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

141–150 of 175 posts

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#141

Post by hashhar »

shmerl wrote: post #52

> Our measurements and user feedback were all positive and so with Firefox 50 we deployed multi-process Firefox to users with a broader set of extensions, those whose authors have marked them as multi-process compatible. How can one check if some extension is marked as such? I'm using Firefox beta (which is now 51.0b9) and I noticed that Firefox now splits a separate "Web" process. Is that the indication that multipr…

Yes. I do think you it enabled. To confirm, go to about:support, and look for the field that says, "Multiprocess Windows". If it is a value > 0, you do have multiprocess.

If you are on an old version, check for the string "Multiprocess staged rollout". If it is true, you do have e10s enabled.

And for checking extension compatibility install this extension, https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compat...

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#142

Post by dingdingdang »

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.

Simply look under "about:support" tab for Multiprocess Windows to see if enabled or not. You can also force enable it in "about:config" by setting browser.tabs.remote.autostart to TRUE if its not already (note this does circumvent having to disable non-compatible plugins such as Firebug).

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#143

Post by zeveb »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #116
mook wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It never sends the password to the server.

It does, however, download JavaScript served by Mozilla when you log into your Firefox Account, which means that Mozilla can cause your password to be sent to them unencrypted, if they so choose. This in turns means that a disgruntled employee, Mozilla the organization and any government which is able to compel Mozilla the organization or key employees can get access to your password at any time, rendering Firefox Sync completely untrustworthy.

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#144

Post by pwg »

cpeterso wrote: post #129
cpeterso wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I tried the "WhatFont" bookmarklet, which inspect DOM elements and reports the fonts used. It works for me in Firefox Nightly 53 with e10s enabled. http://www.chengyinliu.com/whatfont.html

Just tested Firefox Nightly 53 with the three bookmarklets I use most often, they all work in 53. Therefore it must have been a bug with the 51 version.

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#145

Post by Ziomislaw »

bitmapbrother wrote: post #51
sergiotapia wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a time where Chrome was the up and comer with very low market-share. We need competition or we will suffer as end users. Chrome's time will also come eventually. It's not a matter of if, but when. Vivaldi and Brave are growing and coming along very nicely. Brave is actually spearheaded by the ex CEO of Mozilla before he was fired for some nonsense. https://brave.com/

If Chrome's time ever comes you can be sure it'll never be at the hands of Vivaldi or Brave. One more thing, these are nothing but frontends to Google's Chromium.

following your thought you could say that chrome is just a frontend to Konqueror

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#146

Post by JoshTriplett »

zeveb wrote: post #143
JoshTriplett wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It never sends the password to the server. It does, however, download JavaScript served by Mozilla when you log into your Firefox Account, which means that Mozilla can cause your password to be sent to them unencrypted, if they so choose. This in turns means that a disgruntled employee, Mozilla the organization and any government which is able to compel Mozilla the organization or key employees can get access to yo…

That only occurs when you log into your Firefox Account via the web-based system, which necessarily has to use JavaScript to provide a client. If you log in via your browser, all the code lives in the browser.

Or, if you prefer, you could run a self-hosted version of Firefox Accounts on your own server.

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#147

Post by proaralyst »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #107
mandelbulb wrote: post #56

Make Vimperator great again - still no support. :'( Two year old github issue but yet any development to be seen or reported :/

VimFX has been a more than capable substitute.

I just took a gander: no tab-search, the keybindings are closer to Vimium than plain vim and no external editor. Also the hinting is _slow_ - it takes a second to render the link hints on the hacker news home page.

How are you dealing with all of that?

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#148

Post by syshum »

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/

>>> Tree Style Tab 105,213 users compatible

That is all that matters to me

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#149

Post by MagerValp »

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.

It's only the 1Click bookmark feature that doesn't work, no apparent issues with the rest of the extension. Details here:

https://discussions.agilebits.com/discussion/67388/browser-e...

Re: Update on Multi-Process Firefox

#150

Post by JasonSage »

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.

I figured this out for myself by doing a force opt-in to multiprocess, and then I removed extensions which were obviously broken.

If you're only using a few extensions (not parent), this could work very well for you.

Post reply on HN