SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Distribution: Slackware64-current with "True Multilib" and KDE4Town.
Posts: 9,103
Rep:
Trouble loading Firefox, Thunderbird and Basilisk this morning. Everything was fine yesterday, but today it can take up to a minute for any of these applications to finally load. No problem with Vivaldi.
The error for Firefox was,
Quote:
bash-5.2$ firefox
(firefox:10060): Gtk-WARNING **: 09:17:50.669: Unknown key gtk-primary-sort-order in /home/mwnn/.config/gtk-3.0/settings.ini
Gtk-Message: 09:17:50.688: Failed to load module "colorreload-gtk-module"
Gtk-Message: 09:17:50.689: Failed to load module "window-decorations-gtk-module"
bash-5.2$
Trouble loading Firefox, Thunderbird and Basilisk this morning. Everything was fine yesterday, but today it can take up to a minute for any of these applications to finally load. No problem with Vivaldi.
The error for Firefox was,
For the longest time, I was not aware that the "block deceptive and dangerous content" function in Firefox basically redirected all your browsing through to Google for them to filter (or censor) your browsing content.
This has 2 main implications. First all your browsing can be surveillanced by Google, like everywhere else, even though you try to avoid it and not use any products from Google. So, if you're the type who don't want Google to surveillance you, this function MUST be turned off.
Secondly, this function "filters" your content. Sure, it might filter out some dangerous content online, but more likely it will "censor" the information you see online and block content that Google (or government bureau of information) doesn't like, like for example opinions they don't like, or views and expressions they don't want you to see. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but Google is by now well known for their censorship efforts online, by blocking free expression and "undesirable" opinions on platforms like youtube and google search.
So, if you are concerned about Google surveillancing what you do online (like they do when you use their search engine or products) and filtering (/censoring) the information you get to view, then you should look into the function in your Firefox settings under "privacy and security", and disable
Quote:
Security
Deceptive Content and Dangerous Software Protection
Block dangerous and deceptive content
Learn more
Personally I would like some blocking/filtering functions in my browser, but not when it is provided by Google and the price is surveillance. It can be noted in all this that Mozilla receive alot of their funding from Google. But it would have been nice with a choice of some other filter functions. Perhaps from some open collaboration who doesn't surveillance and abuse users.
This function and any other creepy related and non-related Google thing, can also be found and looked into under about:config by searching "google". The actual name of the function is "Google Safe Browsing" and it's not run through a file or a database file, no, it's run through their servers.
Wow! I had no idea! I've just turned that function off.
I noticed during the pandemic that when I DDG'd "Great Barrington declaration", because I wanted to find out what this document actually said, I couldn't find it anywhere. I only saw shedloads of newspaper articles explaining why it was wrong.
Phishing and Malware Protection works by checking the sites that you visit against lists of reported phishing, unwanted software and malware sites. These lists are automatically downloaded and updated every 30 minutes or so when the Phishing and Malware Protection features are enabled.
When you download an application file, Firefox checks the site hosting it against a list of sites known to contain "malware". If the site is found on that list, Firefox blocks the file immediately, otherwise it asks Google’s Safe Browsing service if the software is safe by sending it some of the download’s metadata.
There are two times when Firefox will communicate with Mozilla’s partners while using Phishing and Malware Protection for sites. The first is during the regular updates to the lists of reporting phishing and malware sites. No information about you or the sites you visit is communicated during list updates. The second is in the event that you encounter a reported phishing or malware site. Before blocking the site, Firefox will request a double-check to ensure that the reported site has not been removed from the list since your last update. This request does not include the complete address of the visited site, it only contains partial information derived from the address.
In addition to the regular list updates mentioned above, when using Malware Protection to protect downloaded files, Firefox may communicate with Mozilla's partners to verify the safety of certain executable files. In these cases, Firefox will submit some information about the file, including the name, origin, size and a cryptographic hash of the contents, to the Google Safe Browsing service which helps Firefox determine whether or not the file should be blocked.
