Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #275542 > unrolled thread

Re: Firefox alternatives?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Firefox alternatives? Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2024-12-12 01:10 +0100
    Re: Firefox alternatives? Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-12-12 01:40 +0100
      Re: Firefox alternatives? Nate Bargmann <n0nb@n0nb.us> - 2024-12-12 01:50 +0100
        Re: Firefox alternatives? eben@gmx.us - 2024-12-12 02:00 +0100
        1401, was Re: Firefox alternatives? "James H. H. Lampert" <jamesl@touchtonecorp.com> - 2024-12-12 02:40 +0100
        Re: Firefox alternatives? Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> - 2024-12-12 09:20 +0100
          Re: Firefox alternatives? jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-12-12 10:00 +0100
          Re: Firefox alternatives? "Roy J. Tellason, Sr." <roy@rtellason.com> - 2024-12-12 19:50 +0100
        Re: Firefox alternatives? "Jeremy Nicoll" <jn.ml.dbi.73@letterboxes.org> - 2024-12-12 13:10 +0100
          Re: Firefox alternatives? Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> - 2024-12-12 13:20 +0100
            Re: Firefox alternatives? "Jeremy Nicoll" <jn.ml.dbi.73@letterboxes.org> - 2024-12-12 14:10 +0100

#275542 — Re: Firefox alternatives?

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

I don't like to be that guy that says, "Works for me", but I don't
notice problems with Firefox here.  In fact, it's rock solid and I'm on
12.8 with all updates running GNOME.  I have seen Chromium become quite
sluggish when certain Web pages are loaded but this hasn't affected
Firefox.  I probably have over 200 tabs open in two windows and it runs
for perhaps weeks at a time usually until another FF update or some
other update that requires logging out or a restart comes along.

I do have 16GB of RAMi and 16 GB of swap on an SSD.  I routinely have
multiple terminal windows open and multiple Libre Office Calc windows,
and other apps running.  This Core i5 just cruises along with its dual
displays with all that going on.

Have you tried clearing the browser cache?  In times past that used to
help a lot but even these days it's not something I do often.

- Nate

-- 
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#275544

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 06:07:49PM -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> I don't like to be that guy that says, "Works for me", but I don't
> notice problems with Firefox here.

[…]

> I do have 16GB of RAM

You have four times the RAM of the OP. 4G is incredibly marginal spec
for a desktop 2024.

You could try temporarily setting your kernel command line to have
mem=4g and experience life that way for a couple of hours. My guess is
it runs like a dog for you too.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275545

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

* On 2024 11 Dec 18:32 -0600, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 06:07:49PM -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> > I don't like to be that guy that says, "Works for me", but I don't
> > notice problems with Firefox here.
> 
> […]
> 
> > I do have 16GB of RAM
> 
> You have four times the RAM of the OP. 4G is incredibly marginal spec
> for a desktop 2024.
> 
> You could try temporarily setting your kernel command line to have
> mem=4g and experience life that way for a couple of hours. My guess is
> it runs like a dog for you too.

I didn't read his RAM amount until later in the thread.

I do have a Lenovo T410, Core i5 based, laptop that isn't new by any
stretch with 8GB of RAM and equivalent swap on an SSD.  I routinely have
both Firefox and Chromium running on it along with GNU Cash and a
terminal session.  Sometimes another app or two and it perks right
along.  In fact, it has been so reliable for me that I replaced the
original screen in it last week as it had been getting lines on it for
some time.

From reading the rest of the thread, IMO, the OP hasn't been running an
ad blocker which is just simply a necessity these days.  I suspect that
even running uBlock Origin that the situation will improve.  Another
step that may help is running a lighter DE such as Xfce.

- Nate

-- 
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."
Web: https://www.n0nb.us
Projects: https://github.com/N0NB
GPG fingerprint: 82D6 4F6B 0E67 CD41 F689 BBA6 FB2C 5130 D55A 8819

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275546

On 12/11/24 19:42, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> From reading the rest of the thread, IMO, the OP hasn't been running an
> ad blocker which is just simply a necessity these days.  I suspect that
> even running uBlock Origin that the situation will improve.  Another
> step that may help is running a lighter DE such as Xfce.

