Current "portable" Chromium-based browser 'clones' for Puppy....
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2020 8:45 am
by wiak
davids45 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:35 amI have trouble with Google-chrome and Opera in
some slackware-based Pups, mostly in relation to the version of libpangoft2-1.so.0. Version number coming with these portables has '4000' in its full name, whereas the one built-in to these Pups has '4400'. But it seems the LIBRARY path does not find the '4000' version in the portable directory so the portable fails with an error/fail message about the '/usr/lib64/...' libpangoft2-1.so.0 file it finds in the Puppy.
Hello David
I haven't tried any of these portable web-browsers, and haven't tried the following either, but the thought struck me that you might be able to start up the portable google_chrome executable on a single line where you specify the LD_LIBRARY_PATH as follows. Without trying this first (since I have nothing set up to try it on...) I'd think the following (all on one line) would temporarily put path_to_where_4000lib_is earlier on the library path and thus work for your chrome_executable (but not effect the rest of your system using 4400 lib, but I could well be wrong - not sure what happens with both libs presumably loaded into memory sometimes...)? Anyway, but perhaps worth a try: that is, in a terminal, enter the following, all on one line, with the appropriate path_to_chrome_executable and so on:
Code: Select all
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=path_to_where_4000lib_is:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH path_to_chrome_executable
You are not permanently exporting/changing LD_LIBRARY_PATH above, just doing so for that one google_chrome execution. Would be interested to know if it works or what the result is.
EDIT: I've since come across this:
https://unix.stackexchange.com/question ... e-centos-6
Re: Current "portable" Chromium-based browser 'clones' for Puppy....
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:35 am
by mikewalsh
Thanks for that explainer, Will. I was going to do something similar myself; David's had an 'on-going' issue with this for a while now...
I don't
have the problem; I only briefly experimented with 64-bit "Slacko" Pups, came to the conclusion that I didn't really like them, and settled with 'Buntu/Debian-based Puppies as just being easier to use overall. Slacko Puppies are definitely more "hands-on", but of course that's a legacy of Slackware's conservative release/development schedule.....plus the fact that Slackware users normally compile & install their software from specialised build-scripts (a somewhat different approach to many).
Mike.
Re: Current "portable" Chromium-based browser 'clones' for Puppy....
Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2020 11:45 am
by wiak
mikewalsh wrote: ↑Wed Jul 15, 2020 9:35 amplus the fact that Slackware users normally compile & install their software from specialised build-scripts (a somewhat different approach to many).
I don't know much about Slackware in practice, so didn't know that. Funnily enough, Arch Linux is similar - it uses pkgbuild scripts (which compile from source). Actually, the main/official Arch repos contain the already compiled versions, but the community Arch User Repository (AUR) is composed of these pkgbuild scripts (and installed via git clone and makepkg, which compiles using gcc from pkgbuild script instructions; sounds complicated, but actually quite a simple process, which I find works very reliably in practice) - good thing about such build scripts is that using them provides a good mechanism for creating custom builds (including... slimmed down packages... or adding personal customisations, such as you are discussing here concerning special purpose libs). I use Chromium in my WeeDogLinux Arch builds, the stable version from Arch official repos, which has proven to be rock-solid on my system, but could also use the latest dev version, which is available from AUR. Prior to that, I tended to use Firefox, but I have to say that Chromium is a winner for me at the moment.
Re: Current "portable" Chromium-based browser 'clones' for Puppy....
Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2020 2:17 am
by davids45
G'day mikewalsh & wiak,
Thanks for your posts.
If/when I find some time in this present covid situation here, I'll try trials with the LD_LIBRARY_PATH for the troubled browser/Pup combinations.
Some portables have this path option already in their start-up scripts, others not (that I can find). I think one browser portable has the path reset but still goes to the usr/lib/ and then fails.
Fortunately every 64-bit Pup I have can run several portables so it's not as though I'm stuck for a browser anywhere.
David S.
Slimjet and 32 bit Puppies and dogs
Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:50 am
by darry19662018
Hi Mike Walsh,
Just wondered what the go is with slimjet Browser I note that they are still [producing 32bit versions at this stage???
Re: Current "portable" Chromium-based browser 'clones' for Puppy....
Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 2:05 pm
by mikewalsh
Hi, Darren. Oh, they are.....and good luck with getting it to run.
Yeah; I know, I know. I've made portables of everything else, so why not this one..? I've tried, believe me!
The thing with Slimjet is that it insists on being started as 'flashpeak-slimjet'. If I try to start it the normal way, it bitches that it MUST be started as 'flashpeak-slimjet'. And if I do as it asks, it turns round and tells me I don't have permission to do that..... Other items that want to run as a 'normal user', we can usually get away with simply running just the executable as 'spot'. Unlike the older Slimjet packages we used to build - which would run as root - the browser now demands to be run as a 'normal user' right from the very first line of the wrapper-script; the first thing it does is to run
.....to make SURE you're logged-in as a 'normal user'. And it's no good just deleting that bit of the wrapper-script, because it's compiled into the executable, too!
In other words, if the entire thing doesn't run as 'spot' right from the instant you click to launch it, then it doesn't run. Period. This thing HAS to run-as-spot, and it must be inside the spot directory. In other words, this has to be either a .pet or an SFS. I don't know how Slimjet built their Windoze portable version, but I don't have the skill to emulate it.
I gave up on it. No other Chromium clone is as fussy as this one..... Even Chrome lets me run JUST the 'binary' as spot! 
Mike. 
Re: Current "portable" Chromium-based browser 'clones' for Puppy....
Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:27 pm
by darry19662018
Thanks Mike,
Agreed not worth the time your portable Iron will keep me going anyway 