Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 50.0

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 205 posts

Re: Firefox 50.0

#41

Post by hobarrera »

Navarr wrote: post #35
kuschku wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They seem to have specced more or less what Webkit had already implemented The problem is that the WHATWG always just standardizes "whatever Chrome does". This leads to the HTML living standard actually being just like Office Open XML, with one entity controlling all of it.

I would postulate that the cause of this is that, as a provider of services, Google kind of knows what's difficult to do in a browser and what apis are needed to make it more native-like. So it's not a terribly bad thing, unless other people's standards are just being ignored

> So it's not a terribly bad thing, unless other people's standards are just being ignored.

It's actually an unfair advantage.

"Oh, let's standardize what Chrome already has implemented and Google is using". This immediately sets Firefox behind the new "standard", and website that don't work on FF technically "follow current standards".

Re: Firefox 50.0

#42

Post by pitaj »

Nadya wrote: post #10
silverwind wrote: post #3

Also to note: Firefox can now upload directories. Granted, it's done by mimicking Webkit APIs, but that has the advantage that existing sites work without changes.

I was confused by what this meant - so perhaps some others are too. This is what a few minutes of research got me: Uploading individual files in a directory = was possible Uploading an entire directory (eg: a folder to a cloud storage service) = was not possible Personally my workflow means I've uploaded the contents of a directory to a directory I make myself, so I've never encountered the problem. Am I missing some…

You can't upload subdirectories, so it quickly becomes painful to upload an entire directory of files if it has multiple folders within.

Re: Firefox 50.0

#43

Post by piotrjurkiewicz »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #9
digi_owl wrote: post #2

> View a page in Reader Mode by using Ctrl+Alt+R (command+alt+r on Mac) Took them bloody long enough. Now if only i was not stuck on ESR because GTK3...

> Now if only i was not stuck on ESR because GTK3... What's the issue with GTK3?

After switching to GTK3 version (Arch) I noticed it is much more sluggish and feels slower than previous versions. There are also some inconsistencies or just breaks in interface (I assume it is related to theming).

Re: Firefox 50.0

#44

Post by chucksmash »

kardos wrote: post #7

The bottom of the page says "Congrats! You’re using the latest version of Firefox.", but Firefox's About Firefox box says 49.0.2...

Are you browsing with Firefox for Android? If you click the "Android" tab, it still links to the 49.0.2 release notes.

Re: Firefox 50.0

#45

Post by kbenson »

dbl9 wrote: post #26
kbenson wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly for the same reason they don't ship Tk compiled versions. Why should they target every GUI toolkit and complicate their build process which they then have to deal with supporting? If it's that easy, you can probably find some third party that compiles and offers it. I'm not sure why you think Firefox needs to do it themselves.

For the same reason they haven't made 64-bit the default on Windows and provide two versions. There are many users for whom only one variant works reliably. If upstream, like in the case of cairo-gtk3, decides GTK2 is not supported anymore, it's a matter of chance whether your cairo-gtk2 build of Firefox works at all. For instance, for me 49.0.2 gtk2 local build on Arch crashes anytime I try to use the file dialog, w…

On windows, Firefox is the main supplier of binaries. I would hazard that on most Linux/BSD systems, the distribution is the main supplier of binaries. The distributions can easily build it as GTK2 if they want, or provide a GTK2 variant (and as pointed out above, some distributions seem to, or at least make it easy to build it yourself).

If you are on Linux and your distribution provides Firefox, this is a complaint to be leveled at your distribution, not Mozilla (who apparently already makes it easy to build the variant). I'm not sure how we got to a position where people feel justified in criticizing a company providing an open source product that's updated often and provides umpteen different binaries for different platforms and different build for those platforms for not building one more special configuration for what it likely a very small group of people, who can easily do so for themselves.

Re: Firefox 50.0

#46

Post by vdnkh »

bzbarsky wrote: post #40
vdnkh wrote: post #28

Any firefox devs here? You guys broke your own VTT polyfill with this update: https://github.com/mozilla/vtt.js/issues/354 Only reason I'm mentioning it here is that it looks like the repo is dead.

I'm making some inquiries. It looks like the old code just ended up setting "position" to 0 when an object was assigned, while the new code (correctly per spec) throws. The real bug is assigning an object to a non-object-valued property...

Excellent, thanks a lot! If I find a fix I'll PR it

Re: Firefox 50.0

#47

Post by bzbarsky »

conductor wrote: post #19

Regarding the new Referrer-Policy header introduction, what happens when my network.http.sendRefererHeader is 0, network.http.sendSecureXSiteReferrer is false and some website sets a Referrer-Policy: "unsafe-url" header? Which setting has the priority?

The logic is basically like so:

1) Is the site requesting a "no-referrer" policy? Then send no referer.

2) Is network.http.sendRefererHeader set to a value that would prevent sending of referrer in this situation (e.g. 0 in all situations)? Then send no referrer.

3) All the other logic (but generally aiming to follow the most restrictive directive we have).

The "network.http.sendSecureXSiteReferrer" still exists in 50, but is gone in 52; see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1308725

Re: Firefox 50.0

#49

Post by kardos »

chucksmash wrote: post #44
kardos wrote: post #7

The bottom of the page says "Congrats! You’re using the latest version of Firefox.", but Firefox's About Firefox box says 49.0.2...

Are you browsing with Firefox for Android? If you click the "Android" tab, it still links to the 49.0.2 release notes.

Ah, they've updated the page, now it's a "Download" button.

Re: Firefox 50.0

#50

Post by Manishearth »

Navarr wrote: post #35
kuschku wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They seem to have specced more or less what Webkit had already implemented The problem is that the WHATWG always just standardizes "whatever Chrome does". This leads to the HTML living standard actually being just like Office Open XML, with one entity controlling all of it.

I would postulate that the cause of this is that, as a provider of services, Google kind of knows what's difficult to do in a browser and what apis are needed to make it more native-like. So it's not a terribly bad thing, unless other people's standards are just being ignored

Actually, no. Google is bound to have its own favorite frameworks (perhaps even in house), its own coding style, and in general its own way of doing things. Most large companies do. Google would end up creating APIs that are most suitable for their use cases and their frameworks. These need not be the best APIs for all.
Post reply on HN