261–270 of 328 posts
I love Firefox, I use it everyday, I can't imagine using a browser without Tree Style Tab, or all the things that I can do in about:config. At the same time, I can't shake off the dreadful feeling that it will eventually die one day. The market share keeps falling year by year. What is the most realistic future for Firefox?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm very unhappy with the new FF mobile. The user interface is worse than before in every(!) aspect. There's not a single improvement. And everything feels slower. And there is no offline browsing. On a mobile browser! WTF?! And there is no way to save websites. On a mobile browser, which has very limited connectivity due to its nature. This is just sad. There was a time when I was happy to read about a new FF versio…
I agree. The Tab interface is unusable. new FF opens lots more new tabs than the old one. But the list is less readable, less usable, and closing tabs is a chore (!) because there is a list-slide-animation that makes you miss the next X to close and you have to wait for the f-ing animation to finish. Bookmarks are inaccessible, you only see a few on the new-tab-page or in an unordered mess as search results when typi…
But they're not actually the bookmarks are they? They're pinned sites which are different in the browser versus desktop. And they're not collections. There are too many "bookmark things"
“macOS users running Cylance antivirus software may see their Firefox installation get corrupted due to being erroneously flagged as malware.” I run Firefox Nightly on my work mac (with Cylance) and have been seeing this. Luckily IT have happily whitelisted it and reported back to Cylance, but still slightly weird that a major application would be flagged like this.
Cylance is insanely sensitive. In my experience running internal penetration tests, it's been one of the few pieces of security software that's genuinely slowed me down and been a nuisance. That said, once you figure out its weak spots, it's as useless as all the others, but it doesn't surprise me it'd flag Firefox.
Mozilla FAQ: > Will switching to a different browser allow me to use Flash? >No. Adobe and other browsers will also end support Flash at the end of 2020. Even if you install an older version of Firefox, the Flash plugin itself will stop loading Flash content after January 12, 2021. See Adobe’s Flash Player End of Life information page for more details Adobe: > Since Adobe will no longer be supporting Flash Player aft…
>Adobe will block Flash content from running in Flash Player beginning January 12, 2021 What exactly does this mean? Will the Flash Player projector still work after that date? I still have some old files in my Flash archive that I would like to play occasionally, so I really hope that the projector does not have some kind of time bomb.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to adobe the plugin will stop loading content in January regardless of the browser
If IE and Windows are running the extension then I guess IE can tell it the date is anything it wants?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if Mozilla overlooked this. IANA has 127.0.0.0/8 reserved for loopback, not just 127.0.0.1. https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/...
Yes, but that's only relevant if Firefox were mapping from IP addresses to something. Here it's mapping to an IP address, so 127.0.0.1 is fine (even though, e.g., 127.0.0.42 would also have been fine).
http://foo.localhost/ -> 127.0.0.1:80
http://bar.localhost/ -> 127.0.0.2:80
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Major browsers can't ditch Flash until Adobe EOLs it. Adobe announced EOL a long time ago. January 12th is the day it will stop working, regardless of browser support.
A website my kids school use for maths advises it will stop worrying except for with Google Chrome, so I assume Google is keeping their flash implementation, and so flash will keep working.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on code inspection, I believe so, yes. It will map "dev.localhost" to 127.0.0.1.
I wonder if Mozilla overlooked this. IANA has 127.0.0.0/8 reserved for loopback, not just 127.0.0.1. https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/...
Name resolution APIs and libraries SHOULD recognize
localhost names as special and SHOULD always return
the IP loopback address for address queries and
negative responses for all other query types. Name
resolution APIs SHOULD NOT send queries for localhost
names to their configured caching DNS server(s).
1) The use of "the IP loopback address" is a bit weird in IPv4, of course.
2) It's hard to know which loopback address to return from an API without violating the "SHOULD NOT" part of this item.
There's really no way to win here. In theory Firefox could do the resolution as normal and then if it doesn't come back as loopback replace it with 127.0.0.1. That would be perfectly within the letter of the RFC, since none of the stuff above it MUST-level requirements, but probably not really within its spirit, since it would violate the "SHOULD NOT" bit.
Note that Firefox is not alone here; Chrome has the same behavior last I checked. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1220810#c28 is a comment from one of the networking/security folks at Chrome about this precise issue, in case it's of interest.
And for developers: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Rel... The biggest change from my perspective is "Firefox now ensures that localhost URLs — such as http://localhost/ and http://dev.localhost/ — refer to the local host's loopback interface (e.g. http://127.0.0.1 ). As a result, resources loaded from localhost are now assumed to have been delivered securely (see Secure contexts), and also w…
That's dangerous. I don't want stuff loaded from localhost to have any different security context than stuff not loaded from localhost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's intriguing to me is no primary password support on FF Android and yet it allows sync with FF protected with a primary password. DDG using Webview with built in ad-blocker seems to be the fastest android web browser I've ever used. I wonder whether it uses Chrome's data compression. But FF Android supports extensions, at least most used ones and I hope with support for more extensions its adoption could grow.
No primary password support? What do you mean? Bitwarden via Android autofill framework works great for me with FF.