4 ms·
At least in my opinion, it's unnecessary bloat - just like that video chat thing they added a couple months ago. Remember when Firefox, the lean, scrappy brows
by Albright 11y ago
At least in my opinion, it's unnecessary bloat - just like that video chat thing they added a couple months ago.
Remember when Firefox, the lean, scrappy browser, first came out and ran circles around the bloated Netscape browser/HTML editor/IM client/mail client/newsreader? The Firefox team seems to have forgotten.
If anyone is maintaining a "Firefox: Browser Only Edition" fork, I'd love to know about it so I could use that instead.
- RubyPinch 11y agoicecat, follows gnu teachings waterfox, pale moon, also exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers#Gecko-based https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers#Gecko-bas...
- dblohm7 11y agoI know for a fact that Pale Moon stripped all test suites from their fork of the code. Any modifications that they have made to the browser are not fully tested. Caveat emptor.
- Manishearth 11y agoNeither Hello nor Pocket will add performance bloat AFAICT. Hello leverages existing web features (webrtc), and Pocket I just an API call. With the customizable UI you can put these things out of sight too. Firefox does have bloat, but these two are very minor compared to the bloaty bits.
- drummer32 11y agoThis is not about bloat. Mozilla was already developing read-it-later functionality for Firefox. In fact it's already on mobile versions. Hello and Pocket have almost no overhead because they are just APi calls to external services. This is about Mozilla endorsing thrid-party proprietary services.