201–210 of 340 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CMD + Q is a two-key command, so presumably the warning will still be present.
I frequently press cmd+W to close the current tab. Unfortunately pressing one key to the left by mistake has happened too many times.
It wasn't mentioned in the release notes but for Linux users EGL is enabled by default now. I've been manually turning this feature on so this is a welcome improvement. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29047339
> And on Linux, we’ve improved WebGL performance and reduced power consumption for many users.
It links to a page with some more info[0]. Exiting stuff.
[0] https://mozillagfx.wordpress.com/2021/10/30/switching-the-li...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO this is the correct behavior. Programs should never bother the user with prompts or interruptions of any sort unless absolutely necessary. "Do you want to install this security-critical update to your computer's largest attack surface?" does not rise to that level. The answer is obviously yes, so just do it and don't bother the user. There's probably an advanced setting buried somewhere if you _really_ want to tu…
There are many reasons why someone would not want this behavior, including: - Browser updates often carry more than just security fixes, which may or may not be wanted by the user - Background updates make it less likely for the user to know why their software is being updated - The user may have a legitimate reason for sticking with an older version of a piece of software - Most browsers already show the user when a…
It's a good thing that this feature can be configured.
https://www.ghacks.net/2021/04/28/mozilla-is-working-on-fire...
>On Windows, there will now be fewer interruptions because Firefox won’t prompt you for updates. Instead, a background agent will download and install updates even if Firefox is closed. How considerate of them, I felt I didn't have enough auto-updating background agents yet.
My God, this thread turned into a cesspool of whining, bitching and utter negativity to what seems like a great update. How about we praise the positives as well? They listed a slew of performance improvements and a battery usage improvement on macOS. Firefox team: keep it up.
I groan whenever I see a Firefox post on the front page. -"X moved Y pixels making Firefox UNUSABLE! So now I use Brave." -"Mozilla is run by a bunch of SJW idiots because they ran their CEO off. So now I run Brave." (I had to look into this, as I wasn't paying attention at the time. They picked a new CEO who cared so passionately about removing the right of gay people to get married he even donated his own money to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you want to install this backdoor ? No, installing the so called updates in background will not be alowed.
How do you validate Firefox updates?
Most people don't.
For the rare people that do (probably 100 on the entire planet), they can disable the automatic updates and do it manually.
I have no problem with automatic updates I can disable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>... I will not be a part of that. So instead of not being a part of it by simply disabling it (or never enabling it to begin with, as it's currently opt-in), you're abandoning the browser altogether?
Yeah, search the preferences for the word “Sponsored” and uncheck anything you don’t want to see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many reasons why someone would not want this behavior, including: - Browser updates often carry more than just security fixes, which may or may not be wanted by the user - Background updates make it less likely for the user to know why their software is being updated - The user may have a legitimate reason for sticking with an older version of a piece of software - Most browsers already show the user when a…
> There are many reasons why someone would not want this behavior It's a good thing that this feature can be configured. https://www.ghacks.net/2021/04/28/mozilla-is-working-on-fire...
> With 94, you’ll find a selection of six fun seasonal Colorways (available for a limited time only). For a limited time only? What the heck? Feels like Starbucks. Otherwise great release of course.
To be competitive with Chrome and Safari, Firefox needs the following table stakes: - Excellent performance and reliability. Quantum delivered a lot of performance wins, and work continues at a rapid rate on reliability. Unfortunately, to be competitive on performance and reliability given Mozilla's funding required dropping XUL :( - A simplified, modern UI. It's fair to argue about specifics here like "tabs as butto…
Not really true. For starters, they did not drop XUL with Quantum. In fact, they did not drop XUL to this very day[1].
The thing they did drop was XUL and low level access for extensions, copying the "well-defined" extension API from chrome[2]. This was largely a political decision, not a technical one. The aim here was to make extensions more secure by limiting their capabilities, to provide a common stable API to piggy-back on the success of Chrome and get more Chrome-only extensions on board by providing a largely compatible API, and to polish up Firefox reputation by removing the "Firefox breaks some of my extensions with every update" problem[3]. Of course, it kinda backfired, as it largely removed one of Firefox competitive features other browser lacked (extreme combustibility and very powerful add-ons), and people, especially the power users who drove the word-of-mouth, wondered why they still should use Firefox if it just feels like another Chrome. From my vantage point, it didn't polish the reputation, quite the opposite, it destroyed a lot of reputation and goodwill.
>- Excellent performance and reliability.
Firefox performs better for me in general[4], and it eats fewer of my system resources doing so. But YMMV, of course.
>A simplified, modern UI. It's fair to argue about specifics here like "tabs as buttons", but not about simplification overall. This may frustrate power users, but power users are the vast minority.
I do like the current UI, even tho I was rather skeptical at first. It's not perfect of course (when is something ever), but I like it a lot better than say Chrome's UI.
Of course, given mozilla's track record in this regard, it probably will be reinvented soon :P
[1] E.g. while the main UI file is now browser.xhtml not browser.xul, it's actually a mix of (x)html and xul in there, with a lot of the UI still implemented in XUL. They did remove some XUL widgets (especially those that were not actually in use by Firefox anymore, only used by either extensions before the WebExtension forced migration or by third party projects like Seamonkey), and IIRC they killed XBL (which was basically WebComponents for XUL, long before WebComponents was a thing), as XBL was particularly finicky, old and unmaintained and riddled with bugs.
https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/base/co...
[2] Implementing the chrome-API badly, I might add. There is still a ton of bugs years later where behavior differs significantly from Chrome. And quite a few APIs that aren't implemented at all. In effect, every reasonably complex extension has to have browser specific code, or avoid certain APIs entirely and come up with creative work arounds that hopefully work consistently in different browser. I am not blaming the team which implemented this stuff; they did the best with the very limited resources mozilla gave them to get an initial implementation going, and then after the initial roll out from what I saw the team was effectively largely disbanded and reassigned, leaving only enough resources to kinda-maintain the existing implementation but not really enough resources to fix all the glaring parity bugs and missing features, instead hoping that volunteers would fill the gap here (and some gaps were indeed filled that way, but not too many).
[3] Which was a bit of a problem, indeed, as extensions did not really have a stable API to use. While mozilla largely tried avoiding major breaking changes by e.g. providing a compat-layer if they changed something or carefully announcing such changes in advance meaning features relying on these changes were often delayed in favor of giving extensions a grace period to adopt to the upcoming stuff, this wasn't always possible and it wasn't always known in advance what change would actually break (a lot, or at least important) extensions. And such compat-layers added to the maintenance cost, and delaying features added to the impression that mozilla was slow-moving.
Providing a chrome-compatible API was probably a good idea, providing only a chrome-compatible API probably not.
[4] Except notoriously on youtube, where it still performs well enough, but worse than Chrome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I groan whenever I see a Firefox post on the front page. -"X moved Y pixels making Firefox UNUSABLE! So now I use Brave." -"Mozilla is run by a bunch of SJW idiots because they ran their CEO off. So now I run Brave." (I had to look into this, as I wasn't paying attention at the time. They picked a new CEO who cared so passionately about removing the right of gay people to get married he even donated his own money to…
If I could pin your comment on all threads related to Firefox, I would. All this whining is what will finally do Firefox in.