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

Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

pulsebrowser.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 114 posts

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#61

Post by xigoi »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #18
dartharva wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hyper minimalistic UI"

I'm glad to see someone still has the courage to work on browsers - which is increasingly declared "infeasible". Well done. > We have been moving further away from privacy and towards But sorry, I literally stopped reading at that point. The only feature that people want and need from browsers, and the only reason to even glance twice at yet another Firefox fork is enhanced privacy and cast-iron control over what a b…

> The only feature that people want and need from browsers, and the only reason to even glance twice at yet another Firefox fork is enhanced privacy and cast-iron control over what a browser is doing.

How many people have you asked?

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#62

Post by worble »

chironjit wrote: post #45

Hey, just wanted to say great work. I'm excited for innovation of a non-chrome engine and am gonna give it a try. My 2 biggest beef with Firefox is website compatibility and dead tabs. For item 1, certain sites don't work with Firefox when they do with Chrome. This can happen even in sites of industries that claim to want privacy / decentralisation / anti-monopoly. Some of these are government websites. Sometimes, we…

>For item 1, certain sites don't work with Firefox when they do with Chrome. This can happen even in sites of industries that claim to want privacy / decentralisation / anti-monopoly. Some of these are government websites.

People often say this but rarely give examples, do you have some? Explicitly listing the sites would be much better feedback that might actually lead the problems being solved.

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#63

Post by GeckoEidechse »

worble wrote: post #62
chironjit wrote: post #45

Hey, just wanted to say great work. I'm excited for innovation of a non-chrome engine and am gonna give it a try. My 2 biggest beef with Firefox is website compatibility and dead tabs. For item 1, certain sites don't work with Firefox when they do with Chrome. This can happen even in sites of industries that claim to want privacy / decentralisation / anti-monopoly. Some of these are government websites. Sometimes, we…

>For item 1, certain sites don't work with Firefox when they do with Chrome. This can happen even in sites of industries that claim to want privacy / decentralisation / anti-monopoly. Some of these are government websites. People often say this but rarely give examples, do you have some? Explicitly listing the sites would be much better feedback that might actually lead the problems being solved.

Just go to about:compat in Firefox and you can see them. Most of them are simple UA locks but some require more advanced logic.

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#65

Post by Existenceblinks »

hnlmorg wrote: post #22
Existenceblinks wrote: post #7

Firefox is already fast in a lot of ways. For example, "Recalculate Style" is dead slow on Chrome compared to firefox. I don't know how but it's night and day (over a second difference for 10k+ nodes). Maybe something to do with https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/performance/bestprac... A better firefox would be a better Chrome that copies optimization technique from firefox. Because "better" means improving the…

> A better firefox would be a better Chrome that copies optimization technique from firefox. Because "better" means improving the one that 65% of users are already using .. if it's fixable. I don’t want an internet dominated by only one web browser’s rendering engine. Not ever again thank you.

I don't want too. But I think in shoes of others. Clearly we want them to not want to too but the market share speaks itself.

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#66

Post by Existenceblinks »

throwaway0asd wrote: post #10
Existenceblinks wrote: post #7

Firefox is already fast in a lot of ways. For example, "Recalculate Style" is dead slow on Chrome compared to firefox. I don't know how but it's night and day (over a second difference for 10k+ nodes). Maybe something to do with https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/performance/bestprac... A better firefox would be a better Chrome that copies optimization technique from firefox. Because "better" means improving the…

Firefox is also faster at DOM navigation: https://jsbench.github.io/#b39045cacae8d8c4a3ec044e538533dc You can see from that set of benchmarks (once you run them) that Chrome will top out at around 45 million ops/s in the fastest cases. In Firefox the top cases are a stress test of memory access speed. My old desktop with DDR3 reports numbers like 850 million ops/s while my newer laptop (4 years old) with DDR4 memory,…

Yeah, as a developer it sucks that most users don't get the best perf we offer because they happened to use to the slower one.

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#67

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

where is the brave sympathizers who say "forking firefox is pita so the team decided to use chromium"...

if these people, librewolf people can fork and use firefox, why can't brave? oh so they have problems with firefox ideologically while helping google be the monopoly is fine. okay

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#68

Post by forgotmypw17 »

account-5 wrote: post #2

I'm not sure what this is offering over normal Firefox other than not having to turn off telemetry, install ublock ( and the other mentioned add-ons), and making use of user.js myself? Also if you're making an issue of providing software with no telemetry then your website should probably not include cloud insights tech that: "collects web vitals from the actual devices your visitors are using".

If you think you've turned off all "telemetry" spyware in a Firefox build, you're probably wrong.

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#69

Post by forgotmypw17 »

My critique:

I had to deal with about 10 clicks worth of modal dialogs before actually being able to use the browser.

Distracting home screen which took about 5-7 highly focused clicks to turn off.

Keeps prompting me to become default browser even after I say no.

Does not allow me to set my own search engine.

I think this browser needs a lot of work to live up to its claims of "enhances focus" and "hyper minimalistic".

Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork

#70

Post by voidz »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #67

where is the brave sympathizers who say "forking firefox is pita so the team decided to use chromium"... if these people, librewolf people can fork and use firefox, why can't brave? oh so they have problems with firefox ideologically while helping google be the monopoly is fine. okay

I think Google is preventing the monopoly themselves, by throwing megabucks ($450M per year) towards Mozilla's development of Firefox.
Post reply on HN