Firefox is in the mudhttps://www.phoronix.com/review/firefox-chrome-2026/2
>>108576627>Google Chrome performs better in benchmark developed by Google engineers.But also duh, Firefox has been slower than Chromium since basically forever.
>>108576627No one uses Firefox for speed, they use it because chrome spies on you and doesn't allow good adblockers
>>108576627Firefox has unfixable memory leaks which require restarting the entire browser every few hours to avoid OOM or crashing. I switched to Vivaldi which has similar customization features but uses the chromium engine, and it runs fine for many days without restarting. Firefox is honestly an unusable abandonware at this point.
>>108576627Great, now let's see ManifestV2 adblocking perfomance comparison.
Nobody but the most mindless of normies uses base Chrome though.
>>108576627Oh no no no anti-AI Rust Trannysissies this was supposed to be OUR time
>>108576933>>108576951In Vivaldi ublock Origin Lite works perfectly fine and blocks everything just like it used to. If you need additional network filtering you can use /etc/hosts or a pihole or something like that. Vivaldi also has an additional native built-in adblocker which can take in standard blocking lists, but I haven't tested it. Anyhow, I don't see any ads anywhere, and performance is better than in Firefox with normal uBlock Origin.
>>108576946>Firefox has unfixable memory leaks which require restarting the entire browser every few hours to avoid OOM or crashingNever experienced that.
If you are Brave enough to take control of your privacy and protect your family then the only browser choice is obvious. When you have a herd to protect you can't afford to be slow.
>>108576979I experienced that in multiple installations, both on Linux and Windows, so it must be universal, unless it's specific to some particular extension, which I doubt since I'm using the exact same extensions in Vivaldi. After using many windows and tabs for a few hours, Firefox will expand it's memory without limit, and at that point even closing all of the windows and tabs, and leaving just a single empty tab, does not free the memory, even after manually running the GC in about:memory. It's a fundamentally broken piece of software.
>>108576979in defense of firefox everybody on linux pretty much has a different firefox config, managed by the distro maintainer. most of the problems are because the distro maintainer fucked around in the settings and flipped something for no reason, degrading perfromance and making firefox look bad. this is another reason why we had iceweasel back in the day.
>>108576994Will you be Brave like a lion or weak and pitiful like a fox?
>>108576997I've used Firefox a lot on Windows and Linux and don't recall experiencing something like that. Firefox very rarely crashes for me. >>108577003Well I used the official Mozilla build on Linux.
>>108577003I fucked around with an LLM to analyze the config and try to fix the leaking memory, all I've managed to figure out is that reducing the number of processes and making GC more aggressive can delay the memory leak significantly, however you can't fix it completely. The chromium engine simply does not have a memory leak at all, once you close the tab, you free the memory, simple as. There's just something wrong with Firefox's JS engine, it's particularly egregious when it comes to performance on JS-heavy "single page apps" like X.com and Youtube.com (though the latter is Google's fault).
>>108576627That's cool, still gonna use Firefox, it runs better for me than Chromium does w/ 9850X3D, 128GB, 5090.Besides, even if Firefox was slower I would still use it because uBlock Origin actually works properly on Gecko.
>>108577028I love SPA but SPA is horrible for the consumer. It's apt to lead you into an endless scroll-fest.I hope during Gsoc mozilla can pick up some nice people to work on Spidemonkey. That would be nice.
>>108577028Now that you mention it, Youtube was shitting the bed on Firefox for me not too long ago when I was using it a lot. Normally I don't use youtube that much. Maybe it depends on the sites you use as well.
>>108576997have you seen it happen on a stock install? what extensions are you using
>>108577066It's hard to replicate my power user workflow on a stock install. However I did direct comparison between Firefox and Vivaldi with the exact same set of extensions, and Vivaldi just works fine whatever you throw at it.
>>108577066FWIW
>>108577090cool, has it happened on a stock install and have you tried slowly adding each modification to find the source?
