701–710 of 753 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla too gets to write certain bits. WebAssembly is all Mozilla. I guess Google has more resources to invest in Chrome is the bigger difference.
WebAssembly started at Mozilla, but is very much not controlled by Mozilla today. It's a W3C Community group: https://webassembly.org/community/contributing/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that mean in terms of resources? Is 2 FF tabs that much less taxing than 2 Chrome instances? fwiw, I use multiple Chromes, each with its own project / client, own password manager, etc. I don't think I could maintain the silos I do with FF. I wish I could sack Google (Chrome) but I can't, afaik.
Firefox supports both, completely separated browser profiles and these more lightweight Container Tabs. You can type "about:profiles" into the URL-bar to manage your profiles (which you can also bookmark for easier access). You can also run "firefox -P" in a terminal to access a similar GUI. With "firefox -P profile_name", you can start a specific profile. To run multiple profiles in parallel from the CLI, you have t…
Some of us never left :)
Yeah, I mean I only switched from IE because it froze my computer if it ever opened more than one window (this was a Windows ME system with about half the ram ME claimed as required). I've been Mozilla since ~2002. The idea of switching for anything short of the apocalypse just seems weird, like getting rid of a car because it's a couple years old.
Talking about privacy, Firefox can do a better job than Safari? I heard Apple talking a lot about how Safari is becoming great at this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's been my experience/preference as well. In fact I have been very taken aback by all the "Firefox is back" and "time to try Firefox again" headlines. I guess I didn't realize what sort of exodus occurred when chrome came out. But honestly, I never ran into performance issues with Firefox over the years and various versions, including the overhaul with Firefox 3. I typically have 2-8 tabs open (hasn't changed muc…
I typically have 25-250 tabs open at a time, and also never left Firefox. Though maybe this is the other end of the spectrum because managing this number of tabs in Chrome is impossible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's been my experience/preference as well. In fact I have been very taken aback by all the "Firefox is back" and "time to try Firefox again" headlines. I guess I didn't realize what sort of exodus occurred when chrome came out. But honestly, I never ran into performance issues with Firefox over the years and various versions, including the overhaul with Firefox 3. I typically have 2-8 tabs open (hasn't changed muc…
This is an interesting take, since it's so difference from my experience. There's definitely some difference in use cases that had a large impact - whether that's device memory, open tabs, or even choice of websites. I didn't switch to Chrome when it first came out, but over the next couple of years I found Firefox frustratingly slow and crash-prone. When I cut over, everything was drastically faster and more reliabl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's been my experience/preference as well. In fact I have been very taken aback by all the "Firefox is back" and "time to try Firefox again" headlines. I guess I didn't realize what sort of exodus occurred when chrome came out. But honestly, I never ran into performance issues with Firefox over the years and various versions, including the overhaul with Firefox 3. I typically have 2-8 tabs open (hasn't changed muc…
I've seen other people's browsers with about 40 to 50 tabs open. I think the fact you close them is atypical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an interesting take, since it's so difference from my experience. There's definitely some difference in use cases that had a large impact - whether that's device memory, open tabs, or even choice of websites. I didn't switch to Chrome when it first came out, but over the next couple of years I found Firefox frustratingly slow and crash-prone. When I cut over, everything was drastically faster and more reliabl…
It really depends on the websites. Firefox has long been significantly faster than it was in the Firefox-1.x days, when it was the fastest browser. It's always been perfectly snappy and efficient for hackernews, craigslist, 10,000-line colored diffs in the cgit web frontend ... but popular web sites got many times slower. Chrome enabled web developers to do atrociously inefficient things and just not care. Even today…
Whether inadvertently or not, the Chrome team hit on a genius way of gaining market share by focusing on dev tools so heavily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> website which is "best viewed with Chrome" I'm stunned. Is this still a thing? Last time I remember seeing websites recommending a browser, it was late 90s with "get Netscape" gifs.
I'm dealing with this now. We're working on a very complex map visualization with D3, and Firefox runs it choppy as hell. On the other hand, WebKit/Blink browsers (Chromium, GNU Web (Epiphany), others) run it buttery smooth. Given that everyone else on my team uses Chrome, I think we'll likely be sporting a "works best in Chrome" banner soon, especially as most people would be confused by "works best in WebKit/Blink"…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really depends on the websites. Firefox has long been significantly faster than it was in the Firefox-1.x days, when it was the fastest browser. It's always been perfectly snappy and efficient for hackernews, craigslist, 10,000-line colored diffs in the cgit web frontend ... but popular web sites got many times slower. Chrome enabled web developers to do atrociously inefficient things and just not care. Even today…
I think the issue is less poor coding and resource consumption and more the fact that devs seem to primarily test their website on Chrome. Whether inadvertently or not, the Chrome team hit on a genius way of gaining market share by focusing on dev tools so heavily.