All I want
Is a browser that doesn't hang when I've got umpteen tabs open.
I've got 32GB RAM in my main machine so browser RAM consumption is not a big worry.
54 sounds like it may improve things a little. Time will tell...
Mozilla has released version 54 of its Firefox browser and in so doing delivered long-promised sandboxing technology. Firefox has been pondering multiple processes for different tabs since 2009 and named its effort Project Electrolysis in 2015 before introducing the technology to Firefox 48 in August 2016. The organisation has …
And all I want is browser which doesn't throw its toys out of the pram when it chews through the couple gigabytes of RAM my phone has. There really is no excuse for needing gigabytes and gigabytes of memory to render a few pages ot text on a 5" screen. Naturally, I have no objection to browser being able to use it to gain some marginal, incremental improvement when it's present.
I agree and it's not just my phone but my old laptop too.
Chrome seems a bit less hoggy than firefox but at the end of the day (literally most days) I have to kill my browser with procmon and restart it (best way to do it since it knows to restore the tabs).
It's all the sodding memory leaks that get me - you can run it, all the tabs, and it takes a gig and a half, then leave it 8 hours DOING NOTHING IN LOCKSCREEN and it's sucked up another gig.
I expect all the programmers must have shares in samsung, crucial, kingston, etc ,etc.... ;^)
And don't get me started on bloody website browser upgrade fascism! Jeez.
"The URL and search boxes should be separate, and not leak partial searches to Google."
What do you search for / do online that actually matters in that scenario? I mean really, really matters. ot some kind of nit picky "Well I just don't what them to know......" A good real world scenario where some harm can befall you.
Because it's a dark pattern. There are separations of concerns, and lines that must not be crossed.
Local file searches must stay local to the machine. Adverts (assuming you don't block them all) must stay inside of the web sandbox.
The URL bar is for querying the local cache of bookmarks and history, while the search bar sends a query to a provider of your choice.
Software should not be traitorous, and further corporate interests above your own.
Knowledge gives you a duty to resist, on behalf of those who are helpless.
"Ask the authoritarian government of your choice. In many countries even innocent internet use may result in arrest and/or persecution."
Complaining about a feature in Firefox / other browser, etc. is better than actually going to the embassies of these states and actually making a protest? This has nothing to do with authoritarian government really.
"Complaining about a feature in Firefox / other browser, etc. is better than actually going to the embassies of these states and actually making a protest? This has nothing to do with authoritarian government really."
You missed my point. Many users of Firefox live in those authoritarian states.
"Is a browser that doesn't hang when I've got umpteen tabs open."
or crash, for that matter, because of scripting problems.
then again, I use 'noscript' most of the time.
Also, 'classic UI' plugins to a) get RID of the hamburger, b) give me 3D-looking buttons, c) no "flatso" on ANYTHING (including tabs). Hopefully those don't break with the new FF.
Now, about the multi-process and sandboxing... can't we make that TUNEABLE instead? You know, set our OWN limits and whatnot in about:config .
Doesn't this version of Firefox drop support for using only the ALSA sound-system on Linux, forcing people to use Pulseaudio (which then calls ALSA)? This is a WONTFIX bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1345661
Many people either can't or won't (for various reasons) use Pulseaudio on their systems, so can no longer use Firefox as a browser if they want to hear audio delivered via their browser. This affects the BSD folks, as I don't think Pulseaudio is implemented on BSD.
This behaviour by the Firefox developers has been somewhat controversial.
Hadn't heard about that. I'll be moving to a Devuan based distro, soon(ish), and thought I'd have to find another another browser, but it appears there is/are packages for pulseaudio on Devuan, as per a fast Google search.
On the other hand, it might be worthwhile anyway.
This post has been deleted by its author
HD thrashing is often a windows problem. example, windows' apparent "paranoid cacheing" on things LIKE the registry, where you have to re-re-read things directly from the hard disk EVERY! STINKING! TIME! (or from my early performance measurements on win-10-nic, this is how it seemed, and the same for earlier versions).