Don't know where you're getting your info from, but here's what Mozilla themselves say about this functionality:
Seems reasonable to me.
By looking into the details of these functions. Perhaps those are subfuntions of some sort, but the main function is Google Safe Browsing. It seems pretty clear to me how it works, but like anyone I could be wrong, but the information I looked into was very clear about it, and the information about safe search you can find under "about:config" is also CRISPY clear.
Furthermore, if you read "learn more" under the function, it is also clear, as it links to "Google Privacy Policies" (and Mozilla Privacy Policies) how they treat the information.
I don't think it could be more clear than that, which is why I have disabled the function for many years (and I've not been victim of malware or dangerous content). And like I said, I would like a filter function like that, but from a reliable source, and certainly not from a company like Google. I'd like to be able to filter out content I consider harmful (based on filters reliable experts have put together as "pick and chose"), rather than what Google considers so. In addition to that, most search engines provide a moderation filter as an option, and mostly it is enabled by default.
What you quote is just a different variation of saying this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Safe_Browsing
Google maintains the Safe Browsing Lookup API, which has a privacy drawback: "The URLs to be looked up are not hashed so the server knows which URLs the API users have looked up". The Safe Browsing Update API, on the other hand, compares 32-bit hash prefixes of the URL to preserve privacy.[9][10] The Chrome, Firefox and Safari browsers use the latter.[11]
Safe Browsing also stores a mandatory preferences cookie on the computer
Google Safe Browsing is a service from Google
Google also provides a public API for the service.
and this
Quote:
Originally Posted by https://safebrowsing.google.com/
Real-time checks against lists of known phishing and malware sites
The option to request Google to perform deeper scans of files they’ve downloaded to check for malware and viruses
Protection against previously unknown attacks when navigating to sites
Tailored protections based on your risk level
It should be noted that I did not get my information from such direct sources in the first place, but rather from passionate privacy advocates and the likes, who themselves looked into it extensively and wrote about it.. So, I'm not saying I'm the expert, but I did listen to what I considered experts on the topics, and they were in general agreement with each other. My own verification of their information made it very clear to me that I shouldn't use these function, for the reasons described in the post I made.
Even if it was just a list file provided by Google, which it isn't (it's client to Google server service), I'd still not want to use a Google "one-size-fits all" lookup table for this kind of function, but rather "pick and chose" tableS from reliable sources. And if this information is incorrect that Firefox uses the API which connects to Google servers realtime, why would there be a Google Privacy Policy attached to the function in the first place?
It's probably possible to test this yourself, you can activate the function and add the google safebrowsing address to a firewall and block it, and get logs of blocked attempts to reach that address.
I read the Mozilla explanation and what I've got from it is that there's no surveillance by Google, mostly URL check against locally stored lists, also a quick online check when there's a match, to see if it's still on the list (because the lists are being updated regularly). Also an online check for an executable (not sure what falls under this description) file's name, size and hash against a malware list. Which I understand that not every downloaded file is even being checked.
I admit that I haven't looked into the code to see how exactly all this works (too little knowledge of C++ and/or Rust to understand it), but somehow I doubt we would find anything surprising there.
But if you still don't trust Mozilla and Google, an alternative would be using uBlock Origin extension and enabling Online Malicious URL Blocklist. Or any other content filtering extension with a similar blocklist.
I read the Mozilla explanation and what I've got from it is that there's no surveillance by Google, mostly URL check against locally stored lists, also a quick online check when there's a match, to see if it's still on the list (because the lists are being updated regularly). Also an online check for an executable (not sure what falls under this description) file's name, size and hash against a malware list. Which I understand that not every downloaded file is even being checked.
I admit that I haven't looked into the code to see how exactly all this works (too little knowledge of C++ and/or Rust to understand it), but somehow I doubt we would find anything surprising there.
But if you still don't trust Mozilla and Google, an alternative would be using uBlock Origin extension and enabling Online Malicious URL Blocklist. Or any other content filtering extension with a similar blocklist.
