[HN Gopher] Browsers eating RAM
___________________________________________________________________
Browsers eating RAM
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 77 points
Date : 2021-02-18 13:56 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.flotato.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.flotato.com)
| devioustree wrote:
| Time to buy some fanless RAM
| alecmg wrote:
| graphs don't show for me on page
| mhd wrote:
| Sure that's counting all processes? My Safari process stays the
| same size no matter how many tabs, but I'll get a bunch of web
| content processes. Although that would apply to Chrome, too, of
| course.
| mattkevan wrote:
| Had the misfortune of having to do a FB messenger video call with
| Chrome yesterday. Chrome and Facebook with one window open
| brought my 2020 Intel MacBook to its knees.
|
| Activity Monitor showed windowserver at about 50% CPU usage,
| Chrome at another 40%.
|
| I thought Teams was enough of a hog, but clearly FB is worse.
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| The bigger problem is that Macbook fans are incredibly noisy. Fan
| noise is a non-issue on most other laptops. I do agree that
| chrome is highly unoptimized. Sometimes I wonder if the Chrome
| team themselves use it as their main browser or not.
| system2 wrote:
| This test is broken. I tested with Mac and Windows. Safari and
| Chrome numbers are very close. Author didn't collect correct
| data.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Chromes multiprocess model and arena memory allocators have a
| _massive_ impact on memory use... But they are also a big
| security win.
|
| Any browser with a small memory footprint you should ask yourself
| "if someone manages to find a buffer overflow in this thing, will
| my bank password be sitting adjacent in memory because the memory
| allocator is trying to save RAM rather than being security
| conscious"?
| eklitzke wrote:
| What is the security win you get from arena allocators?
| londons_explore wrote:
| By making sure each type of C++ object is allocated in an
| arena, then many memory safety issues (use after free, buffer
| overflow) can only impact objects in the same arena. In
| Chromium land, they're called Partitions.
|
| That means an attacker has to find some memory safety issue
| _and_ some code execution issue in the same object. They can
| 't corrupt memory using one flaw and then get code execution
| by forcing another type of object to be allocated at the same
| place.
|
| Learn more here: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/s
| rc/+/dcc13470a/t...
| QazCetelic wrote:
| Could it be similar to the "Linux ate my RAM" situation and that
| the RAM is used but still available?
| Yoric wrote:
| As the author of a task manager, I can confirm that RAM usage
| is... complicated.
| The_rationalist wrote:
| What do you mean? If it's allocated to chrome it cannot be
| reused by other software. Even if it's allocated but unused
| roblabla wrote:
| You absolutely can allocate memory without using up any
| backing resources. On Linux (which is where I have
| experience, but I assume macos works similarly), even after
| mapping some memory, it won't be backed by any physical
| memory (e.g. RAM) until you actually write there. And you can
| mmap files into your address space, meaning you can place a
| huge file you can access through memory, but it's not
| actually taking any RAM, the kernel is just doing the reading
| of each "chunk" of the file as you access them, unloading the
| old bits once you stop using them for a while.
|
| Measuring memory usage is hard.
| snet0 wrote:
| So can you allocate more memory than what is available in
| this way?
| rank0 wrote:
| Yup! Processes see/use virtual memory, not the literal
| physical RAM address spaces. The kernel maintains
| mappings between virtual-physical and will allocate/free
| physical memory as needed. All of this is invisible to
| the process.
|
| Pretty neat huh?
| rank0 wrote:
| In fact, this is the entire premise of virtual memory! More
| memory is/can be allocated than physical memory exists. Each
| process has its own isolated address space with (from the
| process perspective) "unlimited" size.
| random42_ wrote:
| Off topic: a bit hard to read on iOS Safari because left margin
| is 0 (or close to).
|
| Back to the subject at hand: Chrome is a memory hog and there's
| nothing new here, but nice to see the comparison with Safari. Too
| bad Firefox wasn't part of the test.
| taf2 wrote:
| Let's please remember it's a trade of space and time... memory vs
| cpu... I see safari using a lot more cpu then chrome and also
| being much less responsive when using complex sites... both
| engines are mature these are trade offs
| Jyaif wrote:
| There's also the security tradeoff. If you put everything in a
| single process you save a ton of RAM at the expense of
| security.
