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


Groups > linux.debian.user > #275559 > unrolled thread

Re: Firefox alternatives?

Started byDavid Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com>
First post2024-12-12 06:30 +0100
Last post2024-12-12 18:50 +0100
Articles 7 — 5 participants

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? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2024-12-12 06:30 +0100
    Re: Firefox alternatives? eben@gmx.us - 2024-12-12 06:50 +0100
      Re: Firefox alternatives? Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> - 2024-12-12 10:10 +0100
      Re: Firefox alternatives? Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-12-12 13:20 +0100
        Re: Firefox alternatives? John Hasler <john@sugarbit.com> - 2024-12-12 15:30 +0100
        Re: Firefox alternatives? eben@gmx.us - 2024-12-12 16:50 +0100
      Re: Firefox alternatives? David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2024-12-12 18:50 +0100

#275559 — Re: Firefox alternatives?

FromDavid Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com>
Date2024-12-12 06:30 +0100
SubjectRe: Firefox alternatives?
Message-ID<JSJVT-ghDX-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
On 12/11/24 12:08, Van Snyder wrote:
> After Firefox has been running for a few days my Debian 12.5 gets
> really slow. The mouse jerks when it works at all. It takes a minute or
> two for wndows to close or top. At the moment, Firefox has 19 processes
> running. Memory is half full, and swap is about 10% used. When I kill
> Firefox and restart, things go back to normal for a few hours.
> 
> What alternatives that aren't such pigs do you recommend?


My current daily driver is a Dell PowerEdge T30 with a Xeon E3-1225 v5 
processor, 2 @ 8 GB ECC RAM in dual channel mode, and an Intel SSD 520 
Series 60 GB:

2024-12-11 21:21:18 dpchrist@laalaa ~
$ cat /etc/debian_version; uname -a; dpkg-query --show xfce4; dpkg-query 
--show firefox-esr
11.11
Linux laalaa 5.10.0-33-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 5.10.226-1 (2024-10-03) 
x86_64 GNU/Linux
xfce4	4.16
firefox-esr	128.5.0esr-1~deb11u1


The desktop usage experience is more than satisfactory.


I have installed the NoScript extension in Firefox.  I typically enable 
only enough JavaScript to get a site working.  YouTube recently changed 
their site such that videos stall after about a minute if google.com is 
blocked.  When I enabled google.com, Firefox became very sluggish.


The problem is not Firefox, the problem is corporations that want to 
monetize WWW users via JavaScript.


David

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#275560

Fromeben@gmx.us
Date2024-12-12 06:50 +0100
Message-ID<JSKff-ghQz-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#275559
On 12/12/24 00:28, David Christensen wrote:
>
> I have installed the NoScript extension in Firefox.  I typically enable only
> enough JavaScript to get a site working.  YouTube recently changed their
> site such that videos stall after about a minute if google.com is blocked. 
> When I enabled google.com, Firefox became very sluggish.

Hmm I have Firefox with Noscript and watch a fair amount of Youtube.
google.com does not get to run JS and I've noticed no ill effects.
Ghostery's blocking 7 things on that site (it says) and most of them have
"Google" in the name.  Perhaps that's the difference?  There's also
"Adblocker for Youtube™".

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


#275564

FromBret Busby <bret@busby.net>
Date2024-12-12 10:10 +0100
Message-ID<JSNmO-gmg9-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#275560
On 12/12/24 13:44, eben@gmx.us wrote:
> On 12/12/24 00:28, David Christensen wrote:
>>
>> I have installed the NoScript extension in Firefox.  I typically enable only
>> enough JavaScript to get a site working.  YouTube recently changed their
>> site such that videos stall after about a minute if google.com is blocked.
>> When I enabled google.com, Firefox became very sluggish.
> 
> Hmm I have Firefox with Noscript and watch a fair amount of Youtube.
> google.com does not get to run JS and I've noticed no ill effects.
> Ghostery's blocking 7 things on that site (it says) and most of them have
> "Google" in the name.  Perhaps that's the difference?  There's also
> "Adblocker for Youtube™".
> 
Because a video is downloaded, to watch it, why not simply use yt-dlp to 
download the videos from youtoob, without all of the gunk?