Good on you. That's for everyone to consider on their own. I'm not going to tell them I'm right, I'm just presenting the information I have and I based my decision on. People are free to look the information up themselves if they want. There is alot of information on the topic available to the public. Also in much greater detail.
Like I said, I didn't want to open a can of worms here, and this is kind of a separate topic, so from my end it's done, and I'm not discussing it any further. Only the thread starter can convince me otherwise. If I have anything further I forgot to add, I'll add it in my clarification post above. End of story.
Distribution: Slackware64-current with "True Multilib" and KDE4Town.
Posts: 9,103
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by marav
Here is mine: ..............But, who knows how this kde4 deals with gtk now
Logged out and deleted the ~/.config gtk-x configuration directories and signed back on. Didn't solve the problem. Setup a new user, still didn't solve the problem. It takes 37 to 40 seconds for Thunderbird, Firefox and Basilisk to load. Sending and retrieving e-mail via Thunderbird has slowed to a crawl.
Tried Xfce-4.18, but the problem is the same.
Everything else works just fine.
I'm just about due for a fresh install. Maybe that will help.
Last edited by cwizardone; 12-07-2023 at 11:52 AM.
Distribution: VM Host: Slackware-current, VM Guests: Artix, Venom, antiX, Gentoo, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenIndiana
Posts: 1,008
Rep:
I am afraid that there is more work, if you want to get rid/ turn off safebrowsing:
enter in address line
about:config
browser.safebrowsing.allowOverride false
browser.safebrowsing.provider. delete all web references.
browser.safebrowsing.blockedURIs.enabled false
browser.safebrowsing.downloads.remote.enabled false
browser.safebrowsing.features. all false
browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled false
browser.safebrowding.pishing.enabled false
This is just bare minimum
@cwizardone
Maybe try to reinstall kde-gtk-config. I think it provides colorreload-gtk-module
I'd sure be happy if someone had some good tips on reducing Firefox memory usage (in particular), and CPU use. I did look into it years ago, and I did find some things that could reduce memory and CPU usage, but in the end the problem was not fully solved, which caused me to eventually lock Firefox in a virtual machine. Yup, the biggest possible hammer, I know, but I had tried for years to tame the Firefox in various ways, and I'm still trying. But for now the VM prison of shame works quite well.. Imagine a situation where a whole virtual machine running Firefox is less resource problematic than running Firefox in the host OS.
Anyways, I do want to also be able to run Firefox outside a virtual machine, so I'm looking into these memory reduction adjustments again. I have a few worth mentioning as well, in about:config... browser.cache.memory shows 3 options "capacity", "enable" and "max size".. By going to about:cache, you can verify that this cache is actually in RAM, so if you want to reduce memory usage, this function can be disabled and/or set to a low number. browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers which is how many back and forward pages Firefox stores (in memory? and/or cache) it is set to -1 which is unlimited I suppose, or letting Firefox decide, but I recon it doesn't hurt to set it to 2 o 3 for most normal use or even 0 if you don't want cached back/forward browsing. There is also a similar entry "max_history" which can be set lower.
Furthermore, there is ofcourse the "simple" option to use a 32-bit version of Firefox.. I use LSM MAC (mandatory access control), and I don't like the way Firefox fumbles around in the filesystem. This isn't really related to performance much, but it's possible to use a "hidden" proc mount where processes only see "self".
Code:
mount -o remount,hidepid=2 /proc
But be weary of using that function as it can break programs from running properly, among other Wayland will not start in that mode. It's just a step short of using the PID namespace basically, but from what I remember it does work with X. Which reminds me there should be some ways to limit (max) Firefox resources with cgroups.. But, didn't get that far yet..
Another thing is perhaps that you may want to disable the user namespace for Firefox.
Well, anyways, I'm a beggar for ways to reduce Firefox memory use if anyone have any good tips (preferably about:config stuff).
