Brave

I think most of us will agree that Brave is, at it stands, a big meme. But how do you feel about it philosophically? I think it's an interesting idea that could use some development. The idea is that you can have an internet without any harmful ads or trackers targeting you, but if you're okay with advertising you can opt into seeing "privacy conscious ads" that will compensate you in the form of a soykafcoin. With this soykafcoin you can directly and securely pay various content creators you like. It doesn't really work that well though, BAT is not very good and the internet isn't properly set up to accommodate the idea. The browser itself isn't great either; it ships with a bad adblocker, a bad HTTPS upgrader, monopoly, and few privacy tweaks (but still makes some unnecessary connections and telemetry). Plus using it gives Google more power over the net. I think this idea might work if the internet as a whole saw some kind of radical overhaul and the cryptocurrency it used was genuinely useful outside of its gimmick. The internet is full of datamining spyware that profits off the people using it; if we made the spying opt-in (and most people probably would for a few cents), then the people who want nothing to do with ads can still exist and deal with a less cancerous internet overall.

I agree, but rather than re-implement the wheel I think we should just implement Project Xanadu already. It has been there for 60 years.

>>24587 Every single day, I'm grateful that Xanadu remained vaporware. It's a DRM-infested nightmare. I think that anyone who's a fan of both open standards and Xanadu doesn't actually know a fuarrrking thing about the latter.

Revolution will be services that selflessly take just what they need to survive and give the rest to creators imo. Anything involving advertising on its core is flawed by nature and prone to the same kind of diseases we see today.

>>24583 Brave would be good if it were able to usurp the monopoly that google chrome has on the market. If brave even gets 1/5th of the concurrent users chrome has, they would be able to have enough revenue and control ober chromium itself to dictate the direction that the project is going, or perhaps even fork it to keep features that google removed from base chromium (such as the manifest v3 changes for adblockers). Brave also has much better defaults compared to chrome, and I would argue even firefox, since the huge majority of users will not install any kind of adblocker. This is nott even considering that by default brave rewards is turned off, so it won't even affect much people. However, right now brave cannot even beat firefox, nor any of the non-mainstream browsers like vivaldi or opera in terms of usage numbers, so it seems like an impossible dream for it to even begin challenging google chrome's browser monopoly. Regardless, I've begun to suggest brave browser to some of my less tech-savvy friends who can't be bothered figuring out extensions on firefox mobile, or the will and aptitude to unbreak websites that have been deliberately sabotaged by google to work poorly on firefox, because despite brave's many pitfalls, it's still billions of times better than google chrome.

I thought I heard Brave just anonymizes tracking data like Ghostery does? Firefox has a mobile privacy browser, Firefox Focus that has some nice ideas like Stealth mode that cencors the app preview window in recent apps but some bad design in it and really buggy and has been put on low priority behind Firefox Preview.

>how do you feel about it philosophically? I don't think that I should feel anything in particular when using a browser. I expect that it's soykaf and my expectations are always met. I don't see why I'd use it over FF-ESR which comes preinstalled with my distro or even over tor. I don't see what's so hard about installing torsocks, onion browser button, ublock origin, https everywhere and noscript on the first go. If I feel like this isn't sufficient to protect me I would just use tor. Ideally I'd be able to use torsocks with a text-based browser but the WWW is soykaf and I'm a hypocrite for participating.

>>24583 >The idea is that you can have an internet without any harmful ads or trackers targeting you, but if you're okay with advertising you can opt into seeing "privacy conscious ads" that will compensate you in the form of a soykafcoin. Modern advertising is inherently immoral and should be universally scorned. >The internet is full of datamining spyware that profits off the people using it; if we made the spying opt-in (and most people probably would for a few cents), then the people who want nothing to do with ads can still exist and deal with a less cancerous internet overall. The spying should be illegal. Would it be fair to let people decide between knowing what ingredients are in their food or saving money on a mystery meal? I believe most people would argue it should be illegal to sell food without the ingredients being known. This is no different. >>24587 >>24589 I've never read of Xanadu in detail, but the ideas were certainly neat. The idea of needing to pay a fraction of a cent to observe a document doesn't seem bad on its face. Ultimately, if I can access a document for free, I'm going to access it and I'm also not going to view any corporate propaganda attached to it. Requiring people pay beforehand is the only solution, but that highlights that much of it isn't worth paying for. The WWW is garbage and I won't mourn its death. I'll use the Tor Browser and if I'm not allowed to access something because of it I'll go elsewhere. The only thing amusing about Brave is how it's trying to use Google's work against it, by undermining the advertising system there, but it probably won't work.

>>24599 The problem with Xanadu isn't merely the payment system; it's also in the requirement to get permission to link to a document in the first place, and the inability to export data from the Xanadu network into locally-saved copies. It's way too easy for Xanadu documents to fall into the memory hole. I'll take the modern chaotic web over Xanadu's corporate-friendly closed silo anyday.

>>24599 The word "immoral" pisses me off because of how non-descriptive it is. It covers everything from "your actions are causing physical harm" to "you're doing a thing I personally dislike". It ultimately doesn't really mean anything, and only serves to waste time. Instead of "moral vs immoral", we should be focused on things like "safe vs unsafe", "sustainable vs unsustainable", and "healthy vs unhealthy". These terms represent things that are demonstrably objectively real, and are thus actionable. With mortality, it's about as far from a clearly defined concept as you can get, so discussions of it end up being glorified semantic debates that go nowhere.

I think the perfect browser to be made into a "privacy" browser is epiphany. It's a botnet free browser which supports the modern web, is fast, and already has some privacy features. I think if someone was to fork it and make it better it could be the go-to privacy browser.

Until I get a binary, FOSS, privacy focused, chromium based browser that is up to date, I'll stay on Brave. I don't like the adblock and shields soykaf, but I'm not going with Firefox. If Firefox was really pro privacy, it wouldn't need a user.js to fix it.

>>24611 I getchu, but look at all the radical modifications you need for chromium to be acceptable; that's way more than a custom user.js file. Plus there's the added factor of preventing browser monopoly, which will radically reduce the chance that they fork chrome, close it, modify it enough to effectively kill all the FOSS forks, and use monopoly power to make the entire internet comply with those new proprietary protocols and standards. That's the chess move that's a few steps ahead. And it's google. They absolutely would do that to drive more growth of their primary product. Which is you and me.

>>24611 >but I'm not going with Firefox. If Firefox was really pro privacy, it wouldn't need a user.js to fix it. They're backporting a lot of stuff from the Tor browser. what about iridium? https://iridiumbrowser.de/

I think the fact that we need ad-blocking to begin with speaks to how poorly the web as a platform is designed. The web, as we know it today, wasn't designed by one person or even a group of people. It's a collection of ad-hoc non-standard extensions thoughtlessly rushed out by companies like netscape and microsoft to try and out-browser eachother. It's a product of 90s tech hype (see also Java), and it shows. I think we should just start over and make something like the web but with scripting and user-interaction both built in from the start and designed with way more thought so they can't be exploited. And while we're at it, we should also ditch the soykafty unscaleable client-server architecture so sites don't need ads to be sustainable.

