tu...@posteo.de wrote: > On 04/02 05:41, Martin Vaeth wrote: >> Bill Kenworthy <bi...@iinet.net.au> wrote: >>> I use the palemoon overlay. >> There is also the octopus overlay. >> Anyway, both can only react to upstream. >> >>> builds fine with gcc-6.4 >> Yes, but it has random crashes which do not occur with gcc-5, >> and as somebody familiar with the code posted somewhere, >> the reasons are quite some assumptions in assembler code >> which should not have been made. (I simply repeated these >> claims without checking them.) >> >> Upstream knows about it and therefore officially does not >> support building with gcc-6. Since firefox upstream has fixed >> all these things ages ago, and palemoon is not able to identify >> or pull the corresponding patches this shows IMHO that it >> has already diverged to a degree that it cannot be reasonably >> maintained with the resources they have, and I doubt that >> security issues are closed (or worse: recognized) timely: >> In contrast to crashes (even Heisenbug crashes), security >> issues cannot be "detected" if there is no expert regularly >> checking the code very carfully. >> >> The decision to stick with legacy extension api completely >> excludes that there is some convergence of the fork in the >> future. >> >> Also the refusal to implement webextension apis (which is >> consequent, since it is hardly possible to maintain 2 >> more and more diverging apis) has the side effect that >> only obsolete versions of the actively maintained extensions >> like noscript and ublock-origin can be used. In the moment, >> the legacy version of noscript is still maintained, but only >> because of the tor browser. I suppose eventually this will change. >> >> I also do not know much about waterfox, but if one goal ist >> to keep legacy extensions, I am afraid it will go the palemoon >> way, too: >> It seems currently that mozilla, google, and apple are the only >> oranganizations with enough resources to maintain full browsers, >> and any forks of their browsers which diverge more than a patchset >> of essentially fixed size are doomed to fail for this very reason. >> >> > > ...and if after all that (at least) firefox gets so bulky and has such > a hugh memory footprint that (on a multitasking OS) no other > reasonable "powerful" application will multitask with it (or your > machine goes swapping) and if mozilla itsself walks down an at least > questionable way...then... > What? > > In the moment I cannot use firefox - regardless how > advanced/secure/modern/or what it is. It does not fit into > my working environment - it is to huge. > > Cheers > Meino >
I have to agree. I use different Firefox profiles for different things. One reason, I can be logged into same website but as different users at the same time. Another reason, when one profile becomes a memory hog, I can restart it but not disturb the others. Another reason, I can customize each profile based on what I do with it. I notice in the last year or so that Firefox regularly uses over 1GB of ram in most all of my profiles. Sometimes it can approach 2GBs. I've tried going to about:memory and clicking the free up memory button but it does little good. It may free up some but generally not enough to matter. Closing and restarting Firefox does work tho. I have one profile that I use for things such as financial sites and ordering online. I use addons like noscript, adblock and such which sort of helps prevent tracking and such. I also use the https addon with it as well. I sort of wish Firefox would shrink back down on its size and let us install addons for features we want and be able to do that for each profile. For example, I have one profile that I use to download videos with. It has download helper installed on it but I don't install it on the other profiles. On one profile, I have a screenshot tool installed. I use it to document some admin/mod stuff I do on a website. I don't need a screenshot tool on other profiles tho. Basically, it would be nice if more things were that way because we can chose what features we want for each profile based on what we do with it. Even USE flags won't work with this because if it is done with USE flags, it applies to all profiles. Even if a person only has one profile, they just install what features they want instead of a whole bunch of stuff that may never be used or even wanted. While I like progress on some things, others, I wish progress had more options. Sometimes, I don't want a bloated monster of a program. If anything, I may want to add things that improve security but has no other "features" included. Then on others, I may not care much about security but want features. Having a bare program and the ability to add features, that allows everyone to have what they want. They can pick a huge bloated program or a bare metal barely gets the job done program. Just thinking out loud. ;-) Dale :-) :-)
