Although, I enabled every security and privacy setting on both (just about the same set of extentions also). But even then, even with a lower score, Edge still feels much smoother to use. Also, every time test refreshed, FF flashed white for a split second as opposed to Edge’s black. Since I use dark mode and Dark Reader, it’s extremely annoying on FF’s part.
Chromium-based browsers still trounces Firefox on the Jetstream benchmark. I mean, I realize the Speedometer benchmark is supposed to test real-world scenarios, while Jetstream is more synthetic, but whatever work mozilla did to improve performance I’d expect to scale in other benchmarks too, so I’d expect Firefox to at least be bit closer to Chromium, even if losing a little.
Mozzila re-writing parts of the browser in the rust programming language has made a decent improvement to the performance. For those who aren’t to into programming rust is has a strict compiler, meaning better code quality (Less Bugs) and offers more optimization methods then other programming languages.
There’s been a few comments on here talking about Firefox on Android being laggy compared to Chrome on Android.
Nobody seems to have mentioned this, but the main reason this is and/or appears to be the case is because Firefox is capped at 60Hz, whereas Chrome will display at 90Hz, making it feel much smoother.
No, I have no idea why.
Edit: The above is misinformation after I did some research - it appears that resisting fingerprinting causes the browser to set itself to 60Hz, but this can be disabled to get your screen’s refresh rate, but of course this means throwing away a privacy protection…
Could be one of those “optimisations” some brands make. I wasn’t getting 120Hz on all apps on my OnePlus device. I had to force it with developer options or some 3rd party app. Gave up, installed a custom ROM (LineageOS), and it’s 120Hz all the time without any issues 😎
Bro, I’ve been using Kubuntu for 4 years, it’s the most I have spend with a single distro, but I’m this close to jump to Debian 12 (in fact I just tried it with VirtualBox today), I’m just waiting for the weekend because job.
I have also used Ubuntu when they sent out those free CDs. And for work when they had the Unity desktop (12.04 LTS). It was a good distro once.
I am pretty happy with the Arch (btw) I installed as a VM on Ubuntu 12.04 and then used as my main OS on the new work PC since 2017.
As a user of Windows my entire life, I’ve tried Ubuntu and Manjaro before and went back to Windows. I randomly felt like trying Linux again recently and set up Debian 12, and am finally not going back.
This… If I wanted an app in snap form, I would install it through snap instead. But installing an app through apt redirects to snap? No. It’s ridiculous and unacceptable.
It makes sense that they don’t want to maintain 2 versions. What doesn’t make sense is that when you ask it for an apt, instead of saying “this package isn’t avalible as an apt” and maybe “by the way it is available as a snap if you want”, it just installs the snap without telling you.
Canonical is not maintaining fuck-all. They’re just re-distributing Debian packages (sometimes with a few patches on top at most). The Debian team is doing all the heavy lifting of packaging software (including https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/firefox-esr).
It’s not a technical limitation that Canonical doesn’t offer firefox as a deb. It’s an intentional attempt to trap people into their walled garden.
I didn’t say it was a technical limitation, I said it was laziness. Even if they just straight up take the deb from Debian, they are still responsible for if it works well on Ubuntu.
Anyway, it’s hardly a very good trap. You can still download the deb from Debian, or use Mozilla’s ppa, or use flatpak. Or hell, snap is the main difference between Ubuntu and Debian at this point anyway, so just use any other Debian distro. I hate to be the person defending Canonical here as I vastly prefer community distros, but when the vast majority of people are using OSs from Microsoft, Apple and Google, painting Canonical as a big greedy villain sounds like a joke.
The Mozilla Corporation is for profit, but they reinvest all of their profits. They are also wholly owned by the Foundation. You can’t donate to Firefox.
Cool. They also have rules about how you make money and where that money goes. The Mozilla Corporation is not a non-profit. It is a commercial company created to make profit to support development.
The Mozilla Corporation was established on August 3, 2005, to handle the revenue-related operations of the Mozilla Foundation. As a non-profit, the Mozilla Foundation is limited in terms of the types and amounts of revenue it can have. The Mozilla Corporation, as a taxable organization (essentially, a commercial operation), does not have to comply with such strict rules. Upon its creation, the Mozilla Corporation took over several areas from the Mozilla Foundation, including coordination and integration of the development of Firefox and Thunderbird (by the global free software community) and the management of relationships with businesses.
