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

Update on Multi-Process Firefox

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 175 posts

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#111

Post by cpeterso »

dkonofalski wrote: post #53
anexprogrammer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm stuck as half the addons I find useful aren't compatible. The two most notable are 1password and Self Destructing Cookies

1Password isn't compatible with multi-process? That sucks. :( I use 1Pass for everything but I use Chrome right now. I've been eyeing Firefox again (it used to be my primary browser) but that kinda kills the deal for me. I'll probably start integrating it slowly. I can't imagine 1Pass will hold out for too long.

Here is the e10s bug about 1Password and it was resolved fixed in 2015. It might not be included in the initial extension whitelist for the Firefox Release channel but should work if you force-enable e10s or use Firefox Nightly.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1042195

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#112

Post by nikolay »

I've been gradually disappointed by Firefox - more and more websites no longer work. Okay, I'm using Firefox Developer Edition, but nonetheless, it's been disappointing compared to, let's say, Google Chrom Canary. Memory and CPU footprint is worse than latest Canary, too!

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#113

Post by cpeterso »

pwg wrote: post #61

Has anyone noticed bookmarklets not working when multi-process is turned on? I installed a V 51 developer edition to test out multi-process, and when multi-process was on, my bookmarks that modify the dom did not work. Any one else noticed anything similar?

That's sounds like a bug, as if the bookmarklet is executed in the main browser process and can't see the page's DOM. What DOM bookmarklet water you using? The Pinboard bookmarklet works for me but it is not agreeing the DOM.

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#114

Post by bad_user »

janfoeh wrote: post #94
JoshTriplett wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox Sync is cross-platform (it runs everywhere Firefox does), and it has every feature I want. What additional features do you want that it doesn't have?

Disclaimer: I'm writing this on Firefox. I was one of a couple of ten thousand people who donated money ten or so years ago for their famous NY Times ad when they were still going head-on against IE. I like them. This being said: if their Sync platform works for you, great. Here are my reasons why I choose 1Password as my password manager: 1. It's made by a company that focuses exclusively on this one product. It's t…

Speaking as a 1Password customer and Firefox user ...

Just because you pay for something, it doesn't make the business model sustainable. 1Password may be a solid product, but it's in essence a key-value store, which means that there isn't much AgileBits can do to improve it in order to get people to upgrade to a version 7. Heck mobile users would get that for free anyway. And btw, you're probably on macOS, because there is no Linux version, the stable Windows client sucks (version 4) and their new beta client (version 6) is read-only for usage without an account.

In other words they have a potential problem: their market is not that big and the standalone version requires convincing people to upgrade for sustainability. And this puts their new subscription model in a new perspective. Which is cool and all, except that would you really pay $3 / month on a yearly contract ($3.6 actually with VAT included) for a password manager? I wouldn't. You can bring up the coffee comparisons of course, but I have other more important subscriptions to pay for that have priority (e.g. phone, email, storage, hosting, domains, etc).

As for the endorsement of tptacek, if you care about the words of an HN user, he has endorsed only the standalone product, not the online enabled version to which they are now transitioning. Which no sane expert would endorse actually, given the problem of needing to enter your password in a web interface for account management.

Now don't get me wrong, I think 1Password is a good product, but then you compared it with Firefox and Firefox is open source with its development being done in the open, with contributions by third parties as well, which means that no matter what, it will stick around for as long as people want it. Firefox is also one of our champions for open standards, being essentially an open platform for app development. Now this puts it in another league entirely.

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#115

Post by programaround »

Phlarp wrote: post #49

This narrative white-washes over the part where he was witch-hunted out of a well deserved leadership position because he exercised his first amendment rights in a way that was unpopular with the greater tech community.

Here's links about the incident.

His statement: https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

Mozilla FAQ regarding this: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...

[edit: Clarity]

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#116

Post by JoshTriplett »

mook wrote: post #105
JoshTriplett wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1Password doesn't require a cloud sync. I just use the local wifi sync. I'm less worried about data breaches as a result. Firefox Sync encrypts all of its data; a data breach on the server would only result in a pile of email addresses and encrypted blobs. > 1Password lets me save more than browser passwords: especially on mobile where I have lots of apps to log into, which shares a password with a desktop website.…

The old Firefox sync used a local-only passphrase to encrypt things. The new one, as far as I can tell, just tires everything to your Firefox Account (i.e. nothing local is required). That's not really better than what 1Password does, I think.

The current Firefox Sync (based on Firefox Accounts) still keeps everything client-side encrypted, rooted in password-derived keys and locally generated keys. It never sends the password to the server.

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#117

Post by corv »

binaryanomaly wrote: post #9
mmastrac wrote: post #2

I force-enabled multi-process FF a while ago and haven't had any issues. In the 49.x series there were one or two tab crashes, but I can't think of any recently. All of my extensions have worked just fine too.

1Password unfortunately is still incompatible so force needs to be applied. But in general I share your observation - runs very smooth.

It shows up as incompatible but works fine.

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#118

Post by ngokevin »

nikolay wrote: post #112

I've been gradually disappointed by Firefox - more and more websites no longer work. Okay, I'm using Firefox Developer Edition, but nonetheless, it's been disappointing compared to, let's say, Google Chrom Canary. Memory and CPU footprint is worse than latest Canary, too!

The compatibility issue isn't to blame on web developers increasingly testing only on or making their apps exclusive Chrome?

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#119

Post by JoshTriplett »

bgwhn wrote: post #12
saberworks wrote: post #8

It would be really nice if the addons/extensions page showed which addons were listed as compatible and which weren't. I might thus make a decision to disable/delete an addon or two that were blocking me from using multiprocess firefox. As it is, I have no idea if my firefox is using multiprocess at all. All I know is that I use a lot of addons and I'm probably not, then, using multiprocess.

You can figure out what add-ons are compatible by cross-referencing http://www.arewee10syet.com/

Apparently the SSL certificate for that site expired a few days ago and nobody renewed it.

Certificate expiration seems like one of the most ridiculous aspects of TLS. Its only use case (apart from generating more money for CAs) seems like "we somehow can't revoke the certificate, but if we wait it'll expire".

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#120

Post by TheRealPomax »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #119
bgwhn wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can figure out what add-ons are compatible by cross-referencing http://www.arewee10syet.com/

Apparently the SSL certificate for that site expired a few days ago and nobody renewed it. Certificate expiration seems like one of the most ridiculous aspects of TLS. Its only use case (apart from generating more money for CAs) seems like "we somehow can't revoke the certificate, but if we wait it'll expire".

that's kind of also a really important use case. "There is no reason to trust this certificate in perpetuity, so pretending it hasn't been compromised over a long period of time would be stupidly insecure. Let's expire it after X months". There is no reason to trust a certificate that's older than a year, for instance, there's been more than enough time for someone to reverse engineer the keys if they wanted. The real part you should be questioning is why no one renewed it. It's pretty trivial to set up cert renewal, so why didn't they? Maybe the site's no longer maintained, maybe it's not actually intended to be secure. Important questions.
Post reply on HN