/int/ - International

>>21619 For stuff that actually needs it, yes. Having the KC catalog opened and another IB catalog opened should not consume 1 fucking GB of RAM.

>2025 >using f*refox Dude ...

I just tested it with Zen and it takes not even 400mb for two IB catalogs.

>>21623 >2025 >censoring a single letter D*de

I guess it'll mostly be caching stuff. It's underappreciated just how much work has gone into optimising Firefox and Chrome. Check Ladybird out for an unoptimised browser experience.

Try running Google Chrome with a ton of extensions. A Polandball on koh mentioned Kagi, but never gave details

>>21805 Akchually this design is genius, so a closed Tab returns all the memory to the OS.

Firefox consume as much memory as you give it. On memory constrained machines (old thinkpad), it's reasonable even with lots of tabs, on my 128G workstation where it doesn't really need to reclaim memory ever, it goes up to 15GB. Problems werent.

>>21810 The first 3 at 100K+ are open tabs, all the rest is memory for each extension. Old pre-chromium Firefox put everything in one memory basket, and that seemed to create less of a drag.

>>21821 But then when one plugin crashes, the whole browser goes booboo.

yes

>>21623 Still offers the best compatibility together with uBlock, hardly ever notice any counter blocking measures.

Firefox just implemented some ultra cringe ai chat feature and there is no straightforward way to turn it off (except going to about config and finding it).

>>21851 Firefox has been dead for years now as it has legitimized itself as a google proxy to ensure they're not hit with any further monopoly lawsuits. The bigger issue is that there's no competition in the field, and firefucks has become a bloatware full of software rot and endless problems.

I use Firefox and I haven't noticed an issue with it.

>>21810 There's a function you can call to deallocate unused memory. Tho maybe this method is more efficient idk

>>21857 Developing a good browser is not easy. Especially, if you are not getting paid for it. I would pay a monthly fee for a good browser, but I'm in the minority and such a browser could never survive, while free browsers exist. So we are stuck with bad options.

>>21892 https://donorbox.org/ladybird

>>21851 it was very easy to remove it for me. Literally just right click and remove

>>21857 I'd rather be more scared that Alphabet now starts to foster that retarded new OpenAI browser instead of Mozilla to "demonopolize" Chrome. Would be a big hit for a good player and keeps money in some incestuous cycle, so on a business metric it makes sense on more than one level.

It's gonna get worse with WebGPU. Everyone and their granma will use your graphics card too.

>>21912 Finally, grandma can mine some crypto.

>>21892 > I would pay a monthly fee for a good browser Guess the best investment is currently in Servo.

>>21910 Why they work so hard to implements features like this? Meanwhile Firefox has no 4k in YouTube, while edge and chrome have.

>>21948 I see 4k youtube using firefox

>>21948 I have Chrome installed just for YouTube, because they throttle other browsers

>>21897 >>21914 These are interesting developments, which I will follow. Maybe they can replace Firefox in the future. >>21955 I use Freetube to watch Youtube. No need to use Chrome.

>>21981 Freetube breaks every two weeks, no thanks

>>21955 How can Google still be the main sponsor of Firefox (for using Google as the default search engine), if they oppose this browser so much?

>>21833 'restore tabs'

>>21881 There are variants of tab suspenders to offload memory. Except the chrome version requires as much memory to run as one open tab.

>>21955 >I have Chrome installed just for YouTube, because they throttle other browsers except chrome is also the worst for banning yt downloaders

I use Firefox because of the bypass paywall (for news sites) extension. By what I understand the only to install it on chrome is by adding the file in developer mode?

>>22046 Isn't that abandoned anyway? Or are you talking about a different one?

>>22027 Use yt-dlp like a sane human

>>22047 No, it's not, the guy keeps updating the newspapers sites list and still gets feedback if certain sites don't work. But I don't know exactly, I just bother with it when I need to do a clean install of a browser on my PC. Last time even GitHub took the thing down.

>>22017 Because they're scared of losing their monopoly if they don't. If Firefox (and other browsers) had some other search engine as the default then Google would quickly start to lose their monopoly on it.

>>21913 She can create and animate websites in real time.

>>22048 This. I browse youtube with invidious frontends, and if I want to watch a video then dl it with yt-dlp.

>>22084 You don’t even have to download it, just stream it directly with mpv, although mpv uses yt-dlp in the background of course

>>22017 For legal reasons, obviously, to prevent an antitrust lawsuit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp. > The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally monopolizing the web browser market for Windows

I will never use google chrome because you need to fuck with it to use UbO. Modern browsers hogging RAM isn't really their problem though but all the ads and javascript and whatnot where it's not needed.

Modern desktop computing is generally inefficient compared to the old days. in the 90s what you could do with just a 386/486 with 4-16 megabytes of RAM, compared to what modern machines do with exponentially increased capacity, is not the difference you'd expect. ie. Simple programs like Notepad or whatever taking relatively huge amounts of memory with no functional (or even graphical) difference to their old predecessors.

>>22117 I use uBlock Lite on Chrome, have never had any problems with it

>>22119 Do custom filter lists work and can you update them independently from the extension?

>>22118 Not really true. You can run modern Linux and some modern software on 90s hardware. But it's true, that most software doesn't really care about resource consumption, if it's not necessary to optimize.

>>22120 I don't use custom lists, so I cannot answer that question.

>>22125 Compare a 1996 Redhat distro running KDE with the latest Ubuntu desktop. Compare the graphical and functional differences to various software (word processing, whatever). I think it's just an inefficient as the Windows comparison. If we're talking just kernels, yeah it's close to the metal software which is still efficient.

>>22128 > a 1996 Redhat distro running KDE Most of the run-time memory goes into screen buffers. Run that old software on a FullHD/4K screen with modern color depths and see what happens.

>>21623 >not wanting to be able to use ublock origin kek, enjoy your ads inb4 >muh brave