PDA

View Full Version : Arora browser - Firefox clone



forcecore
March 10th, 2009, 01:06 AM
i found this browser and i can say it is 100% firefox but faster and passes 100/100 Acid3 test, i tested 21.02.2009 release and it was very fast (faster than ff3).

Test yourself:
http://www.arora-browser.org/

Grant A.
March 10th, 2009, 01:37 AM
If it was 100% Firefox, it would be Firefox. ;)

By "clone" did you mean derivative?

And is it still using the Gecko engine, or WebKit engine?

smbm
March 10th, 2009, 01:53 AM
Arora uses webkit AFAIK

Faolan84
March 10th, 2009, 02:07 AM
This browser looks like a pretty decent project. A slim'd down version of Firefox written in QT 4 does sound like a great idea -- and with GTK support in QT 4.4 it won't look butt ugly either. Plus webkit beats gecko any day of the week. I've been looking for a decent extend-able browser that works integrates good with Gnome and uses webkit.

I thought that Epiphany was going to start using webkit as of 2.24, guess they delayed that to 2.26.

Dekkon
March 10th, 2009, 02:23 AM
This browser looks like a pretty decent project. A slim'd down version of Firefox written in QT 4 does sound like a great idea -- and with GTK support in QT 4.4 it won't look butt ugly either. Plus webkit beats gecko any day of the week. I've been looking for a decent extend-able browser that works integrates good with Gnome and uses webkit.

I thought that Epiphany was going to start using webkit as of 2.24, guess they delayed that to 2.26.

OMG!!!111?!1 A web browser based on QT and using Webkit, everyone start embracing this now, now I tell you, this exactly what I need, I am sick of Firefox on KDE 4.2. :)

lol, this is serious. :o

Chemical Imbalance
March 10th, 2009, 02:27 AM
Any way to get a 64-bit deb or do I have to compile? Running the deb even with 32-bit libs installed still gives wrong architecture.

Faolan84
March 10th, 2009, 02:31 AM
OMG!!!111?!1 A web browser based on QT and using Webkit, everyone start embracing this now, now I tell you, this exactly what I need, I am sick of Firefox on KDE 4.2. :)

lol, this is serious. :o

I'd rather use something written in pure GTK+ but now that QT 4.x has a method to integrate into Gnome, i consider it a viable solution. Anyways, QT4 is actually quite speedy, even more-so that GTK. Just don't expect to see a speed improvement when using the GTK theme engine.

ghindo
March 10th, 2009, 03:05 AM
How is Arora like Firefox? Is uses the Webkit engine, whereas Firefox uses Gecko; it's written in QT, whereas Firefox is GTK...seriously, how are they alike? :???:

Dekkon
March 10th, 2009, 03:07 AM
How is Arora like Firefox? Is uses the Webkit engine, whereas Firefox uses Gecko; it's written in QT, whereas Firefox is GTK...seriously, how are they alike? :???:

The GUI, it looks exactly the same as Firefox.

Faolan84
March 10th, 2009, 03:13 AM
Firefox is not written in GTK+. It's rendering engine "Gecko" provides the interface and Gecko uses GTK to display the widgets. In fact if you look real carefully at some of the widgets in Firefox and Thunderbird, you will notice that they do not theme totally consistent with the GTK+ theme.

The Mozilla team could just as easily create a "port" of Gecko that uses QT4 or even FLTK for the theming but they don't.

JackieChan
March 10th, 2009, 03:31 AM
I'm downloading it now

Grant A.
March 10th, 2009, 03:32 AM
Firefox is not written in GTK+. It's rendering engine "Gecko" provides the interface and Gecko uses GTK to display the widgets. In fact if you look real carefully at some of the widgets in Firefox and Thunderbird, you will notice that they do not theme totally consistent with the GTK+ theme.

The Mozilla team could just as easily create a "port" of Gecko that uses QT4 or even FLTK for the theming but they don't.

Firefox uses XULRunner for its interface.

Faolan84
March 10th, 2009, 03:34 AM
From what I understand Gecko and XULrunner seem to be the same thing. Maybe Gecko is just the rendering engine for the HTML and XUL is the interface and I was just a bit confused then. But I was close.