Somehow it’s always the lead software in a category that becomes shitty while everything else is praised. Regardless of what’s being talked about. (I know why)
People get used to it, it’s “fine” but doesn’t improve considerably or add anything exciting, so people get bored. I moved from Firefox to Chrome, and honestly Chrome feels smoother and uses less ram seemingly for me on my laptop. Aside from no support for vaapi on wayland, chrome is fine imo
I live by, “never do anything you don’t have to.” But seriously I have some things customized in Chrome I’d have to adapt to Firefox. It would take a little effort on my part and I just don’t want to deal with it until I have to. I’m sure it will happen sooner than later. I think the deprecation of Manifest V2 is going to force it because my browser is essentially a uBO support system. Until then I’ll keep slogging along.
Once you finish setting up and are happy, if you care about privacy and don’t mind a little more upfront work, set up Multi account tabs. It “sandboxes” your logins and cookies to categories you choose. I have a category for each social media site, one for my finances, one for amazon, one for other shopping, etc.
Have you tried Brave? Idk the full story, but it is basically chrome with more privacy stuff and is way faster than normal chrome. Feels just like using chrome but faster.
It was better than Firefox at the time. Firefox only needed to be better than IE so it has become a bit of a ram-hungry bloaty mess, then Chrome came along and was actually really quick. How the tables have turned.
Yep. I was very young at the time but what I remember is firefox being spoken of as kind of a “hack” to make everything web-based faster compared to IE.
Then chrome came out and firefox was completely replaced. It felt like an instant change. Anyone that knew anything about computers was using chrome.
I think that chrome is still living off its glorious past.
I’ve been using Firefox since Windows XP days and speed has never really been a complaint. Well back in Flash days some sites got janky but that was probably Flash as much as Firefox.
That was the act that most home computers and internet connections weren’t that powerful yet, and when I was loading some old flash games I played back in the day recently, they were so absurdly fast.
Fennec from fdroid, for android, is even better as it didnt originate from google play store. My understandong is Google Playstore injects data into the app package. I use fennec for my day to day access. It syncs with desktop Firefox so all my passwords and logins are there.
There is also Firefox Nightly for “developers”. I use it for the custom add on packages and doom scrolling.
Google playstore does not inject data in app packaging because it doesn’t own the signature key. F-Droid, however, does. I mean, they own the signature, but they do not inject or modify apps. They could, though.
Some developers will publish their apps on github, you can download it, and use a different app to get the apk file from the app you get from the play store, and compare the hash of the file. If they’re identical then Google didn’t meddle with it. If they’re not, either Google did, or the developer releases a different version to Google Play.
I was happy with chrome performance. After switching to FF, based on the accolades on Lemmy, I’ve been mostly happy… But fuck if there’s not major lag at times. It isn’t connection related, as I’ve immediately popped over to Chrome for that site and had no issue.
I’m not unhappy with Firefox, but I notice it’s presence, which is not what I want in a browser.
No hate on FF mobile from me, but I can objectively say Chrome, at least visually and subjectively, performs noticably faster than FF. That said, I still prefer FF over Chrome.
My mobile FF install runs uBlock origin, which blocks youtube ads btw, this is enough for me to use it exclusively. That it syncs with my desktop FF is just a nice bonus.
I would still use FF for moral reasons but I’d understand if uses it for the things you mention, but saying it’s “faster” isn’t really a good term in this case, faster in what? I mean, I’m not saying this is done in bad faith or anything, but would be even better if we could know that instead of simply clamoring over “fastness”.
TodoMVC is a popular UI example use-case, which illustrates basic interactivity concepts. Webdevs will often implement TodoMVC when learning a new framework to get the hang of all the core concepts.
And well, there’s a lot of frameworks, which may all have different performance in different browsers, so this benchmark tests many different implementations of TodoMVC, all done in different frameworks.
Ultimately, it tries to simulate normal web usage, it’s not some speciality benchmark.
