Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

Nili · 2017-12-03 08:10:15

To clear my curiosity, Someone knows about Firefox Quantum is build from scratch or is a continuous part of Mozilla Firefox previous versions?

MALsPa · 2017-12-03 09:12:32

Nili wrote:

To clear my curiosity, Someone knows about Firefox Quantum is build from scratch or is a continuous part of Mozilla Firefox previous versions?

Not built from scratch, from what I'm reading:

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/11/1 … x-quantum/
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum

Lol, I haven't even tried using Firefox 57 yet. Gawd, a lot of micro-analysis in this thread, not sure what it all means. Perhaps downing a few brewskis like BLizgreat! would enlighten me a bit. Or something. Naw, I'm good, I kinda miss the taste but I don't miss the gut. Anyway, I'll just stick with Pale Moon for now; it seems to be fine for the things I need to do. If I ever start to feel unhappy with Pale Moon, I'll probably go back to using FF ESR from Stable and Chromium from Arch, but I'll worry about all that if/when the time comes.

Nili · 2017-12-03 14:42:45

Thanks for your reply MALsPa, I haven't tried aswell on Linux but have checked on my office Windows 7 just released. First impression it was very fast on first launch but memory usage wasn't that impressive about. I just don't like the layout that seemed Internet Explorer. Probably over time they'll adjust the observed concerns.

Too bad that is not build from scratch. I am on Pale Moon since a year, for old systems pre 2010, PM it is very good browser. Chrome/Chromium are good choices aswell on newest hardware.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-12-03 15:54:48

OK, running FF under valgrind with:

valgrind --leak-check=full firefox

Got this message after a while:

ATTENTION: default value of option force_s3tc_enable overridden by environment.

But I think that's just a general warning message and nothing significant.

Fours hours in:

293.6 MiB +  20.1 MiB = 313.7 MiB	gnome-shell (2)
902.1 MiB +  70.3 MiB = 972.3 MiB	Web Content (4)

It just seems really strange that something coded in Rust (which is specifically designed to help avoid memory management problems) can be leaking like that.

It can't just be the expected behaviour, surely?

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-12-03 19:56:11

We got one!

[Parent 3872, Gecko_IOThread] WARNING: pipe error: Broken pipe: file /build/firefox/src/mozilla-unified/ipc/chromium/src/chrome/common/ipc_channel_posix.cc, line 709

That's a valgrind message and a broken pipe sounds leaky, doesn't it?

ps_mem:

326.2 MiB +  32.6 MiB = 358.8 MiB	firefox
969.1 MiB +  68.4 MiB =   1.0 GiB	Web Content (4)

Time for a bug report methinks...

EDIT: submitted:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1422614

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2017-12-03 20:32:05)

bobhund · 2017-12-03 21:12:22

@martix if its ok I am asking in the mittle of a conversation, what is ungoogled chromium?

martix · 2017-12-03 21:19:03

@bobhund Here you can find it. Chromium without the google-stuff. There are some older install instructions somewhere here lost in the haystack. I guess I'll make a thread for it in scripts/tips, because this project surely deserves it.

bobhund · 2017-12-03 21:39:44

Interesting. I will try it when bl reaches stretch

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-04 01:12:43

Some interesting discussion has been going on here. Palemoon is a true full fork from what I've read on it, even has it's own rendering engine etc, tried it through-out the years just to see and always ended up back on FF official. Just believe it receives more development efforts, has to have a larger dev and user community etc blahblah. Can't really say ever had any bad experiences with it/PM.

Cool Hoas and it's good to see somebody doing that, filing bug reports should be of help, did you use the latest version ? FF 57.0.1 I mean ? Will have to hit up google for Mozilla advisements which should clarify and also google that piece of software you mention to monitor for this. So thanks for bringing it up. If there are problems, definitely better to know about them. Really doubt it's all that serious, expected such. Quantum being new. Thus set it to automatically update and overall why I personally decided to adopt a wait and see attitude. Though yeap, will be keeping quantum installed and make more efforts to dork with it.

Un-googled sounds cool too, so thanks Martix. Am sure have heard such, don't recall ever trying it myself. Is it better in terms of performance, system overhead ... privacy perhaps ?

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-12-04 01:25:58)

johnraff · 2017-12-04 01:38:59

Anyone using Vivaldi?
There was interest in adding it to the wwwbrowsers pipemenu options at one point...

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-04 01:55:52

Mozilla doesn't mention anything specific to memory leaks, doesn't mean there isn't one/some, on xyz-platform. Reading that over made me think how many different things and platforms a project like Mozilla/Firefox has to support. Seems A LOT of responsibility and/or potential complexity would have to be involved.

Also brought to mind a general question, that being any browsers specifically designed for gnu/Linux only. Wonder if there's anything better about them as a result, this kinda junk. Never really dorked with Konqueror or Epiphany, as long as you can opt out of tons of Kde/Gnome junk. Might dork with it, sooner or later. Think the amount of developers and resources would have to be taken into account too. Is there likely any major difference between packaged for, designed floor up for xyz-platform ? Dunno, off to see about memory leak monitoring programs.

