Web lists-archives.com

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

On 11/7/17 7:13 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 11/6/2017 4:34 PM, Mark12547 wrote:
>> In article <VJCdnbZ5RKlBUZ3HnZ2dnUU7-IednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>, lynnmcguire5
>> @gmail.com says...
>>> I filed a bug on the ads burning cpu and ram but nothing has happened.
>>>      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1392137
>> I'm the "Mark" that participated in that Bug report (comments 14 & 16).
>> I remember back three decades ago installing an ad blocker because "rich
>> content" ads were consuming too many resources and blocking the
>> rendering of the web page until the "rich content" had finished playing.
>> It's ironic that today ads are still consuming too many resources, even
>> when our Internet connection is 100,000 times faster, as well as faster
>> and larger computer systems.
>> At least that bug report got a priority of P3, which means they haven't
>> forgotten about it yet. I doubt it will get any traction before the
>> teething problems of the Firefox Quantum 57 rollout is complete.
> Gotcha.
> One of the resolutions might be to include a minimal ad blocker inside
> FireFox.  It is time.

What prevents you from simply installing an ad blocker?
It's not like there's no choice.

general mailing list