Normally I'd agree but at this point it's basically "Firefox is mismanaged, updoots to the left my 1337zors" behavior. It's basically a meme. It's always at the top of every single firefox thread no matter what is being posted. Yes they make mistakes. Yes they can be frustrating. But it is still so much better than using a chromium browser, and that must be acknowledged. People whine about the features every time. Gu…
Sync and container tabs aren't on the list of features I recall seeing people complain about.
Eh, maybe, maybe not. I watch YouTube content, not power usage graphs, perceived performance is good enough for what I do with it. If I'm on battery I'm probably not watching in 4k anyway, at which point the difference in power use should be pretty negligible.
Got curious, so I did a very unscientific experiment. Playing 3 1080 music videos in FF pulls about 60W here. In Chrome, about 50W. No videos playing is about 30W. If it's uBlock or 3.33W, I know which I'm choosing.
It's more about "abdicating to the Chromium monopoly" than "uBlock" in my case, in which case that 3.33W isn't so bad for me. YMMV I guess.
I don't know why but I have a different experience. My daily driver is a 13 year old Thinkpad with 16Gb memory, I use Firefox all the time, I routinely have 50+ tabs open, I really have no complaints. I also use Firefox on Android, I have less experience of using other browsers on mobile but what I've got is fine for me. I'm not questioning your experience but I would like others, who might be considering using Firef…
I think it's the specific pages - some Javascript is much more memory hungry that others. A few hundred HN or Wikipedia tabs work absolutely fine, I've tested. But there are much heavier sites, and only a few of those can cause the machine to start swapping until OOM, especially when left to work in the background. (And unlike Chrome, Firefox does not seem to throttle/unload background tabs automatically... or if it…
Yeah, that's it probably, I also notice that when I have certain pages open in tabs on the background, my Framework laptop fans start spinning faster, probably because of JS running on those sites. I don't know whether that wouldn't happen with Chrome, but yeah, if that's the case, then Chrome would have to reload / restore those pages and on Firefox they're still in memory. I rather just close those resource heavy pages, fortunately they're usally not the kinds of pages I need to use too often.
This is exactly and precisely why open source exists, for both the "never upgrade frozen version" case, and the extension into "fork it and make your own" case
For a browser, that's not really possible without a significant team of over-the-average and paid developers. There are a lot of complexities in a browser. It has to have its own GPU driver, JIT compiler, optimized scheduler to pull page components, another scheduler to run JS, a cross-platform rendering abstraction, hacks for 30+ years of WWW. All of that should be fast. Because everything else is extremely slow and…
I'm pretty sure firefox itself is a direct contradiction to this, but ok...
I don't trust Brave to fight the good fight against Google. Brave wants to sell their own ads and push Web3 slop, making them an ethical tarpit with questionable motivations.
Web3 was used simply as a way to get money for development that gave some control to users about which ads they would see and isn't enabled by default. Origin avoids all of this and charges the user directly for the product, like Kagi seems like great motivation in my mind what issues do you have with it? Who do you trust to fight the good fight against Google? Mozilla, who get $400 million per year from Google? Make…
i think kagi isn't open source, we should stay away from closed source software as much as possible.
The guy that bought twitter is a Nazi. To the inevitable down voters, I'm not calling musk a Nazi because I dont like him, I call him a Nazi because he did a friggin' heil Hitler salute.
Interesting. I thought he was about free speech and reducing government spending. (Musk, I mean, not Hitler, in case there was any confusion!)
If you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
AFAIK, from reading the annual reports years ago, this nice sum of money belongs to Mozilla Foundation, the non-profit that works on making a better web. Mozilla Corporation, the for-profit entity that makes Firefox, doesn’t seem to have as much as it needs. Hence MDN Plus, Mozilla VPN, and other services.
That's their choice, nobody forced them to implement that corporate structure and they can decide to deconstruct it any time. Google pays Mozilla for default search engine selection in Firefox, no other product. If Mozilla then redirect that money to other non-Firefox ventures then maybe they should explain why.
They specifically implemented that structure to be eligible for search licensing revenue that they might not otherwise have gotten and that's been the lifeline that's kept them able to compete with Google.
The non Firefox ventures are things like lobbying and building a community of support for principles of the open web, which seem pretty defensible to me. It's not like the CEO of WeWork paying himself from his own company's money to turn his private property into a revenue stream. Which I know might disappoint people looking for things to accuse Mozilla of.
AFAIK, from reading the annual reports years ago, this nice sum of money belongs to Mozilla Foundation, the non-profit that works on making a better web. Mozilla Corporation, the for-profit entity that makes Firefox, doesn’t seem to have as much as it needs. Hence MDN Plus, Mozilla VPN, and other services.
That's self-inflicted though; they could just thesaurize that money and live on the interests to fund Firefox forever. That they decide to burn through it by paying 7 figures salaries for their C-suites, buying luxury offices at the heart of Paris and launching plethoras of feel-good initiatives left-and-right is their own choice.
They already do have an endowment fund and they do get annual revenue from it but it's something on the order of 10% of the cost of developing the browser.
Most of their money is spent on software development, they seem to pay at market rates and CEO spending is something like 1.5% of their overall budget and consistent with industry norms. I don't personally love it, but I also don't think it's a conspiracy or enough to legitimize theory that they're supposedly wasting money. If anything, mozilla stands alone as the most successful pure full stack browser company in the history of the tech industry precisely owing to their intelligent handling of revenue streams and long-term financial planning. Got to go back to the drawing board and find a new accusation.
Web3 was used simply as a way to get money for development that gave some control to users about which ads they would see and isn't enabled by default. Origin avoids all of this and charges the user directly for the product, like Kagi seems like great motivation in my mind what issues do you have with it? Who do you trust to fight the good fight against Google? Mozilla, who get $400 million per year from Google? Make…
i think kagi isn't open source, we should stay away from closed source software as much as possible.
Oh I don't care about that, I want a well functioning search engine that doesn't have ads and Kagi is that and it works well. You can pay for it with Bitcoin which is nice. Which search engine do you use instead?
Part of the blame for what's wrong with the web right now is on web developers: - We "need" firefox or else everything's just chrome - Forks of chrome don't count as different browsers because they all use the same engine - Using the same engine makes you basically just chrome because you can't diverge from upstream - You can't diverge from upstream because it moves too fast and you need to keep merging with it - You…
> Maybe if we had some versioned web standard that lagged behind the "real" ones so sites could say "StableWeb 2.0 Compatible!" or something.
There have been a few attempts at this already and I have something like this myself for websites I design. Ultimately they fail to gain widespread traction since everyone has very different ideas on what of the various Web standards should be included at each version level. Someone else’s standard will likely not include that one feature you cannot go without so you simply do not follow it.