>>24619 Yeah, this is a very big point. I doubt it'll happen; do you know how rare it is for a system this big to be deliberately, carefully, and securely engineered from the ground up as opposed to evolving out of a tangle of chaos and the mismatched work of ten thousand individual actors? It almost never happens. And it would have to be engineered in good faith with your interests in mind to boot. Not as a military intelligence network, which we are currently using the outgrowth of this very moment. But I still dream. The internet absolutely needs a hard reset. It needs to be made with robust, decentralized, private-by-nature, libre code. It's gonna take a government program to do it right, with decades of committed funding and some exceptional minds with great problem-solving abilities and foresight. Hell, the heap of trash we have now started as a government program too—as I said. But it got privatized and wasn't ever really done seriously or with ideas of future adversarial actors or future-proofing. We desperately need a fundamentally different system. We need some teeth on the user's side, instead of concentrating all power on the supply side. No amount of tweaking will ever really get us there. It would be like trying to install secure FOSS software on a machine with a hardware backdoor, like a keylogger on an independent network built into the USB ports. It'll always be owned. It won't happen any other way than starting over. Which really ѕuсkѕ, 'cause it's highly unlikely to ever happen—especially with the current corpolitical climate.

Brave is stupid *coin nonsense for cointards. It isn't remotely any more secure than firefox with carefully chosen plugins. Firefox is the most independent browser with a broad range of users and developers.

>>24621 It sounds like your complaint is with the www, not the internet. As it pertains to the client server model, there are overlay networks that achieve decentralization to various degrees. i2p where everyone shares bandwidth and freenet where everyone shares bandwidth and serves content. You know this though. I agree the www has really gone downhill, it's pretty much exclusively the fault of one or two companies though. Can you expound on the idea of your alternative network? If not the client-server model, what do you propose - what degree of decentralization? On another note, personally I wouldn't trust any currently existing government to control our greatest means of communication.

>>24622 I've never used brave nor will I every use brave, but it has its place. Anything that gets normal people to take even a tiny amount of income away from those ad companies and also reduces google's monopoly over literally everything now is a good thing.

>>24623 >>24621 The web is such a dumb meme at this point. It's haphazardly designed and requires massive bug-ridden monoliths that centralize vulnerability. It's impossible to reach feature-parity without a huge team and millions of dollars in an alternative viable implementation. The internet is at-risk because people keep conflating web with internet and further removing the power of the internet from individual users. Years ago, most ISPs blocked the email ports (to prevent muh spammers, when you can simply suspend service of people who are openly violating your TOS). Eventually, no inbound ports will be available except those for proprietary game consoles. >>24624 >neurosuggesting it will have a notable effect on ad companies um no. it won't.

>>24611 Just compile your own surf and qutebrowser. It works!

>>24622 I don't like Brave either, but stock Firefox is definitely fuarrrked. Although you can neuter it, unlike Brave. Pale Moon is really the only truly independent browser that works with the modern net.

>>24611 Same here. I don't really get all the contrarians. Chromium is better than Firefox, you can still install all prviacy-preserving add-ons that you want, and it paid for a couple of beers over the last months.

>>24642 >better than Firefox firefox has more and more superior privacy-preserving add-ons. it sounds more like you like the selling of software than real privacy.

Pandering to advertisers wouldn't never worked anyway. In their minds, this is just an advantage for the user that tones down their advertising power a little while becoming more ethical. But that's not what they are going for. Their dream would be a web where everthing is DRMed and untouchable for you but in complete control for them.

>>24625 That's genuinely a terrifying possibility. I think it's more likely though that we'll end up with tiers of internet service. Like a basic tier for social media peasants, and then the higher tiers will be the "full" internet. They already have that in the third world.

>>24649 This is the corporate endgame for technology in general. Consumer computing no longer exists, you just own an always online glass brick that has all your computing streamed to it from supercomputers at Google/IBM/MS/etc. The only thing the bricks do on site is transmit location/audio/visual information 24/7 for security reasons. Consumer computing only exists in an expensive lobotomized format with a bunch of mandatory spyware (regulated and monitored as heavily as guns in order to curb "digital terrorism"). You can't opt out of owning a brick because various mandatory government things are digital only and "enthusiast computers" lack the DRM licenses to function on the internet. Even Rob Pike advocates for this model now.

>>24666 You're talking complete nonsense.

>>24676 Look up Salesforce and their bullshit

>>24676 That is exactly what people said to RMS when he wrote "The Right to Read" in 1997. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html Look at where we are at now. EME is entrenched into the web standards. DMCA laws can now be used to censor negative corporate PR about your $1000 USD monitor stand, and amazon has (ironically) erased George Orwell's 1984 from people's kindles due to a copyright restriction. There are tens of thousands of people in the world who have already purchased a google stadia subscription. It's only a matter of time.

>>24678 I'm not saying you're wrong but most people would love to have weak devices while cloudcomputing because most people hate computers and can't maintain them for soykaf, so having a brick with streaming capacities is a godsend for most people.

>>24583 >I think most of us will agree that Brave is, at it stands, a big meme. I think I speak for everyone when I say Brave is great. See how that sounds? >But how do you feel about it philosophically? I don't. It's a faster browser, so I use it. Mozilla is a burning wreck, and that makes Brave my best alternative to Chrome. >The browser itself isn't great either; it ships with a bad adblocker, a bad HTTPS upgrader, monopoly, and few privacy tweaks Which is better than other browsers, which ship with nothing. >(but still makes some unnecessary connections and telemetry). Not according to this study https://www.ghacks.net/2020/02/25/study-finds-brave-to-be-the-most-private-browser/ Brave is the most private out of the box. >Plus using it gives Google more power over the net. Google created a desert around the web so that nobody could compete with their core ad business. Anything that might be used as a gatekeeper, like browsers, mobile os, email, maps, etc, are all "free" now. Free as in subsidized by ad dollars, to keep other players out of the industry. Brave takes the next logical step. How are you going to beat "free" and stay in business? Pay users, and take a cut as the payment processor. The gatekeeper. >I think this idea might work if the internet as a whole saw some kind of radical overhaul and the cryptocurrency it used was genuinely useful outside of its gimmick. The internet is full of datamining spyware that profits off the people using it; if we made the spying opt-in (and most people probably would for a few cents), then the people who want nothing to do with ads can still exist and deal with a less cancerous internet overall. You just described how Brave already works. Ads are off by default. You have to opt-in to see ads by Brave. Viewing ads gives you a small amount of money. Nobody is making you turn them on.

>>25593 >Mozilla is a burning wreck You've clearly not used it in quite some time. It's fast, great memory use, and responsive. >Which ship with nothing I'd rather pick my own, superior addons, thanks. >Goople Firefox exists and is superior to chrome in every manner >bE tHe gAtEKeePeR this is why brave is doomed to fail. they think their memecoin is going to save them, it's hilarious >brave works like this memecoins

>>24611 You might want to consider using Tor Browser, which is a modified version of Firefox ESR preconfigured for maximum privacy. It isn't Chromium based, though.

>>25594 Mozilla is not a browser, it's a company, and they've just laid off 70 more employees this year. Their incompetent decision making has led to all addons being broken multiple times. They shove useless features nobody wants like pocket into the browser. Mozilla is a burning wreck. >I'd rather pick my own, superior addons, thanks. See above >Firefox exists and is superior to chrome in every manner FF targets an obsolete desktop environment and have a shrinking single digit market share. Because of this, most sites don't even render properly on Firefox anymore because web devs target Chrome iOS exclusively. Sorry Lainon, FF is thoroughly dead.

