4 ms·
It's unfortunate how behind the curve Mozilla is on this. No denying this was a huge undertaking but the length of time it's taken has obviously been detriment
by efuquen 13y ago
It's unfortunate how behind the curve Mozilla is on this. No denying this was a huge undertaking but the length of time it's taken has obviously been detrimental to Firefox usage, the only real reason I still use Chrome as my primary browser. Though I'll give Electrolysis a shot with Firefox Nightly and see how it works out.
- why-el 13y agoHuh? I don't get this. Mozilla is switching from a single-process model to a multi-one. Chrome was built that way from say one. I hope you see that moving from different models costs more time then actually pick one and support it forever.
- sanxiyn 13y agoYou have a good point about switching cost. On the other hand, Chrome always could be run with --single-process (mainly there to measure the overhead of multiprocess), so it didn't really "pick one".
- pcwalton 13y agoChromium's --no-remote is pretty busted these days, in my experience. Basic browsing sorta works, but little else does.
- reubenmorais 13y agoOnce you have a multi-process setup in place, running in a single process is relatively simple, IPC just routes messages internally instead of across processes. Having a single-process setup and going to a multi-process one is a way, way, way larger effort.
- Crito 13y agoElectrolysis was stalled and/or deprioritized for something like two years, with no apparent progress.
- tedmielczarek 13y agoThe article explains this. We built the infrastructure, and we used it for out-of-process plugins on desktop, and for Firefox OS, but we went in search of lower-hanging fruit on desktop. There was also (IIRC) some worry about breaking extension compatibility, which would make it a nonstarter. I think there are some planned mitigations for that now, and we've fixed a lot of the easy wins for responsiveness, so we're pursuing this again.