It’s time to give Firefox another chance(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
It’s time to give Firefox another chance
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/29/its-time-to-give-firefox-another-chance/
730 comments
The amount of work, the extent for how long they've been doing so, all relative to the funding they got.. it's even painful to think about. Chrome shadowed them overnight, had Google infinite wallet and started from scratch. Mozilla became the old slug..
Since then they got Rust off ground, servo yielding good fruits, firefox cool n quiet.
Once again kudos.
Since then they got Rust off ground, servo yielding good fruits, firefox cool n quiet.
Once again kudos.
That is not representative of either the time frame or the resources available to Mozilla. Mozilla has had Hundreds of millions of annual income through their search associations [1]. It’s surprising how they’ve wasted that amount of money to finally in 2017 build a browser that can compete again. This is 9 years after google chrome was released!
They have absolutely no excuse for falling this far behind. They squandered a lot of money, while neglecting their core business (their web browser).
I still hope they’ll keep it up. I have been a Firefox fan ever since beta 1. Hopefully they can recover their market share loss.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation
They have absolutely no excuse for falling this far behind. They squandered a lot of money, while neglecting their core business (their web browser).
I still hope they’ll keep it up. I have been a Firefox fan ever since beta 1. Hopefully they can recover their market share loss.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation
While Mozilla has had quite a few projects that didn't really pan out, I'm not sure you're giving them enough credit.
They developed (well... became the first and most significant major backer of) an entirely new programming language, purely for the purposes of building a better browser. And then devoted tons of resources for years into developing Servo, a massive and complex project that is only being realized now. I'd rather they think big and be ambitious like this, than be yet another stagnating tech company kept alive by former glory.
Also, it's unfair to argue that they have neglected the browser. Firefox is a massive legacy codebase that couldn't be cleaned up without breaking A LOT OF THINGS, and at every step in the process they faced people begging them not to break their things, despite the alternative being the continued rot of Firefox's internals. But they did try, for years, to move forward without breaking everything - it just came at the cost of glacially slow and cautious progress.
They developed (well... became the first and most significant major backer of) an entirely new programming language, purely for the purposes of building a better browser. And then devoted tons of resources for years into developing Servo, a massive and complex project that is only being realized now. I'd rather they think big and be ambitious like this, than be yet another stagnating tech company kept alive by former glory.
Also, it's unfair to argue that they have neglected the browser. Firefox is a massive legacy codebase that couldn't be cleaned up without breaking A LOT OF THINGS, and at every step in the process they faced people begging them not to break their things, despite the alternative being the continued rot of Firefox's internals. But they did try, for years, to move forward without breaking everything - it just came at the cost of glacially slow and cautious progress.
> Firefox is a massive legacy codebase that couldn't be cleaned up without breaking A LOT OF THINGS, and at every step in the process they faced people begging them not to break their things, despite the alternative being the continued rot of Firefox's internals.
I've made a couple small contributions to Firefox. Though I'd been a Firefox user for years, this never occurred to me until I looked at the source in 2015 and saw TODO comments to upgrade a C++ operation to something available in C++11 (that's C++ released in 2011) when Firefox dropped Windows XP support.
I was surprised at the time that so much of the code was ES6. My mentor pointed out that web app companies might need to wait a few years for users to mass-adopt ES6 browsers. On the other hand, Firefox can use ES6 everywhere in its own code where JS makes sense, since it's only going to be running on latest Firefox JS engine.
I think Firefox hit full ES6 compatibility first among the browsers because there was this extra incentive to modernize the codebase.
Chrome didn't have to build off of the Netscape source, so it didn't have the same legacy problems in 2008 that Firefox did. I think Mozilla has done a remarkable job keeping pace with Google, taking this into account.
I've made a couple small contributions to Firefox. Though I'd been a Firefox user for years, this never occurred to me until I looked at the source in 2015 and saw TODO comments to upgrade a C++ operation to something available in C++11 (that's C++ released in 2011) when Firefox dropped Windows XP support.
I was surprised at the time that so much of the code was ES6. My mentor pointed out that web app companies might need to wait a few years for users to mass-adopt ES6 browsers. On the other hand, Firefox can use ES6 everywhere in its own code where JS makes sense, since it's only going to be running on latest Firefox JS engine.
I think Firefox hit full ES6 compatibility first among the browsers because there was this extra incentive to modernize the codebase.
Chrome didn't have to build off of the Netscape source, so it didn't have the same legacy problems in 2008 that Firefox did. I think Mozilla has done a remarkable job keeping pace with Google, taking this into account.
> something available in C++11 (that's C++ released in 2011)
Nit: The standard was finalized in 2011 - August 2011 to be more specific, so quite late in the year. Full compliance in various compilers was not achieved for quite some time after that - MSVC being quite problematic in that regard.
Major projects - esp. those compiled on multiple systems across several compilers, like Firefox - absolutely could not just go ahead and start using C++11 in 2011.
I was really into native development around that time, and C++11 was the first time I was exposed to the complexities and gotchas around standardization vs. implementation. I've stopped paying as much attention since, but I believe C++14 fared much better.
Nit: The standard was finalized in 2011 - August 2011 to be more specific, so quite late in the year. Full compliance in various compilers was not achieved for quite some time after that - MSVC being quite problematic in that regard.
Major projects - esp. those compiled on multiple systems across several compilers, like Firefox - absolutely could not just go ahead and start using C++11 in 2011.
I was really into native development around that time, and C++11 was the first time I was exposed to the complexities and gotchas around standardization vs. implementation. I've stopped paying as much attention since, but I believe C++14 fared much better.
> I think Firefox hit full ES6 compatibility first among the browsers because there was this extra incentive to modernize the codebase.
A number of ES6 additions were initially Firefox extensions (though some standard-track features like comprehensions also got removed).
A number of ES6 additions were initially Firefox extensions (though some standard-track features like comprehensions also got removed).
> I was surprised at the time that so much of the code was ES6.
FWIW internal firefox code has had ES6-like concepts before ES6 itself; and many of these made it into the final spec in some form.
FWIW internal firefox code has had ES6-like concepts before ES6 itself; and many of these made it into the final spec in some form.
>I think Firefox hit full ES6 compatibility first among the browsers
Wasn't it Webkit that hit that first? Whereas Firefox at the time was just 93%.
https://twitter.com/webkit/status/728643624464883712?lang=en
Wasn't it Webkit that hit that first? Whereas Firefox at the time was just 93%.
https://twitter.com/webkit/status/728643624464883712?lang=en
You could be right. I tried to fact check myself and couldn't find a reference to which browser hit 100% first. I did see this article about safari shipping modules first, though:
https://www.contentful.com/blog/2017/04/04/es6-modules-suppo...
https://www.contentful.com/blog/2017/04/04/es6-modules-suppo...
The above poster is also neglecting to realise Mozilla is not a normal business in it for profit (as far as I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong.)
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla_Foundation_Projects
The foundation has a crazy long history of funding open source and various pursuits. Comparing their style of execution to google is just rediculously unfair on so many levels.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla_Foundation_Projects
The foundation has a crazy long history of funding open source and various pursuits. Comparing their style of execution to google is just rediculously unfair on so many levels.
Not only that, but it fails to recognize how much money Google has 'wasted' on projects they went on to kill off. They have quite a reputation for it. Google just has a lot more money to 'waste' on research.
Are you confusing the not for profit mozilla foundation and the for profit mozilla corporation here ?
The foundation had engaged in tax evasion over the money raised through the corporation and ended up settling with the IRS by paying a $1.5 millions fine[1], they had provisioned $15 millions for this fine, suddenly they got a few unexpected millions to spend on whatever.
I agree that comparing mozilla to google makes little sense as mozilla was working for google in exchange for 85-95% of their revenue. Without google paying mozilla for their users privacy, mozilla would have had to find an actual business model and would not have had the option to wander away from their core product.
On the other hand, without mozilla google would have been mostly the same though would have probably missed some data about millions of users .
[1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-gets-lucky-settles-irs-aud...
The foundation had engaged in tax evasion over the money raised through the corporation and ended up settling with the IRS by paying a $1.5 millions fine[1], they had provisioned $15 millions for this fine, suddenly they got a few unexpected millions to spend on whatever.
I agree that comparing mozilla to google makes little sense as mozilla was working for google in exchange for 85-95% of their revenue. Without google paying mozilla for their users privacy, mozilla would have had to find an actual business model and would not have had the option to wander away from their core product.
On the other hand, without mozilla google would have been mostly the same though would have probably missed some data about millions of users .
[1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-gets-lucky-settles-irs-aud...
Is there a difference? Is there a reason we say Google and not ABC?
The seperation is purely legal and financial, no?
The seperation is purely legal and financial, no?
To your last question, yes https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15409217
I don't know what you're trying to defend here, high ranked people from mozilla admitted themselves they made bad decision and wasted money and time and developers on the wrong things instead of focusing on their core product[1].
They've also been criticized for years for their business model being too dependent on a single income source contrary to their values. They did nothing about it until it became clear that they were losing the game. IMHO this is bad management for years.
[1]: https://andreasgal.com/2017/05/25/chrome-won/
They've also been criticized for years for their business model being too dependent on a single income source contrary to their values. They did nothing about it until it became clear that they were losing the game. IMHO this is bad management for years.
[1]: https://andreasgal.com/2017/05/25/chrome-won/
Their core product, Firefox, has always been on shaky ground. They need to diversify. Firefox will always be at the mercy of multiple other parties.
First, OS manufacturers who have unlimited power to steer users toward their own browsers. This was true in the Windows days, and it's an order of magnitude more true in the mobile world where one of the leading platforms, iOS, won't even allow "real" versions of competitors' browsers onto their devices.
Second, they're at the mercy of purveyors of web content. How screwed would Firefox be if a couple of major sites like Facebook and Youtube started treating FF like a second-class citizen? FF already kind of feels like a second-class citizen sometimes; as far as I know Google Hangouts still doesn't work on FF: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/google-hangouts-tempora...
So, in the long run, Mozilla is going to have to do something about their tenuous position.
Realistically, they can't blow the doors off of incumbent browsers (Edge, Safari, Chrome) like they did back in the IE6 days. That was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Microsoft, having achieved dominance, had literally disbanded their browser team despite the fact that IE6 was atrocious. But that will never happen again. MS, Apple, and Google each have gobs of engineering talent allocated to their browser efforts and the only way Mozilla can excel its way to the front of the pack is if the other three major browser vendors simultaneously slack off at once and give FF an IE6-like opening.
Also, the importance of the browser is decreasing. Watch kids on phones. It's all apps. They don't do jack shit in a web browser. A web browser is something they use, at most, to look up homework answers.
The world is a better place for Mozilla's presence and I hope that, while keeping FF strong, they manage to figure out an Apple-like second act at some point.
First, OS manufacturers who have unlimited power to steer users toward their own browsers. This was true in the Windows days, and it's an order of magnitude more true in the mobile world where one of the leading platforms, iOS, won't even allow "real" versions of competitors' browsers onto their devices.
Second, they're at the mercy of purveyors of web content. How screwed would Firefox be if a couple of major sites like Facebook and Youtube started treating FF like a second-class citizen? FF already kind of feels like a second-class citizen sometimes; as far as I know Google Hangouts still doesn't work on FF: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/google-hangouts-tempora...
So, in the long run, Mozilla is going to have to do something about their tenuous position.
Realistically, they can't blow the doors off of incumbent browsers (Edge, Safari, Chrome) like they did back in the IE6 days. That was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Microsoft, having achieved dominance, had literally disbanded their browser team despite the fact that IE6 was atrocious. But that will never happen again. MS, Apple, and Google each have gobs of engineering talent allocated to their browser efforts and the only way Mozilla can excel its way to the front of the pack is if the other three major browser vendors simultaneously slack off at once and give FF an IE6-like opening.
Also, the importance of the browser is decreasing. Watch kids on phones. It's all apps. They don't do jack shit in a web browser. A web browser is something they use, at most, to look up homework answers.
The world is a better place for Mozilla's presence and I hope that, while keeping FF strong, they manage to figure out an Apple-like second act at some point.
>Also, it's unfair to argue that they have neglected the browser. Firefox is a massive legacy codebase that couldn't be cleaned up without breaking A LOT OF THINGS
They said that for Netscape too (compared to Mozilla/Firefox). At what point do they start writing nice extensible code?
Webkit based browsers don't seem to have the same issues.
They said that for Netscape too (compared to Mozilla/Firefox). At what point do they start writing nice extensible code?
Webkit based browsers don't seem to have the same issues.
[deleted]
Did you forget about the Firefox OS for mobile phones?
I don't get people complaining about FirefoxOS. It didn't work out because at that time, the phone hardware wasn't ready, and because they didn't have the political power and economies of scale.
But at least they tried. Everyone else just gave up and either accepted Apple's overpriced walled garden or handed over their deepest secrets to Google.
But at least they tried. Everyone else just gave up and either accepted Apple's overpriced walled garden or handed over their deepest secrets to Google.
It was not about the hardware. It was their goals, and their partners.
First off their goals, effectively OLPC the phone. A cheap "smartphone" built on web tech that allowed the owner to modify the software as he saw fit.
This then clashed with the partners they found, carriers that had zero interest in owner-modifiable phones.
It was doomed from the start, but it allowed some execs to pat themselves on the back and tell their fellow gallery dwellers that they had done something for the third world...
First off their goals, effectively OLPC the phone. A cheap "smartphone" built on web tech that allowed the owner to modify the software as he saw fit.
This then clashed with the partners they found, carriers that had zero interest in owner-modifiable phones.
It was doomed from the start, but it allowed some execs to pat themselves on the back and tell their fellow gallery dwellers that they had done something for the third world...
The reasons it did not work were obvious when they announced it however.
It was never going to work, and didn’t. Should never had a cent spent on it.
It was never going to work, and didn’t. Should never had a cent spent on it.
It was worth a shot certainly, no company ever didn't undertake projects that didn't pan out in the end, at least somebody tried to break the smartphone duopoly. I can imagine the money being spent on much worse things.
Like you can't make mistakes in business, come on ! Who in this bloody comment thread did something as spectacular as mozilla ? As useful ? As hard ?
And without grave mistakes ?
Seriously get a reality check.
And without grave mistakes ?
Seriously get a reality check.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
- Theodore Roosevelt
- Theodore Roosevelt
wow, this! This is in fact m status message on Whatsapp since I learnt when recounted by Brene Brown
The question you should rather be asking is, who in this bloody comment thread didn't expect Firefox OS to fail, back when it was first announced?
FirefoxOS was a way out of Apple's proprietary walled garden and of being Google's product and information slave.
Maybe it was unrealistic to expect it to work out - one relatively small company fighting with Google and Apple - but I guess some people are optimists and want to believe that the world can be made into something else than corporate dystopia or whatever.
Maybe it was unrealistic to expect it to work out - one relatively small company fighting with Google and Apple - but I guess some people are optimists and want to believe that the world can be made into something else than corporate dystopia or whatever.
Firefox OS was the out of reality belief from mozilla that computer were dead in a handful of years to be replaced by mobile, combined with the absolute nonsense that they could compete without hardware manufacturer support.
Wanting to believe in something is a thing, neglecting your core product and users to bet on a personal belief is something else.
Wanting to believe in something is a thing, neglecting your core product and users to bet on a personal belief is something else.
If I could have invested in half the tech things I've seen which I thought were bloody stupid ideas, I'd be a rich man.
Half is actually good chance, why didn't you invest in all of them?
1. I'm not a venture capitalist and startups don't/can't generally accept small investments.
2. I thought they were bloody stupid ideas.
I'm not convinced that investing in ideas I think are stupid because things I have previously thought were stupid did well is a sound strategy. All it shows is I'm bad at predicting what will do well, so it makes more sense for me to invest broadly across as many markets as possible.
2. I thought they were bloody stupid ideas.
I'm not convinced that investing in ideas I think are stupid because things I have previously thought were stupid did well is a sound strategy. All it shows is I'm bad at predicting what will do well, so it makes more sense for me to invest broadly across as many markets as possible.
Your comment reminded me of this xkcd. https://xkcd.com/1497/
I thought Firefox OS could've found a niche on low-end phones. There's still nothing fundamentally wrong with a phone OS that uses web technologies for its UI, Mozilla wasn't even the first to try it (the Palm Pre got there first). Also, there are tons of phone apps that are just websites in an application wrapper, so it's not like they had to start from scratch to build up their app ecosystem. Lastly, whilst Mozilla has stopped funding it, a fork of it lives on as a smart TV OS for a major TV manufacturer, so it did find a niche, just not the intended one.
> There's still nothing fundamentally wrong with a phone OS that uses web technologies for its UI
There isn't, of course. But that wasn't why it failed. It failed because it didn't answer any questions that weren't already answered, except for some (like "more privacy") that too few people wanted an answer to, to have a market. And that part, unfortunately, was utterly predictable.
There isn't, of course. But that wasn't why it failed. It failed because it didn't answer any questions that weren't already answered, except for some (like "more privacy") that too few people wanted an answer to, to have a market. And that part, unfortunately, was utterly predictable.
As I said before, I saw Firefox OS's primary niche being low-end phones. In that market, many people barely care about the OS being run. They could've easily racked up some decent sales in this area without many of their customers caring about the long term benefits. In some ways, Firefox OS was a case of unfortunate timing, part of me wonders if it would've been better to have a longer incubation period to make the platform better before announcing it, but another part of me thinks that they had to release it when they did, before the vacuum that Symbian had left behind was completely filled by Android.
Google closed off the market with Android One. In another world they couldn't get it together, or weren't interested in low margin competition. Firefox OS was a reasonable bet, it could have paid off, even if the technology was manifestly limited at the time. I actually wish they'd kept it going as an ongoing experiment, with a very low budget, once they'd done the work to get it running on a device like the Nexus 5, you'd have thought improvements would flow almost automatically from the work on the browser.
It was also a really bad implementation. I developed for the firefox os reference phone before the launch - it was atrociously slow.
Think low end android phone (of the time!) running software that was 10x slower than android's.
It's really hard to describe how slow it was if you didn't personally use a firefox os phone. There were times when it felt significantly slower than a 386 running windows 3.11.
Think low end android phone (of the time!) running software that was 10x slower than android's.
It's really hard to describe how slow it was if you didn't personally use a firefox os phone. There were times when it felt significantly slower than a 386 running windows 3.11.
If those phones were actually available to buy. I wanted to buy one but they were not available to western europe, then were distributed over weird channels and turned out to have performance issues. So I gave up and got an older android phone for free.
Same for phoenix. This is nonsense.
>Like you can't make mistakes in business, come on ! Who in this bloody comment thread did something as spectacular as mozilla ? As useful ? As hard ?
Considering this is HN, and not Slashdot, probably several readers...
Considering this is HN, and not Slashdot, probably several readers...
It seemed risky but innovation demands taking risks. Mozilla could use another “product” category than mainly just a browser.
> They squandered a lot of money, while neglecting their core business (their web browser).
They are not a business, they are a non-profit organization. And their aim is not to simply build a better browser, but to preserve the open web, and put control in the hands of the users. Granted, phoneOS was a failure, but given their mission, they had to try.
They are not a business, they are a non-profit organization. And their aim is not to simply build a better browser, but to preserve the open web, and put control in the hands of the users. Granted, phoneOS was a failure, but given their mission, they had to try.
They are a non-profit organization owning a for profit corporation making tens to hundred millions dollars a year selling users data to search engine.
Notably this non-profit organization had provisioned $15 millions anticipating that the IRS might get into how a non-profit was actually for profit, it eventually happened and the foundation ended up getting a $1.5 million fine for their google income before setting up the for profit corporation scheme[1].
[1]: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/18/google_still_mozill...
The non-profit organization foundation
Notably this non-profit organization had provisioned $15 millions anticipating that the IRS might get into how a non-profit was actually for profit, it eventually happened and the foundation ended up getting a $1.5 million fine for their google income before setting up the for profit corporation scheme[1].
[1]: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/18/google_still_mozill...
The non-profit organization foundation
I really appreciate that they tried phoneOS, It was very disappointed that it didn't work out.
non-profits and research organisations can also have a "core business", it's just a different word normally for the main thing they were created for.
You probably forgot to consider how much money / effort have Google wasted on projects that did not pan out. Their flagship products, like Hangouts, still have long-standing issues.
Nobody is perfect, and making a good and desirable product is hard.
Nobody is perfect, and making a good and desirable product is hard.
Since Ruth Porat came in as CFO Google has reduced other projects spending to $3.5B p.a on $80B of revenue - less than 5%
Mozilla has revenue of $420M p.a - I don't know what they spent on Firefox OS but it would have been a big bet (hundreds of millions?). At the same time their Firefox marketshare was reduced.
Mozilla has revenue of $420M p.a - I don't know what they spent on Firefox OS but it would have been a big bet (hundreds of millions?). At the same time their Firefox marketshare was reduced.
In 2015, they only spent ~$215M on software development in total, so they couldn't have spent hundreds of millions on FxOS alone.
Plus, I think that view - that FF marketshare was reduced, therefore they weren't investing in it enough - is shortsighted. The improvements that have been landing on FF lately are the result of work being done for a long time. And you can't just dump more money into a project and expect it to be finished sooner - see The Mythical Man-Month.
Plus, I think that view - that FF marketshare was reduced, therefore they weren't investing in it enough - is shortsighted. The improvements that have been landing on FF lately are the result of work being done for a long time. And you can't just dump more money into a project and expect it to be finished sooner - see The Mythical Man-Month.
Well, most of stuff that make recent Firefoxes better, like Electrolysis or WebExtensions, was either initially made for or a fundamental part of Firefox OS.
FirefoxOS produced several useful artifacts, sure, but they were things like device APIs. e10s pre-dates FirefoxOS by many years, and unless there was some very long-term secret plan that they didn't tell the rest of the company about, WebExtensions came after FirefoxOS was shuttered.
B2G extensions were already WebExtension-based when its preview release landed in Firefox 42. e10s was indeed introduced way earlier, but Firefox OS and Fennec were its main users for a while, which for sure has sped up the development significantly. Same with things like APZ.
Not sure how this 2015 figure is relevant as according to Andreas Gal who started the boot to gecko project, the shift back to firefox browser and away from firefox OS happened in 2014.
2011 to 2014, that's 4 years. Enough for firefox OS to gobble hundred millions of dollars.
2011 to 2014, that's 4 years. Enough for firefox OS to gobble hundred millions of dollars.
Doesn't google have more than one failed social network?
Buzz,
Wave,
Orkut,
Talk,
Hangouts,
Google Plus,
Allo,
Duo,
forced YouTube comments merge to G+
Wave was amazing!
Yeah, totally. I'm still puzzled as to why they killed it - at one point they told us "We only want to show it to a couple of invited people" and the next moment the message was that it didn't get enough traction. Go figure.
Edit: Although, thinking about it, it's really ironic how the Google project inspired by Firefly got canceled way too early.
Edit: Although, thinking about it, it's really ironic how the Google project inspired by Firefly got canceled way too early.
Duo is certainly not "failed"; it's actually doing very well internationally. It has the best video quality at the least bandwidth.
If I launched an app that got over a hundred million downloads and had many millions of monthly users I certainly wouldn't call that a failure!
If I launched an app that got over a hundred million downloads and had many millions of monthly users I certainly wouldn't call that a failure!
Duo is an MFA. Whatever GOOG did that's called Duo failed because I don't know what it is.
What's MFA?
multi factor authentication. https://duo.com/ which is not related to the google app.
That's what I thought MFA meant, I just didn't see the relevance. I've never heard of that Duo.
> It’s surprising how they’ve wasted that amount of money to finally in 2017 build a browser that can compete again. This is 9 years after google chrome was released!
I belive, that some tasks cannot be accelerated by additional money. There are tasks that needs time. Money may allow to deal with subtasks in parallel by many developer teams, but in complex system it leads to a lot of conflicts between parts of system, and only time can allow to settle them.
Browser is such a complex system. Old browser with massive amount of legacy is more so. Moreover if you develop the hole new language for upgrading, it becomes surprizing that mozilla have done it in less than 10 years.
I belive, that some tasks cannot be accelerated by additional money. There are tasks that needs time. Money may allow to deal with subtasks in parallel by many developer teams, but in complex system it leads to a lot of conflicts between parts of system, and only time can allow to settle them.
Browser is such a complex system. Old browser with massive amount of legacy is more so. Moreover if you develop the hole new language for upgrading, it becomes surprizing that mozilla have done it in less than 10 years.
You said that like anything they do is easy. But there is nothing technically, politically or economically easy in the life of mozilla. Add on top of that that they try as best as they can to have a moral stand, and i'm actually amazed they survived at all, yet alone made this come back.
I don't know exactly how things went down inside Mozilla, but I think their refusal to ditch their old extensions API was the biggest thing holding Firefox back. This wasn't due to poor engineering chops; I believe they simply didn't take the decision to inconvenience millions of users - many of whom were using FF perhaps solely because of the vast extension ecosystem.
I can't hate them for some of the projects they tried. FirefoxOS was actually something the world really fucking needed. We need an open mobile OS.
I can't hate them for some of the projects they tried. FirefoxOS was actually something the world really fucking needed. We need an open mobile OS.
One of the key misconceptions about Mozilla is that Firefox is their "core business." It is not. Mozilla is not a company; their "core business" is not defined by their most successful software product. It's defined by their mission statement: "to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all."
They've used their $100-160 million (it has grown over time) budget for a lot of things in the last several years. Off the top of my head:
* Legal battles * Advocacy for open standards like HTML5 * Web literacy projects like webmaker and MDN * LetsEncrypt * Bugzilla * Thunderbird * NSS * Spidermonkey * Rust * PDF.js * Firefox OS * Development and support for open VR web standards * Supporting other, non-Mozilla open source projects like Tor and NTP
Remember that the goal isn't the success of any particular software product. It's pushing the debate and forcing other vendors to adopt and stick with OSS and open standards.
In short: yes, Firefox has lagged behind chrome in the last few years in terms of speed. But remember when IOS didn't support HTML5, or any competing apps? Remember when no one was serving the global south with mobile web capable devices? Remember when HTTPS adoption was at 3% and going nowhere? Remember when CSS meant days of per-browser testing and tweaks? You're welcome.
They've used their $100-160 million (it has grown over time) budget for a lot of things in the last several years. Off the top of my head:
* Legal battles * Advocacy for open standards like HTML5 * Web literacy projects like webmaker and MDN * LetsEncrypt * Bugzilla * Thunderbird * NSS * Spidermonkey * Rust * PDF.js * Firefox OS * Development and support for open VR web standards * Supporting other, non-Mozilla open source projects like Tor and NTP
Remember that the goal isn't the success of any particular software product. It's pushing the debate and forcing other vendors to adopt and stick with OSS and open standards.
In short: yes, Firefox has lagged behind chrome in the last few years in terms of speed. But remember when IOS didn't support HTML5, or any competing apps? Remember when no one was serving the global south with mobile web capable devices? Remember when HTTPS adoption was at 3% and going nowhere? Remember when CSS meant days of per-browser testing and tweaks? You're welcome.
> Mozilla is not a company
Mozilla Corp. is taxable and had revenues of $329.5 million in 2014 per Wikipedia. Most of that money came from Google in exchange for making Google the default search engine in Firefox. Open internet and goodwill aside, Firefox is very much their core business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
Mozilla Corp. is taxable and had revenues of $329.5 million in 2014 per Wikipedia. Most of that money came from Google in exchange for making Google the default search engine in Firefox. Open internet and goodwill aside, Firefox is very much their core business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
That said, the Corporation is wholly owned by the foundation, and are both run according to the Mozilla Manifesto. (moco employee here)
You can't say Mozilla and squander in the same sentence without referencing their phone OS.
Much of that effort has also gone into Firefox for Android.
Which I might say, it has been the only Android browser supporting extensions and quite a nice browser overall ;-)
Does Microsoft make a browser for Android? Does Apple?
Which I might say, it has been the only Android browser supporting extensions and quite a nice browser overall ;-)
Does Microsoft make a browser for Android? Does Apple?
Indeed, I'm pretty sure the phone efforts helped with memory usage and performance.
Around 2012 when they started Android still sucked, so IMO it was a reasonable choice. They also killed it off fairly quickly so no big deal.
It's also still considered one of the main-reasons for Chrome eating up all market share, that they now have the leading mobile OS under their control. You can invest a lot of money trying to remedy that, before it's actually a waste of money.
And a lot of technologies and standards that were developed as part of Firefox OS still are very much around today.
In terms of standards, they did a lot of work for camera and microphone integration, which they now needed again anyways with Google having pushed WebRTC to a web standard.
In terms of technology, the biggest thing is probably Asynchronous Panning and Zooming (APZ). Basically offloading scrolling, zooming and window resizing on the desktop to a separate thread.
If you remember how horribly laggy scrolling on Android Firefox was prior to Firefox 46, APZ is what fixed that.
And it's one of the main-reasons why desktop Firefox with multiprocess immediately felt so much better. (Released in Firefox 48, but extensions needed to be updated to be compatible with multiprocess, so most people here probably didn't experience multiprocess and APZ on the desktop until around Firefox 51.)
And a lot of technologies and standards that were developed as part of Firefox OS still are very much around today.
In terms of standards, they did a lot of work for camera and microphone integration, which they now needed again anyways with Google having pushed WebRTC to a web standard.
In terms of technology, the biggest thing is probably Asynchronous Panning and Zooming (APZ). Basically offloading scrolling, zooming and window resizing on the desktop to a separate thread.
If you remember how horribly laggy scrolling on Android Firefox was prior to Firefox 46, APZ is what fixed that.
And it's one of the main-reasons why desktop Firefox with multiprocess immediately felt so much better. (Released in Firefox 48, but extensions needed to be updated to be compatible with multiprocess, so most people here probably didn't experience multiprocess and APZ on the desktop until around Firefox 51.)
"It's also still considered one of the main-reasons for Chrome eating up all market share,"
I remember one reason Chrome gobbled up a lot of marketshare - it was the browser to install because it had Flash built in. Google definitely leveraged that, and then slowly roped people into the Googlesphere from there once they had the browser as your new default.
I remember one reason Chrome gobbled up a lot of marketshare - it was the browser to install because it had Flash built in. Google definitely leveraged that, and then slowly roped people into the Googlesphere from there once they had the browser as your new default.
For a while, wasn't it quite difficult to install Flash without it also installing Chrome and setting it as your default browser? I seem to recall you had to find a fairly well-hidden link to a different Flash installer from the one the site tried to direct you to.
I use firefox on linux but when I need flash (maybe once a year) then I use chrome. I wouldn't be suprised if normal users that regularly depend on flash just want a browser that always works instead of switching between two browsers.
Not to mention how they constantly bug you on the Google homepage to switch to Chrome.
Yeah further proof for google that being sneaky Gets Shit Done.
We collectively need to factor this into our product choices and stop encouraging the sneakiest of them all.
We collectively need to factor this into our product choices and stop encouraging the sneakiest of them all.
I understand that it's quite trendy to shit on Google's parade these days.
But how exactly is bundling Flash player sneaky?
Or are you alluding to some sort of bait and switch that was executed to suck people into the Google sphere? If so, please explain! Chrome was never marketed as a privacy-minded browser, was it?
But how exactly is bundling Flash player sneaky?
Or are you alluding to some sort of bait and switch that was executed to suck people into the Google sphere? If so, please explain! Chrome was never marketed as a privacy-minded browser, was it?
