Firefox 78

#1

Post by agurk » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 1:25 PM UTC

Re: Firefox 78

#2

Post by agurk » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 1:38 PM UTC

Of note for those using Wayland/Mutter Firefox 78 now has the option of Partial Present[0] and better supported VA-API for video playback.

Interestingly there was a recently discovered Mutter bug[1] where the Culling code to prevent rendering of windows that were not visible was not working. This fix will need to be deployed to see the biggest benefit of Partial Present.

[0] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1620076

[1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GNOME-Br...

Re: Firefox 78

#3

Post by Yizahi » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

Does it still have UglyBar from v77? Seems like that.

Re: Firefox 78

#4

Post by akerro » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 1:47 PM UTC

Yizahi wrote: post #3

Does it still have UglyBar from v77? Seems like that.

Unfortunately it still has this "megabar"

Re: Firefox 78

#5

Post by Someone1234 » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 1:48 PM UTC

If anyone at Mozilla is reading, your Security Fixes link 404s.

It will be here when it is released:

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2020-2...

Re: Firefox 78

#6

Post by bzb3 » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 1:50 PM UTC

Firefox 78 will be the new ESR. That unfortunately sets the new, ugly omnibar in stone.

Re: Firefox 78

#7

Post by msclrhd » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 1:51 PM UTC

Yizahi wrote: post #3

Does it still have UglyBar from v77? Seems like that.

See https://www.userchrome.org/megabar-styling-firefox-address-b... for details on how to customize the new address bar, including userChrome css for keeping its size confined to the dropdown UI like other dropdown/combobox UI elements.

Re: Firefox 78

#8

Post by Aissen » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 1:53 PM UTC

Bitter-sweet seeing new Pocket features in there, knowing that the service is still proprietary more than 3 years after its acquisition. If Mozilla wants to become a service company, it should just say so:

https://github.com/Pocket/extension-save-to-pocket/issues/75

Re: Firefox 78

#9

Post by osrec » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 1:53 PM UTC

I really want to use Firefox, but their dev tools are lacking in so many ways when compared to Chrome. Fix that, and perhaps even improve on a few things that Chrome does badly (e.g. JS profiling in the "performance" tab of Chrome dev tools gives you zero information about which functions are responsible for the overhead), and you'll have me converted. I've been wanting to ditch Chrome for ages, but have no suitable alternative for development.

Edit: I've been asked for examples where FF dev tools are lacking, so copying from another comment of mine below:

1) Chrome CPU profiler will display the amount of time taken against calls in line in your source JS files. FF does not do this.

2) Memory snapshots in FF are not sortable, and do not show distance.

3) Performance tab in Chrome allows CPU throttling, FF does not.

4) Performance tab in Chrome also captures much more info, such as node count, heap size, number of listeners, GPU memory.

All the above are very useful if you're building a high performance web app or library.

Re: Firefox 78

#10

Post by uallo » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 1:56 PM UTC

osrec wrote: post #9

I really want to use Firefox, but their dev tools are lacking in so many ways when compared to Chrome. Fix that, and perhaps even improve on a few things that Chrome does badly (e.g. JS profiling in the "performance" tab of Chrome dev tools gives you zero information about which functions are responsible for the overhead), and you'll have me converted. I've been wanting to ditch Chrome for ages, but have no suitable…

> their dev tools are lacking in so many ways when compared to Chrome

Like what for example? Please be specific.