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

Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 446 posts

Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition

#361

Post by chriswarbo »

foolfoolz wrote: post #61
DiabloD3 wrote: post #44

As someone that jumped ship from how slow Chrome has gotten and went to Nightly /w Stylo and (CPU threads - 1) e10s processes enabled about 2 monthsish ago... Holy damn Firefox is actually fast. Fair comparison, both having Pocket, uBlock, Evernote, OneNote, Pushbullet, and Bitwarden; neither of them having an extension the other doesn't. Above described Firefox Nightly config vs Chrome Dev. Test machines are a works…

I never thought I'd say this but the 2 fastest bowsers on my computer are Firefox and Edge

Dillo seems to be the fastest on mine. I imagine w3m would be faster, but I use it through Emacs which makes it a bit slower.

Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition

#362

Post by bzbarsky »

Sylos wrote: post #237
low_battery wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, as long as Firefox security infrastructure does not match Chrome, I can not use it. Note that errors like use-after-free and buffer overflows are marked as Critical (run arbitrary code on computer) for Firefox, but marked as High (execute code in the context of, or otherwise impersonate other origins.) for Chrome because of sandboxing. Firefox: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabiliti…

As Mr. Patrick Walton over there said, Mozilla is still building up the exact, minimal file-system permissions. So, yes, in that way it is still not yet on quite the same level as Chrome. In terms of security architecture, there is to my knowledge only one bigger difference left and you can change that, if you want. The difference is that Chrome will spawn a new process for every new tab (unless the webpage in it is…

Chrome will round-robin across processes too; it has a cap on the process count. The cap depends on things like amount of RAM. See https://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/process... fourth bullet.

Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition

#363

Post by gorhill »

shmerl wrote: post #334
SirensOfTitan wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you use Adblock Plus over uBlock Origin? uBlock Origin has a better memory footprint and no ties to the advertising industry. It also has a stable WebExtension for use in 57+.

Is uBlock Origin functionally similar? I'm using a number of custom filters in AdBlock Plus.

uBO understands ABP filter syntax -- with a few exceptions.

For more details, I created a feature comparison table in the wiki:

https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/About-%22uBlock-is-in...

Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition

#364

Post by karkisuni »

tzs wrote: post #208
karkisuni wrote: post #7

Running Safari 11 on High Sierra and got a 90 on the speedometer 2.0 test referenced. Why are they bragging about a 66? For reference, ran the test with Firefox Quantum on the same machine and got a 68.

I get 35.82 on Safari 11 on El Capitan. What is your hardware? I wonder if I'm slower because I'm on older hardware, because I'm on an older version of OS X, or both? My hardware is a Mac Pro (Early 2009), 2.66 GHz quad core Xeon, 32 GB 1066 MHz DDR3 ECC RAM, GeForce GT 120 512 MB. What I get: 35.82 Safari 11.0 (11604.1.38.1.7) 34.89 Firefox 57.0b3 32.01 Chrome 47.0.2526.106 31.44 Firefox 58.0a1 26.77 Firefox 55.0.3…

I'm on a iMac 2017 with a 3.8ghz i5, so yeah it might due to the newer hardware.

Interesting that Firefox still scores roughly the same as Safari and Chrome on your machine too. I don't understand why they'd make this big fuss.

Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition

#365

Post by SubiculumCode »

gue5t wrote: post #360
SubiculumCode wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be off by default. Feels and looks faster. What is the downside?

Tracking the thread through https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1207700 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1170342 (and ultimately https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93539 ) it appears that when XI2 is used, focus-out events were not sent in rare cases under old versions of Xorg. If you're running modern software there should be no downside.

Thanks. Could the Mozilla installer detect the version of Xorg and set ?

Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition

#366

Post by bzbarsky »

willtim wrote: post #311

Are there any plans to have Firefox throttle background tabs? This is one feature from Chrome that is currently stopping me from switching. It's very useful for laptops with lots of open tabs. The current rate of progress is definitely impressive though.

Firefox has been throttling background tabs (setTimeout, setInterval, requestAnimationFrame) for years.

Starting in Firefox 55 there are more operations that are being throttled. In both Firefox and Chrome the exact set of things that get throttled, and the throttling conditions, is somewhat in flux at the moment, as browsers try to figure out how much they can throttle without breaking legitimate usecases (e.g. user-desired audio in a background tab).

Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition

#367

Post by karkisuni »

comice wrote: post #43
karkisuni wrote: post #7

Running Safari 11 on High Sierra and got a 90 on the speedometer 2.0 test referenced. Why are they bragging about a 66? For reference, ran the test with Firefox Quantum on the same machine and got a 68.

compared to Firefox 52 and Chrome, it's a big improvement. And Safari isn't available on Ubuntu or Windows, so it scores a 0 on those platforms ;) https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/quantum-performance-test/

Was about to reply with a snarky link to the windows version of Safari but it looks like they've stopped development! Great point.

Super interesting that building WebKit for windows from source is still supported though: https://webkit.org/webkit-on-windows/

Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition

#368

Post by rmurri »

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #60

Decided to give this a quick try and WOW! I'm blown away by how fast it is! The speed is incredible! On the downside, two of the most important extensions I use (uMatrix and Enpass) don't work with this version of Firefox. It looks like they're both being updated to support it though, so it's just a matter of waiting til they get published or installing them by hand.

Enpass does support it.

https://discussion.enpass.io/index.php?/topic/1876-beta-ver-...

Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition

#369

Post by colemickens »

eradicatethots wrote: post #260
DiabloD3 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no good comparison website I'm aware of, but Bitwarden ticks every box Lastpass does, and is already working on ticking boxes Lastpass doesn't.

Bitwarden doesn’t have support for credit cards/ addresses/ SSNs...

Yes, it does. Source: I just switched hours ago and it imported my CCs from LastPass. You can see the stuff they're working on via their Twitter account too.

Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition

#370

Post by shmerl »

gorhill wrote: post #363
shmerl wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is uBlock Origin functionally similar? I'm using a number of custom filters in AdBlock Plus.

uBO understands ABP filter syntax -- with a few exceptions. For more details, I created a feature comparison table in the wiki: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/About-%22uBlock-is-in...

Thanks!
Post reply on HN