Firefox Lite

Eric Rescorla ekr at rtfm.com
Mon Jun 29 02:29:22 UTC 2015


On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 5:11 PM, M V <mvocom at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello JS4Lf, Eric, Daniel and David,
>
> Thank you for replying and for the useful information.
>
> 1) Each component in itself may indeed not be a primary source of memory
> consumption. All of them combined might be significant.
>

They might be, but that's not the expectation of the people who work on this
code. If you can provide evidence that some set of these features is
consuming a significant amount of memory, we can take a look at that.



>     Please don't get me wrong: all the features I have mentioned are
> great, but why impose them on those who never use them?
>

Because while any particular feature may not be important to one person,
that doesn't mean that one of the other features aren't, so it's not clear
that there's a subset that would have a significant size reduction and also
be useful to a big enough fraction of people. For instance, I don't use
Pocket but I use WebRTC.

Moreover, making any kind of subset adds complexity for development,
build, and test.

2)  IMO, the binary size matters as well.
>
> 3) I mentioned ABP because of its popularity and high memory consumption.
> But even if (or rather when; thank you all who are working
>     on it) this issue is resolved, the basic question remains: why not
> adapt Firefox to the vast majority of users?
>

I think there's a natural presumption that having all the features
available does
that.

-Ekr


Best regards.
>
>
> 2015-06-29 1:00 GMT+03:00 Daniel Holbert <dholbert at mozilla.com>:
>
>> Someone posted basically the same request last year, here:
>>   https://groups.google.com/d/msg/firefox-dev/otM2HQy_QXI/z5pKvsMjCPcJ
>> Please see the responses in that thread. Basically, the features you
>> mention are (or should be) designed to be "lazily loaded", so they don't
>> consume any memory at all until they're used. So, removing them wouldn't
>> actually help.
>>
>> We do have people working on finding & fixing memory leaks and reducing
>> memory usage, for what it's worth. (And in many cases, add-ons like ABP
>> are partly to blame; see for example this post from last year:
>>
>> https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-pluss-effect-on-firefoxs-memory-usage/
>> )
>>
>> On 06/27/2015 05:38 PM, M V wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > FF 39 consumes approximately 240 MB on start-up (with ABP installed).
>> >
>> > The average user doesn't use any of the Dev Tools.
>> > Also, many users never use WebRTC, Pocket, Reader etc..
>> >
>> > How about offering users Firefox Lite?
>> > - Either a separate FF version, or providing the option to choose the
>> > components to install.
>> > I'm quite sure it would enlarge Firefox market share.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> firefox-dev mailing list
> firefox-dev at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/firefox-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/firefox-dev/attachments/20150628/639615ab/attachment.html>


More information about the firefox-dev mailing list