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
asmongold would go on stream and start calling it woke.
Why the fuck is fuckin censored hut stuff like tailplugs not xD, what a fuckin bull shit.
fuck the fucking fuckers.
Hating furries is already really cringe, but even more so when you have an anime profile picture. At that point it feels hypocritical.
Me when I take a joke seriously.
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.
Yeah, they’re probably joking, though it wouldn’t be the first time someone was acting like that while being unaware or in-denial.
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.
byeah
has googles dick in their ass
tailplug is fine but I draw the line at “fuckin”
Yeah procreation is sin. Masturbation is not.
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?
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.
Empty ram is wasted ram. In theory the system should use whatever is available to cache and streamline.
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.
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.
I’m on 4gb of ram right now (travelling so I’m away from my desktop) and firefox is using ~2gb I think (only 4-6 tabs open though)
I don’t know what to tell you, then. I’ve never had Firefox or chrome be that stubborn on a consistent basis. Are you using extensions? Some extensions are very poorly optimized, especially so when combined with certain websites (gotta love badly implemented JS in some places). Even if the extension is well made, they can still get overwhelmed sometimes, e.g. ublock origin on sites with very aggressive ads.
That being said, browsers are very complicated and the fact they all heavily use sandboxing now (as they rightfully should be), I guess I’m not surprised where they don’t function as intended in various use cases.
I mean, you got like a 85% chance that anyone giving you software advice is, closer to 98% for hardware advice.
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.
Pfft, everyone knows the cool kids use Lynx.
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.
Also, modern OSes are designed to fill as much of your RAM as possible. Windows does it, Android does it; pretty sure Linux and MacOS does too. The number you’re looking at only shows the RAM usage by currently running processes. Unused RAM is wasted RAM, so your OS will fill as much of it as possible with prefetched data so that your machine will be more responsive when you actually need to use the data that was stored in advance for you.
Um, isn’t only the addressable area reserved for the respective application? In other words, it doesn’t even mean that the application fully utilizes the memory, but that the memory is continuously available for the application.
Each application has a full address space limited only by the number of address bits they use (which is way higher than the amount of physical RAM any machine uses, maybe even more than all RAM in existence for 64bit, since it can address space into the quintillions of bytes, or millions of terabytes).
It’s only when they try to use a page of memory that the OS then reserves a physical page of memory that maps into your physical RAM. Allocating that space is a part of the page miss interrupt handler, which gets raised when a program in user space tries to access a memory address that isn’t stored in the CPU’s MMU.
When it gets that interrupt, the OS will check its own memory allocation table for that address (which stored in RAM and is larger than the CPU’s hardware table) to see if it just needs to add the entry to the MMU, page it in from disk to a free page in RAM (possibly needing to page another page out to disk if there are no fee pages), or allocate a new entry to a free page (again maybe requiring a page out).
I believe Windows task manager (or Linux top) displays the total number of allocated pages * page size for how much memory a program is using. There might be a seperate column for how many pages are in physical RAM vs the page file.
Though there might be another path to get the OS to allocate pages before a page fault occurs, so it might not reflect the actual used memory. But allocating a new page on page miss isn’t very expensive when there’s free pages. Just a few table lookups and it goes back to the program. Paging out is more expensive, since each byte needs to be written to disk. Paging in is most expensive, since it usually involves a page out (because memory needs to fill up before a page out, so there’s a good chance one needs to be freed) and then every byte of the desired page needs to be read from disk.
And their phones do this waaay more aggressively and noone complains.
6 gig of ram on a browser!? wtf people close your old tabs.
counterpoint: why does it need to keep the tabs in ram? either just discard the data and only keep the url, or if it would otherwise double check whether you want to close a tab then save things to disk cache after 5 minutes…
Exatcly do it correctly and use multiple browsers each for a very specific type of work/thing you do you animals.
I don’t understand this. The only people i have seen with a boatload of tabs open are twitch streamers. I have like maybe 5 open MAX and that’s rare.
I got tired of cleaning them out so I stopped. Now I have an emotional attachment to my 200+ tabs on Firefox mobile 🥹
I have so many the counter turned to infinity lol
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
But all the ads will come back, so it’s a wash
Considering that the vast majority of the modern ads are videos or images, they won’t show up in such text-browser environments. Also, they depend on JavaScript, which isn’t available through such text-browser environments.
*lynx (links are the things that tie the www together)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_(web_browser)
Best browser.
Minds are blown, thanks for the correction!
wait is that that shoebill
Whomst?
