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

191–200 of 264 posts

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#191

Post by tedunangst »

agumonkey wrote: post #156
kalleboo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I want to browse a site without it cluttering up my auto complete history. Say you want to order an engagement ring for your girlfriend but don't want WEDDING RINGS R US showing up when you type "r" in the address bar

it could still be an issue if your disk get inspected (or worse replicated).

If your girlfriend is replicating your harddrive to determine what ring you're buying, maybe it's better if she finds out and you call off the wedding instead of going through with it.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#192

Post by callahad »

judge2020 wrote: post #189
will4274 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

More Android than ChromeOS, but the source is https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.platform/q...

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#193

Post by Vinnl »

callahad wrote: post #146
groovybits wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, how large is the benefit of this? Does the average user run multiple versions of Firefox side-by-side? I consider myself a power user in many things, but never have I felt the need to run different versions of my browser simultaneously.

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…

Additional use case: I sometimes give prerelease versions a try to report bugs, without intending to use it as my default browser (especially if bugs are blockers). It's nice to be able to get back to my regular install in that case.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#194

Post by earenndil »

viraptor wrote: post #118
nominated1 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've also read that it takes more power (battery) to render black than it does white. Combined with the need for more brightness it doesn't seem like a good solution. Calibrating my monitors took them from having piercing bluish whites to more softer pinkish whites and reduced daytime eye strain significantly. I then use Redshift at night with the undocumented "preserve" switch to combine my icc profile with the Reds…

> I've also read that it takes more power (battery) to render black than it does white This really depends on the display technology and for more modern monitors, the opposite is true.

Very few monitors use OLED, and most phones don't either although it is becoming more common there.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#195

Post by stevekemp »

bzbarsky wrote: post #110
stevekemp wrote: post #52

When I upgraded from 66.0.5 it created a new profile, rather than keeping my existing passwords/histories/extensions. I'm not going to use firefox sync, so it seems like there will be a painful migration ahead.

That's really odd. Had you used that profile with a post-67 nightly at some point or something? Some more information about the profiles involved here would be really useful. Are you willing to file a bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ ? If you do and give me the link to it, I'll get people who know the right questions to ask involved...

No, I always upgrade to the latest release when I spot it, but I don't try nightlies or anything other than releases.

I take a backup of ~/.mozilla and just download the new binaries to /opt/firefox. (Well I download and update a symlink.)

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#196

Post by jszymborski »

recursive wrote: post #149
Grue3 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That still doesn't solve a problem of a user installing the browser for the first time, installing adblock, then going to a porn site in private mode and getting a faceful of malware-ridden ads. Who thought this is a good idea?

No one thought that was a good idea. The good idea is to prevent add-on authors from stealing private browsing history.

I believe this is also an attempt to block fingerprinting.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#197

Post by noir_lord »

Moru wrote: post #170
noisem4ker wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A white screen with high brightness can't be compared to white paper. If you have a bright lamp behind the white paper, you can begin to compare the problem. A white screen is fine for young people without any eye problems, when you get older and start having problems with the eyes, you might need to cut down on blue light to prolong the usage of your eyes depending on what problems you get. I have to use filters to…

That’s why I love redshift, I shove everything way over into the red and turn the gamma right down, I also killed the overhead lights in my office so it’s a comfortable quiet cave to work in.

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#198

Post by callahad »

stevekemp wrote: post #195
bzbarsky wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really odd. Had you used that profile with a post-67 nightly at some point or something? Some more information about the profiles involved here would be really useful. Are you willing to file a bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ ? If you do and give me the link to it, I'll get people who know the right questions to ask involved...

No, I always upgrade to the latest release when I spot it, but I don't try nightlies or anything other than releases. I take a backup of ~/.mozilla and just download the new binaries to /opt/firefox. (Well I download and update a symlink.)

We might be resolving symlinks to their physical paths, making each download look like a new install. If so, the nixpkgs issue I mentioned above is probably more relevant than expected.

I'm not entirely certain, but if you want to source dive, nsXREDirProvider::GetInstallHash is a good place to start: https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/rev/6c9f60f8cc064a1005...

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#199

Post by rstat1 »

usrusr wrote: post #172
ncmncm wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thus the distinction "pure LED" in my previous post. That there are plenty of deceptively labeled LCDs does not mean there are no actual LED displays.

There is nothing deceptive about LED backlit LCDs, they are an important upgrade over CFL backlit LCDs.

I've seen a fair few TVs with LED backlit screens, advertised as LED displays. Which what I think was meant by "deceptively labeled"

Re: Firefox 67.0 Released

#200

Post by groovybits »

callahad wrote: post #146
groovybits wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, how large is the benefit of this? Does the average user run multiple versions of Firefox side-by-side? I consider myself a power user in many things, but never have I felt the need to run different versions of my browser simultaneously.

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…

I see the use case for developers who want to test multiple versions.

But as stevekemp said, the average user is losing their profile when simply upgrading from one version to the next. And it seems that the fix to this is to go back into the Profile Manager and set you old profile as the new default. Wouldn't this inadvertently cause data loss for the average user? (Ex: My parents do not even know Profile Manager is, much less that Profiles exist)

If anything, I see this as a bad thing - especially for those who do not use FF Sync. Am I interpreting this correctly? We're talking about regular FF here, not Developer Edition, correct?

Edit:

> People who want to keep their work and personal browsing separate.

I thought that's what Multi-Account Containers was supposed to help with.

Post reply on HN