I’m sticking with Firefox until some dev decides to use it’s engine to make a new better browser. I truly enjoy Arc and Vivaldi, but since they’re chromium i don’t trust them an inch with my personal data.
since they’re chromium i don’t trust them an inch with my personal data.
This is such a ridiculous position. Do you have any evidence at all that every Chromium browser (even the ones specifically designed to avoid this) are transmitting your personal data?
The mere fact that you’re forced to use a Google service for synchronicity between devices? Yes, Firefox has the same but i find them much more trustworthy.
Give me a browser that allows for using a synchronization service of my own choice.
Probably more/better fingerprinting techniques for chromium engine browsers but I feel like if invasive telemetry was discovered in the open-source codebase of the chromium engine we’d hear about it.
I’m not the original person you responded to, but I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I disagree. While I personally do not think that all Chromium browsers (especially since there are projects like ungoogled-chromium) transmit your personal data, I can’t verify this myself because the Chromium codebase is far too much of an undertaking for myself to review.
While the same is also true for Firefox (and really any potential open source browser), on a pure personal-trust factor I trust Mozilla/Firefox to be more caring about protecting my personal data than I do Google, who literally revolves around data collection. Inevitably its a moot point for me since I do use Google services anyways, but I don’t think its that far reaching for someone who potentially doesn’t to take the original person’s stance.
I can’t verify this myself because the Chromium codebase is far too much of an undertaking for myself to review.
No, but there are several people and organizations that can and do that would be screaming from the rooftops if there was some sort of telemetry that they could not remove.
I trust Mozilla/Firefox to be more caring about protecting my personal data than I do Google, who literally revolves around data collection.
You don’t need to trust Google because Chromium-based projects are not made by Google. They are forks of the open-sourced Chromium, made by completely independent organizations, explicitly for the purpose of removing telemetry.
People are seemingly incapable of understanding that Chromium-based browsers are not Chrome, nor are they Chromium.
While I personally do not think that all Chromium browsers (especially since there are projects like ungoogled-chromium) transmit your personal data, I can’t verify this myself because the Chromium codebase is far too much of an undertaking for myself to review.
Don’t you think that, with so many contributors and projects having eyes on it (arguably more so than on gecko), if there was foul play wouldn’t anyone have sounded the alarm?
but they did sound the alarm? Debian took Chromium out of their repos for a time because they found unreported telemetry sent encrypted back to Google. All the info is on the net. You just need to read it.
All the info is on the net. You just need to read it.
“The net” is kind of a big place. I’ve researched “the net” on this subject quite extensively and come up empty-handed so maybe you’d like to share where you found this information?
It sounds like you’re referring to the Chromium web browser, which is not the topic of discussion. Rather it is Chromium-based web browsers such as Brave, Vivaldi, Edge, Opera, etc.
Argh, I originally finished typing out a reply and went to upvote your reply - which apparently causes Lemmy to close the reply box, sending my original reply to /dev/null, sigh…
What I was originally going to say, in a more abridged version is that plenty of people audit and review open source libraries such as OpenSSL which ended up having a massive vulnerability that no one knew about in the form of Heartbleed for two years - so while its possible someone would ring the alarm bell on Chromium, its also possible that they wouldn’t (through no fault of their own).
At the end of the day, I still believe that my own personal trust in a project is going to trump the stamp of approval from people that I have zero connection to. There have been countless times in my life where someone said that X was okay, and I blindly trusted them instead of relying on my own judgment only to inevitably bitten in the ass when they ended up being wrong. Even down to medications that I’ve taken in the past that were deemed fine by multiple doctors, which have now resulted in me having permanent negative side effects that I’ll have to deal with for the rest of my life.
I appreciate your level headed reply (as opposed to the passive aggressive “people do not understand chromium is NOT CHROME” reply), and to your credit I would say its probably significantly harder to forget to remove a ton of telemetry from a project than it is to not catch one line of code that accidentally causes a massive vulnerability to a project - but if Firefox works just fine for me, I don’t see a need to even have to take a (probably small) gamble on Chromium.