I also run Noscript, which occasionally requires a bit of fiddling to enable
the minimal amount of JS to make the site functional.  I also run Ghostery,
but I don't think that's as useful.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275550 — 1401, was Re: Firefox alternatives?

On 12/11/24 5:20 PM, Van Snyder wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-12-11 at 18:42 -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
>>> You have four times the RAM of the OP. 4G is incredibly marginal
>> spec
>>> for a desktop 2024.
> 
> The first computer I was paid to write software for, in 1966, had 1,400
> 6-bit characters, not bytes, not kB, not MB, not GB. That's why IBM
> called it the 1401.

And the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California has a 
restored 1401 that they power up twice a week for demonstrations.

As well as a restored DEC PDP-1. Not PDP-11. Not PDP-10. PDP-1. Until I 
saw it demonstrated, I wasn't even aware that DEC had ever used magnetic 
core memory. That one is only powered up for demonstrations twice a month.

--
James H. H. Lampert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275561

On 12/12/24 09:20, Van Snyder wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-12-11 at 18:42 -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
>> > You have four times the RAM of the OP. 4G is incredibly marginal spec
>> > for a desktop 2024.
> 
> The first computer I was paid to write software for, in 1966, had 1,400 
> 6-bit characters, not bytes, 

Wasn't that data type named EBCDIC, or something like that?

I remember being taught about that, about 40 years ago, when we were 
taught about the character codes, including the ASCII character code, 
and IBM creating the first internet architecture, that I think was named 
SNA. DEC developed an internet architecture, that I think was named DNA, 
as opposed to DECnet, which was a DEC network architecture for creating 
DEC computers, like PDP-11's and VAX-11's, with each node, and the 
network server, running a DEC operating system.

That was when an internet meant a computer network that connected 
computers using different physical architectures and brands of different 
operating systems; so, whilst VAX-11's running VAX-VMS could connect to 
PDP-11's running DEC operating systems, on a DECnet network, to connect 
DEC computers running DEC operating systems (such as RS-X or RSTS-e 
(operating systems that ran on PDP-11's), to connect them to an IBM mini 
or mainframe computer, required an internet (and, so, also, would 
connecting a VAX-11 running VAX-VMS, to a VAX-11 running BSD 4.2, I 
presume). But, whilst, as a user, I accessed a VAX-11 running VAX VMS, 
via DECnet, from a PDP-11 terminal on a PDP-11/44 running RSTS-e, as the 
FORTRAN-77 ran on the VAX (with the VAX-VMS providing the filename 
extension of version numbers), I was not aware of an internet at that 
time, connecting a VAX running BSD 4.2, to DEC computers running DEC 
operating systems, such as a VAX-11 running VAX-VMS.

not kB, not MB, not GB. That's why IBM
> called it the 1401. It was the first mass-produced computer. IBM sold 
> more than 28,000 of them. It was about the size of a four-drawer file 
> cabinet. The clock speed was 83 kHz (not MHz, not GHz). Later in the 
> year it was upgraded to 16K. That added a box about the size of two 
> side-by-side two-drawer file cabinets. I have a 63-phase FORTRAN II 
> compiler for it that runs in 8K. When they added a Tape controller, it 
> was another four-drawer file cabinet. Each drive was the size of a 
> fridge. The card reader and the printer were about the size of a spinet 
> piano. But we did all the company's accounting on it, and accounting for 
> about 1,000 customers nationwide on  three others like it. The Computer 
> History Museum in Mountain View, CA, has two of them that work. It's 
> cool that they moved into an old SGI building at 1401 Shoreline Blvd.
> 
> The last program I wrote before I retired was only about 300,000 lines, 
> but it kept a cluster with 384 cores and 24 GB per core busy for 15 
> hours per day, on average, doing satellite instrument data analysis. 
> Processing some days' data took 37 hours. Needless to say, if my code 
> had had memory leaks, it wouldn't have run that long. My employer had 
> much nicer computers than mine. The little "supercomputer" fit in one 9U 
> rack panel, but I wouldn't be able to afford water cooling or the 
> electricity bill at home.

