Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Chrome Chromium Firefox Google Internet Explorer Mozilla Software Stats The Internet IT

Chrome Passes 25% Market Share, IE and Firefox Slip 240

Posted by timothy from the none-of-them-are-perfect dept.
An anonymous reader writes: In April 2015, we saw the naming of Microsoft Edge, the release of Chrome 42, and the first full month of Firefox 37 availability. Now we're learning that Google's browser has finally passed the 25 percent market share mark. Hit the link for some probably unnecessarily fine-grained statistics on recent browser trends. Have your browser habits shifted recently? Which browsers do you use most often?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chrome Passes 25% Market Share, IE and Firefox Slip More

Chrome Passes 25% Market Share, IE and Firefox Slip

Comments Filter:

  • Chrome - the web browser that's added as bloatware (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Z00L00K ( 682162 ) on Sunday May 03, 2015 @10:54AM (#49605395) Homepage Journal

    Chrome is added as bloatware to a lot of products which makes it hardly surprising that it gains an advantage in market percentage.

    • Re:Chrome - the web browser that's added as bloatw (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Sunday May 03, 2015 @10:58AM (#49605427)

      Unlike all the others? The most infamous such case was that of Microsoft and Internet Explorer.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org].
                           

    • Very very very poor multi-tab open (Score:4, Interesting)

      by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Sunday May 03, 2015 @11:59AM (#49605749)

      Chrome is truly awful at opening multiple tabs at once on my mac. unbelievably slow loading times compared to Safari. And when a page is loading in one tab, other tabs don't continue to update swiftly. I find this really a weirds because chrome uses a separate process for each tab so one would think they would not step on each other. My guess, wild, is that tabs are contending for some resource like network or GPU and actually slowing each other down. In general I much prefer safari or firefox, but I use chrome because I also own a chromebook and I can't run safari on that. Basically, google is doing the same thing microsoft did to make IE dominant by not allowing other browsers on their platform.

      • I use chrome because I also own a chromebook and I can't run safari on that. Basically, google is doing the same thing microsoft did to make IE dominant by not allowing other browsers on their platform.

        Apple is free to port Safari to Windows or X11/Linux, but it chooses not to. It used to port Safari to Windows but no longer does.

        • Apple didn't even have the courtesy to say they were discontinuing Safari on Windows, they just stopped releasing versions. So fuck them.

      • Re:Very very very poor multi-tab open (Score:4, Interesting)

        by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Sunday May 03, 2015 @02:38PM (#49606535)

        Chrome has a lot of issues:
        1. It's a fucking RAM guzzler. 14 simple tabs eat up 2 GB RAM after 24h of usage. If I leave the browser open for a week, it's going to eat up over 4 GB RAM with the same tabs open, without working with any of them. I inadvertently discovered that when I went vacationing for a week and left Chrome running on my PC. Firefox, with the same tabs, eats 600MB RAM (as reported by Chrome's own about:memory).
        2. Opening several tabs at once slows the OS to a crawl until they all load, which could take up to a minute (on a fast PC).
        3. Tabs crash suddenly even if they're not used for a while (or maybe because of that).

        With that being said, I depend too much of its deep interconnection with other Google services and it's amazingly helpful in managing my data, so I'll keep grumbling about its shortcomings while using it.

      • And when a page is loading in one tab, other tabs don't continue to update swiftly.

        Chrome lazy-loads pages once the tabs are actually selected. In Firefox, it's an option you can set in the preferences dialog (turned on by default).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Lisias ( 447563 )

      Chrome is added as bloatware to a lot of products which makes it hardly surprising that it gains an advantage in market percentage.

      You are taking it wrong.

      Chrome is not gaining any advantage in market share. That sad excuse for browsers that compete with Chrome is that are loosing market share.

      Since Chrome is practically the only player left that still plays something right, people are going to it by lack of choice.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday May 03, 2015 @11:01AM (#49605445)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:bad statistics (Score:5, Interesting)

      by benjymouse ( 756774 ) on Sunday May 03, 2015 @11:28AM (#49605581)

      Why is it that when I look at wikipedia [wikipedia.org], they show all the various counters more or less in agreement, except netapplications which vastly overcounts IE and undercounts Chrome, android and safari?