I recommend a non-windows OS for web browsing anyway. It's *SAFER*
Anyone heard of Bugzilla? It's a pretty cool bugtracker which was also build by the Mozilla foundation. Unfortunately they started this in an era where spam wasn't as common as it is now, and so it got decided that a username should consist of someones e-mail address. To add insult to injury these usernames were originally visible for everyone to see. Hopefully I don't have to tell you why this wasn't the best of ideas..
Unfortunately the Bugzilla programmers didn't agree with all the raised concerns about spam and e-mail abuse, but eventually somewhat gave in and made it so that usernames (e-mail addresses) weren't visible unless you logged on. They also started a process to move away from the use of e-mail addresses to use regular usernames instead.
That process took them 14 years (take special note of the people who initially started defending the whole thing by saying how spam wasn't going to be that much of a problem). Actually it took them even longer because they plan to release this change in the upcoming version 6.0 but right now they're still at version 5.1.
So yeah... A Mozilla project which takes their time for certain features? I'm not that surprised to be honest.
"As Mozillan Ryan Pollock explains, “Firefox now creates up to 4 separate processes for web page content. So, your first 4 tabs each use those 4 processes, and additional tabs run using threads within those processes. Multiple tabs within a process share the browser engine that already exists in memory, instead of each creating their own.”
I'm not saying this approach can't work, but having some experience in this area, it sounds like Mozilla's devs may have created a lot of hassle for themselves in trying to combine processes and threads to achieve their desired outcome. The old problems of one misbehaving tab deadlocking the others (well, presumably only a quarter of them) may still exist, and with the added problem of having to rebalance running tabs to the other 3 processes when one becomes overloaded? I appreciate this approach saves memory, but the one-tab-per-process model devolves so much of this scheduling and resource management overhead to the OS kernel, which is what it's designed to do.
I'm wondering what their target market for this feature is really. Windows?
On Linux there really isn't much benefit of using threads instead of processes - threads are basically just processes with shared VA space. And code will be shared regardless.
As long as you do your IPC right (shmem and not eg. sockets), there really isn't much - if any - overhead from simply spawning processes instead of threads.
At most you could conserve some memory by using a couple of common heaps for all threads, but then your memory allocation performance is gonna suck because of lock contention. And browsers nowadays are moving towards strict heap segmentation anyways as an exploit mitigation.
I'm not convinced, though my figures are of course not scientific.
Firefox 53 with CNN & BBC live streams running in two tabs - 1.4GB RAM, 30% CPU.
Firefox 54 with the same tabs - 750MB RAM, 24% CPU.
Better maybe, but still a huge amount of resources for a browser, no?
So I copied the same tabs to Edge and opened them, and get - 400MB RAM, 7% CPU.
I don't want to switch browsers, but this is eye-opening for me.
I regularly run three windows with 20 tabs or so spread across them in Edge.
I had a quick look just now, one tab was using 163MB and I nuked the process but could not work out which tab it was - these are content processes and nuking one just makes Edge pop it back up, often too fast to spot - good for leaky web pages though.
The total usage was about 1GB, dropping to 500MB when I killed the worst three processes.
CPU usage is under 10% when not doing too much.
In the early days Edge had to be restarted (which it is extremely good at) because of memory leaks. Now, I hardly ever even check, even though I only have an 8GB machine.
I like the fact that my tabs return always - no 'Well, this is embarrassing...'. As well as the extra tab that says "Erase all my tabs" - just in case that was actually what you wanted.
Sorry, but it is true, slurp or not.
There is nothing earth-shattering about conserving resources. I mean, how hard is it to write a cover function, GetTabThread() which returns an existing thread instead of creating a new one? Seriously. This is a big deal? Long awaited, yes, but they make it sound like this is magic.
Mozilla is trying hard to drive FF into the ground. There are so many people abandoning it because the devs won't listen. Ofc, people realize this and stop filing bugs because why waste time? So then the devs get to say: nobody is filing bugs, they are happy!
I think you can see the problem.
well, you COULD try joining the project...