I don’t even advocate to others that they shouldn’t use Chromium for the reason that was listed in the top parent comment (usually if someone does ask me how I feel about my choice of browser, I will tell them that I prefer Firefox because it doesn’t have a dominant position of marketshare over web standards), but I did feel it was worth retorting that the parent comment was in fact, not really a “ridiculous position to take”.
Fair enough! FWIW, I also think your stance on the matter is fairly level-headed and well thought out, even if I’m more or less on the other side of the fence.
You don’t need to trust us. Trust Google, they are telling you legally if you want to listen.
Also, look up the handful of open bugs on the Debian but tracker, where known people, with name and faces (I’ve met some on conferences), showcase and share how Chromium calls home and sends encrypted data. They share their Wireshark logs.
Look up how Debian removed Chromium for a time, until some of it got removed upstream.
And all of this doesn’t mean that Google cannot re-introduce it or add different approaches in new updates.
Plus, Google actively creates and pushes for their “standards” via Chrome(ium), which allows them to push for even more surveillance.
In addition, Chromium is not a community project. It’s developed behind closed doors, with a secret roadmap, and a code dump happens on release. That’s no way to develop the 90% of web browser market that society needs in this day and age. But, don’t think you will care about that, do you? you are happy with papa Google for the foreseeable.
Of course I have. I’ve never found any substantiation, which is why I’m asking. I use them every day so I would certainly like to know if there is, but the concerns I constantly see only apply to Chrome, and not Chromium-based browsers.
Google even says so for Chromium on its own official page!
This is specifically for the Chromium browser, not Chromium-based browsers. I know, it’s confusing. Chromium is basically just the open-sourced version of Chrome.
Plus, Google actively creates and pushes for their “standards” via Chrome(ium), which allows them to push for even more surveillance.
This is yet another item attributed to Chrome and it’s users. You can totally create a Chromium fork that adheres to conventional standards.
Of course I have. I’ve never found any substantiation, which is why I’m asking. I use them every day so I would certainly like to know if there is, but the concerns I constantly see only apply to Chrome, and not Chromium-based browsers.
Just run WIreshark against your Chromium then. Enjoy.
This is specifically for the Chromium browser, not Chromium-based browsers. I know, it’s confusing. Chromium is basically just the open-sourced version of Chrome.
Additional Information on Chromium, Google Chrome, and Privacy
Features that communicate with Google made available through the compilation of code in Chromium are subject to the Google Privacy Policy.
There, you have it. Now you can try moving more goalposts again, and provide excuses for them.
This is yet another item attributed to Chrome and it’s users. You can totally create a Chromium fork that adheres to conventional standards.
Nah it’s not. I’m talking about Google pushing and implementing IETF standards that hamstring privacy. They are open standards, but they are malicious. That a standard is open doesn’t mean is doing things that are not ethical.
To me, it’s obvious that you don’t even want to look for proof. Why so hell-bent on taking the stance of a state-level billionare corporation built by extracting privacy from users? How do you think they got there?
Or do you have something specific against the legal non-profit organization that is Mozilla?
You don’t think Google themselves admitting that Chromium has the same privacy notice is substantial? What more could you possibly need?
What’s worse is that Vivaldi took an open source browser with a bunch of privacy concerns, added some things and closed the source. And you think it’s somehow less of a cause of concern.
I use 5 different browsers, zero of which are Vivaldi, and thus do not “simp” for Vivaldi. The only “simping” I do is for the truth. The Google hate train is valid but misplaced in this instance.
You don’t think Google themselves admitting that Chromium has the same privacy notice is substantial?
You’re simply deliberately misreading my comment because what I said is not that it’s unsubstantial, I said that it’s inaccurate. Google does not and cannot have any control over any Chromium forks or their respective individual privacy policies’. This statement only pertains to the Chromium web browser.
I can see that you have no interest in an honest discussion so I won’t be engaging with you further. Bye.
Google does not and cannot have any control over any Chromium forks
That is not true. I remember several chromium-based browser developers saying for several changes made by google to chromium that they can’t afford the maintenance burden to reverse it.
One instance of that happening is switching the addon framework to manifest v3, which severely degrades the functionality of browser firewalls, like uBlock Origin, by restricting (for “security reasons”, apparently) the amount of network filters they can apply (and maybe with other changes too, I don’t remember it exactly).
