Hating furries is already really cringe, but even more so when you have an anime profile picture. At that point it feels hypocritical.
6 gig of ram on a browser!? wtf people close your old tabs.
Why the fuck is fuckin censored hut stuff like tailplugs not xD, what a fuckin bull shit.
I mostly use Firefox when I use a browser (App-using zoomer) but I actually might swap to something Chromium based at some point? My only reason for it is the resentment I’m building up for Firefox while writing Playwright tests at work. It takes like twice as long as chrome and keeps flaking due to random timeouts ughh
furryfox :3
Source: https://xenia.chimmie.k.vu/ (She has more art, I recommend checking it)
Would be cool if people actually used this as a replacement to their Firefox icon, or if there was a Firefox fork that used this itself for it.
I do!
And I fiund this guide to put it into the new tab page, though I haven’t tried to do so: https://this.squirrel.rocks/ff_newtab_logo
Really cool, though personally I would’ve resized the image slightly so that it would be the same size as the OG Firefox logo.
JUST BECAUSE I USE FIREFOX DOESN’T MEAN I’M A FURRY!
I mean, I am a furry.
BUT NOT BECAUSE I USE FIREFOX!
Bro has an anime profile pic and acts like he doesnt already have the tail plug in smh
Not only that, but the character in that profile pic often sprouts cat ears when she has strong feelings.
Hating furries is stage 1 of becoming a furry.
Soon the world shall be furries. And finally there will be peace on earth.
amen.
(although reasonably i think you might have too much faith in us. a society wide desire to be a colorful dog has the power to accomplish a great many things but peace on earth is a tall order)
Nah, I dont hate them. I don’t think I’d be enthusiastic about a full like mascot level fur suit during sex, but cat ears and tailplugs are adorable.
I haven’t heard somebody use the word “murring” in like a decade. Methinks they’re farther down the pipeline than they want to admit.
- The Internet is full of old memes that slowly make their way around to different communities and this could be one of them.
- What in the world is “murring”? This is the first time I’ve ever heard of it.
Stage 7 is memorizing the Macarena.
Stage 19 is affecting a québécois accent
Stage 42 is hitchhiking
Ben non?!
Mais non!
Listen using Firefox doesn’t make me a furry.
I mean I am but that’s not why.
I switched back to Firefox over a year ago and I have not noticed it using much less RAM than Chrome tbh. It’s definitely the better browser for all the other reasons, but I wouldn’t list memory utilization as a big advantage over other browsers
Most browsers these days have issues with high RAM usage, and memory leaks to. I’d recommend trying to limit the RAM of the browser, it stops it from eating up so much.
Here’s how I did it on linux. I’m sure there’s a way to do it if you’re on Windows though (might not be as good though).
Desktop file to limit Firefox to 8GB of RAM
[Desktop Entry] Version=1.0 Name=Firefox RAM limit 8GB GenericName=Firefox Ram limit 8GB Comment=Limit RAM for Firefox to 8GB; Exec=systemd-run --user --scope -p MemoryLimit=8G firefox Icon=firefox Type=Application Terminal=false Categories=Utility;Development; StartupWMClass=FirefoxThis is a script to limit Firefox to 8 gigabytes of RAM, you may change it lower or higher depending on what your needs are by changing the number from 8 to whatever else you’d like. Fair warning though setting it too low will cause Firefox to lag very badly, and will crash chromium browsers outright (Ask me how I found out).
The whole RAM thing is way overblown. Both browsers request a lot of RAM allocation, but only actually use a fraction of it. When the OS needs it for another process this “allocated, but unused” pool is the first to get used when “Free and unallocated” is gone
Problem is windows reports it all as the same in the task manager so people see that “70%” usage and freak out.
Tl:Dr Windows task manager is a fuckin lier.
There’s also the idea that free RAM is somehow a good thing. In an ideal system, the RAM would always be “full” of potentially useful data. Having a bunch of empty RAM means that it’s not being useful. That space could be used to hold plenty of regularly used files that would be instantly loaded instead of having to pull from the drive again.
I don’t know when everyone started getting concerned with RAM usage, but in a perfect system, it would hold onto all of your frequently used programs and files that it could fit from boot and then those would load instantly.
Some Linux distros even allow loading the entire OS into RAM for wild speeds.
Idle RAM is just that. It does you no favors. Now, I do understand that you don’t want to be completely out, but we act like having 80% free is a goal for some reason.
