Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ hx8 7 hours ago

I am under the impression that Firefox is the only web browser which has access to quality ad blocker. Am I incorrect in this? How is this not enough of a selling point for everyone to switch to it?

▲cm2187 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Agree, and not just that, it allows to escape the hijack of your right click (something google does not tolerate), but they also degraded a lot the experience the last year or two. Number of modal dialog boxes every time it updates (and of course repeat for how many machines you use), also every time there is a pending update, the performance seems to degrade until you close and update, and those updates are very frequent. I don't know if it is my machine but it seems to be struggling when there is more than 2 or 3 video streams on different tabs (increasingly common now that every news websites seems compelled to live stream video on their front page whether you want it or not).

▲notafox 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You may restrict updates in policies.json[1][2]:

  {
    "policies": {
      "AppUpdateURL": "http://127.0.0.1/",
      "DisableAppUpdate": true,
      "DisableFirefoxStudies": true,
      "DisableSystemAddonUpdate": true,
      "DontCheckDefaultBrowser": true,
      "ExtensionUpdate": false,
    }
  }
Syntax should be slightly different for Windows.

File should be located in $FIREFOX_DISTRIBUTION_DIR/distribution/

$FIREFOX_DISTRIBUTION_DIR is the installation directory for firefox, which (for default setup) probably will be printed by this:

  sed -nE 's/^\s*exec (.*\/)firefox .*/\1/p' $(which firefox) # and it's probably /usr/lib/firefox
When you decide to update you may temporarily replace policy for permissive one, or you may just install new version in a separate $FIREFOX_DISTRIBUTION_DIR.

[1] https://firefox-admin-docs.mozilla.org/guides/policies-confi...

[2] https://firefox-admin-docs.mozilla.org/reference/policies/

▲gblargg 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Even better, I switched to the esr release. It gets updates every week or two, but only for security issues. Otherwise the browser has a stable feature set and no new features.

▲fleebee 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I got very annoyed by the pending update pop-ups and the "Restart to keep using Firefox" messages when I opened new tabs, so I switched over to Librewolf and now I get no distracting modals at all and can update it precisely when I feel like it.

▲curt15 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This remains true: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

▲senfiaj 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, and when you think about the insane complexity of Web standards, and the fact that even Microsoft failed to create a browser with an independent engine, we are very unlikely to see a new browser engine: https://waspdev.com/articles/2025-04-07/will-there-be-a-new-... . This means that not only we are unlikely to see browsers with new engines but also that the existing browser engine diversity might even shrink if a browser becomes underfunded and / or loses a critical number of users / web developers.

▲happytoexplain 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"even Microsoft" is an oxymoron. Microsoft is exactly the entity I would expect to fail at implementing complex standards.

▲sumanep 6 hours ago | parent [-]

You didn´t understand

▲happytoexplain 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Why the insult with no explanation?

▲sumanep 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I did not insult

▲happytoexplain 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh, sorry, in English your wording appears insulting. What don't I understand?

▲sumanep 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I think OP didn´t mean the "real" web standars (W3C) but what Google rules that is the actual standars in practice. Edge had to move from his own rendering engine to blink (crhomium) because of that. So "even" Microsoft could not fight that trend. Sorry for my english.

▲zamadatix an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Your English seemed perfectly clear to me, for what it's worth. We just have a tendency to read things in a negative tone for some reason - one of those human bugs :).

▲happytoexplain 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Right, I see what you mean. It's not entirely Microsoft's fault - I'm just taking a shot at them.

▲TimTheTinker 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ladybird is steadily progressing: https://ladybird.org/

▲strenholme 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I will believe it when I see it. Still no public release.

▲xgulfie 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

too bad the project leader is a white replacement theory type

▲nickthegreek 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

that’s a bold statement, and my googling has not returned results that verify this claim. can you provide any context?

▲xgulfie 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Here's a fun example https://archive.is/ZtQpj

Another funny moment from this guy https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/6814#issuecommen...

▲happytoexplain 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

These both look within the realm of reason. Not that you must agree with them, only that they are not some kind of hideous evil.

▲Forgeties79 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The dismissal of gendered language as politics is arguably “defensible” in a “I wrote this in a way that allows me to hide behind it” sort of way. It was wrong and needlessly dismissive in a way that clearly communicates he disagrees to anyone who understands typical internet discourse tactics.

If he really did not want “political drama” or whatever there are far more effective ways to handle it that don't allow you to also signal your disapproval/disagreement with the content.

