5 ms·

I use firefox and don't see broken sites per se, but there are many sites where performance, especially js performance, suffers. Gmail and other Google sites ar

I use firefox and don't see broken sites per se, but there are many sites where performance, especially js performance, suffers. Gmail and other Google sites are sluggish for example, as well as Amazon. It sometimes takes a minute after visiting amazon.com for their js to initialize and I can begin to interact with the site. This is not the case for chromium. I stick with firefox because of multi-account containers, a mobile app that I can add adblockers to, and multi-device sync that works well with linux and android, but performance lags and it's getting worse.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zelphirkalt 4y ago
Google sites have long been suspected to do things intentionally in a way that is only optimizing for Chrom(e/ium), maybe even intentionally slow on other browsers, which is mostly Firefox. No surprise there at all. However I do not see this stuff about JS init to take that long on amazon. It might be a special thing in your case. Did you try things like a new profile, to test, whether it still happens?
- _dark_matter_ 4y ago
  It is not just suspected, all Firefox Android users are served a different Google search experience than Chrome. One that is much worse.
  - cpeterso 4y ago
    Firefox Android’s can install the “Google Search Fixer” add-on to request the full Google Search UI (by sending a Chrome User-Agent string to google.com): https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/google-search-fixer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/google-search...
    - dralley 4y ago
      It shouldn't be necessary.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  It's not so much "intentionally broken on Firefox" as it is "between adding features and debugging Firefox performance issues, one gets you promoted and one doesn't." Because the former benefits all users and the latter benefits about 5% of users at most. The banal evil of neglect vs. intentional maliciousness.
  - beebeepka 4y ago
    That may be a small part of the truth but even a 12 year old me wouldn't believe such a fairy tale to be the whole reason. MS also used to optimize DOS in ways that clearly hurt their competitors. We've seen Intel aggressively optimize their compiler to slow down AMD... I am sure people have been "optimizing" in such ways for as long as there have been people.
    - mattarm 4y ago
      I can agree that Google simply neglects Firefox performance and features. I think this alone is enough to explain why Google products work better on Chrome. Are you saying that there are people at Google whose job description is to tweak Google web products to perform worse on Firefox, just so Chrome appears better in comparison?
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      Google doesn't have to do any of that. They can literally just keep implementing WHATWG features that are hard to get right because they're technically challenging and let Mozilla not have the resources to keep up. They don't control the operating system, but they have the resources to propose a protocol or API they can implement correctly and competitors might not (well, one competitor... Apple and Microsoft seem to keep up). Name a feature that Firefox doesn't have that prevents people from using the web. I can't. But I can name several that I've seen work more correctly on Chrome because they have the resources to make it work in the context of very complicated and legacy-filled rendering engines (flexbox comes to mind) where Mozilla appears to not (ask me about my favorite Firefox-only flex performance issues... To their credit, they have all been fixed, but FF spent a lot of time behind the curve).
lloeki 4y ago
> a minute Shot in the dark: sounds like a timeout in TCP, DNS, or something like that.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

zelphirkalt 4y ago

Google sites have long been suspected to do things intentionally in a way that is only optimizing for Chrom(e/ium), maybe even intentionally slow on other browsers, which is mostly Firefox. No surprise there at all. However I do not see this stuff about JS init to take that long on amazon. It might be a special thing in your case. Did you try things like a new profile, to test, whether it still happens?

_dark_matter_ 4y ago
It is not just suspected, all Firefox Android users are served a different Google search experience than Chrome. One that is much worse.
- cpeterso 4y ago
  Firefox Android’s can install the “Google Search Fixer” add-on to request the full Google Search UI (by sending a Chrome User-Agent string to google.com): https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/google-search-fixer/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/google-search...
  - dralley 4y ago
    It shouldn't be necessary.
shadowgovt 4y ago
It's not so much "intentionally broken on Firefox" as it is "between adding features and debugging Firefox performance issues, one gets you promoted and one doesn't." Because the former benefits all users and the latter benefits about 5% of users at most. The banal evil of neglect vs. intentional maliciousness.
- beebeepka 4y ago
  That may be a small part of the truth but even a 12 year old me wouldn't believe such a fairy tale to be the whole reason. MS also used to optimize DOS in ways that clearly hurt their competitors. We've seen Intel aggressively optimize their compiler to slow down AMD... I am sure people have been "optimizing" in such ways for as long as there have been people.
  - mattarm 4y ago
    I can agree that Google simply neglects Firefox performance and features. I think this alone is enough to explain why Google products work better on Chrome. Are you saying that there are people at Google whose job description is to tweak Google web products to perform worse on Firefox, just so Chrome appears better in comparison?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Google doesn't have to do any of that. They can literally just keep implementing WHATWG features that are hard to get right because they're technically challenging and let Mozilla not have the resources to keep up. They don't control the operating system, but they have the resources to propose a protocol or API they can implement correctly and competitors might not (well, one competitor... Apple and Microsoft seem to keep up). Name a feature that Firefox doesn't have that prevents people from using the web. I can't. But I can name several that I've seen work more correctly on Chrome because they have the resources to make it work in the context of very complicated and legacy-filled rendering engines (flexbox comes to mind) where Mozilla appears to not (ask me about my favorite Firefox-only flex performance issues... To their credit, they have all been fixed, but FF spent a lot of time behind the curve).

lloeki 4y ago

> a minute Shot in the dark: sounds like a timeout in TCP, DNS, or something like that.