Galeon 1.2.x, bugs and work-arounds [LWN.net]

Galeon 1.2.x, bugs and work-arounds

Posted Feb 11, 2004 18:20 UTC (Wed) by jvotaw (subscriber, #3678)
Parent article: A grumpy user's browser review

I, too, am using Galeon 1.2.x, and am avoiding the switch to 1.3.x due to all of the features which have been ripped out. I'm running the last 1.2.x available under Gentoo, and I'm fairly sure it doesn't grow without bounds like it does under Debian. I have no explanation for that.

Bugs and work-arounds:

1. If Google is your home page, and you open a new tab, you won't be able to type into the text entry field. I believe this is the "typeahead find death grip" you mentioned, though I haven't noticed it as much on non-Google sites. Work-around: click on another tab, then back.

2. If you configure Galeon to save session information every time it exits, when it launches the next time it never manages to bring a window on screen. (Perhaps this is an interaction with my window manager: venerable tvtwm.) Work-around: force-kill Galeon.

3. When you start up Galeon the next time, all of your old tabs will be bookmarks. Selecting the "open all bookmarks in tabs" option does the right thing except that they are opened in reverse order, except for the first bookmark. Work-around: force-kill and restart Galeon an extra time, so you have two sets of bookmarks for the same pages, in opposite orders. (Is there a better solution?)

However, even with all of these bugs, it still has all of the configuration options that I want that I can't find elsewhere. In addition to the ones you listed, let me add the ability to position the tabs on the left edge of the window, control their width, and opt-out of close boxes on them.

-Joel

(Log in to post comments)

Galeon 1.2.x, bugs and work-arounds

Posted Feb 11, 2004 20:05 UTC (Wed) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link]

I think th editor isnt using 1.2.x anymore which is why he is so grumpy and he is seeing some of the problems you arent in memory size.

Galeon 1.2.x, bugs and work-arounds

Posted Feb 26, 2004 23:01 UTC (Thu) by nial-in-a-box (guest, #19824) [Link]

I don't understand how the author of this piece can even seriously consider using a piece of
software with such a blatant memory leak. While this could be the fault of his/her particular
configuration, it does not seem that any effort was made to research this. Sure, one bad thing
should not totally remove this browser from consideration, but it should not still be considered a
preference with such an obvious flaw. Even if this doesn't exist for other users, I fail to see how
the editor can still like this browser. This is equivalent to an auto review where the reviewer
gives a favorable rating to a new car that overheats if you don't shut it off and start it again every
30 minutes, simply because he/she happens to enjoy the way the seat feels. Unless you don't
give a shit about having to close all browser windows when you leave your workstation for a
while, or you have several gigabytes of memory, this is not acceptable. I assume that the
problem has been fixed by now, but please don't continue to give favorable reviews of flawed
software. Developers need good, accurate criticism if they are to make good software. If they
are praised for flaws, we will just have Microsoft products that developers aren't getting paid for.