Firefox 68 vs. Chrome 76 Linux Web Browser Performance Benchmarks

[schmidtbag]

Lol, yeah right you have to be forced to read every bit of junk mail that drops through your letter box and you're not allowed to fast forward through the ads on your recording TV box. They are free to put up a paywall and I'm equally free to go elsewhere, do you work for Google Adsenese by any chance ?

Uh... no? First of all, nobody said you're forced to buy anything. Second, spam you get in your mail (or email) is a totally different subject. Spam isn't paying the bills for anyone you care about. Ads on websites do. How are you not understanding this?

Actually, administrators can dictate how businesses are supposed to operate in a city; it's their rules after all. Things such as employment conditions, outlet size, mandatory city-wide IT policies, etc all fall under the city's administration.

A mayor, on their own whim, does not have the power to just walk into a business, take things, and dictate how they're run. Maybe they could back in the wild west days, but not now. Mayors don't even have enough power to overrule a council.

[Slartifartblast]

Whatever you want to call it, it's still unethical and taking money from content creators.


That's a laughably ridiculous statement in this context. The computers running the websites you visit aren't yours. You are, in effect, a guest of someone else's computer when you visit a website.
A mayor doesn't just get to walk into any store within their city, take what they want, and say "my city, my rules". Just because the mayor controls the city, doesn't mean the mayor gets to control the operation of businesses within it.

Lol, yeah right you have to be forced to read every bit of junk mail that drops through your letter box and you're not allowed to fast forward through the ads on your recording TV box. They are free to put up a paywall and I'm equally free to go elsewhere, do you work for Google Adsenese by any chance ?

Absurd argument.

[Indomitable]

I don't know why you are blaming browsers for bad performance and a lot of memory consumption, when you need to blame all these "modern" websites that are full of ads and are using "modern" javascript frameworks written by "modern" developers who don't know how memory management works.

[Sonadow]

Whatever you want to call it, it's still unethical and taking money from content creators.

I agree with almost everything. There is only one site that I use Adblock on, and that is tinypic. It's completely not reasonable to expect that an image hosting site throws three popups and one full-window popup add before even giving users the chance to upload their images.

In fact, a single visit to tinypic causes adblock to stop more than 15 ads upon initial loading of the site. This is just plain unacceptable.

Everything else can be tolerated to a certain extent.

That's a laughably ridiculous statement in this context. The computers running the websites you visit aren't yours. You are, in effect, a guest of someone else's computer when you visit a website.
A mayor doesn't just get to walk into any store within their city, take what they want, and say "my city, my rules". Just because the mayor controls the city, doesn't mean the mayor gets to control the operation of businesses within it.

Actually, administrators can dictate how businesses are supposed to operate in a city; it's their rules after all. Things such as employment conditions, outlet size, mandatory city-wide IT policies, etc all fall under the city's administration.

[Sonadow]

Benchmarks mean nothing. I use my own watch and perception to determine which is the better browser.

And it's still Chromium that is way ahead of FF in terms of performance and site compatibility.

[schmidtbag]

There's a difference between being a leech and piracy. Websites are publicly open for anyone to freely view. Hurting their ability to make revenue off you is being a leech, but you never agreed to anything more. If there was any kind of restrictions - either through an agreement you made, or a login/etc. (like the way news sites restrict access to articles) then bypassing that would be piracy.

Whatever you want to call it, it's still unethical and taking money from content creators.

My computer, my choice what code runs on it.

That's a laughably ridiculous statement in this context. The computers running the websites you visit aren't yours. You are, in effect, a guest of someone else's computer when you visit a website.
A mayor doesn't just get to walk into any store within their city, take what they want, and say "my city, my rules". Just because the mayor controls the city, doesn't mean the mayor gets to control the operation of businesses within it.

[Slartifartblast]

Adblock is piracy as far as I'm concerned. I'm fine with a minor and easily ignored inconvenience if that means I get to support people who create content I care about. If I'm overrun with obnoxious ads, that to me suggests the site cares more about money than the user experience, so, I steer clear of them.

My computer, my choice what code runs on it.

[Termy]

Blocking Ads is morally not 100% clean for sure. But in general browsing it is mere self-defense nowadays.
On sites i visit regularly, i disable the blocking of non-tracking ads (so sadly all pages relying on google ads are out of the picture :/ ) - if the ads are not too much. Luckily, most sites have realized that blasting too much ads only drives people to using adblockers.
When i'm bored i even sometimes click on ads on sites i truly like ^^

[smitty3268]

It literally is piracy. Prove me wrong.

There's a difference between being a leech and piracy. Websites are publicly open for anyone to freely view. Hurting their ability to make revenue off you is being a leech, but you never agreed to anything more. If there was any kind of restrictions - either through an agreement you made, or a login/etc. (like the way news sites restrict access to articles) then bypassing that would be piracy.

[andyprough]

It literally is piracy. Prove me wrong.

...hurr durr....