https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=318572 is the issue
This is truly disappointing.
WTF? Chromium (2016)
61–70 of 112 posts
Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)
#62The love for Firefox seems misplaced, given that 1% of Firefox downloaders get a version that sends what you type to a third party (Cliqz). HN discussion was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15421708
Only 1% of German users. Yet, even though it affects only a super small set of users, it's still a ridiculous thing for Firefox to do. From the article: "One of Mozilla’s core privacy principles is No Surprises: we will use and share data in ways that are transparent and benefit our users. That is why we are telling you about this today. " Which doesn't make sense. If one of your core privacy principles is to tell yo…
[deleted]
Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
A trivial example is that a 'for' loop vs. 'while' loop can be faster on one browser compared to another. These differences are even starker if you use newer features without polyfills. For example, 'forEach' implementations as of a year ago varied by orders of magnitude. Native array sorting is another obvious one. Chrome, Firefox and especially Safari use quite different algorithms each based on array size with var…
If 'for' and 'while' loops vary in speed that much between browsers, isn't that a defect in the browser? If one way is faster in chrome than firefox, why doesn't firefox change how it is doing the slower version?
Because that would likely mean slowing down a different scenario. It's usually a trade-off, not a "defect".
The array sorting is a great example where the length of the array chosen or the pre-sort ordering can affect which browser is faster. No single browser may be able to claim the fastest for every scenario.
Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox is not slower, it's just that most websites are optimised and tested only or mainly under Chrome. We are slowly getting back to the way things were with IE, but I hope that Mozilla won't give up and switch to blink or webkit like everybody else.
If most websites are faster on chrome than on firefox, why does it matter that the reason is people optimize for chrome? An end user doesn't care WHY chrome is faster, just that it is for their usage.
From a users standpoint - no it doesn't matter.
From a developers standpoint it does. From a "health of the web" standpoint it does also.
Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)
#65Or just use Firefox, even if it is slightly slower than Chromium it's at least a browser that works for you not one that treats you as a pawn. A Chrome monoculture is harmful, even if Google has the best intentions which I don't think they do - they definitely value their profits over an open web.
FWIW, at this point, the Firefox 57 betas are more responsive than Chromium for me. Not planning on looking back any time soon.
I'm still on chrome, because of pepper flash.. :/
and because debugging angular sucks on firefox.
Edit: still checking out if it might be possible. i've just seen that the newer firefox has also some kind of flash player integrated. just the debugging is now strange.
Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not talking about Pocket. I'm talking about A/B testing internal features exactly like Chrome, such as ip v4/v6 path preference, pipelining support, TLS faststart (and so on) according to a random cohort selection.
While you can certainly turn off these sorts of features, I just want to emphasize that these are intended to make the product better, and Mozilla abides by a fairly strict privacy policy (when comparing to most tech companies at least): https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ The intention is to ship features that people actually want, and to ensure that Firefox is actually working for people (not everyone ca…
Exactly like Chrome.
I do not argue about the good intention behind.
Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)
#67Or just use Firefox, even if it is slightly slower than Chromium it's at least a browser that works for you not one that treats you as a pawn. A Chrome monoculture is harmful, even if Google has the best intentions which I don't think they do - they definitely value their profits over an open web.
>even if it is slightly slower than Chromium Funny thing is Firefox Quantum is both faster and eats less memory compared with Chrome. >not one that treats you as a pawn. And sadly, Firefox is the only browser that doesn't treat you like a pawn. For MS, Google, Apple, that chinese company which owns Opera you are just a pawn. (later edit : fixed the second remark).
Inspired by this post installed Quantum beta and used it for the last few hours. Stuttering videos and subtly laggy typing. In what sense it is faster?
Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
The piece seems to suggest that a) multiple processes were the performance problem and b) that a field trial was causing that and "mak[ing] my computer unusable". Multiple processes do take more memory, but there's a good reason for them. While it's possible that it was a field trial that was causing issues here, there's no evidence to support that. Sadly, it was probably just excessive resource usage independent of…
The point of the post is that there is no way to opt out. We all understand more datapoints the better. But I also need to not be fucked with when I'm trying to work.
> But I also need to not be fucked with when I'm trying to work.
But that's true of shipping any bug and isn't guaranteed to happen with a field trial any more than any new feature.
(and the OP doesn't seem to establish that it has anything to do with the field trial, just that the processes were run with that option? Admittedly I don't know how they actually work :)
Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox is not slower, it's just that most websites are optimised and tested only or mainly under Chrome. We are slowly getting back to the way things were with IE, but I hope that Mozilla won't give up and switch to blink or webkit like everybody else.
> Firefox is not slower, it's just that most websites are optimised and tested only or mainly under Chrome. Anecdotally.. Firefox was always slower rendering pages compared to other browsers. On some sites that I visited regularly, using FF was depressing. Later on, it started to suffer from caching issues on my machine. This caused a massive system slowdown. Tried Palemoon (non-blink\webkit, etc). It blazed through…
I'd check out the Firefox nightly which now has all the Quantum stuff - it's a lot better.
I also switched to chrome back when Firefox was a lot slower, but now I'm tempted to switch to Firefox or Safari and I try to occasionally.
I've historically had to switch back partly because I (stupidly) rely a lot on chrome's omnibox autofill memory and also because we use the switchyomega plugin at work and I don't want to deal with having a non-standard setup.
Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)
#70Or just use Firefox, even if it is slightly slower than Chromium it's at least a browser that works for you not one that treats you as a pawn. A Chrome monoculture is harmful, even if Google has the best intentions which I don't think they do - they definitely value their profits over an open web.
Firefox is not immune to this behavior. Please look up the preference "experiments.enabled" before recommending blindly. In fact, Firefox has increased in the amount of unwarranted telemetry and "experiments" a lot in the last years, a direction I'm really not happy with. The main difference is that Firefox still gives you pretty liberal access to most internal settings, while Chromium is abysmal, if not ridiculous.
can we set experiments.enabled to false? if so that's a severe difference, albeit a questionable default, there should be a popup on install, or at least a message on install