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

Firefox 64 Released

hacks.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 527 posts

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#351

Post by blitmap »

I wrote a comment about this a couple days ago on another thread:

I wish we had a simple UI we could bring up to expose cookies to other tabs (arbitrarily). I just want a list of cookies with rows marked in green if they're being sent with requests, red rows for cookies that would normally be sent for the same [sub]domain but are currently not, and then gray cookies that are established from completely unrelated domains. To me this would be better than maintaining tab profiles/containers that are for business/personal/etc. This would be like a one-off UI before you determine if you want to establish a container profile.

Also I want them to take tree tabs seriously. There is a plugin for this, but it doesn't look like a tree at all.. I am grateful for the plugin, I just wish it were a UI effort focused on. I cannot maintain more than 40 tabs open and easily browse through them. I'm tired of the response being "well don't".

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#352

Post by drbawb »

mancerayder wrote: post #347
drbawb wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Block by default, and not ask by default? That seems unfortunate to me, and will definitely break one of my services for Firefox users. I have a site which coordinates watching videos amongst a party of people. To the browser heuristics it looks like "autoplay" (the host starts the video manually, and some scripting on the page kicks it off for everyone else and works w/ the backend to maintain something resembling s…

>Block by default, and not ask by default? That seems unfortunate to me, and will definitely break one of my services for Firefox users. Hold on -- do you want a popup every time you visit a new page? It's a nightmare. And break what for whom? You want something to play, you click the Play icon on the video. It doesn't BLOCK video by default, it blocks the autoplaying of the same. Also - and perhaps this was some bug…

>You want something to play when you click the play icon on the video.

My users explicitly do not want that, it's why I built my service, to answer a need which was not met: the lack of a virtual space to have a shared theater-like experience. They want the video to play when it starts for everyone else in the room, and they were extremely confused a few months ago when Google broke the same thing.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#353

Post by sprash »

floatboth wrote: post #253
sprash wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience X11 has zero shortcomings compared to Wayland. The code might be ancient and arcane at some points but the performance and features (hello "ssh -X") are actually far superior. Why do we need Wayland?

Superior performance? Like when windows take a whole second to appear because the protocol is synchronous and the server is busy doing something else? :) Wayland makes lots of things possible: multi-monitor HiDPI, touchpad gestures like pinch to zoom (just like Macs could do ages ago), touchscreen support that's actually independent of the mouse pointer instead of always dragging it along… and there's finally no godd…

> Superior performance? Like when windows take a whole second to appear because the protocol is synchronous and the server is busy doing something else?

Might be true, never happened to me. But what about FPS in Games. X11 beats it there for me. Or what about in the most important metric of them all: Latency. In all my Tests Latncy on Wayland is always a regression, compared to X11. (I use Intel and HDxxxx era AMD Graphics, can not say anything about Nvidia)

> Wayland makes lots of things possible

That might be true. But X11 can be extended and has been extended very often (hence the messy code). One thing I need regularly, namely OpenGL pass-through via SSH, will never be possible with Wayland.

> Every frame is perfect™

To me far less important than latency. Wayland should only care about tearing when I play full screen games. When I type on the terminal I want my characters appear instantly, then I don't care about tearing at all.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#354

Post by onewhonknocks »

dorgo wrote: post #292
onewhonknocks wrote: post #166

'reload all tabs' is missing from the right click menu on tabs now. Has this been removed, or just moved? I used that feature a lot every day.

I think the new workflow is: "select all tabs" and then "reload tabs"

But...but...that's an extra step!

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#355

Post by Rexel »

Vivaldi is better, this is just lame, how about making sure TabMixPlus and all the features from countless other addons you retards at Mozilla broke are built into the browser. .. no? Well piss off then your browser is almost as bad goolag chrome trash.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#356

Post by curt15 »

sprash wrote: post #203
mixmastamyk wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy someone is using it however, as that will encourage many shortcomings to be addressed.