John-san posted, nope, am sure I've dorked with it, can't say for sure. Think some here have mentioned that browser. Also always felt there's no substitute for firsthand experience when evaluating many things.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-12-04 01:58:08)

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-04 03:57:19

Still too lazy to employ the approach Hoas has, which is clearly the right way to do this. Just checking stats on Quantum occasionally and not seeing anything disturbing from it as yet. Also sounds like someone would really have to use the sucker, 12hrs maybe, don't know. Or if it's even still present in v57.0.1, they squashed a lot of stuff while quantum was in beta, will continue doing so no doubt too. Also just goes to show, even after 16-17yrs or so of using Firefox, I've still got much to learn about it.

Thing is always changing too, hopefully for the sake of improvement. Remembered the about:memory thing (type about:memory in the browsers address bar), looks like FF has some interesting memory reporting junk built into it. Don't even know what most of them do but looks interesting. Seems it'll shows someone exactly which is using exactly what amount of memory. Cool looking and potentially useful for whoever may be experiencing problems with FF.

Also read a thread in the FF developers thing and someone mentioned, unchecking the box in settings for "use recommended performance settings" and setting content processes to be two, instead of the default of 4. Can also get to these settings typing "about:preferences" in the addy-bar. I don't want to do that, as doing so should also have a neg effect on speed/performance. Just babbling, as made a mental note it can be done, shrugs.

The built in about:cache in FF is cool/useful looking too. Have seen it mentioned in these forum before but all these things are interesting, so why not mention them again and make efforts to use them eh. VlFF!

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-12-04 04:25:41)

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-04 04:08:13

Things appear to have come along nicely enough at this point am going to start using quantum as main-stay browser now. Will really get to see what it does. Didn't know Rust is somehow not supported in Debian, am sure it'll be sorted out before time comes for v59 to go mainstream. Just can never seen Debian not having the option of installing latest Firefox. Only vaguely know what rust is atm, though would bet a solution like anything else is a bit of search-engine searching away to figure out any issues or obstacles.

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-04 06:10:13

Yep more general browser babble, emphasis on FF o course. Have seen a few mentions of FF/quantums new layout reminding people of IE, yep, think it's psychological warfare tactics Mozilla is employing there. Their main audience is window$ users, as window$ users are the main audience in the personal computing arena. So think they want their browsers to be out-of-box familiar feeling or etc.

Also see (and always aggravates me too.) web browser benchmarks, where FF comes up short, haven't bothered looking up any for Quantum as yet. Always crosses my mind, that's because FF is/was too conservative in how it comes config'ed out-of-box. They left too many decisions up to the enduser(s) to tweak their FF to fit their usecase, specs, connection speed etc etc. Whereas Chrome or others, am certain are way less conservative in these choices.

Looks like Kde/Konqueror thing, has mostly fallen by wayside and don't blame them, as again the Kde devs responsible for it probably decided to cut losses, why spend a bunch of time competing with Goog Inc, Mozilla, people who maintain Opera etc. They were no doubt outclassed, resourced, skilled etc in many ways and majority of users are going to install one of the major browsers, even if they'd spent 24/7 feverishly trying to improve Kde's browser. Don't believe they have the time, manpower, resources to bother trying to reinvent the wheel, shrugs.

Still nothing out of line from Quantum but can't even say I've been running it continuously either, had to cook/eat, so been leaving it idle for long periods through-out the night. Also yeppers, someone likely has to install the latest, with all patches from Mozilla before I'd think a bug report is valid, though mayhaps not too. Could be a bug on X-platform, which hadn't been found/squashed yet and still have to respect someone who cares enough to notify upstream of bugs. Done competently, should have to mean improvements for everybody. Though Quantum is a fledgling at this point, looks good and will certainly get better. Sheesh even hoping it rebounds to the point of taking Chrome down a few pegs. Will have to watch and see.

Also had to do a completely unscientific test of Quantum, 20tabs open ...
212.3 MiB + 31.3 MiB = 243.6 MiB firefox
302.2 MiB + 69.8 MiB = 372.0 MiB Web Content (4)
Not bad really @615mbs RAM and using almost no cpu(s). At least while observing in "top", often stays above 99% idle on my old lappy.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-12-04 06:43:25)

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-04 07:02:16

Not so fast, one more after-thought, as per above, when someone unchecks the use recommended box, they can set # of content processes by hand. Kinda wondering what happens if someone increases this from default of 4 ? Wonder if it'd make quantum unstable or would it be faster still ... dunno. Do logically believe it's not going to have a significant positive effect on system overhead. Without doing it won't know, may indeed improve performance while having minimal adverse impact on system overhead and stats.

Things that make ya go, hmmmmmmmm.

