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

391–400 of 517 posts

Re: Firefox 29

#391

Post by Amadiro »

hbt wrote: post #311
nandhp wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There isn't a feature in Chromium or Google Chrome that Firefox doesn't deliver. Multi-process browsing. It is incredibly annoying when my entire browser locks up because one of the fifty tabs I have open is doing something stupid. That never happened in several years of using Chrome, and it happens several times a day in Firefox.

Agreed. The multi-process vs single process is controversial. With cheap memory, multi-process would be better. However, I personally don't experience crashes several times a day. A crash usually boils down to Javascript taking too long and/or maybe rendering issues with CSS (hardware acceleration). However Chrome is not immune to bad JS and will also slow down your system until the single tab is killed/crashes. Over…

> Chrome is not immune to bad JS and will also slow down your system until the single tab is killed/crashes.

That's true, but with like 8-or-so cores I don't really care or even notice that much (if I notice some tab is eating a lot of CPU power, I just go into the task-manager and kill it, until I need it, at which point I reload it.) No disruption to my browsing experience happens. In firefox, I'll have to close the tab, possibly restart the browser, et cetera.

> The browser restarts, all tabs are still there and only load if you click them

I haven't really used firefox for a while now, but it used to lose tabs occasionally for me. I hope that's fixed nowadays.

Re: Firefox 29

#392

Post by chc »

nailer wrote: post #354
mccr8 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> HN should ban new users from moderating for a year. You actually need quite a bit of karma (maybe 500?) on Hacker News before you can downvote things, so anybody downvoting you can't be that new of a user.

Then I'm baffled. There seems to be a recent trend where non controversial things: - the documentation and character support issues can be 'bugs' - defaults that fit most users are good - reminding someone being personal of the HN guidelines ...get moderated up, then down to -3 or -4, then back up to 1 again.

I think it's that your response sounded like a lazy dismissal. Reasonable defaults are good, yes. That's pretty uncontroversial. But nobody has established that Firefox's behavior is less reasonable than the alternative — for example, the comment you were replying to noted that both approaches have their fans — so your out-of-hand rejection on behalf of "users-on-street" sounded imperious.

Re: Firefox 29

#393

Post by patrickaljord »

dilap wrote: post #63

I love Firefox -- for what it's done, what it represents, and what it helps guard against. I have fond memories of those early versions of Firefox (nee Firebird) that busted open the IE monopoly, and where hands-down the best browser going at the time. But it's never felt very good on the Mac to me, and it still doesn't. Here's a few early thoughts on this release, from the perspective of a happy Safari user, w/ a pr…

> * Multi-touch swipe to go back/forward shows no feedback! (Safari does this best, where the whole page slides away, revealing what's underneath; Chrome does a half-assed thing with arrows fading in, which isn't nearly as nice, but at least better than no feedback.)

This is how it works on ChromeOS too. It even has a nice black and white effect on the previous page until it's fully loaded.

Re: Firefox 29

#395

Post by kbrosnan »

brianstorms wrote: post #202

I've always had a bookmarks bar of single and double letters, like R for Reddit, Y for YCombinator, F for Facebook, $ for stocks, etc. Now with FF29 I have these blasted file folder icons next to each of my little codes, cluttering up the whole bookmarks bar. I can't find any way of getting rid of the file folders -- not even thru Customize. Anyone found a way?

Inspect the Firefox chrome and set the class of the folder to display: none using userChrome.css

chrome://browser/content/browser.xul http://kb.mozillazine.org/UserChrome.css

Re: Firefox 29

#396

Post by lurkinggrue »

Gracana wrote: post #43

Hmm, I think the separators between tabs in the new tab bar are too subtle, and overall it is too dark. The curved appearance of the selected tab also seems out of place. edit: also, transparent elements with text on them? Noo! Maybe I am just sensitive.. I don't have the best eyesight, and I don't have the best monitors. In any case, I am thankful for Classic Theme Restorer, which someone mentioned elsewhere in this…

What I find weird about the design is the idea of "Getting the other tabs out of the way" idea. I don't care about the selected tab as I can see what page it it. When I go looking for another tab to go to they make it harder to read! The hell?

Re: Firefox 29

#397

Post by function_seven »

wahsd wrote: post #383
billiam wrote: post #128

Um, just wondering how people feel about actually using FF 29, rather than talking about what it isn't? A really great browser is being obscured by a bikeshed. tl;dr It's awesome.

Agree that it is really good. I think Chrome has gotten all the cool kids' attention without them having a respect and understanding for the mission and value of Mozilla and Firefox. That being said, Mozilla and Firefox could probably do a bit of a better job at selling themselves and their features. I am not sure what you mean by a bike shed, but it's now a pretty nice bike shed, no?

I believe he's referring to Parkinson's Law of Triviality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law_of_triviality)

Re: Firefox 29

#398

Post by epochwolf »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #335
epochwolf wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I've never seen this before and the only references I've been able to find on it in a quick search was a compiz setting in 12.04. Is this built in to the stock ubuntu releases? If so, what version?

Chrome on Elementary OS (Probably consider this Ubuntu 12.04 for this purpose) does a completely chromeless fullscreen on F11 too. Out of interest does OS X support fullscreen on all apps automatically or does the button (it's a window control right?) only show up for supported apps?

https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Genera...

Re: Firefox 29

#399

Post by lern_too_spel »

nullc wrote: post #368
lern_too_spel wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not pretend that Chrome forces you to send every keystroke to Google. It's a feature controlled by a check box that most people find convenient. It's exactly like using Fastmail. It's a convenience over self-hosted mail that sends all my email to Fastmail. Just like Omnibox, you have a choice to use it, and just like Omnibox, it sends a lot of personal information to a third party.

When I use gmail for mailing lists it doesn't result in Google getting my self hosted personal mail or my work mail. It's not really analogous at all. And even if it were— a different privacy leak doesn't make other ones irrelevant.

The point is it isn't a privacy leak at all, and we were never talking about mailing lists. We're specifically talking about whether Omnibox is a feature that should never be implemented by anybody, as you originally claimed, because it gives away too much information. By that same argument, hosted email shouldn't be implemented by anybody because it gives away even more information.

The reason people don't complain about hosted email is the same reason it's ridiculous to complain about Omnibox. Even though it gives information to the service provider, the service provider provides value on top of that information that makes a vast majority of people prefer it to the alternative, which people also have an option to use (by unchecking a check box or by running their own mail server).

Re: Firefox 29

#400

Post by DatBear »

epo wrote: post #363
DatBear wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for this, or did you just make up some reasons to justify mentioning Apple? ...

Do pay attention. This sub thread started with a mention of Apple.

Do pay attention. I commented on the need to mention Apple in this sub thread, as Firefox (the main topic here, if I'm not mistaken) had the same functionality. Then, epochwolf stated that the reasons for implementing the added functionality were different, and therefore the mention of Apple added to the original comment. I then commented asking whether or not he had a source for stating the reasons for implementing said functionality, since it seems as though they're unsubstantiated.
Post reply on HN