Just updated my Firefox beta to 57. A few observations: 1. It does feel snappier. 2. Tabs UI looks ugly. Bigger elements than older design, more bulky. Sharp rectangular shapes of each tab UI element are standing out. It looks like a touchscreen UI to me, and it's wasteful on a desktop. 3. It also completely disabled all common add-ons like Adblock Plus and Stylish. That's a BIG problem. Looks like Adblock Plus has a…
Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition
431–440 of 446 posts
Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition
#432As 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…
Also, with gfx.webrender.enabled, gfx.webrendest.enabled, gfx.webrender.blob-images, and gfx.webrender.layers-free all enabled, same version of Speedometer and Firefox on the workstation scores 63.47 (or 4% faster), but has render errors on the Speedometer's tach needle (SVG?) and renders fonts with very strong (very fatiguing to read) subpixel rendering.
Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition
#433Just updated my Firefox beta to 57. A few observations: 1. It does feel snappier. 2. Tabs UI looks ugly. Bigger elements than older design, more bulky. Sharp rectangular shapes of each tab UI element are standing out. It looks like a touchscreen UI to me, and it's wasteful on a desktop. 3. It also completely disabled all common add-ons like Adblock Plus and Stylish. That's a BIG problem. Looks like Adblock Plus has a…
You should use uBlock Origin and Stylus. They both support the new WebExtensions API and are generally better alternatives than ABP and Stylish.
Another good feature was styles sync.
Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
https://v8project.blogspot.ro/2016/10/fall-cleaning-optimizi...
Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition
#435Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enjoying the Chinese consortium that owns Opera too? I am not even joking here, given China's recent track record with WeChat I would think twice before using Opera to handle all your https (banking..etc.) traffic. Of course Chrome (US) suffers from somewhat similar issues. Firefox really has unique position in the market in that it's fully Open Source and has non-profit driven org behind it.
I am not a Chinese dissident, so Opera being owned by a Chinese company doesn't concern me. China has absolutely no interest in my activities.
Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as an aside, I used LastPass for a long time, and held on in discomfort for a while after their acquisition, but their inability to keep their Firefox plugin updated or even working finally convinced me to switch to 1Password. I couldn't be happier, and their Firefox extension is modern and well-done!
Lots of extensions are waiting for the stable release before updating.
Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition
#437As 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 run 60 tabs in Firefox atm, takes 2.14GB (obviously I'm using Tree Style Tabs). Runs smoothly.
Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition
#438Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cool! I think. For the record: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers-experiment Do you know if it's possible to make ctrl-t (new tab) open a new tab in the same profile? If I'm in profile A, I always want new tabs to have the same profile; I don't want to have to specify it.
I think there's a bugreport where about half of users want it to open in the default container, and half in the same :P Ctrl+. as a shortcut allows you to pick a profile for a new tab, though, that might do for now.
EDIT: Cmd-click on the "New Tab" + icon does open a new tab in the same container.
Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition
#439As 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…
Chrome is an insane ram hog. It is inexcusable to be using >400MB per tab, but I see that all the time.
Re: Firefox Quantum Lands in Beta, Developer Edition
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Firefox Accounts & Sync is a terrible mess. Its security is still broken[1] and it's insanely over-engineered[2]. I really wish it shouldn't have existed, and instead Mozilla would've focused on providing an API to build a synchronization service upon. And then, whatever - their services could've been an pre-bundled extension. 2. I believe all of those SaaSes (i.e. Firefox Screenshots, too) shouldn't belong to the…
Add to this things like https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=812348 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=814801 to make the whole picture even worse. Did you open-sourced your alternative self-hosted Accounts & Sync implementation?
Still, here it is: https://gitlab.com/drdaeman/firesync
Development is very sporadic, though - you can see it in commit history. And some parts of code feel dirty (in particular, I've made a bad design decision when trying to avoid implementing full-fledged OAuth2).
The repo lacks few things:
1) Notes about patched PyBrowserID. It's in the repo, and you can check the Dockerfile, but not in README.
2) Instructions on installing Kinto - another piece that is used to sync WebExtension settings[1]. It became mandatory with 57, without it sync fails and doesn't update "last synced" date (used to work in 56 and below). I'll add some instructions later, when I'll find time to do so.
----
[1] BTW, this means that everyone who runs self-hosted Sync but not Accounts (relying on Mozilla tokens instead) are now storing parts of their data on Mozilla servers. I don't think this was ever announced, I've only learned about Kinto when my Firefoxes started to log errors in the browser console. If you self-host Sync-only and think you may be affected - check `webextensions.storage.sync.serverURL` value.