Chrome bundles the Flash Pepper plugin, but Adobe's Flash NPAPI plugin installer also bundled Chrome as an opt-out "make Chrome my default browser" setting. So a Firefox user downloading the Flash NPAPI plugin (for their Firefox) would, by default, end up downloading the Flash NPAPI plugin, Chrome, and Chrome's Flash Pepper plugin. If the user really wanted Chrome, they would have downloaded it instead of downloading Flash NPAPI plugin that works in Firefox and not in Chrome.
I didn't see it as shitting on Google because there are newer, "hungrier" companies that I think will do sneakier things and cross lines Google wouldn't cross. I think it was valid as a general talking point. We do need to be careful about who we support.
For example, there is apparently a $40B rural Internet access bill that Dems are pushing. I love greater access to the internet but I'm more than a little skeptical.
For example, there is apparently a $40B rural Internet access bill that Dems are pushing. I love greater access to the internet but I'm more than a little skeptical.
[deleted]
I thought the reasons that they lost market share was that they started cloning the chrome interface stripping out usable features (i.e. status bar) at the expense of fixing memory and performance issues. I stopped using Firefox when they removed the status bar and made it an extension and then went and bundled in a read later service extension.
The main reason is google used its piles of cash to push their browser.
The side reason is firefox made counterproductive and unnecessary changes: removing the status bar, australis UI, removing the ability to disable script, dropping alsa support and many other useful features removed proving that user have no freedom of choice and no say. While adding unwanted things (DRM, pocket, hello, etc.) and not fixing broken things.
Some power users and long supporter would have sticked with firefox despite google's marketing, had it not piled bad move after bad move and not listening to its users.
The side reason is firefox made counterproductive and unnecessary changes: removing the status bar, australis UI, removing the ability to disable script, dropping alsa support and many other useful features removed proving that user have no freedom of choice and no say. While adding unwanted things (DRM, pocket, hello, etc.) and not fixing broken things.
Some power users and long supporter would have sticked with firefox despite google's marketing, had it not piled bad move after bad move and not listening to its users.
To my knowledge, it was actually Google cloning the Australis interface, they just happened to release it earlier.
And no, these UI changes were not made at the expense of fixing memory and performance issues.
The reason why they didn't fix those memory and performance issues, is because it would have required introducing the (now introduced) multiprocess architecture.
That would have required breaking all extensions (which is now being done with Firefox 57, along with breaking them to switch to a new extension API). So, that would have pissed off power users even more.
And also just in general, you have to understand that power users are not that important for market share. They make up maybe 1%. If they bring their friends and family all along, then maybe 15%.
There's a big number of users that are able to choose their own browser, but are not power users by any means. For example, around 40% of Firefox users don't have any extensions installed [1].
[1] The figure is from Sep 2015, but I don't think things have changed much since then. And if anything, the trend has so far been for this number to increase. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1229949
And no, these UI changes were not made at the expense of fixing memory and performance issues.
The reason why they didn't fix those memory and performance issues, is because it would have required introducing the (now introduced) multiprocess architecture.
That would have required breaking all extensions (which is now being done with Firefox 57, along with breaking them to switch to a new extension API). So, that would have pissed off power users even more.
And also just in general, you have to understand that power users are not that important for market share. They make up maybe 1%. If they bring their friends and family all along, then maybe 15%.
There's a big number of users that are able to choose their own browser, but are not power users by any means. For example, around 40% of Firefox users don't have any extensions installed [1].
[1] The figure is from Sep 2015, but I don't think things have changed much since then. And if anything, the trend has so far been for this number to increase. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1229949
The main reason for chrome eating up market is google pocket depth and heavy marekting push through all mean avialable.
Now more than ever, I would actually prefer to be running a Mozilla OS phone. The reasons why it was important are even more relevant today with vendor lock-in and the continued flow of out-of-support devices.
Google has had quite a few failed projects too, although admittedly their phone OS has been more successful.
True story.
Exactly (saying this as a FF user since Mosaic times and writing in FF). There was money, millions of it, and it attracted many people who captured the browser, sidelined it, spent the money on their ideological pet projects (OS, ...) and then moved on, leaving the browser behind.
After decades of FF I will soon abandon it when it no longer runs vertical tree tabs.
After decades of FF I will soon abandon it when it no longer runs vertical tree tabs.
You know that Tree Style Tabs 2.0 supports Firefox 57+ right? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...
I saw that - wish I could get rid of the obnoxious header though, just a frame on the left would be ideal.
There’s no API to do that yet from a WebExtension, but they’re working on it: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1332447 . In the meantime it’s possible to edit your userChrome.css manually to select the tab bar and hide it.
[deleted]
Sorry, that’s just not what happened. I think there’s an important lesson in what happened to Mozilla, so I think it is worth clarifying.
Chrome didn’t start from scratch (they used WebKit to start) and they didn’t overtake them overnight. Mozilla couldn’t decide what their focus should be for many years, and in that time Chrome grew thanks to Google’s infinite wallet. They made worthwhile risks that didn’t work out in the end, and during this period their core product stopped improving and they eventually needed an extensive and expensive rewrite.
I think the lesson here is this: if you’re going to invest in experimental products, don’t forget about keeping your core technology up to date.
Chrome didn’t start from scratch (they used WebKit to start) and they didn’t overtake them overnight. Mozilla couldn’t decide what their focus should be for many years, and in that time Chrome grew thanks to Google’s infinite wallet. They made worthwhile risks that didn’t work out in the end, and during this period their core product stopped improving and they eventually needed an extensive and expensive rewrite.
I think the lesson here is this: if you’re going to invest in experimental products, don’t forget about keeping your core technology up to date.
And webkit did not start from scratch either, it started from KHTML. They had considered using firefox rendering engine gecko but it was too cumbersome and got dropped.
First, many years ago, they should have made an XUL IDE.
Then they should have focused on XML and giving the world an XML based web-browser, trying to drive XML further. XML would have had a much better chance on the web, if web-servers could have responded to URL encoded XPaths (or even XQueries in POST/GET), serving back XML Fragments which could have been XMLIncluded by the browser. They could have lobbied that.
Now we've got HTML5...
Then they should have focused on XML and giving the world an XML based web-browser, trying to drive XML further. XML would have had a much better chance on the web, if web-servers could have responded to URL encoded XPaths (or even XQueries in POST/GET), serving back XML Fragments which could have been XMLIncluded by the browser. They could have lobbied that.
Now we've got HTML5...
That sounds rather unpleasant from a user or non-XML-loving developer perspective. Such a heavy focus on XML for XML's sake would have guaranteed Firefox's decline into obscurity.
XUL was a horrible idea, certainly at the time. Firefox's UI felt sluggish due to it, certainly since I was used to Opera's blazing fast and responsive UI, which I stuck to for exactly that reason. I only had Firefox installed for compatibility reasons. People seem to forget that while IE was a mess, Firefox was only "better", not "amazingly fantastically better".
With computers having become faster, together with development thrown at it, that's not really an issue anymore, but developers have also realized these days that XML is far from human readable, and for the majority of applications it has been used for, simply a bad idea.
With computers having become faster, together with development thrown at it, that's not really an issue anymore, but developers have also realized these days that XML is far from human readable, and for the majority of applications it has been used for, simply a bad idea.
Both Chrome and Safari started with extant, open-source projects.
A rich set of lessons in what tends to happen with corporate uptake of a "common good".
A rich set of lessons in what tends to happen with corporate uptake of a "common good".
Chrome wasn't started from scratch. From day 1 it was built on top of the legacy laid by WebKit, which in turn was built on top of the huge amount of work done under the KHTML project. v8 and sandboxing were its crown jewels.
If Apple hadn't open-sourced WebKit, it's unlikely Chrome would have happened.
If Apple hadn't open-sourced WebKit, it's unlikely Chrome would have happened.
I think KHTML, as a part of KDE, was open from the start?
Sure it was, but how much additional effort did Apple put into the code base by way of WebKit? Apple didn't need to open source that work, even if the original was open source, and I'm sure the leg up made a big time-to-market difference for Chrome.
Edit: Actually, KHTML is licensed LGPL, and that's a viral license if you make a derivative work. So I suppose Apple was forced to open source their changes when it finally went to market.
Edit: Actually, KHTML is licensed LGPL, and that's a viral license if you make a derivative work. So I suppose Apple was forced to open source their changes when it finally went to market.
> Edit: Actually, KHTML is licensed LGPL, and that's a viral license if you make a derivative work. So I suppose Apple was forced to open source their changes when it finally went to market.
When LGPL code is linked with non-free code and the resulting work is distributed LGPL only requires that the changes to the LGPL code be open and that the object files for the non-free code are provided so that users can exercise their LGPL rights with regard to the LGPL portion of the work.
Apple could have separated out much of their work into separate files that contained no non-Apple code and that dynamically linked with the KHTML LGPL code and they could have kept those files closed. They would only have had to open the changes to the LGPL code.
If we accept the terminology that GPL is a viral license then LGPL is more of an immune system than a virus.
When LGPL code is linked with non-free code and the resulting work is distributed LGPL only requires that the changes to the LGPL code be open and that the object files for the non-free code are provided so that users can exercise their LGPL rights with regard to the LGPL portion of the work.
Apple could have separated out much of their work into separate files that contained no non-Apple code and that dynamically linked with the KHTML LGPL code and they could have kept those files closed. They would only have had to open the changes to the LGPL code.
If we accept the terminology that GPL is a viral license then LGPL is more of an immune system than a virus.
The reason webkit is known today, and not KHTML, is because Apple ignored their LGPL requirements.
First, they didn't publish anything for years. Then only obfuscated source dumps with all comments removed for many years.
It took ages until they published some source code, even longer until they opened their repository.
By that time KHTML was long dead, and development had centered on WebKit.
No, Apple is no saint in this story.
First, they didn't publish anything for years. Then only obfuscated source dumps with all comments removed for many years.
It took ages until they published some source code, even longer until they opened their repository.
By that time KHTML was long dead, and development had centered on WebKit.
No, Apple is no saint in this story.
(Responding out of order)
> No, Apple is no saint in this story.
Nowhere did I say or imply that Apple was a saint. All I said was that LGPL allows linking with closed code and distributing the resulting work without having to make the closed code open, and that Apple could have structured WebKit in such a way as to keep most of their code from having to be made open.
This is the main difference between GPL and LGPL, and a big reason why the FSF now discourages the use of LGPL.
> The reason webkit is known today, and not KHTML, is because Apple ignored their LGPL requirements.
> First, they didn't publish anything for years.
They published their KJS changes in June 2002, shortly before they released products using it. They published their KHTML changes shortly after Safari was announced.
> Then only obfuscated source dumps with all comments removed for many years.
Citation needed. My recollection is that they published their code in the form that they used it internally. The difficulty for the KHTML developers in incorporating Apple's code was (1) WebKit was designed to do what Apple needed, which was not necessarily what KDE needed, and so the two were diverging, and (2) Apple was making a lot of changes that touched a lot of code making it hard to break it down to individual improvements that could be incorporated independently.
> No, Apple is no saint in this story.
Nowhere did I say or imply that Apple was a saint. All I said was that LGPL allows linking with closed code and distributing the resulting work without having to make the closed code open, and that Apple could have structured WebKit in such a way as to keep most of their code from having to be made open.
This is the main difference between GPL and LGPL, and a big reason why the FSF now discourages the use of LGPL.
> The reason webkit is known today, and not KHTML, is because Apple ignored their LGPL requirements.
> First, they didn't publish anything for years.
They published their KJS changes in June 2002, shortly before they released products using it. They published their KHTML changes shortly after Safari was announced.
> Then only obfuscated source dumps with all comments removed for many years.
Citation needed. My recollection is that they published their code in the form that they used it internally. The difficulty for the KHTML developers in incorporating Apple's code was (1) WebKit was designed to do what Apple needed, which was not necessarily what KDE needed, and so the two were diverging, and (2) Apple was making a lot of changes that touched a lot of code making it hard to break it down to individual improvements that could be incorporated independently.
Also (3) Apple had poured way more resources into this than the khtml developers had available. Since Apple kept its work secret for business reasons, that meant that, once Apple published their fork, the sheer amount of changes overwhelmed the KHTML developers (WebKit wasn’t just a port of KHTML; it broadened support for html features)
Yes, but they didn’t even attempt to get it merged, nor did they provide the changes on a per-commit level, but only as a single sourcedump with all comments etc removed.
This made integration impossible.
This made integration impossible.
Apple's JavaScript implementation is based on KJS as well. Arguably, Microsoft was hostile towards open source in general at the time, while Apple simply stole open source software.
It is not theft to use open source software in accordance with its license.
Legally they might have done the minimal amount necessary to not violate the license, but morally they've been a huge dick. "We have to open source our modifications to the code base, so here you get exactly one tarball of uncommented stuff."
That hasn’t been true for many years so what exactly is the complaint?
To be practical, it would have been significantly painful for Apple to adapt and improve KHTML by keeping their code and changes outside it and only dynamically linking to KHTML.
If it were just as easy (or even comparably easy) to carry on (and maintain) development via external linkage, LGPL would have been long useless.
If it were just as easy (or even comparably easy) to carry on (and maintain) development via external linkage, LGPL would have been long useless.
> started from scratch.
Nope, they started with webkit and wininet for networking which together might be make a good browser demo.
Nope, they started with webkit and wininet for networking which together might be make a good browser demo.
Firefox beta is very nice. My only (big) regret is that APIs that make Vimperator work are getting phased out. I can't live without Vimperator.
Well, there's vimium-ff [1] which works pretty good for me.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vimium-ff/
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vimium-ff/
I switched to it yesterday from VimFX. Basic stuff works the same as in VimFX, but:
- Yanking does not work at all.
- "Follow in new tab" (F) does not work. (EDIT: Working now, so maybe I did something weird yesterday.)
- "Open" (o) does not respect search keywords. "wikipedia Test" gives me a search for "wikipedia test" instead of the Wikipedia page for "test".
- Most of the shortcuts don't work on a blank page, or on "about:" pages. For example, when I open a new tab with "t", then change my mind and press "[Esc]x", it doesn't work. Nor does any other letter command.
I filed a bug for the first one, and it seems to be related to shortcomings in FF's clipboard API for WebExtensions, so I suppose that at least the last issue in my list is also related to what the browser allows WebExtensions to do. But at this point, I don't really care about filing more bug reports. I'm looking for alternatives instead. (Any suggestions?)
- Yanking does not work at all.
- "Follow in new tab" (F) does not work. (EDIT: Working now, so maybe I did something weird yesterday.)
- "Open" (o) does not respect search keywords. "wikipedia Test" gives me a search for "wikipedia test" instead of the Wikipedia page for "test".
- Most of the shortcuts don't work on a blank page, or on "about:" pages. For example, when I open a new tab with "t", then change my mind and press "[Esc]x", it doesn't work. Nor does any other letter command.
I filed a bug for the first one, and it seems to be related to shortcomings in FF's clipboard API for WebExtensions, so I suppose that at least the last issue in my list is also related to what the browser allows WebExtensions to do. But at this point, I don't really care about filing more bug reports. I'm looking for alternatives instead. (Any suggestions?)
I am using this addon, but I'm having a hard time with it. I wish you could disable smooth scrolling when using "j" and "k"
Not on a pc right now, but there may be an option for that? Not entirely sure.
There's a checkbox to control smooth scrolling in about:preferences#advanced , but I just tried both options and didn't notice any difference, neither when using the touchpad nor with j/k in Vimium-FF.
I have smooth scrolling disabled in about:prefs, which only disables it on my touchpad, not with vimium-ff
I just found "Use smooth scrolling" under Vimium's advanced options. Might be this page: moz-extension://78ac0671-3b7c-4a05-8771-f46ecdb2b65c/pages/options.html#advancedOptions unless that random string is unique per-user and I just broadcast my password.
Or VideoDownloadHelper, or DownThemAll! :-(
That said my dev edition self-updated last night and... holy shit, the new Firefox flies!
That said my dev edition self-updated last night and... holy shit, the new Firefox flies!
Not sure what you're downloading, but have you ever given youtube-dl (https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/) a try? It's got support for tons of other sites than just YouTube. It doesn't have a GUI, but it's pretty simple to use.
youtube-dl-gui (https://mrs0m30n3.github.io/youtube-dl-gui/) is a cross-platform GUI for youtube-dl. It works well for me.
youtube-dl is great, but having a little gui icon in your toolbar was better
Why don't you switch to waterfox ? it has support for legacy extension and plans to keep them alive, it's even currently working on hosting its own copy of the addon store.
https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
Try qutebrowser?
When you consider where the funding they do have comes from, it's not surprising it happened. Especially with Bing / Yahoo starting to bid up traffic acquisition at the time, it's a strategic no-brainer.
Chrome didn't start from scratch. It was based off of WebKit which was based off of KHTML [0], the code has a lineage that dates back to at least 1998.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML
But as a new project they didn't have to worry about breaking things, supporting current users, etc.
Not having baggage can be liberating. That phase is way smaller than most people realize.
One of the worst Chrome bugs was a short sighted attempt to remain compatible with a bad decision by netscape.
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/DpOXzA...
One of the worst Chrome bugs was a short sighted attempt to remain compatible with a bad decision by netscape.
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/DpOXzA...
You're not lying - I just downloaded it, and it is crazy fast. GMail (maybe not the best metric, but an important one for me) loads about twice as fast as in Chrome, and scrolling has no stuttering at all, even on very long pages.
I may actually make the switch.
I may actually make the switch.
Damn, I am commenting right now from 57.0b4 and it's so, so fast. It properly recovered the 50 or so tabs I had open from the prior version, and even as I rapidly clicked from tab to tab Firefox didn't skip a beat.
I never left Firefox though, it's been my primary browser for ~12 years. Fuck Chrome! I can say without a doubt that 57.0b4 is more performant than any Chrome / Chromium version that I've begrudgingly used to check if my client's sites are cross-browser compatible.
I never left Firefox though, it's been my primary browser for ~12 years. Fuck Chrome! I can say without a doubt that 57.0b4 is more performant than any Chrome / Chromium version that I've begrudgingly used to check if my client's sites are cross-browser compatible.
Fuck chrome? Whoa what did Chrome do?
In fairness I (and I suspect many others) refuse to use Chrome on privacy grounds.
Serious question, you think firefox has any quantifiable privacy benefit over chrome?
We'll, there's the obvious argument that any open source software is better for your privacy and security than any closed source software, just because you know what it's doing. Then there's chrome's history of repeatedly discovering "whoops, we weren't supposed to be collecting that"... For me, it was when a researcher noticed that chrome kept his microphone activated all the time, because it was passively recording and sending all your audio to google. That one even made it into chromium! Then there's the abuse of their products to force people into their browser and OS - like Hangouts only working on chrome, or chrome not enabling hardware acceleration for any device but Chromebooks, despite a years old (trivial) patch to do so, and years of testing reports. Arch Linux maintains its own version of chromium just to have that patch included.
But for me, it's the conflict of interest that makes the real difference. Fundamentally, Google as a company makes it's money by selling information about me and my behavior on the internet. That's it's objective. Firefox exists to promote open standards, OSS, and privacy on the Internet. If chrome at the moment doesn't seem to be contributing towards Google's objective, that's by definition only a temporary state of affairs. And I know which objective I would rather support.
But for me, it's the conflict of interest that makes the real difference. Fundamentally, Google as a company makes it's money by selling information about me and my behavior on the internet. That's it's objective. Firefox exists to promote open standards, OSS, and privacy on the Internet. If chrome at the moment doesn't seem to be contributing towards Google's objective, that's by definition only a temporary state of affairs. And I know which objective I would rather support.
It's a benefit that it's not owned by a company that collects your data to sells ads.
Are you sure it sells 'your' data? Or Chrome somehow acts as a tool for this purpose?
Google doesn't officially tell that Chrome tracks you more than other browsers do, but an ex-Google employee has said that "Google definitely uses Chrome user data and can track every click within it". https://www.siliconbeachtraining.co.uk/blog/ex-google-employ...
The article does not give any context and I am not sure what they meant by that sentence. Is it because you can log in to Chrome with your Google account?
I was actually thinking about switching to Chrome because of GMail (or rather Inbox). When I open Inbox in Firefox, it can take 20 to 30 seconds for the cursor to stop spinning and I have a 300 Mbps connection.
Hi! Firefox engineer here. Check out this reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15371068
If you're interested in helping me figure out what's going on here, feel free to send me a performance profile.
If you're interested in helping me figure out what's going on here, feel free to send me a performance profile.
on which firefox version? have you tried nightly?
The first Quantum release (57) is now on Beta, so if you want something a little more stable than Nightly it's a solid choice.
It's always a good idea to back up your profile first (where your bookmarks/passwords/etc. live), especially when downgrading:
https://support.mozilla.org/kb/back-and-restore-information-...
It's always a good idea to back up your profile first (where your bookmarks/passwords/etc. live), especially when downgrading:
https://support.mozilla.org/kb/back-and-restore-information-...
I've been running Nightly and experienced the same thing with inbox. If I attempt to interact with it before fully loaded, inbox will freeze up for minutes at a time. Love everything else about nightly, this is my biggest issue.
Hi! Firefox engineer here, and I want to understand why your Firefox is misbehaving.
Would you be willing to provide us a performance profile? Instructions are here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Performance...
Feel free to email it to me if you don't want to post the link publicly. I'm mconley at mozilla dot com.
Would you be willing to provide us a performance profile? Instructions are here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Performance...
Feel free to email it to me if you don't want to post the link publicly. I'm mconley at mozilla dot com.
I've been noticing that gmail will seem to lose connection with Nightly Firefox on occassion after sitting a while (Win 7 PC).
Other than that Nightly is amaze balls.
Other than that Nightly is amaze balls.
Make FireFox work with FaceBook's Live Video feature - as in both viewing and broadcasting. You'll have me switch back from Chrome in a heartbeat.
Seriously, when we talk so much about the Web's portability, why is a major feature from a major website not even working on identically on the two biggest browsers? Since it's Facebook we can't accuse them of browser favouritism as they're browser neutral. I wonder what APIs are missing from Firefox that makes FB Live Video broken?
> Since it's Facebook we can't accuse them of browser favouritism as they're browser neutral
Favoritism isn't the only reason for these things. What often happens is that the website devs all use one browser and nobody tests it.
It's not like Google wants their sites to be broken on other browsers either (I presume), it's just that many teams at Google aren't bothered.
IIRC Firefox has the same WebRTC APIs as Chrome, so this might be reliance on browser-specific nonstandard behavior.
(Or it might not. It's worth looking into, but I can't because it seems like you need to ask for an FB live invite to investigate)
Edit: Figured out how to do it. Seems to work fine in Firefox Nightly.
Favoritism isn't the only reason for these things. What often happens is that the website devs all use one browser and nobody tests it.
It's not like Google wants their sites to be broken on other browsers either (I presume), it's just that many teams at Google aren't bothered.
IIRC Firefox has the same WebRTC APIs as Chrome, so this might be reliance on browser-specific nonstandard behavior.
(Or it might not. It's worth looking into, but I can't because it seems like you need to ask for an FB live invite to investigate)
Edit: Figured out how to do it. Seems to work fine in Firefox Nightly.
> Favoritism isn't the only reason for these things. What often happens is that the website devs all use one browser and nobody tests it.
That is exactly the point the GP post makes. These things are supposed to be standardized and the standards well described, so basic things should work everywhere without any testing. But somehow for web, it is acceptable and accepted as status quo, even after years and years of smashing our heads against the wall of nonstandard, browser-specific features.
That is exactly the point the GP post makes. These things are supposed to be standardized and the standards well described, so basic things should work everywhere without any testing. But somehow for web, it is acceptable and accepted as status quo, even after years and years of smashing our heads against the wall of nonstandard, browser-specific features.
Yeah. Well, it's not just "features", it's also stuff like minor differences that the spec allows for (the spec doesn't spec everything). For example, assuming the order of elements in the indexed getter of getComputedValues().
There are also cases like where Google's U2F library doesn't work with Firefox's U2F implementation because Firefox's window.u2f is immutable, as a newer (IIRC draft) spec dictates, whereas it isn't in Chrome, and the library does `var u2f=u2f||{}` which errors in Firefox.
There are also cases like where Google's U2F library doesn't work with Firefox's U2F implementation because Firefox's window.u2f is immutable, as a newer (IIRC draft) spec dictates, whereas it isn't in Chrome, and the library does `var u2f=u2f||{}` which errors in Firefox.
Can you try this in an install of Nightly? It's working for me.
Works in Nightly but the video quality is beyond garbage. 1080p webcam should not look like 320p. Chrome properly sees my camera resolution and uses it.
interesting, will file a bug
More interestingly - it will work with a forced-set resolution using ManyCam. Just not with webcam natively.
Not to mention Firefox for Android that supports extensions (uBlock etc.).
Unfortunately, for me at least, it's not a viable option. Firefox on android still feels significantly more sluggish than chrome. Plus, googles questionable business practice of embedding chrome into many apps, while making opening links very fast, adds another three clicks to someone not using chrome.
Set it as the default browser; it will work normally.
Firefox also supports https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/android/customtabs .
It also has a very nifty feature (IIRC off by default) where if you click on a link instead of switching to Firefox it shows a "Tab opened in Firefox" toast which you can tap on to switch to. This means I can for example click on the links in an email whilst still reading it, and then switch to the browser later to read them all. This does make opening links two taps by default (tap on the link, and then tap on the toast), but there's no tap-hold so it's fast and nice. Plus my workflow prefers opening tabs that i look at later, not immediately.
Firefox also supports https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/android/customtabs .
It also has a very nifty feature (IIRC off by default) where if you click on a link instead of switching to Firefox it shows a "Tab opened in Firefox" toast which you can tap on to switch to. This means I can for example click on the links in an email whilst still reading it, and then switch to the browser later to read them all. This does make opening links two taps by default (tap on the link, and then tap on the toast), but there's no tap-hold so it's fast and nice. Plus my workflow prefers opening tabs that i look at later, not immediately.
Disagreed. I might have 3GB of RAM on this phone, but the browser(s) often get moved out of RAM. It's slower to start than Chrome/Brave. Cold-boot performance matters. I keep Firefox Beta around, and just checked, it's still almost twice as slow as Brave in a adhoc cold start test.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, I was specifically responding to the "adds another three clicks" thing
I see. I thought you meant that as a default browser, there would be less chance for it to be swapped out, and therefore it would be sluggish.
> Firefox on android still feels significantly more sluggish than chrome.
Note that none of the Quantum work has been turned on for mobile Firefox yet. I hear it will be coming online in nightly this cycle, targeting Firefox 58.
Note that none of the Quantum work has been turned on for mobile Firefox yet. I hear it will be coming online in nightly this cycle, targeting Firefox 58.
The Quantum project includes more than Stylo and WebRender. There are lots of small performance fixes ("Quantum Flow") in core Gecko code that should improve performance on Android. Stylo for Android is currently targeting Firefox 59. I don't know if WebRender will support Android.
Firefox for Android Beta currently has the Quantum update, and it's buttery smooth!
I got the beta two days ago and oh my God this thing is super fast. I used to dread opening web pages, now it's my favorite thing! I am extremely impressed with the work they did.
That's interesting. I find Firefox Nightly on Android to be extremely slow compared to Chrome.
What's your setup?
I don't know what changed, but at last the terrible lag when moving the cursor on text fields is gone. Loving it.
I do have to find the webextension equivalent of half my add-ons though.
I do have to find the webextension equivalent of half my add-ons though.
Yeah, and unfortunately some of the addons aren't even available :(
This is incorrect. The Quantum Flow work affects mobile Firefox.
The thing that is not on mobile Firefox is Stylo.
The thing that is not on mobile Firefox is Stylo.
From a technical position that may be true, but one cannot discount the speedup you subsequently get if you run an ad/script/tracker blocker on mobile...
I use the Brave browser to address this. It's based on Chromium with built in features based on Privacy Badger and HTTPS everywhere. It also replaces "Chrome view" so that if you click a link from an app and it opens up with the app, you're still getting the privacy features. And since it's Chromium based I don't see the sluggishness I do in Firefox for Android.
Hmm, you're saying apps use Brave instead of Chrome? That'd be amazing. I mean, you could block ads in apps that way. How does one enable that?
> And since it's Chromium based I don't see the sluggishness I do in Firefox for Android.
The point of the article is that you'll be able to have a quick experience with Android, without using that one tracker called Google.
> And since it's Chromium based I don't see the sluggishness I do in Firefox for Android.
The point of the article is that you'll be able to have a quick experience with Android, without using that one tracker called Google.
> Firefox on android still feels significantly more sluggish than chrome.
Interesting because for me it's the exact opposite: Firefox is fast but when I need to open Chrome (webview or full) it's a slow and painful process (tested on two phones, one 3 year old). Maybe it's because Firefox has everything cached and Chrome needs to load from network... Not to mention full screen, aggressive ads :)
Interesting because for me it's the exact opposite: Firefox is fast but when I need to open Chrome (webview or full) it's a slow and painful process (tested on two phones, one 3 year old). Maybe it's because Firefox has everything cached and Chrome needs to load from network... Not to mention full screen, aggressive ads :)
You can set Firefox as the default browser ("always use this app", not "once"), and the number of clicks becomes the same.
For instance, it takes me exactly one click to open a link from the HN app I'm using in Firefox.
For instance, it takes me exactly one click to open a link from the HN app I'm using in Firefox.
Best i can tell, Firefox is doing something on Android during first (cold?) launch that just chugs the storage. The really problem source is that all this is stored in the cache dir for the app, and that can and will be flushed at irregular intervals. This resulting in Firefox doing it over again next time it is launched.
Well, my issue was mainly with render speed. The delay between scrolling and the site actually rendering in is the issue.
Your lucky, I'm dealing with an app crash every hour or so(if I'm lucky), ui freeze, then hang for 5 seconds , then ' email us the details box', before it restarts.
Trying the beta now though, fingers crossed!
Trying the beta now though, fingers crossed!
The chrome embedding is in theory cross browser compatible. Firefox nightly supports the API. It's still possible for the embedding app to hardcode to chrome (which the Google app seems to do) but the Android developer page recommends the cross browser approach
Try Firefox Focus.
I really can't stand browsing without an ad blocker nowadays. This is the reason I do it at all on the mobile.
Yep, been using FF on Android for three years now. Its the best mobile browser around.
And ublock origin must have saved me hundreds of euros and days of time already. (God the internet with ads and trackers is terrible. Gizmodo has a dozen trackers, one of them is called summerhamster. True story).
And ublock origin must have saved me hundreds of euros and days of time already. (God the internet with ads and trackers is terrible. Gizmodo has a dozen trackers, one of them is called summerhamster. True story).
I now use Firefox Focus as default html viewer for links. Very good.
Firefox focus is my mobile browser of choice to just look up a fact. No ads, cookies or trackers and bins your history on closing.
That's basically a wrapper around Webview, that in turn is chrome based...
That's true on IOS but on Android is the real thing
https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/focus-android/wiki/Archite...
Notice that they could not support Android 4.4 because they would require using geckoview.
Also, there is no way a browser of only 4MB can contain a whole web engine. The only Android browsers that get so small depend on webview.
Consider this, even the old Presto based Opera Mobile clocked in at 15MB on Android.
Notice that they could not support Android 4.4 because they would require using geckoview.
