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

Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 286 posts

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#241

Post by manquer »

jatgoodwin wrote: post #213
Nextgrid wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they want to actually improve user experience they can always include uBlock Origin by default - its permissive license should allow this just fine.

Despite it being an absolute dumpster fire in other ways, the new firefox android almost has that. It's nice for telling my friends who I've gotten to switch over to just open firefox, open the hamburger and tap addons then addons manager, then tap ublock origin at the top of the list and that's all it takes to get my friends rolling with it. They're all extremely happy with the new firefox and don't notice how webpa…

Web chrome is soon deprecating the APIs which allow ad blockers to work too.

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#242

Post by manquer »

ShinTakuya wrote: post #239
avery42 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if blocking Google Analytics by default would affect their default search engine deal with Google...

There's nothing stopping them from adjusting the defaults, but I guess users would criticise them for it.

They could just show users the recommended plugins to install as part of user onboarding .

It is not just about privacy or blocking ads. It is matter of security . I am trust nytimes , I cannot trust every third party whose code nytimes decided to include. Who in turn has included a bunch that nytimes doesn't even know about. How can I trust a website when they themselves do not know what crapware runs?

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#243

Post by manquer »

vmchale wrote: post #84

Sounds like a challenge! Time to write JavaScript that's even more questionable.

I see it differently. It allows even lesser skilled folks to build a site or app.

If browsers performed like in 2010[1],we wouldnt have a lot of apps online. I am not talking about unicorn SaaS apps. I am talking about the local county or state government making things available online. The small business putting an app together beyond a basic website.

It may not seem much to you but there is real and massive impact in developing economies. digitalization is single biggest tool against corruption.

The education system in such places do not on average produce great comp sci engineers . the best graduates go to a big company. the rest have a job and build shitty but useful products. All this is not possible without browsers which can take the hit.

[1] 2010-2020 time frame specifically because CPU has broadly stagnated in the last 10y however we have been able to build a lot more complex apps because of browser innovations

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#245

Post by saagarjha »

moonlighter wrote: post #135
robbyt wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but they enjoy faster performance that JiT optimization yields

That's technically true, but most average users probably don't care. It's like optimizing your car's fuel efficiency by changing your spark plugs more often. When was the last time you changed your spark plugs?

If it was free and happened largely painlessly every couple weeks, why not?

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#246

Post by aww_dang »

skybrian wrote: post #112
antibland wrote: post #106

It's sad how these valuable optimizations are unknown to the average person. When I hear "the browser" discussed in almost any parlance, the implication is Chrome. It's rare to even hear someone say "Chrome," as it's the defacto choice for the non-mobile web. Convenience breeds ignorance.

A 10-15% speed bump in CPU performance is certainly nice but in most cases it's not going to be something that users are consciously aware of. Web page performance varies a lot due to network performance, new versions of websites being deployed, different ads being served, and so on. This noise obscures things enough that it probably won't be easy to attribute a change in performance to the browser if you're not look…

Agreed for most cases. However, it matters in the context of canvas/WebGL games.

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#247

Post by saagarjha »

acqq wrote: post #110
acqq wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What updated title would you propose? I believe, per HN policies, the most appropriate would be the title from the page: "Dogfooding Warp"

Specifically: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." The original title on the linked page is "Dogfooding Warp" and the title on this HN page is still, at the moment I write this, editorialized: "Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster"

“Dogfooding Warp” tells me almost nothing about what I’m about to read.

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#248

Post by makapuf »

_-___________-_ wrote: post #237
momokoko wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or Mozilla’s leadership was distracted by a bunch of meaningless distractions instead of focusing on unsexy things like this and lost out to a competitor. It wasn’t the users that lost interest in Firefox. It was Mozilla that lost interest in Firefox.

Do you think that focusing on more unsexy things would have helped? It seems to me that it's fundamentally a marketing problem. Many people are not even aware that Firefox exists, despite it being basically as good as Chrome, and in some ways considerably better.

Well then focusing on firefox marketing and unsexy optimizations more than cool projects was the thing to do. In any case, focusing on the browser.

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#249

Post by toyg »

rrdharan wrote: post #182
toyg wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lockwise is just another password manager. It’s also free, which means it’s never going to generate revenue. We need something that can rival “Log on with Facebook” and can generate enough money to self-sustain. I would happily pay to have Mozilla act as an independent super-secure auth provider for me, in a way I’d never do with any small startup.

They tried that already (Persona).

Persona was supposed to be a standard, not a paid-for service.

Re: Firefox's JIT is getting significantly faster

#250

Post by twistedcheeslet »

olejorgenb wrote: post #46
jjordan wrote: post #11

It's nice to see some actual good news involving Firefox. With all of the leadership and financial struggles lately, it's made me worry that the browser I've been using for the last 17 years doesn't have long to live. Hopefully that is not the case.

Agreed - what I don't get is: ( https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/14/mozilla_google_search... ) However, our source told us Moz will likely pocket $400m to $450m a year between now and 2023 from the arrangement, citing internal discussions held earlier this year. (... snip ...) According to the organization's latest financial figures [PDF], $430m of its 2018 total revenue of $451m came from those internet giants –…

Am I the only one who thinks an /average/ wage of 280k is pretty absurd?
Post reply on HN