User: Password:
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Because it's a memory-hogging monster?

Because it's a memory-hogging monster?

Posted Feb 11, 2012 21:18 UTC (Sat) by deinspanjer (guest, #82864)
In reply to: Because it's a memory-hogging monster? by ringerc
Parent article: Tracking users

Did you happen to try starting your Firefox profile over from scratch the way you did when you tried out Chrome?

As far as privacy options go, do you use Chrome to search Google or use any other Google services while signed in to your Google account? Do you have the default configuration of allowing the omnibar to perform searches and autocomplete? Do you have the malware/fishing detection enabled?

If you do any of these things, then Google is either using your account information or a unique cookie to track your interaction with their services and products.

They are pretty good about being explicit about what they do, and getting more explicit with their privacy policy revamps, but it is still significantly more personal data than most people realize during their daily activity.

(Log in to post comments)

Because it's a memory-hogging monster?

Posted Feb 22, 2012 16:17 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

>Did you happen to try starting your Firefox profile over from scratch the way you did when you tried out Chrome?

I think you've hit upon one of the reasons to migrate from Firefox to Chrome.

I've been using Chrome for a couple of years now (I think it was shortly after they implemented extension support), and I've *never* had to mess about with my profile. With Firefox (and I've barely used it in a couple of years, so this might no longer be a problem) I had to clear my profile every now and then as upgrades tended to break things, especially in the presence of extensions.

With Chrome, I can install an addon and be pretty certain that it will continue to work, and it will automatically be installed and configured in exactly the same way on any other machine which I set to sync with my profile. In this sense, add-ons become as dependable as a core part of the browser, whereas the situation with Firefox is - to put it politely - less than pleasant.

IIUC this is a current area of improvement for Firefox, so hopefully by this time next year it should be solved - but why would I bother to switch back?

(FWIW I actually did jump through the hoops required to run an official Firefox build on Linux a few weeks back. Ignoring the fact that those hoops are not a minor issue, as I recall there were two reasons I decided it was inadequate:
One is that there's no config setting I can find to make FF on Linux and Windows behave in the same way; so far as I'm concerned if the button order in dialogue boxes switches depending on which computer I'm using at that moment, it's a massive usability fail.
The second reason was related to synching - I think it turned out that Firefox was capable of synching all the things I didn't care about, and few of the things I did, but I forget the specifics.)

Because it's a memory-hogging monster?

Posted Feb 22, 2012 21:37 UTC (Wed) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

to be fair to firefox, a large part of this problem is the extenstions.

Firefox allows extenstions to change anything in the browser, this allows for some good things (for example, why the firefox addblock is so much better than anything available for chrome), but it also means that mistakes in the extensions can cause more grief.

Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds