QuteBrowser VS Firefox - Discuss

QuteBrowser VS Firefox - Discuss.

Attached: QuteBrowser.png (512x512, 25K)

>firefox
netscape-based
>qutebrowser
qtwebengine-based which literally is chromium

Oddly lightweight for something built off Chromium though...

it definitely is, the only problem is that it's quite ramwhore and written in python
i'm okay with that though

Where did you get that logo from?

Only a subset of Chromium though, and without stuff phoning home.

Grabbed it from Google, to be honest. Might replace the actual logo on Arch with the one I posted. Looks better IMO.

On topic, I am getting pretty used to QuteBrowser. Only niggle is that it doesn't auto default to insert mode

nigga that's because you're supposed to use keybinds

Check the various input.* settings. If you rebind keys to only have bindings with modifiers, you can even get away without insert mode at all.

Luakit is better than qutebrowser.

luakit is retarded

tons of functionality is implemented right in the config file,
that's just idiotic design

Giving Qupzilla/Falkon an honourable mention here.
Better than expected.

How the fuck do you open a link in a new tab using the f comnand?
That aside, it's ok.

Select a link you want by typing alphabet chars on top of it, and voila not being retarded is not that difficult.

shift+f

You can make it autodefault to insert with the config file. Read the fucking manual.

>qutebrowser
Doesn't have extensions

This. It's not that qute is lightweight, it just doesn't have extensions bloating it up.

The moment it can do adblocking and element hiding, I'm on board.

One offloads its horrendously long compile time and absurd bloat into its GUI kit (qt) so it can claim to be lightweight,
The other doesn't try to hide it

Attached: 1511692894806.png (703x911, 19K)

Still lightweight compared to Firefox without any addons.
I meant lightweight when it runs.

ad blocker built in. Not sure about element hiding

Vimb