Site Isolation in Firefox • Hacker News Board

Re: Site Isolation in Firefox

#21

Post by esclerofilo » Tue, May 18, 2021, 5:42 PM UTC

______- wrote: post #18

@dang please delete this comment

This is about isolation in OS processes, not browser containers.

Re: Site Isolation in Firefox

#22

Post by kbelder » Tue, May 18, 2021, 5:43 PM UTC

pspdrome wrote: post #10

korethr wrote: post #4

When Chrome was new and shiny, I used it for a time. Then, the first time I found myself needing to kill Chrome because it was completely locked up, I found myself staring at a wall of chrome processes in the task list, not knowing which one I needed to kill. At the time, I thought the idea of a separate process for each tab was silly. Though, with Firefox moving towards this model, I guess the engineers at Google we…

Shift+Esc brings out Chrome task manager where you can kill individual tabs/pages by name.

Nice!

I suspected gmail was the heaviest thing I regularly had open, but it's good to see the stats.

Re: Site Isolation in Firefox

#23

Post by nfoz » Tue, May 18, 2021, 5:50 PM UTC

korethr wrote: post #4

When Chrome was new and shiny, I used it for a time. Then, the first time I found myself needing to kill Chrome because it was completely locked up, I found myself staring at a wall of chrome processes in the task list, not knowing which one I needed to kill. At the time, I thought the idea of a separate process for each tab was silly. Though, with Firefox moving towards this model, I guess the engineers at Google we…

> a site misbehaves and locks things up

Why/how can this happen? That sounds like a bad failure of the browser.

Re: Site Isolation in Firefox

#24

Post by nfoz » Tue, May 18, 2021, 5:52 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #19

Software is hard. Chrome had this in 2008. Firefox had to be rearchitected 14 years for this.

Browsers are too big and the web is too complex. Engineering failures all around.

As engineers, we should not accept this status quo; we should replace it. We need a new web and new software.

Re: Site Isolation in Firefox

#25

Post by tristan957 » Tue, May 18, 2021, 6:02 PM UTC

oblio wrote: post #19

Software is hard. Chrome had this in 2008. Firefox had to be rearchitected 14 years for this.

This is factually untrue. Site isolation wasn't enabled by default in Chromium until v67 in 2018.

https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-security/site-isolati...

Re: Site Isolation in Firefox

#26

Post by jedberg » Tue, May 18, 2021, 6:06 PM UTC

korethr wrote: post #4

When Chrome was new and shiny, I used it for a time. Then, the first time I found myself needing to kill Chrome because it was completely locked up, I found myself staring at a wall of chrome processes in the task list, not knowing which one I needed to kill. At the time, I thought the idea of a separate process for each tab was silly. Though, with Firefox moving towards this model, I guess the engineers at Google we…

When a tab freezes, I just pull up activity monitor/top and look for the Chrome process using the most CPU. It's almost always the culprit.

I also like to occasionally sort by memory usage and kill the biggest Chrome processes. Chrome is nice in that it will show you when a process crashed, so what I do is kill the biggest memory hog, and then see what tab crashed. Then I do it again a few times.

This at least tells me which processes use the most RAM over time and should be recycled (Spoiler alert, it's always GMail and then GCal.)

Re: Site Isolation in Firefox

#27

Post by jedberg » Tue, May 18, 2021, 6:07 PM UTC

Has anyone tried this along with Container Tabs? Do they play nicely? Does it offer any advantage over Container Tabs?

Re: Site Isolation in Firefox

#28

Post by SimeVidas » Tue, May 18, 2021, 6:07 PM UTC

yakubin wrote: post #6

This provides more technical details: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2021/05/introducing-firefox-new-si... >, which should be more interesting to HN than a marketing announcement. In particular, it seems that "site" isn't precisely defined. It seems to be based on domains, but backed by a human-curated list of "sites": https://github.com/publicsuffix/list >. So it's different than Chrome's "every webpage gets a separate p…

“Site” is defined in the HTML Standard: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/origin.html#same-site

Re: Site Isolation in Firefox

#29

Post by bugmen0t » Tue, May 18, 2021, 6:08 PM UTC

yakubin wrote: post #6

This provides more technical details: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2021/05/introducing-firefox-new-si... >, which should be more interesting to HN than a marketing announcement. In particular, it seems that "site" isn't precisely defined. It seems to be based on domains, but backed by a human-curated list of "sites": https://github.com/publicsuffix/list >. So it's different than Chrome's "every webpage gets a separate p…

The definition of site in this case is https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/origin.html#sites>, for both Firefox and Chrome. If you don't like reading specs, this blog post might be interesting to you https://web.dev/same-site-same-origin/>.

Re: Site Isolation in Firefox

#30

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F » Tue, May 18, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #27

Has anyone tried this along with Container Tabs? Do they play nicely? Does it offer any advantage over Container Tabs?

Any idea?

I'd love to drop https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con..., which automatically assigns a temporary container to any new tab, which plays nicely with the https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account... but uses too much memory (at least from my experience).