Hacker News Reader

Comment by simula67 | Hacker News Reader

Isn't 30 seconds a lot of time just to start a browser?

I like the consistency though, had the same start up time on my Pentium III and Firefox 1.6 nearly 20 years ago /s

Frequently you find people complaining about browser performance have multiple extensions involved and they are suffering from “pluginitis”.

Pluginitis sufferers, however, have very little insight into their condition and frequently react violently when you tell them that your browser starts in just a few seconds.

Back in 1999 my relatives were browsing the web over dialup with 640x480 screens and frequently had more than 50% of the vertical screen area consumer by window chrome, browser buttons, and toolbar after toolbar installed by multiple (now forgotten) web sites such as Yahoo, Lycos, Hotmail, AOL, CNET, etc…. Oddly none of these people saw anything wrong with this.

No no no. If a plugin that blocks cookies and stuff like that manages to slow down a browser it means there's a big design error in that browser.

This has nothing to do with plugins. This is on browsers whose only installed extension is uBlock Origin. I'd hardly consider that pluginitis, since browsing the internet without an adblocker is tantamount to asking for malware these days.

uBlock Origin is a counterexample. It’s the only or very close to only browser extension that I think anyone should install.

The first 26 is the OS getting to the desktop.

...of which 20 seconds is typing in the LUKS passphrase

They said: "cold boot and start the browser." That's two things, not just starting the browser.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com