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| Safari appears to use a separate process for each tab.
| Jyaif wrote:
| Oh, there's _much_ more processes than just tab. You also
| have a separate process for the network stack, the JS
| engine, the password manager, audio, etc... You can also
| have one process per extension.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Don't have a Mac so can't look into it but can anyone confirm
| this test is actually right? E.g. Brave claims (I don't use Brave
| I just know they had this claim) Safari is worse for memory usage
| https://brave.com/brave-one-dot-zero-performance-methodology...
| while this product that uses Safari claims it's 10x better.
|
| Obviously both claims can't be true. From what I remember with
| Edge (pre Chromium) and Firefox I'm going to guess Safari doesn't
| really use 1/10th the memory of everyone else - maybe I'm just
| not familiar though!
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| The linked blog post doesn't state it explicitly, but I suspect
| that the non-Brave browsers were not equipped with any kind of
| adblocking for the test. Brave has built in adblocking, so if
| my suspicions are true the test is rather disingenuous. At
| minimum Firefox and Chrome should have uBlock Origin installed
| and Safari should have Wipr or 1blocker installed to make it
| fair.
| strmpnk wrote:
| I'd suppose some of it relates to sites with heavy ads. Safari
| with no extensions will likely require more resources which
| makes the comparison a little skewed vs Safari with some ad
| blocker support added via extensions.
|
| It looks like their test includes plenty of ad heavy sites like
| news articles which seems to confirm that the results are
| cherry picked.
| runako wrote:
| I don't have stats handy, but this has been published lots of
| times by many different authors. As others have said, comparing
| browsers fairly is difficult.
|
| But Chrome is simply not an efficient browser on Macs.
| Anecdotally, it uses more memory and measurably consumes more
| energy. The Mac's fan will run more when using Chrome, and you
| will need to charge more often. If you use a lot of tabs, your
| entire computer will slow down.
|
| There's market validation for this assertion. There is a YC-
| backed company currently working on tech to offload Chrome tabs
| to the cloud so the browser uses fewer resources. This is not
| something that would be identifiable as a problem in Safari.
|
| If you have access to a Mac, you don't need to take anyone's
| word for it. Just use Chrome for a few days and then use Safari
| for a few days. The difference is pronounced. If you use your
| browser heavily, you will notice.
|
| Since password managers are in the news, Safari also syncs
| passwords to iOS devices (password sync also works in native
| apps). It's free.
| moksly wrote:
| I use a MacBook Pro 2016 everyday. Safari is easily the best
| browser memory and systems wise, but I still mainly use chrome
| because it's better at addblocking and synchronises with my
| non-Mac devices.
|
| Chrome is fine though, as long as you don't open 20+ tabs.
| Beyond that it's not fine.
|
| I replaced Firefox with Chrome because it kept ranging from a
| great to terrible user experience with various updates.
|
| This is all anecdotal and based on personal experience.
|
| On iOS I mostly use Safari even though that is kind of against
| my synchronised argument, but it works alright as I have found
| that I use my phone for very different web things.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _...I still mainly use chrome because it's better at
| addblocking and synchronises with my non-Mac devices._
|
| (In case you're interested...)
|
| iCloud for Windows now does bookmarks and passwords sync.
| https://support.apple.com/guide/icloud/icloud-for-windows-
| ov...
|
| For ad blocking, I really like 1Blocker. NextDNS is great as
| well.
| dahart wrote:
| Chrome does use a lot of memory, but I'm extremely skeptical of
| this blog post's methodology and results. Does it seem
| realistic to have 54 different real web pages open that total
| under 1GB? (If they're opening tiny fake pages, this test is
| misleading and useless.) Most real web sites transfer several
| megabytes on load. CNN.com loaded 4.2MB for me. Amazon.com
| loaded 4.3 MB. That's just the data transfer of compressed
| assets. The images and content have to be uncompressed and
| rendered, which takes a lot more memory.
|
| I'm playing on a Mac right now and see nothing like what is
| reported here. When I open cnn.com in Safari, that tab alone
| takes 1GB. Chrome reports far less usage than that.
|
| Also "Real Memory" is not the same as active memory in RAM,
| it's not necessarily giving a complete picture. Memory can
| allocated but unused or compressed or paged out.
| lucideer wrote:
| Anecdata: I find browser RAM usage varies _enormously_
| depending on which specific websites you use.
|
| The Flotato test uses Twitter and Gmail (for the first set; it
| doesn't specify the sites used for the 2nd set). Both Twitter
| and Gmail are large, complex, slow webapps which likely do some
| sort of advanced active memory management (extensive use of
| service workers, local storage, etc.). They also load mainly
| (exclusively?) 1st party resources.
|
| The Brave tests use a large varied set of sites[0], which seem
| to be a combination of simple news & ecommerce sites. There are
| no complex webapps in the list. Modern news sites do have a
| reputation for being slow and heavy, but this will mostly be
| due to 3rd-party resources from ad companies; the sites
| themselves are simple and lightweight in terms of 1st-party
| content.
|
| So they seem to be comparing very different browser usage
| patterns.
|
| Given that, and looking again at the Brave tests: Safari does
| actually have lower memory usage than Chrome for _most_ of
| their graphs. It just creeps slightly ahead of Chrome in the
| later tests.
|
| [0] https://github.com/brave-experiments/browser-comparison-
| tool...
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| As a side note, GMail memory usage has improved vastly
| (probably because it was monstruous to begin with). Years ago
| my GMail tab consumed almost 500 Mb, but nowadays it uses
| less than 100, with my same usage patterns.
| wooger wrote:
| We already know apple's own software has special exemptions in
| the OS e.g. from packet sniffers.
|
| Any reason to trust the ram usage for Safari nowadays?
| evmar wrote:
| Chrome is a pig for sure, but most attempts I see at measuring
| memory consumption are wrong. The two main ways they're typically
| wrong is either by misunderstanding how memory works (which is to
| be expected, it's subtle![1]) or by doing the measurement wrong
| (e.g. confusing CPU usage for RAM, or looking at the wrong
| process, or using a memory consuming extension in one setting but
| not the other). I think this post does both.
|
| (Disclaimer: I worked on Chrome. I believe the conclusion "uses a
| lot of RAM" is correct, but it doesn't mean the reasoning that
| led to there is right.)
|
| [1] http://neugierig.org/software/blog/2011/05/memory.html
| fermigier wrote:
| Who are these people? No contact information whatsoever on their
| website. Twitter account inactive since last October. Undated
| blog posts (this particular one may be several months old).
|
| I'd love to use their product but this doesn't incite confidence.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| > I reached a point where I could barely hear the podcast I was
| trying to listen to. That's how loud the fan was.
|
| > focuses mainly on memory usage
|
| I mean I get it, Chrome is not the most efficient browser out
| there and Safari is more efficient in terms of memory and power
| usage. I'd probably use Safari as my daily browser if I didn't
| depend on Chrome's dev tools.
|
| What's the tradeoff though? Usually you sacrifice memory to spare
| the CPU, and vice versa.
| Jyaif wrote:
| Security and stability is an other tradeoff: isolating code by
| running it in separate processes has a cost both in terms of
| memory and CPU.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Safari has separate processes.
| The_rationalist wrote:
| Chrome doing caching and therefore taking some RAM is correct
| behavior. What's not being measured is if and how much the chrome
| memory policy is adaptative to system memory contention, i.e If I
| open another app that make the RAM full, will chrome adapt by
| doing less future caching, by freeing some of the existing
| caches, by tuning the JIT to reduce throughout for reduced memory
| consumption, etc
| millstone wrote:
| I don't think Chrome does any of those things on desktop.
| superkuh wrote:
| Any multi-process browser is going to be an extreme RAM hog. Any
| JS-engine priority browser is going to be a CPU hog. Modern web
| browsers are not browsers, they are bloated virtual machines with
| a bit of browser tacked on.
|
| If you want a browser for the web instead of a JS virtual machine
| you have to look backwards, not forwards.
| iainmerrick wrote:
| Safari has a very decent JS engine, so I don't think that's the
| problem.
| cute_boi wrote:
| its sad not to see firefox :(
| Leszek wrote:
| (Disclaimer: V8 dev)
|
| This post is unfortunately nonsense, because it's making a
| fundamental measurement error: not including renderer processes
| for Safari, and only measuring the browser process (which should
| be expected to be roughly O(1) memory in the number of tabs).
