this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
226 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

59223 readers
3781 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SapphironZA@lemmings.world 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I made the switch to waterfox (Firefox fork) that strips out much of the problematic mozilla stuff.

I started to switch because of the tab containers, as I work across a dozen or so accounts in our MSP business.

Now I realised how good Firefox can be if you get rid of the bloat.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Firefox is great regardless of "the bloat"

[–] SapphironZA@lemmings.world 3 points 11 months ago

I would say it's good, but could be great with small adjustments in the way it is packaged.

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 18 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I've never once used Firefox and thought "man, is there bloat here". Whatwas bugging you?

[–] SapphironZA@lemmings.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I was mainly referring to how sluggish it was. For my web apps, it was always slower and the UI would bog down. Maybe not the correct definition of you refer to unnecessary features.

I am more referring to how lean or streamline the software is. Both in front end design and backend.

A lot of browser performance has to do with how you use it, so my experience is not universal.

Still, even full fat Firefox is skinny compared to the morbidly obese Chrome and edge browsers.

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So weird to me how when Chrome first came out, it was the opposite: Firefox was getting sluggish and poorly optimized with too much going on, and Chrome was sleek and fast and seemed to just have what was needed to work.

[–] SapphironZA@lemmings.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

These things go in cycles. But I think the writing is on the wall. Google will never make the investment to unbloat Chrome.

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 11 months ago

They have no incentive to, at least not as long as they're the dominant web browser

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There isn't much, Waterfox removes Pocket and disables most of the telemetry, tweaks some of the settings to be more privacy and performance minded, swaps google from default search engine and iirc it has more aggressive compiler optimization settings in exchange for having slightly more modern hardware requirements. And the default theme is more compact and less chrome-esque.

It originally was just about providing 64-bit builds of Firefox back when Mozilla didn't yet, today it's mostly "Firefox, but slightly better."

[–] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Around the time Chrome first hit the scene, Firefox was getting pretty bloated and inefficient... They've come a long way since then but they still do a bunch of unnecessary stuff that should probably be off by default but isn't

[–] ripcord@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

Like what should be off by default