Firefox 68 vs. Chrome 76 Linux Web Browser Performance Benchmarks

[Iiari]

For what it's worth on Linux w/ xorg I find Firefox WAY faster in daily use. Usually js heavy pages are faster on Chrome - but most pages aren't js heavy at all.
I never have more than 10 ish tabs open and I always use both Firefox and Chrom(mium) without extension other than ublock. Chromium feels SO sluggish, and its been like that for about a year. I'm forcing myself to use it these days.

On other platforms the difference isn't nearly as noticeable.

I guess this is the difference between benchmarks and real world feel. On my Linux systems, usually Firefox feels faster and more responsive as well. It's actually the reason I switched.

[trizio]

Since I'm a VIP (i.e. very irrelevant person), i use Chromium. Plus, it has a better looking interface IMO.

[Scellow]

look at these rust/crapzilla fanboiz, they mad because their baby is being put to shame by chrome

hahahah i love it, karma hits hard

[schmidtbag]

..."hurr durr, adblock is piracy, hurr durr, stopping online tracking is felony theft, hurr durr"...

It literally is piracy. Prove me wrong.
I never said anything about online tracking. You can get ads without tracking. On the other hand, it's kinda pathetic if you're actually worried about your shopping data being collected to give you more relevant ads.

[DrYak]

Adblock is piracy as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry, but my eyeballs aren't a garbage dumping site for whatever obnoxious crap ran through the cocained brain of some marketeer.

(What's next? Peeing during ad breaks instead of staying in front of the TV during them is also piracy ?)

I'm fine with a minor and easily ignored inconvenience

if you're ignoring the ads, then you're not the success that narketeers were hoping for.

The point of ads is to lead to sold units. Eitheir immediately (click-through, acquisitions) or at a later point when you go shopping (brand recognition).
If the advertised brand doesn't earn money, they'll consider the ad a failure and will pull it out, ehich eventually means that the website will stop getting money from ads.

In your weird worldview, ignoring non-ultra-loud ads is a form of piracy too.

if that means I get to support people who create content I care about.

If you care about the content, then why not drop some money into the tip jar, instead of leaving your brain open to the onslaught of marketing brainwashing?

case in point: me on Phoronix.

[schmidtbag]

Sorry, but my eyeballs aren't a garbage dumping site for whatever obnoxious crap ran through the cocained brain of some marketeer.

(What's next? Peeing during ad breaks instead of staying in front of the TV during them is also piracy ?)

Nobody said you had to look at or watch the ads, but if you're not an asshole, you'll allow the ads to load so the content creators can continue providing you content that is otherwise free.

if you're ignoring the ads, then you're not the success that narketeers were hoping for.

You're missing the point here... it doesn't matter if you actually click on the ads or watch them. The point is they generate revenue for content creators. To block the ads means the content creator doesn't get paid. You understand that, right? Some people like Michael depend on ads to live, and you're just simply taking that money right out of his pocket and giving nothing in return.
So long as marketers think ads are worthwhile, they will continue to provide them. Ads are a very easy way for sites like this to operate at a minimal inconvenience to users. Whether or not they're successful is irrelevant.

In your weird worldview, ignoring non-ultra-loud ads is a form of piracy too.

Actually, in an earlier post I already addressed the obnoxious ads, stating that if a site is willing to have them and inconvenience me as a visitor, that site is not worth my visit.

If you care about the content, then why not drop some money into the tip jar, instead of leaving your brain open to the onslaught of marketing brainwashing?

I do; I'm a premium member on Phoronix. But on several sites where I can't do so, I keep the ads on because I'm not going to steal from them.
Also, if you're so aware of the kind of "marketing brainwashing" going on, why is it so difficult for you to just ignore it?

[andyprough]

It literally is piracy. Prove me wrong.

...hurr durr....

[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.

[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 ^^

[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.