|
| To the author's credit, they _are trying_ to include child
| processes - I'm not sure why, but `psrecord` seems to not (in
| local testing) include child processes for Safari even when the "
| --include-children" flag is passed. I guess it does for Chrome,
| for whatever reason.
|
| I'm somewhat disappointed that the author, or half the comments
| on the post, didn't question these _wildly_ different results
| though...
| dmitriid wrote:
| > I'm somewhat disappointed that the author, or half the
| comments on the post, didn't question these _wildly_ different
| results though...
|
| Given that Chrome is busy trying to subsume the web and the OS
| (it has bluetooth now, and usb, and serial ports, and over a
| thousand chrome-specific web apis [1]), no one is even remotely
| surprised to see such results, because by now people just
| assume Chrome to be a beast. And Chrome _has_ in the past been
| the most RAM-eating of all browsers out there.
|
| The graphs should be questioned, of course, but Chrome has
| already earned its reputation, and it's very hard to un-earn
| it.
|
| [1] https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence see
| "Browser-Specific" tab
| striking wrote:
| This is a bizarre rationalization of a misleading post. So
| what if Chrome has features, some of which you don't care
| for? That doesn't make the post right.
| aae42 wrote:
| he's not rationalizing the original post, he's
| rationalizing the thread parent's
|
| > half the comments on the post, didn't question these
| _wildly_ different results though...
| mayli wrote:
| That's pretty much what I suspect from those numbers. Safari
| seems having constant memory usage no matter how many tabs you
| open. Unless its unloading inactive tabs from ram, there is no
| way Safari can save ram by using almost 0MB for new tabs.
| barbacoa wrote:
| Long ago man landed on the moon using 4 kb of ram. Today it takes
| 1 gb of RAM to open a chrome tab.
| minikites wrote:
| Going to the moon was a government project. We need the extra
| 1023 MB of RAM to store all the advertisements and user
| tracking scripts required for a company to do anything under
| capitalism.
| chii wrote:
| and that 1gb of ram costs less than $5. That 4kb of ram costs,
| i bet, way more than the inflation adjusted $5 back then.
|
| And chrome's UI is much more fancy, displays way more data, and
| has way more functionality, than the UI that was powered by the
| 4kb of ram.
|
| It's a cute comparison, but ultimately, it's meaningless.
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| I use Safari because it's best by a mile on macOS for power
| consumption, but if you ever use a memory hungry site like
| Facebook for more than a few minutes it throws up a memory usage
| warning and everything becomes extremely slow and you get
| astronomical scroll jank. I'm guessing that's because it throws a
| hard cap on tab memory usage and if you go over that it thrashes
| wildly. So it respects your system, but in doing so is harder on
| the user for some of the most commonly used websites and _might_
| be whacking your drive.
| deanclatworthy wrote:
| Yep this is really weird and annoying. I get it even streaming
| video in full screen.
| imbnwa wrote:
| You got about 10 minutes to look at Reddit with the new design
| Klonoar wrote:
| Safari + Old Reddit redirection is the way to go here.
|
| Now if only there was a way to calm Twitter down...
| mobilio wrote:
| This is the reason i was used in past two Facebook sites -
| mbasic. and m.
|
| But Facebook surprises me with removing Messaging functionality
| from mobile sites. So i must use desktop site. Within 5 minutes
| fans starts howling...
| tpetry wrote:
| https://chromeisbad.com/
|
| I did not have time yet to schow whether the claims are true but
| i found this when searching why i have insanely high windowserver
| cpu activity.
|
| Seems chrome on mac is heading into a strange direction. For
| normal browsing i use safari since a long time as the battery
| will last the longest compared to firefox and chrome. But the
| chrome developer tools are so damn good i can't get rid of it for
| development.
| powvans wrote:
| I stumbled on this site last week and anecdotally I can confirm
| that disabling Keystone helps. I was driven to find answers
| after no longer being able to _hear people on Zoom calls_
| because of the fan noise from my 16 " MBP. I got sick of having
| to wear noise cancelling headphones when Chrome and Zoom turn
| my laptop into a space heater.
