Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 90

mozilla.org

41–50 of 351 posts

Re: Firefox 90

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you use it?

Obviously not as much as HTTP(s) but still there are FTP links which show up after a google search from time to time...I guess now I have to context switch to the file explorer...Thunar is OK but does Windows Explorer even support FTP?

The rare times I've needed FTP on Windows, I've found Cyberduck sufficient to do the job.

Re: Firefox 90

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google already singlehandedly controls the web standards. Firefox and Safari are the last obstacles to them basically privatizing the web. The independent Chromium distributions do very little to that effect, as they're not incentivized to specifically disable features Google puts in. If Firefox goes away, kiss the open web goodbye. We'll have it on paper, but just that. It'll be Google's web.

Safari is the real alternative keeping web open. Firefox does not serve that role anymore.

Safari is only available on one platform (that internationally has a small market share) and isn't all that great about implementing web standards in a timely manner. To me, Firefox is the far better alternative. But really, why should there be only one?

Re: Firefox 90

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's my initial reaction too, but if I stop to think of Firefox as a huge, difficult-to-manage project where each feature costs dev resources and increases security risk, FTP support is probably the feature I wouldn't mind removed right next to the Pocket integration.

On the one hand I'm OK with removing features to keep the browser slim. OTOH Firefox is vastly fatter than it was in its early versions, which supported FTP (and Gopher!), so it doesn't seem like FTP or other minor protocols are an actual cause of complexity- and bloat-creep. [EDIT] I'd actually be a lot happier with this if FF were more aggressively adding new Internet or alternative-Web protocols, or trying to use…

> OTOH Firefox is vastly fatter than it was in its early versions, which supported FTP (and Gopher!), so it doesn't seem like FTP or other minor protocols are an actual cause of complexity- and bloat-creep.

I’m sure someone will correct me, but without looking at the source code, I suspect the following will have played a role in increasing code size since the earliest days of Phoenix:

* support for newer media formats, from MP4 through AVIF

* DRM maybe?

* WebGL

* SVG?

* The complexity of modern CSS

Re: Firefox 90

#46

Honestly I'm still not used to the new tab style that was introduced last time. 90 seems fine, but not much to get excited about from the user perspective.

I'm still not adjusted to it and will probably never be.

[deleted]

Re: Firefox 90

#47
post #25
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

does anyone know of an about:config to the switch tab style back? Its still hard for me to notice which style is actually selected with Dark Mode

You need to set browser.proton.enabled to false. There's a number of browser.proton.*.enabled settings for various parts of the UI as well.

thanks. that's helpful.

Re: Firefox 90

#48

> Now, SmartBlock 2.0 in Firefox 90 eliminates this login problem. Initially, Facebook scripts are all blocked, just as before, ensuring your privacy is preserved. But when you click on the “Continue with Facebook” button to sign in, SmartBlock reacts by quickly unblocking the Facebook login script just in time for the sign-in to proceed smoothly. I wonder how it does that, and if it's open to exploitation by a malic…

Maybe on mouse over or something like that.

Re: Firefox 90

#49

Honestly I'm still not used to the new tab style that was introduced last time. 90 seems fine, but not much to get excited about from the user perspective.

I remember seeing a lot of complaining about the tabs in the last release thread but they dont seem to bother me at all.

What is the issue with the new tabs?

Re: Firefox 90

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the one hand I'm OK with removing features to keep the browser slim. OTOH Firefox is vastly fatter than it was in its early versions, which supported FTP (and Gopher!), so it doesn't seem like FTP or other minor protocols are an actual cause of complexity- and bloat-creep. [EDIT] I'd actually be a lot happier with this if FF were more aggressively adding new Internet or alternative-Web protocols, or trying to use…

> OTOH Firefox is vastly fatter than it was in its early versions, which supported FTP (and Gopher!), so it doesn't seem like FTP or other minor protocols are an actual cause of complexity- and bloat-creep. I’m sure someone will correct me, but without looking at the source code, I suspect the following will have played a role in increasing code size since the earliest days of Phoenix: * support for newer media forma…

Much, much bigger JS engine/sandbox, probably. Backwards compat with an ever-growing set of HTML, CSS, and JS. I'd guess a modern CSS engine is several times (dozens of times?) larger than what Phoenix shipped with. I expect their internal UI-drawing code/framework is a lot larger than in the Phoenix days. Webassembly. Canvas. And yeah, several of the other things you mentioned—video used to be the responsibility of plugins, for example.

[EDIT] in fact, some things browsers do now were seen as terrible ideas when Phoenix was released, because they would kill performance, since they're so much more expensive than alternatives. Vector graphics were regarded as to-be-avoided for a long time, because they're so much more taxing on the client than raster. CSS doing animations would have been considered insane, fit only for "look how I can bring your machine to a crawl with a web page" demos. Maintaining an entire "shadow DOM" of Javascript objects would have been regarded as parody-levels of resource wasting for all but very niche use-cases. No wonder the modern web is so slow and resource-hungry....

Post reply on HN