The internet will never forget how Mozilla breathed new life into it and then allowed Google to destroy them.

for generations to come, like

The internet will never forget how Mozilla breathed new life into it and then allowed Google to destroy them. It will be a tragedy told for generations to come, like Hom.er's epics (okay why the hell is "Hom.er" language-enhanced?). You were the chosen one, Mozilla! You were supposed to destroy the enemies of the internet, not join with them! Bring balance to browser standards, not leave them in darkness!

>>25644 I'm able to use FireFox just fine thank you very much. No problem with visiting any websites and quite frankly I don't care how many other people use the browser. FF is an easy replacement for Google's crap.

Honestly I don't see the point of of Chromium when there is not a way to properly resist fingerprinting through an equivalent of privacy.resistFingerprint flag or a Firefox API to uncloak CNAME records. Aside from that, I'm also wholly against the idea of advertising. It incentives clickbait content and corporate surveillance "to better target ads" which has been the bane of my existence for the last decade. I don't want to reason with advertisers, I'm just against them and will ever be.

>>25673 >quite frankly I don't care how many other people use the browser Mostly False: You're evangelizing FF in a thread about Brave

>>25905 >claiming false about somebody's opinion >iTs A tHreAd AbOuT BrAvE idiotic post anon. they're responding to somebody's elses post filled with misinformation. if righting a wrong is evangelizing, everybody here should be lined up and shot.

Anybody remember flattr? That seems a much more sane model than this overcomplicated mess, and it didn't require a special browser or blockchain nonsense. The problem with soykaf like patreon is that you have to be real enthusiastic to go to the trouble to do it, which means the only people who get anything are the big and popular production outfits. Unfortunately, something something embezzlement and flattr's dead now. I could see a sort of federated payment system taking off, where you either get ads or you pay a monthly bill and participating sites charge you a penny per pageview or whatever instead and it all comes in one bill. That solves the problem where every site wants you to sign up for their own account and nobody wants to bother. Google could do that right now, but in doing so they'd be admitting that ads are soykafty and probably lose a lot of advertisers.

>>25908 Internet advertising is a plague and a heinous cancer on what was once a good thing. Enthusiasts and hobbyists should operate their own internet, and the mainstream can fuarrrk right off to their faggy, corporate www.

>>25594 >great memory use Are you serious? Have you tried Palemoon, Seamonkey/ Iceape? It's like a 200MB difference between Firefox and Palemoon and another 100MB for the other two.

>>24611 >If Firefox was really pro privacy, it wouldn't need a user.js to fix it. can't also forget about how DoH defaults to use cloudflare. GNU/IceCat is my favorite web browser at the moment, comes with a very nice user.js and a ton of other privacy stuff that you cant even get on other firefox distribution, and it runs on 60.0 ESR so it is quite fast. my only problem with it is that it requires rust and it uses gtk3 instead of qt (or even some of the older gtk versions which had a much better file picker), but besides that it's pretty good.

>>26058 I still don't get why people think Firefox is real software. It runs like actual ass on all of my working machines (some 4GB some 8GB, all low-mid range CPUs relative to this what people in the first world have right now). And now I just got a box with a high end CPU and 16GB of RAM, and Firefox finally doesn't completely fall over after 3 clicks. And now it's just _acceptably_ responsive, not any better. And so what, it took 16GB of RAM and 4GHz super-duper CPU to make it just acceptable. If you don't think that's bad software I don't know how can see _anything_ as bad software. You're just not fit to judge software, period. Same for all other browsers aside from links -g, of course.

>>26093 I think there might be a problem with your computer. I use Tor Browser (which is based on Firefox ESR) on a Thinkpad with 4 GB of RAM and it runs very smoothly. Is your high end CPU an Intel Core 2 Duo?

>>25909 WWW =/= Internet.

>>26149 People in this thread have an irrational hatred of Firefox despite its superiority in every matter, especially the capacity to be modified. They're all stuck up their own asses about muh goople bullshit. Ignore them, you're doing fine, as am I.

>>26093 It works fine on much weaker hardware, you must have some sort of unrelated issue. I will always use Firefox, it has always worked well for me.

>>26093 That's strange. I use Firefox-ESR which ships with debian by default on my T60 thinkpad with 3 gigs of ram and it runs quite smoothly even when I have 10+ tabs open which is often the case. Could it be something else that's causing the slowdown on your machines? Are you sure that hardware is not faulty?

>>26151 >especially the capacity to be modified Not anymore, now it's a big joke in that department. Palemoon keeps the flag flying.

>>26151 Are your ideas so nuanced that you are incapable of elaborating on your statements? >Firefox despite its superiority in every matter, especially the capacity to be modified. If it's open-source, it can be modified to the fullest capacity. There are several browsers with this specification.... Or perhaps did you mean ease-of-configuration? In which case, yes. Firefox is newbie/user friendly. That is a genuine selling point and I'd support that concept. >superior in every matter w3m, links, lynx, Surf, and Qutebrowser use less ram/cpu. This argument alone makes yours incorrect. >inb4 complains about [list of browsers I gave]. I never said anything is better/worse in any other way outside of the ram/cpu usage, so spare me, and yourself, from the effort. >irrational hatred of Firefox It isn't irrational. People who hate Firefox tend to disagree with the philosophy and changes that have occurred with Mozilla. I don't hate Firefox, mind you. I just don't use it outside of tor's bundle. Question: Is this thread about Brave or is it about Browsers?

>>26093 I'm posting using firefox-esr on a raspberry pi with a gig of ram. Google-fellators inconsolable. Have you ever noticed chromium constantly spams your local network with requests searching for other devices to user up and report back to google?

>>26183 This is nothing to be proud of (for Firefox), and that sounds extremely painful. Enjoy your blank unpainted screens. It's bad enough with 4GB RAM on a PC on a plain X session. Not the guy you're replying to and never used Chrome for obvious reasons. >>26149 See the problem is you definitely don't know what smooth means. You don't even know what a 60FPS vsynced animation looks like. We've had such monitors for 50 years, and no software properly renders to them. As I said in the post you replied to, it runs "just acceptably", and no more, it fails in the engineering department (can't blame them, web is unimplementable), but at least it's usable (aside from the judder making it annoying as hell to read while scrolling, but that's another story and the bottleneck is usually the LCD anyway). Anyway that doesn't matter since Firefox can rarely meet the 16.66ms deadline (required to properly make use of a 60Hz screen) for more than a second before stalling anyway. You also don't know what responsive feels like since you consider Firefox "super smooth and good and stuff" or whatever you're trying to say (which is probably just Mozilla is the bestest how dare you insult them) despite it being a bunch of JS crap that takes hundreds of ms to switch tabs or press basically any button or do anything really. >>26158 No, you just use the computer like a b00m3r and never noticed the constant freezing and probably have no frame of reference to compare it to. It's been the same story for a decade, I can count 5 different computers all with comparable hardware where I've seen Firefox (and pretty much all gnome crap) run like this. >I will always use Firefox, it has always worked well for me. That's funny, the moment a real alternative to Firefox appears, I will jump on that like at the end of Breaking Bad where the kid gets freed from being forced to cook meth in a trailer all his life. >>26151 People have an irrational love for corporate rats and the terrible products they produce. You have to be blind and on 7 levels of misconceptions to think Firefox is acceptable software (once again, can't blame them, web is unimplementable). I just spent all day compiling bitrotted node.js, go, C++, Boost, crap (which bitrots every 5 minutes even on the same platform they used for development because these fuarrrkers cant stop changing dependencies and invoking UB) to do quick audits over a large amount of software and it's like 20 years ago but now we have more languages and crap just because some kid wanted to use the newest hip thing that solves nothing because his feels. >>26160 WOAH 10 TABS YOU ARE A SUPER USER That's like, 100KB of content-relevant text! And like 3 images! Maaaaaaaan computers have come far.