Then, watching the downloaded videos, lets the user choose which viewer 
and configurations of the viewer, to enhance the viewing.

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

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


#275572

FromGreg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org>
Date2024-12-12 13:20 +0100
Message-ID<JSQkF-goAZ-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#275560
On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 00:44:06 -0500, eben@gmx.us wrote:
> On 12/12/24 00:28, David Christensen wrote:
> >
> > I have installed the NoScript extension in Firefox.  I typically enable only
> > enough JavaScript to get a site working.  YouTube recently changed their
> > site such that videos stall after about a minute if google.com is blocked. 
> > When I enabled google.com, Firefox became very sluggish.
> 
> Hmm I have Firefox with Noscript and watch a fair amount of Youtube.
> google.com does not get to run JS and I've noticed no ill effects.
> Ghostery's blocking 7 things on that site (it says) and most of them have
> "Google" in the name.  Perhaps that's the difference?  There's also
> "Adblocker for Youtube™".

I normally watch Youtube videos in Google Chrome.  My experience is
that everything works well except certain live streams -- these will
consume more and more memory until the tab "crashes" with a "something
went wrong" message, and a Reload button.  Pressing the Reload button
reconnects to the live stream and then the cycle repeats.

Premieres and regular videos aren't an issue.  Just live streams.  And
I'm not sure if it's all of them, or some of them.

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


#275577

FromJohn Hasler <john@sugarbit.com>
Date2024-12-12 15:30 +0100
Message-ID<JSSmt-gpVv-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#275572
Greg Wooledge writes:
> I normally watch Youtube videos in Google Chrome.  My experience is
> that everything works well except certain live streams -- these will
> consume more and more memory until the tab "crashes" with a "something
> went wrong" message, and a Reload button.  Pressing the Reload button
> reconnects to the live stream and then the cycle repeats.

I recently started seeing the same thing with Firefox.  After some
experimentation I found that the problem seems to be
https://jnn-pa.googleapis.com.

I understand that companies need revenue from somewhere and since most
users won't pay advertising is it.  But their methods are ludicrously
inefficient and insecure.  At least with Youtube it's all coming from
Google so you know that it only does what Google wants it to do.  Other
sites often want to pull in JS from a dozen or more sites no one has
ever heard of, most of it just because it makes it easier for the web
designers to animate their dancing doggies.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@sugarbit.com
Elmwood, WI USA

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


#275585

Fromeben@gmx.us
Date2024-12-12 16:50 +0100
Message-ID<JSTBT-gqDF-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#275572
On 12/12/24 07:11, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> I normally watch Youtube videos in Google Chrome.  My experience is
> that everything works well except certain live streams -- these will
> consume more and more memory until the tab "crashes" with a "something
> went wrong" message, and a Reload button.  Pressing the Reload button
> reconnects to the live stream and then the cycle repeats.

Yeah, sorry, probably can't help you there.  I don't use Chrome for YT
unless they require me to be logged in to see the video.  And I prefer to
watch livestreams once they're no longer live.  I'm weird that way.

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


#275592

FromDavid Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com>
Date2024-12-12 18:50 +0100
Message-ID<JSVu2-grNv-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#275560
On 12/11/24 21:44, eben@gmx.us wrote:
> On 12/12/24 00:28, David Christensen wrote:
>>
>> I have installed the NoScript extension in Firefox.  I typically enable only
>> enough JavaScript to get a site working.  YouTube recently changed their
>> site such that videos stall after about a minute if google.com is blocked.
>> When I enabled google.com, Firefox became very sluggish.
> 
> Hmm I have Firefox with Noscript and watch a fair amount of Youtube.
> google.com does not get to run JS and I've noticed no ill effects.
> Ghostery's blocking 7 things on that site (it says) and most of them have
> "Google" in the name.  Perhaps that's the difference?  There's also
> "Adblocker for Youtube™".


Choice of plug-ins is a plausible explanation.  My Firefox has:

Audio Compressor
NoScript
Privacy Badger
uBlock Origin


And, each has various configuration settings; any one of which could 
cause issues.


A proper web site should respect privacy, should use JavaScript only 
from the originating domain, and should be free of external 
advertisements.  craigslist.org is one of the few web sites that seems 
to follow these principles.


David

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


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


csiph-web