Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 28 Release Notes

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 164 posts

Re: Firefox 28 Release Notes

#101

Post by mikhailt »

josteink wrote: post #75
Spittie wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It got discontinued, and Chrome dropped it as well. Both support the newer SPDY/3.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDY#Protocol_versions https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=912550 https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=303957

While all browsers support http 1.0 websites almost three decades later. Spdy really shows how fast people are willing to put immature technology in production as long as Google claims it better. Amazing. What's even wise is the attitude towards abandoning published protocols and contracts. This is not how a lasting and stable internet was built. This clearly shows why spdy can't be a candidate for http 2.0

Dude, you are comparing two entirely different things and no, it doesn't clearly show anything.

Spdy is not an established standard, it's an experimental protocol developed by Google to improve the transmission of data on top of HTTP. So yes, it is normal to have Google and Firefox drop the older versions to push forward on the iterations, it's an experiment to see how they can improve Spdy and in the end, how HTTP 2.0 can benefit from those results.

It is more irresponsible to keep and use an older experimental protocol that nobody will use.

HTTP 1.0 is an established standard agreed by everybody and that's why it hasn't changed in 30 years, something Spdy is not.

HTTP 2.0 working group is already establishing majority of Spdy's experiment results as a working draft for HTTP 2.0.

Re: Firefox 28 Release Notes

#102

Post by wbond »

hobohacker wrote: post #99
wbond wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so my point stands that it is interesting that current stable browsers don't support current stable web servers. So unless someone has the resources to test and deploy unstable web servers, it effectively means you shouldn't bother with spdy at this point.

I think it's a fair assessment that supporting experimental technologies requires more engineering resources. Everyone has to do the cost/benefit analysis themselves.

You seem intent on arguing about something I have never contested.

I just made the (implied) observation that anyone deploying nginx shouldn't even bother enabling spdy in 1.4 (stable) because effectively nothing will use it anymore. It was something that people who use "stable" software were able to benefit from starting in May 2013, but it is now no longer and won't be again until nginx reaches 1.6. That is, unless spdy/3 is dropped in favor of spdy/4 by then.

(edit: fixed date)

Re: Firefox 28 Release Notes

#103

Post by spindritf »

wbond wrote: post #49

Interesting to see that now the current stable versions of Chrome and Firefox have dropped spdy/2, which is the only version of spdy supported by the current stable version of nginx. And nginx is the server used by more than 90% of hosts supporting spdy[1]. I presume this means it is mostly a Google/Twitter/Cloudflare thing for now since they seem to all be running spdy/3.1 in production. [1] http://w3techs.com/techn…

The 'mainline' branch of nginx which supports spdy/3 is not considered unstable and can be used in production.

Source: http://forum.nginx.org/read.php?2,221377,221390#msg-221390

Re: Firefox 28 Release Notes

#104

Post by barkingcat »

wbond wrote: post #49

Interesting to see that now the current stable versions of Chrome and Firefox have dropped spdy/2, which is the only version of spdy supported by the current stable version of nginx. And nginx is the server used by more than 90% of hosts supporting spdy[1]. I presume this means it is mostly a Google/Twitter/Cloudflare thing for now since they seem to all be running spdy/3.1 in production. [1] http://w3techs.com/techn…

Nginx has had spdy3.1 support since late Jan, 2014, starting with nginx 1.5.10 (don't use that version, read on).

The current nginx 1.5.12 has patches to fix an overflow issue with the spdy support so it's gotten at least some attention paid to it since the feature was released. I expect spdy3.1 support will only get better as more and more people move to the latest version of nginx.

Check http://nginx.org/en/CHANGES for the changelog.

Re: Firefox 28 Release Notes

#105

Post by barkingcat »

wbond wrote: post #102
hobohacker wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a fair assessment that supporting experimental technologies requires more engineering resources. Everyone has to do the cost/benefit analysis themselves.

You seem intent on arguing about something I have never contested. I just made the (implied) observation that anyone deploying nginx shouldn't even bother enabling spdy in 1.4 (stable) because effectively nothing will use it anymore. It was something that people who use "stable" software were able to benefit from starting in May 2013, but it is now no longer and won't be again until nginx reaches 1.6. That is, unless…

I think for people who actually want spdy3 support, they will evaluate whether nginx 1.5 is stable enough for them. Stable is just a word, and unless it's a straightjacket "stable or nothing" culture you're referring to, yes people will have to make their own decisions about whether 1.5 is stable enough for their needs.

As the posts below, "mainline" is considered stable enough for production.

A rose by any other name?

Re: Firefox 28 Release Notes

#106

Post by 6cxs2hd6 »

bad_user wrote: post #52
k-mcgrady wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One major (okay maybe not that major but an important factor in my decision) issue for me with Australis is the separate boxes for URLs and search. Every other browser merged them and I don't know of any reason to keep them separate - is there one?

You can do searches directly in the URL bar and it's not exactly the same, but if you want OmniBar-like behavior there's a plugin for that (when I used it, it worked well): https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/omnibar/ What I like about Firefox (versus Chrome specifically) is that the AwesomeBar gives much better suggestions from your history, doing full-text searches in titles - within Chrome I can rarely…

> within Chrome I can rarely find something in my history without opening the history view

Yes. And bookmarks, for me. Back when I had switched from Firefox to Chrome, I thought it hadn't imported most of my bookmarks. Chrome would hardly ever show me the things I expected/wanted.

Having switched back to Firefox, I'm delighted with the experience of it actually suggesting the things I want, again.

The only time I use Chrome these days, is for something Google can't be arsed to make work correctly in other browsers (e.g. photo editing on G+, label dropdowns in Gmail, ad nauseum).

Re: Firefox 28 Release Notes

#107

Post by Avshalom »

LukeG wrote: post #61
aroch wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you're curious: http://arewefastyet.com/ https://areweslimyet.com/

Anyone have a good breakdown of the differences in these benchmarks? i.e. Why does Chrome dramatically lead the(ir) Octane benchmark?

Because Octane was written by Google. So it's either:

  -representative of things Google knows it's faster at
  -representative of things Google thinks should be fast and prioritizes... and is thus faster.
or a little of column A little of column b in a feedback loop.

Re: Firefox 28 Release Notes

#110

Post by zobzu »

bad_user wrote: post #52
k-mcgrady wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One major (okay maybe not that major but an important factor in my decision) issue for me with Australis is the separate boxes for URLs and search. Every other browser merged them and I don't know of any reason to keep them separate - is there one?

You can do searches directly in the URL bar and it's not exactly the same, but if you want OmniBar-like behavior there's a plugin for that (when I used it, it worked well): https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/omnibar/ What I like about Firefox (versus Chrome specifically) is that the AwesomeBar gives much better suggestions from your history, doing full-text searches in titles - within Chrome I can rarely…

the awesome bar might be the single biggest technical reason for me to use firefox. its fast and the search is very accurate (since its searching sites you previously visited)
Post reply on HN