Maybe the EU can fork Firefox?
If you look on the mozilla bugtracker, there are many people having this same issue
So I use it in a tab on Firefox. Much smoother.
A profile can make a bug with vague or difficult steps to reproduce surprisingly actionable.
Actually, I noticed voice started working last month. I could see the video but not send mine, but it might in the future.
Please don't force Teams on anybody though, this is unacceptable in 2022 for a company like Microsoft when its alternatives have been working in Firefox for years.
It didn't work at all in Chromium too, because apparently it relied on the Widevine DRM on Chrome (?!). That's nuts. That's bullshit. If you don't have it, it fails with an obscure error message like "Unable to join the conference" without any reason. Good luck guessing why.
Sounds like user agent / window.navigator sniffing in order to block the browser.
Classic microsoft. They will never change.
The problem isn't that Firefox is bad. It's that many site are designed specifically for chrome, and they don't bother testing against Firefox. And for the average user, all they really notice is thay some sites don't work in Firefox.
how is that firefox problem if the service is actively hostile towards firefox?
Things that come to mind that I use often:
* AWS console
* Google Maps
* Confluence
Hell, even the front page of Hacker News loads a bit faster on Chromium than on Firefox. Sure, the difference is negligible in absolute terms, but still. I get around 5-600 ms for Chromium, and around 8-900 for Firefox. Both running on X11/Linux 5.19-zen on a Ryzen 5650U with 32 GB of RAM.
I haven't used Chrome intensively in a long while, but I seem to me remember at the time (many years ago, on a Mac) it would slow to a crawl after a few days with many open tabs. I don't have any such issue with Firefox on Linux.
AWS Console being completely stateful with its accounts and roles is only usable in Firefox with Containers.
And as for Google Maps I don't see any difference between Chrome and Firefox.
I use Confluence for work, and so have to use Chrome. It's slow and terrible everywhere.
Brave: 8.46s Firefox: 26.91s
Same machine, an older thinkpad (i5-6300U). I posit that the perf differences may be masked by newer hardware.
I share the experience with Maps, though I never see it these days as the G gets its own ungoogled-chromium sandbox and don't get to play with other domains here anyway.
I experience the opposite of you with Chrome struggling with several tabs.
At around 30 tabs, Chrome absolutely throttles my moderately powerful 8 core 16 thread CPU laptop with 24GB RAM, while Firefox has no issues with it. Firefox doesn't even sweat even if I have those tabs open with Spotify and Gmail, one that presumably uses hardware DRM decryption, and the other websockets for email and chat, plus whatever tracking Google wants to do.
Also try switching to av1 codec, if you have a recent video card (https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/03/firefox-will-efficie...), but not sure if it will help much if it's not the video lagging.
They obviously can. But why would you expect anything good to come out of this? I don't think any government entity is particularly known for writing excellent consumer software, nor would I want my tax dollars to be spend on such a project that is better provided by the private sector.
(Not literally my tax dollars, since I don't live in the EU any longer.)
More realistically, the EU could give some money to Mozilla (or similar) to make Firefox better.
That would get over my first objection of them likely being incompetent by themselves.
The reason for forking rather than throwing money at Mozilla is that Mozilla doesn't seem to be doing a great job of managing themselves. Maybe they need some competition. Also, Mozilla is an American company; the EU would naturally want to give money to an EU company that hires EU citizens to do such high-value, high-paid work, not send that money to the US. Plus, they can get a lot more software talent for their Euro in the EU (esp. eastern EU) than in America.
I skimmed over the issue here: my more precise point is that government entities generally aren't good at building things when they outsource the actual building, either.
(Some people even go so far as claiming that outsourced government projects are worse than in-house ones.)
> The reason for forking rather than throwing money at Mozilla is that Mozilla doesn't seem to be doing a great job of managing themselves.
That might be true. Or perhaps they just have different priorities, and the EU can specifically pay them to do some work on EU priorities?
> Also, Mozilla is an American company; the EU would naturally want to give money to an EU company that hires EU citizens to do such high-value, high-paid work, not send that money to the US.
That's, alas, true from a political point of view. But not from a macroeconomic economic point of view, or just getting bang-for-your-buck.
> Plus, they can get a lot more software talent for their Euro in the EU (esp. eastern EU) than in America.
Mozilla can already hire from anywhere, too, can't they?
In any case, I already mentioned in my comment that the EU can pay someone other than Mozilla. The point I wanted to make is that the EU should not fork Firefox, but rather try to get their favourite contributions upstreamed, if possible.
In any case, I still think it would be a waste of taxpayer money for the EU to pick winners (ie award the project to someone). Instead they should focus on streamlining bureaucracies and regulation etc so that private entities (companies, or foundations or otherwise) that provide what people want (software or otherwise) can flourish in the EU.
Private companies tend to settle into local-maxima, it takes a lot of cash to explore outside those bounds, i.e. apollo, ITER.
Regardless, control of the software and distribution channels that govern the effective online life of about a billion people is power, and if the shoe were on the other foot I'd bet there'd be USGov investment to rebalance it.
To bring up another example: in our timeline, government-funded militaries were an earlier driver of electronic computing.
But IBM was hot on their heels. Similarly Konrad Zuse was starting to build computers in Germany.
If there hadn't been a war to divert so many resources globally from the private sector into the militaries, these business driven efforts would have started the early computer age at about the same time (perhaps earlier even?). At no cost to the taxpayer.
No, not that I'm aware of. Sure, they can hire someone from EU and fly them to the US to work, but I'm not aware of them having offices in the EU. Why would the EU want to pay for EU devs to be flown to the US and paid inflated US salaries, instead of just keeping that talent at home?
>In any case, I already mentioned in my comment that the EU can pay someone other than Mozilla. The point I wanted to make is that the EU should not fork Firefox, but rather try to get their favourite contributions upstreamed, if possible.
That's impossible. Any time you have a different entity working on a software project, it becomes forked. So either you just keep the internal fork and upstream as much as you can, and hope that the parent org takes these submissions, or you release your fork publicly if the parent org isn't cooperative enough. Either way, it's a fork. Quite simply, every time you clone a git repo, it's a fork.
Anyway, sure, they should try to get their contributions upstreamed, but what if Mozilla is recalcitrant? The EU would be correct to release their own version for EU use.
>In any case, I still think it would be a waste of taxpayer money for the EU to pick winners (ie award the project to someone). Instead they should focus on streamlining bureaucracies and regulation etc so that private entities (companies, or foundations or otherwise) that provide what people want (software or otherwise) can flourish in the EU.
So, just let Google own the browser market? I don't see how this is useful or productive. Streamlining regulations isn't going to magically make it economically feasible for some start-up to somehow make money making a web browser.
> The Bergamot Project Consortium is coordinated by the University of Edinburgh with partners Charles University in Prague, the University of Sheffield, University of Tartu, and Mozilla. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 825303.
The plugin basically kills tabs if you are not using them, after you click on them they get restored and forms get refilled. There is also a way to exclude websites, but I have not yet found a site breaks.