>>25593 >>The browser itself isn't great either; it ships with a bad adblocker, a bad HTTPS upgrader, monopoly, and few privacy tweaks >Which is better than other browsers, which ship with nothing. Jesus christ, this is a feature. Bloat is not a feature. I know the great narrative of fake hackers online right now is "oh no firefox made the plugins not work", but sorry, including opinionated crap in the browser (as new Firefox version do) is bollocks. The way I browse is disable JS, disable overriding fonts, set a minimum font size, and since all the plugins are memes run by charlatans[2] I have no reason to even consider installing one. There are no ads, because ads are too bloated to load without JS, and advertisers don't care to target non-js users obviously. Lots of ads even block Tor. I use the user agent from Tor Browser to bypass CloudFlare so I don't need to enable JS to fill out ReCraptcha: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 I use a separate instance of Firefox[1] with JS in the rare case I need to use a website that requires it (in which cases there are highly likely to be no ads because this would be something like a bank or paypal, as opposed to a soykafbait blog). I disable popups by setting dom.popup_allowed_events to empty string (then you'll have to press the enter key after clicking a file upload button to make it trigger, which again shows how garbage Firefox is). All this can be done in about:config without any plugins (surprise you got scammed when you installed that "us3r ag3nt sp00f1ng" plugin): javascript.enabled;false general.useragent.override;Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 dom.popup_allowed_events; >a bad HTTPS upgrader, Stop micromanaging HTTPS. It doesn't work in the first place, and sure as hell wont work when it needs to. Programming (or doing anything period with computers) right now is an order of magnitude more painful than it needs to precisely because people keep trying to keep this garbage alive. Even TOFU is better in every way. Anyway this is all a stop gap measure until I get time off work to finish my project of making non-web interfaces for websites instead of using them through a web browser. Like what weboob does but without the script kiddie element. 1. Yes, it has this feature, it's called profiles. What did you expect? FirefOSx has every feature you can dream of (not that it can implement any right). 2. For example, NoScript isn't to disable JavaScript - that would be a trivial 5 line plugin - it's actually an attempt to block XSS, CSRF, clickjacking, homoglyph attacks, and other attacks made possible by whatever trendy webcrap methodology is popular today. NoScript also has _introduced_ vulns which is inevitable since it modifies the page. It's nitpicking, but it shows how noone actually knows what their doing with NoScript. Also all plugins open up new unexplored classes of vulnerabilities. Like 10 years ago you could take over someone's browser when it interacts with content from the web page your target is browsing. I don't know if they fixed that with their new plugin system but I don't really care because it's the same idiots who made the original.

As somebody who has used Chromium on and off over the years, most of the people posting here against Firefox are just spreading unfounded FUD. It works fine, renders fine, is responsive, has a reasonable footprint, and on and on with each of your bullshit claims. I'm seriously blown away that people here are shïlling the monopolization (you do know who google is, right), invasiveness (undocumented headers sent to google properties, scanning the network, and much much more), creepy, bloated (gig per tab, on average, wew), kneecapping (goodbuy reasonable ad blockers and their many speed/bloat benefits) browser that has done so much damage to the web.

>>26188 >I've had 5 computers and none of them ran well Sounds like you just don't know what you're doing.

>>26193 yeah, it is a bit amusing to see a lot of people that know their stuff begging for another IE era. The scale easily tips in favor of firefox when in contrast to the issues they have.

>>26194 That's either one of them there trollin' attempts, or you're beyond stupid. Weigh your assumptions before you post again. >>26193 >It works fine, renders fine, is responsive, has a reasonable footprint, Yes, because you spent $2000 on your box. That's not an acceptable requirement for the trivial task of document viewing (again, can't blame Firefox, because the web is unimplementable[1]). It's a failure at engineering. Note well: Ad-hoc, pretend arguments, like "you're poor" and "it's a user error" need not apply. >and on and on with each of your bullshit claims. What bullshit claims? You're the one claiming this is reasonable: Firefox on machine1 with 4GB RAM: 800MB (JS disabled) Firefox on machine2 with 16GB RAM: 2GB (JS enabled, but only a few pages on github and a google search open) Each have about 10 tabs open. PRESENT DAY PRESENT TIME HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Stop taking webshotting seriously. It's beyond pathetic. 1. Should be common sense but: https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope.html

>>26197 I've got a 4gb box with two cores running over a hundred tabs in firefox. As the other anon said, you really don't know what you're doing.

>>26197 >Firefox on machine2 with 16GB RAM: 2GB (JS enabled, but only a few pages on github and a google search open) Are you delusional? Firefox consumes nowhere near that amount of RAM with 10 GitHub tabs. 1 GB at the very most. >>26188 >You don't even know what a 60FPS vsynced animation looks like. We've had such monitors for 50 years, and no software properly renders to them. I definitely know what 60 FPS looks like. VSync is only necessary if your GPU isn't synchronized with your monitor's refresh rate (which causes screen tear). You definitely have no idea what you're talking about.

>>26200 lol, these posters are obvious trolls man. think about it... they're promoting, unironically, Chrome. It's basically the antithesis of cyberpunk. Not Lynx nor Links, Chrome.

>>26202 Any browser is better than Chrome.

Brave is just Chromium with some toppings. I can't believe the number of people on a board like this promoting Google's ownership of all web standards. Firefox with a couple of addons is perfectly suitable as a graphical browser and there are at least a dozen others floating around that work fine too. Otherwise I like w3m.

>>26199 Oh yeah, there's a hidden option called firefox.make_it_suck that I enabled. I'm such an idiot. And for some reason over the course of 10 years on various OSs and completely different boxes (Gentoo, N versions Windows, Fedora, Ubuntu, various other things I ran for a few minutes for various reasons), even ones setup by other people and not me (ahh I guess the people I hang around with are idiots too and I just live in a group of idiots who can't use Firefox properly), I always made the same mistake of hitting that _one_ pesky little option out of the hundreds of thousands of configuration options and plugins available. God. If only I could stop hitting that one button. Please, enlighten me on how to stop "not knowing what I'm doing". >>26200 To get the number, I `ps aux |grep firefox`d and added the resident memory of each entry. Also note that I had the browser open for hours or whatever, which may or may not have made a difference. I've also heard that Firefox will use memory proportional to the total available. Whether that's true or not I don't really care since 800MB/4GB for a few paragraphs of text in different tabs is beyond, beyond, beyond, beyond, beyond, beyond, beyond, beyond, beyond, beyond, beyond, terrible. Look at pic related. With less than 800MB I can open 49 instances of mupdf each with a different pdf open. This is still terrible, but clearly an order of magnitude better than Firecrap. Not to mention PDFs look better in every way than a web document (not that I'm a fan of PDF). I can sense it. It's about that time an "expert" steps into this thread and explains some mythical tradeoffs and why it _has_ to be this way (and it do, only ironically: https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope.html) and why I don't know what I'm talking about (how can you not know what you're talking about when only claiming an obvious truism as firefox is bad software??? even my mom knows it's crap). Oh wait: >>I definitely know what 60 FPS looks like. VSync is only necessary if your GPU isn't synchronized with your monitor's refresh rate (which causes screen tear). >You definitely have no idea what you're talking about. Well let's not derail this thread on the nuances of vsync. What I meant by vsyncd is basically "synchronized to the monitor". In reality vsync is a pin on the VGA connector, but it has gone on to mean completely different things in the oblivious gaming community. So now the next question is: Go in Firefox (not with 1 minute uptime and 1 tab open, that's cheating), and scroll with middle mouse click. Now tell me if that looks like 60FPS to you. If it skips frames, that's unsynchronized, which is cheating, and looks like soykaf. If it stutters, that obviously fails as well. >>26202 And this confirms my suspicion. Half the posters here are just butthurt that I'm ripping on Firefox because they can barely defend it as an alternative to Chrome. I thought I said it before, but Chrome is just as bad or worse. I don't even care because I never use that crap. >they're promoting, unironically, Chrome. It's basically the antithesis of cyberpunk. Not Lynx nor Links, Chrome. Firefox is also the antithesis of cyberpunk.