Gramps
March 10th, 2009, 04:06 AM
I just installed it and I must say it is fast. Tried it on several sites and all I can see that will be a problem is flash. I went to Youtube and got the message that either I didn't have Java script enabled or was missing a plugin.

Skripka
March 10th, 2009, 04:09 AM
OMG!!!111?!1 A web browser based on QT and using Webkit, everyone start embracing this now, now I tell you, this exactly what I need, I am sick of Firefox on KDE 4.2. :)

lol, this is serious. :o

Use Konqueror.

swoll1980
March 10th, 2009, 04:42 AM
OMG!!!111?!1 A web browser based on QT and using Webkit, everyone start embracing this now, now I tell you, this exactly what I need, I am sick of Firefox on KDE 4.2. :)

lol, this is serious. :o

Doesn't konqueror use QT, and Webkit? I think konqueror is the slowest browser I've ever used, renders web pages 3 times slower than firefox

FuturePilot
March 10th, 2009, 04:45 AM
From what I understand Gecko and XULrunner seem to be the same thing. Maybe Gecko is just the rendering engine for the HTML and XUL is the interface and I was just a bit confused then. But I was close.

XUL is what is used for the interface and widgets and what not. Gecko is the actual rendering engine.

Bios Element
March 10th, 2009, 05:02 AM
Doesn't konqueror use QT, and Webkit? I think konqueror is the slowest browser I've ever used, renders web pages 3 times slower than firefox

Yes, It is. And it's for KDE.

Skripka
March 10th, 2009, 05:13 AM
Doesn't konqueror use QT, and Webkit? I think konqueror is the slowest browser I've ever used, renders web pages 3 times slower than firefox

The problem is Qt4.4....evidently At4.5 is far faster.

PS-Konqueror uses KHTML, not webkit.

Dekkon
March 10th, 2009, 05:18 AM
The problem is Qt4.4....evidently At4.5 is far faster.

PS-Konqueror uses KHTML, not webkit.

Just what I was about to say, I heard awhile ago they were going to drop KHTML for WebKit but it never happened, so I refuse to use it because it can't render sites properly. :(

Skripka
March 10th, 2009, 05:20 AM
Just what I was about to say, I heard awhile ago they were going to drop KHTML for WebKit but it never happened, so I refuse to use it because it can't render sites properly. :(

If you want a Qt4 native browser-your choices are either Konqueror or Arora. That is it, really.

igknighted
March 10th, 2009, 07:00 AM
If you want a Qt4 native browser-your choices are either Konqueror or Arora. That is it, really.

Opera 10? If you are on 32bit at least...

Giant Speck
March 10th, 2009, 11:47 AM
Questions:

1. How RAM-intensive is Arora compared to Firefox? My main reason for asking this is because I'm trying to find a lighter browser that is based off of Firefox. I've tried Swiftfox, which is nice and all, but hasn't budged from version 3.0.4pre1. I've also been considering Swiftweasel, but there doesn't seem to be a version for my system.

2. Are you able to install Firefox addons and themes using Arora? The ability to use Firefox addons, including WOT, Stylish, New Tab Homepage, and others is very important to me. Also, very few Firefox themes actually theme well using my Macchiato GTK theme. The best I have found so far is the Camifox theme.

sertse
March 10th, 2009, 12:20 PM
Arora is more similar to a QT version of Midori, rather than anything to do with firefox...

Skripka
March 10th, 2009, 01:39 PM
Opera 10? If you are on 32bit at least...

You'll note how I say Arch64 in my sig. ;)

venekirsa
March 10th, 2009, 07:40 PM
I hope this Aurora bomber finally flattens IE!

Giant Speck
March 10th, 2009, 07:53 PM
I hope this Aurora bomber finally flattens IE!

I doubt it. As much as I don't like Internet Explorer, I seriously doubt another obscure browser is going to cut into its "market share."

cb951303
March 10th, 2009, 08:00 PM
Arora is more similar to a QT version of Midori, rather than anything to do with firefox...

gui design is almost the same :)

BGFG
March 10th, 2009, 09:11 PM
Any way to get a 64-bit deb or do I have to compile? Running the deb even with 32-bit libs installed still gives wrong architecture.