>>108577130Read my post again and again until you comprehend it >>108577090
>>108577137"I made a whole bunch of modifications and now it leaks memory, no I will not test the unmodified version nor list the modification"how does that help in any way?
>>108577151Why are you even bothering with a /g/ypsy?You should have realized that he is a braindead deluded nigger after the "It's hard to replicate my power user workflow" line.
>>108577039Even the official iOS Youtube app feels like it's some opensource hobby project. And that's with premium.
firefox is irrelevant and on its last breath.
>>108576627no shit firefox loses in a raw 1 to 1, that's not why you use firefoxfirefox actually lets you turn off most of the telemetry, actually lets you customize it, and actually lets you run a real adblockerit's also the last non chromium bastion that existsif you are on /g/ shilling for a closed source megacorp browser instead of an open source, customizable, and controllable non profit browser, im going to need take back your gentoo card
>>108576627Firefox has been dogshit for the past 10 versions, I actually went back to ESR.
>>108576979Firefox leaks memory like crazy. Several GB just for individual YouTube or DeepSeek tabs. Been like that for years. That guy is right, Firefox is abandonware and just a grift at this point.
>>108577763I've genuinely never seen that happen, neither on windows or linux or on any of the 10+ PCs I've had firefox on
>>108576994Bros... The shills are getting to me
>>108577151Why would anyone want to help Firefox or Mozilla at this point?
>>108578129>Why would anyone want to help Firefox or Mozilla at this point?trannies supporting their fellow leftist tribal members.
>>108577445hey osstard, safari exists. i'd use firefox, but all they do is make it worse and fire more devs. when's the last time firefox did something interesting? they just seem to let the c-suite gorge themselves on google bux while the dev team jerks it to their new they/them fox mascot.
firefox is fucking terrible but i use it anyway
Firefox is fast enough.
Firefox is not chrome.It beats chrome by not being chrome and thats all that really needs to be achieved.
>>108578755that's so true! it is trying it's best. everyone's a winner. here's a participation trophy.
Depending on what you want the best 2 alternative browsers would be>LibreWolf>BraveBrave is still Chromium based but has built in ad blocking.LibreWolf is Gecko based and independent from Google tying to control everything, so better future proofing
>>108578755>>108577445There are many chromium-based browsers other than Chrome though. I have been shilling Vivaldi because it has the same CSS-based UI modification feature as Firefox. You can turn off whatever telemetry you want, install something like Vimium C to completely change the workflow, it has everything that Firefox has except the memory leaks.
>>108576627Firefox is actively trying to drive away anybody interested in a decent browser.Over the past 2 years theyRemoved their "we don't track you" commitmentAdded AI slopAdded "free VPN"Removed error codes from error code pages so now you just get a generic error when a page doesn't load
>>108576963I'm still using the old ublock in vivaldi, you still have mv2 extensions support.
>>108579496And back on ff57 they crippled their extensions.Not only xul/xpcom but even their own jetpack extensions too so they can implement a similar and way more limited api that looked like the one in chrome (v2)
>>108576963>In Vivaldi ublock Origin Lite works perfectly fine and blocks everything just like it used touBO Lite is the shitty gimped version and no; it does NOT work like the full uBO used to. At all.You know nothing.
>>108576656Firefox is slower cause chromium offloads some of its processing to Google servers. That's why on Chromium you can't visit websites if you don't have internet.
