How close did we come to being a footnote in the history of a future species that would happen upon our ruins ten thousand years from now? Would they indulge in the fiction of their own immortality until the Shivans came for them? And how long had this gone on? Did the Ancients stumble upon the monoliths and the tombs of their predecessors in this distant corner of space, dismissing the warnings carved into the walls of the sepulchre? And when the destroyers came at last, what did the Ancients think as they sifted the cremation of dust and bones, staring into the mute remains for a key; some solution to their plight?
What if there had been countless races stretching back into infinity? And like the nine cities of Troy each civilization had been built on the rubble of one that came before. Each annihilated by the Shivans.
The Ancients died eight thousand years ago, as humanity emerged from its neolithic infancy. They believed their voyage across the sea of stars awoke the dragon that slept beneath the waves. That the Shivans were birthed from the flux of subspace and their destruction was the revenge of an angry cosmos.
How close did we come to being a footnote in the history of a future corporations that would happen upon our ruins ten years from now? Would they indulge in the fiction of their own immortality until the shareholders came for them? And how long had this gone on? Did the Ancients stumble upon the monoliths and the tombs of their predecessors in this distant corner of economy, dismissing the warnings carved into the walls of the sepulchre? And when the MBAs came at last, what did the Ancients think as they sifted the cremation of infrastructure, staring into the mute remains for a key; some solution to their plight?
What if there had been countless corporations stretching back into infinity? And like the nine cities of Troy each civilization had been built on the rubble of one that came before. Each annihilated by the shareholders.
The Ancients died many years ago, as humanity emerged from its naivety. They believed their voyage across the sea of capitalism awoke the dragon that slept beneath the waves. That the shareholders were birthed from the flux of money and their destruction was the revenge of an trickle down economy.
Mozilla has no traditional profit motive. The Mozilla Corporation, which develops Firefox, is a 100% subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation, which is legally a non-profit organisation.
So, if the Mozilla Corporation makes a profit, they cannot pay out that profit to shareholders. Practically all they can do with that money, is to pay higher wages or set it aside for future invest in their products.
That does not mean that they cannot stagnate or use money badly. And it does not either mean that they never need to make money. But it does mean that there's no shareholders demanding short-term profit above all else.
Thank you for new info, i didn't know about that, but it's not what I'm worried, I'm worried about manifest v3 going forced by Google and other corpos and being adopted by Firefox, but we still have dns adblockers for now, like pihole and such
The browsers are all quite good at copying your links, tabs, and history. Don't worry, there will always be a good option, especially since open source has no strong path to enshittification
I've switched to Firefox but there's definitely a few things that irritate me about it.
First thing is when I boot up my computer, launch Firefox, it launches long enough for me to click a bookmark then closes to perform an update. And then doesn't automatically reopen...
I also have it set to not "remember" my tabs after closing. Yet when I launch Firefox for the first time after rebooting or closing ally tabs, it gives me a "hmm.. we're having a hard time finding your previous session" message. Uh, yeah, I told you not to look for it.. can I just have the regular "new tab" page?
It also might just be because I'm used to chrome, but I feel the mobile app is severely lacking. I hate that I can't access my bookmarks directly from the new tab page, and that the tablet version doesn't show you your bookmark bar. The synchronization between mobile and desktop isn't great either, I'll have a very long specific search query that I've used multiple times on my phone, yet it doesn't offer it for auto-complete on desktop, I have to search the entire term again or go digging through my history. When you're searching long model numbers and the like, this is incredibly frustrating.
Finally, and I don't know if this is a Firefox issue, but there's some memory leak that occurs when viewing a webcam stream from my raspberry pi that only has happened in Firefox. The first time I noticed it happening my PC slowed to a crawl, when task manager finally opened Firefox was taking 23GB of RAM. So I have to use chrome to keep that steam open for more than a few minutes at a time.
I'm curious as to why Firefox is checking for updates, have you configured it to do so? I've never seen Firefox do that (and it feels weird to have a program sidestep the update mechanism of the package manager)
I haven't experienced that. What is the use-case that makes this happen?
I have one machine with only 8 gig and firefox is fine, and a 16 and 32 gig machine, firefox has never eaten 8 gigs
What they mean is "I use woefully malformed websites loaded up with all sorts of weird shit that eats ram on the regular, and somehow that's my browser's fault"
i was talking more about how mobile chrome can't adblock, so it has ads just not on the app itself, and desktop chrome will soon not be able to effectively
The thing is, using a Chromium-based browser isn't contributing to their monopoly unless Google holds sway over the fork. Brave, Vivaldi, those two are generally fine and stand against what Google has been up to.
