non-snap version of FF under Ubuntu 22.04?

[Bret Busby]

On 3/5/23 18:34, Bret Busby wrote:
> On 3/5/23 17:59, Oliver Grawert wrote:
>> hi,
>> Am Mittwoch, dem 03.05.2023 um 08:06 +0200 schrieb Carsten Agger:
>>>
>>> Actually, on my laptop (not the desktop, which is where I experienced
>>> freezes in Firefox) I've had very serious performance issues with
>>> Firefox for some time now. Like some sites just taking forever
>>> loading.
>>>
>> did you bother to file a bug about this ? there is technically no
>> possibility that they behave different at runtime.
>>
> 
> I am not supporting the snap stuff, but, I wonder, with the difference 
> in performance between the laptop and the desktop, what are the 
> differences in the configurations of the laptop and the desktop; both 
> the hardware, and, any plugins/extensions installed, on each system.
> 
> I am inclined to avoid using a computer with less than 16GB RAM, 
> nowadays, due to the increasing demands for resources.
> 
> Conspicuously, you did not include the hardware configurations for the 
> laptop and the desktop.
> 
> At present, I am using an i7 CPU with 16GB RAM, for my lesser system, a 
> laptop with a Xeon CPU and 32 GB RAM, for another system, and, a desktop 
> with a Xeon CPU and 128GB RAM, as my primary system. Each of those, 
> includes nVIDIA GPU's. I also run a desktop with an i3 CPU, and 32GB 
> RAM, for even lesser tasks, which I do not boot so often.
> 
> And, I have multiple plugins/extensions installed in Firefox, and, in 
> Pale Moon, a couple of plugins and extensions, and, in SeaMonkey, a 
> number of plugins/extensions.
> 
> On the i7 system, I run all three web browsers, with multiple windows 
> open, concurrently; on the laptop, I run Pale Moon and Firefox, 
> concurrently, and, on the system with 128GB RAM, I run (at present, and, 
> recently) only Firefox (of the web browsers), in addition to other 
> non-web browser applications, and, I run something like 160-190 browser 
> windows open concurrently in Firefox.
> 
> So, I suggest that it comes down to the question of the configurations 
> of the two systems that you are comparing; both the hardware 
> configurations, and, the plugins/extensions that you have installed in 
> Firefox, on each system.
> 
> Then, there is also te question of whether you are accessing different 
> web sites and web applications, with different Internet pathways, on the 
> two different systems.
> 
> I sometimes get data transmission speeds of less than 100 bytes per 
> second, and, sometimes, 7MB per second, depending on the web site that I 
> am accessing. Australia is less advanced than the USA, in terms of 
> Internet data transmission speeds - here, 50MB/s is above average and 
> unusually good.
> 
> And, some web sites are so full of s***, that they time out, from time 
> to time. Especially, Australian government web sites (no doubt, with 
> surveillance software built in "We are watching you and wherever you go 
> on the World Wide Web"), that are designed to be obstructive, including 
> the feral government weather bureau web site, that blocks public access 
> to forecasts and warnings related to dangerous weather.
> 

I should have better qualified the content of my post above, by 
including, apart from the text "I am not supporting the snap stuff", 
that the Firefox that I am using, is not snap based (except on the i3 
system, when I boot into the snap oriented system on it), and, I do not 
have snap on the three systems described above, that I mostly use.

But, my message above, related not to the presence or otherwise of snap 
stuff, but, rather, to the difference observed in the performance of 
Firefox, on the two different computers, as mentioned by Carsten Agger, 
above (and, in his post where he raised the complaint).

..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..............