TL;DR: he handled it in a way that expressed his disagreement while staying plausibly deniable.

▲happytoexplain 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I completely agree that he was unnecessarily prickly/political in his response. I only disagree that it validates xgulfie's implication that he is in the "so bad we should disparage whatever he does" category.

▲flaviolivolsi 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Thank you

▲dev1ycan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If I was dealing with the same type of "person" that's only "contribution" to every github repo is to just go and ask for language policing I would intentionally be as prickly as possibly to them while telling them no.

▲Forgeties79 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Then you’d be a bad steward.

▲bigstrat2003 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There is absolutely nothing constructive about removing "gendered language". He was absolutely right to shut that nonsense down.

▲Forgeties79 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You’re literally doing what I described. You’re not even attempting to understand the issue,

▲drnick1 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

All of this seems about right.

▲cute_boi 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

what is wrong about it? I have issue with diversity that it allows someone to game the whole system. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion looks very good on paper, but in real world implementation it fails abysmally. I can tell because some of my friend who don't know anything got into companies by the same diversity and highly talented friend were rejected.

▲catlikesshrimp 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Not talking about you. But a white supremacist would be ok with only white people formally employed because whoever is not white wouldn't get a job without gaming the system. Pick the lesser evil.

▲happytoexplain 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I share your concern about the effects of white supremacy, but in this case it looks like there is no lesser or greater "evil'. Just a guy who expresses his opinions without delicacy.

▲leephillips 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That fun example does not provide evidence of what you accused the developer of. Not even close. I think if you’re going to accuse someone of what amounts to racist paranoia, you’d better have clear evidence of it. The fragment you linked to simply shows Kling being uncomfortable with racial discrimination in hiring, which is a mainstream, probably majority, attitude.

▲nasso_dev 5 hours ago | parent [-]

no, the fragment shows kling is completely blinded by his own privileges as a cisgender white guy and completely missing the point of diversity by instead making it all about himself and other cisgender white dudes

its unfortunately very common for privileged people to not realize how good they have it compared to people with less privileges. you have to live it to really know what its like

diversity efforts being seen as "discrimination against [privileged group]" is exactly how we don't fix the problem

▲happytoexplain 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In the 2020's, this is just another genre of petty hatred. As time goes on, one "type" of person's historical privilege becomes less and less valid as a reason to reduce them in any way, as compared to anybody else (giving the benefit of the doubt that it ever was "valid"). Similarly, "diversity efforts" are laudable in theory, but in practice they are frequently just discrimination in the opposite direction of what is typical.

▲copper-float 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

None of this has anything to do with "white replacement", or being "blind to privilege". You're stretching a totally reasonable viewpoint into "evil racism" because you don't agree with his point of view.

So you try to slander and discredit anyone who thinks differently than you. Same playbook every time, so boring.

You might think differently, but I think hiring someone based on their race to meet arbitrary racial quotas is insulting.

▲xgulfie 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sorry everyone on "hacker" "news" I cannot provably see into a strangers heart of hearts in a way that would satisfy you

▲happytoexplain 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't follow, especially since this is a reply to your own post. Can you clarify?

▲leephillips 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s an expression of frustration at being expected to supply evidence after accusing someone of racism.

▲nickthegreek 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Here at HN, we regularly expect evidence of lesser known claims. It’s actually a pretty cool way to form understanding based on reality. My original post was openminded, and stated that I tried to learn more about what your post on my own to not waste your time. When I could bot find discourse or articles about your statement, I asked for a source. That is a natural and valid thing to have happen. If there is basically no validation of your strong statements, maybe think about what you post and what it’s adding to the discourse.

▲happytoexplain 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You are not responding to the same commenter.

▲kikokikokiko 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It would be nice to have a browser with excellent ad blocking capabities that doesn't use the money of donations to fund "whites not welcome" initiatives, so people would be able to choose browsers based on their skin color

▲cyberax 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The last time I checked the source code, it was filled with horrible unsafe C++. They also re-implement everything whether it is needed or not.

▲adamrt 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It was filled with horrible unsafe C++

Are you saying their code was horrible and unsafe, or just that its a byproduct of using C++. They've been rewriting parts in rust: https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/blob/8f0a1b19114....

> They also re-implement everything whether it is needed or not.

No they don't. SerenityOS did, and that was the goal of the project. But Ladybird has plenty of third party libraries.

▲cyberax 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Are you saying their code was horrible and unsafe, or just that its a byproduct of using C++.

Yes.

It's both terrible because it's C++, and it's terrible because they're not following the modern C++ safe coding practices.

