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

Firefox 29

firefox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 517 posts

Re: Firefox 29

#371

Post by NotOscarWilde »

ExpiredLink wrote: post #360
CompuHacker wrote: post #207

Where the hell is my forward button? Why does browser.tabs.onTop not mean anything anymore? Where's my refresh button? On the... right side, inside the Awesome Bar? Why isn't a separate button? Why can't I put the Home button back beside the Back button? Why is the back button permanently part of the Awesome Bar? Why does the Awesome Bar change shape and size to allow the forward button to exist? Why isn't the forwar…

They won't "stop breaking everything" because they feel the irresistible urge to constantly "improve" and "reinvent" the UI until it becomes unusable (a.k.a. the Linux desktop syndrome). BTW, the refresh button is in the 'menu config', you can drag it to the old place. The stop button and other 'classic' buttons are gone. Meaningless 'browser.tabs.onTop' prepares you for your transition to Chrome. FF is so frustratin…

> "improve" and "reinvent"

I don't remember any change in the UI in the last two years that was not copying what Chrome does.

So "improve" may be right, but hardly "reinvent".

Re: Firefox 29

#372

Post by krisdol »

eikenberry wrote: post #351
hbt wrote: post #212

If you want a highly customizable browser, Firefox is it. Chrome is in its infancy when it comes to customization and they often make decisions that prevent power users from taking advantage of their browsing experience. For example, they've disabled custom stylesheets in recent releases despite a clear indication that people were sharing themes, they have very old bugs that don't get resolved (like the stupid white…

Flash support. And no, supporting the old deprecated Adobe plugin doesn't count as many sites now require newer versions. This is to support flash games. My kids love the simple flash games on Kongregate and similar sites, so I have to use Chromium on their systems.

Flash is still being developed outside of Adobe? Who would be perpetuating Flash?

Re: Firefox 29

#373

Post by mnemonik »

sergiotapia wrote: post #337
mnemonik wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Want to try on the latest release? I can't reproduce with Release (29) or Nightly (32) on 10.9. If you can give some solid STR and a test case we can investigate further, but as it is now, this isn't very actionable from our end :-/

Just tried and there is -ZERO- lag. I'm tremendously happy and the dev tools are white now! 20 tabs, each with it's dev tools open. Zero lags! I'm in love.

:D

We have a light and dark theme; you can toggle back and forth via the options panel (the little cog sprocket thing top left)

Re: Firefox 29

#374

Post by angersock »

asutherland wrote: post #357
angersock wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Added the console API to Web Workers (bug 620935). Now you can log messages to the Web Console from Web Workers." About bloody time. Does anyone know why that wasn't the case from the get-go?

Originally, exposure of APIs to JS was done using the XPConnect JS/XPCOM bridge in Firefox. Simplifying a little, XPConnect is not thread-safe, so exposing APIs to workers required manually writing code using the SpiderMonkey JS API. This was done in an ad-hoc fashion for a while. Additionally, XPConnect allowed JS code to be written to expose functionality to content on the main thread, but was basically a non-start…

Thank you very much for your explanation!

We ended up writing a goofy little console.log() replacement that sent messages back to the main UI thread for processing and logging, but that kind of thunking is a might-bit janky.

Re: Firefox 29

#375

Post by nailer »

drewblay wrote: post #369
nailer wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a product for power users. Again, nobody in the thread said there was. Firefox is a browser for everyone. It focuses on freedom and privacy. The browser that came with your OS most likely does not. There is no minimum level of technical expertise required. The UX is designed to be simple.

I still have to disagree with you. I don't buy into your "street person" argument at all. I don't think you give people enough credit. Just about anyone born in the U.S. (or any first world country) in the late 80's and after will probably know how to customize a tool bar in a web browser. Even if they grew up poor and didn't own a computer it would be hard to not have this knowledge after going thru a public school…

> Just about anyone born in the U.S. (or any first world country) in the late 80's and after will probably know how to customize a tool bar in a web browser

Agreed, but nobody in the thread is debating whether people know to customise a tool bar in a web browser.

The only thing that has been questioned is whether most people want to customise a browser to achieve defaults they find reasonable.

Re: Firefox 29

#376

Post by filmgirlcw »

JonnieCache wrote: post #156
andreis1 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrt the 'omnibox vs address-and-search' conundrum: why not just let the user decide in Settings, defaulting on omnibox?

There's an extension that gives you a chrome style omnibox. It works fine, except I can't use tab to search within sites like in chrome. If anyone knows how I can get this in FF, I'd be very appreciative.

On Mac OS X, you can remove the search bar from the window layout and just use the URL bar as omnibar too. Sadly, you still don't get the tab to search a page domain option.

Re: Firefox 29

#377

Post by wahsd »

I kind of wish they would focus on building out the bookmark functionality with some easier workflow, e.g., fixing functionality issues like only being able to accept auto-complete suggestions in tags with the right arrow keyboard button.

I definitely think bookmarks are highly undervalued. To a certain extent, I think curated and cultivated bookmarks even have monetary value.

Re: Firefox 29

#378

Post by zobzu »

krisdol wrote: post #372
eikenberry wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flash support. And no, supporting the old deprecated Adobe plugin doesn't count as many sites now require newer versions. This is to support flash games. My kids love the simple flash games on Kongregate and similar sites, so I have to use Chromium on their systems.

Flash is still being developed outside of Adobe? Who would be perpetuating Flash?

google has the code for flash actually.

Re: Firefox 29

#379

Post by Excavator »

angersock wrote: post #274
yahelc wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developer Release Notes: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/29

"Added the console API to Web Workers (bug 620935). Now you can log messages to the Web Console from Web Workers." About bloody time. Does anyone know why that wasn't the case from the get-go?

According to comments in that bug it looks like it were held up due to discussion around standardization of the Console API and a rewrite of the same.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=620935#c30

Re: Firefox 29

#380

Post by zobzu »

WizzleKake wrote: post #26

The incessant rearrangement of the UI is why I switched to Chrome. Each time they change the interface, it is unclear to me what the benefit is to the user. I was fine with Firefox when it looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mozilla_Firefox_3.5.png

frequent being every 4 years
Post reply on HN