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

Firefox 26 is released

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 204 posts

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#41

Post by yeukhon »

benjamincburns wrote: post #24

Maybe I'm biased, but jor1k is my FF benchmark of choice these days. Sadly I'm not seeing any major performance increase over FF 25 (posting this from jor1k via links [1]). 1: http://s-macke.github.io/jor1k (had to edit in the link as the ':' and '-' keys don't appear to be working)

Give Firefox time. Mozilla is really small, compared to Chrome... and Firefox is stable! Hehehe. css transform is still a major performance sucker.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=css%20t...

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#42

Post by dear »

mhurron wrote: post #35
dear wrote: post #31

Anyone with memory problem with Firefox? My FF is currently using 2G memory while I only have 13 tabs opened and most of them are just plain simple pages. I am sure it will keep sucking up memory until I do restart. This problem is not new. Is there a memory leak problem with FF?

There has been for a very long time. However, now after the image rendering changes in 26, I believe most of the issues now should be related to various plugins and add-ons.

Upgrading to v26 now. Will see if it helps at all.

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#43

Post by lucb1e »

Firefox 3: Yay!

Firefox 3.6: Let's see what's new!

Firefox 4: oooh pretty UI (at least that's what most thought)

Firefox 26: sigh another one?

I think only every 10 versions should be news. Since they moved to this useless release cycle (basically replacing bugfix releases with major releases), we should shift our news upvoting from major releases to major-major releases (i.e. treat the decimal sign as if it were 2.6x instead of 26.x).

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#44

Post by jakub_g »

benjamincburns wrote: post #24

Maybe I'm biased, but jor1k is my FF benchmark of choice these days. Sadly I'm not seeing any major performance increase over FF 25 (posting this from jor1k via links [1]). 1: http://s-macke.github.io/jor1k (had to edit in the link as the ':' and '-' keys don't appear to be working)

Looking at the last graph in [1] there were certain improvements in certain areas in recent months, both in Firefox and Chrome, however memory usage has been slowly but steadily increasing [2].

However I'm not an expert regarding those graphs.

[1] http://arewefastyet.com/ [2] https://areweslimyet.com/

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#45

Post by a1a »

prteja11 wrote: post #3

Love this - All Java plug-ins are defaulted to 'click to play' I tried convincing my coworkers to disable java and failed (we are not developers).

I do not think this is a good solution. This is once again just smashing another security trade-off in the face of the end-user. Once the user is responsible they can be blamed and the browser is considered secure with stupid users.

If the developers at mozilla can't verify the security of the applet, how on earth would my grandmother be able to?

Note: This is not an attack against mozilla in particular, almost all vendors does this (e.g. "antivirus: wanna allow suspicious file?" or "browser: invalid certificate". These questions are asked as if everyone is a computer scientist. We developers need to start formulating these questions so they can be answered by a normal person.

Note 2: I guess it's better than doing nothing at all, since it might stop some drive-by attacks.

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#47

Post by acdha »

lucb1e wrote: post #43

Firefox 3: Yay! Firefox 3.6: Let's see what's new! Firefox 4: oooh pretty UI (at least that's what most thought) Firefox 26: sigh another one? I think only every 10 versions should be news. Since they moved to this useless release cycle (basically replacing bugfix releases with major releases), we should shift our news upvoting from major releases to major-major releases (i.e. treat the decimal sign as if it were 2.6…

> I think only every 10 versions should be news

Numbers aren't intrinsically important – what would be really nice is saving the announcements for specific features of note.

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#48

Post by nine_k »

lucb1e wrote: post #43

Firefox 3: Yay! Firefox 3.6: Let's see what's new! Firefox 4: oooh pretty UI (at least that's what most thought) Firefox 26: sigh another one? I think only every 10 versions should be news. Since they moved to this useless release cycle (basically replacing bugfix releases with major releases), we should shift our news upvoting from major releases to major-major releases (i.e. treat the decimal sign as if it were 2.6…

For me personally FF 26 adds a major feature, specifically h.264 video playback in Linux. Finally I'll stop needing Flash to view videos on Vimeo (and a few other sites).

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#49

Post by acdha »

GhotiFish wrote: post #9
pwnna wrote: post #5

> Support for H.264 on Linux if the appropriate gstreamer plug-ins are installed \o/

If Google didn't buckle like a house of cards on this. I wonder where we'd be? arg.

> 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 transcoded from the H.264 almost everyone is actually uploading.

The real fight needs to be over the next generation of codecs. If H.265 has serious competition there's a lot more reason to believe things will go differently, as they did with e.g. Opus where the open solution was also better in addition to being free.

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#50

Post by spindritf »

lawl wrote: post #36
pwnna wrote: post #5

> Support for H.264 on Linux if the appropriate gstreamer plug-ins are installed \o/

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/

Post reply on HN