• cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    ·
    9 months ago

    I haven’t used Opera since they switched from their own engine to chrome. They are now owned by a Chinese company, so it probably has at least as much tracking built into it as Google Chrome now.

      • lemmyng
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s essentially Vivaldi now.

          • coolmojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            9 months ago

            Have a look at Otter browser It aims to replicate the old interface. It is using QtWebEngine as Presto was closed source. It is in development since 10 years now. And it is open source.

              • coolmojo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Qt WebEngine uses code from the Chromium project. However, it is not containing all of Chrome/Chromium: Binary files are stripped out Auxiliary services that talk to Google platforms are stripped out, Source

                • baduhai@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  While that’s one of the reasons I don’t want to use chromium, it’s not actually the main reason, if so I’d just use Ungoogled Chromium. I just want more web engines, and I dont want google to monopolise the internet.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      I used Fifth a bit, which is something aesthetically similar to old Opera made with fltk and a webkit port to fltk. But it’s abandoned now.

      It’s so sad really, when I was a Windows user, it was Opera, when I moved to Linux, it was again Opera, then I also started using Conkeror (based on XULRunner).

      Then Opera died. Then XULRunner died. No usable web browser anymore.

  • Bandicoot_Academic@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    9 months ago

    Intresting. But I’m curious about the performance.

    A bigger LLM (mixtral) already struggles to run on my mid-range gaming PC. Trying to run an LLM that isn’t terrible on a standard laptop wouldn’t be a good experience.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I have no idea how this is set up to work technically, but most of the heavy lifting is gonna be on the GPU. I’m not sure that it matters much whether the browser is what’s pushing data to the GPU or some other package.

      • Bandicoot_Academic@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Most people probably don’t have a dedicated GPU and an iGPU is probably not powerfull enough to run an LLM at decent speed. Also a decent model requires like 20GB of RAM which most people don’t have.

        • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 months ago

          It doesn’t just require 20GB of RAM, it requires that in VRAM. Which is a much higher barrier to entry.

            • T156@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Not exactly. Most integrated chips have a small pool of dedicated VRAM, and then a bit more that they share with the system memory, though it’s generally only a portion, not all of it. It’s only Apple’s unified memory, and maybe other mobile chips that has them both share memory pool entirely, for better or worse, as far as I’m aware.

              But it is worth noting that if you don’t have enough VRAM and have to put it into RAM, the minimum expectation is that you have twice the amount of RAM space. So if you have a GPU with 4GB of VRAM, and need to offload the extra to the system, you don’t need 16 GB, you need 32 GB.

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Unlikely, at least on non-nvidia chips, and even on AMD, it’s only the latest four chips that support it. Anything older isn’t going to cut it.

        You also need a fairly big amount of VRAM for models like that. (4 GB is the minimum for the common kinds, which is more than typical integrated systems, or 8 GB of system memory). You can get by with system RAM, but the performance will be quite bad, since you’re either relying on the CPU, or you’ll be adding the latency from data moving between them.

      • Bogasse@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        The thought that internet becomes shitty enough that you need a GPU to browse it is really frightening me. If we really reach that point that may be to run an AI which filters out AI generated spam which would really depress me 😭

        • tal@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          The thought that internet becomes shitty enough that you need a GPU to browse it is really frightening me.

          I mean, there was a point where an FPU was a separate chip and wasn’t the norm; now it’s built into the CPU.

          I think that it’s probably safe to say that, in the future, there will be broader use of parallel processing, as we’ve fundamental limits on what we know we can do there with existing laws of physics with serial processing. That could wind up being part of the CPU. It could live on a separate piece of hardware – which may not necessarily be a “GPU” – parallel processing hardware entered the PC because the most-immediate need was to do 3d graphics rendering, but as you can see from the LLMs that people are running on GPUs today, that’s not the only application. The parallel compute accelerator cards that Nvidia is selling today for an arm and a leg on servers aren’t aimed at doing 3d graphics.

          It may not be 3d graphics rendering or running LLMs that becomes the primary application. But I’d be reasonably comfortable saying that down the line, relative to today, there will be more parallel-processing hardware in computers than is present today.

          • T156@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            That could wind up being part of the CPU

            For a lot of newer processors, it already is. Intel, Apple, Samsung, and Qualcomm like to brag about their processors having some sort of neural contraption meant to assist with AI processing.

            If it stays around, it might be good enough that you don’t need a GPU to do it, since the CPU has an onboard chip that can handle that work instead, since tensor processors like that are a bit more efficient than GPUs, but are also more specialised.