You can't truly degoogle chromium without a hard fork. Soft forks are still enabling them and their grip on the web, even if they're not specifically spying on you in particular.
The Vivaldi team is working hard to gut the Google spyware in Chromium on every update. Because of this only security patches are in realtime, all other updates are 1-2 weeks behind. The rest remains as user choice in the settings (save browsing, Chrome Store (without Vivaldi isn't even recognized as Chromium), G DNS and little else). Therefore, Vivaldi can be seen a hard fork. No data sended to Google, nor other third party companies (excepting naturally extensions and search engines you use, they can be not so private in any browser, Mullvad also recommend to use less extensions possibles).
Sure it is. Everyone starts trying to be sure things render correctly on Chromium based browsers and nothing else. Next thing you know people say "Wow Chromium based browsers render pages more reliably than everything else" and then you end up somewhere not too differently from where we were heading. Everything that's not based on Chromium starts getting tossed aside.
They are contributing to Google's hold over web specs. If Google decides to implement a feature off spec, then website developers will optimise for that implementation because it will be the implementation used by all chromium based browsers. And that leads to worse performance for other browsers with a more correct implementation.
I have been on the firefox train since it was new. I witnessed the rise of Chrome and Chromium, and never really felt the pull, and worried about everyone targeting the same platform. Figured I'd stay on FF until I had no choice. Don't see myself leaving.
Figured I’d stay on FF until I had no choice. Don’t see myself leaving.
i'm in a similar boat and given the overwhelming majority popular use of chrome, it feels clear to me that firefox will eventually stop working and i wonder what surfing will like like for me in the future.
i suspect i'll have to go back to use chrome again.
I didn't care until it consistently loaded faster.
That's now my new baseline, and anything slower than 'instant' is annoying.
I would care if that was no longer the case, because I don't like being constantly annoyed.
That said, I don't think the page loading speed is noticeably different between major browsers.
The addons, customisation, privacy and resource usage are where it's at.
I'm just hoping that some competition to chromium stays afloat.
To be fair, Chrome does generally render most websites faster and correctly. I have Chrome installed just in case of some webpages not working with Firefox. Now, that's not Mozillas fault, but from user standpoint makes Chrome more attractive browser to use.
WebGPU, WebHID and h.265 are all unsupported on firefox
that said, i still daily drive firefox with mostly no problems, but saying that it can do everything chrome can is just flat out wrong
this is by design mind you, chrome have a big enough market share that they can basically just add whatever they want to the web standards and all other browsers just have to try to keep up. i imagine that's part of the reason that chromium skins are so widespread
I feel like including WebGPU and WebHID is kind of unfair. They are both still in the working draft state as far as web standards go and are experimental. Codec support, on the other hand, is fair though.
By default, I doubt that Firefox is better at privacy than Chrome. Actually even worse than Chrome I'd say. But you can customize Firefox to be much more privacy friendlier than Chrome. That is the functionality Chrome lacks. The last time I tried out Ungoogled chromium, it sucked ass.
Websites actually loaded slower than on Firefox for me. And both had uBlock Origin installed.
I tried those fancy GPU stuff as well, almost nothing changed.
It's one of those things where I've been using chrome for so long that switching to anything else is infuriating. Trying to learn the layout and all the features. Trying to figure out how to do things that are intuitively design on Google.
If someone made pretty much a 1 to 1 copy of Google without all the bullshit I'd use it in a heartbeat.
This is certainly a hurdle to overcome. Google helped by changing the Chrome UI for the worse in some ways I care about, but migrating to a new browser and getting used to different UI is enough of a hassle that I'm still holding out until adblock actually stops working before I make the switch.
I have the same problem the other way around. When I use chrome it feels like I'm using a kids browser. Slightly cutesy with too many curvy bits. Sort of like the difference between Duplo (chrome) and Lego (Firefox). Basically the same thing, but also not.
UI in Vivaldi is unique, you can set it to simple as an old IE or to an dashboard of an Spaceshuttle and everything in between in the settings and more with CSS. Also using of more than 4000 themes, or made and share your own. You can install Chrome extensions, but most are redundant because of the own inbuild ones, or even install directly userscripts as extensions.
People saying FF is slower: like how much slower? are we taking like 14 millisecond slower? Cause everything seems pretty instantaneous here. Maybe its because i'm old enough to remember DSL and 56k internet, but I think FF os crazy fast and even if Chrome would be 25% faster I wouldn't switch to evil google for that.
It used to be a lot slower, which is why when Chrome showed up with its shiny new V8 engine (and other features) people switched from Firefox en masse. Now the performance difference is no longer noticeable.
61 Firefox windows and 427 tabs (don't judge, I know I have a problem) and I have no performance complaints - admittedly, not all of them are active/rendering simultaniously, but still...
