Page 1 of 2

Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-10-30 06:13
by Deb-fan
Well really only one thing I wanted to say about it. Couldn't touch the topic of FF without a friggin book post and not going there. Anyway ... was time for me to get a minimal Debian 10/Buster install setup and so during the process, one step was downloading and setting up Firefox from Mozilla on this puppy. For me this is a joyous ( Debian is evolving and progressing )and also a tedious/hectic time( as in it took me like 30 friggin hours to get the Buster install config'ed the way I prefer and am still not done, arghhhh.) Back to topic, while going through the FF settings to change them as I like, noticed it comes with 8 Content processes now out-of-box. Wth ?!?!?!

I have 2 cores on this old dinosaur and need 8 CP's ??! Personally tend to 1 CP per/cpu-core on system, so lowered it to 2 and got on with life. It's also set to 8 in the firefox-esr Debian provided. Noticed the thing/FF was being unusually RAM hoggy before I'd gotten around to re-setting this and other junk in about:config etc. So anyone have any thoughts, comments etc to share on this, please do.

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-10-30 13:21
by CwF
What about:config line specifically?
I have a list I've been watching, the debian team does good with it if you stick to official.

I added zram_tools now available in buster to help my browser vm's, each similar to under powered jalopies many may use, Dual core with 2+ GB. Testing is incomplete but solid, it helps.

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-10-30 13:53
by Deb-fan
Really don't dork with changes in about:config much anymore. Getting rid of max_total_viewers, number of tabs kept for back/forward, number of windows someone can undo, how often it stores the session, it's 15secs out-of-box, generally set it to 60 = 60000, change the backspace action to 0 so that hitting backspace goes to the last webpg, as it does in window$, get rid of this pocket thing, some other basic junk.

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.

Anyway, have dorked with adjusting # of content processes on FF, don't remember the findings I came to on it though. Whatever ... still think having 8 of the suckers on a dual-core lappy is overkill.

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-10-30 16:16
by Head_on_a_Stick
e10s is a useful improvement to FF's security. Still not as good as Chrom{e,ium}'s sandbox though.

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-10-30 16:48
by Deb-fan
^ So question, that means having 8 of them sucking up my RAM on a dual-core = x8 the security of just 2 of em or wait, that'd just be x4 (2 x 4 = 8 ) ? Messing around Hoas, though ye continued fanaticism with security, security and more security wears thin with me at times fellow nixer. Sheesh, only ever got infected 1 time in the 30 or so years and that was on windows and got it sorted out. Sheesh ya might want to hire some armed guards to stand watch over your computer, even you have to sleep. What are people doing to your computer while you're in da dreamland fellow nixer ? :D

Also ... BOO!!! :twisted:

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-10-30 16:51
by Head_on_a_Stick
Deb-fan wrote:ye continued fanaticism with security, security and more security wears thin with me at times fellow nixer
Strange but true: I keep nothing important on my laptop, security is irrelevant to me.

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-10-30 16:55
by Deb-fan
I'm watching you drink that tea through your webcam right now Hoas. BOO !!! Ok ... will quit razzing ya, mentioned definitely have much respect for you in terms of tech knowledge/experience. We just don't agree on various junk. Honestly still kinda think you're some kind of AI (artificial intel) thingy. 10k posts on 3 or 4 forums that I know of. I spent day and night for months dorking around on the #! forum and never even came anywhere close. Maybe 3k worth. CONFESS, you're a cyborg !!!?

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-10-30 16:56
by Head_on_a_Stick
Deb-fan wrote:Sheesh, only ever noticed that I got infected 1 time in the 30 or so years
Fixed that for you ;)

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-10-30 16:59
by Deb-fan
^Lol ...

Turn about tis fair play. Nah for real, even when was a windowite, spent so much time on the comp, could actually feel if something was amiss with the thing. :D I would feel a disturbance in the source. Use the source Luke !!! Kinda deal ...

