Jump to content

My Browser Builds (Part 3)


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

Right! Except it's not really a conspiracy - a secret agreement to do something illegal - so much as companies each acting in their own self-interest; i.e., to make as much money as possible. But even without any explicit agreements, it has the same result: the whole industry keeps us on the update treadmill, buying new, more powerful computers not to do more, but merely to run the latest bloatware that spends the majority of our PC's CPU cycles trying to convince us to part with our hard-earned dollars.

This comment really speaks to me because I have compiled a few Mozilla based web browsers (including NewMoon 26.5.0 and 27.9.1a1), and I notice while CPU usage through increased build time is a problem,  RAM consumption has increased faster than the typical total RAM amount in the same period of time. I can compile RetroZilla with static libraries using ~130 MB RAM, while New Moon 27.9.1a1 takes ~3 GB RAM. The top 3 reasons why RAM usage has increased this much is because Mozilla switched from using Visual C++ 6.0 to 2013 between Firefox 2, and 38, Mozilla also made building libxul/xul.dll very RAM inefficient between Firefox 4.0, and 5.0, and the codebase (specifically libxul/xul.dll dependencies) has grown considerably. What's interesting is in my test with Visual C++ 6.0, and 2003 (7.1), building RetroZilla took 38% more RAM to compile in Visual C++ 2003. I also tried Firefox 32 in Visual C++ 2010, and 2013, and RAM usage was 51% higher on Visual C++ 2013. While building Firefox 4.0, I noticed libxul/xul.dll took 273 MB RAM to link, while Firefox 5.0 took 1051 MB RAM to link libxul/xul.dll. Building Firefox 45+ doesn't work for me because I get an out of memory error while building libxul/xul.dll. I do want to get a new computer soon, but not without DDR5 RAM and an AMD Zen 4 (or later) CPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


@NotHereToPlayGames:

First you say "the "internet"", but you're just talking about the WWW which is just a very little part of the Internet.

Second the "Invision Community" provides the forums / bulletin software. MSFN, respectively it's owner, has to choose one of the forums / bulletin softwares which are available on the market (OSS, freeware or payware). The point is that for security reasons you have to choose a software which is currently in development. You don't want to have a software running on your server which has a lot of SQL/PHP/etc. security holes.

The bad news is that support for older browsers is not integrated in the very most of these software projects. Now you can say "I want to have support for all browsers released since the early 90s!", but then you have to develop this software by your own...have fun!

If you want to have a website which is compatible with very old browsers, then you have to go with HTML4 only (like my website), but this is not today's technology, obviously. And my website is hand-coded, completely...have fun again (thousands of hours, maybe ten thousands)!

Don't get me wrong, I really like old-school websites (like my own), but you can't provide any additional functions (like forums / bulletins) in a secure way, if you aren't a very good PHP/JS developer with a lot of free-time. Soooo - at the very most you have to take what's on the market!

kind regards
soggi

Edited by soggi
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@soggi's post gives me a lot to think about. I certainly don't advocate "dumbing down" Web sites to the point that IE8 or Opera 12 can be again used! We have to find a middle ground somewhere.

Generally, when a software developer (including Web site software) releases a new version, there are several kinds of changes that may be included:

  1. Security fixes and enhancements
  2. New functionality that makes the product (Web site in our specific case) noticeably better to the end user (e.g., much of HTML5)
  3. New functionality that's invisible to the end user.

It's only the third category that's problematic. These improvements are the kind that can break compatibility with older browsers, OSes, etc. without any offsetting benefit to the users. For Web site software, improvements may offer benefits to the folks running the Web site, such as "improved" tracking that may increase ad revenue; or they may benefit Javascript programmers by providing features to simplify coding, or they may just be in there for "forced obsolescence" purposes. But in any case, they don't deliver a better experience to the end user; they only force potentially unwanted updates on him/her.

Lately, my experience has been that most changes to Web pages are of the third kind. If you're using "modern" Chrome or Firefox, everything looks the same; but if you're using older browsers, one day things just break for no apparent reason. Those are the kinds of changes I'm saying developers should resist.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

 

I thought at first that you were implying that Roytam's hidden agenda was to block alternative media.

 

you thought wrong. I'm very thankful for Roy and his work on the browser and trust it 100%

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2021 at 5:22 PM, IXOYE said:

But another solution works by disallowing inline scripting that causes the problem in bitchute. In "uBlock origin" go to "settings". and activate "I am an advanced user". then you can forbid the "inline script".   this will allow you to view the video with the Bitchute player.-_-

Sorry , noop , not working . Anyways , thank you for trying to help , appreciate . I can't even see the website . It won't let me in . I tried to switch the adblock off , no luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, D.Draker said:

Sorry , noop , not working . Anyways , thank you for trying to help , appreciate . I can't even see the website . It won't let me in . I tried to switch the adblock off , no luck.

It's not normal if the bitchute.com index is not displayed:blink:, maybe you blocked "cdnjs.cloudflare.com". in your "host" file
and with 360chrome it works ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, msfntor said:

look at your extensions, please...

Which extensions you use to block JS?...

Which browser you use for it?..

How is it going in private window?

Check about:config ...

Edited by msfntor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

Those are the kinds of changes I'm saying developers should resist.

Tell this the developers of all the frameworks, CMS, bulletin boards and so on which are widely and mainly used by today's websites. The website owner itself isn't the developer in the very most cases. For example, if I would have a bulletin board for my users, I would take phpBB and have to take what they offer with no chance to change anything (except visual things like themes).

kind regards
soggi

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I am developing another mypal upon the firefox quantum 68-78, recently i have finished studying mozilla rust language and found that it is no problem to use rust to build for winxp."

Very interesting indeed!  Please keep us posted as I will likely not see the updates unless somebody posts info here at MSFN.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...