I tried it a while back and I run 64bit also. just compile. grab the tar.gz, extract it then read the README file. gives installation instructions. It's how i usually do it. Have fun....

k2t0f12d
March 10th, 2009, 10:17 PM
I like it..its very nice. Just needs and advert and flash blocker to be perfect. =D

Faolan84
March 10th, 2009, 10:33 PM
You can block most ads through the hosts file:
/etc/hosts

A list of adservers is provided here:
pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/

That will take care of most of your ads and if you run windows several spyware related sites are blocked in that mix too.

OutOfReach
March 10th, 2009, 11:33 PM
Questions:

1. How RAM-intensive is Arora compared to Firefox? My main reason for asking this is because I'm trying to find a lighter browser that is based off of Firefox. I've tried Swiftfox, which is nice and all, but hasn't budged from version 3.0.4pre1. I've also been considering Swiftweasel, but there doesn't seem to be a version for my system.

2. Are you able to install Firefox addons and themes using Arora? The ability to use Firefox addons, including WOT, Stylish, New Tab Homepage, and others is very important to me. Also, very few Firefox themes actually theme well using my Macchiato GTK theme. The best I have found so far is the Camifox theme.

(Heads up: Talking about arora w/ stable Qt, not snapshot Qt)

TBH I think the OP was exaggerating a bit when they said it was a 'firefox clone'.

To answer your questions:
1. RAM: It is a bit lighter than Firefox, uses 72 MB with Myspace, Youtube, and the Ubuntuforums open. Considering that it does not yet support Flash, this is expected.

2. No. Plain and simple.

Arora only really resembles Firefox in the interface. That's it.

spupy
March 11th, 2009, 12:05 AM
1. It looks like Firefox, but doesn't support its extensions?
2. Use Epiphany with WebKit. It also has "100%" Acid3 score, with some hacks I think.
3. The hell is this?(link) (http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/icefox/AroraScreenshots#5231439838670741538) It's an official screenshot of the program. Under linux it has OS X styled widgets? LOLWUT, again?

Chemical Imbalance
March 11th, 2009, 03:27 AM
I tried it a while back and I run 64bit also. just compile. grab the tar.gz, extract it then read the README file. gives installation instructions. It's how i usually do it. Have fun....

Thanks BGFG. I usually try to install only .deb because I like knowing that I can easily find and uninstall through synaptic or apt if I have to. Compiling's not hard, its just my last resort.

Faolan84
March 11th, 2009, 03:57 AM
Thanks BGFG. I usually try to install only .deb because I like knowing that I can easily find and uninstall through synaptic or apt if I have to. Compiling's not hard, its just my last resort.

Use checkinstall. It's a program that you can run during compilation to create a deb file.
Here's a small howto:

user@ubuntu$ ./configure
user@ubuntu$ make
user@ubuntu$ sudo checkinstall
DONE!

It's really that simple. Just follow the prompts when checkinstall is running and you'll be done in no time.

Chemical Imbalance
March 11th, 2009, 03:58 AM
Use checkinstall. It's a program that you can run during compilation to create a deb file.
Here's a small howto:

user@ubuntu$ ./configure
user@ubuntu$ make
user@ubuntu$ sudo checkinstall
DONE!

It's really that simple. Just follow the prompts when checkinstall is running and you'll be done in no time.

Thanks Faolan :KS

k2t0f12d
March 11th, 2009, 05:06 AM
You can block most ads through the hosts file:
/etc/hosts

A list of adservers is provided here:
pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/

That will take care of most of your ads and if you run windows several spyware related sites are blocked in that mix too.

No Windows, but /etc/hosts works great here. Thanks!

binbash
March 11th, 2009, 12:45 PM
I will check it out but FF3.1b also passes 100/100 acid tests.

zika
March 11th, 2009, 01:16 PM
I will check it out but FF3.1b also passes 100/100 acid tests.
last time I checked (today) FF3.1=93/100, FF3.2=94/100.

khelben1979
March 11th, 2009, 02:03 PM
Are this Arora web browser available for my ppc architecture over here? And if it is, post the link in this thread, please.