Firefox (and its forks) have been my go-to for 15 years.
indeed! had I not posted this, I would be asking the same question!
so, its quite a bit more mundane than you might have hoped for.
a mix of...
~40% locally served internal pages (mostly zabbix, mail/web server monitoring, some development pages, etc).
~60% non-local pages - currently lots of retro computing stuff, debian stuff, github (sigh)
the most recent page I opened was an archive.org page on TI-84 firmware disassembly.
I make heavy use of Firefox containers for separation. honestly, Firefox is an absolute workhorse for me. if the Firefox ecosystem were to fall into the void, I would be dead in the water.
Last time I tried it? Like freeze and be unresponsive on my phone for seconds at a time slow. (My phone doesn't lock up though, I can still go to the home screen, swipe to see notifications so it's not the phone locking up completely)
Yes, this. Many pages have a 5-15 second blank delay for reasons I can't figure out when using Firefox. I still use Firefox, but that delay is rough on my blood pressure some days.
I wish firefox was faster but benchmarks are pretty common, it's not hard to test. It's kind of an unfair fight at this point honestly, large swaths of the web are just built for chrome. There are other benchmark options out there, but even using Mozilla's own kraken benchmarking solution, it loses tremendously more than it wins. I honestly really respect them for not building their benchmarking system to make their solutions come out on top.
In some benchmarks the lag from firefox is very significant and then on the other hand, when firefox does win, chrome is usually right behind it. It's not ideal.
It's clear, slower is relative. FF is slower in the startup and rendering some heavy loading webs, but the difference certainly isn't sooo dramatic. It's not a reason to avoid it, the only reason depends of the use of a browser, if it fits your needs or not.
They used to also use the unreleased version 0 of shadow DOM for building the Polymer UI, which - being a Chrome-only prototype - understandably didn't work on Firefox, and therefore instead used a really slow Javascript polyfill to render its UI.
I haven't checked on it lately, but I imagine they must've changed at least that by now.
That's a really weird take. Like… what even is the difference supposed to be?
This sounds more like “everything should be as it was back when <insert arbitrary point in time here>! When there were still Webpages, and we were frolicking about the internet! Until the fire nation attacked Web apps took over!”
In general, browser benchmarks seem to often favor Firefox in terms of startup and first interaction timings, and often favor Chrome when it comes to crunching large amounts of data through JavaScript.
I.e. for pages which use small amounts of JavaScript, but call into it quickly after loading, Firefox tends to come out on top. But for pages which load lots of JavaScript and then run it constantly, Chrome tends to come out on top.
We're usually talking milliseconds-level of difference here though. So if you're using a mobile browser or a low-power laptop, then the difference is often not measurable at all, unless the page is specifically optimized for one or the other.
Ironically I use a chrome type browser for YouTube and mail checking only. This is also the only browser in which I am logged in with my Google account.
My main Firefox is for everything else including search.
One thing you can test is to apply a Chrome user-agent on Firefox when visiting YouTube. In my personal experience that actually noticeably improves the situation.
There's a bunch of extensions that allow you to switch user-agent easily, I personally use this one, it includes a list of known strings to choose between as well.
You haven't experienced slow until you try to take Firefox through Google Cloud Console or Search Tools. 15 seconds in Chrome, somehow turns into 3 minutes in Firefox, funny how it does that.
Google does that a lot with their own web properties. I remember Google Meet didn't support background replacement on Firefox, but switching Firefox's user agent to Chrome suddenly fixed it.
One thing I've been annoyed with after switching to Firefox is the iffy password manager performance. It's so common for it not to remember a password that it should, or, weirdly, for it to only remember the password once I've typed the whole username in and hit tab.
I remember when Chrome was released, all marketing was on how much faster it rendered webpages, I never saw that as an issue, Firefox was fast enough, I tried Chrome for a bit, and hated the UI, I remember being confused as to why everyone loved Chrome suddenly, and frankly, I still am a bit confused by both the sudden shift, and the absolute market dominance by Chrome...
I hated Chrome's UI so much that I switched from Firefox to Pale Moon when Firefox started the whole Australis design language, and only switched back when the current design was launched
I grew up with a 56k modem. Anything after adsl is warp speed for me. I never understood or observed the speed differences between browsers.
Maybe I'm just so slow myself that I dont notice the difference but come on.. how much can it be? A few seconds? Who is so busy that a few seconds is a worthy amount of time to try and save (not talking about F1 drivers here)?
I switched from FFX to Chrome back in the day because Chrome tabs were all independent processes in task manager, and one crappy website wouldn't kill my whole browser.
When Google started their war on addons, I switched back to Firefox.