>>26219 >In reality vsync is a pin on the VGA connector, but it has gone on to mean completely different things in the oblivious gaming community. You have heard of words meaning more than one thing, right? Yes, it might have been a pin in the VGA, but it also applies to the artifacts that arise when the raster process desyncs from the render process. >>26236 lol, poseurs. It's to be expected though, this is an anonymous board and people think they won't get called on their bullshit.

>>26236 Funny how you conveniently ignored the part about PDF viewers being exponentially more memory-efficient than Firefox with no JS, for basically the same task, except PDF does it better (PDF documents look better than webshit). PDF renders in the most moronic possible way (executing a stack program) and probably has to cache most of the output, yet still outperforms Firefox with JS disabled. >Reporting in on a fourty-day-uptime firefox instance with over a hundred tabs open (so nice) and I'm glad to report you're a moron: it scrolls smooth as silk and doesn't stutter, skip, or otherwise have problems :) Ignoring that you didn't state your system specs (or memory usage): Yes but anyone can say that on the internet and it is utterly meaningless. I can find software that takes an entire second or more to respond to a button press on all hardware ever made available on the consumer market, and yet find millions of reviews on sites ranging from Amazon comments, to "professional reviews" of people stating "it was blazing fast and responsive". If you really want to prove me wrong, post a video recorded at 60FPS, of scrolling with middle click (Firefox calls this the "autoscroll" feature), as well as your system specs. Note it has to be exactly 60FPS and recorded in sync. Maybe later I'll post a demo, so we can see what synced 60FPS actually looks like, as opposed to what laypeople call "smooth". Come on, this is the lowest rate common to most monitors. Should be easy. Right? See you think this is random trivia, but in fact _every_ single thing you can do in Firefox is slow. Just this is the easiest thing to test and should be considered the bar for all graphics code anyway. >>resident memory Care to actually name why this is a bad measurement or works --->against<--- my common knowledge^W^Whypothesis of Firefox being a memory hog? >> I don't even care because I never use that crap [Chrome]. >Hey bro, your loss, not mine. But really, you ARE definitely a troll (or just severely butthurt, which also would make sense). In case you didn't realize, I was calling --->Chrome<--- crap, not Firefox. I think you need to take a step back and a big breath of air. I'm not promoting Chrome. I'm demoting Firefox. I'm sure Chrome is just as bad or worse. >troll! I can't tell if YOU are trolling. Are you even using the same definition of trolling as me? Arguing isn't trolling. Trolling is feigning ignorance to lure people into arguing with you, which is what I mean when I can't tell if half the people here are trolling. >>26245 >it might have been a pin in the VGA, but it also applies to the artifacts that arise when the raster process desyncs from the render process. In common gamedev usage today, it means double buffered rendering with the swap during the VBI, or other elaborations of this method (like triple buffering where you render as fast as possible and the newest frame is swapped in during VBI[1]; Or FIFO style buffering where the _oldest_ frame swapped in during VBI, which causes even worse input lag than the double buffered method). Stop trying to find tiny mistakes in my text, which are irrelevant to the point. If you want to argue further about vsync, please open a new thread "Firefox hater: you dont know how monitors work defend yourself" and I will be happy to fill 20 pages of text arguing with you about the nuances of vsync. Protip: whatever you repeat from internet articles will be mostly wrong. 1. which aside from having insane computational requirements, causes judder, which largely defeats its purpose

>>26260 >Funny how you conveniently ignored the part about PDF viewers being exponentially more memory-efficient than Firefox with no JS, for basically the same task, except PDF does it better (PDF documents look better than webshit). PDF renders in the most moronic possible way (executing a stack program) and probably has to cache most of the output, yet still outperforms Firefox with JS disabled. Imagine a purpose-specific program outperforming a general purpose one that requires the execution of JS to accomplish the same task. You're not very bright, it seems. >Ignoring that you didn't state your system specs (or memory usage) Four gigabytes of memory (base 2 my dude), three point two used. Reporting a day later with thirty more tabs (gotta love that documentation and twattar). >Yes but anyone can say that on the internet and it is utterly meaningless. I can find software that takes an entire second or more to respond to a button press on all hardware ever made available on the consumer market, and yet find millions of reviews on sites ranging from Amazon comments, to "professional reviews" of people stating "it was blazing fast and responsive". You're clearly not interested in having a discussion or being convinced, or trying, or even posting in good faith. This is troll behavior. >If you really want to prove me wrong, post a video recorded at 60FPS, of scrolling with middle click (Firefox calls this the "autoscroll" feature), as well as your system specs. Note it has to be exactly 60FPS and recorded in sync. Maybe later I'll post a demo, so we can see what synced 60FPS actually looks like, as opposed to what laypeople call "smooth". Come on, this is the lowest rate common to most monitors. Should be easy. Right? lol, the bar ever climbing, he says "just one more proof, plzzzzzzzzzzz" >See you think this is random trivia, but in fact _every_ single thing you can do in Firefox is slow. Just this is the easiest thing to test and should be considered the bar for all graphics code anyway. See you think this is random "do my research for me", but in fact _every_ single thing you can do in Firefox is fast. Just this is the easiest thing to test and should be considered the bar for all graphics code anyway. >Care to actually name why this is a bad measurement or works --->against<--- my common knowledge^W^Whypothesis of Firefox being a memory hog? You have a computer and access to a search engine. Please, look up why "resident memory" is a bad (incorrect, very incorrect) measure. >In case you didn't realize, I was calling --->Chrome<--- crap, not Firefox. I think you need to take a step back and a big breath of air. I'm not promoting Chrome. I'm demoting Firefox. I'm sure Chrome is just as bad or worse. Demoting Firefox is incorrect. You're an idiot. This is the limit of how far I'm going to troll you; you're responsible for understanding why. >In common gamedev usage today, it means double buffered rendering with the swap during the VBI, or other elaborations of this method (like triple buffering where you render as fast as possible and the newest frame is swapped in during VBI[1]; Or FIFO style buffering where the _oldest_ frame swapped in during VBI, which causes even worse input lag than the double buffered method). Stop trying to find tiny mistakes in my text, which are irrelevant to the point. Stop making them then. You're talking out your ass and it is painfully sorely terribly evident.

>>26260 If you cannot dazzle them with brains, baffle them with stupidity.