>>108577099This. There have also been several occurences in the past of Google *specifically* using particular code which seemed to have no other purpose than to fuck with Firefox.Mozilla's engineers took to calling these "Google oopsies" - because whenever they'd find out it was again due to Google having done something that blew up in Firefox (and ONLY in Firefox) and they'd report it, what they'd get back from Google's engineers is a message: "Oops, that wasn't intended to happen. We'll fix it with the next release."Mind you- this started when they were still on a 6-week release cycle. Which meant several Google services - which are VERY pervasive on the net - would be (partially) unusable or would suffer noticeable performance issues for literally more than a month.This is what Google used to support the myth that Chrome is better than Firefox.Among such sly trickery was:- the use of out-of-spec behaviors in several DOM APIs with Gmail, causing it to fail to load only in Firefox - or load into its down-level fallback mode for 'unsupported devices' from the stone age.- having YouTube run on the old Web Components 'Level 0' specification that didn't meet standardization and was only ever implemented in Chrome; requiring Firefox (and at the time also Edge - since it wasn't Chromium based back then) to use an (also Google-engineered!) polyfill to supply equivalent behavior through JS emulation. SLOWLY, and BUGGY.- purposely misencoding videostreams in such a way that seeking in them wouldn't work correctly in Firefox and would cause YouTube to hang. (Then as soon as Firefox patched that edge case to handle the misencoded streams it got served - switching the implementation to break them in another way.)- purposely triggering a memory leak in Firefox in Youtube's use of the DOM media extensions, due to calling the API in a non-standard and out-of-spec way - in particular when certain DOM APIs known to be used by ad-blockers were in use.
>>108579496>Firefox is actively trying to drive away anybody interested in a decent browser.>Over the past 2 years they>Removed their "we don't track you" commitment>Added AI slop>Added "free VPN">Removed error codes from error code pages so now you just get a generic error when a page doesn't loadThe tracking and AI slop and the pushy "free VPN" shit were done under old management.First thing their new management did was make a commitment to include a master-switch to turn off all the AI-slop. And two or three releases later that switch was actually present. Moreover, they expanded it to easily, centrally allow you to turn on or off any AI-powered setting individually, in addition to the master kill-switch.
>>108577099>Youtube and X.com use complex "service workers" and persistent background scriptsTo do the same exact thing that it was doing in 2008 but worseI use mpv though so no biggie, enjoy your slop piggies
>>108576627I miss the days of no, or opt-in, telemetry, and full extension and themes.
>>108576627k, still not using chrome
>>108576627Still behind on stylebench and motionmark weren't they about to update their layout engine some time ago?
>>108580714this is true, my brother is John Google
>>108576951That's like asking about how well little rat works on firefox.desu is one of the reasons I can't go back to firefox, if they care so much about extensions being secure they should have this built-in.
>>108577763I had the same issue before, but it was not really a firefox bug, but a problem of yt js code. On livestreams the js kept a whole list of all chat messages. That list was cleared regularly but only on chrome based browsers. I don't even think google did it on purpose, their devs really are just incompetent. Not sure if that issue was ever fixed.
>>108578659>hey osstard, safari existshey homosexual, the only thing Safari seems to be used for is downloading Chrome
>>108580714lol
>>108576946start time - 3 weeks agoworking set - 11 GBopen tabs - 75active extensions - 32
Chrome has telemetry from billions of android phones and billions of laptops with varying processor and ram speeds, they know how to optimize for a large range of situations.
>>108579370It's basically different car bodies with the same chassis and engine.
Anybody having issues with 4chanXt on Firefox after the latest update?
>>108576946Cool story, bro. Haven't encountered something like that in almost a decade of using Firefox on Gentoo, and can't recall such hueg memory issues from my Windows 7 days either.
>>108583329Yeah, some times it takes long for the script to execute. I'm using Greasemonkey.
>>108581963>working set - 11 GB>xhe thinks this is normal
>>108583516Yeah, it's been real fucky
The state of both and the web in general is abysmal and I'm disgusted by it all.
>>108578048>>108576979Have same issue on Firefox and any derivatives.Especially noticeable on YouTube. But you need to keep the browser open and running for a week for it to start affecting youI assume it's Google deliberately causing issues. Many bugs are open regarding it https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1931717https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1509911https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1934451Mozilla faggots close some bugs as "worksforme"
>>108580696And yet I'm not seeing any ads anywhere ever, curious.
Rust xisters?
>>108585900are you really using lite? i just have the regular one installed.
>>108586470I don't think Manifest V2 works anymore dude, maybe do an update. But yes the lite ublock still works, I don't see a difference, obviously it's missing all of those "no script" type features but I don't need them.
>>108576994You sound like a marketing whore, kill yourself.