> They've been rewriting parts in rust: https://github.com/LadybirdBrowser/ladybird/blob/8f0a1b19114....

And it's not going to amount to anything major. Rewriting in Rust properly requires architecting things from the beginning.

> No they don't.

For a long time, their policy had been "no third-party code". Eventually it became untenable, so they started using third-party libraries. But they still ended up reinventing the wheel at least several times.

▲dieortin 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Aren’t Chrome and Firefox also filled with “horrible unsafe C++”?

▲cyberax 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Yup. But they had thousands of engineers working on them for a decade.

▲unloader6118 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Doesnt that makes it even less consistent ?

▲cyberax 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Why? C++ is horrible, but when you have thousands of developers, you can make it work.

▲cyberax 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Servo exists, and it's making steady progress: https://servo.org/

▲senfiaj 6 hours ago | parent [-]

How old is Servo? 14? I just opened waspdev.com and the UI was quite broken. It can't even render a basic blog normally.

▲cyberax 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Works for me? I clicked on a few games even.

The only brokenness is misalignment of text on the tag cloud. I took a glance, and it has the content marked as scrollable with the min-height of 0, height of 20 and line-height of 24. I have no idea what _is_ the correct behavior in this case.

▲senfiaj 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The html lists in the articles were not ok, the top bar search input as well. Chrome and FF were rendering fine.

▲mhitza 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Brave's adblocker does a good job. As far as I know Firefox started using some of the Rust written components of that engine.

Interestingly on fingerprinting test websites, Brave also did significantly better than Firefox + PrivacyBadger + ublock Origin + one or two more which I forgot. When I ran some tests a couple months back.

▲andai 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Firefox was slow on my computer (old Thinkpad). I tried using Degoogled Chromium but it kept crashing. So the closest thing for me (Chrome minus Google) was Brave.

Vivaldi is cool (I loved Opera 20 years ago) but very laggy on my machine. (They did the UI in JavaScript or something.)

I use both now (Brave and Firefox), when I want to use a second account. And Firefox scrolls PDFs more smoothly. (But Chrome-based browsers have sharper text rendering in PDFs! Can't win 'em all!)

I like that they both have vertical tabs now.

▲dartharva 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Brave is nowhere near as snappy as Chrome and Firefox with all its bloat.

▲cute_boi 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

To me helium the best browser right now.

▲zamadatix 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Firefox probably has the best support of the best ad blocker (uBO), which is really nice in a lot of ways, but whether or not that means it can be the only "quality" one is completely subjective. Keep in mind the typical user doesn't care enough to go install any ad blocker, let alone debate the differences between the top implementations.

▲emacdona 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Keep in mind the typical user doesn't care enough to go install any ad blocker

I hate that you are right about this :-)

It really hit home for me today. My project manager was sharing her screen so we could see the free planning poker webapp our team uses. I had it open locally on my machine. She had ads, I did not.

She's not a programmer, but she _is_ technical. She's worked adjacent to programmers for many years, and she's very adapt at writing SQL to query our DB. But she didn't think to install an ad blocker.

I guess I really do live in a bubble where I think _most_ people run ad blockers.

▲unloader6118 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> I hate that you are right about this :-)

I love this. Many ADs are blockable because they don't care adblocker.

If everybody use an Adblocker, they will come up with something even harder to block. This is engineering time arm race.

▲bikelang 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’ve never been enough of a uBO power user to say conclusively - but I am extremely satisfied with Brave - in particular its ad blocking on YouTube. I also think Brave is by far the best ad block available on iOS.

▲Genwald 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder how true this is now. I believe the functionality in MV3 has increased since it was released. There's still filters that can't be supported, but it seems like most are.

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/wiki/Frequently-as...

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/blob/main/chromium...

From "ublock-filters" only 1 filter was unsupported and 90 had unsupported domains dropped out of 10436. From "easylist" 18 out of 56109 filters are unsupported, no unsupported domains.

I'm sticking with uBlock-Origin, but not sure how much of a difference it makes these days.

▲christophilus 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m happy with Brave’s ad blocker. That said, I use Firefox on my desktop machines. It’s a great browser.

▲cromka 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Brave is even better since the ad engine is actually built in (lower level) and written in Rust if memory serves me well. And before anyone says anything about crypto: pay a small fee for Brave Origin or use it for free on Linux.

▲grrben 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

$60 ain't exactly teensy.

▲cromka 6 hours ago | parent [-]

It's a lifetime license.