      Maybe because Net Applications is the only counter that tries to correct for known skewed sampling. Net Applications uses CIA internet usage data (how much of the population in each country has access to the Internet) to estimate absolute numbers for each country based on the measures distribution and the "Internet" population number. Net Applications is perfectly honest and upfront about this.

      The other counters just report whatever stats has been collected. They also are perfectly honest and upfront about this.

      Both correcting and not correcting may leave errors. Be your own judge.

      But there's a perfectly good explanation as to *why* the numbers seem not to agree: They do not even claim to illustrate the same thing. Net Applications tries to create a number for "true" global distribution (and risk errors), the others do not even claim to compute such a number. In theory you could take the numbers from, say statcounter, by country and extrapolate the absolute number per country, sum them up by browser and calculate a number similar to net app. Could be interesting to see.

      Also, be aware that there is also great popential for skewed demographics between the counters, not to mention the fact that Net Applications tries to measure unique visitors (discarding repeat visitors within a month) while most of the others just report page impressions. If for instance users of Chrome are more active on the 'net than users of IE, chrome would have a bigger share of page impressions than they would of unique visitors. There is no "right" in this: It all depends on the question you ask: If the Q is "which browser is the most popular?" you would look at unique visitors. If the Q is "which browser is used the most?" you would look at page impressions.

      Why is it that of all the various counters netapplications is the one most often quoted, even though they appear to be using a bad methodology.

      Maybe because they use the *least bad* methodology. The others do not even *pretend* to estimate global usage. They may report what *they* see of usage globally, but none of them claim to know how many users there are in each contry.

      • Re:bad statistics (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Sunday May 03, 2015 @12:04PM (#49605775)

        Maybe because Net Applications is the only counter that tries to correct for known skewed sampling.

        They have to correct for skewed sampling because their sample size is so small, especially for non-U.S. sites. Of the big metrics sites [wikipedia.org]:

        StatCounter monitors over 3 million sites (reports page hits)
        W3Counter monitors over 70,000 sites (reports unique visitors per month)
        Net Applications monitors over 40,000 sites (reports unique visitors per month)

        Net Applications is the only one which reports IE still in the lead. Which given the sample sizes I think more calls into question their correcting algorithms than it does StatCounter's sample.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gdshaw ( 1015745 )

          It isn't just their correction algorithms, it is the whole basis of what they are trying to measure. Consider this.

          I probably use IE once or twice a month, but Firefox and Chrome several thousand times in the same period. So far as Net Applications are concerned that counts as one user for each of the three browsers. Meanwhile, over in the Duchy of Grand Fenwick you might have a user who doesn't bother installing Firefox or Chrome because he uses the Internet so little, but who probably counts as several us

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gdshaw ( 1015745 )

            Correction: it seems that Net Applications do count unique users per site, and it is per day not per month, so most of the discrepancy must be due to a different mechanism from the one I described above. Apologies for the belated fact checking.

            The figures do count users rather than traffic, and while they claim to weight by traffic, the data source they appear to be referring to is stated in terms of users. If that is so then it would remain the case that they are counting traffic which is not real: users p

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Kjella ( 173770 )

        Maybe because Net Applications is the only counter that tries to correct for known skewed sampling. Net Applications uses CIA internet usage data (how much of the population in each country has access to the Internet) to estimate absolute numbers for each country based on the measures distribution and the "Internet" population number. Net Applications is perfectly honest and upfront about this.

        And yet if I look at StatCounter's map function, showing the leading browser in each country Chrome leads in most of the world. IE only leads in Japan, South Korea, Swaziland (pop. 1.1mio), Greenland (pop. 55000) and Antarctica (5000 visitors). Firefox has a few strongholds like Germany, Indonesia, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Iran and a bunch of countries in Africa, but the only place IE is ahead of Chrome in second place is Iran (pop. 78mio). With Chrome winning on walkover in Europe, South America, North America

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gdshaw ( 1015745 )

          And yet if I look at StatCounter's map function, showing the leading browser in each country Chrome leads in most of the world. IE only leads in Japan, South Korea, Swaziland (pop. 1.1mio), Greenland (pop. 55000) and Antarctica (5000 visitors). Firefox has a few strongholds like Germany, Indonesia, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Iran and a bunch of countries in Africa, but the only place IE is ahead of Chrome in second place is Iran (pop. 78mio). With Chrome winning on walkover in Europe, South America, North America, Africa and Oceania and taking massive wins in China, India and Russia I don't see how any possible weighting of StatCounter's numbers would put IE on top.

