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

BLizgreat! · 2019-11-16 06:21:30

Hey no worries MALsPa ...

Kind of self inflicted headache too. When someone is opting to use several different releases of software, are bound to be differences and aggravations but you're up to the task and imo, that's what real nixers do. They set things up as they like them and sort out the issues as they go. Yeppers, config + settings definitely have changed. To the point to where for a long time I abandoned even fiddling with them to any extent in the about:config settings. Outside of several tweaks I'd long used, know work and haven't changed. Am getting back into it with current versions of FF though. Like anything esp tech, it's all online, we just have to find and apply the info or poke and prod at it enough, till we figure things out.

Take the animate tabs things I'd mentioned above, had long since disabled the thing. One day went to search in a newer version of FF about:config bar and what I'd typed formerly didn't bring it up. Clearly it was still there, only been renamed. Anyway the default for it is kinda cool, a tab finishes loading and a little shine affect slides across it telling someone, hey I'm done loading !!! Which yay ! There are other indicators too, a lil bar thing which goes back and forth until the tab is done loading too. However I'd rather save any resources such eye-candy entails and shoot for light and fast, so yep disabled the tabs animation thing as it's known under it's new name. Though I still have the lil back n forth thing which tells me, it's still loading or loaded. Oh well, someone can just keep learning and fiddling. There's a solution (or several)out there for whatever the hades x-nixer wants.

Haven't really done much FF exploration in last couple dys, so really nothing beyond the above to say on it. Ah wait a minute, I disabled the disk cache by adjusting these

browser.cache.disk.capacity

Setting it to 0, which should mean NONE and toggling the following to false, which should mean none/off too.

browser.cache.disk.enable

However go to check in FF's preferences deal and ? Still showing diskspace is being used. Haven't bothered running down the cause. Though in my view, cookies and session store etc shouldn't be part of the disk cache. Just noting it as think it's interesting. Also though yeppers, Mozilla has bills to pay, does engage in some degree of shenanighans like everyone else on the planet. At least all of this stuff is accessible and can be config'ed according to our/your tastes to a great extent. Hope FF stays around, will be a sad dy if it dies out. Though as I'd predicted YEARS ago, Google Inc smashed it's opponents in the browser wars. Not accurate to even call such things a war anymore, the war is pretty much over, more like a slaughter or the Google Inc browser empire and dominion.

Google Inc says to Mozilla:
Ye fox thing may continue to live, some among the unwashed (techno-masses) still prefer thee for some reason. However you will enter into this search agreement with us.
Mozilla: Bows and scrapes, oh thank you lord Google, we shall enjoy whatever monies you allow for sending our search traffic thy way, thank you lord, thank you !!!!
The mighty GOOG: Thou are dismissed, we tire of talking to you. (waves hand in that old buzz off gesture we all luv.)
Mozilla: Yes your lordship, thank you for talking to us at all !!! Very kind of you !!!

Just keeping it real and trying to make what's actually a disturbing and/or sad situation funny - entertaining.

ohnonot · 2019-11-17 18:53:15

MALsPa wrote:

espn dot com.

This site brought my browser to its knees.
Seriously, I had to 'kill -9' it.
Not going to try again.

Huldalumi · 2019-11-18 06:07:44

I am running both opera and brave browser opera seems to work well and loads pages quicker on my trusty esprimo mobile than chromium or Firefox
But mainly I have opera because the wife likes the speed dial (don't ask why) I like the brave browser

BLizgreat! · 2019-11-20 07:14:22

Ok so with Firefox I was mucking around in about:support and this part of it caught my eye. There is a lot there, worth taking a look but getting back ...

Remote Processes
Type 	Count
Web Content	2 / 2
Extension	1

Extensions
Name 	Version 	Enabled 	ID
Amazon.com	1.1	true	amazondotcom@search.mozilla.org
Bing	        1.0	true	bing@search.mozilla.org
DuckDuckGo	1.0	true	ddg@search.mozilla.org
eBay	        1.0	true	ebay@search.mozilla.org
Google	        1.0	true	google@search.mozilla.org
NoScript	11.0.9	true	{73a6fe31-595d-460b-a920-fcc0f8843232}
Twitter	        1.0	true	twitter@search.mozilla.org
Wikipedia (en)	1.0	true	wikipedia@search.mozilla.org

The first part about Web Content, mentioned I reduce the number of Content processes(e10's) down to 1 per cpu-core, I have a dual-core, so that's 2 there and am only running 1 add-on = Noscript but what I was actually wanting to point out here is the stuff underneath that, listed under Extensions(you see Noscript is listed there and yep, it uses system resources to some extent) all the rest of that crap, other than Google search I don't want, the Amazon-rest of them. Didn't bother checking but dawned on me that these others may pointlessly be adding overhead to the browser so went ahead and disabled the things. Get into FF's setting, Preferences > Search and can't miss them. Should've checked, didn't ... don't care and just pointing it out.

