3 ms·
not even a little bit. the advances that were made in multi-process firefox and reducing memory usage and speeding up firefox are all on the backs of webextensi
by weaksauce 7y ago
not even a little bit. the advances that were made in multi-process firefox and reducing memory usage and speeding up firefox are all on the backs of webextensions existing. it freed up the developers from having to worry that some internal api getting changed will break the extensions. it simply had to go.
- pessimizer 7y agoMemory usage and speeding up firefox have nothing to do with keeping the browser patched. Plenty of people thought it was fast enough and fine with memory for their use case, but very few people will be fine with gaping security holes.
- weaksauce 7y ago> Memory usage and speeding up firefox have nothing to do with keeping the browser patched yeah? they are tangential goals but that's the problem. in moving away from browser extensions to webextensions you have a completely diverging codebase that's almost impossible to keep patched because the architecture is fundamentally incompatible and the patches will not be able to be applied in all but the most trivial of cases.
- Endy 7y agoYou're pointing out one of the main complaints that's led to PM use. The codebase of electrolysis-Firefox & XUL-Firefox have diverged to that degree. And some of us have found that single-process function and customization features are what we want, not Chrome-lite. For my part, PM loads faster and works longer without crashing my PC than any of the multiprocess browsers.