          You're right that the country weightings don't account for the difference by themselves, but there is also the difference between counting users versus pageviews, and it would be unsurprising if there were differences between the types of websites sampled by the two companies.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by afgam28 ( 48611 )

      FTFA:

      Net Applications uses data captured from 160 million unique visitors each month by monitoring some 40,000 websites for its clients. This means it measures user market share. If you prefer usage market share, you’ll want to get your data from StatCounter, which looks at 15 billion page views.

      So Net Applications counts the number of users who use it, whereas StatCounter counts the number of uses (i.e. page hits). The difference you see with Internet Explorer being "overcounted" shows that it occupies a long tail of many users who don't browse the web very often, whereas heavy web users prefer Chrome so it gets "undercounted".

      StatCounter stats are below, for desktop and combined (desktop+phone+tablet+console):

      http://gs.statcounter.com/#des... [statcounter.com]
      http://gs.statcounter.com/#mob... [statcounter.com]

      • The difference you see with Internet Explorer being "overcounted" shows that it occupies a long tail of many users who don't browse the web very often

        And the users who occasionally need IE for something specific that still doesn't work in other browsers.

  • Android (Score:5, Informative)

    by AndyCanfield ( 700565 ) <.andycanfield. .at. .yandex.com.> on Sunday May 03, 2015 @11:09AM (#49605479) Homepage
    I used to test compatability between Chrome, Opera, Firefox, and Internet Explorer, as a desktop browser. But now we have one PC and two phones and a tablet, and Chrome is native on all the mobile devices. That's where Firefox is losing to Chrome. Personally I installed Firefox on my Android Tablet, but Chrome still lurks in the background.

    • Re:Android (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bing Tsher E ( 943915 ) on Sunday May 03, 2015 @11:16AM (#49605513) Journal

      I would never use the native browser on Android. That's like just giving up to Google entirely on privacy. I almost always use Firefox and I NEVER log into any Google services on Firefox/Android.

      Just cuz my phone resides in the company town doesn't mean I have to be totally locked in.

  • Firefox (Score:2, Insightful)

    by msobkow ( 48369 )

    It's fast enough. It renders properly. It lets me override font settings.

    Chrome's big "death knell" in my books is the inability to override font settings. I don't know why so many web designers use magnifying glasses when testing their pages. :(

  • I've switched back to Firefox (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Parker Lewis ( 999165 ) on Sunday May 03, 2015 @11:31AM (#49605599)

    I switched back to Firefox few months ago.

    In Ubuntu, Chrome is a resource hog. I usually have several tabs opened at the same time. Just compared the RAM usage: 7GB in Chrome, 1.1 in Firefox.

    Additionally, Firefox is a bit faster (in UI), and it just respects my look and feel (colors, borders, font sizes, etc).

    And for address bar searches, Chrome privileges the google search instead of navigation history, which I really don't like (I usually visit the same sites, and even with several hits in a day for the same site starting with the same word, Chrome prefers, for few ones, to search when I type the word instead of display the known URL as first result).

    I just changed few settings in Firefox (increased scroll speed, click in URL behaviour to select the entire address), and voilà.

    Just annoying that every Google service keep suggesting to use Chrome until you dismiss this message.

  • I abandoned Firefox for Chrome long ago for one reason: I can kill individual tabs with runaway CPU usage without fscking the whole browser.

    Mozilla's been working on adding this feature for years, but AFAIK it hasn't yet made it into a stable release: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Elect... [mozilla.org]

    Once that makes it into a stable release of Firefox, I'll give it another spin.

    • >"I abandoned Firefox for Chrome long ago for one reason: I can kill individual tabs with runaway CPU usage without fscking the whole browser."

      The funny thing is that I haven't seen that happen in Firefox (at least not under Linux, which is all I use) for many years. So I don't even think it is an issue.

      • I tried switching back last year and had issues with it. I'm the sort of person who likes to keep like 3 browser windows open, each with 20 tabs. So I'm at high risk for one tab going haywire.

        • >"I tried switching back last year and had issues with it. I'm the sort of person who likes to keep like 3 browser windows open, each with 20 tabs. So I'm at high risk for one tab going haywire."

