Random foolishness about Firefox.

[Deb-fan]

See junk like this about BBR on desktop. Basically from what I remember (and it proved to actually be quite an involved topic) bbr shoots 14gazillion packets etc, despite what the TCP protocol says. Provided there's enough room in the pipe, MUCH faster data transfers. (Oops, nope above is referring to SPDY, BBR is just another congestion control algo) Ah anyway, not touching much on this as I've got to take a refresher and do much dorking with it to know much of anything solid. Atm mentioned am opting to use the Veno congestion control algo, cause of my current network situation (lossy, shared wireless) and as noted get great speeds depending upon how many things are sharing that connection, what they're doing and thus congestion.

Note: On link, lol ... not that I'm putting a great deal of faith in the credibility of a site called "Linuxbabe" and relating mainly to Ubuntu but ya never know and it's not like that cite is the only data I've reviewed on BBR etc.

Also remember that in newer FF you can set privacy settings to always send "do not track" and similar, no doubt this alters many settings in about:config and is supposed to provide speed boosts when setup correctly. Noted I've gotten to a point to where I don't screw with FF config tweaking overmuch. Though getting the urge to revisit that topic as it relates to newer FF versions. Generally fiddle with a handful of about:config tweaks, install Noscript and call it good. FF blazes on this old system and this chitty wireless connection as it is now anyway.

[Deb-fan]

Ahhhh (coffee) one more (also about to have one more coffee too. ) anyway, Mozilla does have controllable settings which sends usage or supposedly allows them to install/run tests. I of course uncheck those boxes, don't want my browser sending crash reports. Wouldn't necessarily be valid data anyway, as sometimes I'll reboot with the browser running. It didn't crash, when boot back into that OS, FF nicely offers to restore whatever tabs I had open when I crashed it.

Also just some rambling about tracking. EVERYBODY is tracking junk online, many of the privacy fantatics and freaks from what I've seen really haven't bothered learning about just how far things have gone, what they're up against nor gathered enough of said info to really know what if any effective methods there are for them to achieve privacy anyway. Also $oftware takes cash, this is more of an in general bytching rather than so much FF/Mozilla thing. They do come up with passive ways to generate revenue. Whether that be an agreement with Google for search or something else. End of the day people want to use their software, they want/demand it be good too but they don't want to give a thin dime to actually pay for anything involved.

In other words many USERS being what I call tekturdish. Seen it time and again ... distro works out a deal to display ads, all these users who "love" the distro, won't/don't even bother clearing the site in ad-blocker so they could get some passive income. Corenominal half heartedly tried to implement passive ways to monetize traffic in #!, tons of others do too. Tried other stuff too, the #! store etc. The userbase goes apt-chit, YOU'RE INVADING MY PRIVACY, OMG you're such a greedy scumbag, whaaaaaa, whine, whine, rend clothes. Screaming to digital heavens about how wrong they're being done.

Of course same time, these USERS are constantly whining, geez wish this was better, newer, why doesn't this do that, why don't you (the dev(s) ) put more time into xyz, I'd be a much happier U$ER. Because the organization, projects and the folks who maintain them have to eat too ! If they're volunteering their free time freely, they also have to work and/or find a means to pay their bills too ! Find a way to pay for hosting or etc etc. Just a general gripe, we all want great support but don't want to do even pa$$ive things to support our favorite open source ?

[Deb-fan]

Lol above was just a stupe venting post. Do some things to support Debian but honestly need to break down and shoot them $20 bucks soon. Nothing says I wuv you like cold hard ca$h.

Anyway, keeping with the privacy thing. Just cause it's funny and I'm bored and caffeinated to heel and gone.

Anon privacy obsessed gnu/Nix freakazoid:
Yeah I use https everywhere, VPN + TOR + I bounce off 12 anonymous proxy servers !!! They'll never track nor catch me those noisy govt + corp bastids !!!

Nother paranoid nixer, (anon too o course):
Wow ... man, you're really doing this thing right, what dns servers do you use bro ? They'll never take you alive !!!!

Anon privacy obsessed gnu/Nix freakazoid:
Google public dns's, hey they're faster dude. ( guy goes off to post what he just had for lunch on facebk. Though of course has done his best to fiddle with privacy settings, so not just anyone can check out his stuff !!!)

Me:
Face ... meet palm, ARGGGGHHHHHH !

Quitely behind the scenes, Facebks scoops up all such data, files it away for the next time they sell his data to whomever and also updates it's own db's on the smoe for targeted ads ... this guy may very well respond to DIY bomb shelter kits and what not.

