zlacker

[parent] [thread] 34 comments
1. javajo+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-07-18 12:54:42
Firefox is a great browser and Mozilla is a (generally) great organization. It's my daily driver on all my devices (except my TV ha), it's fast and has great plugins that also work in mobile. Philosophically I'm very much a "root for the underdog" type of person so it makes me happy that way, too. Only very rarely (every few months) am I forced to use Chrome for a site - and in my view, that's a huge ding on the site devs, not on Firefox.

It's strange hearing reports of "scroll lag" in the other comments. It's possible I'm just lucky. Or there's a misconfiguration somewhere in their setup that Chrome somehow avoids.

It's true that I still mostly use Chrome for webdev - I've become more used to it's (excellent) dev tools, even though Firefox and Firebug started that whole trend. It feels very right to separate my "user browser" from my "dev browser" in this way!

replies(8): >>system+n1 >>coldte+Q1 >>wackge+12 >>barrot+m7 >>RVRX+Mo >>cozzyd+HK >>azeira+hD1 >>aden1n+cT1
2. system+n1[view] [source] 2023-07-18 13:02:44
>>javajo+(OP)
Same. Been using it since it was called Camino then Firebird, a confusing namespace collision :P
replies(3): >>dylan6+q3 >>BearOs+rs >>ok1234+tu
3. coldte+Q1[view] [source] 2023-07-18 13:06:01
>>javajo+(OP)
>It's strange hearing reports of "scroll lag" in the other comments. It's possible I'm just lucky. Or there's a misconfiguration somewhere in their setup that Chrome somehow avoids.

Don't forget the other possibility: someone using Firefox having internalized this lag as "normal behavior".

replies(3): >>javajo+e9 >>hoover+X9 >>thomas+F01
4. wackge+12[view] [source] 2023-07-18 13:06:43
>>javajo+(OP)
What do you find lacking in Firefox dev tools? For me I actually prefer them to Chrome.
replies(4): >>swores+C5 >>javajo+V7 >>hardco+yk >>Scarbu+vz
◧◩
5. dylan6+q3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 13:13:45
>>system+n1
Maybe they can use Screaming Chicken for a future name
replies(1): >>raging+X6
◧◩
6. swores+C5[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 13:23:34
>>wackge+12
They just said they're more used to the Chrome version, not that the Firefox version is lacking.

(Personally I'm with you in preferring Firefox dev tools - although I'm not someone who needs to use them more than a few times a month - not because I have any specific issues with Chrome dev tools, but because I prefer Firefox, and Mozilla, generally, and I've not found anything that FF can't do.)

◧◩◪
7. raging+X6[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 13:29:50
>>dylan6+q3
That's reserved for use after build 197.3.
8. barrot+m7[view] [source] 2023-07-18 13:31:06
>>javajo+(OP)
I took an old laptop and transformed it into an Arch Linux based smart-tv (thanks to a stabilized "air mouse" and AwesomeWM to configure windows positions and shortcuts through LUA). Now I basically do everything through Firefox in kiosk mode: it's fast, you can avoid ads, telemetry et similia through configuration tweaks and extensions. The only problem I have is with Sky/NowTV services, that are not accessible by web browser and don't have Linux apps and are not (yet?) working through wine. All the rest I use (Prime Video, Netflix, Mubi, Discovery+ etc) work great with it, way faster and cleaner than usual smart TV apps. This with a 15W-TDP 4th-gen i3 based old entry level laptop. That's just to say that Firefox can actually be pretty good for TV!
◧◩
9. javajo+V7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 13:33:12
>>wackge+12
I don't find them lacking - I just don't use them regularly so it feels awkward when I do use them.
◧◩
10. javajo+e9[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 13:38:29
>>coldte+Q1
As an aside, I am very much against this trend of accusing people of "internalizing" a bad thing such that they aren't aware of it. It's using therapy-speak as an ad hominem attack, and in my view reflects poorly on the speaker. Most of the people on HN are software developers and are conversant in a wide variety of tools on many platforms, and certainly I am (one can infer that from my post). So to assert that I simply don't know what scroll lag looks like is not only absurd, but also fundamentally disrespectful and ignorant. The simple fact is that you do not, cannot, know what other people experience on their machines. Each physical system is characterized by roughly 10e10 bits - the number of combinations is (10e10)!. In other words, wild and alien configurations exist that you've never seen, and cannot imagine. Compared to this, the chances that someone has software that behaves slightly differently on their system than on your system is approaching 1.

Have some humility.

replies(2): >>coldte+zx >>NavinF+jO
◧◩
11. hoover+X9[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 13:41:33
>>coldte+Q1
They might be talking about "Smooth Scrolling." But personally I don't see any lag on Firefox.
◧◩
12. hardco+yk[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 14:16:50
>>wackge+12
Not who you replied to, but: performance analysis, service worker debugging, indexeddb inspection

(I use firefox devtools primarily)

replies(1): >>azeira+CD1
13. RVRX+Mo[view] [source] 2023-07-18 14:29:49
>>javajo+(OP)
> Only very rarely (every few months) am I forced to use Chrome for a site - and in my view, that's a huge ding on the site devs, not on Firefox.

I find this very common with Credit Card and Banking Sites. Very often they either refuse to log me in or log me out sooner than they should on Firefox, or certain pages within the site will just not load. I'm guessing they prioritize security, and only test this stuff in Chrome ;(

replies(2): >>rantin+CG >>alekra+z31
◧◩
14. BearOs+rs[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 14:41:52
>>system+n1
Camino was actually a separate, but similar slim-down project for Mac. It had Mac OS Cocoa controls, so it fit in better.

Camino was originally named Chimera. It was started by Dave Hyatt, the guy who went to Apple to build Safari and WebKit, which Chrome now uses.

◧◩
15. ok1234+tu[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 14:49:17
>>system+n1
Phoenix for me.
◧◩◪
16. coldte+zx[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 14:58:41
>>javajo+e9
Considering this as a possibility is anything than "fundamentally disrespectful and ignorant".

I've known lots of developers who thought that some broken, slow, erratic, or stupid, program or OS behavior is the normal, because that's what they've been used to. They could be great programmers too, they just didn't venture much outside the stuff they used.

As for the diatribe, I don't care for this recent trend of perceiving something somebody said as some kind of abuse of "therapy speak" (before this comment I've seen a few stories about some actor "abusing therapy speak" and such lately, so I assume it's some new fad going on). I don't read about therapy, or had any therapy speak in mind. "Internalized" has been used for decades as a term, and here just means "accepted this lag as the baseline as they don't have a frame of reference". Might not even be the right word, I probably was looking for normalized (is that therapy speak too?). So there's that.

replies(2): >>SoftTa+bl1 >>javajo+eQ1
◧◩
17. Scarbu+vz[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 15:03:53
>>wackge+12
Mozilla fired the dev tools team, so features get in more slowly compared to Chrome.
◧◩
18. rantin+CG[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 15:27:58
>>RVRX+Mo
I've had this happen and businesses have lost my business because of it.
replies(1): >>copper+w31
19. cozzyd+HK[view] [source] 2023-07-18 15:41:46
>>javajo+(OP)
> except my TV ha

I was sad when they discontinued Firefox for my TV (even though it was mostly an Amazon-funded workaround to get youtube on FireTV which went away when YouTube started working...).

◧◩◪
20. NavinF+jO[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 15:56:03
>>javajo+e9
Except people really do internalize lag as "normal behavior". Back when PC monitors were stuck at 60Hz, people would unironically claim that "the human eye can't see more than 60 fps". Of course they changed their tune after experiencing lower input lag
replies(1): >>entrop+K51
◧◩
21. thomas+F01[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 16:37:35
>>coldte+Q1
I'm pretty sure Firefox defaults to smooth scrolling, which can feel laggy even on reasonably powerful hardware, because animation is its own latency.
◧◩◪
22. copper+w31[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 16:47:27
>>rantin+CG
Using Chrome to support small businesses seems reasonable to me. They might not have a big development budget to test their site on all browsers.
replies(2): >>Vrondi+cz1 >>supert+7C1
◧◩
23. alekra+z31[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 16:47:33
>>RVRX+Mo
The place I run into this the most is, strangely, chipotle.com. Still can't order online on Firefox.
◧◩◪◨
24. entrop+K51[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 16:55:56
>>NavinF+jO
I agree that the human eye can see higher than 60Hz, especially in the peripheral vision where VR research shows we need at least 90Hz to not get sick and 120Hz works better.

That said, there is something to be said for modern applications just running way below the limits of the refresh rate of our screens: https://twitter.com/jmmv/status/1671670996921896960

replies(1): >>NavinF+bg2
◧◩◪◨
25. SoftTa+bl1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 17:49:51
>>coldte+zx
> broken, slow, erratic, or stupid, program or OS behavior

This describes so much software that I don't see how you can fault anyone for thinking it is normal.