>>26278 *baffle them with bullshit

>>26280 It sounds better, but honestly what I wrote is more accurate.

I quite like it and don't think it's a meme.

>>26277 >Imagine a purpose-specific program outperforming a general purpose one that requires the execution of JS to accomplish the same task. Let me restate my findings (which are already stated above, but you clearly aren't remotely interested it reading my posts properly before "checkm8ing" me): Firefox - NO JS - 800MB for around 10 tabs MuPDF - NO JS (jej) - ~750MB for 49 PDFs They were given two equivalent tasks, with Firefox given 1/5th the work. So you're saying it's not Firefox's fault that it has poor performance? That's what I was saying all along. Side note: PDF is not "purpose specific". It's basically a full blown OS, just like webcrap. It even has JS and forms to submit queries on the network. It even has embedded video. The font rendering is more complex (from what I've heard, not a font guy). It has a binary equivalent to what is essentially JSON, XML, or ASN.1, and reinvents about 40 similar wheels your typical contemporary software likes to do. Claiming the web has it easier is iffy. I actually once considered writing a new web stack with PDF instead of HTML/JS/CSS, for the sake of mocking the existence of the web. >Please, look up why "resident memory" is a bad (incorrect, very incorrect) measure. Or you could provide a concrete argument instead of trying to look good by not actually providing one - Thereby wasting exponentially more of my time trying to guess what your "checkm8" is, than what could have taken you one sentence. But okay: I can think of 3 reasons: -not counting swap However, I don't have swap on the machine I measured Firefox vs MuPDF on. Even if I had swap and Firefox was using it, that would just mean Firefox is using yet more memory than the numbers I stated in my posts. -current RSS, not max Barely relevant. Not important enough for the simple point that was demonstrated. -a shared library is counted towards the RSS, even if two processes are using a single copy from the same physical address Libraries don't use a ton of space (and the only ones that matter here - the X11 stack - is used by both Mupdf as well as Firefox). Firefox using 100 meme libs that could be in theory shared with some other crap isn't really an argument anyway. I only have the GTK stack to run Firefox and pcmanfm, and pcmanfm is a pile of trash that needs to go as well (and will, once I have more time to explore alternatives). >You're clearly not interested in having a discussion or being convinced, or trying, or even posting in good faith. This is troll behavior. No, it's called disagreeing with you, and not giving you the benefit of doubt after your lame attempts to "checkm8" me on irrelevant trivia. Again, post a synced video of Firefox scrolling at 60FPS without skips for at least 3 seconds, with 10 tabs open and non-zero uptime, with Wayland if that's needed. It's a bit unfair, since most crapware can't do this today, but it should be the bar. I have an image viewer that can do this (even under X11, even _without_ X11), why can't Firefox do this for even 2 pages full of nothing but text and zero CSS and zero JS? It's pretty ironic that a document viewer has judder during scrolling, but you know, PRESENT TIME AHAHAHAHA. Plus, you claimed it's "smooth" (assuming you're >>26236 who deleted his post), so let's see if you're bullshiting or not. Or since "wahh it's unfair that you expect software to be well-engineered", you could post a video of changing tabs and I can laugh at how it takes 5-20 frames at 60FPS to do this (even while wasting your memory! no time space tradeoff: worst of both worlds!), while you claim it's "fast". >Stop making them then. You're talking out your ass and it is painfully sorely terribly evident. There is no need to be upset. Firefox isn't your lover or something. And I already told you I don't disagree that Firefox is better than Chrome. >>26278 >>26280 >>26284 Ahhh. I must be wrong. 2 vs 1. But oh wait, other people agree with me too: http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/firefox (No I'm not a "cat-v guy", I just happened across that site yesterday while looking up something about literally, the v flag to cat).

Brave is a hot dumpster fire. Avoid it. It's mostly a gimmick. 1. BAT is in fact a hot dumpsterfire. You are correct. 2. It doesn't really block ads. It just substitutes adds with its own ads. So yes, it determines what it considers an ad, and then replaces content. If that isn't scary, I don't know wht is. 3. Its a commercial company without any real obvious form of income. And a start up to boot. This is suspicious as fuarrrk. In addition, based on chromium. Hard pass. The whole thing is very much suspicious.

>>26093 Firefox is the only browser that really does all the things I need it to do. I never had an issue with firefox flat out not working. It is considerably slower on benchmarks than chrome/chromium, but I never encountered a scenario where that was terribly important. Its not like I'm doing compute heavy soykaf in the browser. For the suite of plugins, plus many of the privacy configuration items, like containers. As someone who maintains a live os, it really helps I can sideload plugins, that are managed and arranged as system packages, which makes patching, and otherwise managing a browser installed in a chroot easier.

>>26289 You do realize mupdf is a tiny program, and PDF definitely is not "a full OS". Adobe Acrobat Reader might have all these features, but they're all optional. You've intentionally chosen a reader which is designed for minimalism. To re-iterate what the other anon is saying, you don't know what you're talking about. Furthermore, if you DO, then you need to admit you're posting in bad faith by comparing apples to oranges as if they're remotely equivalent (which they're not). >Or you could provide a concrete argument instead of trying to look good by not actually providing one They're pointed out your error, it is your responsibility to do the reading. >Barely relevant. Not important enough for the simple point that was demonstrated. This reveals your ignorance considerably. >Libraries don't use a ton of space (and the only ones that matter here - the X11 stack - is used by both Mupdf as well as Firefox). Firefox using 100 meme libs that could be in theory shared with some other crap isn't really an argument anyway. You're very ignorant to say these libs wouldn't count for much. Provably so. Why don't you look at a process dump of a firefox instance and see exactly how many libraries there is, and examine how much memory they're all sharing. It is an order of magnitude more than your "analysis" admits, thus making your entire claim disingenuous. If you're so ignorant as to actually believe what you're writing, then your best move is to exit this thread and read a fuarrrking book instead of talking more bullshit. >No, it's called disagreeing with you, and not giving you the benefit of doubt after your lame attempts to "checkm8" me on irrelevant trivia. You're posting very ignorantly, and honestly you should be deeply embarrassed at how flagrantly you misunderstand the most basic of concepts such as shared memory and shared objects (and the huge significance they have in a complex piece of software like Firefox, which is built almost exclusively OF shared objects). >Again, post a synced video of Firefox scrolling at 60FPS without skips for at least 3 seconds, with 10 tabs open and non-zero uptime, with Wayland if that's needed. It's a bit unfair, since most crapware can't do this today, but it should be the bar. See, you're being highly unreasonable here. You're basically setting the bar so high as to be unobtainable. People have no obligation to suck your cock just because you want them to. >There is no need to be upset. Firefox isn't your lover or something. And I already told you I don't disagree that Firefox is better than Chrome. They're clearly not upset, but you're projecting because you're incompetent and they've pointed it out. As such, you're incredibly salty. You keep throwing out technical terms and claims which don't actually establish your position at all. To shore up your weak, pathetic argument is to demand people bend over backwards and provide you with a video (which, again, nobody has any burden to support here. it definitely is unreasonable for many reasons). >But oh wait, other people agree with me too: People are free to criticize, but until they bring something to the table (which for a browser, they haven't), I'm willing to completely disregard it. tl;dr - you're ignorance, incompetent, and utterly idiotic and should stop posting because each time you do, all of these attributes become more and more evident.