(then YOU can write the 'GetTabThread()' function)
Several reasons why I still use firefox:
a) cross-platform, works well with Mate and FreeBSD (as well as Linux, and *cough* winders)
b) lots of plugins like 'noscript' and all of the classic theme restorers [or I'd be ranting about 2D FLUGLY]
c) because of 'b', does NOT force you into '2D FLUGLY' (unlike Chrome)
So I'm content with it, at the least. Currently using 53 on FBSD 11.
It would be nice if applications would respect the system theming and not impose their own appearance in every case. I remember reading an article by a UI dev who was extolling the virtues of putting content in the title bar (NO! BAD!) and other such things. He said that not long ago, most applications looked like the OS, but "at some point we stopped caring about that."
Um, no, we didn't. YOU did, maybe, but "we" didn't. "We" didn't have a choice.
I put a lot of effort into writing my Windows theme and getting it to look just the way I want it to (I use Windows 8.1, sufficiently gutted and modified to look and act a lot like 7... and not just in the way that people erroneously say that Windows 10 is "like 7," 'cause it's not even close). I use a theme that maintains the "Classic" skeuomorphic appearance of the Win 7 Classic theme, with a few modifications to make it work within the limitations of the Windows skinning engine. I learned to edit themes and bought a commercial theme editor specifically for the task of making Windows look the way I want it to, and I've got a ton of hours invested in it.
The system appearance defines how I want things to look, and for an application to ignore that definition and impose its own appearance upon me really is annoying. I'm the one who has to look at the application's UI, so why does the opinion of some dev I've never met matter more than mine on my own system?
Because of the upcoming suicide of Mozilla, I've been trying new browsers. Not Chrome, of course; I know just from what I've read about it that it's a no-go, but Vivaldi, Brave, and Opera (based on Chromium, of course) were all in the running, but none of them extend the simple courtesy to me, the user, of using the carefully-selected system appearance on their programs. Vivaldi's option that's supposed to use the native UI just puts the whole ugly, flat mess into a window with the system borders. None of them have the options to configure things the way I require them to be.
For browsers, there's no other choice but Firefox and its derivatives, and I've never used anything other than Firefox, Netscape, or the Mozilla suite browser (now Seamonkey), other than for testing and Windows Updates (until I migrated to 7). It pains me to have to consider alternatives now, but FF without its XUL addons is... well, useless to me.
I know there are FF derivatives like Pale Moon and Waterfox (both of which are installed on my PC; I am using one of them now), not to mention Seamonkey, but these all depend on FF, and with FF going in a direction they can't or won't follow, there could come a time that FF diverges from the alternatives so much that it is no longer feasible to have to backport all of the security updates, bug fixes, and support for new standards every time Moz releases a new FF-- not to mention maintaining the repository for the then-obsolete XUL addons that will probably be purged from the FF one eventually.
There has been a little bit of discussion about those small alternative projects combining forces, and I hope they succeed, as the possibility of finding myself without a decent browser seems to be a definite possibility, as absurd as that seems.
Regarding joining the project to implement that functionality: It's very difficult for an outsider to contribute core functionality to this kind of projects.
They are basically their own worlds - very big and complex, with lots of assumptions built in over the years, and documentation often lacking.
There's a reason it's taken the actual veteran FF devs several years to implement Electrolysis properly... Same would go for similar changes across all major browsers by the way - it's not just the fault of the FF codebase (I actually prefer fiddling with it to Chrome or Webkit).
Oh Mozilla... if only Firefox mattered anymore. :(
I've used Firefox since it was Netscape, but I recently switched to using Seamonkey instead because it just keeps getting worse and worse with every updated release. I doubt I'll ever get to sample this new multi-threaded version. It's such a crying shame for it to end up as yet another copy of Chrome that people probably will never use. The sad truth is that without extensions with which to distinguish itself, Firefox is no longer different enough to be worth having over other rival browsers. The addons were the last true attraction of using Firefox. especially NoScript without which I'd have probably abandoned Firefox quite a few years ago.
.deb
packages