4 ms·

Brave works, Firefox don't, simple as. I tried Firefox numerous times and I always stumble upon glitches, and it still measurable slower. Chromium won, deal wit

by wooque 4y ago

Brave works, Firefox don't, simple as. I tried Firefox numerous times and I always stumble upon glitches, and it still measurable slower. Chromium won, deal with it.

recursive 4y ago
These days I find more glitches in Chrome than Firefox. Last one I found was that a certain fetch request showed an empty response in the devtools network monitor. Spoiler: it was not actually empty.
atemerev 4y ago
I don't know, using Firefox for many years (100% of time since FF Quantum), never encountered any issues anywhere.
Taywee 4y ago
What glitches? Can you be more specific?
- wooque 4y ago
  It sometimes failed to load reaction icons on Linkedin. This was happening for a long time, but seems that either Firefox or Linkedin fixed it. I didn't stumble upon it recently. Firefox don't play MKV videos, I use some site that has embed MKVs. Slack calls didn't work on it (they workaround it). But I had trouble with other sites that use WebRTC in Firefox. This is things I recall at this moment, but I don't want to have to use backup browser when something like this happens, so I use Chromium based browser and get on with my life.
  - Taywee 4y ago
    How do you separate which of these are bugs in Firefox and which ones are bugs in the sites that don't test against more than one browser engine? Reminds me of back in the day with the "works best in Internet Explorer" banners. The MKV thing sounds like a Firefox or codec issue, but I couldn't say. I haven't had issues with MKV or WebM, which is effectively a MKV profile, in many years.
cmeacham98 4y ago
Brave is super shady by default due to their cryptocurrency associations, and also has made several questionable decisions in the past (see: hijacking your URL bar and replacing it with an affiliate link). Firefox is the superior browser, but if you must use Chromium I strongly suggest ungoogled-chromium over Brave.
- bl4ck_goku 4y ago
  Also, if you check the changelogs in brave every release all you're going to find is "crypto" or "wallet" in each of the changelog they mention.
- StevePerkins 4y ago
  I don't touch crypto with a 10-foot pole, but it baffles me why anyone would care about Brave's "cryptocurrency associations". It takes a few clicks, one-time at initial install, to completely disable the "BAT" advertiser network and all of the crypto ads on the New Tab. Everything in tech is shady. I think advertising is super shady. So I use an ad-blocker and move on with my life. The bottom line is that your choice today is between Firefox, and something that is Chromium-based. Mozilla is a wreck of an organization, and their browser has compatibility issues all over the place because it's just not large enough to be relevant anymore (I'm sorry, it's true). So people choose Chromium-based. If you don't want to go with Google or Microsoft, then this means you can use "ungoogled-chromium" or Brave. Brave is available on all devices (Vivaldi doesn't support iOS), and syncs bookmarks and passwords across all your devices. So yeah. It makes a ton of sense for a lot of people to gravitate toward Brave. Why do I care whether their business model is showing NFT ads to people who don't turn that off? Just turn it off.
berkes 4y ago
It isn't slower. Not measurably, nor in feeling. Where do you get this? It's also not faster, if that is what you read in my comment: Chrome/ium and Firefox keep improving. And depending on what month and what benchmark, one will outperform the other. Slightly. It could be anecdotal? For any of both browsers, though. E.g. some plugins/addons will slow down the browser significant. Or usage specific? Maybe one handles having 2000 tabs open better than the other? Or page-specific?
- wooque 4y ago
  >Where do you get this? By visiting sites I visit often/everyday in both Brave and Firefox and comparing DomContentLoaded/Load/Finish timings in Developer Tools. Brave (but also Chromium in the past when I used it) is consistently faster. Not much, but I noticed even before I measured, I did it to check if my feeling is wrong, and it isn't.
  - berkes 4y ago
    To be clear: I'm not saying your feeling is wrong. But this is the definition of "anecdotal". I can see all sorts of biases luring in your methodology. And the body is way too small to have any statistic meaning. Again: performance, measured or perceived, may be bad for you. But that is completely different from "Firefox is slower than Chrome". You cannot make such a statement based on measurements on a few websites where Firefox appeared slow to you.

by wooque 4y ago

Brave works, Firefox don't, simple as. I tried Firefox numerous times and I always stumble upon glitches, and it still measurable slower. Chromium won, deal with it.

recursive 4y ago

These days I find more glitches in Chrome than Firefox. Last one I found was that a certain fetch request showed an empty response in the devtools network monitor. Spoiler: it was not actually empty.

atemerev 4y ago

I don't know, using Firefox for many years (100% of time since FF Quantum), never encountered any issues anywhere.