>>26293 >Its not like I'm doing compute heavy soykaf in the browser. And neither am I (I literally just want to be able to read documents and download files), so we just have different definitions of bullshit, or you just haven't used Firefox enough, or your hardware does much better on it. >Firefox is the only browser that really does all the things I need it to do. Yes, because it's either this or Chrome or one of those other big 2. >>26298 >You do realize mupdf is a tiny program Nope >You've intentionally chosen a reader which is designed for minimalism. Yes, and I made that choice _last year_. Not for this thread. I prefer software that actually works, when the option is available. >comparing apples to oranges Document viewing vs document viewing. If Firefox is slowed down by the mere existence of JS being in it, even when disabled, so what. It's still soykaf for viewing static documents no matter how you slice it. I don't see why it should be so hard for Firefox with JS disabled to open 10 simple pages. The mere fact that you defend 800MB for this, and hundreds of ms for changing tabs, proves, that YOU are out of touch with what real numbers should look like for a given application. >You're very ignorant to say these libs wouldn't count for much. Provably so. Why don't you look at a process dump of a firefox instance and see exactly how many libraries there is, and examine how much memory they're all sharing. It is an order of magnitude more than your "analysis" admits, thus making your entire claim disingenuous. If you're so ignorant as to actually believe what you're writing, then your best move is to exit this thread and read a fuarrrking book instead of talking more bullshit. Let's take a step back and restate facts: A. If Firefox only used say 10MB/800MB for deps, then Firefox is trash. B. If Firefox uses a ton of memory (50MB, 100MB, 200MB, whatever) just for dependencies, Firefox is _still_ trash for that. So it doesn't matter where the dice fell, it's still crap. And the icing on the cake is that every single dependency Firefox has is utterly useless. Provably so. X.509, basically anything to do with """security""", even GTK, since its a bloated slow piece of trash (which again I am not nearly unique for this opinion). Install Motif. They even have cloudflare integration right in the browser now. This is the bloat you're defending lmao. >you misunderstand the most basic of concepts such as shared memory and shared objects This idea does not exist outside your head. >(and the huge significance they have in a complex piece of software like Firefox, which is built almost exclusively OF shared objects). Yep, I don't happen to know the memory layout of Firefox, and it's still irrelevant. >See, you're being highly unreasonable here. You're basically setting the bar so high as to be unobtainable. Well first of all I gave you the other option: record how "fast" tab switching is. Surely since 800MB is in use, it should already _be_ in memory (or mostly so) and not have to load a bajillion things just to go back to the previous tab, right? Second: It's not unobtainable, it's graphics 101. Firefox devs are too busy reserializing 10 nested objects in JSON and quad-escaping them 3 times with a few sprinkles of URL-encoding while still introducing classical string injection vulns in every line of code they write. I can write all 1920x1080 pixels in a couple ms on a 1300MHz CPU, which clearly meets the 16.66ms deadline for interactive animations. Yet Firefox has GPU acceleration and 9000 optimizations and still can't beat that on a 4GHz quad core CPU and 16GB RAM. On 1300MHz, Motif can do it for large text files (nedit), just they don't bother to sync. On 1300MHz, my image viewer can do it, and it does sync. Perhaps all that time they take to switch to a tab would be better spent prerendering some of the document so it doesn't stutter while scrolling. Perhaps it's impossible, I'm not a CSS/webshit expert. Arguments based around "ACHKTYUALLY, you do realize Hz is not a good measurement, right", cache sizes, memory bandwidth, etc need not apply, as once again, like with the RSS "issue" this is approximation. The real concrete numbers will still not disagree with me no matter how pedantic you get. Third: Remember, I'm saying a high end machine will usually judder (so it just fails the bar), while low-mid range will just skip all over the place like hell. So the tally? Firefox can only run somewhat acceptably on a high end machine. On even mid range, it will run like dog soykaf. THIS, is what I'm saying when Firefox has CRAP performance. Document viewing SHOULD NOT require a high end system. It's also ironic that Mozilla goes full into the "minorities are oppressed" politics, while making a browser (the most used application) that runs like literal hell for anyone outside the upper classes of the first world, while the real hackers and realists are the only ones anymore making anything with acceptable perf. Have YOU sat in a hot, humid room trying to do useful work on a computer that wont raise the temperature even more, all while having your work bottlenecked by stupid Firefox because you need to look something up? I have plenty, and without a doubt almost everyone in (e.g.) South America is doing this right now. >People are free to criticize, but until they bring something to the table (which for a browser, they haven't), I'm willing to completely disregard it. Firefox is never wrong. Because there is no alternative. I cannot state the obvious fact (that you basically just agreed with here) that Firefox has utterly terrible performance, because I need to hire 100000 developers and make a competitor first, for the worst protocol suite on the planet. Okay!

>>26289 >Side note: PDF is not "purpose specific". It's basically a full blown OS, just like webcrap. It even has JS and forms to submit queries on the network. It even has embedded video. none of which mupdf supports.

>>26323 You're not trolling, this is some serious effortposting. You are, however, incredibly stupid.

>>26324 I agree (well I assume you're correct) and I knew someone would point this out when I wrote that post. But it doesn't have anything to do with my point.

>>26323 lol lol lol lol. Man you really are a nincompoop. You drag in a bunch of "ackchyually" bullshit that is completely irrelevant, pretending it makes a case for you, and yet you're still left looking stupider than ever. >it's graphics 101 we're not talking about graphics you flaming piece of soykaf. >Document viewing vs document viewing. No, a purpose-built, minimalist viewer which strips out ALL unnecessary features vs. a Fully Generalized, Completely Multifaceted, Highly Complex Platform (that's basically a whole OS). Your comparison is completely disingenuous. >If Firefox ony used say... Except it doesn't. You're simply full of soykaf and pretending any of these things are true. Also, you still lack the mental capacity to correctly measure these things as demonstrated in previous posts. >Yep, I don't happen to know the memory layout of Firefox, and it's still irrelevant. Clearly not, given you're measuring it repeatedly instead of once, and penalizing the score incorrectly due to this. Again, I must stress your idiocy. You're incredibly, horrifically, critically, terminally stupid my friend. It's painful to read your posts. Please do yourself in; I know it'll be hilarious the method you finally choose.

>>26323 How much stupid can one person write? Stay tuned for his next post folks.

>>26327 >>Document viewing vs document viewing. >No, a purpose-built, minimalist viewer which strips out ALL unnecessary features vs. a Fully Generalized, Completely Multifaceted, Highly Complex Platform (that's basically a whole OS). Your comparison is completely disingenuous. I see Firefox as a document viewer. Just because it can play games (and very poorly at that), doesn't mean the document viewing capability has to be crippled. Linux can play games, and yet I can run mupdf on it. etc etc Or are you saying it's because it has to do the CSS circus before it can show anything? Or what are you saying? I have all this background bullshit like updating, telemetry, blacklist db checking, etc disabled. But ahh, we're not even disagreeing anymore then. You now admit Firefox has to be slow, just it's not their entirely their fault, as I said in almost all my posts. If you want to argue with me, try actually knocking down ANY one of my points, instead of more pointless pedantry: 1. Firefox is absolutely terrible on mid range hardware: >Takes over seconds to change tabs >Literally everything is slow why do I even have to explain this >Wastes tons of RAM while STILL being slow 2. Firefox is still crap on high end hardware: >Judder while scrolling >Tabs still painfully slow to switch 3. Remember kids, I already said in my first posts, the web is unimplementable. So I agree, you can't blame Firefox, because no matter what they do it will still be beyond crap All of these were stated in my first two posts: >>26093 >>26188

ahh, i missed another "checkm8": >>26327 >we're not talking about graphics you flaming piece of soykaf. Well actually doesn't matter how you slice it, there's graphics rendering at the end of the chain. Firefox is an interactive graphics program. In case this is news to you. If it's slowed down by pointless bloat or soykafty unimplementable standards, it's still soykaf from a user perspective.