▲stubish 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

'lifetime'

The last lifetime license I bought expired when the developer was bought, stopped releasing updates, and the software stopped working the next major OS upgrade. It is on a clock, and you don't know when it runs out so you can't value it.

▲grrben 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes.

▲cromka 6 hours ago | parent [-]

60 USD for a lifetime license for software is a lot in 2026? For a browser that's arguably the fastest, most lightweight, privacy oriented and with best AdBlock available?

▲catlikesshrimp 2 hours ago | parent [-]

This is arguably a sales pitch

▲bigyabai 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> pay a small fee for Brave Origin

"Hey, we recognize that normal Brave is exploitative and user-hostile by default. We'll fix it if you pay us $59.99 in mutual acknowledgement that you're a chump who can't install UBO."

I'm glad (and unsurprised) that Brave's vision for the web never hit the big leagues.

▲cromka 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Right, so when exactly paying a LICENSE for SOFTWARE had become EXPLOITATIVE?

▲bigyabai 3 hours ago | parent [-]

[dead]

▲PKop 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not their "vision for the web" it's just an attempt at funding development of the browser given they aren't an ad-network behemoth like Google. Like Kagi charging for their search engine, a company charging money directly for the product is a good idea all things considered. How do you expect them to pay their developers?

▲zem 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't use brave, and I'm mostly going by this comment thread, but if the free brave is user hostile by default in an attempt to steer people over to the paid brave, that's a very legitimate thing to complain about. you can't compare it to kagi.

▲cromka 6 hours ago | parent [-]

No one is steering towards paid version. Every for profit feature can be disabled in free version. Whoever said hostile absolutely abused that phrase to make their point. And be the judge of it yourself: try it.

▲bigyabai 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> How do you expect them to pay their developers?

Ethically, for one. I'll be fucked if you expect me to "donate" to a browser that thinks my friends and family deserve a lower-quality browser experience.

▲bethekidyouwant 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How is it hostile? Serving you an ad when you don’t have a tab open? Literally open a tab my guy it’s free

▲_--__--__ 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Many opponents of Brave online are thoroughly convinced that Brave Rewards (which gives you their Ethereum coin in exchange for showing ads as OS notification) is on by default, when it isn't. They also claim that this replaces blocked ads on webpages (this may have been true very early, I didn't use Brave back then).

▲cute_boi 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Maintaining browser takes a lot of effort. And, fighting with google implementation takes it to whole new level. $60 is very reasonable amount as it is a lifetime license.

▲bigyabai 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't trust Brave to fight the good fight against Google. Brave wants to sell their own ads and push Web3 slop, making them an ethical tarpit with questionable motivations.

▲gilrain 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Thanks! I had no idea they added a paid option.

This is a brilliant browser for iOS/Linux usage, and now its UI is minimal, and its settings are filled only with stuff for my benefit. It feels like the early 2000s again! This should be much more ballyhooed.

▲MrDrMcCoy 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Brave's adblocker is pretty good, but their means of syncing browsers has kept me away.

▲TimTheTinker 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

uBlock Origin (non-lite) only works on Firefox as far as I know. Brave purportedly has a built-in ad blocker that uses the same lists, but I can't vouch for it personally.

▲culi 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Brave maintains its own fork of uBlock Origin for Chromium and hosts it on its own servers but they themselves have admitted they're unsure how long this state of affairs can go on for.

Their built-in adblock is quite good but still not nearly as sophisticated as uBO which intelligently intercepts and modifies requests from advertisers to stop tracking. uBO is much more than an adblock tbh

▲sumanep 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I use it in Opera without issues

▲fizwidget 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People say this, but seeing ads is very rare for me with AdGuard on Safari. I’ve no doubt that it’s technically less comprehensive than the best Firefox ad blockers, but in practice it feels more than “good enough” for me.

I imagine others feel the same?

▲faizmokh 2 hours ago | parent [-]

For me I just enabled the built-in privacy feature and uBlock Origin. Haven't see any ads so far.

Only downside is I keep getting Google Recaptcha so I have to switch to DDG.

▲pynappo 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

From my POV, an adblocker's perceived quality is primarily weighted on whether it can block visible ads without impacting performance. While uBO on firefox is a more capable blocker, I honestly don't browse enough sites to know one where uBOL provides a worse experience in this metric than uBO.

I prefer vivaldi's UX to firefox enough that i am willing to settle for technically-worse adblocking. If I notice this becoming practically-worse, I will consider switching.

▲chr-s 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm using Safari w/ AdGuard and it seems to work OK.