◧◩◪◨
26. Vrondi+cz1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 18:47:58
>>copper+w31
Chipotle is definitely not a small business.
◧◩◪◨
27. supert+7C1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 19:01:11
>>copper+w31
Many businesses don't bother with a website anymore and just have a Facebook page. It's like how in 1998 businesses would mention their AOL Keyword alongside www.example.com.

Reddit.com and Discord have replaced many individual forums.

28. azeira+hD1[view] [source] 2023-07-18 19:06:06
>>javajo+(OP)
Firefox dev tools have been letting me down the past few months.

I'm working on a pretty nasty (legacy and poorly optimised) but otherwise still rather "normal" website at work.

Opening the dev tools makes Firefox hang for almost a minute, I suspect this is due to some issue with source maps, thousands of source files and large (several megabytes of) minified code.

The debugger often reports _wrong_ values on hover especially in useEffects whereas console.log shows the right one.

Other than the js debugger I have 0 problems with the Firefox devtools, it often spearheads features that I use on a day-to-day basis like highlighting grid layouts. Super nice!

replies(1): >>javajo+BP1
◧◩◪
29. azeira+CD1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 19:07:40
>>hardco+yk
Have you tried the new profiler since you're talking about performance analysis? It's insanely in-depth.
◧◩
30. javajo+BP1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 20:12:03
>>azeira+hD1
Yes! Their grid layout/comprehension tool is first-rate.
◧◩◪◨
31. javajo+eQ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 20:15:31
>>coldte+zx
One other possibility is that I know what scroll lag is, don't see it in Firefox on my devices, and you really don't want to accept that for some reason. So much so you double-down on your out-of-the-blue speculation about my mental state. People also have petit mal seizures, and that could also explain not seeing lag. Or perhaps an eye problem. Or maybe I'm a paid shill for Mozilla. Why not propose these as well? It would make just as much sense, and reflect just as poorly on you.
replies(1): >>coldte+f92
32. aden1n+cT1[view] [source] 2023-07-18 20:30:58
>>javajo+(OP)
As for sites that don't work in FireFox, here's a huge one: Office365 does not support FireFox on MacOS[0]. Mostly it works, but some things unfortunately don't. For instance, my employer's Teams site just doesn't render at all in FF.

[0]: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/which-browsers-wo...

replies(1): >>copper+Th2
◧◩◪◨⬒
33. coldte+f92[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 22:01:07
>>javajo+eQ1
Sorry, but this reaction has little to do with my comment. I didn't do any "speculation about your mental state", except to the degree that saying that someone can be so used to a certain program behavior/lag/etc that they consider it normal describes a "mental state".

>One other possibility is that I know what scroll lag is, don't see it in Firefox on my devices"

Yes, that's "one other" possibility.

Now, can we also entertain the possibility I suggested as something that one can't just rule out in advance, and that one would be OK in suggesting could also be the case?

I don't know you, have not met you, and I don't speak about you as a person. I made a general observation about what could be the case when someone says what you said. Another commenter also corroborated having seen this in the wild (assuming it even needs corroboration). It's hardly something that doesn't happen. And because I'm a somewhat insulted by your tone, notice how I didn't even said anything about you directly. I wrote:

"Don't forget the other possibility: someone using Firefox having internalized this lag as "normal behavior".

The rest, you brought into this. Enough is enough. Over and out.

◧◩◪◨⬒
34. NavinF+bg2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 22:52:06
>>entrop+K51
I saw that thread and could not relate. Both my desktop (5800x3d/64GB/4090/4K120) and laptop (M2 Pro/32GB/3K120) are just as snappy as that 600MHz machine. More importantly, my machines stay snappy under more demanding workloads which that old machine can't do.

In the next tweet he compares it to a stock Surface Go 2 (quad-core i5 processor at 2.4GHz, 8GB RAM, SSD) and seems to be surprised that it performs like crap. His 600MHz CPU is sufficient to get decent input lag from NT 3.51 which lists a 25 MHz CPU as it's minimum spec just as my machines get decent input lag from Windows/macOS which list a 1.2 GHz CPU as the minimum spec.

I know clock speed is a bad metric, but you get the point. Your hardware needs to be well above the minimum spec by an order of magnitude if you want acceptable latency

◧◩
35. copper+Th2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-07-18 23:03:25
>>aden1n+cT1
Do you know what features Firefox is missing on MacOS?
[go to top]