          Actually, that is how I browse at home with Firefox. Right now I have three windows open, one with 25 tabs, one with 6, and one with 10. I leave everything open and running for several days or weeks. Occasionally I need to log out or the browser sucks too much memory and I restart it.

  • Firefox - the new UI is killing marketshare (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Sunday May 03, 2015 @11:41AM (#49605667)
    Firefox's market share has been dropping ever since the new UI was introduced.

    .
    One would think that the Mozilla developers would take their heads out of their collective arse and look at the reality --- the new UI is little more than a Chrome clone, and a poor one at that. If people wanted the new UI, they'd move to the better implementation of it, i.e., Chrome.

    Oh wait, they are moving to Chrome....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by loony ( 37622 )

      Its not just that - but everything about FF seems to be going the wrong direction... I have a heavy ajax site that uses jquery - it works great in safari and chrome. IE is a little slow at times, but we all know that. But firefox just locks up after less than an hour... yay! Reported it - sits there for weeks now without being assigned or anything else useful happening.

      They want to stop supporting http - what an idiotic thing to even talk about. There is lots of valid use for http, including developing some

      • There is lots of valid use for http, including developing something real quick without bothering to get/create an ssl cert for your internal box

        The forthcoming Let's Encrypt project will allow "get[ting]/creat[ing] an ssl cert" without any "bothering" beyond an install command.

        Things where you just transfer bulk data that is of little value.

        Is it really of so little value that you care not a whit whether the data you received is identical to the data that was sent? If so, extract an identical number of bytes from /dev/zero. If not, then you need to at least use signing, and HTTPS does this for you.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Dog-Cow ( 21281 )

          Is it really of so little value that you care not a whit whether the data you received is identical to the data that was sent?

          Yes. Take slashdot, for example. I don't give a flying fuck what the server sends, so long as it reads more-or-less like English (no, I am not new here), and is vagualy entertaining. HTTPS would be a waste for 99% of the site.

          • Would you want other users to be able to post as Dog-Cow? Because if you don't subscribe, you don't get HTTPS, and if you don't use HTTPS when posting, others can intercept and clone your session cookie.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by narcc ( 412956 )

        Then stop using jQuery. Your users will thank you.

      • >"They want to stop supporting http - what an idiotic thing to even talk about. There is lots of valid use for http"

        Yep. Another unpopular move for many people. I don't need Mozilla trying to dictate how I want to use a web browser. No doubt this change will break lots of older stuff WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER and make corporate use of Firefox even that much more difficult. Plus, it will break centralized caching proxies that we use effectively at work to greatly reduce bandwidth usage. And with cen

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jolyonr ( 560227 )

      Firefox's market share has been dropping ever since the new UI was introduced.

      Actually, Firefox's market share has been dropping ever since the Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquake.

  • Firefox's downward slide... (Score:3)

    by taxman_10m ( 41083 ) on Sunday May 03, 2015 @11:57AM (#49605741)

    Is it all post Eich or pre Eich and/or did Eich's departure hasten the decline?

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • I switched to Pale Moon across the board.

        Oh yeah, that's gonna work out well for you. I used to be the biggest Pale Moon booster around (at least in hyperbole-land), promoting it to IRL friends, to thousands of socialmedia follower/friend/stalkers, my wife loved it especially when it came to Linux (she's using Mint).

        But then "Moonchild" went off the rails of reality in reaction to Australis, and to and Firefox Accounts replacing the "Sync formerly known as Weave". Pulled the "Firefox" identifiers right out of it, including in the Application ID.

  • FF (Score:4, Insightful)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Sunday May 03, 2015 @12:03PM (#49605767)

    >"Have your browser habits shifted recently?

    No because

    1) I don't want Google even further spying on me or my users.
    2) Chrome is not open source, further allowing Google to do who-knows-what.
    3) Chromium (which IS open source) apparently has build issues and isn't even in the normal Fedora repos.
    4) Chrome is not community driven.
    5) I hate the minimalistic UI with zero user control of Chrome.