Something else cool, listed under about:support you'll also find a list of "important" modified config settings. Such as stuff you've dorked with if ever want to review that info. Also currently boning up on how to and what's available to tweak Chrome(and based), Chromium browsers. Yeppers apparently plenty of ways to tweak these things too. Though as yet haven't really messed with it just finally deciding to see what's possible.

VlFF!!! = Viva la Firefox !!! Screw Chrome !!! Studies have shown that Google Chrome is by far the most preferred web browser among those grammar nazi azzhat's you always see online. Oh you can't use a period there, hey ... comma's should be blahblahblah. Screw them too ! I can use a. period. wherever. the ... hell. I want. to.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2019-11-20 07:30:30)

BLizgreat! · 2019-11-20 13:29:36

Here's a really cool one. Sheesh someone can come across the strangest junk while scrolling around in all the junk in Firefox's about:config settings. As a result, found one I think is fairly friggin cool. It's related to a newer/better content-encoding some servers use to compress the stuff they send out. Any server admin with 12 brain cells already uses compression ie: gzip etc, many precompress and cache static content. Means the stuff your browser requests is compressed to be smaller, more data sent out, faster and it's decompressed on your end (by the web browser for example.)

Anyway, there's this new one Brotli, if you go to FF's about:config settings and search for this, yours will only have this as options gzip, deflate ...

network.http.accept-encoding

Where I've made mine as follows, by clicking on the thing of course and choosing Modify

gzip, deflate, br

Your computer and the one's or servers you connect to will negotiate which content-encoding is going to be used, so if it supports br and they shake hands and say, yeppers let's use that one. It'll be faster/better. Firefox already does this with https anyway. This one ...

network.http.accept-encoding.secure

Has br already as an option to be used. Reason apparently is that some of the junk on the network between the server sending you stuff and when you receive it can poorly handle Brotli. However leaves https data streams alone. Though things are changing, as such I'm testing it out on http too and have considered exploring the add-on https everywhere just to be sure if Brotli is supported and both my pc and the one I'm connecting to support it, that it's used. Only been using it for all of 15-20mins. Haven't noticed any issues and don't foresee any, shrugs. Folks want to test, more people using it the wider support it'll get and there's nothing wrong with stuff newer/better that beats what we're using now, right ?

Would share my other patented FF tweaks but then I'd have to kill all of ya's. That's a lot of travel, lotsa bloodshed and I like too damn many of the nixers here, plus am sure some of you can run pretty fast and/or may be able to kick ma butt. Ahhhh so, forgetaboutit.

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2019-11-20 14:45:27)

Sector11 · 2019-11-20 14:00:18

HEY BLITZ!!!!!

you do know about: about:about don't you?

BLizgreat! · 2019-11-20 14:09:47

Yeppers Sector, mentioned it a couple posts back. It's crazy though, Mozilla might be going overboard with the about's about's stuff, lol ... Oh well just more stuff to fiddle with as long as it doesn't bog down the browser or cause other issues like excessive frivolous system overhead, doesn't bother me. Plus as long as things stay uber-tweakable someone can always get rid of junk.

Have debated taking things to the next level in terms of Firefox and trying to do a thing like "faster fox" or whatever. Cutting out a bunch of things I don't give a crap about to try to slim the thing down and thus possibly speed it on up. NOPE !!! Not doing it, that's just too much effort. Firefox can be made VERY fast and light just the way it is now. They still support 32bit too ! Would bet cash FF the way I have it set up vs the avg persons Chrome on the same system specs and type of network would blow the doors off Chrome in speed and in terms of system overhead. Would be a no contest.

PS, to be fair though, recently installed Chrome and it was an absolute nightmare !!! Then decided hey, surely it (and Chromium) can be tweaked too so went looking and apparently yep, much tweakage can be applied to make them lighter/faster etc etc. Though I trust Mozilla much more so than Google Inc. Would also trust Chromium more than them. Errrr would pretty much trust a stranger standing in front of a dark alley with a knife waving me over ... than Google Inc, shrugs. They are in it to win it. It being cold hard ca$h of course and raw powa !!!

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2019-11-20 14:16:25)

BLizgreat! · 2019-11-20 15:00:48

Also there are plenty of tweaks which have been on the 2-dork (with FF) list a longgggg time and just haven't gotten around to messing with. Like stuff involving tmpfs(RAM.) Archwiki has been suggesting people with the memory to spare putting the profile into memory forever and someone surely was before whoever added that to the Archwiki. Plenty of about:config dorking not yet touched and new one's added I've not yet even seen. In other words ... I HAVE NOT YET BEGUN TO TWEAK FF !

Also mentioned a few posts back or in damo's FF thread, Firefox is like the gnu/Linux of web-browsers. Endless junk someone can fiddle with and optimize in it. As with everything just takes effort and know-how to get things working better. Seek (info) and ye shall find, knock, doors open and all that type of crap. Blahblahblah n blah.

VlFF!

