4 ms·

The Arch Linux Firefox package weighs in at 237.8 MB installed.[0] Meanwhile, Chromium is 20% larger at 285.8 MB.[1] Which other browser is significantly smalle

The Arch Linux Firefox package weighs in at 237.8 MB installed.[0] Meanwhile, Chromium is 20% larger at 285.8 MB.[1] Which other browser is significantly smaller than that? I checked a few other ones and they were all within spitting distance of Chromium. Also, that's not a useful comparison because web browsers are basically operating systems now, with how complex they are. Not to mention that Windows XP was released over two decades ago. So, again, I'm not sure what your point is. [0]: https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/firefox/ https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/firefox/ [1]: https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/chromium/ https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/chromium/

daneel_w 4y ago
> "Which other browser is significantly smaller than that? I checked a few other ones and they were all within spitting distance of Chromium." Safari was 40-something MiB installed a few macOS versions ago before parts of it were migrated out of the app to become protected system libraries. The reason the others you checked are of the same size is because they are forks of the same two browsers. Add.: I just have to disagree with the notion that browsers are "basically" operating systems because of how complex they are. They really are not. Not by a longshot. Neither do they contain the fundamentals of an operating system, nor do they contain the upper reaches of them. We can pretend they are operating system facsimiles by doing a lot of impressive and fun stuff in JavaScript and WASM, but this isn't the same thing. The complexity of an operating system, even a simplified one, is of a completely different sort and depth. This comparison only fits the sarcastic intention people have when making the comparison - we can joke about it, because of how absurdly large and tangled browsers have become.
- RussianCow 4y ago
  > The reason the others you checked are of the same size is because they are forks of the same two browsers. Exactly. What's the alternative? Safari is nice if you're on macOS/iOS but isn't available elsewhere. Every other browser that has any semblance of market share is a fork of Chromium and shares its size. So I'm not sure how Firefox is "overstuffed" but other browsers are not. > The complexity of an operating system, even a simplified one, is of a completely different sort and depth. I agree with this, and it's obviously an exaggeration, but I don't think it's an invalid comparison. The API surface area that browsers need to support is enormous, and they have even stricter backwards compatibility guarantees than most modern OSes. Any browser worth using is going to be pretty large simply because they're complex beasts.

daneel_w 4y ago

> "Which other browser is significantly smaller than that? I checked a few other ones and they were all within spitting distance of Chromium." Safari was 40-something MiB installed a few macOS versions ago before parts of it were migrated out of the app to become protected system libraries. The reason the others you checked are of the same size is because they are forks of the same two browsers. Add.: I just have to disagree with the notion that browsers are "basically" operating systems because of how complex they are. They really are not. Not by a longshot. Neither do they contain the fundamentals of an operating system, nor do they contain the upper reaches of them. We can pretend they are operating system facsimiles by doing a lot of impressive and fun stuff in JavaScript and WASM, but this isn't the same thing. The complexity of an operating system, even a simplified one, is of a completely different sort and depth. This comparison only fits the sarcastic intention people have when making the comparison - we can joke about it, because of how absurdly large and tangled browsers have become.

RussianCow 4y ago
> The reason the others you checked are of the same size is because they are forks of the same two browsers. Exactly. What's the alternative? Safari is nice if you're on macOS/iOS but isn't available elsewhere. Every other browser that has any semblance of market share is a fork of Chromium and shares its size. So I'm not sure how Firefox is "overstuffed" but other browsers are not. > The complexity of an operating system, even a simplified one, is of a completely different sort and depth. I agree with this, and it's obviously an exaggeration, but I don't think it's an invalid comparison. The API surface area that browsers need to support is enormous, and they have even stricter backwards compatibility guarantees than most modern OSes. Any browser worth using is going to be pretty large simply because they're complex beasts.