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

Firefox 57.0 Released

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 836 posts

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#321

Post by awinder »

dilap wrote: post #277
awinder wrote: post #120

This is so close to great but can a mac snob ask how to get a more consistent UI experience out of firefox? I'm totally happy with how everything behaves inside the web panel but: 1. At a minimum I'd be happy with a toolbar icon set that was a little more in step with OS X design (but willing to hear if I just have misunderstanding of design :D) 2. As a reach, os-native menus or at least more native-style menus for t…

Interesting. I'm on mac, and I'd say I'm usually pretty sensitive to native widgets, but for whatever reason the toolbar and the menus don't bother me at all. Overall it has a very clean feeling to me. Maybe just because I've gotten so used to browsers being their own little world. What does drive me crazy is 1. not having bounce scrolling 2. not live-panning the page when using a swipe gesture to go back Bounce scro…

Yeah those are good items too. The compact view from elsewhere in this thread was a huge step up. I still feel like the "weight" of the icons is heavy compared to chrome / safari / photos / finder / etc, and I'd rather native menus than the custom non-native ones, but I can live with this.

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#322

Post by awinder »

superdaniel wrote: post #140
jventura wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have similar remarks. On OSX, the tab and the url bars are too big, they seem out of place.. Also, the black tab bar seems strange to me as I have a black OSX menu bar..

You can make the tab bar and url bar smaller by going to the menu > customize > density > compact.

yeah this was such a huge step up, thanks so much. that circled back button was especially driving me nuts so that going away instantly improved my take on this :D

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#323

Post by msla »

Mizza wrote: post #65

I just upgraded. It completely changes the chrome of the browser on OSX and it is _absolutely hideous_. There are a lots of unnecessary animations that I find very jarring. I don't know if there's a way to change it back yet. UPDATE: There is a "Customize Firefox" button which allows modifying the theme, which fixes the colors, but not the shape of the tabs or the animations. UPDATE: In about:config, you can disable…

And it's impossible to put the tabs beneath the address bar, or to have actual toolbars.

Decades of UI/UX knowledge, down the drain. Usability is gone.

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#324

Post by pcwalton »

rvanmil wrote: post #154
awinder wrote: post #120

This is so close to great but can a mac snob ask how to get a more consistent UI experience out of firefox? I'm totally happy with how everything behaves inside the web panel but: 1. At a minimum I'd be happy with a toolbar icon set that was a little more in step with OS X design (but willing to hear if I just have misunderstanding of design :D) 2. As a reach, os-native menus or at least more native-style menus for t…

If only they'd put all the effort spent into trying to imitate macOS into actually building an AppKit version... I guess that's never going to happen due to the cross platform nature of Firefox, but it also means (among other reasons) I'll never use it as my primary browser.

Firefox uses Cocoa/AppKit extensively. It doesn't "imitiate macOS": it actually uses the system APIs throughout.

The one thing it doesn't do is to use native widgets to render the UI of the browser chrome. Using native widgets for Web content in a cross-platform browser isn't a very attractive proposition, because native widgets either can't be composited at all (Windows, GTK+) or require that you delegate your entire graphics stack to the OS-specific compositor for Web content (macOS). Delegating the entire graphics stack to Core Animation would prevent us from making any improvements to it (for example, WebRender). Given that a lot of browser UI (e.g. preferences) is becoming Web content in both Chrome and Firefox, for consistency's sake it seems better to use the same widgets for chrome and content.

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#325

Post by dymk »

makapuf wrote: post #318
Vinnl wrote: post #29

From the announcement post [1]: > As part of our focus on user experience and performance in Firefox Quantum, Google will also become our new default search provider in the United States and Canada. Does that mean the deal with Yahoo! has lapsed? And is there a new deal with Google, or no deal at all? (And what would be the revenue impact of that?) Edit: Just saw an announcement for this as well [2], with no word abo…

I'd say that the most sensible choice in the absence of any payment, considering FF sensibility and message, (i.e. according to me) DDG would be the most sensible default. (edit : clarify)

When has any proof ever been given that they’re any more privacy conscious than any other search engine?

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#326

Post by msla »

Yoric wrote: post #238
doodpants wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note that the webextension APIs are still under active development. In which case, switching to webextension support exclusively is premature at this point, don't you think? It would have been better to wait until the API was robust enough to allow 99.99% of legacy extensions to be ported.

Unfortunately, this would have meant no Firefox Quantum. As a Firefox dev (I'm still working at Mozilla, although not much on Firefox atm), I have seen many, many occurrences in which I couldn't optimize codepaths, or even in some case fix bugs, because the old extension mechanism made it impossible. Consider the necessary steps: 1. realize that an internal API is broken; 2. come up with a new non-broken API; 3. port…

Did any of that require destroying the usability of the UI?

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#327

Post by helper »

Whats the status of u2f in firefox 57? Trying to login to gmail I get "Something went wrong. Remove your Security Key and try again." I enabled 'security.webauth.u2f' and 'security.webauth.webauthn' but that didn't seem to help :(

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#328

Post by callahad »

DiThi wrote: post #278
callahad wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We actually fixed that failure mode three years ago with the release of Firefox Sync 1.5. The encryption key can now be re-derived from your password, so you can always recover your data as long as you remember your password. Even if you lose all of your devices.

Ah, good to know. Ideally it should also derive another key when logging into Sync, so it's never sent verbatim even through a secure channel.

We do :) The full details are at https://github.com/mozilla/fxa-auth-server/wiki/onepw-protoc..., but basically we derive two separate keys: one for authentication, that gets sent over the wire, and a completely different one for decrypting the sync key, which is not set over the wire. This means that even if you can observe the entire transaction, you still aren't able to derive the decryption key.

It's more or less:

    let quickStretchPW = PBKDF2(email, password)
    let authPW = HKDF('authPW', quickStretchPW)
    let unwrapBkey = HKDF('unwrapBkey', quickStretchPW)
Where unwrapBkey !== authPW.

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#329

Post by amadeusw »

flyinghamster wrote: post #305

Just updated it on Android... and I wish I hadn't. The very first thing I was greeted with on the "top sites" page was a bunch of "Recommended by Pocket" links, and no way to disable that. I can't find anything in about:config to disable this either. How about NO, goddammit? Shame on you, Mozilla.

I also got the firefox for android after seeing the sync feature. However the tabs don't sync by default and I haven't seen any guide on how to use this feature. I'd appreciate any pointer in the right direction.

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#330

Post by Redoubts »

dralley wrote: post #299
Redoubts wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's particularly interesting when you tie these two facts together: > According to documents filed with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), Yahoo paid Mozilla $375 million in 2015, and is obligated for the same amount each year through 2019 under a five-year contract. > Under terms of a contract that has been seen by Recode, whoever acquires Yahoo might have to pay Mozilla annual payments of $375…

I would really love to know what the Blood Alcohol Content of the Yahoo representatives that signed that contract was. Those terms seem absolutely braindead stupid.

I don’t know, but I bet Mozilla’s representatives’s were higher.
Post reply on HN