▲ 7 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
▲Mashimo 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

uBlock lite is enough for me. I switched from normal to lite and did not notice a difference.

▲bluebarbet 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

With this attitude you can expect uBlock Ultra-Lite and then uBlock Nothing in future. Mozilla is the only remaining obstacle to stop big tech from deciding everything about how the web is rendered. If we don't support Firefox we will get what we deserve.

▲Mashimo 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Might be, but I can't take on every battle. I switched from chrome to vivaldi in the hopes of they would keep the v2 api alive. They could not. Currently I can't be asked to switch browser again. Maybe at some point.

But OP asked if "is this not enough of a selling point" and I wanted to answer that honestly.

▲khriss 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If that's enough for you, then by all means use Chrome.

▲Mashimo 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, it's what I do. I use Vivaldi.

▲nickthegreek 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

the difference is you are being tracked but not seeing the ads. that’s what you lost when they sunset mv2 for mv3.

▲cube00 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Just wait until Manifest V4 then Manifest V5.

▲nosioptar 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Qutebrowser's ad blocking got much better than it used to be. It's not as good as ubo though.

▲grebc 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

NoScript works well enough just wholesale blocking js.

▲kevinmgranger 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've heard good things about Orion (WebKit)

▲MrDrMcCoy 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It's still unusable on Linux, but I like where it's going.

▲cube00 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Some people seem to enjoy ads, maybe they feel like they'll be first to know about the next hot thing.

Just look at how many people pump positive comments into influencer's posts that are nothing more then ads (sorry, collaborations). While some are bots, plenty seem real.

Or the new local takeaway that's just opened and all the reviews saying "I keep seeing this place appear so I had to check it out"

▲broken-kebab 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Few month after I started using bare Chromium instead of Brave, and consequently started to see ads, they often felt like a cool joke. I even had an occasional urge to share it with colleagues, like "Look, what they are showing me, haha" But novelty faded, and they became nuisance again.

▲andrew_lettuce 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Occasionally see someone go to yt without ad blocking and I'm blown away, feels like I'm from the 1800's sitting with someone in rush hour traffic - what is going on?

▲ 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲Cider9986 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Brave has a quality ad blocker without mv2 but they also support uBlock origin

▲MBCook 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Safari and 1Blocker works fine for me.

▲happytoexplain 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Only? No. Best? Yes, it's not even close.

I got the Chrome extension that adds the "Open in Firefox" option to the hyperlink right-click menu. That's how I view all YouTube videos.

I'd switch completely to Firefox except for all my data being on Google. It's clear that eventually I will switch to Firefox completely.

Google is pure evil.

▲51Cards 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't understand, all my data sits on Google too but I never use Chrome for anything? What issues are you having?

▲happytoexplain 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

1. Laziness.

2. My employer requires Chrome or Edge to access all resources.

▲werdnapk 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

My data is google too and I own a pixel phone, but I only use Firefox and my google data is perfectly accessible using it.

▲MrDrMcCoy 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why not migrate your data off? As far as browser stuff goes, it's not that hard of a switch.

▲happytoexplain 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Laziness.

Also I swear YouTube runs much worse on FF. But that's secondary.

▲andrew_lettuce 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I switched my family off Google after almost 20 years on our own domain. In hindsight it was ridiculously easy, although there are still some weird Google account required links that ultimately have me just moving on. Yt does run worse on FF but that's because of unlock (I believe) they tend to stall out intentionally instead of showing you ads and attempt to get you to switch.

▲happytoexplain 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, I believe the stall-out issue is sabotage, but it also visibly takes longer to just render the page. On FF, a YT page jumps around for almost two whole seconds while it renders for me (not to play the video - to render the page). This may also be sabotage by Google, I don't know.

▲folkrav 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That second part was indeed pretty self evident years ago, but I regularly watch 4k content on YouTube on low powered machine these days and can't say I see the difference anymore.

▲happytoexplain 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not saying it's FF's fault, but it undeniably runs worse on my machine.

▲flir 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You might still in a power usage graph.

▲folkrav 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Eh, maybe, maybe not. I watch YouTube content, not power usage graphs, perceived performance is good enough for what I do with it. If I'm on battery I'm probably not watching in 4k anyway, at which point the difference in power use should be pretty negligible.

▲culi 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

YouTube runs worse on FF if you have uBO. They do it on purpose. But if you were to use a clean Firefox install it's pretty comparable. Ofc YT is optimized for Chromium which is another factor

▲culi 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

When you first install Firefox, there's an option to import all your data from Chrome.