    >" Which browsers do you use most often? "

    Only Firefox. It is multiplatform, open-source, community driven, fast, available in every repo, secure, and still has much better addon/customization support. This is not to say I don't have issues with Firefox- them trying to turn it into Chrome and pulling crap like not allowing us to have tabs-on-bottom, having the menus, hiding the URL prefixes, combining the buttons, etc is very irritating (yes, I know about Classic Theme Restorer). And the memory footprint of all browsers is crazy now. I also don't appreciate them throwing unnecessary crap into the browser like the web developer stuff, the "hello" junk, and other things.... all of which should be add-ons.

    • sudo apt-get install chromium-browser (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples.gmail@com> on Sunday May 03, 2015 @12:18PM (#49605841) Homepage Journal

      Chromium (which IS open source) apparently has build issues and isn't even in the normal Fedora repos.

      Fedora's fault. In Xubuntu, a Debian derivative, all I have to do is sudo apt-get install chromium-browser.

      And the memory footprint of all browsers is crazy now.

      Is this the fault of the browser or of the sites you visit? Back when sites weren't as image- and script-heavy, like Better MF Website [bettermoth...ebsite.com], a graphical browser could actually fit on a 16 MB machine. Nowadays sites are covered with carousels full of high-DPI photos, plus developers think they still need jQuery [youmightno...jquery.com] and all its bloat just to get the site out the door faster.

      I also don't appreciate them throwing unnecessary crap into the browser like the web developer stuff

      Browser developers distribute the debugger with all copies of the browser to keep sites from intentionally detecting a debugger's presence and stopping working if one is found. If everyone has a debugger, the site operator can't block people who want to tinker, learn, and make a site more usable without blocking everyone.

      • >"Browser developers distribute the debugger with all copies of the browser to keep sites from intentionally detecting a debugger's presence and stopping working if one is found. If everyone has a debugger, the site operator can't block people who want to tinker, learn, and make a site more usable without blocking everyone."

        You're kidding? Sites actually do that!? Why? And how are they detecting a debugger and couldn't that be spoofed instead?

        Otherwise, 99.9+% of users have no need for debugging and d

        • Browsers used to come with a mail client, news reader and webpage composer even though since about 2001 every new internet user uses webmail, USENET has been dead and 99% users never write then host HTML pages.

        • If everyone has a debugger, the site operator can't block people who want to tinker, learn, and make a site more usable without blocking everyone.

          You're kidding? Sites actually do that!?

          See Netflix disables use of the Chrome developer console [ycombinator.com].

          Why?

          Ostensibly, protecting inexperienced users from the social engineering exploit known as "self-XSS". Self-XSS occurs when an attacker convinces an inexperienced to paste malicious code into the developer console. This is why Facebook also disables the developer console (though Facebook reportedly provides an opt-out). But the real reason is probably three words: digital restrictions management. It's similar to how Google Play Movies refused to play on [droid-life.com]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tomxor ( 2379126 )

        Chromium (which IS open source) apparently has build issues and isn't even in the normal Fedora repos.

        Fedora's fault. In Xubuntu, a Debian derivative, all I have to do is sudo apt-get install chromium-browser.

        There was a time not very long ago when Chromium was not available in ubuntu official repositories either, and you had to install it yourself or use a PPA... just like Ubuntu you can get chromium running on Fedora. The reason it's not in their official repositories is more an ideological one, supposedly the packaging of customised dependencies rather than integrating more naturally with the ecosystem goes against the ideals of whomever has authority over what does and does not go in the official list.

        I like

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          The reason it's not in their official repositories is more an ideological one, supposedly the packaging of customised dependencies rather than integrating more naturally with the ecosystem goes against the ideals of whomever has authority over what does and does not go in the official list.

          If forking a library for use in Chrome is considered harmful, what is Google supposed to do instead when upstream rejects Google's patches to the library?

    • I feel the same mostly, but (repeating myself on slashdot stories) the UI is not so evil as it takes five seconds to get the menu bar back.
      I haven't investigated how to get the title bar back under Windows, I think that that is more wrong.

      >"Have your browser habits shifted recently?

      I have just taken to blocking third party cookies (after running a few days with Lightbeam extension, followed with a hiatus).
      The preferences GUI is flawed there, as this is semi-hidden : cookies preferences appear out of not

  • Chrome is the new IE (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Espectr0 ( 577637 ) on Sunday May 03, 2015 @12:22PM (#49605861) Journal

    Some pages only load on it, because startups often require features that are only available on it. The new whatsapp for web comes to mind, at first it was available only for chrome.

