this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
422 points (100.0% liked)

196

667 readers
120 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Bro has an anime profile pic and acts like he doesnt already have the tail plug in smh

[–] dditty@lemm.ee 75 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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=Firefox

This 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).

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 46 points 1 week ago

JUST BECAUSE I USE FIREFOX DOESN'T MEAN I'M A FURRY!

I mean, I am a furry.

BUT NOT BECAUSE I USE FIREFOX!

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

tailplug is fine but I draw the line at "fuckin"

Yeah procreation is sin. Masturbation is not.

[–] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 32 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You can swear on the internet. Fuck, see?

[–] dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You can, but i XXXXXXX can’t.

See.

[–] EffortlessEffluvium@lemm.ee 6 points 6 days ago

No we can’t because there’s a buncha fuckin’ “X”s in the fuckin’ way!

[–] modest_bunny@lemm.ee 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Source: https://xenia.chimmie.k.vu/ (She has more art, I recommend checking it)

[–] Draconic_NEO@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I do!

And I found 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

[–] Draconic_NEO@pawb.social 1 points 1 week ago

Really cool, though personally I would've resized the image slightly so that it would be the same size as the OG Firefox logo.

[–] Infomatics90@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

asmongold would go on stream and start calling it woke.

[–] Draconic_NEO@pawb.social 25 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Hating furries is already really cringe, but even more so when you have an anime profile picture. At that point it feels hypocritical.

[–] zyratoxx@lemm.ee 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Since their profile picture is Komi Shouko from "Komi can't communicate", who is sometimes canonically portrayed with cat ears they are either joking or rejecting their true inner self.

[–] Draconic_NEO@pawb.social 3 points 6 days ago

Yeah, they're probably joking, though it wouldn't be the first time someone was acting like that while being unaware or in-denial.

[–] Infomatics90@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago

I don't hate furries, but some of them have....weird kinks. Not this though. who gives a fuck if someone wears a buttplug? buttplugs are hot af.

[–] arc@lemm.ee 19 points 6 days ago

The weird thing to me whenever anyone complains how much memory a browser takes up, is what do they think the free RAM is doing otherwise? It's free so why can't an application use it? And that's what browsers do, taking the memory to use as a cache, and releasing it back to the system if available memory dips below some threshold.

[–] Tiefkuehlkost@feddit.org 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why the fuck is fuckin censored hut stuff like tailplugs not xD, what a fuckin bull shit.

[–] Infomatics90@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 days ago

fuck the fucking fuckers.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 11 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I work in tech, and I don't understand people's obsession with having all their RAM free at all times.

If you don't use it, why do you have it?

Windows (not the best OS, but the one I know the most about), will lie to you about how much memory you have that's free. It puts data in RAM as cache. In the event you need that data, it's already loaded in RAM. Usually this is stuff like DLLs and executables for programs.

There's a difference between "free" memory, and "available" memory.

In addition, RAM is always going down in price, so 32G today costs what 16G did, some number of years ago. The same can be said for 16G vs 8G, etc. Though, the comparison becomes less relevant as you get into much smaller and older memory types, since the cost per dimm will only ever go so low.

Buy the memory, use as much of it as you can, as often as you can. Go wild with it. Enjoy.

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 6 days ago

There’s a difference between “free” memory, and “available” memory.

I agree with this, and I'm sure most people complaining about Firefox or Chrome's abhorrent memory usage would too. The problem with most browsers is that they eat up the available memory and often do not give it back. So you end up with situations where you're running low on available RAM even though you have 32GB installed.

Buy the memory, use as much of it as you can, as often as you can. Go wild with it. Enjoy.

Sure, if you release it when not using it, otherwise unlimited RAM privilege revoked. Memory leaks suck and when they chew up all your RAM and they continue to happen, offending apps should either be no longer used, or limited to their minimum necessary RAM requirements to limit the damage they'll do.

Hence why I capped Firefox at 8GB, anything more would be wasted when it inevitably leaks.

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

[–] Johanno@feddit.org 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Use all the RAM you want, but if another program needs it give it back ffs!

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 days ago

Browsers have a really hard time with the last part. Hence why I recommended limiting it to something more manageable, that way it doesn't chew up everything available.

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I work in tech, and I don’t understand people’s obsession with having all their RAM free at all times.

If you don’t use it, why do you have it?

Windows (not the best OS, but the one I know the most about), will lie to you about how much memory you have that’s free. It puts data in RAM as cache. In the event you need that data, it’s already loaded in RAM. Usually this is stuff like DLLs and executables for programs.

There’s a difference between “free” memory, and “available” memory.

Linux and macOS do the same, although I wouldn't call it lying per se :)

There is certainly a lack of understanding of the difference between free and available RAM. TLDR: yes, free RAM is indeed wasted RAM.

If you actually have a lot of free RAM, it's probably because you either booted or freed a lot of RAM very recently. After using your computer for a while, most of your available RAM should not be free but rather being used for page cache and other caches.

After a program has just read and/or written more data from disk than will fit in available RAM, the kernel's page cache (which is typically the bulk of that not-free-but-available memory) should be mostly populated by the most recent of those operations. This means that if that program (or any other program) reads those files again, before they are evicted from cache by other things, they will not need to wait for the disk and will get them back much faster.

However, managing all of this is the kernel's job, and the not-free-but-available RAM being used for page cache is not (in any OS, as far as I know, though I mostly know Linux) attributed to the program(s) responsible for putting things there.

So, when people are complaining about an application using 40% of their RAM it is not necessarily due to them misunderstanding free-vs-available RAM. The used number for an application does not include the portion of the system's not-free-but-available RAM which the application is also responsible for occupying.

(If you want to know which programs and/or which files are responsible for occupying your page cache... on Linux at least, it is not really possible without instrumenting your kernel. The kernel is just tracking blocks. There several tools which will let you see which blocks of a given file are cached, but there isn't a reverse mapping from blocks to files.)

[–] Infomatics90@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Sorry, the only solution is the web aborting JavaScript. never going to happen. trust me, i stand with richard stallman when it comes to javascript.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

wat. lol. javascript has nothing to do with the memory consumption. just humans being shitty at their jobs.

[–] Infomatics90@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I will agree with you that VANILLA JavaScript isn't to blame, but all the frameworks and packages are.

[–] jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yes, being shitty at their jobs. even the frameworks/packages are not to blame. its which you pick and how you use them.

for peoples context: just checked a few sites most range in the 30MB-150MB per page. which is pretty reasonable for the complexity of the websites involved. one included a streaming service actively playing a video.

Its just that these things add up across 100 tabs.

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 days ago

Disagreed, memory Limiting definitely helps with over-consumption. Can't consume all the RAM when you only have access to 8GB of it.

Pfft, everyone knows the cool kids use Lynx.

[–] Neptr@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] dsilverz@thelemmy.club 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

One could also use w3m or links. All the RAM-hungry things (such as CSS3, JavaScript APIs and heavy multimedia files) will be finally gone for good.

[–] weststadtgesicht@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

*lynx (links are the things that tie the www together)

[–] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Minds are blown, thanks for the correction!

[–] Didros 3 points 1 week ago

I mean, you got like a 85% chance that anyone giving you software advice is, closer to 98% for hardware advice.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 6 days ago

I still think the catgirl paws salute should be the new salute of the American Résistance.

I also think the catgirl paws salute should be recognized as a salute.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] hex@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 :)

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] python@programming.dev 1 points 1 week ago

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

[–] lychee@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago