I would imagine it's minimal. I'll never forget a demo I played with at a Science museum as a kid. A dynamo with a crank you can turn, and set of switches that allow you to turn on one, two, or three incandescent bulbs. The crank turns freely without load, and is increasingly more difficult to turn as load is added.
You're absolutely right but attribution is still the core issue here. I clicked on the page because it seemed like a promising alternative to Firefox, and I expected the focus to be on how it differs from Firefox. Instead, I was surprised to see Firefox completely ignored, especially when the project is clearly built on its foundation and even borrows part of its name. It feels like a missed opportunity to acknowledge the very platform that made Waterfox possible in the first place. Transparency and credit matter, especially in open-source projects.
You aren't wrong, at all, but as mentioned I have run into issues with this in the past. I don't have enough income for the rigmarole Mozilla would put us through, even though I attempted in the past.
Thanks for keeping Waterfox alive despite Mozilla's hurdles. The feature list is great, exactly what people need when looking for a Firefox alternative. Putting it on the homepage would help a lot. Appreciate your work!
OOC, what's the nature of development? Is it the case that this browser is a set of patches you maintain on top of Firefox trunk, or do you have to do some surgery every time Firefox makes a release? Do you try to keep up with Firefox releases?
They aren't hiding the fact that they forked, so it's not dishonest. Nobody really expects a fork to never merge again from upstream. The point of it is increased privacy as opposed to improving the browser fundamentally anyway. I don't give a fuck if they do or don't say "we still merge from upstream btw" (and they did hard fork at some point, so I highly doubt they even try to keep up). This isn't a mere rebranding of Firefox to steal credit.
I ran mitigations=off on my Zen4 until I saw that phoronix article and realised that in most workloads it made essentially no difference, and even harmed performance in others. I no longer run mitigations=off. But on my old i7 7700HQ mitigations=off improved performance by 10-20% depending on workload.
The problem I have with this is that anti-virus software has never felt like the most reliable, well-written, trustworthy software that's deserving of it's place in Ring 0.
I understand I'm yelling into the storm here, because anti-virus also requires that level of system access due to the nature of what it's trying to detect. But then again, does it only need Ring 0 access for the worst of the worst? Can it run 99% of the time in Ring 1, or user space, and only instantiate it's Ring 0 privileges for regular but infrequent scans or if it detects something else may be 'off'?
Default Ring 0? Earn it.
This turns into a "what's your threat level" discussion.
The Apple A8X, found in the iPad Air 2, contains about 3 billion transistors. (This is comparable to the number of transistors in modern desktop computer CPUs as well.) At the scale of the MOnSter 6502, that would take about 885,000 square feet (over 20 acres or 8 hectares) — an area about 940 ft (286 m) square.
