Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WTF? Chromium (2016)

raeknowler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 112 posts

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#101

Post by jhasse »

magicalist wrote: post #68
trafficlight wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

> But that's true of shipping any bug

The difference is though, that I can choose the time I update Chromium myself.

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#102

Post by jhasse »

eagsalazar2 wrote: post #67
mariusmg wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

Linux?

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#103

Post by jhasse »

merb wrote: post #65
DominoTree wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Flash also works in Firefox, what do you need pepper flash for?

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#104

Post by jhasse »

CapacitorSet wrote: post #46
usernam wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>In fact, Firefox has increased in the amount of unwarranted telemetry and "experiments" a lot in the last years I can understand "experiments" (Pocket comes to mind), but what are you referring to wrt "unwarranted telemetry"?

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/6mw1ld/firefox_track...

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#105

Post by jhasse »

yongjik wrote: post #30

Would the author be happier if Chrome/Chromium didn't do these "field trials", and instead just enabled whatever feature they were testing for all users, and the author was hit with the same problem, along with everyone else? When you cut through the rhetorics, the author is basically complaining that Chromium decided to update itself. Well, maybe it warrants complaint, but I fail to see what's such a big deal. (The…

> the author is basically complaining that Chromium decided to update itself.

Exactly. Apps shouldn't do that on Linux.

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#106

Post by lima »

The author assumes that the field trial command line arguments are somehow related to the issue he had, which is not the case.

Chrome is always running multiple processes and they always have a very large number of arguments, including field trials. He's just describing normal behavior.

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#107

Post by Dylan16807 »

tardygrad wrote: post #4

Or 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 just broke the bulk of their extensions, and I'm sitting and praying the APIs needed for non-broken gestures get implemented...

I'm not being treated as a pawn, but it's still pretty rough.

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#108

Post by KozmoNau7 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #107
tardygrad wrote: post #4

Or 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 just broke the bulk of their extensions, and I'm sitting and praying the APIs needed for non-broken gestures get implemented... I'm not being treated as a pawn, but it's still pretty rough.

The extension API change has been widely available information for ages now, with a significant migration period. If an extension developer chooses to not update their extensions, that's their choice.

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#109

Post by vardump »

I once debugged an issue in another process on Windows that would only appear when Chrome was not running.

Not sure if Chrome still always does it, but back then it was because Chrome changed timer tick frequency to presumably 1 ms by calling timeBeginPeriod (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd7...).

On Windows, this affects whole system timer resolution and caused problematic timing code in the other process to function correctly.

Funny enough, earlier workaround was to only run this piece of software with a Chrome window open.

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#110

Post by AHTERIX5000 »

laurent123456 wrote: post #20
tardygrad wrote: post #4

Or 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 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.

I don't really care that much about how many ms of difference there is in page rendering between the two but blocking UI is a different thing. Still in 56 with no legacy extensions UI blocks from time to time, switching between tabs is slower than in Chrome and scrolling blocks more often.

But if I understood correctly that could be finally fixed in upcoming releases.

Post reply on HN