Also, there is no way a browser of only 4MB can contain a whole web engine. The only Android browsers that get so small depend on webview.
Consider this, even the old Presto based Opera Mobile clocked in at 15MB on Android.
I think https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/focus-android/issues/13 is the relevant tracking issue.
true I forgot that (although it seems they forked brave but that's still webview)
I just have JavaScript off on my phone
Even if "they were just building a Chrome clone", it would still be valuable because of the privacy concerns
what do you mean privacy concerns ? firefox is far from being a privacy browser outside of marketing.
Also chrome has had privacy oriented counterpart since the early days such as srware iron[1].
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRWare_Iron
Also chrome has had privacy oriented counterpart since the early days such as srware iron[1].
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRWare_Iron
The long game, man. The long game. It can be devastating.
(Mind you, Chrome/Webkit did a similar thing 5-10 years ago wrt. JS performance. Basically, this is the good kind of back-and-forth competition we're seeing.)
(Mind you, Chrome/Webkit did a similar thing 5-10 years ago wrt. JS performance. Basically, this is the good kind of back-and-forth competition we're seeing.)
I'm not even running Nightly, just switched to 57 beta. It's a big improvement on 55 & 56 (which already felt faster than older versions).
They broke something in the latest nightlies, my fans become really loud when I open it for a while (high CPU usage). You're better off in beta right now until they fix it.
I felt guilty choosing Chrome over Firefox, but it was just so much damn faster. Writing from Nightly now, glad that I don't have to sacrifice performance to switch over.
After years of Chrome I'm back on Firefox(beta).
And FF Developer Edition still lets you install unsigned extensions.
waterfox has been doing since firefox stopped doing it, actually waterfox is doing right everything firefox does wrong:
Disabled Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)
Disabled Web Runtime (deprecated as of 2015)
Removed Pocket
Removed Telemetry
Removed data collection
Removed startup profiling
Allow running of all 64-Bit NPAPI plugins
Allow running of unsigned extensions
Removal of Sponsored Tiles on New Tab Page
Addition of Duplicate Tab option
Locale selector in about:preferences > General
Actually, in stock chrome, it's much easier to install 3rd-party extensions than in stock ff.
It flies towards the trash can. It could be fast as lightning it would a fast as lightning piece of crap without the couple dozen extensions I had to add to restore the features they removed, remove the unwanted change they made and just to add the basic but missing features.
I've moved to waterfox which offers support for the legacy addons and this move actually fixed a few of the annoying bugs I had with firefox. Among which speed was not one.
I've moved to waterfox which offers support for the legacy addons and this move actually fixed a few of the annoying bugs I had with firefox. Among which speed was not one.
Just chiming in... I knew they were doing major replacements in parts of their engine but it started to become observably and blatantly obvious to me when doing cross browser testing. That thing makes chrome look like a lawnmower, it renders CSS with ease - here's hoping the reset of the browser gets the love it needs to bring it all together.
It's truly awesome. Overtime I associated FF with hung pages and poor performance but stuck to it just to get away from Google software. Am really happy with FF 57 (Quantum). It's really really good.
BTW, also using DDG for search, Outlook for email.
BTW, also using DDG for search, Outlook for email.
No worries. Faster browsers just mean that web developers can put more stuff in web pages, so everything will be back to normal.
One wonders why all the UI issues weren't solved long ago. Good that they're fixing them now, but what were they waiting for to decide to do it? (Rendering performance is a separate topic, that's been waiting on rust/servo.)
A Large part of the reason they couldn't easily address the UI performance was because of the old extensions.
The reason that Firefox switched to webextensions was in order to switch to a formal extension API that could be supported long term, instead of the old open integration API which made it difficult to readable without breaking all sorts of extensions.
There reason they adapted the web extension API that chrome uses, was because it largely made sense, was already pretty fleshed out and would allow extension writers that were already familiar with that to also target Firefox.
The reason that Firefox switched to webextensions was in order to switch to a formal extension API that could be supported long term, instead of the old open integration API which made it difficult to readable without breaking all sorts of extensions.
There reason they adapted the web extension API that chrome uses, was because it largely made sense, was already pretty fleshed out and would allow extension writers that were already familiar with that to also target Firefox.
Also the fastest way to accelerate the bleeding of long time supporters and power users who would not be using firefox if not for extensions.
My outside perspective is that as with any other major project, backwards compatibility and the momentum of old code/bugs.
I don't think they've been "waiting" to solve the UI issues: it's been years of slowly deprecating old systems like XUL, and implementing new systems like e10s. That's been years of anger or at least angst for extension developers, as much backwards compatibility was broken one piece at a time.
The fruit after all that hard work is the new UI.
I don't think they've been "waiting" to solve the UI issues: it's been years of slowly deprecating old systems like XUL, and implementing new systems like e10s. That's been years of anger or at least angst for extension developers, as much backwards compatibility was broken one piece at a time.
The fruit after all that hard work is the new UI.
One might argue because they were "distracted" with making a phone OS and other endeavors.
Yeah, but that's nonsense that bad journalists write or Mozilla marketing people say, because it's more understandable for normal readers and makes it more credible that things will change.
The truth is that they were in a dilemma situation where they had to choose between not killing all extensions or fixing performance by introducing a multiprocess architecture (which required breaking all extensions).
So, the first thing they did was to simply wait. The performance issues were not that bad yet, so it just didn't yet weigh up to kill all extensions.
Eventually they started work on the multiprocess architecture. That was around 2012, if I remember correctly. They've been doing that in the background without visible results for the public for a long time. It's considered the biggest architectural change that Firefox ever went through, so yeah, that just takes time. Cleaning up technical debt that Chrome never had.
And then they also figured, if they already break all extensions, they should also switch to a new extension API in the same breath (because the old one has had big problems for as long as its existed). So, then they implemented that, too, in the background, in parallel, just to be able to throw it all on the table one day, so that extension authors would only have to rewrite their stuff once.
The truth is that they were in a dilemma situation where they had to choose between not killing all extensions or fixing performance by introducing a multiprocess architecture (which required breaking all extensions).
So, the first thing they did was to simply wait. The performance issues were not that bad yet, so it just didn't yet weigh up to kill all extensions.
Eventually they started work on the multiprocess architecture. That was around 2012, if I remember correctly. They've been doing that in the background without visible results for the public for a long time. It's considered the biggest architectural change that Firefox ever went through, so yeah, that just takes time. Cleaning up technical debt that Chrome never had.
And then they also figured, if they already break all extensions, they should also switch to a new extension API in the same breath (because the old one has had big problems for as long as its existed). So, then they implemented that, too, in the background, in parallel, just to be able to throw it all on the table one day, so that extension authors would only have to rewrite their stuff once.
If this is referring to Electrolysis, that has been in stable Firefox for about a year now, and it was an initiative whose planning began in 2009. Seven years from inception to delivery is a long time, and indeed was largely attributable to trying to find ways to avoid breaking every extension in the universe, and then being forced to break every extension anyway, and then laboriously fixing up all the broken extensions over a very long period. After such a grueling task I don't blame them for coming to the painful conclusion that Firefox simply can't keep pace with other browsers while maintaining the all-pervasive legacy extension system, especially since Electrolysis was just a first tentative step towards effective multiprocessing.
Indeed, I'm one of the people who has suffered from losing legacy Firefox extensions (find me a substitute for LeechBlock, please!), but I can see how much of a burden it was for the developers to compete on performance and security, which I value more. I'm hopeful that Firefox will continue to add sane extension APIs to help close the gap with what was previously possible without regressing to the old quagmire. Fingers crossed, but they've done well delivering so far with 57.
Indeed, I'm one of the people who has suffered from losing legacy Firefox extensions (find me a substitute for LeechBlock, please!), but I can see how much of a burden it was for the developers to compete on performance and security, which I value more. I'm hopeful that Firefox will continue to add sane extension APIs to help close the gap with what was previously possible without regressing to the old quagmire. Fingers crossed, but they've done well delivering so far with 57.
The first Firefox release with multiprocessing work was one of the 3.6 ones where they shipped out of process plugins in a patch release. Judging by Wikipedia, that was 3.6.4 in 2010 (look for OOPP). I thought it was later…
Having to break legacy extensions due to internal changes is understandable. It would have reduced stress for the users if the new API was shipped first, then the changes made and the old one broken, though. Heck, they even thought of it first and did that - you may remember Jetpack. It never picked up steam because the APIs were too limited and too many people ended up resorting to the old APIs, though. Even now with WebExtensions they're shipping lots of new API extensions want in the same release that drops support for the old ones…
Oh, and they had multiple breakages as more and more things went out of process, not one giant one. That's life, really; things take time to build. I believe part of the pushback is that people just finished porting to e10s only to find that their new code will need to be rewritten again for WebExtensions.
Having to break legacy extensions due to internal changes is understandable. It would have reduced stress for the users if the new API was shipped first, then the changes made and the old one broken, though. Heck, they even thought of it first and did that - you may remember Jetpack. It never picked up steam because the APIs were too limited and too many people ended up resorting to the old APIs, though. Even now with WebExtensions they're shipping lots of new API extensions want in the same release that drops support for the old ones…
Oh, and they had multiple breakages as more and more things went out of process, not one giant one. That's life, really; things take time to build. I believe part of the pushback is that people just finished porting to e10s only to find that their new code will need to be rewritten again for WebExtensions.
That was Mozilla's official excuse for discontinuing Firefox OS.
I never said I agreed with it.
I never said I agreed with it.
It seems to me waterfox has both legacy extension and multiprocess support.
exactly, too busy pushing resources into stuff that was not their core business while letting the competitors take their market.
Boy, I _really_ didn't want to swap to Chrome. I'd held on through about a year ago, even despite knowing it was slower, a memory hog, and so on; at least this way, _someone_ on my team was viewing our site in FF and would notice discrepancies. I hated to let Google manage yet another aspect of my life.
But as some point, too much was too much. Unable to bear vanilla, Google-owned Chrome, I ended up in (closed-source!) Vivaldi. It was...alright.
About two months ago, I tried out FF Nightly. And by god, it's the best browser I've ever used. And the Nightly builds are (typically) _more_ stable than production-issue from other vendors.
So very happy to be back! Mozilla may have their issues, but I'll gladly take imperfect and pro-user over differently imperfect and profit-driven any day.
But as some point, too much was too much. Unable to bear vanilla, Google-owned Chrome, I ended up in (closed-source!) Vivaldi. It was...alright.
About two months ago, I tried out FF Nightly. And by god, it's the best browser I've ever used. And the Nightly builds are (typically) _more_ stable than production-issue from other vendors.
So very happy to be back! Mozilla may have their issues, but I'll gladly take imperfect and pro-user over differently imperfect and profit-driven any day.
> And the Nightly builds are (typically) _more_ stable than production-issue from other vendors.
Yeah, I switched to Nightly a couple releases ago (I'd use Dev edition before that because in the past Nightly used to be really unstable) and it's been great. The only time I've been getting crashes are when I flipped stylo on early (which was to be expected), and a couple of random crashes here and there.
In fact, I've had more problems in Chrome (Stable) these last two weeks, where their devtools hanged everything in multiple cases and Netflix wasn't working at all. And Chrome isn't my primary browser -- I only use it for Hangouts and Netflix (Netflix is force of habit, it works great in Firefox now). (I used the devtools because I'm using the new rewritten devtools in Firefox Nightly and they don't have a prettyprint button right now)
Yeah, I switched to Nightly a couple releases ago (I'd use Dev edition before that because in the past Nightly used to be really unstable) and it's been great. The only time I've been getting crashes are when I flipped stylo on early (which was to be expected), and a couple of random crashes here and there.
In fact, I've had more problems in Chrome (Stable) these last two weeks, where their devtools hanged everything in multiple cases and Netflix wasn't working at all. And Chrome isn't my primary browser -- I only use it for Hangouts and Netflix (Netflix is force of habit, it works great in Firefox now). (I used the devtools because I'm using the new rewritten devtools in Firefox Nightly and they don't have a prettyprint button right now)
> Netflix is force of habit, it works great in Firefox now
Netflix doesn't work great in either Firefox or Chrome, but that's not the browser's fault. Netflix only streams 720p video to Firefox, Opera, and Chrome whereas it will stream 1080p or better to Safari, IE 11, and Edge:
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742
You can see the playback details (formats, resolution, bit rate, etc.) of the video you're currently watching on Netflix by pressing Ctrl+Shift+Alt+D.
I use Safari to view Netflix though I'd prefer to use Firefox. I'm paying Netflix for access to 1080p video, but I only actually get 1080p video with Safari.
Netflix doesn't work great in either Firefox or Chrome, but that's not the browser's fault. Netflix only streams 720p video to Firefox, Opera, and Chrome whereas it will stream 1080p or better to Safari, IE 11, and Edge:
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742
You can see the playback details (formats, resolution, bit rate, etc.) of the video you're currently watching on Netflix by pressing Ctrl+Shift+Alt+D.
I use Safari to view Netflix though I'd prefer to use Firefox. I'm paying Netflix for access to 1080p video, but I only actually get 1080p video with Safari.
> Netflix only streams 720p video to Firefox, Opera, and Chrome whereas it will stream 1080p or better to Safari, IE 11, and Edge
Yeah, that's due to DRM.
The simple solution is to disable the EME plugin, and just pirate everything (while still paying for Netflix). You pay for it, and have a moral right to it, and you can watch it in 1080p or 4K easily.
Yeah, that's due to DRM.
The simple solution is to disable the EME plugin, and just pirate everything (while still paying for Netflix). You pay for it, and have a moral right to it, and you can watch it in 1080p or 4K easily.
If you pay for Netflix, you're paying for the right to watch anything currently available in their library. If you pirate stuff, unless you're careful to keep that library up-to-date with Netflix's, you won't have the moral right to it.
Well, that’s an interesting question. If you’ve made a reasonable effort to pay, but have not found an option, some countries even allow you to copy without approval of the copyright owner, legally.
So this is a question that very much depends on ideology and jurisdiction. (I, personally, think that if I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime, I have a moral right to any older content, and if I pay for a movie ticket for newer content that’s twice as expensive as a DVD of which the cinema gets less than 10%, I have a moral right to rewatch it)
So this is a question that very much depends on ideology and jurisdiction. (I, personally, think that if I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime, I have a moral right to any older content, and if I pay for a movie ticket for newer content that’s twice as expensive as a DVD of which the cinema gets less than 10%, I have a moral right to rewatch it)
Yeah, I'm aware of that. IIRC a few years ago it was even worse on Firefox because of DRM issues or something (I don't recall).
Also in the past Firefox's media stack used to be a bit more RAM-hog-y, but that's no longer the case IME either. I still stick media stuff in a different browser so that if I'm doing a build or something expensive I can just close the browser.
Also in the past Firefox's media stack used to be a bit more RAM-hog-y, but that's no longer the case IME either. I still stick media stuff in a different browser so that if I'm doing a build or something expensive I can just close the browser.
I haven't crashed nightly (I'm running the developer edition nightly) in months, but I've seen some rendering bugs since they rolled in the overhauled bits. Not as much as one might expect from a bunch of new parts, though. The quality of Firefox is just generally very high.
> And the Nightly builds are (typically) _more_ stable than production-issue from other vendors.
I actually managed to crash nightly yesterday! Maybe this seems like it ought to be banal, but I think it says something admirable when users are surprised to remember that your pre-beta software is pre-beta. :P
I actually managed to crash nightly yesterday! Maybe this seems like it ought to be banal, but I think it says something admirable when users are surprised to remember that your pre-beta software is pre-beta. :P
I am more than willing to try Firefox BUT I need a couple of things :
-an extension to allow to treat chrome + firefox history and open tabs as one on all devices (basically what I already have with chrome on desktop + mobile)
-a password manager that integrates with both (this one should be easy enough .. just buy lastpass or an alternative).
-an extension to allow to treat chrome + firefox history and open tabs as one on all devices (basically what I already have with chrome on desktop + mobile)
-a password manager that integrates with both (this one should be easy enough .. just buy lastpass or an alternative).
So you've not used opera before they switch to chromium ?
OT, but (in case you didn't know) you can use asterisks to italicize text, so instead of _this_ you'll have this.
starrychloe(3)
I was very critical of Mozilla in the past about all their
"science projects" like Rust. While I appreciate Rust, I thought it was wrong for Mozilla to be wasting resources on it, instead of focusing on Firefox.
I was so harsh with them only because I strongly believe that Firefox is my only hope for a free web.
But then I tried 57, and I must admit, boy was I wrong. This thing is fast! I haven't stopped recommending it to friends and colleagues!
Good job folks!
I was so harsh with them only because I strongly believe that Firefox is my only hope for a free web.
But then I tried 57, and I must admit, boy was I wrong. This thing is fast! I haven't stopped recommending it to friends and colleagues!
Good job folks!
Rust was pretty much designed to solve problems for Firefox. It's IMO the best bet Mozilla has made these last few years and we're just starting to see them reaping the rewards.
I don't know how this relates to the creator of Rust or its actual origin story, but Mozilla has been trying to get many of the same results out of C++ for a long time. You can look at the evolution of smart pointers in the codebase, along with more formal ways of representing error return codes (borrowed from MS COM), and general good practices.
It seems at some point they became aware of how unsuited C++ is for parallel processing, and how important it would be for browsers in the future. Even compartmentalization or running tabs in their own process is a form of parallelization. This requires an efficient way of sharing memory and preventing race conditions and errant writes, as well as a way to protect these processes from cross-site scripting attacks, buffer over- and underruns, etc.
Computing hardware has also moved on from the CPU-centric world and the gains in battery life from dedicated GPU hardware being used even for rendering tasks, and now for font processing and other things were too good to pass up.
I'm a long time follower of Mozilla's development, and extremely excited about what's happening with Firefox.
(I'm also currently a Chrome user, leaving in large part due to profile corruption issues and inferior built-in development tools. I hope to be able to run Firefox and WebRender on both Ubuntu and Windows.)
It seems at some point they became aware of how unsuited C++ is for parallel processing, and how important it would be for browsers in the future. Even compartmentalization or running tabs in their own process is a form of parallelization. This requires an efficient way of sharing memory and preventing race conditions and errant writes, as well as a way to protect these processes from cross-site scripting attacks, buffer over- and underruns, etc.
Computing hardware has also moved on from the CPU-centric world and the gains in battery life from dedicated GPU hardware being used even for rendering tasks, and now for font processing and other things were too good to pass up.
I'm a long time follower of Mozilla's development, and extremely excited about what's happening with Firefox.
(I'm also currently a Chrome user, leaving in large part due to profile corruption issues and inferior built-in development tools. I hope to be able to run Firefox and WebRender on both Ubuntu and Windows.)
> (borrowed from MS COM)
are you referring to microsoft's com (component object model)?
are you referring to microsoft's com (component object model)?
Yes, though more to HRESULTS from the Windows API. This meant return values could indicate success or a specific error which could be determined with macros.
Rust actually has a similar mechanism in its standard lib, the Result enum whuch resembles Maybe from Haskell, but has either a returned value if successful (which can be the empty object ()) or an Error.
XPCOM was modeled on the Microsoft version using the same vtable tricks that it used to enable dynamic dispatch through interfaces.
Rust actually has a similar mechanism in its standard lib, the Result enum whuch resembles Maybe from Haskell, but has either a returned value if successful (which can be the empty object ()) or an Error.
XPCOM was modeled on the Microsoft version using the same vtable tricks that it used to enable dynamic dispatch through interfaces.
Small note, Option in Rust is Maybe in Haskell, Result in Rust is Either in Haskell.
It was denintely a long term play. The worry i had was what if they get 80% down that road and find out it would t work for some reason (say they wouldn't be able to get performance high enough)? They’d have lost a TON of time and resources.
Glad to see they got it to work.
Glad to see they got it to work.
How much Rust is actually in the new Firefox? I'm not seeing any based on a casual click-around in the repo, though I'll freely admit I haven't scanned the entire source tree.
Edit: if there is any, can someone give me a link to the part of the source tree that has it?
Edit: if there is any, can someone give me a link to the part of the source tree that has it?
Read about the first bit of Rust shipping here: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2016/07/shipping-rust-in-firefox/
And many of the Rust things that make FF56+ fast can be found here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum
And many of the Rust things that make FF56+ fast can be found here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum
Great pointers, thanks.
Do they also have any write-up on how did they find Rust during these changes? Was the back count lower than usual? Did the see an increase on productivity?
Do they also have any write-up on how did they find Rust during these changes? Was the back count lower than usual? Did the see an increase on productivity?
These components were built as part of the Servo project and then ported to Firefox, so you'd probably just want to ask the Servo team directly. You can find them on IRC, in the channel #servo on irc.mozilla.org.
There is https://blog.servo.org/, but it's mostly gradual updates on things, not a general overview.
There is https://blog.servo.org/, but it's mostly gradual updates on things, not a general overview.
the FIDO U2F code is rust: http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/webauthn/u2f...
otherwise here's the list: http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/search?q=&path=*.rs%24
otherwise here's the list: http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/search?q=&path=*.rs%24
Thanks.
- The mp4 metadata parser. This has been shipping for a while now, and was the first shipped Rust code.
- The URL parser (rust-url). This is not shipping, because it's incomplete and there are some mismatches to deal with. But it exists.
- Stylo: Servo's CSS engine in Firefox. By far the biggest one, this is shipping in beta and nightly, and should be there in the 57 release for everything but Android
- webrender: Servo's GPU-focused renderer. Not shipping, can be flipped on in nightly. Still has work to be done
- encoding-rs: All encoding operations go through this now. Shipping
- The U2F stuff: A lot of the U2F code is in Rust. Shipping in nightly though I think it's still off by default (but that will change soon?)
As far as the location of the code:
The root rust crate is at https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/toolkit/libr... . Everything can be reached from it, and the cargo file that has all these links is https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/toolkit/libr...
- All of Servo is vendored in tree in https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/servo . Not all of Servo is used, the majority of the used code is from https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/servo/compon...
- Webrender is vendored in tree in https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/gfx/webrende...
- The U2F HID stuff is vendored at https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/dom/webauthn...
- There's a bunch of stuff in libcubeb ; I don't even know what it's there for (https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/media/libcub...)
- You can find "c api" rust crates scattered throughout, like mp4parse_capi, rust-url-capi, encoding_glue . These depend on the actual crate (usually, a crate that's published to crates.io) but expose an API that C can call into
- Finally, any dependency from crates.io is vendored in https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/third_party/... . Note that this includes build time dependencies (so you'll find crates that deal with CLI parsing and terminal color info that aren't actually used by firefox). Despite the folder being labeled "third_party", a lot of that code is maintained by us, but in separate repos and published to crates.io. In particular, large chunks of Servo are reusable published crates.
- The URL parser (rust-url). This is not shipping, because it's incomplete and there are some mismatches to deal with. But it exists.
- Stylo: Servo's CSS engine in Firefox. By far the biggest one, this is shipping in beta and nightly, and should be there in the 57 release for everything but Android
- webrender: Servo's GPU-focused renderer. Not shipping, can be flipped on in nightly. Still has work to be done
- encoding-rs: All encoding operations go through this now. Shipping
- The U2F stuff: A lot of the U2F code is in Rust. Shipping in nightly though I think it's still off by default (but that will change soon?)
As far as the location of the code:
The root rust crate is at https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/toolkit/libr... . Everything can be reached from it, and the cargo file that has all these links is https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/toolkit/libr...
- All of Servo is vendored in tree in https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/servo . Not all of Servo is used, the majority of the used code is from https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/servo/compon...
- Webrender is vendored in tree in https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/gfx/webrende...
- The U2F HID stuff is vendored at https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/dom/webauthn...
- There's a bunch of stuff in libcubeb ; I don't even know what it's there for (https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/media/libcub...)
- You can find "c api" rust crates scattered throughout, like mp4parse_capi, rust-url-capi, encoding_glue . These depend on the actual crate (usually, a crate that's published to crates.io) but expose an API that C can call into
- Finally, any dependency from crates.io is vendored in https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/third_party/... . Note that this includes build time dependencies (so you'll find crates that deal with CLI parsing and terminal color info that aren't actually used by firefox). Despite the folder being labeled "third_party", a lot of that code is maintained by us, but in separate repos and published to crates.io. In particular, large chunks of Servo are reusable published crates.
I don't know if there's any one location for all the Rust code; it may not make logical sense to put the MP4 parser written in Rust right next to the CSS engine, for example. I believe that https://github.com/mozilla/gecko-dev is a mirror of the repo in question, and so we can use Github's search function to find every file that it detects as being a Rust file: https://github.com/mozilla/gecko-dev/search?l=rust (which finds 3,274 Rust files, 6,701 C files, and 22,722 C++ files).
If you look at great science projects like the LHC, a lot of the funding is "wasted" building the infrastructure needed to actually build the project, while Mozilla missed the target a few times "Firefox OS", I never saw Rust with bad eyes, it was made to enable Firefox to become a top tier browser again.
Ironically Firefox OS would become a lot more viable with these sorts of performance improvements. Using Firefox Nightly I have actually felt an occasional sensation of blurring between native and web, because of how quickly some sites render and respond. I wonder how applicable these innovations will be on the mobile web. You'd have thought parallel processing would be particularly important in mobile processors where the single core speed is often a fraction of the multi core speed.
Firefox OS was ahead of it's time in the most literal sense. What they really should have done was FIRST work on all these new web APIs that allow you to make web apps that can accomplish things that only native apps could do before. They didn't exist 5 years ago, and that was a problem.
Perhaps if they focused on making web apps as capable as native apps first, it would have been a viable platform.
Perhaps if they focused on making web apps as capable as native apps first, it would have been a viable platform.
All the PWA stuff Chrome is doing is basically moving in this direction, from the opposite end, really. Instead of building an OS that needs a web based app system, they go in reverse by taking their existing OS and allowing for webapps to be work more like regular apps. This probably will involve more APIs and such.
Building new Web APIs was a core pillar of Firefox OS development, and it applied to desktop Firefox as well. Unfortunately these efforts were bogged down by poor executive leadership and the difficulty of getting any other browser vendor to take new APIs seriously, so the work went pretty slowly.
Gamepad API spec efforts began as part of this, for example. Then another vendor kicked their own inferior spec out the door without talking to anyone and that ended up being the de-facto standard (not the first time). Other APIs like exposing battery status, network connectivity status, and the ability to notify with vibration were in the works, just to name a few I remember.
Gamepad API spec efforts began as part of this, for example. Then another vendor kicked their own inferior spec out the door without talking to anyone and that ended up being the de-facto standard (not the first time). Other APIs like exposing battery status, network connectivity status, and the ability to notify with vibration were in the works, just to name a few I remember.
It's like CERN, why did they waste all those resources on this World Wide Web thing? Couldn't they just linotype their papers like everyone else?
I don't care about firefox being faster, it has been fast enough for years. I care for functionality that i'm losing because extension are dropped, because features are dropped, because unwanted features are added. I care about my voice being heard and being dismissed with attitude. I care about privacy and freedom.
For these reasons I switched to waterfox.
For these reasons I switched to waterfox.
So you are one of those that "Open Web" == performance only and you look the other way on things like EME, Pocket, and various other things that lower Privacy and betray the very foundation of the "Open Web"
I personally love Pocket, it's my bookmarking service and I'm a paying customer.
And staying true to their mission, Mozilla bought Pocket and is now releasing it as open source [1].
You're speaking of "betraying the foundation of the Open Web", but Mozilla is the only one out of the big players that isn't guilty of betrayal, the only big player that tried opposing patent encumbered video codecs or DRM, that have been promoted by Google, Microsoft and Apple, the W3C being basically a charade.
If you're upset of W3C EME, your anger should be directed at the parties responsible for it, which are Google, Microsoft and Netflix and which now control the industry, with a majority market share I might add, which would make all resistance moot.
So I hope you're boycotting Google, Microsoft and Netflix, because otherwise it's unfair to expect that from Mozilla, an organization with a responsibility towards its employees, users and customers.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/02/27/mozilla-acquires-po...
And staying true to their mission, Mozilla bought Pocket and is now releasing it as open source [1].
You're speaking of "betraying the foundation of the Open Web", but Mozilla is the only one out of the big players that isn't guilty of betrayal, the only big player that tried opposing patent encumbered video codecs or DRM, that have been promoted by Google, Microsoft and Apple, the W3C being basically a charade.
If you're upset of W3C EME, your anger should be directed at the parties responsible for it, which are Google, Microsoft and Netflix and which now control the industry, with a majority market share I might add, which would make all resistance moot.
So I hope you're boycotting Google, Microsoft and Netflix, because otherwise it's unfair to expect that from Mozilla, an organization with a responsibility towards its employees, users and customers.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/02/27/mozilla-acquires-po...
As a long time user of wallabag why would I welcome the addition of a proprietary alternative that's difficult to disable into firefox ? Stripping user of choice is the opposite of free software and empowering users.
It's arguably not so smart to spend millions of dollars to buy the company behind pocket to release it opensource when an opensource alternative already exists.
Turns out mozilla did not buy pocket as much as the 10 millions user base and 1 billion saved link to get a foot on the mobile platform and helps with their upcoming recommendation engine. Not exactly putting the user first.
Besides there's no integration of pocket into shaarli whereas wallabag has one. Also where is the option to self host a pocket service ?
Not sorry, but pocket sucks on many counts compared to open source alternative.
I've been boycotting microsoft (because microsoft), google (because privacy), apple (because vendor lock-in), netflix (because pollution and bandwidth saturation and killing p2p) was before mozilla made its betrayal to their own words for their own profit. Yup I tend to boycott all opponent to net neutrality and open web. Neither google, microsoft, apple, nor netflix bear responsibility for mozilla deciding to bake support for DRM for fear of becoming irrelevant. To me they showed that they do not put their money where their mouth is and as such are not worthy of trust, also their priorities are not aligned with an open web based on their actions.
Had mozilla been serious about opposing they would not have implemented it in their browser to be netflix compatible out of fear of losing market share. I've had a difficult time reconciliating myself with mozilla "let's do one evil here so we can try to do one good there" approach to things.
It's arguably not so smart to spend millions of dollars to buy the company behind pocket to release it opensource when an opensource alternative already exists.
Turns out mozilla did not buy pocket as much as the 10 millions user base and 1 billion saved link to get a foot on the mobile platform and helps with their upcoming recommendation engine. Not exactly putting the user first.
Besides there's no integration of pocket into shaarli whereas wallabag has one. Also where is the option to self host a pocket service ?
Not sorry, but pocket sucks on many counts compared to open source alternative.
I've been boycotting microsoft (because microsoft), google (because privacy), apple (because vendor lock-in), netflix (because pollution and bandwidth saturation and killing p2p) was before mozilla made its betrayal to their own words for their own profit. Yup I tend to boycott all opponent to net neutrality and open web. Neither google, microsoft, apple, nor netflix bear responsibility for mozilla deciding to bake support for DRM for fear of becoming irrelevant. To me they showed that they do not put their money where their mouth is and as such are not worthy of trust, also their priorities are not aligned with an open web based on their actions.
Had mozilla been serious about opposing they would not have implemented it in their browser to be netflix compatible out of fear of losing market share. I've had a difficult time reconciliating myself with mozilla "let's do one evil here so we can try to do one good there" approach to things.
Disabling Pocket in Firefox has been basically a right-click and then clicking the remove button option, even in Firefox 57. Of course, this isn't really about disabling Pocket, but about removing it, being some kind of ideological struggle.
To set the records straight, Free Software has nothing to do with choice, as can be seen by how GCC and other projects were developed.
I did try wallabag. I appreciate the effort of its developers, I wish the project succeeds, but the mobile apps are pieces of shit compared with Pocket. So arguably, that open source alternative you're speaking of does not exist.
I really don't understand how Mozilla is not putting the users first, because by their actions, it seems to me like they are.
The really interesting phenomenon however is that I'm not seeing the same vitriol whenever Google's Chrome is being discussed on HN. It's like there's this really vocal minority that really wants Firefox to die, this comment included. No worries, if the current trends holds, Firefox will end up being dead and then you'll be able to have a choice between Chrome, Edge or Safari.
Or you'll be able to fork Firefox, invest in whatever projects you want to invest, build whatever features you want to build and in general put your money where your mouth is.
Can't wait to see that happening. Good luck.
To set the records straight, Free Software has nothing to do with choice, as can be seen by how GCC and other projects were developed.
I did try wallabag. I appreciate the effort of its developers, I wish the project succeeds, but the mobile apps are pieces of shit compared with Pocket. So arguably, that open source alternative you're speaking of does not exist.
I really don't understand how Mozilla is not putting the users first, because by their actions, it seems to me like they are.
The really interesting phenomenon however is that I'm not seeing the same vitriol whenever Google's Chrome is being discussed on HN. It's like there's this really vocal minority that really wants Firefox to die, this comment included. No worries, if the current trends holds, Firefox will end up being dead and then you'll be able to have a choice between Chrome, Edge or Safari.
Or you'll be able to fork Firefox, invest in whatever projects you want to invest, build whatever features you want to build and in general put your money where your mouth is.
Can't wait to see that happening. Good luck.
>>and is now releasing it as open source
I will believe that when I see the code. 7 months now still no code, and outside of the single blog post no other comments from Pocket, Read It later, or Mozilla has given any indication they will Open Source it. In fact Read It Later is still a for profit corporations operating as a subsidiary of the For Profit Mozilla Corporation, not the Mozilla Foundation the non-profit organizations
>Mozilla is the only one out of the big players that isn't guilty of betrayal, the only big player that tried opposing patent encumbered video codecs or DRM
They did... When???
>If you're upset of W3C EME, your anger should be directed at the parties responsible for it, which are Google, Microsoft and Netflix
I can be upset with W3c, Netflix, Google, Microsoft and at the same time be upset with Mozilla.
I am more upset with Mozilla because they are a Non-Profit organization that had (and I stress Had) a mission to promoting Open Standards, Open Web, and User Privacy. They have turned their back on that when those issues became less popular than performance. They turned their back on those principles because market share.
They have stopped attempting to education the public on why they should care about EME, about privacy, about anything really.
I find it sad that Mozilla is no longer a leader creating conversations about why the Open Web is needed for Society, about way Standing up for Privacy and User Freedom is important. Instead they have choosen to play follow the Leader to MS and Google.
Where is the 1990's Mozilla when Microsoft wanted to maket Active X a Standard and they stood up and said NO
Where is the 2000's Mozilla when w3c wanted to drop HTML in favor of XHTML and they formed WHATWG to force the W3C in to adopting HTML5 we have today.
Where did the Leader in the open Web go? Where did Mozilla go and what is this abomination that replace it?
I will believe that when I see the code. 7 months now still no code, and outside of the single blog post no other comments from Pocket, Read It later, or Mozilla has given any indication they will Open Source it. In fact Read It Later is still a for profit corporations operating as a subsidiary of the For Profit Mozilla Corporation, not the Mozilla Foundation the non-profit organizations
>Mozilla is the only one out of the big players that isn't guilty of betrayal, the only big player that tried opposing patent encumbered video codecs or DRM
They did... When???
>If you're upset of W3C EME, your anger should be directed at the parties responsible for it, which are Google, Microsoft and Netflix
I can be upset with W3c, Netflix, Google, Microsoft and at the same time be upset with Mozilla.
I am more upset with Mozilla because they are a Non-Profit organization that had (and I stress Had) a mission to promoting Open Standards, Open Web, and User Privacy. They have turned their back on that when those issues became less popular than performance. They turned their back on those principles because market share.
They have stopped attempting to education the public on why they should care about EME, about privacy, about anything really.
I find it sad that Mozilla is no longer a leader creating conversations about why the Open Web is needed for Society, about way Standing up for Privacy and User Freedom is important. Instead they have choosen to play follow the Leader to MS and Google.
Where is the 1990's Mozilla when Microsoft wanted to maket Active X a Standard and they stood up and said NO
Where is the 2000's Mozilla when w3c wanted to drop HTML in favor of XHTML and they formed WHATWG to force the W3C in to adopting HTML5 we have today.
Where did the Leader in the open Web go? Where did Mozilla go and what is this abomination that replace it?
I share your views and I am as angry as you are, but I think you are idealizing the Mozilla of the past.
I always felt that Mozilla was just forced in a role it never really wanted.
If you remember Mozilla was a child of the browser wars and my guesss is that if Netscape wasn’t cornered by MS it would still be closed source today.
Even today you can see that business is still in their DNA, the for-profit subsidiary.
However although Mozilla is far from perfect, they are our only hope.
I always felt that Mozilla was just forced in a role it never really wanted.
If you remember Mozilla was a child of the browser wars and my guesss is that if Netscape wasn’t cornered by MS it would still be closed source today.
Even today you can see that business is still in their DNA, the for-profit subsidiary.
However although Mozilla is far from perfect, they are our only hope.
Actually mozilla means Mosaic Killer as their sole purpose was to replace NCSA mosaic browser to become the n°1 browser.
It was the internal codename and user-agent for netscape and became the name of mozilla a reminder that their objective is to be the number 1 browser and the new target to replace had been IE.
It was the internal codename and user-agent for netscape and became the name of mozilla a reminder that their objective is to be the number 1 browser and the new target to replace had been IE.
You are right. I am aware of the history of the name. All I was trying to say was that it wouldn’t be open source if it wasn’t for the browser wars.
> Where did the Leader in the open Web go?
It was killed by moving focus from users and long term to quarterly profits and short term, around the time Jonvon Tetzchner was pushed to leave the company.
wait are you talking about the leader in the open web or about mozilla here ?
It was killed by moving focus from users and long term to quarterly profits and short term, around the time Jonvon Tetzchner was pushed to leave the company.
wait are you talking about the leader in the open web or about mozilla here ?
That's as a bit unfair conclusion.
I just believe that if Firefox dies then for sure "Open Web" will die.
But, yeah, of course I am not happy with Pocket. But it still better than using Chrome.
I just believe that if Firefox dies then for sure "Open Web" will die.
But, yeah, of course I am not happy with Pocket. But it still better than using Chrome.
One of the big issues I have with Pocket isn't even the privacy problem, it's the integration. Firefox would (IMO) be better served by having such things as extensions included in the default distribution. They could even make a separate tab in the extensions dialogue for them, perhaps hidden behind an about:config preference. That way anyone who doesn't want them could disable them and speed the browser up.
There was some discussion of doing things this way back when it was still called Phoenix. The Seamonkey suite was bloated and slow, Phoenix was the stripped-down browser that just did web browsing but had an extension system to add in extra features. But instead of adding features through the extension system the Mozilla team decided to add them into the base.
There was some discussion of doing things this way back when it was still called Phoenix. The Seamonkey suite was bloated and slow, Phoenix was the stripped-down browser that just did web browsing but had an extension system to add in extra features. But instead of adding features through the extension system the Mozilla team decided to add them into the base.
Most firefox UI code is lazy loaded, and the pocket extension was a pretty simple thing that hit an endpoint. I doubt you could speed things up by removing it.
of course you speed things up, it takes a bit of time to go through the process of removing the icon and disabling it on a fresh install. when you have several install to do, it quickly adds up.
I'm talking about the GP's comment that disabling Pocket will speed up the browser.
Curious what is the concern with pocket?
Here are some examples: Proprietary, got integrated into firefox for no apparent reason (hard to disable), had a security breach and privacy issue, got bought by mozilla for an undisclosed sum (millions), promises to open source have only been promises so far, acquisition turned to have been more a bout buying the 10 millions user base to get into mobile and 1 billion entries to feed to the upcoming recommendation engine.
This is basically an anti-vaxx-ish comment. Open sourcing propritary software is not easy, and IDK how you come to that last conclusion if yours that you're pushing all over the place. When pocket first appeared in FF, I was mad, but when Mozilla bought it I thought I could finally use the thing.
It's troubled past and weird current state, doesn't make me comfortable with sharing any info that Mozilla shares with them.
Mozilla acquired Pocket a while back. So "shares with them" really means "shares with itself" :)
1. It was 7 mos ago, I do not consider that "Awhile Back"
2. Mozilla Inc acquired it as a Commercial Proprietary Venture, not as a Open Source project under the Mozilla Foundation the non-profit
3. While it is Owned by Mozilla Inc, it of operated as a Separate Commercial Company separate from the Non-Profit so no it is "shares with it self"
4. The integration occurred long before the acquisition
2. Mozilla Inc acquired it as a Commercial Proprietary Venture, not as a Open Source project under the Mozilla Foundation the non-profit
3. While it is Owned by Mozilla Inc, it of operated as a Separate Commercial Company separate from the Non-Profit so no it is "shares with it self"
4. The integration occurred long before the acquisition
Turns out there are alternatives to chrome other than firefox. even open source ones.
At the risk of huge levels of snark, if the "open web" dies because Firefox dies (already a bit player in the browser wars, 11%ish), it was suicide, not murder.
I believe the Open Web died as soon as they Caved to MS/Google on DRM, and choose to oppose the EFF in their battle to prevent DRM in becoming a standard.
Mozilla is now an enemy of the Open Web, the EFF is one of the last organizations left actually standing up for the Open Web. Mozilla is just another Commercial Browser with anti-user features
To be clear I am not laying all the blame at the feet of Mozilla, clearly the Open Web is not an important issue, as even in Linux circles there are countless people that have chosen Google over freedom, making endless excuses and justifications about why choosing chrome was just pragmatic but in making that "pragmatic" choice they sent a clear market signal that performance and netflix was more important the Open web, privacy, and user freedom.
They sent a clear market signal to Mozilla that principles do not matter, and Mozilla took that market signal to heart and turned its back on the Principles of the Open web and privacy to focus more on Performance and Usability to appease those users
Mozilla is now an enemy of the Open Web, the EFF is one of the last organizations left actually standing up for the Open Web. Mozilla is just another Commercial Browser with anti-user features
To be clear I am not laying all the blame at the feet of Mozilla, clearly the Open Web is not an important issue, as even in Linux circles there are countless people that have chosen Google over freedom, making endless excuses and justifications about why choosing chrome was just pragmatic but in making that "pragmatic" choice they sent a clear market signal that performance and netflix was more important the Open web, privacy, and user freedom.
They sent a clear market signal to Mozilla that principles do not matter, and Mozilla took that market signal to heart and turned its back on the Principles of the Open web and privacy to focus more on Performance and Usability to appease those users
[deleted]
So, what would you do to oppose, say, EME? What cost would you be willing to pay? Would you be OK with, for example, some number of people being badly injured or possibly dying if it would guarantee a permanent end to DRM? How many people?
This is not hyperbole, by the way: when you adopt the sort of you-agree-with-me-completely-or-you're-my-enemy rhetoric you're using here, well, people's lives are what you're saying you're willing to sacrifice. Mozilla could have taken a suicidal stand on principle, and I guarantee it would have hurt a significant number of people, and possibly led to lives lost (through joblessness, through emboldened powerful interests flush with victory over an all-in opposition, through any number of mechanisms).
So. How many human lives would it be worth to you to get EME out of browsers?
This is not hyperbole, by the way: when you adopt the sort of you-agree-with-me-completely-or-you're-my-enemy rhetoric you're using here, well, people's lives are what you're saying you're willing to sacrifice. Mozilla could have taken a suicidal stand on principle, and I guarantee it would have hurt a significant number of people, and possibly led to lives lost (through joblessness, through emboldened powerful interests flush with victory over an all-in opposition, through any number of mechanisms).
So. How many human lives would it be worth to you to get EME out of browsers?
>>This is not hyperbole
yes, yes it is
The idea the opposing EME and keeping EME out of the HTML5 Standard would have some how "cost lives" is moronic and hyperbolic to such a degree I will not even waste my time responding to it.
yes, yes it is
The idea the opposing EME and keeping EME out of the HTML5 Standard would have some how "cost lives" is moronic and hyperbolic to such a degree I will not even waste my time responding to it.
The idea the opposing EME and keeping EME out of the HTML5 Standard would have some how "cost lives" is moronic and hyperbolic to such a degree I will not even waste my time responding to it.
So imagine a world in which you get your way. Every browser is forced to un-implement EME, the standard is force-amended to not include it anymore, etc.
Now what? Well, what happens now is popular media stays popular, and continues to be delivered via big binary-blob plugins with horrible security properties.
What's the human cost of hacks? What's the human cost of the security issues those plugins open up? How many people end up financially ruined due to personal information being stolen? How many people end up on the street because their credit gets trashed? How many in prison because a plugin vulnerability turned their computer into a node for serving kiddie porn and murder markets over Tor?
It is nowhere near unreasonable to ask how many lives you'd consider an acceptable cost for defeating EME, because there absolutely would be a human cost to it. It's a human cost we're already paying right now, and the major argument in favor of EME is that it helps us reduce or eliminate that human cost.
And this is where single-issue "you are 100% with me or 100% my enemy" stances are proven to be utterly morally bankrupt. It's not just that you implicitly accept that human cost as a means to serving your end. It's that you won't even acknowledge that the cost exists. That puts you in the company of some very evil people, and should perhaps get you to re-think your position.
So imagine a world in which you get your way. Every browser is forced to un-implement EME, the standard is force-amended to not include it anymore, etc.
Now what? Well, what happens now is popular media stays popular, and continues to be delivered via big binary-blob plugins with horrible security properties.
What's the human cost of hacks? What's the human cost of the security issues those plugins open up? How many people end up financially ruined due to personal information being stolen? How many people end up on the street because their credit gets trashed? How many in prison because a plugin vulnerability turned their computer into a node for serving kiddie porn and murder markets over Tor?
It is nowhere near unreasonable to ask how many lives you'd consider an acceptable cost for defeating EME, because there absolutely would be a human cost to it. It's a human cost we're already paying right now, and the major argument in favor of EME is that it helps us reduce or eliminate that human cost.
And this is where single-issue "you are 100% with me or 100% my enemy" stances are proven to be utterly morally bankrupt. It's not just that you implicitly accept that human cost as a means to serving your end. It's that you won't even acknowledge that the cost exists. That puts you in the company of some very evil people, and should perhaps get you to re-think your position.
>>>Now what? Well, what happens now is popular media stays popular, and continues to be delivered via big binary-blob plugins with horrible security properties.
EME is big binary blob plugins called CDM's, EME is just a different API to access the binary plugins that will have (and have already had) all kinds of security issues
>What's the human cost of hacks? What's the human cost of the security issues those plugins open up? How many people end up financially ruined due to personal information being stolen? How many people end up on the street because their credit gets trashed? How many in prison because a plugin vulnerability turned their computer into a node for serving kiddie porn and murder markets over Tor?
Hyperbolic Much, Everyone Info is already out there now and it was not Flash or Java or any browser vunerablity at all that caused it. The idea that the source of people having their Credit Card data and other personal info stolen is the browser shows your ignorance in the field of InfoSec.
Browser are a source for Fraud and Ransomware. Databases of Ruin are targets for ID Theft, that is the database of Large Corporations like Equifax, Target, Yahoo, Anthem, Sony, Adobe, Ebay, etc etc etc
Companies that collect and store PII, they are not hacking individual computers to obtain PII, they are dumping databases
>>It is nowhere near unreasonable to ask how many lives you'd consider an acceptable cost for defeating EME, because there absolutely would be a human cost to it. It's a human cost we're already paying right now, and the major argument in favor of EME is that it helps us reduce or eliminate that human cost.
So you assume in this moronic equation of your that there are zero lives lost in the implementation of EME, The sharing of knowledge via the open web is a huge driver of getting people out of poverty, and improving the lives of billions world wide. In change political regimes that abuse, and torture their population.
How many lives will be lost because all knowledge is locked into wall gardens and accessible only via "approved" platforms, and only for "approved" purposes.
EME is big binary blob plugins called CDM's, EME is just a different API to access the binary plugins that will have (and have already had) all kinds of security issues
>What's the human cost of hacks? What's the human cost of the security issues those plugins open up? How many people end up financially ruined due to personal information being stolen? How many people end up on the street because their credit gets trashed? How many in prison because a plugin vulnerability turned their computer into a node for serving kiddie porn and murder markets over Tor?
Hyperbolic Much, Everyone Info is already out there now and it was not Flash or Java or any browser vunerablity at all that caused it. The idea that the source of people having their Credit Card data and other personal info stolen is the browser shows your ignorance in the field of InfoSec.
Browser are a source for Fraud and Ransomware. Databases of Ruin are targets for ID Theft, that is the database of Large Corporations like Equifax, Target, Yahoo, Anthem, Sony, Adobe, Ebay, etc etc etc
Companies that collect and store PII, they are not hacking individual computers to obtain PII, they are dumping databases
>>It is nowhere near unreasonable to ask how many lives you'd consider an acceptable cost for defeating EME, because there absolutely would be a human cost to it. It's a human cost we're already paying right now, and the major argument in favor of EME is that it helps us reduce or eliminate that human cost.
So you assume in this moronic equation of your that there are zero lives lost in the implementation of EME, The sharing of knowledge via the open web is a huge driver of getting people out of poverty, and improving the lives of billions world wide. In change political regimes that abuse, and torture their population.
How many lives will be lost because all knowledge is locked into wall gardens and accessible only via "approved" platforms, and only for "approved" purposes.
EME is big binary blob plugins called CDM's
The plugin world had big binary blobs that need the ability to absolutely control at least most or all of the browser and possibly other parts of the computer too.
The EME world has far smaller binary blobs communicating over a narrow defined API which does not give them control of the browser.
So. You don't actually know what you're talking about, and resort to misrepresentations and insults to try to cover up for it. Real great "principled" stand you're taking there.
The plugin world had big binary blobs that need the ability to absolutely control at least most or all of the browser and possibly other parts of the computer too.
The EME world has far smaller binary blobs communicating over a narrow defined API which does not give them control of the browser.
So. You don't actually know what you're talking about, and resort to misrepresentations and insults to try to cover up for it. Real great "principled" stand you're taking there.
CDM require total control of the OS and Hardware, far worse than just control over the Browser.
So it is you that do not know what you are talking about
So it is you that do not know what you are talking about
Here's the spec: https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/
Please point to the portion which backs your assertion.
Please point to the portion which backs your assertion.
And strengthening the stranglehold of copyright holders, doesn't help them ruin lives in a similar way through court systems?
DRM will exist with or without EME, and web-based distribution of major popular media will use that DRM in whatever form it takes. So EME versus no EME is a wash there, and I've argued at length that killing DRM cannot be done via "principled stands" -- it has to be done via market forces, as it was with online distribution of music.
Meanwhile, the rhetoric I was responding to was very much of the "people who only 99.99999% agree with me will be first against the wall when the revolution comes" school of thinking.
Meanwhile, the rhetoric I was responding to was very much of the "people who only 99.99999% agree with me will be first against the wall when the revolution comes" school of thinking.
>>DRM will exist with or without EME
Exactly so there was not need to include it in the Standard
>and web-based distribution of major popular media will use that DRM in whatever form it takes.
Lost of popular media does not use DRM at all
>and I've argued at length that killing DRM cannot be done via "principled stands"
No it can only be done by principled stands
>it has to be done via market forces, as it was with online distribution of music.
That was killed by a principled stand not by market forces, the record labels wanted DRM, consumer did not give a shit, a few companies made a principled stand to say no...
That said, even if you want to claim it should be market forces that dictate DRM, then let the market decide by not ham fisting it into a Standard for HTML5.
That distorts the market and is the exact reason MS, Google and Netflix wanted to ensure it was in the Standard so they would not have to explain to the market why the DRM was there, why X device did not work with their products or have to compete in the market place on DRM or no DRM. DRM is "standard" now so there is no market competition for it.
I love all the DRM supporters (which you clearly are despite your claims to not be) that say "DRM was inevitable and putting in the standard would not change anything" Well then why put it in the standard? If it does not change anything, if it does not change the market, if having it in the standard is pointless why did MS/Google/Netflix/MPAA fight so hard to get it in?
because it does in fact matter. It does in fact change the market, and the conversation. Something being a "Standard" normalizes it in the market, allowing it to deployed faster, easier and with less consumer backlash. That was the entire point of the EME Spec, to normalize DRM to the consumer to make it less controversial, and more palatable
Exactly so there was not need to include it in the Standard
>and web-based distribution of major popular media will use that DRM in whatever form it takes.
Lost of popular media does not use DRM at all
>and I've argued at length that killing DRM cannot be done via "principled stands"
No it can only be done by principled stands
>it has to be done via market forces, as it was with online distribution of music.
That was killed by a principled stand not by market forces, the record labels wanted DRM, consumer did not give a shit, a few companies made a principled stand to say no...
That said, even if you want to claim it should be market forces that dictate DRM, then let the market decide by not ham fisting it into a Standard for HTML5.
That distorts the market and is the exact reason MS, Google and Netflix wanted to ensure it was in the Standard so they would not have to explain to the market why the DRM was there, why X device did not work with their products or have to compete in the market place on DRM or no DRM. DRM is "standard" now so there is no market competition for it.
I love all the DRM supporters (which you clearly are despite your claims to not be) that say "DRM was inevitable and putting in the standard would not change anything" Well then why put it in the standard? If it does not change anything, if it does not change the market, if having it in the standard is pointless why did MS/Google/Netflix/MPAA fight so hard to get it in?
because it does in fact matter. It does in fact change the market, and the conversation. Something being a "Standard" normalizes it in the market, allowing it to deployed faster, easier and with less consumer backlash. That was the entire point of the EME Spec, to normalize DRM to the consumer to make it less controversial, and more palatable
[deleted]
That was killed by a principled stand not by market forces, the record labels wanted DRM, consumer did not give a shit, a few companies made a principled stand to say no...
Apple introduced a large legal online music store with DRM. Apple got huge. Huge enough that record labels got scared and needed to break Apple's position. They turned to Amazon to start a competing music store, but had a problem: they needed to have the music from Amazon play on devices from Apple, or else people wouldn't shop at Amazon's music store. Since Apple probably wouldn't license Apple's DRM (since, after all, it would be for someone to break Apple's market position), the only option left was DRM-free. And lo and behold, Amazon became the first big music store with major-label music available DRM-free. And once there was one DRM-free store, it became hard to argue, from a market perspective, that there should be any that weren't. So Apple's ended up DRM-free too!
Market forces. Not people taking stands on principle.
That said, even if you want to claim it should be market forces that dictate DRM, then let the market decide by not ham fisting it into a Standard for HTML5.
The fact that you keep claiming EME is DRM tells me that you either don't actually know how EME works or what it does, or that you are willfully lying about it. Which is it, please?
I love all the DRM supporters (which you clearly are despite your claims to not be)
And here we are, back at the assertion that anyone who differs from your position by even a tiny amount must actually be 100% your enemy in every way. This is the kind of thinking that the twentieth century taught us to be very careful around, because it tends to lead to lots and lots and lots of dead bodies, all of them people who were "guilty" of being insufficiently perfectly compliant with the stated ideal.
Apple introduced a large legal online music store with DRM. Apple got huge. Huge enough that record labels got scared and needed to break Apple's position. They turned to Amazon to start a competing music store, but had a problem: they needed to have the music from Amazon play on devices from Apple, or else people wouldn't shop at Amazon's music store. Since Apple probably wouldn't license Apple's DRM (since, after all, it would be for someone to break Apple's market position), the only option left was DRM-free. And lo and behold, Amazon became the first big music store with major-label music available DRM-free. And once there was one DRM-free store, it became hard to argue, from a market perspective, that there should be any that weren't. So Apple's ended up DRM-free too!
Market forces. Not people taking stands on principle.
That said, even if you want to claim it should be market forces that dictate DRM, then let the market decide by not ham fisting it into a Standard for HTML5.
The fact that you keep claiming EME is DRM tells me that you either don't actually know how EME works or what it does, or that you are willfully lying about it. Which is it, please?
I love all the DRM supporters (which you clearly are despite your claims to not be)
And here we are, back at the assertion that anyone who differs from your position by even a tiny amount must actually be 100% your enemy in every way. This is the kind of thinking that the twentieth century taught us to be very careful around, because it tends to lead to lots and lots and lots of dead bodies, all of them people who were "guilty" of being insufficiently perfectly compliant with the stated ideal.
>>>>Apple introduced a large legal online music store with DRM. Apple got huge... Huge enough that record labels got scared and needed to break Apple's position. They turned to Amazon to start a competing music store,
ROFL.... That is ... wow... Nothing about that is factually accurate, to state the Record Labels was the driving force behind DRM free Music...
Ummm No...
>>>The fact that you keep claiming EME is DRM tells me that you either don't actually know how EME works or what it does, or that you are willfully lying about it. Which is it, please?
The fact you believe EME has any other purpose except DRM tell me you do not actually know the purpose of EME, or what is does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPfdOOiuOHI
ROFL.... That is ... wow... Nothing about that is factually accurate, to state the Record Labels was the driving force behind DRM free Music...
Ummm No...
>>>The fact that you keep claiming EME is DRM tells me that you either don't actually know how EME works or what it does, or that you are willfully lying about it. Which is it, please?
The fact you believe EME has any other purpose except DRM tell me you do not actually know the purpose of EME, or what is does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPfdOOiuOHI
I'm not saying the labels wanted to go DRM-free. I'm saying that it was the only option they had at that point. They got legitimately scared of Apple's dominance in the market, and the only way to introduce a viable competitor was to do what they did with Amazon and a DRM-free store.
And just for the record, responses like "ROFL" and calling things "moronic" (as you did in your other comment) don't really make you look like you know what you're talking about or like you're someone who should be taken seriously.
And just for the record, responses like "ROFL" and calling things "moronic" (as you did in your other comment) don't really make you look like you know what you're talking about or like you're someone who should be taken seriously.
It was not the only option that had, nor did they desire in any way to go DRM free, they had to be forced into it by both Amazon and Apple.
And just for the record, responses like your revisionist history, and Hyperbolic non-sense don't really make you look like you know what your talking about or like you're someone who should be taken seriously
And just for the record, responses like your revisionist history, and Hyperbolic non-sense don't really make you look like you know what your talking about or like you're someone who should be taken seriously
[deleted]
I don't know what everyone's problem was with Firefox. I never noticed significant slow down with the browser, or at least the slow down I saw I blamed on Javascript bloat on websites these days (it started around the time Bootstrap and jQuery really took off). I was even running Adblock+ / later uBlock, had lots of tabs open all the time and browsed heavy websites.
I remember reading that comic that Google made to describe how Chrome worked back in 2009 or so, and thinking process-based tabs were a cool idea, but the experience I was having with Firefox was not bad enough to merit the switch, especially with all of the privacy invasion that switching to Chrome would have entailed. I also reckoned that Google would eventually start to block or make it harder to install add-ons like ad blockers - they are, after all, fundamentally an advertising company.
I'm glad I stuck it out with Mozilla. They're one of the few web companies worth trusting.
I remember reading that comic that Google made to describe how Chrome worked back in 2009 or so, and thinking process-based tabs were a cool idea, but the experience I was having with Firefox was not bad enough to merit the switch, especially with all of the privacy invasion that switching to Chrome would have entailed. I also reckoned that Google would eventually start to block or make it harder to install add-ons like ad blockers - they are, after all, fundamentally an advertising company.
I'm glad I stuck it out with Mozilla. They're one of the few web companies worth trusting.
I'm certain that people thought Chrome was faster because they went from a Firefox with loads of extensions and browser history etc. to a fresh Chrome. My experience has been the same as yours: Firefox has never been slower than Chrome.
Same here, did not experience performance issues with firefox despite having several hundred tabs open at all time. I do have decent hardware, but having noscript and an adblocker does wonder to keep the browser smooth.
Maybe it's different under windows ?
When a client calls me because his browsing is slow, it was usually caused by a malware ridden computer not by firefox.
On the other hand, running chrome often felt slower for some reason and the rest of the time both were comparable speed.
Maybe it's different under windows ?
When a client calls me because his browsing is slow, it was usually caused by a malware ridden computer not by firefox.
On the other hand, running chrome often felt slower for some reason and the rest of the time both were comparable speed.
It was slow, janky unresponsive compared to Chrome. Also security was much weaker. I think they addressed some of the issues now.
I agree with the GP -- I never noticed this in Firefox and years back I was surprised to learn after the fact that Chrome had come to dominate in market share. Was Firefox less performant on Windows or something? I never really got what people were complaining about as a user of Firefox on Linux...
However, the new beta is purely awesome. I don't think I've ever been so excited about a new software version release! What a fantastic validation of Rust too in the process.
However, the new beta is purely awesome. I don't think I've ever been so excited about a new software version release! What a fantastic validation of Rust too in the process.
I've used them side by side before and the default scrolling behaviour felt janky as hell.
I'll be very pleased if they have improved performance as much as everybody is saying, I want off the Google botnet.
I'll be very pleased if they have improved performance as much as everybody is saying, I want off the Google botnet.
have you tried waterfox ?
Alternatively have you tried enabling smooth scrolling ?
Alternatively have you tried enabling smooth scrolling ?
My experience is mostly on linux. Chrome was way better on all aspects i mentioned. It was like day and night.
Seems to me you had a corrupted profile or you installed the wrond extension(s). Have you tried comparing both on a brand new user profile ?
A day and night difference on a fresh profile is unheard of, they should be comparable speed.
I am surprised at how many people can't see (or mind) the obvious difference in speed. Here's a test:
Create a fresh clean profile for both FF56 (or earlier) and chrome without any extensions.
Then, create/import a bookmark folder with 20 sites and sync them to both browsers.
Fire up each browser and watch the cpu usage with top (or task manager). Choose "open all in tabs" and monitor the cpu usage over time.
For me chromium finishes loading 3-5x faster. By "finishes loading" I mean all spinning circles in tabs are gone and the cpu usage drops to nearly 0%.
Firefox uses only 2 processes/threads, while chromium makes use of all cores. I am guessing the more cores your CPU has, the more obvious the difference. But you don't need an 8-core cpu to see the difference, the difference is as noticeable for me on my i5-6200U laptop.
But page loading speed and JS performance aside, what turned me away from firefox is the sluggish UI. Little things like how fast the dev tools open, or the speed at which right-click menus open. It's like firefox freezes for a millisecond on these operations while chrome feels much more fluid. I don't have a test case for this :)
I never really used Firefox, and I give it a go every year or so. I used Opera 12 for as long as I could precisely because of the FF UI responsiveness. Then Chrome came along. I keep looking back but... FF is not there yet for me.
I'm no fan of Google and I really hope the new FF is as good as people claim to be. Remains to be seen, having high hopes!
EDIT: Obviously if you have a slow internet link then the pipe becomes the bottleneck and both browsers will load sites at same speed. But in that case you could just close all tabs and reopen them and let the browsers load most of the stuff from cache.
Create a fresh clean profile for both FF56 (or earlier) and chrome without any extensions.
Then, create/import a bookmark folder with 20 sites and sync them to both browsers.
Fire up each browser and watch the cpu usage with top (or task manager). Choose "open all in tabs" and monitor the cpu usage over time.
For me chromium finishes loading 3-5x faster. By "finishes loading" I mean all spinning circles in tabs are gone and the cpu usage drops to nearly 0%.
Firefox uses only 2 processes/threads, while chromium makes use of all cores. I am guessing the more cores your CPU has, the more obvious the difference. But you don't need an 8-core cpu to see the difference, the difference is as noticeable for me on my i5-6200U laptop.
But page loading speed and JS performance aside, what turned me away from firefox is the sluggish UI. Little things like how fast the dev tools open, or the speed at which right-click menus open. It's like firefox freezes for a millisecond on these operations while chrome feels much more fluid. I don't have a test case for this :)
I never really used Firefox, and I give it a go every year or so. I used Opera 12 for as long as I could precisely because of the FF UI responsiveness. Then Chrome came along. I keep looking back but... FF is not there yet for me.
I'm no fan of Google and I really hope the new FF is as good as people claim to be. Remains to be seen, having high hopes!
EDIT: Obviously if you have a slow internet link then the pipe becomes the bottleneck and both browsers will load sites at same speed. But in that case you could just close all tabs and reopen them and let the browsers load most of the stuff from cache.
Of course. My profiles were not corrupt, also tried with empty profiles, tbh firefox performance degraded much faster after profiles got heavier. This was some time ago though. To be honest it was impossible to not see the performance difference, chrome is always more fluid and snappy.
What kind of hardware and OS were you running when you experienced this ? My own experience over a number of different computers, years and settings is the exact opposite: chrome being less responsive or both being about the same.
At times firefox was slower but it always turned out to be due to a malware ridden computer or a combination of dubious firefox extensions. srware iron did feel faster than both iunder certain conditions though.
At times firefox was slower but it always turned out to be due to a malware ridden computer or a combination of dubious firefox extensions. srware iron did feel faster than both iunder certain conditions though.
people have wildly different sensitivity to software latency. some people perceive one second as instant. other people are driven mad by it.
> It’s no secret that Mozilla squandered a lot of time and energy on various projects that went nowhere (think its mobile phone OS, IoT services, creating a built-in video chat service, etc.).
The "built-in video chat service" is a webstandard. Called WebRTC, got mainly pushed by Google. Every modern browser implements this. Mozilla just decided to build a service which implements the server-side of this protocol. Which they needed anyways to test their client-side implementation.
So, the only squandered time and energy is that of the UX people that polished that server-side implementation up for public use.
And in return for that, Mozilla got excellent testing of their client-side implementation and direct feedback, if maybe people would want the Foundation to allocate some money to run such a service.
The "built-in video chat service" is a webstandard. Called WebRTC, got mainly pushed by Google. Every modern browser implements this. Mozilla just decided to build a service which implements the server-side of this protocol. Which they needed anyways to test their client-side implementation.
So, the only squandered time and energy is that of the UX people that polished that server-side implementation up for public use.
And in return for that, Mozilla got excellent testing of their client-side implementation and direct feedback, if maybe people would want the Foundation to allocate some money to run such a service.
The WebRTC servers for the "Firefox Hello" service were maintained by Telefonica. Mozilla just built the front-end UI and WebRTC client.
I had tried to migrate back to Firefox so many times that I got burned on it and decided it wasn't worth trying again. Despite this, when I heard the Quantum announcement I decided to give it a download and immediately fell in love again. Photon looks great, the dev tools are wonderful, and it's Fast. And this thing doesn't have annoying Chrome idiosyncrasies - I can tell Firefox to permanently trust my Kubernetes cert without painstakingly adding it to the OS trusted certificates list. Firefox Sync works well and I like being able to send tabs to my phone. Speaking of which, you know what really rules? Installing plain old uBlock Origin on my phone. Which I did. I am loving everything about this and I really hope we're turning a new corner. Say Google, want to get Hangouts working in Firefox yet?
Curious, before this last time, when was the last time you tried to migrate back? Because I've been enjoying the majority of the things you've cited (other than quantum) for the last few years or so now.
A couple major releases ago. To be fair, most of this isn't new, but other problems had precluded my ability to move for a long time to enjoy these features. For example, the app we developed at my workplace was painfully unusably slow in Firefox (even slower than Edge sometimes!)
I also previously had problems with single tabs causing stuff to lock up or at least respond slowly. This happened with SoundCloud a couple times. Seems good now!
Nightly always helped a bit, but I had trouble with that too. This nightly has yet to crash once across the 4 computers and 2 Android devices I've installed it to, so I'm very impressed. I previously used LastPass which broke several times on Nightly builds in the past. Since then I've migrated to 1password, an unrelated but definitely pleasant change for using Firefox.
But mostly, boy those perf improvements are real. Side by side, it's hard to believe how fast performance changed between versions.
I also previously had problems with single tabs causing stuff to lock up or at least respond slowly. This happened with SoundCloud a couple times. Seems good now!
Nightly always helped a bit, but I had trouble with that too. This nightly has yet to crash once across the 4 computers and 2 Android devices I've installed it to, so I'm very impressed. I previously used LastPass which broke several times on Nightly builds in the past. Since then I've migrated to 1password, an unrelated but definitely pleasant change for using Firefox.
But mostly, boy those perf improvements are real. Side by side, it's hard to believe how fast performance changed between versions.
> the app we developed at my workplace was painfully unusably slow in Firefox
Have you considered addressing this bug?
Have you considered addressing this bug?
From which end? FWIW, Quantum seemed to fix it. There doesn't seem to be a "bug," just stuff that used to be slow in Firefox. I think people understate how much faster Chrome had been for certain real world workloads.
Of course, the app is being improved too, but apples to apples, Quantum makes it better.
Of course, the app is being improved too, but apples to apples, Quantum makes it better.
Lastpass being borky in Firefox Nightly is one of the reasons I switched back to Chrome some months ago. You're saying 1password is great on Firefox? Do you prefer 1password in general now, if so, why? Lastpass is a lot cheaper for one.
1password is less convenient in some ways but more in others. For example, it works better with native apps since I can at least bring up 1password mini at any time with the keyboard shortcut. It also supports storing TOTP alongside passwords, which obviously removes some of the robustness but is really convenient and retains some benefits of OTPs - after autofill, it copies TOTP to clipboard, so you can hit the autofill shortcut, Ctrl+V, enter and be logged in. Plus, I can trust their security more than I can trust LastPass - they have a nice, detailed whitepaper, a good track record, and the support of experts.
It's expensive, but it's good software. Especially the Mac OS version. It also supports the new Android 8 autofill API, which is already kind of useful.
It's expensive, but it's good software. Especially the Mac OS version. It also supports the new Android 8 autofill API, which is already kind of useful.
Never abandoned Firefox. Now what? :)
And please, donate to Mozilla, if you can. They really do deserve some help. Fighting against giants like Google, MS and Apple... They have products running on all kinds of possible platforms, also on old Android phones! And they have some of the best extensions.
And please, donate to Mozilla, if you can. They really do deserve some help. Fighting against giants like Google, MS and Apple... They have products running on all kinds of possible platforms, also on old Android phones! And they have some of the best extensions.
Donations go to the non-profit Mozilla Foundation, not to the Mozilla Corporation, and are used for many worthy (non-Firefox) endeavors:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/
The Corporation (which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Foundation i.e. only has a single shareholder, the Foundation) brings in revenue mostly through search engine deals, which is how it's able to pay staff to work on Firefox.
Unsurprisingly, it's a bit confusing... I think having the ultimate owner of the Corporation and the trademarks etc. be the Foundation is a good thing, even though it makes actually funding everything appropriately a bit complex.
Don't forget that Firefox is an open-source project, so contributions of time are always welcome! https://whatcanidoformozilla.org
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/
The Corporation (which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Foundation i.e. only has a single shareholder, the Foundation) brings in revenue mostly through search engine deals, which is how it's able to pay staff to work on Firefox.
Unsurprisingly, it's a bit confusing... I think having the ultimate owner of the Corporation and the trademarks etc. be the Foundation is a good thing, even though it makes actually funding everything appropriately a bit complex.
Don't forget that Firefox is an open-source project, so contributions of time are always welcome! https://whatcanidoformozilla.org
> And they have some of the best extensions.
Sadly 11 of the 14 extensions i use do not work on Firefox 57 (i just tried it). The browser is indeed faster - it feels faster than Chrome and Edge - but i never really had an issue with its performance. On the other hand i have a very big issue with the functionality that is lost. Stylish, FireFTP, Greasemonkey (with its own extensions), Better Reader, DownThemAll and a bunch of other addons are things i rely on almost daily (e.g. the internet became way brighter the moment Stylish stopped working :-P) and there are either no plans to update, no alternatives or the alternatives are simply way inferior (e.g. FireFTP is my favorite (S)FTP client for years now, i use DownThemAll for pretty much every download, i use Stylish themes in many sites to tone the sunburns down, i use Better Reader to make Reader mode actually usable, etc.
Firefox is sadly solving a problem i never had and in the process it introduces a problem that for me is a showstopper.
Sadly 11 of the 14 extensions i use do not work on Firefox 57 (i just tried it). The browser is indeed faster - it feels faster than Chrome and Edge - but i never really had an issue with its performance. On the other hand i have a very big issue with the functionality that is lost. Stylish, FireFTP, Greasemonkey (with its own extensions), Better Reader, DownThemAll and a bunch of other addons are things i rely on almost daily (e.g. the internet became way brighter the moment Stylish stopped working :-P) and there are either no plans to update, no alternatives or the alternatives are simply way inferior (e.g. FireFTP is my favorite (S)FTP client for years now, i use DownThemAll for pretty much every download, i use Stylish themes in many sites to tone the sunburns down, i use Better Reader to make Reader mode actually usable, etc.
Firefox is sadly solving a problem i never had and in the process it introduces a problem that for me is a showstopper.
same with me. vimperator doesn't work on fx57, which means i won't be updating soon.
it's a big dealbreaker for me.
it's a big dealbreaker for me.
They're transitioning way too quickly. There is going to be scorched earth if they stick to the plan to stop supporting legacy extensions in version 57. Over 10 basic extensions I use no longer work and have no replacement that works with the new webextensions... there's not even the ability to export all cookies for wget -- they need to reevaluate their timeline.
Looked into Palemoon?
Yes, but it doesn't seem to support all Firefox extensions and they've said they will not support WebExtensions (which is a dealbreaker from the other side since some extensions i use are WebExtensions and some new ones will only appear as WebExtensions).
AFAIK, donations to Mozilla Foundation can't actually fund development projects by Mozilla Corporation (like Firefox, etc.)
The best way to help them out is to help get the marketshare back up, so that the next time they sign a contract for the default search provider, they have more negotiating power.
The best way to help them out is to help get the marketshare back up, so that the next time they sign a contract for the default search provider, they have more negotiating power.
They have a lot of money in the bank. Donations are a drop in the bucket and I would even argue that there are other orgs that deserve your money more than Mozilla.
> They have a lot of money in the bank. Donations are a drop in the bucket
What is the basis for these statements? Mozilla's budget is far less than its competitors, Google, Apple, and Microsoft; I expect they could find good uses for a little more.
What is the basis for these statements? Mozilla's budget is far less than its competitors, Google, Apple, and Microsoft; I expect they could find good uses for a little more.
They've got 1000+ employees (in 2015 at least). I don't imagine them having more money really helping anything.
edit: in response to fabrice's comment about other orgs, checkout http://www.givewell.org/
edit: in response to fabrice's comment about other orgs, checkout http://www.givewell.org/
> They've got 1000+ employees (in 2015 at least). I don't imagine them having more money really helping anything.
I don't follow that argument; the evidence seems inconclusive. That's not a lot of people for a software company developing multiple products (and in 2015 they still were developing FirefoxOS), including one as complex and fast-moving as a major web browser, as well as furthering other missions.
Do you know how many work on Firefox, compared with Chrome, IE, and Safari? What are the budgets for the other browsers and for Firefox? That would be evidence that would be applicable.
I don't follow that argument; the evidence seems inconclusive. That's not a lot of people for a software company developing multiple products (and in 2015 they still were developing FirefoxOS), including one as complex and fast-moving as a major web browser, as well as furthering other missions.
Do you know how many work on Firefox, compared with Chrome, IE, and Safari? What are the budgets for the other browsers and for Firefox? That would be evidence that would be applicable.
I was a Mozilla employee so I kind of know the numbers. The CEO is always claiming during the all hands that Mozilla's financial situation is better than ever.
Oh, and about finding good use for their money: they laid off excellent system platform engineers earlier this year, while keeping some failed execs on payroll. That tells a lot about what the priorities of the leadership are.
They don't share their reports since 2015 - basically when the contract with Google ended.
Now, I don't think they are poor, but being a company that doesn't sell your data, doesn't show ads, etc...
I mean, frankly, I think that such products are really hard to find nowadays. Their revenues come primarily by Google competitors (Yahoo, etc., which try to appear as default search engine).
Now, I don't think they are poor, but being a company that doesn't sell your data, doesn't show ads, etc...
I mean, frankly, I think that such products are really hard to find nowadays. Their revenues come primarily by Google competitors (Yahoo, etc., which try to appear as default search engine).
>They don't share their reports since 2015 - basically when the contract with Google ended.
That's not true at all. The 2015 report was published at the end of 2016. Likewise, the 2016 report should be out by the end of the year.
That's not true at all. The 2015 report was published at the end of 2016. Likewise, the 2016 report should be out by the end of the year.
It was not meant to diminish them, of course. It was a sort of weird argument against "they are rich already" - considering that their last report is dated to 2015, how do we know what happened in the last 1-2 years?
Firefox has been my daily driver for 2-3 years now. I’d switched to Chrome several years before that but when FF fixed its lag issues I went back right away.
Mozilla overplay the “not for profit” card but with Google you can be sure they are collecting and archiving absolutely everything that passes through their servers.
Mozilla overplay the “not for profit” card but with Google you can be sure they are collecting and archiving absolutely everything that passes through their servers.
Firefox is fast but I'm using several profiles (one for programming websites, one for sysadmin accounts, one for personal, one for politics) and running ~3 instances is sluggish. Chrome has built-in profile management so it's just as fast with 1 or 3 instances. I don't believe it's such an unusual usecase, even my parents ask me all the time how to protect their privacy. A good idea that Ted Cruz might have missed.
This is the major roadblock for me to leave Chrome. The Firefox containers are close, but don't quite hit the mark in the same way as Chrome's profiles.
Yeah I'd really like built in profile support. Tab containers aren't the same thing for me. Neither is the round about way of using profiles currently in Firefox.
Firefox has tab containers.
Now that I've used tab containers quite a bit they do require much more cognitive work than profiles. Having to always be aware of which tab container you are on rather than which browser window profile.
Maybe that's just me though.
Maybe that's just me though.
I understand Firefox certainly made a safe implementation, but the risk of making a mistake is too high.
Everything that pass through their servers? This Bs is thrown around so much, no one cares if it is true or not anymore.
Assuming that one switches to Google as the default search engine (I'd love to know how many do - additionally I beleive Google is the default outside the US anyway), there's effectively no difference. Neither browser does anything special wrt privacy, the same resources and scripts are loaded in both. Safari are the only browser brave enough to try anythng more exciting in this area. (OK, Brave are also in this area, but they're not of much significance right now.)
Sure, Firefox's private browsing does offer tracking protection. But most "normal" users don't seem to use that. And some would argue there's little value in blocking tracking in a session that will be wiped anyway.
Sure, Firefox's private browsing does offer tracking protection. But most "normal" users don't seem to use that. And some would argue there's little value in blocking tracking in a session that will be wiped anyway.
One can assume Google is tracking a ton of data beyond just what Google searches users do.
Firefox users who pick Google as the search engine are still giving a lot of info to Google, but less info than Google would have had if the user was using Chrome.
Firefox users who pick Google as the search engine are still giving a lot of info to Google, but less info than Google would have had if the user was using Chrome.
Citation needed.
Google Analytcs and ads are so widely that most of your browsing will be tracked regardless of browser, even regardless of your search engine (but the search engine is also quite major since they can track what you were trying to search for before jumping into the web).
But there's also a privacy policy explaining what chrome actually sends: https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/privacy/
Google Analytcs and ads are so widely that most of your browsing will be tracked regardless of browser, even regardless of your search engine (but the search engine is also quite major since they can track what you were trying to search for before jumping into the web).
But there's also a privacy policy explaining what chrome actually sends: https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/privacy/
>Citation needed.
A company known for tracking the ever-loving shit out of everyone across the Internet distributes a best-in-class web browser absolutely for free. If that's not enough, I really hope you're able to hold on to that innocence as you start using the Internet more and more in the future.
A company known for tracking the ever-loving shit out of everyone across the Internet distributes a best-in-class web browser absolutely for free. If that's not enough, I really hope you're able to hold on to that innocence as you start using the Internet more and more in the future.
Sorry to go off on you because this is a larger issue then your comment but seriously, can we hold this discussion to a higher standard?
Prove to me that Google is tracking me through Chrome. Link me to an article with proof of collection.
Most of us our developers here, surely we can apply some more rigor to this conversation then “we know Google is doing this because it’s Google”.
Prove to me that Google is tracking me through Chrome. Link me to an article with proof of collection.
Most of us our developers here, surely we can apply some more rigor to this conversation then “we know Google is doing this because it’s Google”.
If you sign in to Chrome, your history is game for ad matching according to Google https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/165139
Sure, but if you sign into your Google account on any browser it does the same thing.
It's not unique to Chrome. There are additional sync options that are available to Chrome, but those are all opt in.
It's not unique to Chrome. There are additional sync options that are available to Chrome, but those are all opt in.
just sign into Chrome, and visit myactivity.google.com
you'll see your browsing history, which unless you have a preference turned off deep within settings, Google may then use to target advertising.
you'll see your browsing history, which unless you have a preference turned off deep within settings, Google may then use to target advertising.
[deleted]
freehunter(4)
Their point is that Chrome isn't sending all the data and their privacy policy for CHROME points this out.
This isn't difficult to test: sandbox default chrome in a VM and see what happens.
But they don't need to because of your point. uMatrix makes it plenty clear all your bits are belong to Google.
This isn't difficult to test: sandbox default chrome in a VM and see what happens.
But they don't need to because of your point. uMatrix makes it plenty clear all your bits are belong to Google.
I hope he doesn't. The biggest problem for privacy is the completely ingorant knowledge/attitude the vast amount of people has towards it.
It is worth mentioning Chromium is open source too.
And known to contain questionable things.
https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
The point is how it compares to Firefox though.
And the answer, particularly in light of the above link, is that compared to Firefox it falls utterly short.
The github repo shows it compares poorly to Firefox for privacy.
You can also turn off search suggestions for the address bar so it only sends things to Google when you search.
It's still giving search information to Google, but that's much more preferable to sending literally everything you type in the box.
It's still giving search information to Google, but that's much more preferable to sending literally everything you type in the box.
Privacy is a tricky thing and a bit of a spectrum.
I will happily give up some information in exchange for a service that I like. I'll happily give Google my search history, including typos in the search bar, in exchange for them tailoring my responses.
Why? The difference in results is huge. I don't need to specific that I'm looking for Linux answers, math functions, or scientific results. Google knows this, it has learned it from the many years of data that I have given them. Searching anonymously makes my search much less productive and less efficient.
At the same time, I don't want Google watching me poop. I'm okay with then knowing some things, but not others. I've been pretty open with Google, knowingly so, just to get these tailored responses and, to me, they are worth it.
There's still lots of things I don't tell Google. There are still lots of companies that don't give me anything I value, so I don't willingly give them information. It's a sliding scale and needs recipricocity from the business entity, I expect a return from my giving up information.
It's also a very individual choice and best decided at the individual level. I give Google info, but I'd never say someone else should have to. I think it possible to optimize for just that.
I will happily give up some information in exchange for a service that I like. I'll happily give Google my search history, including typos in the search bar, in exchange for them tailoring my responses.
Why? The difference in results is huge. I don't need to specific that I'm looking for Linux answers, math functions, or scientific results. Google knows this, it has learned it from the many years of data that I have given them. Searching anonymously makes my search much less productive and less efficient.
At the same time, I don't want Google watching me poop. I'm okay with then knowing some things, but not others. I've been pretty open with Google, knowingly so, just to get these tailored responses and, to me, they are worth it.
There's still lots of things I don't tell Google. There are still lots of companies that don't give me anything I value, so I don't willingly give them information. It's a sliding scale and needs recipricocity from the business entity, I expect a return from my giving up information.
It's also a very individual choice and best decided at the individual level. I give Google info, but I'd never say someone else should have to. I think it possible to optimize for just that.
> that I'm looking for Linux answers, math functions, or scientific results. Google knows this, it has learned it
FYI, I've been using an anonymized front-end (startpage.com) to Google for the last year and I'm not noticing any degradation in the quality of the search results. Startpage doesn't even set a cookie, so I doubt it is tracking me and learning what interests me.
FYI, I've been using an anonymized front-end (startpage.com) to Google for the last year and I'm not noticing any degradation in the quality of the search results. Startpage doesn't even set a cookie, so I doubt it is tracking me and learning what interests me.
I have tested, numerous times and over a period of years, and I get very different results when I'm logged in and when I'm not logged in. I have the option enabled to track me and personalize my results. I have checked the differences with use of alternative browsers and devices, while using a VPN and not, and even just using alternative profiles.
I also have a media box (well, a series of them over the years) that uses an entirely separate profile. That profile does a lot of YouTube and music. It had learned that I prefer documentaries - though not much more than that. It has also seemed to learn that I prefer isolated guitar tracks and classical guitar. It will now preferentially offer me the isolated guitar track in the top few links, even without including it in my search query. It used to offer different versions, covers, and live versions of the track. I can't get it to offer the isolated track as the primary result, at least not at this time.
I've been monitoring this for quite a while and have watched the improvements. I've even set up the second account, the one mentioned for media, just because I'd observed the effect.
To see the effect, you need to be logged in AND tell them to personalize your results. I'm not sure if that is enabled by default.
I admit this is just anecdotal, but I've made it a point to monitor this since about 2010, which is when I first noticed the option in the settings. I've checked it against being logged out, with different IP addresses, with alternative browsers, and on computers that do not belong to me. The results are remarkably different, though they are pretty generic after the first 20 listed results.
So, in this case, I've given information (privacy) in exchange for results that are more suitable for my personal needs.
I do wish I could select profiles. I'd like to be able to search with my 'generic' profile, my 'tech' profile, my 'music' profile, and my 'entertainment' profile. I think it'd give me more precision and would help me weed out my more generic searches.
Unless you have it blocked, Google also uses a tracking URL on their results. It will say, even if you mouse over it, example.com. But, when you click on it, it actually uses a URL like google.com/tracking/some numbers/example.com. So, they know what links you clicked. I suspect they also log which one you clicked last, so they have an indicator as to which result you found the most helpful.
I should note that links open in a new tab automatically, so they can also track browser session and see when I've completed my searching and can infer more from that information.
I used to also have a developer profile but I haven't really done any development for a few years. That was pretty refined and seemed to learn the languages that I was most interested in.
In each case, the profiles were made by using different email addresses. I have a different email address for the different accounts. I try to avoid cross-pollination between them but I haven't been as good with that as I'd like to have been. I can only speculate that the results would be even more precise if I had done so. As I mentioned above, I did use a third email account but I've not logged into that one in quite a while. It seemed to pick up that I was into PHP, JavaScript, HTML, and was using Wordpress or SMF. I don't know how effective it would be with other languages.
Your mileage might vary, but that sums up my observations and experiences. In my case, I made a clear choice to give up some privacy in exchange for something I value - namely more efficient search results that are more effective and personal.
Again, all an anecdote but I have made it a point to test the results against non-personalized results and the difference is very noticeable and very good. I am much, much happier with the personalized results.
I slam on Google, a lot. I complain about Google - to the point where people may think I hate them and am obsessed with telling people. However, I do try to always make it clear that I'm okay with them asking for my information and that they do have some products and services that I think are done exceptionally well.
I also have a media box (well, a series of them over the years) that uses an entirely separate profile. That profile does a lot of YouTube and music. It had learned that I prefer documentaries - though not much more than that. It has also seemed to learn that I prefer isolated guitar tracks and classical guitar. It will now preferentially offer me the isolated guitar track in the top few links, even without including it in my search query. It used to offer different versions, covers, and live versions of the track. I can't get it to offer the isolated track as the primary result, at least not at this time.
I've been monitoring this for quite a while and have watched the improvements. I've even set up the second account, the one mentioned for media, just because I'd observed the effect.
To see the effect, you need to be logged in AND tell them to personalize your results. I'm not sure if that is enabled by default.
I admit this is just anecdotal, but I've made it a point to monitor this since about 2010, which is when I first noticed the option in the settings. I've checked it against being logged out, with different IP addresses, with alternative browsers, and on computers that do not belong to me. The results are remarkably different, though they are pretty generic after the first 20 listed results.
So, in this case, I've given information (privacy) in exchange for results that are more suitable for my personal needs.
I do wish I could select profiles. I'd like to be able to search with my 'generic' profile, my 'tech' profile, my 'music' profile, and my 'entertainment' profile. I think it'd give me more precision and would help me weed out my more generic searches.
Unless you have it blocked, Google also uses a tracking URL on their results. It will say, even if you mouse over it, example.com. But, when you click on it, it actually uses a URL like google.com/tracking/some numbers/example.com. So, they know what links you clicked. I suspect they also log which one you clicked last, so they have an indicator as to which result you found the most helpful.
I should note that links open in a new tab automatically, so they can also track browser session and see when I've completed my searching and can infer more from that information.
I used to also have a developer profile but I haven't really done any development for a few years. That was pretty refined and seemed to learn the languages that I was most interested in.
In each case, the profiles were made by using different email addresses. I have a different email address for the different accounts. I try to avoid cross-pollination between them but I haven't been as good with that as I'd like to have been. I can only speculate that the results would be even more precise if I had done so. As I mentioned above, I did use a third email account but I've not logged into that one in quite a while. It seemed to pick up that I was into PHP, JavaScript, HTML, and was using Wordpress or SMF. I don't know how effective it would be with other languages.
Your mileage might vary, but that sums up my observations and experiences. In my case, I made a clear choice to give up some privacy in exchange for something I value - namely more efficient search results that are more effective and personal.
Again, all an anecdote but I have made it a point to test the results against non-personalized results and the difference is very noticeable and very good. I am much, much happier with the personalized results.
I slam on Google, a lot. I complain about Google - to the point where people may think I hate them and am obsessed with telling people. However, I do try to always make it clear that I'm okay with them asking for my information and that they do have some products and services that I think are done exceptionally well.
Firefox's strength was originally that technically astute people liked it and people who saw them liking it followed suit. They lost a lot of geek mindshare to Chrome when Chrome hit the scene, but I see this as a return to roots. People who know enough to understand the difference, see that very interesting things are happening with Firefox, and in addition it's not offered by the world's biggest advertising company.
Firefox was better than IE, but eventually, Chrome became better than Firefox for a majority of people. Silent auto-update, anti-phishing, sandboxing, extensions that "just worked". It also came with it's own flash plug-in, which was great for non-technical people back when Flash was relevant.
Chrome did a lot of things right and for a while, it was the browser I installed on friends and family PCs because it was trouble free and I knew they would always have the latest version installed automatically.
Chrome did a lot of things right and for a while, it was the browser I installed on friends and family PCs because it was trouble free and I knew they would always have the latest version installed automatically.
Well that, and paying every adware from here to eternity to bundle a Chrome installer...
And sticking 'Google service X is better with Chrome' on all of their sites probably didn't hurt either.
I would have problem with this if Chrome was total anti-user garbage, but like I said, it was (and still is) a solid product that brought forth a lot of good things for non-technical users, plus Chromium is open source.
Google is not a charity, so they used their sites to advertise their own product. Microsoft is doing the same thing with Edge, even on Windows 10.
Google is not a charity, so they used their sites to advertise their own product. Microsoft is doing the same thing with Edge, even on Windows 10.
Along with multiple prime time TV ad campaigns.
Just switched to Firefox beta to test this out. Looking good so far!
The other thing that I've been waiting for is better multi-profile support. You can get a (pre-release) version of that now by opting into the Containers experiment: https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/containers
The other thing that I've been waiting for is better multi-profile support. You can get a (pre-release) version of that now by opting into the Containers experiment: https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/containers
Firefox containers are heading in the direction, after using them for a couple of hours though I ended up missing the window-based system which Chrome uses.
I have one Chrome profile for my personal apps, and one for work -- creating a new tab in one of the windows will automatically open it with the same context as the rest of the window. My experience with Firefox was that I'd have to manually choose which profile to open the tab in.
1. This required me to use my mouse (geh, maybe I could use keybindings to change this though? not quite sure how difficult that would be) 2. I'm not sure if this is just a me thing, but if I create a tab stemming from my 'personal' gmail account there's a pretty strong chance that it should also be a 'personal' tab. Maybe this is just a difference in how me and the Firefox team use tabs though?
Once I figure out how to get around those issues, (and when Streak's gmail extension works on Firefox...) that's when I'd be able to move over.
edit: apparently Firefox has had true instance profiles for ages! awesome. now I'm just waiting on Streak lol.
I have one Chrome profile for my personal apps, and one for work -- creating a new tab in one of the windows will automatically open it with the same context as the rest of the window. My experience with Firefox was that I'd have to manually choose which profile to open the tab in.
1. This required me to use my mouse (geh, maybe I could use keybindings to change this though? not quite sure how difficult that would be) 2. I'm not sure if this is just a me thing, but if I create a tab stemming from my 'personal' gmail account there's a pretty strong chance that it should also be a 'personal' tab. Maybe this is just a difference in how me and the Firefox team use tabs though?
Once I figure out how to get around those issues, (and when Streak's gmail extension works on Firefox...) that's when I'd be able to move over.
edit: apparently Firefox has had true instance profiles for ages! awesome. now I'm just waiting on Streak lol.
I had the same complaints until someone told me that Ctrl + '.' opens up the container menu and you can use `tab` to cycle through containers.
[deleted]
Some issues with containers:
* It's way too easy to open new pages in the wrong container, and you can't convert an existing tab into another container. By the time you've opened a tab it's too late. Solution is to copy URL, create new tab, paste URL, which is a lot to do.
* There's no "New tab in same container" keyboard shortcut or button.
* If you click on a URL in a different app, or from the shell, you get a new tab in the default container.
* There's no way to designate an entire window or macOS space to a container. I have all my work stuff in a separate space, and no personal stuff should interfere. Similarly, if I'm already in a window full of, say, Google Cloud-related tabs, I don't want to clutter that window with containers.
The idea is great, but the implementation is nowhere close to being practical.
Chrome's profiles are too heavy-weight, but it has the right idea about the ability to couple window with profiles, because windows are "collections of tabs", and the most natural-feeling container of pages.
* It's way too easy to open new pages in the wrong container, and you can't convert an existing tab into another container. By the time you've opened a tab it's too late. Solution is to copy URL, create new tab, paste URL, which is a lot to do.
* There's no "New tab in same container" keyboard shortcut or button.
* If you click on a URL in a different app, or from the shell, you get a new tab in the default container.
* There's no way to designate an entire window or macOS space to a container. I have all my work stuff in a separate space, and no personal stuff should interfere. Similarly, if I'm already in a window full of, say, Google Cloud-related tabs, I don't want to clutter that window with containers.
The idea is great, but the implementation is nowhere close to being practical.
Chrome's profiles are too heavy-weight, but it has the right idea about the ability to couple window with profiles, because windows are "collections of tabs", and the most natural-feeling container of pages.
Extensions have access to and can manage containers, so maybe there's one that does what you need.
Firefox has has profiles since well before the first version of Chrome was released.
Unfortunately the UI has always been sort of hidden.
You can launch with `-P` or `-ProfileManager` to get a profile selection menu. Or nav to `about:profiles` for a slightly more convenient (but less attractive) version.
Firefox profiles are great. Better than Chrome profiles, though less convenient, for now. Interested to see how Containers fits in.
Unfortunately the UI has always been sort of hidden.
You can launch with `-P` or `-ProfileManager` to get a profile selection menu. Or nav to `about:profiles` for a slightly more convenient (but less attractive) version.
Firefox profiles are great. Better than Chrome profiles, though less convenient, for now. Interested to see how Containers fits in.
"great" may be stretching it more than a little. They have indeed worked for a very long time (which is definitely great), but launching multiple firefoxes at once with different profiles is (has been? haven't tried for over a year) an absolute nightmare for anyone not launching it exclusively from the CLI with aliases. I actually made app wrappers just so I could click things instead of having a weird blend of "you can click that icon... but then you'll just get the default profile" + "CLI if you want [profile X]".
Yeah, fair point.
My solution on macOS is an AppleScript with the usual Firefox name and icon, installed in the usual location, which runs a shell script with the proper args to pop the profile manager in a new session (`-ProfileManager -no-remote`).
The real Firefox binary is buried in a nondiscoverable location (`$HOME/Applications/.Firefox`) so that it doesn't get launched directly.
...but after getting around to making that work seamlessly, many forgotten years ago...Firefox profiles really have been great. :)
My solution on macOS is an AppleScript with the usual Firefox name and icon, installed in the usual location, which runs a shell script with the proper args to pop the profile manager in a new session (`-ProfileManager -no-remote`).
The real Firefox binary is buried in a nondiscoverable location (`$HOME/Applications/.Firefox`) so that it doesn't get launched directly.
...but after getting around to making that work seamlessly, many forgotten years ago...Firefox profiles really have been great. :)
[deleted]
App wrapper? You can just edit the shortcut.
I used to use those profiles on Firefox - custom launchers in Debian. I did find them less convenient that Chrome, especially on Mac, so I switched to Chrome.
Firefox's new Containers aren't perfect, but I'm giving them a go and since they're in testing still I can submit feedback to influence their direction.
Firefox's new Containers aren't perfect, but I'm giving them a go and since they're in testing still I can submit feedback to influence their direction.
On Linux it's a bit simpler because a new instance is launched each time you click the launcher icon. So all you have to do is set the config to show the profile manager at each launch.
macOS (and OS X before it) is more work. The Finder will switch to the running instance if there is one, instead of launching a new one each time you click. I worked around that with an AppleScript (for the icon and double-clickability) that calls a shell script with the proper args.
It sounds sketchy when I describe it, and is clearly not an obvious option for most people, but it has worked perfectly and invisibly for years.
macOS (and OS X before it) is more work. The Finder will switch to the running instance if there is one, instead of launching a new one each time you click. I worked around that with an AppleScript (for the icon and double-clickability) that calls a shell script with the proper args.
It sounds sketchy when I describe it, and is clearly not an obvious option for most people, but it has worked perfectly and invisibly for years.
Is available as an extension now: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...
And it's definitely a reason to switch to Firefox. Keeping personal and work Google and AWS accounts open and separate simultaneously is really nice.
And it's definitely a reason to switch to Firefox. Keeping personal and work Google and AWS accounts open and separate simultaneously is really nice.
Not really a reason to switch to Firefox, it's more not a reason not to switch to it - Chrome has had it for ages. Still good that they have it though!
I wish containers could be tied to which space (on macOS) I'm in. I keep all my work in one space, and all my personal stuff in another. That makes it really easy to keep things apart.
The current container extension uses the default container for new tabs and windows, which is a bit cumbersome, because you have to remember to open new tabs and windows in the current container. If it were associated with a space, it's just inherit the container from the current space.
The current container extension uses the default container for new tabs and windows, which is a bit cumbersome, because you have to remember to open new tabs and windows in the current container. If it were associated with a space, it's just inherit the container from the current space.
I've been using multiple profiles for months on Firefox via `firefox -P profile1`, `firefox -P profile2`.
What's it changing to, moving forward?
What's it changing to, moving forward?
Those aren't changing, the new feature, "Containers", is like having multiple isolated browser sessions running concurrently. So you can organize your tabs by purpose, isolate sensitive accounts, or just be logged into both your Facebook/Google/Twitter accounts at the same time.
The confusion is reasonable though -- your description above is exactly how I use Firefox Profiles today (and for many years).
What does Containers add? If the only answer is "a more convenient UI", then that's good enough for me!
What does Containers add? If the only answer is "a more convenient UI", then that's good enough for me!
With profiles, each profile has it's own history, bookmarks, browser settings, and so forth. In effect, it's a separate instance of Firefox.
Sometimes that's what you want, and profiles certainly aren't going anywhere. But the idea behind Containers is just that you can be logged in to separate accounts simultaneously in multiple containers.
In practice, that means a better and more convenient UI. Containers work on a per-tab basis, so you can have multiple tabs logged in to the same account right next to each other, instead of in different Firefox processes. Plus, you can right click on a link and select "Open in New Container Tab".
So while Containers are more than a UI on top of Profiles, it practice one of the main advantages is the convenience of the UI.
Sometimes that's what you want, and profiles certainly aren't going anywhere. But the idea behind Containers is just that you can be logged in to separate accounts simultaneously in multiple containers.
In practice, that means a better and more convenient UI. Containers work on a per-tab basis, so you can have multiple tabs logged in to the same account right next to each other, instead of in different Firefox processes. Plus, you can right click on a link and select "Open in New Container Tab".
So while Containers are more than a UI on top of Profiles, it practice one of the main advantages is the convenience of the UI.
It's not quite a new profile since the container retains all your configuration and extensions and a profile doesn't.
It's more similar to a private browsing session, except things aren't forgotten, and you can have as many as you like. And they're tab level so you can treat them they same way you would a tab.
It's more similar to a private browsing session, except things aren't forgotten, and you can have as many as you like. And they're tab level so you can treat them they same way you would a tab.
> It's not quite a new profile since the container retains all your configuration and extensions and a profile doesn't.
Other way around. Profiles retain configuration and extensions between sessions.
Other way around. Profiles retain configuration and extensions between sessions.
Profiles: Every configuration change or extension has to be added in every profile to keep in sync manually across different Firefox instances.
Containers: Use the same configuration and extensions across different containers in one running Firefox instance.
Both retain configuration and extensions between traditional browser sessions (start/stop). Containers additionally "retain" configuration and extensions across contextual sessions/identities.
Containers: Use the same configuration and extensions across different containers in one running Firefox instance.
Both retain configuration and extensions between traditional browser sessions (start/stop). Containers additionally "retain" configuration and extensions across contextual sessions/identities.
Switched to Firefox a while ago. I love it. My little tip is to go into add-ons > Appearance, and change over to a compact theme. It looks a lot better than the default theme imo!
Damn it, I was hoping this was going to alleviate my main worry with this new Firefox - the UI. It's so Microsoft Edge-ified.
I had more trouble finding this setting than I should have. Appears to be hamburger menu -> customize -> (bottom of page) density drop-down -> select compact. Still not sure if I like it. The tabs alone are still way too big for my liking.
Coupled with Ubuntu 17.10 and the Gnome that brings, the top of screen is going to be eaten up by way more UI than I would like. Is there any way to get Gnome to have a unified Ubuntu/application menubar like Unity?
I had more trouble finding this setting than I should have. Appears to be hamburger menu -> customize -> (bottom of page) density drop-down -> select compact. Still not sure if I like it. The tabs alone are still way too big for my liking.
Coupled with Ubuntu 17.10 and the Gnome that brings, the top of screen is going to be eaten up by way more UI than I would like. Is there any way to get Gnome to have a unified Ubuntu/application menubar like Unity?
You can shrink the tab height further with userChrome.css. [1]
Putting this into there should shrink it down a bit further:
You can load the URL "chrome://browser/content/browser.xul" to get the browser UI displayed like a webpage, allowing you to easily use the devtools to inspect the different CSS identifiers, so that you can mess around a bit by yourself.
[1] http://kb.mozillazine.org/index.php?title=UserChrome.css
Putting this into there should shrink it down a bit further:
@namespace url("http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul");
#TabsToolbar {
height: 24px !important;
--tab-min-height: 24px !important;
}
You can load the URL "chrome://browser/content/browser.xul" to get the browser UI displayed like a webpage, allowing you to easily use the devtools to inspect the different CSS identifiers, so that you can mess around a bit by yourself.
[1] http://kb.mozillazine.org/index.php?title=UserChrome.css
There's work to use Gnome client-side decorations for the title bar here, which should help with screen real estate: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1283299
It probably won't land in time for 57, but hopefully soon!
It probably won't land in time for 57, but hopefully soon!
>> I had more trouble finding this setting than I should have. Appears to be hamburger menu -> customize -> (bottom of page) density drop-down -> select compact. Still not sure if I like it. The tabs alone are still way too big for my liking.
Assuming it's the same as every Firefox since they started copying Chrome, the alt key should bring up the old-fashioned (and much more usable) menu bar.
Assuming it's the same as every Firefox since they started copying Chrome, the alt key should bring up the old-fashioned (and much more usable) menu bar.
I use "No Title Bar" gnome extension and "Tab center redux" plus userChrome.css to move the tab bar to the side. The top side is actually quite compact.
Firefox 57 is great. The interface is no longer ugly, and it's no longer oddly sluggish. Once Lastpass has their extension updated to work with WebExtensions, I'll switch.
This was what I was thinking, until three days ago someone mentioned here about Bitwarden. It's perfect, no more LP for me, you should try it too :) https://bitwarden.com/
I'm going to go ahead and second this - I switched a couple of days ago as well and my jaw just dropped at how much better it is than lastpass. The ui is better, the interface is snappy!, and it's gpl. I just wish I had learned about this earlier.
Why is it people never offer 1Password as an alternative? Sure, it's paid and slightly more expensive, but they have regular security audits and their apps on each platform are really well made and second to none. Their change logs are also always a pleasure to read, they even mention each bug by issue tracker number! Only problem is no Linux app.
Password managers are kind of a funny niche; the Venn diagram of people who use them, and power users, are probably more overlapping than most. I would venture that those (power) users want full cross-platform compatibility (Win, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android).
Additionally, it's probably not helping that their historical pricing model makes no sense for users who interact with many platforms on a daily basis. I didn't even know it had changed until I re-checked it after reading your comment.
Just my 2¢ as someone who previously considered 1Password once upon a time, and dismissed them. They may deserve a fresh look these days, but now they're competing against much more robust competitors than they were back in 2010(?).
Additionally, it's probably not helping that their historical pricing model makes no sense for users who interact with many platforms on a daily basis. I didn't even know it had changed until I re-checked it after reading your comment.
Just my 2¢ as someone who previously considered 1Password once upon a time, and dismissed them. They may deserve a fresh look these days, but now they're competing against much more robust competitors than they were back in 2010(?).
I used (and paid for) LastPass and even convinced work to go with LastPass Enterprise. Then LogMeIn came along and bought them. Using an MBP as my primary machine at the time, I switched to 1Password (paying for the full version for my MBP, iPad, and iPhone) the very same day. Then, they pulled the ol' switcheroo and went to a subscription model.
That turned a lot of people off from 1Password.
Since my primary workstation and primary laptop now both run Arch Linux -- which 1Password has no desire to support (and don't even mention how shitty the Windows version runs under Wine) -- I'm back to where I was years ago, running KeePass/variants. I don't expect to switch to anything else for a long time -- my "secrets" are mine and only mine, once again.
That turned a lot of people off from 1Password.
Since my primary workstation and primary laptop now both run Arch Linux -- which 1Password has no desire to support (and don't even mention how shitty the Windows version runs under Wine) -- I'm back to where I was years ago, running KeePass/variants. I don't expect to switch to anything else for a long time -- my "secrets" are mine and only mine, once again.
[deleted]
For their own reasons.
If you like it, offer it.
If you like it, offer it.
[deleted]
It looks good. And I don't want to come off as dismissive, I am just genuinely wondering: How can I know they are trustworthy? Has it been recommended by any security or cryptography experts? This is the first time I am hearing about Bitwarden and not being a security expert, I don't know how I can ascertain their trustworthiness.
It looks very nice (I am trying it out right now) but how trustworthy is a free password management service?
The idea is to selfhost it – it’s open source.
I've been planning a switch to "pass" (passwordstore.org), mostly because I want to use my yubikey for encryption, ie. the GPG key...
But maybe I'll explore this.
But maybe I'll explore this.
After the most recent LastPass extension vulnerability, I no longer run LastPass extension in my default browser (Firefox). I have it installed on a different browser then copy/paste as needed.
I use Firefox primarily because of the Awesome Bar.
I just have to remember like two or three substrings from an URL or page title and bam! the page is there.
For comparison, Chrome's omnibox generally only searches for whole words, while the Google search suggestions take up much precious space, while it is known that most web browsing is directed to pages already visited. Firefox's decision to keep the URL bar and the search bar separate seems sensible.
I just have to remember like two or three substrings from an URL or page title and bam! the page is there.
For comparison, Chrome's omnibox generally only searches for whole words, while the Google search suggestions take up much precious space, while it is known that most web browsing is directed to pages already visited. Firefox's decision to keep the URL bar and the search bar separate seems sensible.
If you'd like to try out Firefox Quantum on Windows without impacting your existing local or portable version, you can grab either the 57 Beta or the 57 Developer version in portable form from PortableApps.com. It's self-contained with its own profile and settings that are kept separate from the normal install. It doesn't require admin rights to extract it and try it out. And you can "uninstall" it just by deleting a folder.
https://portableapps.com/news/2017-09-28--try-firefox-quantu...
https://portableapps.com/news/2017-09-28--try-firefox-quantu...
Switched from Chrome to Nightly as my main browser 2 days ago when KeepassHttpConnector [0] got it's 1.0 release. Speed is absolutely on par with Chrome (which is something I never had in my earlier tries, usually gave FF a chance 2 times per year). Had 1 full browser crash which never happened with Chrome (in recent years), but then I was also running stable vs nightly now.
I'm still missing one extension (Join for Android), but I can live without it for now and might actually just help joaoapps in developing it.
One thing that annoyed me was the large min tab size as I didn't like scrolling tabs. Someone on Reddit pointed me to the right userChrome.css tweak though [1]
Overall I'm pretty happy being back on Firefox after many, many years.
[0]: https://github.com/smorks/keepasshttp-connector/releases
[1]: https://github.com/Timvde/UserChrome-Tweaks/blob/master/tabs...
I'm still missing one extension (Join for Android), but I can live without it for now and might actually just help joaoapps in developing it.
One thing that annoyed me was the large min tab size as I didn't like scrolling tabs. Someone on Reddit pointed me to the right userChrome.css tweak though [1]
Overall I'm pretty happy being back on Firefox after many, many years.
[0]: https://github.com/smorks/keepasshttp-connector/releases
[1]: https://github.com/Timvde/UserChrome-Tweaks/blob/master/tabs...
> I'm still missing one extension (Join for Android)
AFAIK Firefox extension is pending addition of push API support in extensions. Joao has filed a bug report[0] for that, but there hasn't been much activity on it for some time.
[0]:https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1378096
AFAIK Firefox extension is pending addition of push API support in extensions. Joao has filed a bug report[0] for that, but there hasn't been much activity on it for some time.
[0]:https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1378096
I've been a Chrome user since it was first available. I've tried to go back to Firefox multiple times. When the containers plugin hit the front page a week or two ago I decided to try it out.
I'm not using the beta or nightly builds because I'm lazy. However, Firefox with containers has sold me and I've switched to it for everything except development. I'm too used to Chrome Dev tools it's been hard to switch :|
I absolutely love Firefox+Containers though. I just wish I could make it auto-open-in-container with wildcards. For example, open all *.mywork.com pages in my Work profile.
I'm not using the beta or nightly builds because I'm lazy. However, Firefox with containers has sold me and I've switched to it for everything except development. I'm too used to Chrome Dev tools it's been hard to switch :|
I absolutely love Firefox+Containers though. I just wish I could make it auto-open-in-container with wildcards. For example, open all *.mywork.com pages in my Work profile.
Mozilla provided an add-on API for the Container Tabs, so maybe someone writes an add-on to do this. Or if you want to get your hands dirty yourself, you can try writing one yourself. I imagine hard-coding a few URLs and respective Container Tabs wouldn't be that much work.
Someone started a spreadsheet of webextension alternatives to addons https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TFcEXMcKrwoIAECIVyBU...
FYI the U2F key support landed in Nightly (probably stable in 58). Enable "security.webauth.u2f" and "security.webauth.webauthn" to enable it.
Of course, now it's up to the developers to allow U2F support via Firefox (instead of hard-coding it to Chrome/Chromium). I've successfully verified that it works on three different services that don't hard-code the support to Chrome/Chromium.
Of course, now it's up to the developers to allow U2F support via Firefox (instead of hard-coding it to Chrome/Chromium). I've successfully verified that it works on three different services that don't hard-code the support to Chrome/Chromium.
Works with all test sites, and most other sites...
...except for Google.com, which still hardcodes it to Chrome (doesn’t even seem to work in Chromium there for me).
...except for Google.com, which still hardcodes it to Chrome (doesn’t even seem to work in Chromium there for me).
Did benchmarks on an i7-MBPr (4 cores @2.7Ghz) and an iPhone 7. I'm aware that JetStream and SunSpider aren't about the CSS and rendering but I was curious:
Chrome FFNightly Safari Safari
OSX OSX OSX iOS
---------------------------------------------------
MotionMark(↑) 348.82 190.23 474.55 295.12
JetStream (↑) 166.84 173.96 239.03 171.27
Sunspider (↓) 225.2ms 178.4ms 115.2ms 198.5ms
Although benchmarks can be valuable tools for the developers, as end user I don't care about them.
What I really care about was that with previous versions of Firefox, my MacbookPro would start getting hot as soon as I would fire it up, and every page load would feel like a drag.
With 57, my Macbook is cool and everything feels snappy.
What I really care about was that with previous versions of Firefox, my MacbookPro would start getting hot as soon as I would fire it up, and every page load would feel like a drag.
With 57, my Macbook is cool and everything feels snappy.
As well as the vastly better Firefox, I've been very impressed by the new Brave browser[1].
Actually, extremely impressed. I normally do dev with Chrome for heavy JS (even compared to new devel edition ff) and even though Brave's devtools seem to match up to an older version compared to Chrome, page updates etc are just so much faster in Brave than in Chrome. Fast renders matters a LOT when you're developing. (Btw, there's a bug in the install script if you're using Brave on Debian[2].)
It's still early days and doesn't have as many features as FF and Chrome (in particular for me, Stylish is missing, but the privacy and ad blockers that I prefer are there), but, wow... rendering is faster than Chrome in the common case, or at least strongly feels that way.
I also like how they're focused first and foremost on privacy and ad blocking, but also make it easy to donate to your favorite sites in place of ad revenue. It seems like a balanced approach. Brave seems to be very similar to Mozilla with its strong focus on user privacy.
It's nice to see competition heating up in the browser space again.
1. https://brave.com 2. https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/issues/6902
Actually, extremely impressed. I normally do dev with Chrome for heavy JS (even compared to new devel edition ff) and even though Brave's devtools seem to match up to an older version compared to Chrome, page updates etc are just so much faster in Brave than in Chrome. Fast renders matters a LOT when you're developing. (Btw, there's a bug in the install script if you're using Brave on Debian[2].)
It's still early days and doesn't have as many features as FF and Chrome (in particular for me, Stylish is missing, but the privacy and ad blockers that I prefer are there), but, wow... rendering is faster than Chrome in the common case, or at least strongly feels that way.
I also like how they're focused first and foremost on privacy and ad blocking, but also make it easy to donate to your favorite sites in place of ad revenue. It seems like a balanced approach. Brave seems to be very similar to Mozilla with its strong focus on user privacy.
It's nice to see competition heating up in the browser space again.
1. https://brave.com 2. https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/issues/6902
Maybe I'm missing something, but my impression of Brave was that behind the scenes it was just another Chromium browser. All the same little issues I have with Chromium were present in Brave when I tried it - exact same configuration tweaks (other than privacy stuff in Chrome) I needed to make to get me to a happy state. So aren't any of the visible speedups just a matter of the native adblocking? Are you comparing the speeds to Chrome/Chromium with adblocking?
Maybe Brave is more heavily customized than I thought?
Maybe Brave is more heavily customized than I thought?
Right, so it is definitely a fork from Chromium (or at least the devtools seem to match an older version of Chrome's), and agreed completely with regards to config tweaks, but I definitely see a huge speedup versus using adblockers (ABP+UBO+PB) in Chromium, including on local dev sites with no ads/privacy to block. It (at least seems to) render much, much faster.
Always take non-indie benchmarks with a grain of salt, of course, but given that their CEO is the developer of JS, it's probably not too much of a stretch to imagine that this is a true or mostly-true claim from their main website page[1]: "Brave loads major news sites 2 to 8 times faster than Chrome and Safari on mobile. And Brave is 2 times faster than Chrome on desktop."
I haven't tried installing chrome extensions in it yet, but if that works, then Brave is definitely my new browser. It seems simple and clean; a worthy successor to both FF and Chrome.
1. https://brave.com
Always take non-indie benchmarks with a grain of salt, of course, but given that their CEO is the developer of JS, it's probably not too much of a stretch to imagine that this is a true or mostly-true claim from their main website page[1]: "Brave loads major news sites 2 to 8 times faster than Chrome and Safari on mobile. And Brave is 2 times faster than Chrome on desktop."
I haven't tried installing chrome extensions in it yet, but if that works, then Brave is definitely my new browser. It seems simple and clean; a worthy successor to both FF and Chrome.
1. https://brave.com
I was using developer extension and it disabled all of my beloved plugins. I hurried back to the "normal version". How is the update of the plugins to the new browser? Will it go live with uBlock, Tree tabs etc?
This is the version that breaks the legacy plugins and switches over to WebExtensions API.
Add-on developer are still catching up, but I think that the majority will be ready for the 57 release in November. I tried switching maybe two weeks ago, and I couldn't, simply because of one extension that wasn't ported.
Looking around, and I was able to find out that they've been working on it and two days ago I've installed the testing version of the add-on and made a complete switch to Nightly.
Add-on developer are still catching up, but I think that the majority will be ready for the 57 release in November. I tried switching maybe two weeks ago, and I couldn't, simply because of one extension that wasn't ported.
Looking around, and I was able to find out that they've been working on it and two days ago I've installed the testing version of the add-on and made a complete switch to Nightly.
There's a lot of add-ons that are unmaintained and those won't get ported. For those, you'll want to look for alternatives.
I was a Firefox user since it was called Phoenix, and finally switched to Chrome in mid 2015. With the latest release, I finally feel comfortable enough to switch back. FF is a true competitor in the browser space again.
As a Chrome extension developer with 500,000+ installs the number of requests for a Firefox version has increased enornmously the last couple of months. It seems that Firefox is gathering a lot of momentum recently.
There are certain legacy extensions I simply cannot live without. Tab Tree is one. Are there any routes to move forward with legacy extensions?
Forward, not really. Mozilla has very much already used the opportunity to rip out tons of legacy code and so most legacy extensions are already not anymore compatible, even if you tell Firefox to load them.
And just as well, most of these performance improvements would not have been realistically doable, if Mozilla were still forced to not break compatibility.
What you can do, is to move to Firefox 52 ESR. It won't have the performance, but it has the legacy extensions and will continue to get security updates until June 26, 2018.
There's also some forks, namely Pale Moon and Waterfox, which seem motivated to try to keep this legacy extension system alive for longer, so maybe that works for you, too. Personally, I doubt they're able to. The old extension system was a major maintenance burden for Mozilla, so I can't imagine the far smaller teams behind Pale Moon and Waterfox taking that on.
Lastly it should be noted that Tab-Tree-like extensions will be possible with the new extension API and some implementations are already underway:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-tabs/
(Not a tree, but tabs in a sidebar: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab-center-re...)
And just as well, most of these performance improvements would not have been realistically doable, if Mozilla were still forced to not break compatibility.
What you can do, is to move to Firefox 52 ESR. It won't have the performance, but it has the legacy extensions and will continue to get security updates until June 26, 2018.
There's also some forks, namely Pale Moon and Waterfox, which seem motivated to try to keep this legacy extension system alive for longer, so maybe that works for you, too. Personally, I doubt they're able to. The old extension system was a major maintenance burden for Mozilla, so I can't imagine the far smaller teams behind Pale Moon and Waterfox taking that on.
Lastly it should be noted that Tab-Tree-like extensions will be possible with the new extension API and some implementations are already underway:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-tabs/
(Not a tree, but tabs in a sidebar: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab-center-re...)
I don't know about Tab Tree, but the popular Tree Style Tabs extension is now a WebExtension that is compatible with Firefox 57+.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/09/27/tree-style-tab-is-a-webext...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/09/27/tree-style-tab-is-a-webext...
Tree Style Tabs is a webextension now.
So torn by this.
I've always been a Firefox user and one of my favourite addons is Tab Groups. Unfortunately it will stop working with 57.
I'm really keen to update to 57 but until Tab Groups gets updated I'm going to be sticking to 56.
Please someone take over the dev!
I've always been a Firefox user and one of my favourite addons is Tab Groups. Unfortunately it will stop working with 57.
I'm really keen to update to 57 but until Tab Groups gets updated I'm going to be sticking to 56.
Please someone take over the dev!
It seem that there will be alternatives as people answered me in different thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15342731
I'm in the same boat; I might see if I can replace tab groups with tree style tabs, which is supported.
I've been running Nightly for several weeks, and am _so_ impressed. It's fast, stable, and the combo of Containers and CookieAutoDelete (which allows you to set per-container rules) is killing it for me.
As someone with lots of tabs (multiple hundreds) and windows (usually about two dozens) open in a session, I was very surprised and amazed how quickly the latest few Firefox versions started up. Before, there would be this constant fear of having to close the browser more often than every couple of months (due to updates or high ram usage, which also seems to have gotten better) because it would take several minutes of waiting idle until all windows and contents were slowly loaded and usable, whereas now everything is available in a minute or two at worst.
Nice to see competition with multiple good options.
For me, privacy was always a large advantage of Firefox but now I also trust Apple, Safari, and Apple’s privacy stance.
Honest question: what privacy advantages does Firefox have over Safari?
For me, privacy was always a large advantage of Firefox but now I also trust Apple, Safari, and Apple’s privacy stance.
Honest question: what privacy advantages does Firefox have over Safari?
I expressed fear in the last Firefox thread about losing my most essential add-on, Rikaisama, and it seems that the latest version of Firefox has officially killed it off.
However after a lot of searching I found Yomichan, which seems to be better in every way when compared to Rikaisama, but its fairly difficult to find. I highly recommend it to any Japanese learners looking for a replacement.
https://foosoft.net/projects/yomichan/
However after a lot of searching I found Yomichan, which seems to be better in every way when compared to Rikaisama, but its fairly difficult to find. I highly recommend it to any Japanese learners looking for a replacement.
https://foosoft.net/projects/yomichan/
Thanks for this! Rikaisama had already sort of broken with e10s, and I had considered trying to port the Chrome version, but this is far better!
Worth looking at this resource, which seems to suggest that Chrome still leads in some of the benchmarks, even in memory usage:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=firefox-...
Just one study among many, but, worth keeping in mind. Firefox is making strides, but Mozilla still has work to do if they want to stop losing market share. I say this as a Firefox user.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=firefox-...
Just one study among many, but, worth keeping in mind. Firefox is making strides, but Mozilla still has work to do if they want to stop losing market share. I say this as a Firefox user.
Most of those benchmarks are (directly or indirectly) benchmarks of the JavaScript engine. The few that aren't are instead benchmarking the <canvas> implementation or the compositor. The main speedups in Firefox 57 are in styling and the DOM which are more of a "feels faster" thing than something you can easily benchmark in real-world scenarios other than "how long does this page take to load?"
For now, it's already been enough to stop the losing of market share. The introduction of multiprocess in Firefox 48 (2nd August 2016) seems to have made the difference: http://netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=1&qpaf=&qpcustom...
But yeah, while the technical crowd sees Mozilla as favorable at roughly equal performance, the vast majority of unknowing users are probably more influenced by the world's most popular webpage, video portal, e-mail service, operating system etc. all nudging them to use Chrome.
It'll be interesting to see, if Firefox 57 can generate another major bump in that user graph like it happened with Firefox 48, or if 48 was at sort of the sweet spot where Firefox became acceptable again for most of the tech crowd and now we'd be digging into the non-tech crowd, which is much harder to pull away from what they're habitually using.
But yeah, while the technical crowd sees Mozilla as favorable at roughly equal performance, the vast majority of unknowing users are probably more influenced by the world's most popular webpage, video portal, e-mail service, operating system etc. all nudging them to use Chrome.
It'll be interesting to see, if Firefox 57 can generate another major bump in that user graph like it happened with Firefox 48, or if 48 was at sort of the sweet spot where Firefox became acceptable again for most of the tech crowd and now we'd be digging into the non-tech crowd, which is much harder to pull away from what they're habitually using.
Here's a blog post from this week about memory usage: http://www.erahm.org/2017/09/25/firefox-memory-usage-in-the-...
That's a comparison on real websites rather than browser benchmarks.
That's a comparison on real websites rather than browser benchmarks.
This new UI is exactly what I've been waiting - I've been wanting to switch off chrome for the same reason I switched off of android - to simply diversify the services I use a little bit.
The old Firefox UI always felt old fashioned and made the adjustment that much harder.
This new version of firefox has been great - as others have mentioned it's really fast and the UI is simplistic with a side panel for bookmarks to boot.
Definitely kudos where kudos is due, looking forward to using firefox for the foreseeable future.
The old Firefox UI always felt old fashioned and made the adjustment that much harder.
This new version of firefox has been great - as others have mentioned it's really fast and the UI is simplistic with a side panel for bookmarks to boot.
Definitely kudos where kudos is due, looking forward to using firefox for the foreseeable future.
I am not trolling, I am asking seriously, but who the hell cares about a couple of extra seconds of page rendering? As long as the page looks and works correctly in the end. But the features that Firefox drops in favor of doing browser equivalent of street racing with Chrome are not being replaced with anything. So far, I am pretty sure I am dropping Firefox once release 57 hits. If it is going to become a Chrome clone, I might as well use Chrome.
I’ve stopped using chrome everywhere because of all the goodness in Firefox since 55
I tried to like the new Firefox, maybe I didn't give it a fair chance, but it instantly disappointed me.I opened 5 gifs in new tabs and CPU usage rushed to 100% an all cores for half a minute.
But often it's the small things that make or break it. For me it was that HTML5 videos don't fullscreen to a new workspace on macOS like they do in Chrome or Safari.
But often it's the small things that make or break it. For me it was that HTML5 videos don't fullscreen to a new workspace on macOS like they do in Chrome or Safari.
Hey, if you've tried the beta or nightly versions, you can't expect them to be stable until the enter the stable version.
If you've tried the stable version, the stable version is still one version behind the changes that are coming.
I honestly recommend giving it a go again in two months.
If you've tried the stable version, the stable version is still one version behind the changes that are coming.
I honestly recommend giving it a go again in two months.
That sounds pretty odd... if you've used previous versions of Firefox on this device you might try refreshing:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/refresh-firefox-reset-a...
If it still happens and you want to dig into it a little further the profiler at http://perf-html.io/ allows you to gather and dig into + share details that can help fix.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/refresh-firefox-reset-a...
If it still happens and you want to dig into it a little further the profiler at http://perf-html.io/ allows you to gather and dig into + share details that can help fix.
[deleted]
Firefox Nightly on Android has the best tab management work flow far more usable than Chrome ... have been using FF nightly on linux laptop for past several years and love how Sync seamlessly shares bookmarks and open tabs across devices ... in general I find FF uses less RAM and CPU than Chrome ... Congrats on the hard work over at Mozilla !!!
Just downloaded and it's been super fast and beautiful so far, going to try it out for a week and see how it goes!
Is there a seamless way sync all my Safari bookmarks with Firefox? I detest Google, that's why I'll never use Chrome. Would love to use Firefox on my MacBook. But I keep going back to Safari because it gives me an increadibly streamlined experience on all of my Apple devices (bookmarks, reading list)
Edit: typo
Edit: typo
I wish I could be as excited as everyone else re: the new Firefox. I've never switched to Chrome, and dealt with some of the previous performance issues. I dealt with these issues because of Vimperator, which as far as I know, won't work with the new version of Firefox. A real bummer.
Good news! It won't (Ok that part sucks). Good news it looks like the Keyboard API has approved.
https://github.com/Koushien/keyboard-shortcut-api
This is one of the last requirements for having a viable product. cmcaine's working on replacement successor:
https://github.com/cmcaine/tridactyl
It still a long ways off, but its possible.
https://github.com/Koushien/keyboard-shortcut-api
This is one of the last requirements for having a viable product. cmcaine's working on replacement successor:
https://github.com/cmcaine/tridactyl
It still a long ways off, but its possible.
It's not as sophisticated but I've found Saka Keys to be a suitable replacement:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/saka-key/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/saka-key/
SeaMonkey (mozilla suite) is the only web browser I have ever truly enjoyed using. I use the browser, email client, irc client, address book, and calendar every single day.
Extremely disappointed that Mozilla has basically given a big middle finger to the SeaMonkey/Thunderbird (comm-central) communities with the removal of XUL/XPCOM add-ons, necessity of multi-process, introduction of webextensions, removal of support for complete themes (show me a single Persona that doesn't look like shit), etc. in FF 57.
The reverberations of this decision are so stark that the SeaMonkey council has announced that it can no longer build off of the nightly mozilla-central tree; they're in the process of building RELEASES from the Firefox ESR branch. It's an absolute mess.
Extremely disappointed that Mozilla has basically given a big middle finger to the SeaMonkey/Thunderbird (comm-central) communities with the removal of XUL/XPCOM add-ons, necessity of multi-process, introduction of webextensions, removal of support for complete themes (show me a single Persona that doesn't look like shit), etc. in FF 57.
The reverberations of this decision are so stark that the SeaMonkey council has announced that it can no longer build off of the nightly mozilla-central tree; they're in the process of building RELEASES from the Firefox ESR branch. It's an absolute mess.
Very few people are bothered by the movement to WebExtensions, multi-process, or removal of complete themes. Many, however, have stopped using the browser as it has felt slow and clunky for quite a while now. The recent changes have actually attracted me back to the platform after a decade of using Chrome.
I am however one of those. While I understand the technical reasons for the switch I don't think it has been handled well. Extensions I rely on daily are going to cease functioning because the WebExtensions API isn't mature enough for the developers to migrate. Are they going to wait? Probably not... most affected will probably abandon their projects because FF rushed the transition and their user base is about to drop off a cliff due to no fault of their own. I would feel pretty abandoned.
They had to sort of rush it, because they wanted to rush out multiprocess, to stop the bleeding of users (which has very much worked [1]).
And then they needed to follow up with the switch to WebExtensions relatively quickly, so that extension authors wouldn't start porting their extensions to multiprocess and then after that effort have to rewrite their extensions to be WebExtensions-compatible. They wanted extension authors to be able to just directly port to WebExtensions.
And I do think that a lot more extension authors would have probably abandoned their projects, if they had just ported to multiprocess and then had to port to WebExtensions.
Also, a lot of extensions sort of just continue to function without active maintenance. Those are why it would have just as well been really disruptive to space out multiprocess and WebExtensions by a few years. Then we'd have to start over at 0 extensions twice.
[1] Multiprocess was rolled out in Firefox 48, on the 2nd August 2016: http://netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=1&qpaf=&qpcustom...
And then they needed to follow up with the switch to WebExtensions relatively quickly, so that extension authors wouldn't start porting their extensions to multiprocess and then after that effort have to rewrite their extensions to be WebExtensions-compatible. They wanted extension authors to be able to just directly port to WebExtensions.
And I do think that a lot more extension authors would have probably abandoned their projects, if they had just ported to multiprocess and then had to port to WebExtensions.
Also, a lot of extensions sort of just continue to function without active maintenance. Those are why it would have just as well been really disruptive to space out multiprocess and WebExtensions by a few years. Then we'd have to start over at 0 extensions twice.
[1] Multiprocess was rolled out in Firefox 48, on the 2nd August 2016: http://netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=1&qpaf=&qpcustom...
Developers can't port to APIs that don't exist. Mozilla holding to the November deadline as implementation has slipped hasn't helped them in any way.
Mozilla kept pushing developers to make their XUL extensions multiprocess-compatible even after WebExtensions was announced. At one point, they were going to keep the multiprocess compatibility shims until the WebExtensions deadline, but then they decided to start removing them sooner.[1] SDK extensions were mostly multiprocess-compatible already.
Developers are currently maintaining multiple branches of their extensions because 52 ESR is missing APIs and 57+ won't support hybrid extensions. Aligning the WebExtensions transition with the ESR cycle would have made things a lot easier for them.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/02/16/the-road-to-firef...
Mozilla kept pushing developers to make their XUL extensions multiprocess-compatible even after WebExtensions was announced. At one point, they were going to keep the multiprocess compatibility shims until the WebExtensions deadline, but then they decided to start removing them sooner.[1] SDK extensions were mostly multiprocess-compatible already.
Developers are currently maintaining multiple branches of their extensions because 52 ESR is missing APIs and 57+ won't support hybrid extensions. Aligning the WebExtensions transition with the ESR cycle would have made things a lot easier for them.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/02/16/the-road-to-firef...
Rushed? It was announced more than two years ago, as I recall.
Hmm... August, 2015.
Hmm... August, 2015.
When it was announced is somewhat irrelevant. Developers are saying Web Extensions still isn't able to support the needed functionality. That needed to be addressed before shutting down the older APIs. That is where I feel developers have been left hanging... given a "shutdown" date when the replacement isn't even ready yet.
I am going to write up some extremely long-winded rant in blog form at some point before the FF57 release materializes, but suffice it to say, most developers that I know who have been involved with Mozilla since the Netscape days (and also those who build most of the add-ons/products that I care about, such as SeaMonkey) have shown nothing but disappointment at Mozilla's reckless plan for the Firefox 57 release. Literally just read the developer comment response to almost any Mozilla blog post about web-extensions/complete themes from the past ~year and you'd see that more than "Very few people" are bothered by this.
Perhaps normal users don't care (or just haven't noticed yet), but most of the features which make the Mozilla platform so enticing to power users (what ever happened to XULRunner?) are being decimated because Mozilla is losing market-share and needs free advertising.
Let's not beat around the bush; Mozilla is losing market-share because people get flustered into downloading chrome due to that Microsoft-tier advert that gets plastered onto the google search page in any non-Chrome browser. Yes, Firefox had been feeling chuggier and bloated for awhile, but the core feature-set that made the platform a dream to use for power users never waned. Speeding up the browser while retaining its core feature-set are not mutually exclusive conditions.
I think that if these "normal" users understood how powerful complete themes and the XUL/XPCOM apis are, they would be up in arms. It's not that people don't want complete themes, for example. Were it not for Mozilla's incompetence (there's a bug somewhere that tracks how the total reported download count for complete themes was inexplicably reduced to just 10% of what it previously was, never recovering; there used to be hundreds of thousands of users of complete themes around ~2007-2009), such as the time wasted making incessant changes to the core browser theme that nobody asked for (nothing has ever looked as good as the Suite/SeaMonkey), is what has truly been the cause of these 'modernizations.'
XUL and the add-on SDK are so powerful that I basically re-created two old unix programs ('picons newscheck-faces' and 'xfaces' [0]) over the past couple of weeks. This simple XUL/XPCOM project of mine now brings an incredibly fast & powerful cross-platform solution to two of my favorite old mail visualization programs that have suffered extreme bit rot (I swear more people used Plan 9's vismon than the verious picons/faces programs).
When the legacy add-on api removal finally hits SeaMonkey, my whole extension will cease to function. In fact, it doesn't even work in the current SeaMonkey 2.54a1 nightly. Can you explain to me a similar cross-platform browser/mail client that provides similar APIs for me to rebuild my extension? The answer is no, because in a couple of months the one that did will no longer exist.
Anyway, my point is that I'm not exactly sure who Mozilla is targeting with the Firefox 57 release — perhaps their jet-setting upper management; perhaps nobody.
[0]: http://kinzler.com/picons/ftp/demo/
https://i.imgur.com/EnDMKuO.png
https://i.imgur.com/k40BISq.png
https://i.imgur.com/lvv9REm.jpg
(features not even pictured above: Face header decoding, X-Face header decoding, X-Image-URL header, and Contact Card Image support)
edit: also, as the one guy that has been updating the internal chrome:// url page in recent years, show me a browser that gives this amount of access to its internal tools: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Chrome_URLs#early_Mozilla_Suite_an...
Perhaps normal users don't care (or just haven't noticed yet), but most of the features which make the Mozilla platform so enticing to power users (what ever happened to XULRunner?) are being decimated because Mozilla is losing market-share and needs free advertising.
Let's not beat around the bush; Mozilla is losing market-share because people get flustered into downloading chrome due to that Microsoft-tier advert that gets plastered onto the google search page in any non-Chrome browser. Yes, Firefox had been feeling chuggier and bloated for awhile, but the core feature-set that made the platform a dream to use for power users never waned. Speeding up the browser while retaining its core feature-set are not mutually exclusive conditions.
I think that if these "normal" users understood how powerful complete themes and the XUL/XPCOM apis are, they would be up in arms. It's not that people don't want complete themes, for example. Were it not for Mozilla's incompetence (there's a bug somewhere that tracks how the total reported download count for complete themes was inexplicably reduced to just 10% of what it previously was, never recovering; there used to be hundreds of thousands of users of complete themes around ~2007-2009), such as the time wasted making incessant changes to the core browser theme that nobody asked for (nothing has ever looked as good as the Suite/SeaMonkey), is what has truly been the cause of these 'modernizations.'
XUL and the add-on SDK are so powerful that I basically re-created two old unix programs ('picons newscheck-faces' and 'xfaces' [0]) over the past couple of weeks. This simple XUL/XPCOM project of mine now brings an incredibly fast & powerful cross-platform solution to two of my favorite old mail visualization programs that have suffered extreme bit rot (I swear more people used Plan 9's vismon than the verious picons/faces programs).
When the legacy add-on api removal finally hits SeaMonkey, my whole extension will cease to function. In fact, it doesn't even work in the current SeaMonkey 2.54a1 nightly. Can you explain to me a similar cross-platform browser/mail client that provides similar APIs for me to rebuild my extension? The answer is no, because in a couple of months the one that did will no longer exist.
Anyway, my point is that I'm not exactly sure who Mozilla is targeting with the Firefox 57 release — perhaps their jet-setting upper management; perhaps nobody.
[0]: http://kinzler.com/picons/ftp/demo/
https://i.imgur.com/EnDMKuO.png
https://i.imgur.com/k40BISq.png
https://i.imgur.com/lvv9REm.jpg
(features not even pictured above: Face header decoding, X-Face header decoding, X-Image-URL header, and Contact Card Image support)
edit: also, as the one guy that has been updating the internal chrome:// url page in recent years, show me a browser that gives this amount of access to its internal tools: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Chrome_URLs#early_Mozilla_Suite_an...
They are targeting something that only exist in the drug haze filling the marketing and design offices.
The same marketing that insisted that Mozilla shift their major version on every release, and that keep producing sugar coated videos for the most vapid of reasons.
Face it, the FOSS world has become a bastion of champagne pimping social climbers that just want to add to their score card that they have worked on something with a "humanitarian" angle.
On that note, i guess there is always the option of helping out with Palemoon before they go through with their planned rebase on a more recent Firefox release...
The same marketing that insisted that Mozilla shift their major version on every release, and that keep producing sugar coated videos for the most vapid of reasons.
Face it, the FOSS world has become a bastion of champagne pimping social climbers that just want to add to their score card that they have worked on something with a "humanitarian" angle.
On that note, i guess there is always the option of helping out with Palemoon before they go through with their planned rebase on a more recent Firefox release...
Their marketing problem is, in my interpretation, based around the flawed mindset that you should treat users as non-technical cattle. This is the chrome way. The problem is, Mozilla has historically thrived off of the opposite - the 'hacker' mentality. The only reason Mozilla even exists is due primarily to Jamie Zawinski!
I agree with your point about the shift in major version releases — this was another marketing ploy to 'catch up' to Chrome (who, for whatever reason, popularized the ridiculous practice of tagging releases with huge numbers).
When it comes to add-ons, this bigger-is-better mindset/fallacy is one of the things that Mozilla touts about the ~2000 new web-extensions on AMO. What they fail to mention is how many of these are just utterly useless (or whose core functionality is bested by something like youtube-dl, mpv, using the dev tools, etc.). People don't want the highly limited feature-set provided by web-extensions, they want add-ons that integrate themselves deep into the browser internals (noscript), leverage the add-on sdk, or modify the browser chrome:// in some way.
Edit: I cannot speak about the FOSS community as a whole (I only have experience in academia/government work), but from what I have read online about Mozilla's internal leadership, it currently seems like a difficult place to work if you legitimately care about these kinds of issues.
As for Palemoon, (I have made this clear in previous posts on HN and reddit), but I generally consider that project to be less than a joke. It would take an absolutely herculean amount of time and energy to keep their feature-set even with Firefox while retaining all of the stuff that is being decimated from mozilla-central. It's never going to work. They should focus their attention on SeaMonkey (comm-central) instead of wasting their time.
I agree with your point about the shift in major version releases — this was another marketing ploy to 'catch up' to Chrome (who, for whatever reason, popularized the ridiculous practice of tagging releases with huge numbers).
When it comes to add-ons, this bigger-is-better mindset/fallacy is one of the things that Mozilla touts about the ~2000 new web-extensions on AMO. What they fail to mention is how many of these are just utterly useless (or whose core functionality is bested by something like youtube-dl, mpv, using the dev tools, etc.). People don't want the highly limited feature-set provided by web-extensions, they want add-ons that integrate themselves deep into the browser internals (noscript), leverage the add-on sdk, or modify the browser chrome:// in some way.
Edit: I cannot speak about the FOSS community as a whole (I only have experience in academia/government work), but from what I have read online about Mozilla's internal leadership, it currently seems like a difficult place to work if you legitimately care about these kinds of issues.
As for Palemoon, (I have made this clear in previous posts on HN and reddit), but I generally consider that project to be less than a joke. It would take an absolutely herculean amount of time and energy to keep their feature-set even with Firefox while retaining all of the stuff that is being decimated from mozilla-central. It's never going to work. They should focus their attention on SeaMonkey (comm-central) instead of wasting their time.
A mindset that is becoming more and more prevalent as FOSS projects gun for mainstream acceptance...
Err, and as for focusing on Seamonkey i fear that ship has long since sailed. As best i can tell, Seamonkey today is a "thin" UI wrapper around whatever Firefox source Mozilla barfs out ever so often. They are even stripping out Seamonkey features just to get the thing to compile so they can actually produce a working binary.
> show me a single Persona that doesn't look like shit
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/herbal-guitar... — especially with the new Photon UI (57)
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/herbal-guitar... — especially with the new Photon UI (57)
ehh I know taste is subjective, but (on Win10, at least) I find this very very ugly. latest nightly.
https://i.imgur.com/z3cM8ve.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Oa875od.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/z3cM8ve.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Oa875od.jpg
I find it incredibly cluttered. Seems like the push for vertical page space has lead to crunching everything together into 2 lines while ignoring usability.
I agree that the Firefox user interface feels way too cluttered these days. I know this is a highly unpopular opinion, but I find the way that the Suite (SeaMonkey) allows you to collapse/expand title bars infinitely more functional than whatever Mozilla has been doing over the past decade.
https://i.imgur.com/b5ZpLaO.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Se4rYJc.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ynphRKv.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/b5ZpLaO.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Se4rYJc.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ynphRKv.jpg
As cluttered as you make it. Remove the separate search bar and hide the useless buttons, looks good IMO: https://i.imgur.com/Wi4X76s.png
I have said this multiple times, but I am going to say it again. I have always used Firefox and Chrome, side by side since Chrome first came out and I have never, ever, in all that time, even once thought that Chrome was faster than Firefox (or vice-versa) for my day to day use. Speed has just never been an issue, yet I see it quoted in almost every comparison between Firefox and Chrome...
Firefox has always been my main browser, with Chrome only used if required, although I generally have them both open. I am a heavy user of tabs and multiple windows, and Firefox eats Chrome's lunch in this area, while using far less memory.
Still, very good to see Mozilla back on track again and producing great browser software. Keep it up Mozilla!
Firefox has always been my main browser, with Chrome only used if required, although I generally have them both open. I am a heavy user of tabs and multiple windows, and Firefox eats Chrome's lunch in this area, while using far less memory.
Still, very good to see Mozilla back on track again and producing great browser software. Keep it up Mozilla!
If you’re like me, you switched your default browser over to Chrome years ago and never looked back.
Why should I take browser advice from someone who doesn't pay attention? Especially someone who lauds the "simplicity" of Chrome...
I do love how fast Firefox 57 is though.
Why should I take browser advice from someone who doesn't pay attention? Especially someone who lauds the "simplicity" of Chrome...
I do love how fast Firefox 57 is though.
I think "never looked back" is more a turn of phrase than anything here. Obviously the author has looked back, otherwise he wouldn't be writing this article.
About 80% of my addons might stop working with Firefox 57, seeing as they are plastered with the "legacy" label currently. If that happens, it's bye bye Firefox for me. This matters far more than some tiny rendering speed improvement.
Thankfully I never switched to Chrome/ium; at first there were some FF extensions still not ported to Chrome that kept me from switching, then came privacy concerns keeping me away from it, finally when I was still running a slow machine as main PC and FF started to become slow and bloated it came Palemoon offering the same functionality at higher speed. Now Although I still run Palemoon on my main PC and all netbooks/laptops, I install Firefox on all customers/friends/relatives PC plus a basic set of addons for privacy protection (ublock origin + disconnect + https everywhere) and have to admit it got really better with time.
I found Firefox very inefficient when working with large file says a 2GB file. It doesn't have filesystem api like Chrome does. There is no ability to do low-level create, read, update and delete (CRUD) file operations. For example, you cannot write bytes in the end of a file and continues to grow it. IndexedDB only allows adding and removing whole files. As the file size get big, the inefficient file handling will cause Firefox to run out of offline storage and the processing time will get longer exponentially as the file size increases.
Speed improvements are good, but the lack of basic features is what kills Firefox. It is not ready for heavy duty web app.
Speed improvements are good, but the lack of basic features is what kills Firefox. It is not ready for heavy duty web app.
I tried it again on my notebook having seen the Project Quantum dev edition announcement here. Initially impressed by its speed, I've been using it since (3 days I think?). I've found after a few hours it slows down in two very irritating respects -- scrolling gets very janky and reluctant, and switching tabs takes nearly a second. I suppose this may be due to an extension, but given I only use my notebook for work, I don't think I'm going to go through a process of elimination to find which one right now. Back to Chrome for the time being, but I like the current FF incarnation enough to give it another go.
Can you run the profiler https://perf-html.io/ and when this happens next, capture a profile of some janky tab switching. Once you've captured a profile you can share it which gives you a link. Then can you file a bug at https:/bugzilla.mozilla.org and include the link to your profile and a description of the symptoms.
I should have said more about the profiler in case you're new to it. Let it run. It's overhead is really quite low. Then when you notice the slow tab switching or janky scrolling, you hit Capture Profile and that stops the profiler and loads the profile for you to view. IN that view you'll find a "share" button in the top right that makes the profile remotely available and gives you a link you can use to file a bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org
I will. I was actually intending to put Firefox aside for a beta release or two, but I've enjoyed using it so much aside from those issues that I think I shall persist for a while.
Thanks for the info.
Thanks for the info.
One suggestion re scrolling. In about:config turn off smooth scrolling. Its for compatability, but most systems work better with it off. The scrolling is much snappier with it off.
Thanks, I'll try that next time if it reoccurs. It's an accumulating problem of some sort, so memory-related presumably. Scrolling is smooth except on the very heaviest pages initially, and gets jankier over time.
Tons of extensions don't work. My personal blocker is mouse gestures; the webextensions API simply doesn't support the workflow I've been following for 15+ years. Mouse gestures will NEVER work well on Firefox 57+, just as they will NEVER work well on Chrome.
Additionally, mouse gestures are completely broken on both linux and MacOS due to Firefox's implementation of right-clicking and that is not slated to be fixed before v57 releases.
Oh-- and there's no functional LastPass addon yet either. And 57 is in beta 4 and will be released very soon.
It is pretty fast, though. Good for benchmarks if not for actually using. Personally, I switched to Vivaldi.
Additionally, mouse gestures are completely broken on both linux and MacOS due to Firefox's implementation of right-clicking and that is not slated to be fixed before v57 releases.
Oh-- and there's no functional LastPass addon yet either. And 57 is in beta 4 and will be released very soon.
It is pretty fast, though. Good for benchmarks if not for actually using. Personally, I switched to Vivaldi.
57 just entered Beta. It will be released on the 14th November. That's a whole 6 weeks still.
It also is not the end of all Firefox development. Just because it's not necessarily done for 57, doesn't mean that it won't get fixed or that it will "NEVER" work well.
It's also nonsense to make assumptions about what will work in Firefox in the future based on what works in Chrome, as Mozilla is introducing additional APIs that Chrome does not have.
If you're happy with Vivaldi, your thing. But there also is Firefox 52 ESR, which will continue to get security updates until the 26th June 2018.
It also is not the end of all Firefox development. Just because it's not necessarily done for 57, doesn't mean that it won't get fixed or that it will "NEVER" work well.
It's also nonsense to make assumptions about what will work in Firefox in the future based on what works in Chrome, as Mozilla is introducing additional APIs that Chrome does not have.
If you're happy with Vivaldi, your thing. But there also is Firefox 52 ESR, which will continue to get security updates until the 26th June 2018.
Unfortunately many of my blockers, such as functioning in new tab and other internal pages and anywhere on the chrome of the browser, are WONTFIX.
I switched from FF to chromium (not chrome), because I don't spend a lot of money on computers. I use fairly slow hardware and FF was very sluggish.
Sounds like FF Is making a comeback, I'll definitely try it out once it becomes stable.
Sounds like FF Is making a comeback, I'll definitely try it out once it becomes stable.
This has been nice timing for me as I've been looking to cut my ties from "being the product" with Google. I'm using the current beta FirefoxDeveloperEdition and am looking forward to the upcoming rewrite in 57 (59?).
Others have mentioned pocket's integration, but I can't wait to see the open-source code, I've already set-up my own Shaarli and Wallabag instances.
I'm still evaluating Brave and Vivaldi after being a long time (2+ years) user of Chomium. The only thing that's hardest to find is the separate identity management and Sync that comes so easily in Chrome/Chromium.
Others have mentioned pocket's integration, but I can't wait to see the open-source code, I've already set-up my own Shaarli and Wallabag instances.
I'm still evaluating Brave and Vivaldi after being a long time (2+ years) user of Chomium. The only thing that's hardest to find is the separate identity management and Sync that comes so easily in Chrome/Chromium.
My laptop is slow in general (Mac 2008) and I've considered Chrome as a culprit.
Is there any way I can easily objectively measure the impact from moving to FF? Like taking average memory footprints for a few days with each browser?
Is there any way I can easily objectively measure the impact from moving to FF? Like taking average memory footprints for a few days with each browser?
I can tell the difference in daily usage, where I would have to restart Chrome every day or two on Linux because of excessive RAM usage (I do keep a lot of tabs open, and simultaneously run IntelliJ IDEA among other JVM programs/docker containers), and I don't have to with FF 54/55+ anymore. Each tab in a new process became the default in 54/55 as long as all of your extensions are updated. I haven't looked back since.
I have tried switching away at points before this, and something would bring me back to Chrome/Chromium, but not this time.
I have tried switching away at points before this, and something would bring me back to Chrome/Chromium, but not this time.
I hate Chrome. Never stopped using Firefox
Not much about privacy in the comments here, surprisingly. I'd have a lot more jollier sentiments for Firefox if they'd address the sort of issues exemplified here: https://browserleaks.com/
FF is my preferred (chromium 2nd) browser, but there aren't many alternatives. I'm not a dev, but my impression is that modern browsers are designed as advertisement and data-leak protocols with incidental browsing capabilities.
Going to switch over to the beta for a week and see how I get on.
From first impressions though, I'm very impressed by how snappy it feels.
One downside is a personal site I host uses client side certs for auth, and that stopped working in Firefox (whereas it was fine in Chrome), turns out the Javascript fetch API needs you to structure the request like
`fetch(someUrl, { credentials: 'include' })`
So I had to go through the code to fix that.
Presumably this is a web standard that Firefox is adhering to, whereas Chrome is a bit more relaxed on this?
From first impressions though, I'm very impressed by how snappy it feels.
One downside is a personal site I host uses client side certs for auth, and that stopped working in Firefox (whereas it was fine in Chrome), turns out the Javascript fetch API needs you to structure the request like
`fetch(someUrl, { credentials: 'include' })`
So I had to go through the code to fix that.
Presumably this is a web standard that Firefox is adhering to, whereas Chrome is a bit more relaxed on this?
I could never make the switch to Chrome in the first place. Sure, I use Chrome for the things it does better, like live editing of script in debugger, but Firefox was always streets ahead for customisation – both plugin- and preference-wise. I always found Chrome's preemptive tendencies frustrating, and its general "Chrome knows what's best for you" attitude intolerable for web development work. I also trust Mozilla a hell of a lot more than Google.
I was just thinking I need to try Firefox again the other
day.
We need to give Firefox as many chances as it needs because it’s one of the most important projects on the Internet today.
We need to give Firefox as many chances as it needs because it’s one of the most important projects on the Internet today.
Please do. There is something to be said for using open source technologies even when they are not the fastest or most full-featured.
And has Firefox on Linux always been more performant? Because over the years, as everyone else migrated away to Chrome, I never really noticed all of the things that were supposed to be so horrible about Firefox.
And has Firefox on Linux always been more performant? Because over the years, as everyone else migrated away to Chrome, I never really noticed all of the things that were supposed to be so horrible about Firefox.
Does the upcoming Firefox start as fast as Chrome? Rendering was never what I had problems with; startup speed is literally the one reason why I haven't switched.
There's still that "Firefox is installing updates" modal that shows up the first time you launch the new version.
But after that bad first impression, launching Firefox 57 is very snappy.
But after that bad first impression, launching Firefox 57 is very snappy.
Hm, I just installed it. It's fine enough, it's just not quite matching Chrome or otherwise what I would call snappy (I have a relatively high bar for that). Though now my main problems with it are that my extensions don't work and Gmail threads appears way too big for some reason.
Do you close your browser that often?
Yeah, I close tabs when I don't need them which pretty often means I have nothing open. It's just cognitive overload and a distraction to constantly have tabs open.
For my mental cleanup it works to have about:config?filter=browser.tabs.closeWindowWithLastTab set to false.
Windows and tabs are both cognitive overload for me, I don't treat regular windows any differently from browser tabs.
Command-H does the trick for me.
Hiding stuff doesn't do it for me haha :\ if it's running then it's taking some of my attention...
More like it's time to quit firefox for waterfox which has the added benefits of removing most of the unnecessary crap (signed extension, pocket, telemetry, EME, profiling, sponsored tiles, data collection) and will not drop support for legacy extensions.
https://www.waterfoxproject.org/blog/waterfox-55.0-release-d...
https://www.waterfoxproject.org/blog/waterfox-55.0-release-d...
I am definitely willing to give it a shot but they need to fix the dev tools.
I'm on 56 atm in Windows 10 / 16 GB RAM / Core i5-3570K and for whatever reason when I press F12 to open up the console it is really sluggish and takes a good whole second to draw itself.
Does 57 solve that?
That said I could see myself just using Chrome for development and FIrefox as main browser. I did the opposite for a while until Firebug was phased out and Chrome Dev Tools became better.
I'm on 56 atm in Windows 10 / 16 GB RAM / Core i5-3570K and for whatever reason when I press F12 to open up the console it is really sluggish and takes a good whole second to draw itself.
Does 57 solve that?
That said I could see myself just using Chrome for development and FIrefox as main browser. I did the opposite for a while until Firebug was phased out and Chrome Dev Tools became better.
Can someone explain the difference between the process / thread architecture of chrome and firefox desktop apps and the implications of this difference? On MacOS Chrome appears as many processes named Chrome helper or something, whereas Firefox appears as a single process with many threads. Given that the two are trying to solve the same problem and are so superficially similar, is the difference in architecture surprising?
Firefox now uses multiple processes too. By default Firefox is limited to one UI process and four web content processes. Chrome will use roughly one content process per tab (though that's an oversimplification). Firefox's choice to use fewer web content processes result in less memory usage, but if a content process crashes you'll have to reload 1/4 of your tabs.
Both browsers use threads extensively within each process as well.
Both browsers use threads extensively within each process as well.
AFAIK this quantum release was mostly about a new/better CSS engine, right? If this helps this much, I'm very excited for webrender.
The new (written from scratch) CSS engine definitely did give a big performance boost, but I'd say it was only about 1/4 of the increase from 56 to 57.
Another big factor is the new UI. It's partially just more efficient, partially uses animations to make it look faster / more responsive, partially enables new performance features, such as "tab warmup", which starts loading in a tab as you hover your mouse over it, so that it's instantly there when you actually click.
Then they're still benefitting from the new multiprocess architecture. A lot of performance problems can be solved by just throwing a lengthy task into a background thread.
Then the deprecation of the old extension API is also significant. The old extension API had essentially no abstraction from Firefox's source code, so Mozilla couldn't even really refactor code without breaking extensions. Now that that's deprecated, they were able to throw out big chunks of code [1] and refactor what's left.