|
| The Keystone thing though, it's not a panacea. It seems to fix
| the issue with WindowServer running away with the CPU, but
| Chrome is still pretty terrible. I decided to just deal with
| the switching cost and stopped using Chrome altogether. It has
| made all the difference. Switched to Firefox and I'm not
| looking back.
| deanclatworthy wrote:
| WindowServer is more than just chrome. I don't doubt chrome is
| eating the resources on my machine, but it's not as simple as
| this site makes out.
| lettergram wrote:
| I find Firefox dev tools sufficient pretty much 100% of the
| time... have you considered it?
| pwdisswordfish0 wrote:
| I use Firefox as my main browser (and always have -- just to
| give some context about where I'm coming from). But Firefox's
| developer tools are just not as good as Chrome's. Again, I
| use Firefox. But every couple months or so, I stumble upon
| some annoying instance where its developer tools are either
| inadequate or are just buggy (whether it's the element
| inspector not working, or pausing on a debugger statement and
| not giving me a source view, or applied CSS rules not showing
| up, or some weird behavior in the console, or...), and I have
| to resort to using Chrome's developer tools to get the issue
| resolved. This easily accounts for 90+% of my Chrome usage
| (i.e. more than the number of times I've had to resort to
| opening a website in Chrome because the developers didn't
| test it in Firefox).
| atfzl wrote:
| Have you used the firefox performance timeline, it is awful.
| Chrome's performance timeline is amazingly smooth and has
| much more features.
| minikites wrote:
| Why do people continue to use Chrome? Inertia? Genuine love for
| Google's "services"?
| lrossi wrote:
| UX is quite good as long as you don't have to edit the
| settings. Most buggy sites work on it, which is no longer true
| for Firefox. It's also very stable and secure.
|
| But it does get slower and slower with each update.
| karmakaze wrote:
| > * Macbook 16" from 2019 with2.4 GHz, 8-Core Intel Core i9 with
| 32 GB 2667 MHz DDR4 RAM and an AMD Radeon Pro 5500M 8GB GPU
|
| Nice specs (32GB RAM) but perhaps not representative of the norm.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Indeed. I'd like to see the same tests on a dual-core from 2015
| with 4 GB of RAM. Which is more like what most people use day-
| to-day.
| rovr138 wrote:
| Depends on the audience.
|
| HN audience wouldn't be too bad.
| nerdponx wrote:
| 8 cores and 32 GB of RAM is a seriously big computer. That's
| close to maxed-out for any off-the-shelf laptop _or_ desktop,
| especially considering it 's using a recent CPU architecture
| and chipset.
|
| Edit: as of Feb 18, 2021, you can't even buy a 13-inch MBP
| with 32 GB of RAM. The 16-inch model with 32 GB of RAM and
| all other specs set to their minimum/default comes out to
| $2800 on the Apple online store. That is far, far outside the
| range of what most people have access to.
| rovr138 wrote:
| The 13 inch does, but not the M1. You have to use the Intel
| ones. That's an issue with Apple/M1. No i9 though on them
| or dedicated graphics.
| readittwice wrote:
| Those numbers don't make sense to me, it claims that Safari would
| use 73M of memory with both Twitter and Gmail. But locally on my
| machine I see that Activity Monitor already reports 490M of
| memory usage just for the Gmail process of Safari alone. The
| Twitter login page also already needs 90M. Can someone check as
| well?
| markdog12 wrote:
| Yep, was thinking of the same thing when I read it. I have 2
| gmail tabs in Safari, each taking over 1GB. One twitter that's
| about 1GB, one Slack that's over 1GB. Some of this is shared
| memory.
|
| Is it that they don't realize Safari is a multi-process
| architecture, and they're only measuring Safari's main process?
| rovr138 wrote:
| Flotato,
|
| From homepage,
|
| >From browser tab to magic Mac app. >Break free from the browser
| and add web pages to your Mac dock. How about a mac app for
| Gmail, Twitter, Instagram, Netflix, and literally millions more?
|
| From their help page,
|
| > Dig in to making real Mac apps from websites with Flotato.
|
| Looks like you can create apps of your websites. And it looks
| like it does it using Safari's engine.
| nerdponx wrote:
| For anyone curious, the GNOME Epiphany browser on Linux has
| this feature as well. Incidentally, it's also based on
| Webkit2-Gtk internally (Webkit is the Safari browser engine).