In my earlier (but not the earliest) days of being taught computer 
science, another student showed me, on the balcony of his flat, in a 
block of flats, his PDP-11 that he had acquired, that he programmed in 
octal, for fun. I think that was in the 1980's.

The first computer game that I played, was Star Trek, in 1978, on an IBM 
1130 computer, at a university. I think the stack of cards, that had to 
be fed into the computer, to run the game, was a couple of feet high, 
and, the Klingon spaceships were the upper case 'X' characters that 
appeared on the screen. At that stage, the main enemies of the crew of 
the Enterprise, were the Klingons, and, they were not always "on the 
Starboard bow"". The game was single user, and, the computer (IBM 1130) 
was a single tasking computer.

> 
> When they COVID-exiled me, they wouldn't let me have the nice 8-core i7 
> with 32 GB that had been under my desk; they expected me to get by with 
> my home antique. I retired eighteen months later.
> 

..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..............

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275563

On 12/12/24 16:18, Bret Busby wrote:
>>
>> The first computer I was paid to write software for, in 1966, had 
>> 1,400 6-bit characters, not bytes, 
> 
> Wasn't that data type named EBCDIC, or something like that?

That would be 6 bit BCD - a precursor to EBCDIC which was an IBM 8 bit 
encoding most commonly implemented using 80 column punch cards

An alternative format for 80 column punch card format was Burroughs BCDIC

5 bit Baudot was also common in the early years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275600

On Thursday 12 December 2024 03:18:49 am Bret Busby wrote:
> > The first computer I was paid to write software for, in 1966, had 1,400 
> > 6-bit characters, not bytes, 
> 
> Wasn't that data type named EBCDIC, or something like that?
 
No,  that was an 8-bit code...


-- 
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space,  a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed.  --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James 
M Dakin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275570

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, at 01:20, Van Snyder wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-12-11 at 18:42 -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
>> > You have four times the RAM of the OP. 4G is incredibly marginal
>> spec
>> > for a desktop 2024.
>
> The first computer I was paid to write software for, in 1966, had 1,400
> 6-bit characters...

Yes, performance has moved on a lot...

Does your version of Firefox have the task manager feature - here, (using
FF 115.18.0esr on Windows) that's offered via the application hamburger
menu (at extreme rhs of toolbar in my FF) - More tools - Task Manager 
... and it runs in one tab a monitor tool showing memory & cpu
consumption of each of the tabs that FF is processing.  You might be able 
to judge better which of your tabs are the hogs, if you can run that.

-- 
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275571

On 12/12/24 20:00, Jeremy Nicoll wrote:

<snip>

> 
> Does your version of Firefox have the task manager feature - here, (using
> FF 115.18.0esr on Windows) that's offered via the application hamburger
> menu (at extreme rhs of toolbar in my FF) - More tools - Task Manager
> ... and it runs in one tab a monitor tool showing memory & cpu
> consumption of each of the tabs that FF is processing.  You might be able
> to judge better which of your tabs are the hogs, if you can run that.
> 

Thank you for that. I have not previously been aware of that.

I am running a version of 133.0 (64-bit), and, the Task Manager is 
available via the hamburger, as you said More Tools -> Task manager.

So, I can now, better monitor what Firefox is doing.

May I have your permission to post your above paragraph to the Ubuntu 
users mailing list, where I had posted a query asking about Librewolf?

Thank you in anticipation (that does not mean that I will repost, 
without your permission).

..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..............

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#275575

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, at 12:18, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 12/12/24 20:00, Jeremy Nicoll wrote:

>> Does your version of Firefox have the task manager feature...
>
> Thank you for that. I have not previously been aware of that.

Each time Firefox updates itself (when I allow it to, that is) I use:

 Help - About Firefox - What's New

to read what's changed.  With the ESR version of course that's
just security updates, but when I was still using a supported OS
version [of WIndows], it was useful to see the details.

The task manager option might have been described first in the
subsidiary "Developer" what's new notes pages ... but the link was
on the ordinary What's New page.  The developer facilities are
useful too for trying to work out why some pages behave so badly.

-- 
Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web