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-11-01 02:21
by Deb-fan
Random things related to Firefox. Is anyone else getting incomplete downloads of webpgs while running the Noscript extension ? I consider it a must have extension, though may explore alternatives to it. I'm using a neighbors wifi, so it's an inherently crappy/lossy setup but noticed some webpgs wouldn't download completely and the images etc would be missing still got the text but the formatting of the pages are messed up. Was also getting failed to download for some of them. Disabled Noscript and they download as expected and no failures. This is annoying !

Next up, if your browser is displaying a webpg, it's already downloaded everything needed for it and to display it properly. This is all browser devs in general ... why then if someone downloads the webpg must it completely be down'ed again ? It's a waste of bandwidth. I get that the webpg may have changed but still majority of the sucker is clearly already accounted for and re-downloading it is a waste of time and resources ! Pointless observation but just saying folks. :)

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-11-06 15:21
by Deb-fan
Couple of other about:config tweaks I use and to whatever degree endorse.

Disable prefetch but leave prefetch dns alone. I also jack up the number of persistent connections allowed for a given server. In FF v 70, it's 6 default. A competent server admin can limit or modify what's allowed on their end anyway. DO NOT get carried away with this, as in my view trying anything more than 8 or 10 makes a person a craphead. :D

Relevant lines in about:config

Code: Select all

network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server
network.prefetch-next
Random babbling about prefetch. Grabbing whatever links and their contents from a URL or whatever you're on, in the possibility that someone may click on them. Never gotten into the specifics of how Mozilla implements this in FF but I don't want my browser prefetching things, downloading them and holding them in RAM, on the assumption that I may click on whatever. Overall seems wasteful and silly to me and while could certainly work. In my view an almost all/everything approach would be needed and that's much bandwidth, RAM and wasted cpu cycles. Happy when FF renders/displays (only)stuff I click on or ask it to do, quickly is good too of course. :)

PS, This one gets an honorable mention for me to dork with it later.
network.http.spdy.persistent-settings Spdy is a google Inc thingy and in ways sets much TCP'ness on it's head. Would not advise fiddling unless someone knows what they're doing and regardless of what someone sets in FF, almost certainly won't override the config's in Debian gnu/Linux itself w/o those being likewise adjusted to utilize this thingamajig.

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-11-06 18:55
by Head_on_a_Stick
Remember to set beacon.enabled to false. Bastard Mozilla tracking bullshit :x

More here: https://gist.github.com/MrYar/751e0e5f3 ... c8aa237b72

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-11-06 19:32
by Deb-fan
^ Hey cool beans, thanks Head_on will look it over. :D Briefly skimming it, kinda looks a bit more involved than I'm willing to devote to it. After going on 18yrs of dorking with FF to tell the truth am to the point where am burnt out on screwing with the thing overmuch. Still do some tweakage to it, TCP tuning etc n plenty tweakage on my install(s) too of course. Just don't care as much as I once did. On everything gnu/Linux (all Debian) FF blazes along great.

Never put the FF profile into RAM or tmpfs, ala the blessed Archwiki style etc etc. Even on this craptastic shared wifi connect, thing blazes along fine when there's not too much congestion. Sheesh, sorry ... too much coffee and thanks for the add Hoas. If you find it valid am certain there's something good to it fellow nixer. :D

Have you ever played with the BBR congestion control algo ? Or that SPDY thingy ? Would definitely be interested in your take on such if so ....

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-11-07 18:22
by Head_on_a_Stick
Deb-fan wrote:Have you ever played with the BBR congestion control algo ? Or that SPDY thingy ?
I think we've been through this before — those are for servers rather than desktops.

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-11-08 01:25
by Deb-fan
Kind of hazy on the topic, been a few years, plenty of tcp stack tweaks on my 2-dork list just haven't gotten around to messing with. Came across it again in the Archwiki while messing with sysctl config's. Do vaguely recall BBR having a use on desktop, though are other relevant config's involved. Anyway just checking, you tend to check a lot of interesting and more obscure stuff out so couldn't hurt to ask. :)

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-11-08 02:56
by 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. :D

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-11-08 03:27
by 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 ? :)

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-11-08 05:02
by 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 ! :D
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. :D

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. :D

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-11-08 05:41
by 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.

Re: Random foolishness about Firefox.

Posted: 2019-11-08 17:37
by 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. :)