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

Firefox 72.0

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 543 posts

Re: Firefox 72.0

#281

Post by breakingcups »

padenot wrote: post #220
mxmilkb wrote: post #81

Can anyone advise how far away hardware accelerated video on Linux might be?

We're currently rewriting most of the graphics rendering of Firefox (with what is called the WebRender project). This is the first time Linux users will have hardware accelerated rendering by default, and is a pre-requisite to take real advantage of hardware-accelerated video decoding. It's enabled on some configuration in Nightly builds [0], and it's being worked on actively. If you want to know more, the graphics t…

Thanks a lot for hanging out and answering question.

Re: Firefox 72.0

#282

Post by _ph_ »

nomadluap wrote: post #277
_ph_ wrote: post #266

I love the Picture in Picture feature. There are too many web sites which leave you only the choice between a rather small video or full screen. With PIP I can choose the size which works best for my screen. Also, as it floats on top, it is never covered by other applications. One thing would make this even more increadible: is there a way to set the default size and position? If the PIP feature would always start in…

Or even just remember size and position between instances

That would be the best, if a new video pops up in position and size of the previous one.

Re: Firefox 72.0

#283

Post by School-Cotton »

zamadatix wrote: post #160
gdfasfklshg4 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lesson is don't change for the sake of change.

If you think of a standard user: - Do they really need to see* http:// or https:// if immediately to the left is the icon which indicates secure/insecure (which is more than just "protocol is https or not")? - Do they really care to see* if they are at www.site.com or m.site.com or site.com or do they just want to know they are at site.com which they expect to be as they make their purchase or log in? * noting that b…

I don’t care what “a standard user” needs, so what is your point?

I care what I need.

A standard user was probably fine with something like AOL keywords.

Re: Firefox 72.0

#284

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

zamadatix wrote: post #247
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you think of a standard user You mean the strawman repeatedly trotted out by people defending shitty changes as justifications for why their shitty change is necessary? Ever wonder why so many things suck nowadays?

Nope, just mean "not the guy that writes the webapp who needs to see if he is currently connected via HTTP or HTTPS". Can "the larger group" be used as an excuse for a bad change? Sure! But so far the only reason mentioned as to WHY this change is bad is "www.site.com and site.com could technically be different sites" and I'm not sure how that is supposed to be clear regardless if www shows post load or not or how th…

> Nope, just mean "not the guy that writes the webapp who needs to see if he is currently connected via HTTP or HTTPS".

HTTP currently shows "Not secure" to the left of the URL. It's still easy to differentiate.

(I do think hiding www is stupid, but hiding http vs https is reasonable so long as they're still marked differently. Ideally http should be a more noticeable error, like it is if there's any user input box, or better yet a massive error like it is for self-signed certs and HTTPS.)

Re: Firefox 72.0

#285

Post by 2bitencryption »

I'm a huge fan of the picture-in-picture, though I wish for a few enhancements:

I wish clicking anywhere on the box would act as "play/pause", instead of requiring me to hunt down the button. And of course I wish for some visible/interactable buffer-bar, though I realize that might not be standardized across webplayers, so maybe not possible.

Re: Firefox 72.0

#286

Post by posix_me_less »

megous wrote: post #163
posix_me_less wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a browser, gpu acceleration is a security risk, cf. https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/13799/is-webgl-... TLDR: if js gets direct control of GPU, it can read/modify present and past screens. Maybe after Wayland implementations get good enough, distributions will make hw acceleration work securely with wayland compositors, probably years? Just guessing. Playing video on youtube is easy, but performance su…

GPU != video acceleration. The question is about whether FF is finally using va-api to accelerate video codec decoding.

Oh dear. Video acceleration means GPU is doing what CPU would be else doing. Which means user threads get less indirect access to GPU. Which is a potential security risk, because GPUs and GL are designed to perform, not to secure data.

VA-API is not mentioned in the question at all. It is the most common api for video acceleration, but there are others - direct vdpau, or nvdec.

Re: Firefox 72.0

#289

Post by zamadatix »

I know the hacks blog tends to stick to "what web technologies changed" but 72 also introduces "Experimental support for using client certificates from the OS certificate store can be enabled by setting the preference security.osclientcerts.autoload to true (Windows only)." which has always been a huge PITA for me while testing and many interested in these technology changes are probably interested in this flag (though maybe moreso when Mac/Linux get supported).

Re: Firefox 72.0

#290

Post by pcdoyle »

mderazon wrote: post #275

Only thing keeping me in Chrome is multiple profiles And no, Firefox containers are not the same, I cannot install two versions for 1pass - personal/private Firefox also have true "profiles" but they are kind of a hack

I made a bookmark for about:profiles so I can launch a different profile, but it is a bit more cumbersome than having it be part of the main interface.
Post reply on HN