Having programs steal or sit on RAM without using it is never a good thing. That’s why it’s called a memory leak, because it’s as if the free memory is leaking away. And it gets deprived from other apps that might need it more than Firefox or chromium does.
Your idea only works if programs actually take only as much ram as they need and give it back when done, but they don’t do that, they usually sit on it until it’s pried from their cold dead fingers. That’s what memory leaks are, and modern browsers these days are extremely prone to them.
Unused RAM is wasted RAM. It consumes the exact same amount of power whether there’s useful data in it or not. Any self-respecting operating system will fill up RAM that applications aren’t using with frequently accessed files, so they’re ready to go in an instant.
I think that’s precisely why limiting RAM on apps like Chrome or Firefox is so necessary, these apps never release their RAM when they are supposed to, they hoard anything that isn’t free and don’t give back when it’s needed, which is why in the reply to the top comment I shared a desktop entry to limit RAM on Firefox or whatever app you so choose.
Oh, I totally agree. Being afraid to call out to the allocator because “hey, I might need that memory later” is kinda not great. To a certain extent I can see how if an application tends to thrash memory, making a kajillion syscalls might hurt performance, enough that on many machines the gains from doing a single big allocation on the system and then slicing it up into small allocations in-process might outweigh the downsides, but still…
The problem is that the extra RAM used by a browser is held on an exclusive basis and so is not nicely reclaimable by the kernel. I love that Linux caches the shit out of files in RAM, it’s great. It’s also great that it can release that memory when I launch a chundering dumpster fire application that eats all of my RAM. If a browser had been holding that memory, then the godawful Linux OOM killer would have launched, halted all threads on the system, walked the entire process tree, and SIGKILLed something (probably not a browser tab) before letting everyone else resume.
With the way memory is currently managed, a bloated browser is a liability. Cached state needs to be stored in something like a
mmaped file so that the kernel can flush pages out of memory if someone else comes along with amalloc. Alternatively, there needs to be communication between a browser and a userspace OOM daemon. If the system started hitting a soft limit, then the browser could start unloading background shit more aggressively.Free memory is wasted memory, but so is memory that can’t be used for anything else when it’s needed.
Yeah, I agree. Browsers all seemed to act like they are the only thing running on the computer at some point, practically resembling their own OS with the amount of containerization and complexity. There should definitely be a way for the OS to request some RAM be released from the browser.
That’s why I just prefer to limit the RAM available to the browser to an amount that I feel is necessary for good performance while not so much that it causes issues with other things running. To some people that might sound like a bad or stupid idea but think of it this way. You just said that modern browsers are complex and resemble their own Operating System, right? Well if you were running a VM you probably wouldn’t give the virtualized OS complete access to all your RAM, that’s asking for the VM to crash or freeze your PC. So why should general practice be any different for a browser then, they may be less aggressive than a Kernel managed VM but they can still be problematic when they eat to much RAM. Which is why I choose to limit mine so it doesn’t get more than 8GB, which I feel is perfectly reasonable on most systems where that’s half of all the memory available, and even on bigger ones you’re not missing out on much. Firefox performs just as well with 8GB as it does with 16GB, but with 16GB it’ll eat way more than it uses.
Here’s the script I used. Should work for most linux users. I don’t know how to do it on Windows since I don’t use Browsers there for long enough periods for this to become problematic.\
Desktop file to limit Firefox to 8GB of RAM
[Desktop Entry] Version=1.0 Name=Firefox RAM limit 8GB GenericName=Firefox Ram limit 8GB Comment=Limit RAM for Firefox to 8GB; Exec=systemd-run --user --scope -p MemoryLimit=8G firefox Icon=firefox Type=Application Terminal=false Categories=Utility;Development; StartupWMClass=Firefox
byeah
tailplug is fine but I draw the line at “fuckin”
Yeah procreation is sin. Masturbation is not.
has googles dick in their ass
I honestly dont care about my browser using a lot of resources (processes, RAM, etc) because it may be helpful to the isolation security model of the browser. Each and every website is a possible malicious app.
I’ve been using the Firefox extension “Auto Tab Discard”, which helps a lot with RAM usage. I like multi-tab-browsing and IME browsers just don’t free up RAM when other applications need them.
