Lemme guess: it works perfectly fine in chrome. Google has been using this sort of anticompetitive tactic for years to wage war against other browsers.
Yes. I regularly have to either close Firefox or kill the GPU process in it so it’ll free up RAM. Worst I saw it was at 13GB.
Unpopular opinion: If it works in the engine that 70+% of devices are using, then it works. If it doesn’t work in your non-Chrome browser, then your browser is what’s broken.
Except that it has been found in the past that Google/YouTube has been serving different html to Firefox than to Chrome. If they would be serving the same html, then you might have a point. But even then, Google can push through non standard changes to both chrome and YouTube before Firefox even has had a chance of making it compatible.
For what it’s worth, the bug in this article is partially replicable in Chrome, and isn’t even unique to YouTube. Due to the way I keep my windows positioned, I sometimes get the mobile layout of a web page on my desktop because I opened it in a narrow window, and quite often those sites will go into the same flickering, rapid loop of layout adjustments the article describes. I ran into this quite often while I was applying for jobs last year.
Though I’ve not seen the extensive resource usage happening when Chrome does this. That part of it could very well be a side effect that’s compounded by the user agent shenanigans Google does with YouTube.
Not also unpopular, but also wrong.
Often times firefox is following the css specifications in how to process it and chrome isnt. Developers then do things, see it works in chrome and leave at that, not knowing what they did is wrong and broken.On top of that logic of yours, ie10 was like the perfect browser and everyone should have kept making stuff compatible with it
Often times firefox is following the css specifications in how to process it and chrome isnt. Developers then do things, see it works in chrome and leave at that, not knowing what they did is wrong and broken.
What you’re saying is that Firefox isn’t doing what developers are expecting it to do; that just means that Firefox isn’t compatible with what developers are actually making. That’s hardly a strong defense for Firefox, as all that situation does is create a subsection of the internet that only works on Firefox.
There’s a difference between following the standards as-written, and the standards as-practiced. If 99% of developers are doing something one way, then that’s the way it’s done, regardless of what some consortium of developers at Mozilla thinks. Firefox saying “erm excuse me but ThE rUlEs say yadda yadda so I won’t render the page as you expected” while Chrome just says “fuck it, here’s your page”, is precisely why Chrome has the higher userbase and is the de facto standard; it does what the users and the developers both expect it to do, and doesn’t give any fuss about it. Not saying it should be this way, but it is.
Firefox’s random incompatibilities don’t actually make for a safer internet, as the average user is going to pursue the path of least resistance. So if their pages stop working in Firefox, they’re just gonna switch to Chrome, or worse.
You’d be rooting for ie6 some years ago. Indeed an unpopular opinion.
Turns out that’s not how standards work. If all browsers implement the standard and your product doesn’t function properly on every single one of them, the problem is your product, even if it’s just a single one.
If all browsers implement the standard
That’s exactly the issue: Firefox isn’t implementing the same standards as other browsers.
firefox is implementing the standard. google, with something like fifteen times the devs and control of the WHATWG, modifies the standard so that their stuff is in there. in that situation it’s impossible to do anything but play catch-up. and right now they’re the only other browser that matters.
like, imagine if the same company sold 50% of all cars on the road as well as 70% of gas stations, then suddenly switched to a new proprietary nozzle that only works in their cars, leaving everyone else scrambling to try and design something compatible. would you say the remaining 30% of gas stations were doing it wrong?
Funny that playing videos and use any other websites except YouTube works on Firefox without crashing the browser, don’t you think?
The problem here is that antitrust does not work correctly and google hasn’t been legally forced out of the industry due to anticompetitive tactics
that would be a more relevant opinion if google hadn’t made itself head of the web standards committee and is changing things so fast that the only party able to keep up is google.
Not to mention the amount of websites that suddenly start working of Firefox once you change the user agent to Chrome. And I remember Google slowing downs youtube/gmail on the server side when it detects a non-google browser.
According to comments related to the investigation, the interface repeatedly checks whether all buttons fit within the available horizontal space. If the controls overflow, the system hides one of the buttons to free space. However, hiding the button changes the container’s width, immediately creating a new problem.
Once the button disappears, the available width appears enough for the interface to believe there is room again, causing the hidden button to reappear. The buttons then overflow once more, forcing the interface to hide the button again. The cycle repeats continuously at extremely high speeds.
I wonder if this affects any pages that have YouTube videos embedded as well.