Ps, I set it to 6 content processes and will dork around with it for awhile, it says right underneath this thing, that increasing them will improve performance but increase memory use.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-12-04 07:06:30)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-12-04 07:05:41

BLizgreat! wrote:

If there are problems, definitely better to know about them. Really doubt it's all that serious, expected such. Quantum being new.

Wait, what?

So you expected FF v57 to be broken on release?

Then why were you arguing that BunsenLabs should use that instead of ESR?

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-04 07:10:34

Not broken, just bound to be experiencing some temporary growing pains, while Mozilla gets a handle on it. Again ... not seeing anything bad here but am using latest/fully patched. Could be I need to let the sucker run longer, kinda doubting I'll see the same behavior you are Hoas, not that I doubt you did your homework and did it right. Noscript, minor about:config tweakage and etc, Quantum tends to be showing less memory usage over time, when periodically run ps_mem on the OS. May not be freeing up as quickly as I'd like to see, once tabs are closed, though nothing out of line either.

Would really have to install and learn about proper usage of something similar to what you did, to 100% know, though for me it runs fine and going to see how this 6 content processes thing goes for awhile too.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-12-04 07:12:01)

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-04 08:17:51

Not sure, was too busy opening friggin tabs to monitor for performance gains with more content processes. Believe it does as stated by Mozilla improve performance somewhat, while had 16tabs open and resource usage didn't go through the roof vs Quantum with 4 content processes, was 100+mbs more than the other random test and didn't even use the same webpgs. Actually rereading all this, not really sure.

Also have been griping about it for years but Google Inc pretty much pressed Mozilla into the rapid release model. Whereas it used to be release when ready, still they kind of were forced into it as Mozilla knows, yes, many users are so frivolous, fickle and/or air-headed as to believe a higher version number always means a better application. So FF v 16 vs Chrome v 62 ya know ? Anyone who has used software for any period knows version chasing isn't always what it's cracked up to be (at least not in terms of improvements.) So with devs rushing to get something/software out the door, could mean no real improvements or only minor one's and possibly bugs escaped detection and squashing which have to be addressed via patches released later.

Seems just another, the way it is now among the major browsers, as clearly same is true of Chrome too. All around logical though don't doubt improvements also get pushed out as they happen between versions as well. So whether it's an overall good or bad thing, dunno.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-12-04 08:36:11)

johnraff · 2017-12-04 08:21:02

ESR<-->Latest
=
Stability<-->Performance

BL is not aiming to provide the newest stuff, but follows the Debian-stable line of supplying a system that works, and won't need tweaking just to get things done. Of course anyone can install Fx57+, and things like that often get how-to's in the forum right here, but out of the box it's supposed to Work. No fuss.

Without people like BLizgreat! the new shiny stuff would never get tested properly, and we're grateful, but following a slightly different path...

---
Personal view: I usually hate the Firefox upgrades, at least in the last couple of years, and am very happy that Debian let me go on using Fx 52 a bit longer, with security upgrades.

Last edited by johnraff (2017-12-04 08:23:09)

BLizgreat! · 2017-12-04 08:29:55

^ Nothing wrong with that John. Though yes, users want latest browsers and it's not like Quantum or any of the others are nitroglycerin, they aren't at all unstable, do not crash constantly etc and are widely in use on MILLIONS upon millions of Os's right now. Whereas things like double the speed, fast as or faster and lighter than Chrome, yep, these are obviously going to attract some interest from people and be wanted and easily available.

It's already been said and is true, no shortage of ways to get Quantum or whichever latest browsers on Debian stable, still don't think it's the same, still makes the people dev'ing/maintaining a distro seem kind of silly in decision making and definitely users who go looking for the goodness of Debian/stable and comparing distro's are going to look at these things and think hmmmm, these 4-6-however many distro's offer and come out-of-box with this blazing fast FF/quantum thing vs this one, firefox 52-esr ?

Still no worries and over babbling obviously. Final decisions for this type of thing rests with BL Team and with the users, in which they decide to use or what they're willing to do for themselves. Not like getting latest FF is tough.

VlBLL!

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2017-12-04 08:33:01)

#221 2017-12-03 08:10:15

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#222 2017-12-03 09:12:32

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#223 2017-12-03 14:42:45

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#224 2017-12-03 15:54:48

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#225 2017-12-03 19:56:11

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#226 2017-12-03 21:12:22

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#227 2017-12-03 21:19:03

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#228 2017-12-03 21:39:44

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#229 2017-12-04 01:12:43

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#230 2017-12-04 01:38:59

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#231 2017-12-04 01:55:52

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#232 2017-12-04 03:57:19

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#233 2017-12-04 04:08:13

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#234 2017-12-04 06:10:13

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#235 2017-12-04 07:02:16

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#236 2017-12-04 07:05:41

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#237 2017-12-04 07:10:34

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#238 2017-12-04 08:17:51

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#239 2017-12-04 08:21:02

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

#240 2017-12-04 08:29:55

Re: Your views/experiences with web browsers fellow nixers ? :)

Board footer