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2019-11-20 15:02:27)

Sector11 · 2019-11-20 15:11:34

BLizgreat! wrote:

Yeppers Sector, mentioned it a couple posts back. It's crazy though, Mozilla might be going overboard with the about's about's stuff, lol ... Oh well just more stuff to fiddle with as long as it doesn't bog down the browser or cause other issues like excessive frivolous system overhead, doesn't bother me. Plus as long as things stay uber-tweakable someone can always get rid of junk.

I can see it now: 2025

about:about:faq
about:about:config:faq
about:about:preferences:faq
about:about:system:faq
etc
about:about:tweaking:BLizgreat!:faq

O:)

BLizgreat! · 2019-11-20 15:32:28

^LOL/LMAO Sector!

Ahhhh, would like to talk to Mozilla about various junk for real. Though mentioned somewhere here, think one of open sources greatest strengths is also a greatest weakness. Anything an open source project implements is easily reviewed by people who are competing for profit. Which yep, means anything an open source project, whatever it does, which at the time may be better, Corps like Google Inc can poke and prod at until they figure out a way to use it too or in Google's case make it even better. Because they could buy and sell Mozilla out of their petty cash jar and not miss whatever they'd spent.

Such organizations can hire the best developers and skilled people in the world, literally, Mozilla can't compete with that. Plus all the other influence and advantages da mighty Goog can bring to bear. Could put at the top of every SERP(search engines results pages(s.) They can have stuff saying how great Chrome is, how this new thing or feature works so great and blahblahblah. On gmail, on Youtube on the gazillion other things they own and can use for free. Think Mozilla and FF are still better but it's no shocker Google is kicking all heel outta of them in the browser wars, shrugs.

Again ... in the interest of keeping things fair, Chrome/ium can be tweaked too. Never devoted much effort to learning about them. Been using Firefox forever though and yep, MUCH TIME devoted to learning how to optimize all hades out of it. In keeping it real will never bother messing with the other major browsers to the same extent. Why ? Firefox is fricken awesome and could still dork with plenty of stuff to get it running better. Only real motivation behind trying to get into Chrome/ium dorking at all, is I know sooner or later I'll want to do cross-browser testing and with almost 70%(on desktop anyway, 80% or so overall, mobile etc etc)of the browser share not taking Chrome/ium users into account would be retarded. However there's no way I'll run those horrid resource smashing POS's as is in out-of-box condition. Chrome tried to melt my dual-core and was gobbling down RAM like a fat guy at an all you can eat buffet !!!

Also as with all the free mass promotion Google has at it's finger tips, they can also make sure any issue or bump in the road Mozilla has/makes, makes front page interwebz news EVERYWHERE too ! Etc etc blahblah more blah, frick it. Still out-of-box Chrome is terrible, screw Chrome !

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2019-11-20 15:43:16)

BLizgreat! · 2019-11-20 15:40:03

Errrrrr ... now if ya'll will excuse me I have a movie paused on youtube, lmao but hey, at least I'm watching it on a good web browser, NOT CHROME.

Sector11 · 2019-11-20 19:44:19

BLizgreat! wrote:

Errrrrr ... now if ya'll will excuse me I have a movie paused on youtube, lmao but hey, at least I'm watching it on a good web browser, NOT CHROME.

1. I accomplished my goal to get at a minimum chuckle out of you.

2. The quote above: YES! Give the man a CIGAAAAAR! A Cuban preferably!

BLizgreat! · 2019-11-20 20:37:13

^ Ah heel Sector, gotten many a chuckle and da smile hanging out with you in forums my friend. Which again, fellows ya'll have really added a bunch of cool and useful discussion to this thing.

Now this FF tip is kinda oddball, even for me. Running 32bit FF on a 64bit install (via either multiarch, such as adding the i386 architecture to your install or the way I'd go about it just downloading the latest 32bit version of FF from Mozilla and using it the same way I always have. Am lazy, so running 64b FF on any 64bit OS's. Idea here is to compare in terms of system overhead. Could be some small speed hit, imo ... should/would be barely noticeable, while the RAM(cpu)overhead should be better. I'm not interested enough to compare them at the moment but a weird thought for someone trying to eek as much as possible out of some dated hardware, while still opting for 64bit Bunsenlabs gnu/Nix etc.

If curiosity gets the better of me and I do side-by-side test the things (32b/64b) will try to post results here regardless. Try doing this with Chrome, oh yeah ... that's right they dropped support for 32bit users.

Vll! and VlFF! (again), screw Chrome! (Again.)

Last edited by BLizgreat! (2019-11-20 21:06:42)

#341 2019-11-16 06:21:30

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

#342 2019-11-17 18:53:15

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

#343 2019-11-18 06:07:44

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

#344 2019-11-20 07:14:22

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

#345 2019-11-20 13:29:36

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

#346 2019-11-20 14:00:18

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

#347 2019-11-20 14:09:47

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

#348 2019-11-20 15:00:48

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

#349 2019-11-20 15:11:34

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

#350 2019-11-20 15:32:28

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

#351 2019-11-20 15:40:03

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

#352 2019-11-20 19:44:19

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

#353 2019-11-20 20:37:13

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

Board footer