In my experience X11 has zero shortcomings compared to Wayland. The code might be ancient and arcane at some points but the performance and features (hello "ssh -X") are actually far superior. Why do we need Wayland?

When I click and drag windows on MacOS, the window moves perfectly in sync with the cursor. On X11 the window inevitably lags behind.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#357

Post by amanzi »

acdha wrote: post #171
O1111OOO wrote: post #50

RSS is dead... I have a local html page devoted to news. An entry for a specific site will see at least two urls: The main site's URL and a link to it's RSS feed. Linking to the feed directly was a great way to bypass all the modern garbage on the home page to see a simple list of articles (not unlike HN's home page). It's borked now... None of my RSS links render. Chromium was very bad at this but at least it render…

Why not use a feed reader which is designed and optimized for that task? I like Newsblur.com (aka https://github.com/samuelclay/NewsBlur ) but there are tons of great desktop apps which do a much better job than Firefox ever did.

Just giving a shout-out to my favourite: Feedbin https://feedbin.com/

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#358

Post by sprash »

curt15 wrote: post #356
sprash wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience X11 has zero shortcomings compared to Wayland. The code might be ancient and arcane at some points but the performance and features (hello "ssh -X") are actually far superior. Why do we need Wayland?

When I click and drag windows on MacOS, the window moves perfectly in sync with the cursor. On X11 the window inevitably lags behind.

Depends on your window manager. I use a heavily modified version of dwm, that specifically addresses latency.

With Gnome et al you are most certainly in high latency hell on X11.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#359

Post by zeotroph »

acqq wrote: post #278
zeotroph wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, that is what PgUp/PgDown are for on the keyboard, no? When you are navigating in these discrete steps why use the mouse, which is excellent for continuous input. If I click on something, I want to go THERE, not in the direction of it. "But we have always done it in this (imo illogical) way" is just being stubborn.

> that is what PgUp/PgDown are for on the keyboard, no? Definitely no: If I have a hand on the mouse I surely don't want to lift it and hunt for the PgUp or PgDown just to move one page up or down. And no, I don't want to go "there" if it's actually "somewhere" in the middle of whatever, if I just want to see the previous or the next page. Going "there" is much less frequent operation than moving to the next or the p…

So, that means a PgDown button (I guess it is mostly that direction) on the mouse is missing. The thumb button which most mice have and are mapped to forward/backwards could be remapped to that. Or a mouse gesture? FoxyGestures, a Firefox addon, has a "Scroll Down" action.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#360

Post by mancerayder »

drbawb wrote: post #350
daleharvey wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sucks when you want to use feature that arent available however users wishes always trump site authors, we tested ask by default and it turned out more users wanted them blocked "Click here to play video" is also clear and easy to understand, not sure why you would think your users could not handle that. In future https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Permissions... may help

>We tested ask by default and it turned out more users wanted them blocked. I was one of those users, as I have Nightly installed. I hope you don't seriously think me clicking "no" on the majority of those popups in any way equates to me saying "videos should never autoplay." -- Hell I used my own service and approved one of those dialogs for it. You should be careful how you read into statistics: there is a huge dif…

You're a benevolent site amidst a maelstrom of websites who eagerly want users to hear and see things that they didn't expect. And very large publishers are perhaps the most guilty. News websites, Facebook ads, and typical websites with some announcer voice yapping away with music in the back, trying to get your attention to Buy something.

So why stop at a pop-up for AutoPlay video?

"The website has requested permission to have autoplay video. Grant (Y/N)"

but also

" " " " .. requested permission to display notifications.."

Why stop there?

" .. requested permission to autoplay media with sound .."

and why not

" .. requested permission to set/store cookies "

Finally, after a drum roll:

"Sign up to this mailing list!" - unblockable JavaScript popup when you're a third down the article.

How many bloody popups would satisfy every single website publisher? Turn all the damn things off, let the designers figure out if they want to point a big giant arrow GIF to where the "Click Here" button to play the video is.

Post reply on HN