Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

blog.mozilla.org

141–150 of 574 posts

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#141

At the end unless Firefox doesn't block JavaScript, it won't have much effect. Actually it's also time to ban JavaScript after horrendous front end frameworks made simple page loads slow, energy and time consuming.

I already use noscript. So many websites work at 100% and load 2x as fast with only 1/3rd of scripts allowed.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#142
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We cant ban just the bad Javascript, a browser cannot distinguish it from the good. And overall, Javascript does more harm than good.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree re: "JS does more harm than good". I have at least 5 progressive webapps open right now, none of which could work without javascript. Of the other 20 websites I have open in other tabs, none are being annoying or aggressive, and I'm not even using an adblocker.

They could be proper applications instead.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the most pessimist comment on this thread. Javascript is useful, it is just a shame most people dont use it for good.

We cant ban just the bad Javascript, a browser cannot distinguish it from the good. And overall, Javascript does more harm than good.

Citation needed. I dont believe gmail would be as useful eithout javascript, docs wouldnt really be possible, i dont think i could video chat with my family without extensions, and so on.

Installing apps is really not aomething i want. I am trying to keep apps on my phone low for a reason, browser is actually perfect for most of what i do.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It used to crash under Linux, when you updated it while it was running, and then opened new window or a tab. Now it shows a message that you need to restart.

Has never crashed on update for me, at least that I can remember after ten years. I have seen the warning message, that arrived years ago however. I'll add the caveat that I typically restart my browser at least once a day, perhaps avoids the problem.

I restart my browser at most once per week and Firefox has never crashed for me after an update. I do not doubt that there was a risk that it could happen, but it cannot have been that common unless I was very lucky.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#145
post #28

> Scroll anchoring keeps content from jumping as images and ads load at the top of the page That's a nice little quality-of-life improvement. It's a little annoyance that you don't really consciously notice because you're so used to it, but I recall reading about Chrome adding a similar feature and suddenly realising how annoying it is when you're reading something, and then suddenly it jumps out of your view due to…

Wouldn't it be nice if browsers or servers could reserve that space even if it's not loaded? Like "this is going to be a 500x200 image so let's load 500x200 pixels worth of empty space until it's fully loaded" and avoid jumping.

Another solution is just to wait until computers and networks are 100 times faster than they were 10 years ago, so that a page and its pieces load instantly. Oh, wait. That speed-up already happened, and yet websites are actually slower than they were 10 years ago. I guess there is no advance in hardware that software cannot overcome.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#146
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree re: "JS does more harm than good". I have at least 5 progressive webapps open right now, none of which could work without javascript. Of the other 20 websites I have open in other tabs, none are being annoying or aggressive, and I'm not even using an adblocker.

They could be proper applications instead.

Not really. It's way harder (and therefore the barrier is higher, they'd be less likely to exist, etc) to develop cross platform native applications than it is to just implement them as webapps.

If it was just as easy to write and distribute native applications, we'd be doing that, instead of bolting it onto the web. But it's pretty clearly not.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#147

At the end unless Firefox doesn't block JavaScript, it won't have much effect. Actually it's also time to ban JavaScript after horrendous front end frameworks made simple page loads slow, energy and time consuming.

Much effect for what? If the claim is "much effect for not autoplaying audio," citation needed - the usual ways of blocking autoplaying audio work perfectly fine if the autoplay is triggered from JavaScript instead of from pure HTML.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We cant ban just the bad Javascript, a browser cannot distinguish it from the good. And overall, Javascript does more harm than good.

Citation needed. I dont believe gmail would be as useful eithout javascript, docs wouldnt really be possible, i dont think i could video chat with my family without extensions, and so on. Installing apps is really not aomething i want. I am trying to keep apps on my phone low for a reason, browser is actually perfect for most of what i do.

Email clients, word processors and video chat would be very much possible without Javascript.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#150
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, technically. But the user experience is fewer tabs crashing, which I'd argue is what user's care about. You notice a crash because of the tab's "oh no" screen, not by watching `ps`.

I see. That starts to make sense if you explain it that way. Users who don't think about the multiprocessing model will just see fewer dead tabs when a FF process crashes, and that could feel like "fewer crashes".

Which is to say, about 99.9% of them. "Crash" in common parlance is understood to mean a glitch, that is, user-visible unintended behavior. If fewer user tabs glitch in that way, that means fewer crashes. User experience is what matters first and foremost.
Post reply on HN