    Computer manufacturers often bundle chrome preinstalled.
    In my country Venezuela few people went to download firefox, but venezuelans love google search, so you see ads to upgrade from your old IE 8 to chrome.

    Here are my website's stats (insurance company):
    Chrome (55.31%)
    Firefox (21.87%)
    Internet Explorer (19.00%)

    OS:
    Windows (89.72%)
    Android (4.80%)
    Macintosh (2.57%)
    iOS (1.54%)
    Linux (0.54%)

    Windows versions:
    7 (60.97%)
    XP (29.26%)
    8.1 (6.15%)
    8 (2.33%)

    • Chrome is the new IE: Some pages only load on it...

      Chrome is also the new IE because a bunch of other pages don't work on it at all. I just started switching back to Firefox because I was sick of so many compatibility issues with Chrome. (Other reasons like frequent brief lockups on one computer, the non-freeness, and the Eye of Mordor contributed somewhat).

  • ...is that Firefox is getting really bad.

    I just switched to Chrome about 1 month ago, I just couldn't stand Firefox bloat anymore. It's just slow and unreliable (try to open Amazon in Firefox and it slows to a crawl... a page seen by millions of people everyday) (try to open Atom editor Github pages and Firefox crashes more often than not).

    Firefox developers really need to get down from their high horse and address the issues with the browser instead of keeping adding bloatware and obscure new codecs that o

  • I will switch to the next browser that's fast and supports tree-style tabs to the left of the window. (No, not in a separate window.) (And Firefox isn't fast.)

  • I thought those numbers were bizarre since I recalled that IE usage dropped had below 50% years ago. Now I see what the issue is. This survey is geared towards desktop usage only, and since the majority of desktops run Windows, and Windows comes with IE, it's no mystery that IE comes out on top. What is surprising is that looking at only desktop usage, IE is only barely a majority and not a slam dunk. That tells you how bad IE must be that people are actively switching away from IE. Hell, Microsoft itself i

    • Microsoft itself is ditching IE for a new browser codenamed "Spartan"

      I think they just announced that Spartan will be called Edge. </eyeroll>

  • I would like to use Waterfox for everything as it is currently the browser that is close to good.

    But Google is so bad at programming that their code only works well with chrome so I use chrome for Gmail, Google maps and so on. So I have a chrome window up with 3-4 tabs normally. But as chrome takes so much memory extra for each tab it cannot be used for more uses.

    Too many products like old firewalls boxes, Microsoft remote connector and similar require IE. Thus I find myself running it almost every week for

    • And finally Firefox is really really bad with bad certificates. I have to often do things like manage networking gear that has expired certificates and similar. Firefox just says "you cannot do that" where with Chrome I can say "yes I know it is insecure, but I really do not care" Thus I have to use chrome almost weekly for such.

      Umm, no!

      If anything, Firefox (and all FF-based browsers like Waterfox and Pale Moon) are far better for things like self-signed certs, expired certs which you happen to know are still real-life valid because it's your own site. Firefox lets you permanently store the exception so that it doesn't bother you every single time you go to your self-signed Webmin/Virtualmin VPS management page (or in Thunderbird, to your own domain name with TLS on when you don't have a cert under your own domain and mail subdoma

  • Ive been using FF or more recently Waterfox for I dont even know how long but with each release it gets slower and slower. When having 7-10 tabs open including ebay, amazon and other shopping sites it stops for 5-10 seconds at a time. It never use to do that, that problem showed up in the 30 somethings. Memory use climbs to 1GB+ after in first few website, I got tired of sitting and waiting for it to continue while Im at work and yes, disabled adblock and other plugins and did not solve the problem.
    I must
  • Chrome [google.com], Dooble [sourceforge.net], Pale Moon [palemoon.org], Superbird [superbird-browser.com], Vivaldi [vivaldi.com] ...

  • ... will be the first day of the last days of the internet as we know.

    I'm pretty scared, by the way.

  • Chome for private use, Firefox for work, Opera for communicating with my wife, Safari for the girlfriend on the side, Explorer for the other girlfriend...

    Okay, I'm over-exaggerating, but you get the point. There is probably a plug-in for Chrome or Firefox that achieves the same effect, but in practice I find it easier to just use a bunch of different browsers as sandboxes for different situations.

Slashdot Top Deals

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Close