Taywee 4y ago

What glitches? Can you be more specific?

wooque 4y ago
It sometimes failed to load reaction icons on Linkedin. This was happening for a long time, but seems that either Firefox or Linkedin fixed it. I didn't stumble upon it recently. Firefox don't play MKV videos, I use some site that has embed MKVs. Slack calls didn't work on it (they workaround it). But I had trouble with other sites that use WebRTC in Firefox. This is things I recall at this moment, but I don't want to have to use backup browser when something like this happens, so I use Chromium based browser and get on with my life.
- Taywee 4y ago
  How do you separate which of these are bugs in Firefox and which ones are bugs in the sites that don't test against more than one browser engine? Reminds me of back in the day with the "works best in Internet Explorer" banners. The MKV thing sounds like a Firefox or codec issue, but I couldn't say. I haven't had issues with MKV or WebM, which is effectively a MKV profile, in many years.

cmeacham98 4y ago

Brave is super shady by default due to their cryptocurrency associations, and also has made several questionable decisions in the past (see: hijacking your URL bar and replacing it with an affiliate link). Firefox is the superior browser, but if you must use Chromium I strongly suggest ungoogled-chromium over Brave.

bl4ck_goku 4y ago
Also, if you check the changelogs in brave every release all you're going to find is "crypto" or "wallet" in each of the changelog they mention.
StevePerkins 4y ago
I don't touch crypto with a 10-foot pole, but it baffles me why anyone would care about Brave's "cryptocurrency associations". It takes a few clicks, one-time at initial install, to completely disable the "BAT" advertiser network and all of the crypto ads on the New Tab. Everything in tech is shady. I think advertising is super shady. So I use an ad-blocker and move on with my life. The bottom line is that your choice today is between Firefox, and something that is Chromium-based. Mozilla is a wreck of an organization, and their browser has compatibility issues all over the place because it's just not large enough to be relevant anymore (I'm sorry, it's true). So people choose Chromium-based. If you don't want to go with Google or Microsoft, then this means you can use "ungoogled-chromium" or Brave. Brave is available on all devices (Vivaldi doesn't support iOS), and syncs bookmarks and passwords across all your devices. So yeah. It makes a ton of sense for a lot of people to gravitate toward Brave. Why do I care whether their business model is showing NFT ads to people who don't turn that off? Just turn it off.

berkes 4y ago

It isn't slower. Not measurably, nor in feeling. Where do you get this? It's also not faster, if that is what you read in my comment: Chrome/ium and Firefox keep improving. And depending on what month and what benchmark, one will outperform the other. Slightly. It could be anecdotal? For any of both browsers, though. E.g. some plugins/addons will slow down the browser significant. Or usage specific? Maybe one handles having 2000 tabs open better than the other? Or page-specific?

wooque 4y ago
>Where do you get this? By visiting sites I visit often/everyday in both Brave and Firefox and comparing DomContentLoaded/Load/Finish timings in Developer Tools. Brave (but also Chromium in the past when I used it) is consistently faster. Not much, but I noticed even before I measured, I did it to check if my feeling is wrong, and it isn't.
- berkes 4y ago
  To be clear: I'm not saying your feeling is wrong. But this is the definition of "anecdotal". I can see all sorts of biases luring in your methodology. And the body is way too small to have any statistic meaning. Again: performance, measured or perceived, may be bad for you. But that is completely different from "Firefox is slower than Chrome". You cannot make such a statement based on measurements on a few websites where Firefox appeared slow to you.