I switched to Firefox because Chrome kept taking over my entire CPU and making my computer sound like a drone.
Anyone else run into that?
Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try
231–240 of 753 posts
Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try
#232I switched to Vivaldi a year or two ago after using Firefox as my main browser for the longest time. I've considered switching back, but every time I run up against several features in Vivaldi that I am just not ready to part with yet: 1) tab stacks, 2) the ability to save and reopen an entire session, 3) a page load progress indicator in the URL bar, 4) using Ctrl-F highlights the position of all matching locations…
Vivaldi is an amazing browser! The team behind it actually considers very niche suggestions and implements them in their snapshot releases. Very fast and stylish -- I would definitely recommend!
Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try
#233I'm typing this comment from Firefox running inside a container on a Pixelbook (ChromeOS) :)
Firefox has been my daily driver for over 5 years, with all my history and bookmarks synced across all devices I had to have it on ChromeOS too.
It does a great job. The Tree Style Tabs extension really makes life easy and with u2f support, there are very few things I need to use Chrome for now (Looks at hangouts!).
Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try
#234After running for a few hours, Firefox starts making my entire computer lag, eventually to the point of freezing up for seconds at a time multiple times per minute. Over time Firefox's video playback gets more and more janky, until it drops more frames than it shows. In task manager I can see FF using 50% of my GPU to play a 720p stream from Twitch. Closing FF completely and reopening it fixes the problem, until it h…
See what happens when you switch to Nightly Firefox.
FF has had performance problems for years. I doubt the magic fix is right around the corner.
Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your problem with them including a technology they own in their browser?
It was acquired so that Mozilla could create a new revenue stream with recommended & sponsored content. To rephrase, they forced a feature on me so that they could sell ads.
Gotcha, that's reasonable.
And thanks for answering and not just dismissing the question.
Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try
#236It was only a couple of months ago that I remembered I paid to have my name included in the Firefox advert, as printed in the New York Times: https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2004/12/mozilla-foundation-pl... That was back in 2003!
How much did you have to pay?
Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't just throw your hands up in the air and say that because there is no absolute scale with which to measure human rights, everything goes. And I think its also not good policy to say that because an organization might* fire a pro-LGTB employee for their views, that everyone should be let to act however they want without consequences. In your view, what publicly expressed opinions would disqualify someone to…
If all political views are valid, what about someone that has documented pro-segregation views? Is that person qualified to make decisions that impact the lives of a diverse workforce? If not, where do you draw the line? I'm not trying to make a strawman argument - I'm seriously asking why would this be any different? The problem isn't that he had some thought in his head - its that he took that thought in his head a…
Should people that donate to women-only colleges be fired? After all, that's supporting a type of segregation, and you didn't specify which type of segregation you're referring to. But to answer your point seriously (presuming that you're referring to Jim Crow era segregation), the people that genuinely support those kinds of heinous policies will almost certainly end up committing actual harassment and be fired with cause. I haven't met a single pro-segregationist that hadn't used slurs against Africans within seconds of making their views known. Granted, my sample size isn't particular big.
Banning certain political views almost always going to harm overall inclusion. According to some of the first results on Google 33% of Americans oppose gay marriage [1]. For comparison, the total African American population in the us is under 14% - less than half. Firing an employee for anti-gay marriage politics and then turning around and claiming it is attempting to be an inclusive company is hypocrisy.
Refraining from firing people regardless of their political views would not cause the world to fall apart. Government employers are legally obligated to tolerate employees political views by the 1st Amendment, and can only fire them for other just causes. Over 20 million people are employed by the Federal, State, and local governments in the US so respecting employers' politics clearly feasible.
> But, both of the examples you cite are cases where a person can cite reasonable reason for their support that aren't merely about controlling the lives of others for no purpose.
The people that supported Proposition 8 can also cite what they believe are reasonable justifications for their support of Proposition 8. Sure, you may not agree that their justifications are reasonable. But that works both ways. Plenty of gun-rights supporters would claim that gun control is "merely about controlling the lives of others for no purpose". So in your moral framework, a gun-rights supporting company would be equally justified in firing pro-gun control employees as Mozilla was in firing Eich, just as long as they consider gun control to be "merely about controlling the lives of others for no purpose".
I really hope you realize that you're supporting the ability of a privileged elite (stockholders, CEOs, managers, etc.) to police their employees' political activity and coerce them into political submission through the threat of termination. Sure, bosses where I live (a liberal costal city) are usually liberal. But in much of the country, they're not.
1. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-percentage-am...
Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Especially on YouTube where I believe there’s an issue with Firefox not using the most efficient encoding on the videos.
Do you have details? I noticed that Youtube on Firefox makes the fan spin up on my 2013 rMBP a lot. I currently use Firefox but as a heavy Youtube watcher this is a pretty big negative.
Same here. I have been a longtime Firefox user and don't recall having performance issues with YouTube on macbook before Quantum. But now if I'm watching anything more than a short clip on YouTube, the MBP's fans start to annoy me and it feels like it is going to burn a hole in my lap. YouTube in Chrome is totally fine. YouTube on Firefox on my Windows Intel NUC desktop is also totally fine. It seems to be a mac only Firefox issue. Would really love a solution!
Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't just throw your hands up in the air and say that because there is no absolute scale with which to measure human rights, everything goes. And I think its also not good policy to say that because an organization might* fire a pro-LGTB employee for their views, that everyone should be let to act however they want without consequences. In your view, what publicly expressed opinions would disqualify someone to b…
I don't believe being against LGBT marriages necessarily implies that you are against all forms of LGBT relationships / lifestyles. Marriage has become regulated by the state due to its implications on all citizens. Just because someone doesn't agree with how the state legislates sexual relationships doesn't mean they should be antogonized. Their views can be beneficial to the argument regardless of which side they t…
Everyone has the right to free speech - but no one has the right to avoid consequences for that speech. In 2008, he spoke, via a $1,000 public donation, of his opinion to support Prop 8. It wasn't just some random thought - he had a very specific outcome in mind that he wanted to see enacted that would impact _other_ people's lives. He got the consequence he wanted - Prop 8 passed and same-sex marriage was outlawed. In 2014, Mozilla employed exercised that very same right to speak against his fitness to be CEO. The consequence of that was that he was forced to resign. He doesn't get to pick and choose which consequences he'll allow. Once he speaks, other people get to respond, and thats what they did.
Re: Firefox is back. It's time to give it a try
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all opinions are the same. Some opinions are trivial. I think Wendy's produces a superior burger to Burger King. Someone else might disagree. We can have a friendly discussion about our points of view. Other opinions aren't so trivial. Take, for example, denying the right to marry to a whole segment of the population, a right that you yourself enjoy, for no reason whatsoever. Its kinda hard to have a friendly dis…
It's neither a right, nor a privilege. It's a job. Was he doing a good job? I would say yes. Did Firefox prosper after he left? I would say no. User marketshare has gone down. I don't care about 'morality', I just want a good browser.
he was CEO for 11 days. I'm not quite sure how you can say he was doing a good job.
As far as his technical chops, his qualifications are impeccable. And those qualifications have nothing to do with his terrible views. Thats a very different thing than discussing if he has the right stuff to lead a company and make decisions that impact the lives of many, many people.