Chromium vs. Firefox: Which is Better?
 

Which is better—in terms of plugin availability, speed, etc.—Chromium or Firefox?

I like Firefox because FlashGot and Zotero plugins are only available for it. I'm sure there are other good plugins that run only with Firefox.

Chromium is good because, at least on Linux, it supports the up-to-date Flash plugin pepperflash and can play Netflix movies.

speed - Chromium
plugin availability, features - Firefox


personaly i've used firefox for long time, and moving to Google would take some learning. For what?

Firefox. I don't like Google or their products. What many people don't know is why Chrome is faster. It's because it uses much more RAM. People don't notice this with newer computers, but with older computers and less than 4 GB RAM and no swap the OOM killer will kill Chrome in a few minutes.

I prefer Firefox/Iceweasel it is marginally quicker on my laptop.
Chromium doesn't have pepperflash but Chrome does.
If I really needed Flash I would install Chrome.

Chromium is my goto browser. Don't even have Firefox on my laptop. Don't care that it eats ram. I have 8 gigs in this thing and have never passed 3 gigs used to date at any given time.

Hi,Not really addressing speed or plugins here, but there are other things you might want to consider.

I primarily use Chromium but find it has "problems" with ajaxy features on some sites. Unfortunately I've not taken the time to try to understand these problems and revert to firefox for those.

The other issue I have with chormium is that if I hit the "dit" button on one of my posts here at LQ the page simply hangs...

Despite these issues I think one of the main reasons I persist with chromium is that it syncs flawlessly with chrome on my android devices, and I much prefer chrome on android to firefox on android.

Evo2.

I sometimes use Firefox. I do not use Chrome.

I no longer trust Google.

Hi,
OP is asking about chromium which is the OSS/Free part of Chrome, so you can use it without needing to trust Google.

Evo2.

The OP also thinks Chromium has flash but it doesn't although Chrome does.

Tangent rant:
 

perhaps Chrome works better because a capitalist would say it's better to have than to have not (while blindly ignoring the have not$) Firefox is changing fast tho too but has many still 'Free' variants. If services like Netflix would get their heads out of there you know they could make more money\happy... :twocents:

Hi,
Ok, so perhaps OP actually means Chrome not Chromium. If so, fair call, I'd not install it on my Linux boxes either.

Evo2.

I think the OP is a little confused.

with pepperflash, yes

Is there a way to make Firefox use more RAM?

Possible answer to my question:

Perhaps setting browser.cache.disk.enable to false (it's true by default) and making sure browser.cache.memory.enable is true (its default value) will accomplish this.

FF for me on most devices. I have been using it for too long to switch for no reason.

It would have to be redesigned, but why when you already have Chrome ? I don't care that much for speed. In fact I'd prefer to run without swap and not worry about Chrome hogging all the RAM just to be a bit faster.

My vote is firefox and it is my main web browser.

I use google chrome only on two exceptions: 1) A site requires flash higher than 11.2 and 2) to watch Netflix

Mainly use Firefox, but I'm using Google Chrome solely for my free month trial of Netflix. Haven't decided yet whether to make it permanent or not.

Netflix may be the main reason people have Chrome on their Linux computers. I don't care for DRM, so I don't care for Chrome either. I can wait till they come out on DVD.

I prefer HULU... not even+! ;) ...qdʇ Or, Blu-ray.

Happy with

opera-developer_27.0.1670.0_amd64.deb

so far.

Runs a bit snappier than my Chromium or Firefox installs. I have only been running it for a hour or so.
I was busy watching "Radioactive Wolves Of Chernobyl - Scary Mutations [Full Documentary]" before I posted.

Edit: Kinda cool

Just added it to Opera.

Firefox. Been using it for many years, and there are so many useful addons here that I am used to and don't want to leave behind.

Not true for me. I use Chrome and Firefox on a 2GB RAM netbook, not a powerful machine. Chrome definitely runs faster, so I use it for Facebook because Facebook is a horrible resource hog. For everything else, I use Firefox because of the many indispensable addons, such as NoScript, Pentadactyl and other customizable keyboard commands.

Perhaps we should note that Firefox has been losing that single one but very powerful strength, because addons and themes are dropped with every new release. I still miss themes that I used to have from 2003 to 2008, all of them have disappeared so now I have to use the default one, and many other addons have been dropped. If I ever lose NoScript, Pentadactyl and the general ability to customize keys, then I'll move to Opera or Chrome, because Firefox is slow and well nigh worthless without the addons.

Use what works best with your browsing habits. There is no ultimate "best".
As mentioned previously the Pepperflash plugin allows one to use the latest version of Adobe Flash in Chromium.
As an aside:
DVDs have DRM called CSS and the people you (and I) are paying every time you (and I) buy one persecuted a man called Jon Lech Johansen because he worked around it which, in the end, lead to the DMCA and other similar laws. In buying DVDs you (and I) are paying the people who bribed governments into enacting these laws so you might as well just use DRM'd streams when it makes sense.

They aren't quite identical. DRM is harder to crack and can impose time or number of times based limits. Philosophically, they are similar, but I still have the right to make and keep one backup copy of whatever I own in the US.