But there were also other instances of this happening, which I don’t remember right now. Maybe also when they released the first version with FLoC.
And then I think these 2 (anti)features (even any of them alone) also qualify for invasions of privacy, and they are present in most of the chromium based browsers.
I remember several chromium-based browser developers saying for several changes made by google to chromium that they can’t afford the maintenance burden to reverse it.
…reverse what?
manifest v3
uBlock already solved this issue and still for other browsers it was never a problem in the first place, because they have domain-blocking built into the browser itself.
No, they don’t. They released a lite version that will attempt to do it’s thing in the limited environment of up to date chromium browsers.
(Edit: here are the differences between the normal and this lite version as explained by the developer: libreddit.pussthecat.org/r/…/j3h00xj/?context=3)
And then here is something new that shows how google can not only easily control chroimum based browsers, but basically every other one too, by creating their own definition of “open web”:
Their vision: github.com/RupertBenWiser/…/explainer.md
Users thoughts: github.com/RupertBenWiser/…/issues
A specific issue (there are more) where the standpoint of googlers (you are dumb! (does not explain why)) and the users (we don’t want this!) can be clearly seen: github.com/RupertBenWiser/…/36
Discussion on lemmy: lemmy.blackeco.com/post/25574
LibreWolf is an option. It’s mainly just a Firefox fork but removes the adware and sponsored garbage as well as had more privacy-focused defaults, though IMO the defaults are too much and need to be toned back. No ads though so it’s 100% worth the switch.
Can anyone verify that this is also true for platforms beyond windows (what is plotted in the link by default)?
(I tried to change the plot to show macOS and Linux, but the plotting site is dubiously functional on mobile, plus there are a bewildering number of plot options with long, confusing names).
I use firefox and I like it but they have been dumbfying their UI and nagging users to use pockets.
Why on earth would I need to go to about window to update? Also, I don’t know where to find extensions so I just choose addons then manually go to extensions.
Going to the about window to check for updates is a decades old thing among thousands of different software(it’s the same in Edge, Chrome, Opera(old and new), etc)
Clicking on the “Add-ons and Themes” literally takes you straight to the extension tab(extensions are add-ons).
Second, add-ons and theme isn’t saying exactly “extensions”. Also, it would take you to the last tab which is by default plug-ins. try it.
You can click the Extensions toolbar icon that was added by default for everyone a bit ago, and at the bottom of the list of your extensions it has a “Manage Extensions” option (it is actually pinned to the bottom of the visible menu, so even if you have enough extensions that it “overflows” into a scroll menu, the Manage Extensions button is always visible). That page lets you remove / configure any currently installed extensions, and has a search bar for the Extensions store as well.
Yup, the new FF UI is unbearable. And it was the last straw (among other things) that convinced me that it was time to switch to something else (after 20 years).
Yeah i can’t stand it either, stayed on the old UI for 18 months or so until sites started breaking. I’m using this mod to make it work like the old UI and it’s exactly the same, plus you only need to setup once updates haven’t broken it for me so far. github.com/black7375/Firefox-UI-Fix
Thanks, I already knew about the “unfuck” fix made by Black. Too late for me, anyway. I have realized that Mozilla doesn’t care about feedbak or users’ opinion (or the users at all…), so I don’t feel like supporting them anymore.
By the way, the fix is fine. But it is a matter of principle: people shouldn’t have to waste their time unfucking Mozilla’s fuckups and users shouldn’t have to waste their time trying to make a browser usable. So, congrats, Moz Corp, you’ve managed to lose an hardcore user.
Hm, where do they nag? I don't know what Pockets is and haven't seen anything about it.
I also never manually update Firefox, I just restart when it tells me it's downloaded an update.
Remove it where? If its the toolbar, you can just remove it from the Customize Toolbar menu. If it is the home/new tab page, you can remove it by clicking the settings gear at the top right of that page and disable the option (or from the main brwoser settings area). If you use Firefox Account syncing (or just sync your Firefox profile folder via other means) then that option persists across different devices accordingly too. This page explains how to disable any Pocket integration, including the ones that I’ve mentioned here, along with even the “Save to Pocket” menu entry that comes up when right clicking a link.
Add comment