Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
ce (12023-06-08): > What about ads for car insurance? Yes, what about them? What do you think they have special? (Hint: an ad for a car insurance is not to convince you to subscribe to any insurance rather than none, it is to convince you to subscribe to this insurance rather than any other.) -- Nicolas George signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On 6/8/23 01:34, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: Ad industry /is/ about convincing people to do things which potentially damage them. So it is deceptive by design. Read up on Big Tobacco for a good example. What about ads for car insurance?
Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 12:45:38AM +0200, Oliver Schoede wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 06:05:18 +0200 > wrote: > > >On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 05:59:11PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > > >[...] > > > >> The only case I can see in which such offloading would > >> be unethical is where the website operator is somehow engaging in > >> deceptive behavior, but assuming it is not [...] > > > >A pretty strong assumption given that the crushing maturity of > >the internet is fuelled by the ad industry [...] > So somehow there still is no such thing as free lunch. You could just > as well "blame" a cable TV network for running all those ads, your TV > set after all won't eat less power. No profit means no fancy > shows, sports, nor fancy websites. On the web things get quickly fuzzy > of course, but in general neither is exactly deceptive. Ad industry /is/ about convincing people to do things which potentially damage them. So it is deceptive by design. Read up on Big Tobacco for a good example. > We know what > we're doing and what we're doing is voluntary and the catches, if not > obvious, are obviously well known. Know a workaround or work without > it. I'm still a (somewhat) regular terminal links user, a text browser > that is, no javascript not to mention anything more demanding [...] We are some kind of elite, don't forget that. Think of all those folks pushed to standard browsers (banking) and smartphones (again, banking, in some countries even basic public services). They haven't the means to fight that; things are set up so they don't even realise it, so most of the time they haven't even motive. So it's on us. > [...] After all those years uBlock > Origin probably saved me tangible money too, especially with German > electricity costs (who's to blame?), but then what's cheating? Ah. uBlock. A free lunch, after all? ;-) Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 06:05:18 +0200 wrote: >On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 05:59:11PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > >[...] > >> The only case I can see in which such offloading would >> be unethical is where the website operator is somehow engaging in >> deceptive behavior, but assuming it is not [...] > >A pretty strong assumption given that the crushing maturity of >the internet is fuelled by the ad industry, which, barred some >exceptions, can be characterised as "deception for hire". > >Cheers So somehow there still is no such thing as free lunch. You could just as well "blame" a cable TV network for running all those ads, your TV set after all won't eat less power. No profit means no fancy shows, sports, nor fancy websites. On the web things get quickly fuzzy of course, but in general neither is exactly deceptive. We know what we're doing and what we're doing is voluntary and the catches, if not obvious, are obviously well known. Know a workaround or work without it. I'm still a (somewhat) regular terminal links user, a text browser that is, no javascript not to mention anything more demanding, find it quite comfortable for text-dominated sites, like docs or Wikepedia, doesn't go well with physics/math content though. Also ok for a quick brush-up on news sites, where there's still a need, most don't work anymore but some do, not the ads. After all those years uBlock Origin probably saved me tangible money too, especially with German electricity costs (who's to blame?), but then what's cheating? Greetings, Oliver
Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 05:59:11PM -0400, Celejar wrote: [...] > The only case I can see in which such offloading would > be unethical is where the website operator is somehow engaging in > deceptive behavior, but assuming it is not [...] A pretty strong assumption given that the crushing maturity of the internet is fuelled by the ad industry, which, barred some exceptions, can be characterised as "deception for hire". Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 16:17:47 +0800 Bret Busby wrote: > On 4/6/23 14:32, Max Nikulin wrote: > > > > > I believe, web site creators should be blamed more aggressively than > > browser developers for RAM requirements of contemporary web applications. > > > > That was the point that I was making - I had not, as a twisted response > indicated, criticised Firefox regarding the misuse of resources - I > explicitly referred to malignant web application developers (for those > that do not understand the term, a web application is the application, > on the web application hosting server, that the user accesses, using a > web browser, not the web browser itself) that steal users' resources > using client-side processing (by using malware such as javascript using > client side processing), rather than properly and ethically using > server-side processing, such as .jsp or Perl .cgi applications. > > The problem is that some web developers (and, especially, their > employers) offload the processing that should be done on the business > web application hosting server, to the victim users' personal computers. > It is a malignant exploitation, like the "gig economy". I am quite puzzled by your perspective: you repeatedly express moral indignation at the offloading of processing to users' machines, calling this "malignant exploitation" and "steal[ing]" and implying that it is unethical. Why? What duty does the website owe you to do any processing at all for you? The only case I can see in which such offloading would be unethical is where the website operator is somehow engaging in deceptive behavior, but assuming it is not, why do you feel that there is an ethical problem here? What right does a user have to demand that someone else perform some processing for him? -- Celejar
Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