I agree that, in practice, it is often better to buy DVDs and I tend to myself. However, when I just want to watch something once (what used to be called "renting") I'll stream if I can.
If you're avoiding using DRM content on the internet because you'd rather buy than rent and/or it makes more practical sense to you then of course that's what you'll do.
I was commenting more on the fact that whether you buy the DVD or rent a DRM stream on the internet your money is being spent in the same way so you aren't voting with your wallet or doing anything morally superior by buying DVDs. Not that I am suggesting anything about your motives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digita...t#DRM_and_film

The Google chrome browser in linux is using adobe flash and not pepperflash. I entered in the url chrome://plugins and this is what it is using for flash.

Below is a partial output of typing chrome://version/

No pepeerflash mentioned anywhere.

A quick google would have saved you the bother of posting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPAPI#PPAPI
https://www.adobe.com/support/flashp...downloads.html

I guess streaming would be an equivalent to renting, except for the DRM part, which is more a philosophical issue. However, I'd have to say that you can actually vote with your wallet. You decide what you buy and how much money they get for their product. If their product has DRM, and I don't agree with them "managing" my rights, then I just won't buy it, and if other people do the same they will fail in implementing it. If you just want to rent an item, I guess go ahead and stream it, but if you want to own consider the possibilities carefully. I don't even know if it will be possible to own anything in a DRM future.

My point is that there is no philosophical issue or voting with your wallet as long as you're paying the movie companies. They don't care whether you gave them the money for a DVD or fora stream they'll still spend the money on lawyers and DRM implementations. While it is (probably) true that if nobody paid for DRM content they wouldn't produce it what you do as an individual makes no difference unless you don't pay the monopolists anything.

Is that even possible, even if say you don't ever buy a movie made by them again ? I don't think that's a good solution, it would be better to try to compromise with them or make a deal of some kind or steer them in the right direction.

Maybe it was pepperflash in 2009 and a few years later. It's possible that google and adobe made some kind of deal to include adobe flash instaed of pepperflash.

I'm just going by what my chrome browser is reporting today and not in 2009.

Perhaps it's still pepperflash today and google is lying to us saying it is the official adobe flash player.

They know DRM is horrible but they implement it because they can -- they have the money to buy it and pay politicians to enact laws to protect it. To them you're just another dumb idiot who pays them.

I could explain why you are wrong and how but you seem to feel the need to insist that you are right so I won't bother.

Perhaps you are correct. I was just going by what my browser was reporting. :)

I am sorry, I forgot that this is a forum to help people so I will explain:
The Pepper API is one developed by Google for their browser and there is a version of Flash available for this which pretty much keeps up with the versions for Windows and OSX. This is commonly referred to as "Pepperflash" because it is a distinctly different thing to the standard NPAPI version. This version of Flash is included with Google Chrome when downloaded -- this is in contrast to the version of Flash used by Firefox or other browsers installed which generally share the same instance of Flash.
If you check the Adobe link I posted you will notice that the version of Flash for Linux is on 11 but that on Windows and Mac is on 15. However, Peperflash is on version 15.
My initial post was referring to the fact that there is a package called "pepperflash-plugin-nonfree" (or similar) which allows Chromium to use the same version of Flash as Google Chrome does. This means one can have all the benefits of Google Chrome in the open-source Chromium.

I understand now. Thanks 273

Sorry for the previous rude replies. I blame it on staying up past my bedtime last night.

Glad you are enjoying it. If you need to install on a distro that does not use .deb packages

https://gist.github.com/ruario/ace4fb780216aa28d922

Need the latest Flash to go with it:

https://gist.github.com/ruario/215c365facfe8d3c5071

Want H.264 video support:

https://gist.github.com/ruario/7b33ca4cf70e6ff70880

Some things Opera has going for it (my biased opinion)

The best Speed Dial
The best HiDPI support on Linux (picks up settings from Unity or Gnome, no tweaking in Opera)
Activation order tab cycling options
Keyboard shortcuts are customisable
Large tab preview
Extensions in the store are reviewed
Built in mouse and rocker gestures
Single key shortcuts
Bookmark (collections) sharing
Tab menu

Firefox for years and years, I remember using Netscape in old times.
Tried others but Firefox suits my needs perfectly.

Aside from "freedom" firefox seems to have the most freedom.

both and nether

use the browser that BEST FITS YOUR NEEDS

Pale Moon
 

I've used Firefox exclusively for over 10 years, until recently when it became too bloated. I also lost the ability to control bars and menus like before, especially while trying to avoid all things related to tabs.

Discovered Pale Moon, a simple, light version of Firefox. It uses FF add-ons, all my favorites. Couldn't be happier.

there is always
"w3m"
http://imgbox.com/iecShGov

I voted for Chromium, but I need both as well as Opera because there seems to be no one browser that works on all web sites.

Off topic:
 

I like Links2 especially for when GUI. But, you can bloat up a CLI for that too (images in the command line :rolleyes:.) :)

On this computer, Firefox runs in wounded-snail mode and Chromium's flash is incompatible with the CPU. Luckily, I prefer Opera.

Oh, and Chromium also doesn't support MathML.
So, I voted for Firefox FTW.

I like UZBL better myself. Wait! I meant my P3 IBM T23 likes UZBL better.
:)

Yep. That's me. It is All about the Bloat.

UZBL cool thanks, the image not so much. :rolleyes: GPM (General Purpose Mouse) is a must to "bloat" up a command line too.