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Isn't that just the same as installing a PWA?
| (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Web/Progressive_web...)
| headsupernova wrote:
| Exactly but with the benefit of using the Safari engine and
| some other bells and whistles
| leokennis wrote:
| It's a pretty nifty app: you download it and you have
| "Flotato.app". If you want a "Gmail" app, you copy Flotato.app,
| rename that copy to "Gmail.app" and open it. It will open
| Gmail, and the app icon changes to the Gmail logo.
|
| So far this has worked consistently for more or less every site
| I tried.
| c22 wrote:
| I used to have this problem, I routinely keep well over 100 tabs
| open. Then I disabled default loading of javascript and now I
| never hear my fans.
| felixding wrote:
| Wanted to learn about flotato after reading the post but the
| hamburger menu doesn't work on Firefox mobile...
| hundchenkatze wrote:
| It doesn't work in Firefox desktop either. I guess they only
| test with webkit based browsers.
| larrysalibra wrote:
| The hamburger menu doesn't work on iOS Safari either!
| deanclatworthy wrote:
| The whole browser situation at the moment is so incredibly
| frustrating. I will NOT browse the internet without a fully-
| fledged adblocker - no pihole is not enough.
|
| This means pretty much only using Firefox - but I have about 10
| tabs open at the moment, each using over 500mb of ram while idle.
| What on earth they are doing I don't know... and I find it very
| sluggish when playing video.
|
| Chrome is my daily browser, even after they limited the number of
| rules that ublock origin can use. But it grinds to a halt on my
| top of the range macbook pro and uses 100% cpu if I open a couple
| of twitch streams and 20-30 other tabs.
|
| Safari is a joy to use, much better on battery but webextension
| implementation means ublock origin is not possible.
| coffeefirst wrote:
| The crazy thing to me is the ads aren't even the biggest
| problem anymore: it's clunky SPAs that load 1MB of js to save
| 10kb of HTML on navigation.
| neogodless wrote:
| I went to check my Firefox memory usage on Windows 10 (two
| tabs, extensions include ublock, facebook, bitwarden, contrast
| and multi-account containers) but I saw something unexpected.
|
| https://imgur.com/a/UJnV7ak
|
| Adding up the RAM totals 671.7MB on a 16GB device. But why do I
| have one Firefox with 4 sub-processes, and 3 (no 4) additional
| lone Firefox processes? I think the 4 background processes must
| be extensions in sure, but then what is the primary process
| with 4 sub-processes when I only have two tabs?
|
| Without extensions, it looks like the browser is using about
| 280MB.
| deanclatworthy wrote:
| I don't think you can compare Windows Vs Mac when it comes to
| FF. There have been countless complaints about FF mac
| performance over the years - even after they supposedly fixed
| it all.
|
| 15 FF tabs open currently: https://ibb.co/MRkJjwY
|
| - 1 outlook email tab - 1-2 custom web apps for dev work -
| the rest are jira and gitlab
| jdashg wrote:
| If you take a profile (perfht.ml) it'll show you the names of
| the processes as part of the profiling report.
| Someone wrote:
| "4 sub-processes when I only have two tabs?"
|
| I don't know anything about Firefox's specifics, but forking
| an already initialized process typically is faster than
| launching a new process, so if I were to write a multi-
| process browser, I might have an empty, initialized, process
| hanging around of every type that can be forked and then sent
| a message to load a page or extension.
|
| Alternatively, Firefox could keep processes running on the
| decent chance that you will want to open a new tab soon.
| llimllib wrote:
| I prefer ubo, but have found adguard very tolerable for
| browsing with Safari
| dotdi wrote:
| +1 for AdGuard. I picked up a lifetime license a while ago
| but I was sceptical. Now I have it installed on my iOS
| devices and on my Mac. Working fine.
| deanclatworthy wrote:
| Adguard is an electron app that runs in the background of
| your machine. I found the whole idea of that apalling and
| uninstalled it.
| droidist2 wrote:
| This type of browser looks good to use along with tiled window
| managers like i3 and xmonad.
| spurgu wrote:
| My problem with Flotato has been unreliable notifications. No
| matter how much I fiddle with the settings they oftentimes never
| appear.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-18 23:01 UTC)