Steve Teixeira (@stevetex@mozilla.social)
mozilla.social
Attached: 1 image O hai
  • ArgentRaven@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    2 years ago

    Speed almost doesn’t matter for me, since Chrome allows ads and Firefox actually lets me use adblockers and privacy badger. The time wasted on ads are way larger than the time spent loading a page.

    • noel_105@lemmy.caEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      I’m a Firefox user, but doesn’t Chrome allow adblockers too? Both uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger are supported extensions on Chrome.

        • noel_105@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          2 years ago

          Thanks for the response and info. Another day where I’m glad to be a FF user.

      • ArgentRaven@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        Correct, but Chrome recently allowed ads through that weren’t block-able by uBlock Origin or any other blocker at the time. That’s when I switched back to Firefox, so I don’t know if anyone figured out a way around it.

      • ArgentRaven@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        They do, but Google reduced their utility. Ads from YouTube get through my uBlock Origin, and I see ads in my search results. This was a fairly recent development, as maybe a year ago I didn’t see any ads at all on Chrome. The day I got ads punched through my blockers, is the day I quit being lazy and migrated back to Firefox.

        Google has no incentive to block ads when that’s part of their revenue stream, so they nerfed third party extension’s ability to actually work at intended.

    • spunker88@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      I wouldn’t be surprised if Google is keeping certain performance enhancements closed source so they can have a competive advantage over the competition that uses the Chromium source. They have been slowly making Android open source worse by not updating parts and moving things to closed source Google Play apps.

      • sepiroth154@feddit.nlEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        So when Google removed don’t be evil, they really meant it. It shows more and more each day.

          • JshKlsn@lemmy.mlEnglish
            0·
            2 years ago

            Wow. I’ve heard that rumour being spread all over the place for YEARS now, and you’re the first to pull up proof that it’s still there. Interesting!

            • Corgisocks@programming.devEnglish
              0·
              2 years ago

              It looks like the code of conduct used to include a preface about don’t be evil, that’s what was removed.

              “Preface Don’t be evil.” Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably, and treating co-workers with courtesy and respect.

              The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put “Don’t be evil” into practice.”

        • IlllIIIlllIlllI@programming.devEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          “We’re open source but not open source enough to your liking” is a VERY strange criteria for “evil” when most other commercial software companies are not open source at all.

        • ThoughtGoblin@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          They’re just build flags or compiler versions being different, no need to be melodramatic.

  • donut4ever@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    2 years ago

    Crazy fact. Firefox, for me, has ALWAYS been much faster/stronger on YouTube than any chromium based browser I’ve used. Better than chrome on their own site. This makes it even better. I love this browser.

    • TwinTurbo@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      YouTube has been ok for me in Firefox, but other Google apps, in particular Docs/Sheets, always become very laggy after a few minutes. When this happens, it seems to affect the rest of the browser too, so other tabs that I have open slow down as well.

        • henfredemars@lemdro.idEnglish
          1·
          2 years ago

          Google intentionally gimps what they serve to their competition to make them look worse. It’s definitely an anticompetitive practice, and they’re walking a fine line about it to not get in legal trouble.

        • TwinTurbo@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          Interesting. I have to try that. I remember reading that MS do the same for the web version of Outlook, but I don’t use that, so I can’t confirm.

  • trepX@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    2 years ago

    I use FF to help keep the browser “market” competitive. We don’t want to end up in the same situation as early 2ks where html standardisation was essentially “internet explorer compatibility”, and if you wanted to use newer features as a web dev you had to put multiple implementations, one for IE, and one for the others, as in the browsers actually implementing the specifications correctly. Now MS didn’t exactly do nefarious things with their market power, it was rather neglect, but it damaged the industry nevertheless. For Google, in today’s market, I’d anticipate they would use it to make it very difficult to block ads etc. Internet will become less free.

    • SyJ@lemmy.mlEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      MS didn’t do nefarious things with their market power? They virtually killed all competition in the market.

      Chrome is worse. Because Chrome isn’t about having you use the browser, its about knowing what you do with the browser. Google already changes it’s search page, for example, on mobile Firefox can’t see the same sports results and league tables, and can’t easily see the reviews of local restaurants etc.

  • iod@lemmy.mlEnglish
    1·
    2 years ago

    Firefox in general is faster for me than Chrome in many pages

    However a notable exception are web games and web based game emulators. They’re a lot slower on Firefox and i get horrible sound crackling whereas on Chrome its much better. It’s been like this for years with no seeming improvement.

    • SALT@lemmy.my.idOPEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Please open bug ticket in Mozilla Bugzilla. It will help the Firefox development further. 🎊

        • mvee@lemmy.mlEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          I just need to give it another chance, I literally removed Firefox two weeks ago after a problem using video calls, buuut I’m always fing around with the audio setup so Firefox may not have been at fault. For real though I never knew there is a Wayland mode, I’m excited to try it

        • SALT@lemmy.my.idOPEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          Firefox is great… and we must use it at all cost

          #eh /jk, no forcing, but Firefox indeed great!

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        Been using Firefox for over 15 years, including weird open source custom forks of it, and I’ve never run into that issue. I’ve got bookmarks kicking around that I imported into FF from IE on Windows XP.

        Not saying it didn’t happen, but I’d hazard a guess that it was related to some bookmarks related addon you installed, or user error. Sorry you lost your bookmarks.

