I'm responding to this because earlier posts from you have seemed to be on the level.

Firefox stores the history of each tab in RAM. So if you reopen a tab with ctrl-alt-T (presumably, it's command-alt-T in Mac OS) then to maintain this behaviour the tab has to reopen with its history intact. Because that history is stored in RAM, this means that merely closing a Firefox tab does little to minimise its memory usage. There's an about::config flag to alter this behaviour, but I don't know it offhand.

How does that respond to the offer of buying it for someone, the other part of the post? A pack of 5 is less than ten bucks.

I drink vodka martinis exclusively. Dirty.

Which isn't to say you're wrong; if you ask for a martini, it will be made with gin. You have to ask for a vodka martini.

Sensible questions, reasonable responses. Pleasure to see.

Firefox is the preeminent open source browser; k-meleon, konqueror, all those are much less feature rich. I would have thought opera would be your best choice.

If your primary goal is lightweight browsing, though, nothing beats links. It's a text mode only browser, launchable from the command line. links2 has a graphical mode, too, which might meet your goal. If you're using one of the ubuntu based linuxes, you're looking at aptitude install links2 to install it and then links2 -g google.com to launch in graphical mode.

Good luck! As far as lightweight OSes go, thinking about it, OpenBSD is very, very lightweight. FreeBSD is, too. According to the handbook, FreeBSD requires a minimum of 24 megs of RAM and 150 megs of hard drive space. Might be worth investigating, though it's worth bearing in mind that that's probably a non-X11 installation of FreeBSD.

Man, I remember back in the day before Windows Vista when Windows XP was, quite rightly, called a resource hog and compared to Windows 2000. Windows XP isn't low resource by any reasonable standard; it's not a very good SMP OS at all, so modern processors aren't being used effectively by it. It was thought heavyweight when it was released, it's still heavyweight compared to the server OS line that MS puts out. Not that this is relevant to the article, just it bugs me when folks say XP is lightweight. Sure, next to Vista it is, but that's like saying that an elephant is lightweight compared to the continent of Africa.

What did that anonymous coward misspell?

Dicking no, fuckhead!

Try using visual mode. It's a good compromise between swipe and counting words.

I use git, never have used anything else. It was just being developed when I started thinking about using CVS, but I liked the name, so I started with git.

Given that, and given that I haven't used another tool, what're you thinking of with "sane merges"? I'm asking through genuine ignorance here.