I presume that made it a lot easier to work with the code and find performance problems, but also just in general, they put a lot of effort into fixing hundreds of smaller performance issues that taken together did make a big difference, too.
Not to mention that lots of those old extensions had performance problems themselves as well.
And lastly, they also just made sure that the right things have the right priorities. Your background tab is not as important as the tab that you're looking at and so on. Again benefitting from the multiprocess architecture.
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1347507
Another big factor is the new UI. It's partially just more efficient, partially uses animations to make it look faster / more responsive, partially enables new performance features, such as "tab warmup", which starts loading in a tab as you hover your mouse over it, so that it's instantly there when you actually click.
Then they're still benefitting from the new multiprocess architecture. A lot of performance problems can be solved by just throwing a lengthy task into a background thread.
Then the deprecation of the old extension API is also significant. The old extension API had essentially no abstraction from Firefox's source code, so Mozilla couldn't even really refactor code without breaking extensions. Now that that's deprecated, they were able to throw out big chunks of code [1] and refactor what's left.
I presume that made it a lot easier to work with the code and find performance problems, but also just in general, they put a lot of effort into fixing hundreds of smaller performance issues that taken together did make a big difference, too.
Not to mention that lots of those old extensions had performance problems themselves as well.
And lastly, they also just made sure that the right things have the right priorities. Your background tab is not as important as the tab that you're looking at and so on. Again benefitting from the multiprocess architecture.
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1347507
No, this version has so many groundbreaking changes.
It starts to be fully multicore, CSS engine was re-written in Rust, there's a new design (that they've named Photon), Pocket integration is now slightly tighter, WebExtensions become the default, and they've redesigned the developer tools.
It starts to be fully multicore, CSS engine was re-written in Rust, there's a new design (that they've named Photon), Pocket integration is now slightly tighter, WebExtensions become the default, and they've redesigned the developer tools.
"It feels fast and light and I may just make it my default browser again once the stable version comes around."
"Is Firefox Quantum significantly better than Chrome? No. But they are on par again"
Well this ringing endorsement sure sold me. Anyone else? Bonus: you can mix your own Firefox Quantum using two regular Firefox Colas, some Jet and Nuclear Materials at any crafting bench.
"Is Firefox Quantum significantly better than Chrome? No. But they are on par again"
Well this ringing endorsement sure sold me. Anyone else? Bonus: you can mix your own Firefox Quantum using two regular Firefox Colas, some Jet and Nuclear Materials at any crafting bench.
Is that fallout 4 specific, or could you do that in fallout NV too?
Need the Firefox World expansion pack for F4
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1332447
Looks like some interesting ideas on the user interface in the new Firefox.
Anyone worked out how to hide the tab bar with a single tab in 57 yet? (I'm odd, and I like to use my window manager to manage Web sites in windows.)
Looks like some interesting ideas on the user interface in the new Firefox.
Anyone worked out how to hide the tab bar with a single tab in 57 yet? (I'm odd, and I like to use my window manager to manage Web sites in windows.)
The problem of firefox is not the desktop, it's on android where it really need to catch-up with chrome. I am not sure everything that was said here also applied to firefox for android. Also I would have done the speed comparison on mobile. The new UI of firefox and android is really ugly. It actually looks like you are in a webview.
I'm a little confused on how they tested loading speed. I.e. they use webpagetest suite which is made for testing website speed NOT web browser speed. In other words it's being tested on live websites, subject to network latencies and what not? Doesn't seem like a very robust methodology. Am I just confused here?
The battery usage on MacOS has been atrocious in Firefox 57. Has anyone else had this problem? Am I doing something wrong?
That's too bad. Battery on my work MacBook (and making my whole system beachball constantly, even with only a handful of tabs open) is what got me to switch from Firefox to Chrome ~6 years ago, and from there to Safari for even better battery life (and avoiding Google).
I have plenty of battery issues on MacOS with both Firefox and Chrome. When it's a concern, I try to use Safari. I would probably use it all the time, but it's still awful when it comes to speeding up HTML5 videos (edit: including the latest Safari technology preview). It wasn't all that long ago that it didn't even do pitch correction. Now it does, but it's weirdly tinny and echoey. Firefox and Chrome both handle it fine.
For me too, on some pages it heats up and fans start to whirl. But lets wait and see. What made me switch is that the new safari has some really aggressive caching of css and js files.
https://pasteboard.co/GMJ4leH.jpg
https://pasteboard.co/GMJ4vn9.jpg
Still some problems to fix in rendering, u could notice upvote button rendered in chrome and Firefox above
https://pasteboard.co/GMJ4vn9.jpg
Still some problems to fix in rendering, u could notice upvote button rendered in chrome and Firefox above
Chrome user from the early days of Chrome. I tried switching to Firefox/Safari multiple times. It was Chrome Devtools which was holding me back in the end. Now I use Safari for most of the browsing. Getting started with Firefox for everything else. I miss the floating bookmarks in Chrome though.
The firefox team killed the ready to go WebSQL which could have also nicely standardised SQLite and pushed IndexedDB a standart thats broken and only half implemented across browsers even today.
And ironically they still use SQLite for their IndexedDB implementation.
Never forgive never forget.
Never forgive never forget.
The Firefox team killed the ready to go Filesystem api, which could have also nicely standardized.
Never forgive, never forget.
Never forgive, never forget.
Wow! Just installed the beta, and it's great. Waiting for the LastPass extension now before it can become a daily driver.
Most of my monitors are high Hz (144 or higher), and the scrolling is definitely smoother than Chrome when there's plenty of images to be loaded. Like butter.
Most of my monitors are high Hz (144 or higher), and the scrolling is definitely smoother than Chrome when there's plenty of images to be loaded. Like butter.
Wait... I just downloaded 57beta, and loaded CNN and USAToday, two sites with terrible video autoplay.
Immediately upon loaded CNN, my fan starts spinning up loudly (2016 macbook pro). When I loaded USAToday in another tab, I had to just quit FF because CPU was maxed out and laptop was overheating.
So...?
Immediately upon loaded CNN, my fan starts spinning up loudly (2016 macbook pro). When I loaded USAToday in another tab, I had to just quit FF because CPU was maxed out and laptop was overheating.
So...?
Does the latest version get video hardware decoding when it is stable? I like the new Firefox’s speed but YouTube videos shoot up to 40–100% CPU usage while Safari’s impact is so low the fan doesn’t even spin up. Tested Firefox Dev Edition 57 beta on macOS High Sierra.
Started using Firefox Developer Edition today. Ye gods, it’s incredibly fast. Killer job, FF team!
FF56 has a weird problem. It seems all keyboard shortcuts are extremely slow with a delay of several seconds. For example closing a tab with "X" is fast, but pressing "Command+W" causes several seconds delay.
Has anyone else seen this problem?
Has anyone else seen this problem?
I haven't had that issue but please report it on bugzilla.mozilla.org if you can.
Also I would encourage you to try Firefox Beta, currently on version 57, to see if the issue is present there (also that is the version of Firefox the article is talking about).
Also I would encourage you to try Firefox Beta, currently on version 57, to see if the issue is present there (also that is the version of Firefox the article is talking about).
[deleted]
I'm a bit confused. I can't tell the difference between normal windows and incognito windows. I mean visually, they have nothing that distinguishes them, at least as far as I can tell.
EDIT: And is it possible to block third party cookies?
EDIT: And is it possible to block third party cookies?
I hope they make it easy to rebrand their browser, just like webkit did. That way, companies don't feel compelled to develop their own code, with of course all sorts of compatibility problems that come with it.
Firefox has been great for a few years, except I can't figure out how to get a good Windows touch experience. Is there an add on or theme anyone recommends? The touch points are too small and close.
The new Photon UI in Firefox 57 comes with a Touch UI. It's under Customize -> at the bottom "Density" -> Touch.
No idea, though, how well it works, I don't have a touchscreen...
No idea, though, how well it works, I don't have a touchscreen...
Thanks for the note, it is much better for a touchscreen.
The only thing that is keeping me on Chrome is buttery-smooth gestures (swipe left / right to go to previous / next page) on a MBP touchpad. If they have that built in I'd probably switch.
Also, Chrome has proper two finger pinch zooming on touchscreens. Firefox just simulates ctrl+scroll wheel, which is 1. slow and 2. not nearly as useful for the user. But that's not something I use often, I gladly switched over to Firefox again, this new version is really something.
This is a deal breaker for me as well.
Well I'm running FF 57 right now on my Macs and there is no problem using these gestures.
On Android, the nightly build looks pretty good, however, GPU accelerated CSS animations are fairly choppy. By comparison, on Chrome or Safari, they're really nice and smooth.
Can't agree more. Plus the developer edition is just great.
Safari wait time to me is pretty much non existent already. Even if it is a bit faster, do I want to change browsers for an example 100% speed increase from 100 to 50ms?
"Internt for people, not for profit"
This is a great slogan, but actions speak louder than words. Why hasn't FF implemented basic privacy protections and block trackers like Safari does? If Firefox is really "for people," this seems like an area they should be leading in. A cynic (like me) might suggest that it is because Mozilla has become utterly dependent on ad revenue for their survival.
Long gone are the days when Mozilla was funded by donations and t-shirt sales. There was a time when it was more than just a browser maker, it was the spearhead of an internet movement for open source. I miss those days.
This is a great slogan, but actions speak louder than words. Why hasn't FF implemented basic privacy protections and block trackers like Safari does? If Firefox is really "for people," this seems like an area they should be leading in. A cynic (like me) might suggest that it is because Mozilla has become utterly dependent on ad revenue for their survival.
Long gone are the days when Mozilla was funded by donations and t-shirt sales. There was a time when it was more than just a browser maker, it was the spearhead of an internet movement for open source. I miss those days.
Because implementing such user protections takes away from the revenue stream of webpage owners. As a result of that, those have much less of a incentive to ensure compatibility with Firefox, which ultimately means lots of broken webpages when browsing with Firefox.
What's more, with Google at 60% market share and growing, and not offering such protections for their users, it becomes increasingly more likely for webpage owners to just drop Firefox completely. It's not worth the effort compared to the money they make off of oblivious Chrome users.
You also seem to not be aware of Tracking Protection. Firefox blocks trackers by default in Private Browsing. There's more examples where Firefox goes the extra mile to protect user privacy, but Tracking Protection really is just exactly what you said. You should've seen the outcry from webpage owners when that was pushed out to users.
What's more, with Google at 60% market share and growing, and not offering such protections for their users, it becomes increasingly more likely for webpage owners to just drop Firefox completely. It's not worth the effort compared to the money they make off of oblivious Chrome users.
You also seem to not be aware of Tracking Protection. Firefox blocks trackers by default in Private Browsing. There's more examples where Firefox goes the extra mile to protect user privacy, but Tracking Protection really is just exactly what you said. You should've seen the outcry from webpage owners when that was pushed out to users.
Is the built-in Firefox "tracking protection" feature not as good as Safari at this?
I think that it's likely because Apple has much more leverage and their major source of funding isn't their browser. I could imagine a world where ad-based services started blocking/paywalling Firefox user-agents. Hopefully now that Apple has opened the door Mozilla is safe to walk through too.
You actually think that websites would ban Firefox' user agent?!?
Publishers are already treating adblock (not tracking protection) users far more aggressively than they have in the past. I imagine if the number of users that are hampering advertiser value went up by an order of magnitude that these publishers may react in a far more aggressive way.
That depends, really. Firefox usage is barely in the double digits and has been steadily declining for quite a while. If it becomes a hassle, then maybe. I'd expect them to boot Safari users first. We will have to see how it goes.
You mean, like half of Google’s newer products?
Google Allo Web, Hangouts, the Inbox Beta, Google Earth, etc all don’t work, or for a long time didn’t work in Firefox.
Google Allo Web, Hangouts, the Inbox Beta, Google Earth, etc all don’t work, or for a long time didn’t work in Firefox.
TBH, Lazarus Form Recovery was one of the only things keeping me on Chrome. But since all development has stopped, maybe the doors to Firefox have opened again.
I am glad I never gave up on Firefox. Of course I did not give chrome a shot as I did not want to shift from Firefox. I never found it to be slow either.
From what I've gathered, the new Firefox is fast because it makes better use of multiple cores. But is F57 still faster on a single core?
I like 57 as much as the next guy and it's my main browser, but I still develop with Chrome, cause inspector is so much better :/
for $BAR :: CPU, GPU, MEM, IO
What's the best way to visualize the relative $BAR usage of browser tabs in real time in the browser UI?
Could each tab have an instantaneous or averaging resource demand indicator shown? ...by a font modification, performance dial, color scheme, or animation...?
What's the best way to sort or select from all tabs, or a selection of tabs, by $BAR usage or a query on $BAR usage?
What's the best way to visualize the relative $BAR usage of browser tabs in real time in the browser UI?
Could each tab have an instantaneous or averaging resource demand indicator shown? ...by a font modification, performance dial, color scheme, or animation...?
What's the best way to sort or select from all tabs, or a selection of tabs, by $BAR usage or a query on $BAR usage?
Never left. Thanks for the hard work guys :D
Is there a plugin for it to use Chrome sync? I'm way too invested in Chrome sync to lose it at this point.
No, Chrome sync is Google’s proprietary service, and no one except for Google and some homebrew solutions supports it.
But there are builds of Chromium that support Firefox Sync – Samsung’s Android browser even uses Firefox Sync by default
But there are builds of Chromium that support Firefox Sync – Samsung’s Android browser even uses Firefox Sync by default
What would you lose? You can just import the bookmarks and find alternate addons.
If you have passwords Xmarks isn't a webextension but you can use it on Firefox 56 and then upgrade.
If you have passwords Xmarks isn't a webextension but you can use it on Firefox 56 and then upgrade.
FYI, it looks like they are working on a webextension version of Xmarks.
https://forums.lastpass.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=266745&star...
This was a big relief for me, as it was the one extension I was really sweating on.
That said, I would love if there was a Chrome sync for Firefox, or Firefox sync for Chrome capability to sync bookmarks across them both.
https://forums.lastpass.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=266745&star...
This was a big relief for me, as it was the one extension I was really sweating on.
That said, I would love if there was a Chrome sync for Firefox, or Firefox sync for Chrome capability to sync bookmarks across them both.
Great to see all this work from Mozilla paying off. Never would have thought I'd see momentum like this.
I never switched to Chrome and stuck with Firefox since Firefox is user pro and not profit pro.
Wasn't there hate on HN recently for Firefox sharing data with Google trackers?
If it's really that fast they should rename it "Phoenix"...
Never switched to Chrome. Firefox worked just fine for me all this time.
I rather think it's time to give emacs-eww another chance as well.
Curious to see what results will look like versus Safari on macOS.
I use Brave. It's by far the fastest browser in the market.
Are the quantum changes also in the Android version of Firefox?
How does Firefox's sandbox stack up against Chrome's?
Per https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Sandbox/Specifics "The core of the Windows sandbox is Google's chromium sandbox" so I'd expect it to compare favorably.
I'd like to, but on Android Firefox is lightyears behind Chrome in many ways (including performance), and I get too much utility out of password/history/bookmark syncing between various devices to switch.
Xmarks is still around, albeit less capable than fully integrated Chrome
I actually set a reminder for Firefox 57 in my calendar...
Tried chrome but never switched to chrome. What feature were you missing in firefox that made you switch to chrome.
What made me switch was the performance basically, from the beta I had never used such a fast and responsive browser.
Is webgl still slow on firefox?
Can you duplicate tabs yet?
Lat time uninstall it when it drop support for firebug.
And brave
Am I the only one here who thinks that nothing can beat the Chrome debugger ? Nothing comes even close.
It's a different story if you are just browsing, like the 95% or more of the internet consumers.
It's a different story if you are just browsing, like the 95% or more of the internet consumers.
While it's true the firefox debugger is lacking in certain areas, it's also better than chrome in others. Debugging CSS animations is much easier in firefox, but firefox lacks a way to look at websocket packets.
One thing I like about firefox is that its debugger is a just a React webapp : https://github.com/devtools-html/debugger.html. So it's fairly easy to add to it !
One thing I like about firefox is that its debugger is a just a React webapp : https://github.com/devtools-html/debugger.html. So it's fairly easy to add to it !
There's also the grid layout debugger and a bunch of other stuff.
If you go to the devtools settings you can add a lot of cool tools to the main pane including a canvas debugger and some other useful stuff.
If you go to the devtools settings you can add a lot of cool tools to the main pane including a canvas debugger and some other useful stuff.
Think this is what Firefox should focus on, Chrome has had incredible resources put into making the devtools amazing, and they are amazing. If Firefox has a few killer features, it's not going to prevent people from using Chrome devtools, but they will Firefox as well, which is what everyone really wants, for the good of the web.
FWIW firefox has pretty steadily been churning out new debugger features this last year at least.
This is in the vein of firebug, the original "developer tools" extension, which was built in the same way: https://getfirebug.com/
I know the chrome dev tools are also just a web app themselves (or at least for the most part are).
I don't know the stack, but I do remember there is a way to open dev tools FOR the dev tools window.
I don't know the stack, but I do remember there is a way to open dev tools FOR the dev tools window.
> there is a way to open dev tools FOR the dev tools window
I did not know that.
I did not know that.
Open DevTools > pop it out into a separate window > Ctrl+Shift+I (on Linux) > Ctrl+Shift+I ad infinitum > enjoy devtools-ception.
[deleted]
You can do the same in Firefox. It's under Tools -> Web Developer -> Browser Toolbox.
Okay, obvious question: are they portable enough that we could just wholesale import them into Firefox?
I'm honestly not sure. It would be cool to attempt that, but I have a feeling at least the chrome dev tools use internal/privileged APIs
The ones that are packaged into the Developer Edition of Firefox are amazing. I'd say even better.
I agree, the Chrome dev tools feel much faster.
One essential feature for me is being able to pause the debugger and use the mouse selector on DOM elements, which doesn't work in Firefox right now. This is pretty much the only way I know how to inspect and debug popups.
One essential feature for me is being able to pause the debugger and use the mouse selector on DOM elements, which doesn't work in Firefox right now. This is pretty much the only way I know how to inspect and debug popups.
I’ve found the firefox dev tools to be quite good, maybe even better. For instance, I’ve found it has a little better tools for working with iframes.
Firefox also doesn't hide SSL certificate info like Chrome recently started doing.
Definitely not. I moved to Firefox when 57 was pushed to nightly, and I quickly realized that I have to keep Chrome around for any sort of web dev. Firefox's debugger is slow, it slows the page itself down significantly, and the layout is much less intuitive (to me).
I never switched from Firefox. I have no idea why everyone else did. Chrome had fewer extensions, wasn't faster and was a huge security risk. I can't remember Firefox ever having a problem with speed. I say that as someone who is unhappy if a command line tool takes more than a few milliseconds to do its thing. I think all that happened is people tried Chrome because Google told them to, and they found it was faster because they had a hundred extensions in Firefox and none in Chrome.
I use Firefox, Seamonkey and Chromium in rotation to make sure that anything web-related I build works is somewhat cross-browser compatible.
While FF 57 is usable on my Thinkpad 42p I can not say it is twice as fast as the previous version. Maybe the speedup depends on having a multi-core CPU, something which is notably absent in this 2004-vintage machine. Be that as it may, I think FF 57 is about as fast as its predecessor in general: faster in some tasks, slower in others, notably slower in scrolling.
While FF 57 is usable on my Thinkpad 42p I can not say it is twice as fast as the previous version. Maybe the speedup depends on having a multi-core CPU, something which is notably absent in this 2004-vintage machine. Be that as it may, I think FF 57 is about as fast as its predecessor in general: faster in some tasks, slower in others, notably slower in scrolling.
> While FF 57 is usable on my Thinkpad 42p I can not say it is twice as fast as the previous version.
I think their specific claim was twice as fast as Firefox 52 on one benchmark:
https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/quantum-performance-test/
I think their specific claim was twice as fast as Firefox 52 on one benchmark:
https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/quantum-performance-test/
I've switched completely to nightly from Chrome over the past month. However there is one extension that's keeping me from uninstalling Chrome. It's called secure SSH or secure shell, and it's the best SSH client that exists on windows!
I wish Opera got another chance. It was so fast. Faster than Chrome. But it didn't render some pages properly, so Chrome it was.
Can't wait to see privacy centric forks on ff quantum. How long will that take I wonder.
Still comes bundled with Pocket. No thanks.
Even worse, it's a walled garden. You can't edit or make your own extensions without getting each change approved by Mozilla first. They say to use the alpha(dev) or unbranded versions but the former is unstable and the later has no packaging or language support.
Yes, if you want to run unsigned addons, you need Dev or Nightly. That makes sense. Not letting "normal" users accidentally install malware extensions is really good.
"is unstable" isn't a good reason to avoid it. I've been using Nightly as my daily (heh) driver for a long time. It's been awesome.
BTW, approval is really fast now: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/09/21/review-wait-times...
"is unstable" isn't a good reason to avoid it. I've been using Nightly as my daily (heh) driver for a long time. It's been awesome.
BTW, approval is really fast now: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/09/21/review-wait-times...
> Not letting "normal" users accidentally install
I strongly disagree. Browser functionality for everyone shouldn't be gimped to protect a small subset of users from themselves.
>"is unstable" isn't a good reason to avoid it.
I'm not holding a controversial opinion in thinking that alphas are generally buggy for significant subset of the userbase. I get that it might work fine for you but there's a reason aurora isn't release.
I strongly disagree. Browser functionality for everyone shouldn't be gimped to protect a small subset of users from themselves.
>"is unstable" isn't a good reason to avoid it.
I'm not holding a controversial opinion in thinking that alphas are generally buggy for significant subset of the userbase. I get that it might work fine for you but there's a reason aurora isn't release.
"small subset"?! Most Firefox users don't install addons at all. The number of people who want to install addons from random untrusted places is really tiny.
Developer Edition is not alpha.
Developer Edition is not alpha.
Well, you're wrong. Developer is taking the place of aurora/alpha as the below quote from https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Developer_Editio... shows,
>Firefox Developer Edition replaces the Aurora channel in the Firefox Release Process. Like Aurora, features will land in the Developer Edition every six weeks, after they have stabilized in Nightly builds.
>Firefox Developer Edition replaces the Aurora channel in the Firefox Release Process. Like Aurora, features will land in the Developer Edition every six weeks, after they have stabilized in Nightly builds.
Sure I guess you could call Aurora "alpha" (but it wasn't named "Alpha" for a reason)…
the point is, they're so confident in the stability of the "alpha" they're offering it as something to be used by, well, all developers. And they should be confident. In the last year or so, Nightly only broke for me once.
the point is, they're so confident in the stability of the "alpha" they're offering it as something to be used by, well, all developers. And they should be confident. In the last year or so, Nightly only broke for me once.
Don't know what you mean with packaging support, but you can install language packs into the Unbranded Builds to get the different languages.
No repository, anywhere, has unbranded Firefox packaged up and with updates. If you want to run it that means manually downloading it and changing system config by hand each time there's a patch or version increment.
Mozilla acquire Pocket a while back. That might address your concerns, depending on what those concerns are.
You can disable it completely in about:config
You can also disable Pocket by clicking the new tab's gear icon and unchecking the "Recommended by Pocket" setting.
Chrome comes bundled with Flash. Firefox wins here.
I wanted to try Firefox, but 2 hours into using it I had a meeting in Google Hangouts. Firefox no longer supports Google Hangouts.
Back to Chrome it is.
Back to Chrome it is.
I think it is not up to Firefox to support Google Hangouts but the other way around.
Complain to Google. They're the ones not complying with webstandards.
Yeah, that situation is a mess and should be embarrassing for those involved.
I can use Hangouts for simple messaging from Firefox, but as soon as we need to hop on a call I need to boot up Chrome. Often I forget and try to answer in Firefox just to get the error message. Then I have to start Chrome, login to gmail if it's logged out, wait for everything to load, and then answer the call. Ends up taking a fairly long time to answer an incoming call sometimes.
I can use Hangouts for simple messaging from Firefox, but as soon as we need to hop on a call I need to boot up Chrome. Often I forget and try to answer in Firefox just to get the error message. Then I have to start Chrome, login to gmail if it's logged out, wait for everything to load, and then answer the call. Ends up taking a fairly long time to answer an incoming call sometimes.
I'm really not worried about some downvotes, but am surprised to see them. How is it not embarrassing that as much progress we have made with web standards, a major feature in one of the most popular email services is browser specific?
There is no need to point any fingers, but I find it interesting that for years now we've had key players in major browsers sit around at conferences and talk up how much they're working together on standards yet this is where we end up.
There is no need to point any fingers, but I find it interesting that for years now we've had key players in major browsers sit around at conferences and talk up how much they're working together on standards yet this is where we end up.
Honestly chrome sticks around because:
1. it's not bad
2. CMD + Shift + C opens the dev tools and allows you to select DOM nodes. I use that religiously...
Ctrl+Shitf+C does the same thing in firefox on my PC
Doesn't that work in firefox on the mac?
It works with ctrl+shift+c on win+linux, so I'm personally not missing anything here.
Option + CMD + C works in FF57b and also in the developers edition.
The beta seems pretty good, but after noticing some bugs im reminded again of one of the reasons I quit using Firefox in the first place: Tabs look fucked up on MacOS and some Linux themes, a fix exists, but it's been pushed back to version 58 even though 57 is still in beta. If you don't prioritize user experience in a web browser, then what's the point?
Do you have any further details on this? The tabs always looked weird to me but I don't know why.
I wonder what will be google's response. Faster chrome would be nice.
And Firefox - it's still Firefox, with obligatory pocket integration, no full themes support. It's more a company culture than technology thing.
I did, didn't work, went back to Chrome.
It was faster and had a smaller memory footprint than I remember, which was great. It also started stuttering on my macs every ~5 seconds or so. The page would just lock up. Couldn't find a solution. The only hints were to disable graphics acceleration, but those were years old.
On my windows machines it crashed, and crashed hard. Single tab has an issue, the entire browser crashed. Lost work.
No thanks FF, I'll try again in another decade.
It was faster and had a smaller memory footprint than I remember, which was great. It also started stuttering on my macs every ~5 seconds or so. The page would just lock up. Couldn't find a solution. The only hints were to disable graphics acceleration, but those were years old.
On my windows machines it crashed, and crashed hard. Single tab has an issue, the entire browser crashed. Lost work.
No thanks FF, I'll try again in another decade.
> No thanks FF, I'll try again in another decade.
You should hope that you'll have the option to do so in a decade, or maybe by then we'll all be getting extorted by Google after they've strangled the open web to death.
You should hope that you'll have the option to do so in a decade, or maybe by then we'll all be getting extorted by Google after they've strangled the open web to death.
Right. A bit dramatic, but I guess I'm in the same camp as the vast majority of other people out there who just wants a browser that doesn't get in my way.
To be clear; this was the stable version. I apologize that your favorite browser didn't work well for me.
For pre beta software, that's perfectly understandable.
Not pre-beta, it was the official stable version. I should have made that clear.
It'd be great if they fixed the memory leak so I could leave tabs open for more than a day. at about 2.4 gigs it crashes.
Edit: valid problems get downvoted. Great job guys.
That's usually a problem with one of your extensions. Maybe you can identify it through about:memory.
But good news, Firefox 57 will probably actually fix that. By 1) breaking unmaintained extensions for good and 2) switching to an extension API which makes it much harder for extension developers to make such mistakes.
Also, I don't know if this will be in 57, but extensions will probably eventually run in individual processes as well. And then you could just shoot down the process of the offending extension.
But good news, Firefox 57 will probably actually fix that. By 1) breaking unmaintained extensions for good and 2) switching to an extension API which makes it much harder for extension developers to make such mistakes.
Also, I don't know if this will be in 57, but extensions will probably eventually run in individual processes as well. And then you could just shoot down the process of the offending extension.
> It'd be great if they fixed the memory leak so I could leave tabs open for more than a day
Something else is wrong. For years, I've regularly had >100 tabs open for weeks at a time.
Something else is wrong. For years, I've regularly had >100 tabs open for weeks at a time.
Give Firefox another chance, after Mozilla recently announced opt-out telemetry? Give them another chance now that they're siding with the likes of privacy-ignorant Microsoft? The same vendor that keeps bolting on features that seem irrelevant to its user base, such as "assumed touch", app store etc?
Surely one would only offer Mozilla another chance once they have extended an olive branch, rather than a closed-circuit television camera?
Surely one would only offer Mozilla another chance once they have extended an olive branch, rather than a closed-circuit television camera?
Telemetry doesn't collect any private data. It's all performance measurements. I run Nightly with all the additional opt-in telemetry flags because I want to help Firefox development.
Firefox telemetry includes a unique identifier and system information. The data Mozilla is proposing to collect includes what sites a user visits.
The proposed study would use differential privacy and no unique identifiers. (And presumably wouldn't include Private Browsing windows.)
Honestly, (unpopular opinion probably but) I'm really tired of this privacy-mania…
Honestly, (unpopular opinion probably but) I'm really tired of this privacy-mania…
They did not announce opt-out telemetry, they started a discussion on the topic.
How is Mozilla siding with Microsoft?
I had been using exclusively Firefox for five years until six months ago but I prefer using Chrome now. Poor documentation, tons of telemetry, shady deals like Pocket or Hallo.
You can make Chrome more private and secure then Firefox with few command line options. Or use ungoogled-chromium.
do shell script "open -n -a 'Google Chrome' --args --incognito --disable-sync --disable-reading-from-canvas --disable-voice-input --disable-system-timezone-automatic-detection --connectivity-check-url=" & quoted form of url204 & " --disable-remote-fonts --no-referrers --disable-physical-keyboard-autocorrect --no-pings --enable-fast-unload --enable-media-suspend --enable-offline-auto-reload-visible-only --use-simple-cache-backend --aggressive-cache-discard --disk-cache-size=100663296 --proxy-server=" & quoted form of proxy_url
Checked Firefox 57/58 but can't confirm any visible performance gain. Documentation is lacking. And Firefox 57 has at the moment 58 extensions compatible. And it still has Pocket buil-in.
You can make Chrome more private and secure then Firefox with few command line options. Or use ungoogled-chromium.
do shell script "open -n -a 'Google Chrome' --args --incognito --disable-sync --disable-reading-from-canvas --disable-voice-input --disable-system-timezone-automatic-detection --connectivity-check-url=" & quoted form of url204 & " --disable-remote-fonts --no-referrers --disable-physical-keyboard-autocorrect --no-pings --enable-fast-unload --enable-media-suspend --enable-offline-auto-reload-visible-only --use-simple-cache-backend --aggressive-cache-discard --disk-cache-size=100663296 --proxy-server=" & quoted form of proxy_url
Checked Firefox 57/58 but can't confirm any visible performance gain. Documentation is lacking. And Firefox 57 has at the moment 58 extensions compatible. And it still has Pocket buil-in.
But here I am, running Nightly because holy shit this thing flies. Their work has paid off and they're not even done yet. Webrender is coming, it's not quite stable enough for daily use yet (mostly just graphics glitching and integration performance issues as far as I could see), but there's a lot of work being done and it's only getting better.
Their whole "Project Quantum" eliminated the UI performance issues that used to plague the browser and they're improving security sandboxing all the time.
To those who loved the power and control like myself, they still offer a ridiculous level of configuration flexibility and extension APIs - while no longer as powerful as they were - are still better than other browsers on the market today.