    • SALT@lemmy.my.idOPEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Uhmm… I am using both chromium and firefox, Firefox Dev Tools is superior imho… I can’t graps something like network stack freely or DOM checker freely in Chromium… so… I don’t think it’s bad, rather than bad, it’s great for me for professional works.

      • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.oneEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        That comment smelled like bait.

        Love FF’s dev tools personally - I only use Chrome to simulate prefers-reduced-motion accessibility preferences

        Edit: fix typo in css media feature name

    • ThoughtGoblin@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Yeah… they still haven’t added back live editing of JS. Their new profiler doesn’t provide framerate graphs anymore. Nothing like Lighthouse on offer. Gotta keep a Chrome-based browser around for any non-trivial frontend work.

  • Morphior@feddit.deEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    I have been using Firefox for basically as long as I can remember and I love it. However, there’s one website that I go to Chromium for: GeoGuessr/Google Street View. For some reason it’s unbelievably slow and sluggish in Firefox whereas it works normally in Chromium. Why could this be? To be clear, it’s only the Street View part (and moving/panning/zooming) that’s slow on GeoGuessr.

    • blueson@feddit.nuEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      It wouldn’t surprise me if the implementation has bias towards Chromium based browsers as both street view and Chromium are from Google.

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        1·
        2 years ago

        They were literally caught artificially slowing down page loads and responsiveness on non-chrome browsers a while back.

        • Raymonf@lemmy.uhhoh.comEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          Do you mean the time when YouTube’s UI was built using a pre-standardized version of the Shadow DOM API, and had to polyfill it in Firefox? If so, that was tech debt, not artificially slowing down page loads for Firefox on purpose. It was a tradeoff that let non-Chrome users use YouTube until they finally upgraded a year or two later.

          If that’s not it, I’d love to see what you’re referring to.

    • SALT@lemmy.my.idOPEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Anything that Google site engineering mostly against web standard, and pushing chromium standard. So I don’t even… Surprised I guess?

  • henfredemars@lemdro.idEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    Great, now implement modern exploit mitigations and sandboxing like Chrome uses. Firefox is objectively less resistant to exploitation. Some Firefox security has improved since the article was written, such as some sandboxing on Windows, but it’s definitely not as mature.

    I’m not writing that Firefox is insecure. Security is very important to Firefox! However, Chrome has had more work done in the realm of browser hardening.

    • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.caEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      That is fair, but Chrome is undeniably more open to corporate exploitation. See things like the dramatically reduced utility of ad blockers on Chromium browsers.

      I guess it depends on who you see as the greater threat at present.

    • SALT@lemmy.my.idOPEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      I think it’s already on par with Chromium, most attack won’t work with sandboxing that introduced to firefox, and mostly now each site/iframe have it’s own process, so it’s on par with chrome, imho

      • henfredemars@lemdro.idEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        As a security researcher, running each site in its own process isn’t enough. Chrome has a much stronger multiprocessing model on most platforms. For example, Chrome on Android sandboxes between processes whereas Firefox simply relies on the built-in Android sandbox, which provides limited protection between these processes. It’s much easier to break out of the sandbox in Firefox because it’s easier to move laterally, for one. Those processes have to communicate with each other at some point.

        But, don’t believe me just because I claim any sort of credential on the Internet. It’s such a difference in security that GrapheneOS strongly discourages using Firefox for its weak implementation in addition to the link I provided above. From the link:

        Worst of all, Firefox does not have internal sandboxing on Android. This is despite the fact that Chromium semantic sandbox layer on Android is implemented via the OS isolatedProcess feature, which is a very easy to use boolean property for app service processes to provide strong isolation with only the ability to communicate with the app running them via the standard service API. Even in the desktop version, Firefox’s sandbox is still substantially weaker (especially on Linux) and lacks full support for isolating sites from each other rather than only containing content as a whole.

        I love Firefox. I use it anyway. It’s not insecure. But it’s absolutely not as secure because it lacks modern exploit mitigations. Running process per site is an improvement but it’s still less secure than the architecture used in Chrome.

        EDIT: Sound less entitled.

        • SALT@lemmy.my.idOPEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          I can’t speak for Android, it’s long way to go for sure, but on desktop, it’s great. And for Fedora PhoneUI / Phosh seems already working because it’s linux ootb.

          in short android not included I suppose. They have custom multiple process sandbox, but last time I enable it, it broke everything in nightly

    • richyawyingtmv@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      Forced to with work.

      I utterly hate it. I don’t have it on my personal setup or android mobile - been using Firefox for twenty years now, not gonna stop!

      • kylostillreigns@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        2 years ago

        Don’t you have the option to use the Chromium Edge at your workplace? At least it has better features as compared to Chrome. My employer has all 3 of Chrome, FF & Edge installed but I use Edge over FF at office because they don’t allow 3rd party extensions.

        • richyawyingtmv@lemmy.mlEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          Nope, it’s completely locked down by IT policy restrictions unfortunately.

          I can use portable installs but last time I got found out I got a right bollocking!!

          Financial org, so everything is very black and white when it comes to IT and security policy, although I did argue my way into having Notepad++

        • Sacha@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          2 years ago

          What a world we live in where people are recommending what used to be Internet Explorer over Chrome.

    • orangeboats@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      2 years ago

      Not sure if it’s still a thing (I use DDG now), but back then when you visited Google on a non-Chrome browser, you would get a recommendation to use Chrome instead.