> With no client-side javascript, it's not possible to change just a part of > a web page[0]. The server must send the whole web page to be rendered by the > client. So while it decreases CPU usage in the client, it increases network > usage. Isn't it unethical to also "steal" more bandwidth than necessary? Indeed, early uses of client side (Javascript) processing really helped make web sites more efficient: for the server, the client, and the network in between. And then web developers realized that a browser-with-Javascript is just a sort of VM. So now we have "web applications" running in that VM, where the backward/forward buttons make you leave/reenter the application rather than move through past states of it, and you can't use bookmarks to refer to the current state any more :-( Stefan
Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 10:34:04AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 04:30:46PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > So the practice is that the whole internet dumps the whole framework > > schtack [2] on you. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAssembly We need better craftspeople, not better tools. And no, I'm not actually blaming the people themselves, but an environment which doesn't encourage that. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 04:30:46PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > So the practice is that the whole internet dumps the whole framework > schtack [2] on you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAssembly
Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On Sun, Jun 04, 2023 at 08:17:43AM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: [...] > With no client-side javascript, it's not possible to change just a part of a > web page[0]. The server must send the whole web page to be rendered by the > client. So while it decreases CPU usage in the client, it increases network > usage. Isn't it unethical to also "steal" more bandwidth than necessary? > > [0] There are frames (now deprecated) and iframes, but they only get you so > far. And each (i)frame must be a complete html page. This is the theory, yes. In practice, here's one example: my browser takes roughly 12sec to "boot" our company chat app (a stripe.js monster, AFAICS). All that to ask me whether I want to download their "native" [1] app or "view" the thing in the browser. When I opt for the browser it continues "booting" for a few secs. So the practice is that the whole internet dumps the whole framework schtack [2] on you. Cheers [1] An electron app. Yeah, right. [2] A pun, not a typo. -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
Max Nikulin wrote: ... > I believe, web site creators should be blamed more aggressively than > browser developers for RAM requirements of contemporary web applications. no kidding, rather poor design in many web sites these days, loading and reloading images, large images for little purpose, videos which don't really show or say much, etc. my biggest peeves in recent times is login pages which are full of stuff (when all i want to do is login. don't make it a mess which takes too long to load up. just let me login, ok? grrr!) and pages which want me to accept their cookies but are so full of stuff if i click too soon i get an error, so i'm having to wait a few moments before i can click. songbird
Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On 04/06/2023 05:17, Bret Busby wrote: On 4/6/23 14:32, Max Nikulin wrote: I believe, web site creators should be blamed more aggressively than browser developers for RAM requirements of contemporary web applications. That was the point that I was making - I had not, as a twisted response indicated, criticised Firefox regarding the misuse of resources - I explicitly referred to malignant web application developers (for those that do not understand the term, a web application is the application, on the web application hosting server, that the user accesses, using a web browser, not the web browser itself) that steal users' resources using client-side processing (by using malware such as javascript using client side processing), rather than properly and ethically using server-side processing, such as .jsp or Perl .cgi applications. The problem is that some web developers (and, especially, their employers) offload the processing that should be done on the business web application hosting server, to the victim users' personal computers. It is a malignant exploitation, like the "gig economy". With no client-side javascript, it's not possible to change just a part of a web page[0]. The server must send the whole web page to be rendered by the client. So while it decreases CPU usage in the client, it increases network usage. Isn't it unethical to also "steal" more bandwidth than necessary? [0] There are frames (now deprecated) and iframes, but they only get you so far. And each (i)frame must be a complete html page. And even with regards to CPU usage your model might not be so great. Instead of re-rendering just the part of the page that needs to be changed (say, the message pane in a webmail application), with no client-side scripting the whole interface must be re-rendered, which can be resource intensive. So while I'd agree that with client-side scripting resource usage in the client is higher, it might not be as higher as you think. -- Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br
Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On 4/6/23 14:32, Max Nikulin wrote: I believe, web site creators should be blamed more aggressively than browser developers for RAM requirements of contemporary web applications. That was the point that I was making - I had not, as a twisted response indicated, criticised Firefox regarding the misuse of resources - I explicitly referred to malignant web application developers (for those that do not understand the term, a web application is the application, on the web application hosting server, that the user accesses, using a web browser, not the web browser itself) that steal users' resources using client-side processing (by using malware such as javascript using client side processing), rather than properly and ethically using server-side processing, such as .jsp or Perl .cgi applications. The problem is that some web developers (and, especially, their employers) offload the processing that should be done on the business web application hosting server, to the victim users' personal computers. It is a malignant exploitation, like the "gig economy". .. Bret Busby Armadale West Australia (UTC+0800) ..
Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On 03/06/2023 18:37, The Wanderer wrote: On 2023-06-03 at 07:18, Max Nikulin wrote: On 03/06/2023 17:40, The Wanderer wrote: Hey, now. I once had a Firefox session (with "restore tabs from previous session" enabled, and about six-to-eight windows) with 5,190 open tabs, and that computer only had 24GB of RAM. Modern browsers supports "unloaded" tabs, so most of your tabs likely were similar to bookmarks with page resources not loaded to RAM. That feature was, AFAIK, first introduced in the BarTab addon which I mentioned. So, yes, and although in hindsight I didn't state it explicitly, I intended to convey that by mentioning that addon. Sorry, I never used BarTab, so I was unaware that tab unloading appeared in this add-on earlier than in Firefox. For me an "open tab" is the one that is rendered, has DOM tree in memory and perhaps running JS, webasm, animated images and styles, so some pages may be really hungry for RAM. Most of your tabs are just some records and will load resources from net when you really open them. I appreciate that browsers limit consumed resources by unloading page content when a tab is not accessed for some period of time. It is great that users may have hundreds of tabs despite I mostly have no more than a couple of dozens. I just would not call a tab "open" because I consider it as a synonym to "loaded". Anyway add-ons for advanced tab management hides most of them. I believe, web site creators should be blamed more aggressively than browser developers for RAM requirements of contemporary web applications. P.S. Perhaps in future tabs as UI element in browsers will be merged with bookmarks and browsing history. The only prerequisite to better save state of scroll position and partially filled forms. I'm not sure quite what you're envisioning, but one reason why I keep so many open tabs rather than using e.g. bookmarks instead is because I want to be able to preserve forward/back history within each tab; I don't know of any other feature that enables doing that. Thanks, I have never considered such use case, but it is not against of fusing of tabs, bookmarks, and history. Your tabs are a kind of advanced bookmarks, a favorite nodes in browsing history graph. Current bookmark UI is just too limited in browsers, so tabs are more flexible and more convenient for you. I mostly open new tabs to follow links (actually it is more close to enqueue a page for reading). That is why usefulness of forward-backward history is quite limited for me. Unfortunately opener is not saved for tabs. (I consider annotating of visited pages is more important, but it is another story.) "Pure" tabs are hot cache of rendered pages where current DOM state is important for following interaction. Everything else are just records in some database. For me, tabs UI is a kind of L1 cache, a subset of pages closely related to the current or planned soon activity. Of course, I do not insist that everybody should think of browser UI in my terms, it is just a point of view.
Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On 2023-06-03 at 07:18, Max Nikulin wrote: > On 03/06/2023 17:40, The Wanderer wrote: > >> Hey, now. I once had a Firefox session (with "restore tabs from >> previous session" enabled, and about six-to-eight windows) with >> 5,190 open tabs, and that computer only had 24GB of RAM. > > Modern browsers supports "unloaded" tabs, so most of your tabs likely > were similar to bookmarks with page resources not loaded to RAM. That feature was, AFAIK, first introduced in the BarTab addon which I mentioned. So, yes, and although in hindsight I didn't state it explicitly, I intended to convey that by mentioning that addon. > P.S. Perhaps in future tabs as UI element in browsers will be merged > with bookmarks and browsing history. The only prerequisite to better > save state of scroll position and partially filled forms. I'm not sure quite what you're envisioning, but one reason why I keep so many open tabs rather than using e.g. bookmarks instead is because I want to be able to preserve forward/back history within each tab; I don't know of any other feature that enables doing that. I also can't think of another UI paradigm for interfacing with such a setup that would work any better than tabs do. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Firefox resource utilization (was Re: A case for supporting antiquated hardware, was Re: A hypervisor for a headless server?)
On 03/06/2023 17:40, The Wanderer wrote: Hey, now. I once had a Firefox session (with "restore tabs from previous session" enabled, and about six-to-eight windows) with 5,190 open tabs, and that computer only had 24GB of RAM. Modern browsers supports "unloaded" tabs, so most of your tabs likely were similar to bookmarks with page resources not loaded to RAM. P.S. Perhaps in future tabs as UI element in browsers will be merged with bookmarks and browsing history. The only prerequisite to better save state of scroll position and partially filled forms.
