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

Firefox 67.0 Released

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 264 posts

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#181

Post by kbutler »

noisem4ker wrote: post #165
sdsdsdsds wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to code with black themes for a long time but not anymore: Why not simply lower your screen brightness ? I feel it better for my eyes because the text which i'm looking at is actually dark and not bright. Most people with dark themes have high brightness levels on their screens. I think this can be bad on the long term. Especially that many screen elements are not as dark as their code, which makes them ultra…

Do people also get annoyed at printed paper being white? Do they wish books had black pages? If not, as you say, it is only a matter of adjusting the screen for the proper brightness, depending on ambient light. And it is true that, inevitably, whatever you're doing, sooner or later some white background or picture will appear on screen and blast your eyes with light. I cannot stand this, so I don't use dark themes o…

When reading in bright sunlight, the white paper can be excessively bright, and yes, I've wished for a dark page.

I agree that it is about matching the brightness of the monitor with the background.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#182

Post by alanh »

zimbatm wrote: post #11

Firefox 67 also the first browser that ships with `prefers-color-scheme` (aka dark mode) after Safari. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media/pref... And it does the right thing and disables the feature when enabling the resist fingerprinting option. I did a small survey and only very few websites have developed a second dark theme: https://zimbatm.com/DarkMode

Psst: Night Eye is a browser extension that has really, deeply impressed me by managing to give almost every website and web app a good-enough 'night mode,' surpassing all the quick-hack filter() solutions and more common extensions like Darken. https://nighteye.app/

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#183

Post by callahad »

mthoms wrote: post #177
callahad wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two sides to that coin: 1. People do genuinely seem to find it useful (it's been a feature in Developer Edition for years), so that's cool, but also... 2. Sharing a profile between different versions of Firefox can cause data loss, and profile-per-install makes it harder to accidentally make that mistake. So it's win-win. As for why people find it useful, I've mainly seen two camps: - People who want to kee…

As I understand it, this only affects running different official builds side by side. But what about running two different instances of a single build side by side with different profiles? The use-case I'm thinking of is something akin to Site Specific Browsers (SSBs), where each site has its own dock icon etc. Will this ever be possible?

That actually is possible, but you have to manually create the shortcuts.

Check out https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-... for docs on the profile manager. Once you've set up the profiles you want, you can launch a specific profile by passing "-P profileNameHere" or "--profile /path/to/profile" to Firefox.

You may also need to pass "--new-instance" or "--no-remote" to force Firefox to launch a new window if another copy of the same Firefox version is already open.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#184

Post by callahad »

markdog12 wrote: post #93
markdog12 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does seem YouTube has AV1 videos, at least for lower resolutions (720p and lower)

I've even found some in 5k, although they don't play back hardly at all. Performance not there yet.

That should be markedly better in Firefox 67, since we've just now switched to dav1d, a much more efficient decoder by the VideoLAN folks. Prior to that, we were using the reference implementation from libaom.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#185

Post by j605 »

skykooler wrote: post #77
chupasaurus wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm curious to see how aggressive this is. It's in the config parameter's name: browser.tabs.unloadOnLowMemory. Boolean, works only on Windows for now.

Ah man. Hope this makes it to Linux and especially OSX soon!

On Linux, I use cgroups to restrict memory usage of certain applications to prevent them from crashing the whole system.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#186

Post by judge2020 »

phillc73 wrote: post #48
lholden wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, though technically one could enable this before now by tweaking the about:config security.webauth.u2f setting. (Which is something I've been having to do for a while now). As a side note... the way Google handles U2F is somewhat out of spec. For example, you haven't been able to register a u2f device with Firefox on google. I wonder if that's been worked around with this release? That would be great! Otherwise,…

> about:config security.webauth.u2f I still have this set to Value: "false" in Firefox 66.0.5 and it's working fine for Google Accounts. Edit: I'm pretty sure I registered by Nitrokeys with Google back in 2017 using Chrome, so I'm just referring to signing in with them.

You could always sign in with any key, you just could only register keys via Chrome.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#188

Post by octosphere »

jplayer01 wrote: post #145
octosphere wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does this mean that adblocking (and other safety-related) extensions will suddenly stop working on private windows, unless the user knows it has to go to the settings and enable them again? Looks like it, although if you don't know how to configure your extensions, then why even use them in the first place? Chrome has been doing this for a while now. You have to check the 'Allow in incognito' button for the extensi…

> Looks like it, although if you don't know how to configure your extensions, then why even use them in the first place? Because uBlock Origins et al. are incredibly useful for your average internet user who know fuck all about configuring extensions but benefit far more from it? What is this unnecessary elitism? Sane defaults are really important for people who don't know anything about the internet, much less priva…

> Sane defaults are really important for people who don't know anything about the internet

That's fair. I apologize for sounding elitist. I guess you could say I am a bit biased here because although sane defaults are ultimately worth shipping, there exists the tinkerer types who love nothing more than configuring and customizing their addons.

> Adblocking not working in private mode isn't a sane default

Perhaps you are right about AD-blocking addons. You typically want them in normal browsing mode and private mode, but it's the mountain of other addons which spy on users that users have to worry about. I don't have to worry because I inspect the code of addons before installing (more elitism in practice). I have spotted a few in the wild that covertly send your browsing history and other details to a remote server (Yes, I reported them).

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#189

Post by judge2020 »

will4274 wrote: post #119
akavel wrote: post #39

> "Enable FIDO U2F API, and permit registrations for Google Accounts" Oh! Didn't expect that! Does this mean YubiKeys will now be working in GMail on Firefox? Together with all the other stuff, this starts to look like a really important and major release of Firefox.

This is an anti-feature. Firefox enabled a deprecated standard because Google couldn't be bothered to move to the current standard. Classic catering to the big players.

I can't find the source, but I believe they didn't upgrade to the newer standard due to some combination of existing keys and ChromeOS.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#190

Post by ncmncm »

celrod wrote: post #91
ncmncm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dark mode, for the first time ever, has legitimate, objective reasons to want, now that we have pure LED displays: a black LED pixel consumes no energy.

I regularly get migraines, where "bright" lights are searingly painful to look at. When the symptoms aren't too bad, dark themes on a text editor are okay, but light themes are not. Migraines aren't an uncommon problem. I think that is a fairly objective reason driving the preference.

Conceded.
Post reply on HN