Also meanwhile here in the real world. Xyz who knows who else is scrapping heel out of net activity. Should an actual person take any interest in said freakazoid's activities. Hmmmm, there's only 412 morons which do that, have that system print. Ah it's Jack Smith, age 42 ... 2 kids ages 22 and 14, 1234 west palto dr, CA and hey look the id10t just had enchilada's for lunch .. yummy.

[Deb-fan]

Yet one more, at least this is truly FF related.

Also had to track down the about:config settings which relate to limiting the amount of disk space FF v. 70 can use to cache stuff. Vaguely remember much kept in the cache doesn't ever even get reused due to web-devs and designers having screwed up expire headers set anyway. Noticed when/after I'd backed up that new Buster minimal install, that 800+mbs was the dang FF cache !!! So rsync spent xyz-more time backing up that stupid cache !!! Almost a gig ! :/ Note2self: Need to exclude the dang thing in future. Set it to 400mbs here btw. May increase it slightly, haven't decided yet.

Anyway, even though the controls for setting the cache size have been removed they can still be set in about:config.

[Deb-fan]

Decided to go ahead and disable FF's cache to disk entirely. Really don't care about the thing and again, do remember that only a small portion of what's kept there ever even gets reused. While dorking around came across the cite I was basing that on, it's in the Archwiki and says only like 30% of the cache may see any use. So forget it ... just got rid of the whole shebang.

Code: Select all

browser.cache.disk.enable

Toggled to false to disable. Again ... are ways to actually set a certain amount and limit to the amount of disk used. Not going into those, anyone who wants to can certainly find them on google.

[Deb-fan]

Here's another random about:config setting. Disabling images ... obvious intent here is speed. Times when someone just wants "the facts, just the facts ma'am". Have been on high priced and limited bandwidth mobile hotspots too of course. Again clear idea here is less stuff downloading, less BW = increased speed.

No doubt are FF extensions which allow someone to easily toggle this type of thing. Usually take that route but wanted to see what about:config lines those extensions fiddle with under the hood to do whatever it is they do. So trying this one, note haven't played with this particular thing overly much either. So taking it for a test drive as to how it's likely to work out and whether useful to me or not in future. Anyway ... it's

Code: Select all

permissions.default.image

Default 1, yes normal images. (default)
Set to a value of 2, no images.
Plus all lines in about:config settings have a reset option, which resets them as they were default.

Also noted am considering alternatives to Noscript, I still like it and hey, it makes what it does easy but it's also becoming annoying to me and seemingly getting too big for it's britches. Mentioned the failed webpg downloads when it's running sometimes. Which of course is unacceptable and will be extremely irritated if at some point in time, I went to save something that was really interesting to me and later, oops, nope Noscript = failed, I don't have the info I wanted. So mayhaps ascertain which about:config settings are relevant and make a script to easily toggle the things.

[Deb-fan]

Afterthought and related nonsense. This also seems like a fine job for Mozilla's profile manager in FF, it's extremely easy to setup specific task profiles and switch between them, can have them launched in a menu/sub-menu, via panel or desktop launcher, terminal ( or run dialogue) or with keybind anyway.

By way of example this is my keybind to launch FF in Openbox's rc.xml file.

Code: Select all

    <keybind key="Control-Up">
      <action name="Execute">
        <startupnotify>
          <enabled>true</enabled>
          <name>Browser</name>
        </startupnotify>
        <command>/home/myusername/.browser/firefox/firefox -p "firefox"</command>
      </action>
    </keybind>


Above there, that's the full path to the firefox binary I keep stashed in my users /home directory. This part -p "firefox" is the one which tells Firefox to launch using the profile named firefox, when I hit the keybind Control + the Up arrow key.

[Deb-fan]

One more brainfart as to using the BBR congestion control algo. Supposedly it's very well backed by Google Inc and have seen mentions that using it can provide a boost while using their services. ie: Youtube: Think est was all of a 4% or so though. Still if that's correct 4% is still 4%. Outside of that, BBR is only another congest algo which uses different metrics other than packet loss-etc to attempt to get the best throughput in a given network setting.

Yep, still playing with it for time being. Thing seems to be working well and about to watch a YT movie, shrugs. Not like it's hard to switch the things regardless. Lights, YT ... action !

[Head_on_a_Stick]

BBR congestion control algo

OK, I'll try one more time...

That algorithm is for controlling traffic attempting to download data from your computer, it has absolutely no effect on the data you are trying to pull from the internet for browsing, etc. It is only beneficial if you're running some sort of server from your machine and even then it is only useful for other people who are trying to access it.