Distribution: VM Host: Slackware-current, VM Guests: Artix, Venom, antiX, Gentoo, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenIndiana
Posts: 1,008
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeebra
I'd sure be happy if someone had some good tips on reducing Firefox memory usage (in particular), and CPU use. I did look into it years ago, and I did find some things that could reduce memory and CPU usage, but in the end the problem was not fully solved, which caused me to eventually lock Firefox in a virtual machine. Yup, the biggest possible hammer, I know, but I had tried for years to tame the Firefox in various ways, and I'm still trying. But for now the VM prison of shame works quite well.. Imagine a situation where a whole virtual machine running Firefox is less resource problematic than running Firefox in the host OS.
Anyways, I do want to also be able to run Firefox outside a virtual machine, so I'm looking into these memory reduction adjustments again. I have a few worth mentioning as well, in about:config... browser.cache.memory shows 3 options "capacity", "enable" and "max size".. By going to about:cache, you can verify that this cache is actually in RAM, so if you want to reduce memory usage, this function can be disabled and/or set to a low number. browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers which is how many back and forward pages Firefox stores (in memory? and/or cache) it is set to -1 which is unlimited I suppose, or letting Firefox decide, but I recon it doesn't hurt to set it to 2 o 3 for most normal use or even 0 if you don't want cached back/forward browsing. There is also a similar entry "max_history" which can be set lower.
Furthermore, there is ofcourse the "simple" option to use a 32-bit version of Firefox.. I use LSM MAC (mandatory access control), and I don't like the way Firefox fumbles around in the filesystem. This isn't really related to performance much, but it's possible to use a "hidden" proc mount where processes only see "self".
Code:
mount -o remount,hidepid=2 /proc
But be weary of using that function as it can break programs from running properly, among other Wayland will not start in that mode. It's just a step short of using the PID namespace basically, but from what I remember it does work with X. Which reminds me there should be some ways to limit (max) Firefox resources with cgroups.. But, didn't get that far yet..
Another thing is perhaps that you may want to disable the user namespace for Firefox.
Well, anyways, I'm a beggar for ways to reduce Firefox memory use if anyone have any good tips (preferably about:config stuff).
1) install uBlock Origin, edit serrings and enable all filters. With the exception of international, import Actually Legitimate URL Shortener Tool
above will reduce memory usage.
browser memory limit is set to -1 change to whatever you think is valid.
2) limit session history (I have 3: good enough for me), disable crash recovery, disable safebrowsing.
3) get rid of most of add-ons
4) in VM setup limit memory use in VM settings and CPU number. Linux, whichever distro you installed will adjust during installation.
5) setup nice sandbox if you want limit firefox disk/user data access. In addition you can configure tempfs
6) 64-bit has better memoty handling than 32-bit
7) in VM if you are adventurous play around with kernel.
8) fix your WM/DE (remove stuff that is not needed for functionality) both main OS and VM.
You can easily get less than 100MB at boot so even if FF will take 1GB with all the tabs, 2GB is crazy generous.
Distribution: Slackware64-current with "True Multilib" and KDE4Town.
Posts: 9,103
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwizardone
12-06-23, 09:27
Trouble loading Firefox, Thunderbird and Basilisk this morning. Everything was fine yesterday, but today it can take up to a minute for any of these applications to finally load. No problem with Vivaldi.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwizardone
12-07-23, 09:47
Logged out and deleted the ~/.config gtk-x configuration directories and signed back on. Didn't solve the problem. Setup a new user, still didn't solve the problem. It takes 37 to 40 seconds for Thunderbird, Firefox and Basilisk to load. Sending and retrieving e-mail via Thunderbird has slowed to a crawl.
Tried Xfce-4.18, but the problem is the same.
Everything else works just fine.............
And this morning things are back to normal. The problem has disappeared as mysteriously as it appeared.
Last edited by cwizardone; 12-08-2023 at 08:08 AM.
Reason: Typo.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.