>>26330 >I see Firefox as a document viewer. You're blind/stupid. >Linux can play games, and yet I can run mupdf on it. etc etc Browsers do all of these things >Or are you saying it's because it has to do the CSS circus before it can show anything? Or what are you saying? I have all this background bullshit like updating, telemetry, blacklist db checking, etc disabled. You're really really dumb. >But ahh, we're not even disagreeing anymore then. You now admit Firefox has to be slow, just it's not their entirely their fault, as I said in almost all my posts. Nothing admitted, they're simply refuting your lies and stupidity. >1. Firefox is absolutely terrible on mid range hardware: Wrong. On low end equipment with many many tabs, switching takes <1s >2. Firefox is still crap on high end hardware: Already been over this you intellectual midget. >3. Remember kids, I already said in my first posts, the web is unimplementable. So I agree, you can't blame Firefox, because no matter what they do it will still be beyond crap "It doesn't exist bla bla bla bla" Mentally retarded.

>>26332 >Nothing admitted, they're simply refuting your lies and stupidity. If you're claiming it's not Firefox's fault it does exponentially worse than mupdf for the same task, then you're agreeing with me. >Wrong. On low end equipment with many many tabs, switching takes <1s First that isn't true, it often takes MORE than a second. It can take 10s of seconds on a high load (like if I accidentally open clickbait.lol without filters). Second, even 500ms is painfully slow. You'd fail UI design class. I'd bet even this new wave of UX charlatans will tell you the same. Take a day off before you post again. And then refer again to the bottom part of >>26330

>>26333 Yikes are you ever dumb mate. You're literally comparing two completely different things. Not a proper comparison. If you compared Chrome and Firefox, it would make sense. Nobody is agreeing with you because your test is asinine. >First that isn't true Works for me mate. They said <1s, they didn't say 500ms. For me it is instant, zero hangup. I don't know what yours is.

>>26333 Apples and oranges, again. Are you a native english speaker, because you don't comprehend very well. When I said <1s, I mean instantly. Thanks for putting words into my mouth though. Take a day off before you post again. And then refer to all of the previous posts demonstrating why you're an idiot.

>>26335 You already admitted multiple times your soykaf is retarded. Install mrxvt or nedit to see how normal software is supposed to react.

>>26336 If you think ANY version of Firefox reacts """instantly""" on a low end machine you're utterly retarded. Just admit that you actually meant "less than a second". In practice it's several hundred ms or even seconds on low end hardware. And I'm having a hard time how you would even think it's fast at all if JS is on.

This is giving me a funny feeling. Don't tell me one of you is the same retarded lainposter who used to go rabid over his stupid skiddie webshit on nanochan?

>>26338 Instantly. You're an idiot. >>26337 hey, retard. I'm over here. I didn't admit any such thing.

>>26339 lol, they definitely are.

>>26338 Mate, you're just digging your hole deeper and deeper. We get it, you hate firefox. Bla bla bla, who cares? Just stop trying to "prove" why everybody else should have your ass backward perspective.

>>26340 >Firefox tab switching is instant, on a low end machine. Bruh you just admitted you're retarded. You might want to delete that post before someone finds out. I'm sitting here next to a 16GB RAM 4 core i5-4670K (yes out of date, not that it matters much post 2010, but should be plenty enough for document viewing) And it's clearly not """instant""" to switch tabs. It's far worse than what mrxvt or nedit can do on my 4GB 1300MHz CPU laptop. Ahhh, but now you're going to claim I can't configure my soykaf right, again. Which is why I told you fuarrrking morons to record a video so we can see how retarded -->YOU<-- truly are. I doubt one of you fuarrrking braindead LARPing dumbfucks can produce a video showing reasonable performance on a non-high end machine, even if you had to sh00p it. Go read about what other people think about this dumb fuarrrking place: https://8kun.top/techbunker/res/214.html Now that you gay cocksucking glitterboys insulted me literally over 9000 times, I get to insult back. >>26342 Not explicitly arguing against Firefox having terrible performance, so I wont argue with that.

>>26338 >>26333 >>26331 >>26330 >>26323 >>26289 >>26260 >>26219 >>26343 I just took the time to read your posts and I've concluded the following: 1 - you don't understand how to measure actual memory use 2 - you know almost nothing about how software works 3 - you know even less about software complexity and valid comparisons 4 - you're really arrogant (like shockingly so given how little aptitude you've demonstrated) 5 - you set bars of proof/evidence in really dumb ways 6 - you debate like a petulant child 7 - you pull in random article text to try and make yourself look "smart" (not fooled) 8 - you don't know how operating systems work, and by extension how software is organized (shared objects, etc.) 9 - you don't even know the absolute minimum about basic software like mupdf (and make hilarious assertions about it) 10 - you project your wild emotional state onto others. This is a big no-no for adult conversations. 11 - you lie, and it's really really obvious 12 - you bring in irrelevant technical minutia to fuddle the issue at hand and inflate your fragile ego 13 - you don't understand the difference between mupdf and a web browser (shockingly bad) 14 - you claim people have done things they haven't (this is de facto bad faith) 15 - this bears repeating again - you don't understand how browsers work. Like, at all. You postulate how a browser spends its cycles in >>26323, and it is painfully evident that you lack the slightest idea. 16 - same post, you compare firefox to motif, this is pathetic and reveals a lot about what goes on inside your head. you know just enough about a minimal linux environment that now you think you're an expert on software size/capability. The fact is, you're just a little toddler. 17 - you demand evidence while failing to provide any yourself. several people here have refuted your lies about it being unresponsive, and yet you demand evidence when you have yet to provide any. it's very telling. 18 - you think firefox requires a high end system to behave well. this is false, i have it on my loongson and it is very responsive (and I see how you like to ant-fuarrrk, so I'll be explicit - it is <200ms switching tabs on a 800mhz processor, WITH JS). 19 - you think that because you're incapable of configuring a machine to be responsive (16gb ram, core i5 bla bla bla) means everybody else is. That's strictly a YOU problem. 20 - claiming other people are larping when you spend most of your time talking out of your ass about things you very clearly have zero understanding of 21 - >now that you gay cocksucking glitterboys insulted me literally over 9000 times and here you are angrily lashing out rather than proving your case. this is the same tone you've had the whole time. i am imagining you crying behind your keyboard "they called me retarded". It's really just another sign of your juvenile capacity (or lack thereof). 22 - self-righteous and arrogant as fuarrrk. you think you're some kind of god tier sysop, but you clearly lack the capacity to make firefox work well. it's pretty pathetic. all in all lain, you're a disappointment.

>1 - you don't understand how to measure actual memory use Keep bringing up this point you dumb fuarrrk. It doesn't change the fact that Firefox has absolutely horse soykaf memory usage. Go do your own "proper" measure on it and we'll conclude the same thing. I may read the rest of your points later but I assume they'll be just as irrelevant.