Is there any way to update Firefox on Linux without resorting to ugly methods like running it as root and using update UI, or downloading the mar file manually and running the updater CLI tool with that file (as sudo / root)? The issue is that I use stock Mozilla build (I prefer it to Iceweasel on Debian), so I just placed it in /opt, but I don't want to give write permissions to the firefox directory to my primary u…
Is there any way to update Firefox on Linux without resorting to ugly methods like running it as root and using update UI, or downloading the mar file manually and running the updater CLI tool with that file (as sudo / root)? The issue is that I use stock Mozilla build (I prefer it to Iceweasel on Debian), so I just placed it in /opt, but I don't want to give write permissions to the firefox directory to my primary u…
Add the Debian repos from Linux Mint Debian Edition (something like deb http://packages.linuxmint.com/ debian main import backport upstream). Use Google for the exact source and how to import the keys for this server. Then install standard Firefox
I don't think that's a good thing for the open web. :'( Then again I do like that I can watch more YouTube Videos in a reasonable resolution now. Most webm transcodes are just available in low quality.
I just download youtube videos[1]. It has many advantages over youtube.com. Hardware acceleration is one but also no stalling when skipping ahead, no disappearing videos that you planned to watch later, no need to sign in. Actually, youtube as a repository of material for download works much better than youtube as a streaming site. [1] http://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
This release cycle is great: it's not quite as fast as Chrome but it means that I can start using features for 90+% of the Firefox-using public within months of release rather than years.
Well, the version numbering system has no bearing on the frequency of updates Still, I don't see the difference between 1.0/1.01/1.02 and 1.0/2.0/3.0 -- it's still "3 versions". I say version numbers are bullshit, codenames doubly so.. just make it the release date or build number and be done with it. Automate it, and let no human ever think about it again. It's just an identifier for a specific changelog entry after…
Updates are automatic, and understated in the UI.
Version numbers are still useful as literal milestones (well, allmost... it would be 6-weeks-stones, but no such thing exists).
> Improved page load times due to no longer decoding images that aren't visible (847223) ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=847223 ) This is pretty cool
And it was even cooler when Opera did it several years ago.
-3 points for an honest opinion? Please, relax. When Opera introduced this feature, computers had far less memory than they do now. I known because I raised an Opera bug report when that delay-decode feature regressed in one of their releases. Only Opera made my low-end workstation useful. it was cool. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings.
> If Google didn't buckle like a house of cards on this. I wonder where we'd be? Content providers weren't jumping to more double their storage costs or deal with another immature toolchain so I rather suspect we'd be where we are now: Flash got an extra couple years reprieve until everyone accepts reality and implements H.264. This is particularly true since no matter WebM's merits it was going to be worse when tran…
I dearly wish the MPEG-LA members would just charge for the patents for hardware implementations and go royalty-free for software and content for H.265. It would still make them money and get it standard quick.
If we're going to be wishing for things, why not just wish for the end of software patents? This stuff shouldn't be patent-encumbered in the first place. It could have been developed like html5, a bunch of companies with common interests agreeing on a standard without charging for it. But because this is patentable matter that was impossible from the outset. The shape of the legal system enforces the shape of the industry.
These frequent updates are going to kill Firefox and it's partially Google's fault. Basically, Google has managed somehow to coax Firefox developers to rapid release cycle with frequent Chrome updates. But this goes against Firefox users. Why do people use Firefox? Most users claim extensions. What breaks extensions? Frequent updates. Effectively annulling the most compelling reason to use Firefox. This is certainly…
Is that a troll attempt? Not sure. Haven't had any of my 15 extensions break in 20 releases. I don't expect any breakage any time. The reason for rapid release is that they need to get new features out to load stuff properly like google docs, yes. The main reason to use firefox IMO is that its as fast or faster than others (and has all the features of course) AND has this: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto…
They are changing the js API all the time. E.g. in ff26 they disabled the old download manager and replaced it with a new module that's available only since ff26. When the extensions you use didn't break, it's because the developers are busy updating them.
> There is no longer a prompt when websites use appcache. Quite happy with this one. I had to develop an offline web-based application a few weeks ago and it really bugged me that I had to allow the application to use the offline cache.
Aye. Those pesky visitors who block, purge and otherwise mess with my tracking cookies shall finally be profiled and analyzed. Great development indeed.
And I can confirm that if I load 6 tabs in Firefox and go to work, when I come home it will have eaten 2G of my memory, the next morning it will have eaten 5, and a couple of days later nothing on my system will run without disk thrashing because Firefox is sitting at 96% memory usage.
What platform? On XP, I leave a firefox session running for weeks and it only gets up towards 1 gigabyte (seems even less with some recent updates, but I don't keep a close eye on it). I leave gmail and lots of other tabs open all the time. (Mostly I suspect they are better able to find the leaks on Windows, no idea why that would be)
I have seen JS webapps that leak memory something awful. I have never encountered anything as bad as the grandparent post, but a gig or two of growth after a week of just one tab open containing one misbehaved web app is not unheard of.