I tried that but I found that its effects on long term memory leakage weren’t adequate for me, and it still consumed way too much RAM. Which is why I just decided to limit RAM for Firefox. It achieves a similar effect as the browser unloads tabs when it runs low on memory, it just doesn’t wait until it’s using 31GB of RAM and instead just uses up to 8GB (which is what I capped it at) before unloading tabs.
wait so you just lose tabs you haven’t opened in X mins?
i have a tab sleeping extension & generally throttle the ram with opera
It might be a bit of a misnomer. The tabs aren’t deleted, just forcibly unloaded, and you can even prevent it from doing that on a per-tab-basis.
Yeah so it just means the tab’s going to need to refresh when you click back to it. That seems perfect honestly, it’s already what most phone browsers do more aggressively. Cheers :)
What is the acceptable amount of ram a browser should be using? Is there a way of knowing how much is “wasted”? Is it even possible to waste ram, like what is wasted, time? Electricity?
If an app allocates it and ever uses it and refuses to give it up unless killed that can be considered wasted. It’s called a memory leak and they can be really bad, especially when they consume a lot of memory, as that memory might as well be empty but is being held hostage by other apps.
If they released RAM then whatever amount they were using wouldn’t be wasted and if more is needed they’d simply release it to free up resources. That hasn’t been happening though, and most modern Browsers are notorious for consuming massive quantities without releasing it back to the pool.
In that case with the presence of Memory leaks being considered, and the fact that they continue to not be fixed, the acceptable amount of RAM a browser should be using (should even have access to) is the minimum necessary to run smoothly. From my testing with Firefox that seems to be 8GB. 4GB caused many websites to struggle. Such an arrangement ensures that even if a Browser begins eating RAM it won’t eat up all the RAM and cause issues, worst that’ll happen is that it itself will crash from eating all the 8GB it was allowed to access.
Its being wasted if a memory leak causes it to use all 32 gigs of ram and crash
Even if it doesn’t eat that much if it latches on to a portion of Memory and won’t give it up unless killed that’s still bad, and would be considered wasted as nothing else can use it for anything.
It’s only a problem if it doesn’t give it up when other apps need it and there’s not enough. Browsers just cache a bunch of shit in memory for speed and convenience, but they should unallocate it back to the pool if something else calls for it. The internet complaining about this for years and years are mostly doing so from a place of ignorance.
The issue is that browsers don’t release much memory back to the system when it’s needed. I wish they’d work more like the Linux kernel’s VFS caching later, but they don’t (and might not be able to. For example, I do don’t think the Linux kernel has good APIs for such a use case).
You can write limits to and then poll files in
/proc/pressure/to be notified of resource pressure. Systemd will also set an environment variable for similar files for your cgroup.
The issue is that browsers don’t release much memory back to the system when it’s needed. I wish they’d work more like the Linux kernel’s VFS caching later, but they don’t (and might not be able to. For example, I do don’t think the Linux kernel has good APIs for such a use case).
It does release it back to the system. It only doesn’t if you actively have a ton of windows/tabs open, in my experience. Even then, it’ll cache stuff to disk after awhile. Like on my phone, I’ve easily had over 20 tabs open in Firefox (Android) and it doesn’t suck up all of my phone’s ram (which only has 12GB). If your system is running less than 16GB, then that’s another matter and you really should add more, as 16GB is pretty much the baseline on computers these days.
Mine is 32GB and Firefox as consistently and repeatedly refused to release the excess RAM back into the pool. So it doesn’t work out as well in practice as it does on paper. I would agree that 16GB is the bare minimum though and if you have less you absolutely should get more if you can. Firefox needs at least 8GB to run smoothly, but a system that only has that amount or less will be bogged down by Firefox alone.
Empty ram is wasted ram. In theory the system should use whatever is available to cache and streamline.
Somehow I don’t really agree with that theory when Firefox was chomping down on 31.5GB of RAM and causing other things to crash or slow down (crashed Gnome shell a few times which was fun), as well as crashing often itself. When I limited the RAM to 8GB using the method outlined in my other comments all the mentioned issues went away. It would run smoothly, and old tabs would just unload, something which didn’t happen before. And most of all, everything else ran smoothly without issues or hiccups.
Moral of the story, when apps leak RAM, limit their RAM. RAM held by apps and not being released is just as wasted as if it wasn’t used at all, because chances are it isn’t being used at all, and isn’t able to be used.
