4 ms·

Mozilla could be a big loser. Firefox doesn't have much left to lose (<3%).

by jqpabc123 2y ago

ls612 2y ago
More like 6-8% of non-mobile. And the only one left to support good adblockers.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
leros 2y ago
I feel like lots of people are currently talking about switching from Chrome to Firefox with the uBlock origin thing.
- zanfr 2y ago
  I experience great amusement watching uBlock work its way around youtube ads. it does cause buffering issues but it works and its better than watching ads for junk I don't care about. Although since yesterday there seems to have been an escalation in anti ad blocker weaponry, not a big deal just reload the video.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  While at the same time keep shipping Electron apps....
zanfr 2y ago
I am baffled by the success of Chrome vs others. It is a proprietary (absolute red flag) web browser with fairly poor support for extensions (mild red flag), on Windows it insists on storing cached data where I don't want it to go (relative red flag) I'll give them it is fast vs say firefox... but it is really what I would call a "normie's web browser" I really hope Firefox survives, well actually it will because it is not a black box.
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Basically a generation that forgot the lessons of IE 5, before IE became the dominant browser. They wanted ChromeOS, not the Web, and so it happened.
- rlpb 2y ago
  I get the impression it's due to the dire warnings that Google present (or presented?) to users when they do a Google Search on a different browser. Google can nag users to switch more effectively that Microsoft (and others) can nag them to switch back.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    > the dire warnings that Google present (or presented?) to users I don't see any warnings when I use Google with Firefox now. Actually I don't I recall ever seeing any, but I don't use Google that often.
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  I don't even understand the "it's fast" argument. I'm on an 8 year old computer, and pages load "instantly" (according to the profiler, ~50 ms after getting the response, which takes a few hundred ms anyway) in Librewolf. Are people getting out high-speed cameras to measure the difference here? I expect that as malware blocking becomes less effective in Chromium, it will end up being overall slower as well.
  - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
    It can take seconds for modern bloated web apps. Does Facebook load in <1 second for you too?
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      Attempting just now, looks like Chromium took ~9.5 seconds total and Librewolf ~11.5 seconds. Essentially all of that time in both cases was waiting for responses to `/login` and `/` though, so still any difference in browser speed seems to be imperceptible and well under the noise threshold for how long the server takes.
klyrs 2y ago
If you have anything, you can always lose 100% of it.

Mozilla could be a big loser. Firefox doesn't have much left to lose (<3%).

ls612 2y ago

More like 6-8% of non-mobile. And the only one left to support good adblockers.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

leros 2y ago

I feel like lots of people are currently talking about switching from Chrome to Firefox with the uBlock origin thing.

zanfr 2y ago
I experience great amusement watching uBlock work its way around youtube ads. it does cause buffering issues but it works and its better than watching ads for junk I don't care about. Although since yesterday there seems to have been an escalation in anti ad blocker weaponry, not a big deal just reload the video.
pjmlp 2y ago
While at the same time keep shipping Electron apps....

zanfr 2y ago

I am baffled by the success of Chrome vs others. It is a proprietary (absolute red flag) web browser with fairly poor support for extensions (mild red flag), on Windows it insists on storing cached data where I don't want it to go (relative red flag) I'll give them it is fast vs say firefox... but it is really what I would call a "normie's web browser" I really hope Firefox survives, well actually it will because it is not a black box.

pjmlp 2y ago
Basically a generation that forgot the lessons of IE 5, before IE became the dominant browser. They wanted ChromeOS, not the Web, and so it happened.
rlpb 2y ago
I get the impression it's due to the dire warnings that Google present (or presented?) to users when they do a Google Search on a different browser. Google can nag users to switch more effectively that Microsoft (and others) can nag them to switch back.
- leereeves 2y ago
  > the dire warnings that Google present (or presented?) to users I don't see any warnings when I use Google with Firefox now. Actually I don't I recall ever seeing any, but I don't use Google that often.
ndriscoll 2y ago
I don't even understand the "it's fast" argument. I'm on an 8 year old computer, and pages load "instantly" (according to the profiler, ~50 ms after getting the response, which takes a few hundred ms anyway) in Librewolf. Are people getting out high-speed cameras to measure the difference here? I expect that as malware blocking becomes less effective in Chromium, it will end up being overall slower as well.
- BenjiWiebe 2y ago
  It can take seconds for modern bloated web apps. Does Facebook load in <1 second for you too?
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    Attempting just now, looks like Chromium took ~9.5 seconds total and Librewolf ~11.5 seconds. Essentially all of that time in both cases was waiting for responses to `/login` and `/` though, so still any difference in browser speed seems to be imperceptible and well under the noise threshold for how long the server takes.

klyrs 2y ago

If you have anything, you can always lose 100% of it.