[Deb-fan]

Hey cool ... will be good to hear what you think about it. As for me, mentioned definitely no adverse effect from using it. Also despite mucho research into the topic of congestion control, maybe missed something. The nature of a/ny congestion control algo is analyzing and adjusting for network congestion and other factors to ensure the best throughput on any network. My understanding again is that BBR only uses different metrics in doing so, Bottleneck, bandwidth and RTT = BBR vs more conventional algo's such as Cubic which do so adjusting to packet loss and etc. Some are notably more aggressive in fighting for their share of avail bandwidth, some designed for a specific network situation ie: Veno ... designed for lossy/wifi connections. Which Cubic has been found to be a good all around general for this purpose. If people are inclined could check out alternatives which may better fit their use-case.

At the moment with my network/connection situation. Any real meaningful testing is out of question, will or may get around to it when situation permits. Which just based off the performance I'm getting under these less than ideal circumstances. This thing is going to blaze it's cyber-arse off once get a solid and dependable connect. Though will have to do some tweakage and adjustments to fit such. Anyway, not going to attempt to post a gettysburg address on the topic. Spent mucho time/effort and don't even so much feel qualified but anyone interested is definitely free to do their own research and review whatever data on the topic.

Misc FF tweak: Running the 32bit version on a 64bit OS, this would be with a goal of getting the thing somewhat lighter (RAM overhead) while may come with a somewhat trade-off in terms of speed. Though honestly doubt it'll be much of anything noticeable and with correct tweakage otherwise applied have always found FF to be better in many respects vs as it comes out-of-box, shrugs. I always get FF directly from Mozilla. Though multi-arch is fully within any Debian OS's abilities and specifying/installing for a given arch easy peasy for apt/itude.

Just 4 record, am atm running and booted into a 64bit Buster install on which I just went ahead and setup the 64bit gnu/Nix version from Mozilla. Really not even inclined to download, setup and side-by-side the 32b vs it's 64b counterpart though. Am lazy, OS boot idles @ less than 150mbs-ram on an old laptop with 4gb total. I'm not hurting for memory head room, so not going to invest the time seeing how much difference it makes.

[Deb-fan]

AHHHHH dammit, why da heel did I go and even mention this ?!?!?!?! D:

The resource miser is saying, oh come on dude, it'll only take a hour or less to check it out. Lmao ... SHUT UP !!! SHUT UP, SHUT IT, QUIETTTTTT ! I wanna watch a movie !

PS, also just 4 record: This type of thing could also be selectively applied to varied system components too, though web browsers are an obvious good candidate(s.) Vaguely recall some 64bit software known for using 40% more RAM as compared to their 32bit versions. Slapping this up as a just cuz and footnote. Should you or I ever feel like really messing with such extensively. Not hurting here in terms of system overhead by any stretch anyway, shrugs and 32bit support is somewhat on the ropes, though sure it'll hang around for quite awhile yet. With that ... it's movie time fellow nixers.

[quinton77]

Point of this pointless thread is just that I'm surprised at the 8 content processes FF now apparently comes with. It tells you right by the relevant control in settings, content processes may improve performance when using many tabs but add to memory etc blahblah. I have the RAM to spare anyway, I just don't want to waste it on something I don't feel is worthwhile to me. I mean there are extensions that will "suspend" tabs which aren't being used but believe that basically means they get dropped and reloaded mostly when someone clicks back to them. Though whatever is kept in FF's cache should come into play and not have to be re-downloaded, could depend on the expires headers on the site involved ... shrugs. https://tradevenue.se/

[Deb-fan]

Sorry fellas, lose track of these, have browser threads scattered far and wide and tend get burnt out on gnu/nix foruming thus drop off for long periods. At quinton77 couldn't have said it better. My general rule now is 1 content process per core on the system. That's only my take on best practice though. Also yep due to incorrectly set expires headers etc have seen it stated much of what's in the browser cache never gets reused anyway. My understanding of extensions which suspend tabs is the same as yours, that they're mostly redownloaded anyway, hopefully cache does kickin though. Shouldn't have to be totally done again.

Such extensions can still have a good place imo as the amount of system resources browsers use nowadays is ridiculous. I outright eliminate or adjust a bunch of such things in about:config. Guy above if asking about how to adjust the number of content processes, it's in Firefox's actual settings, go to Edit in FF toolbar, then select Preferences, it's under the General settings, says Performance, there's a box that's checked by default ... Use recommended performance settings, uncheck that and someone can choose the # of content processes they want.

Oops edit, the other poster either deleted own post or got canned as spam.