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

51–60 of 204 posts

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#51

Post by prteja11 »

a1a wrote: post #45
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 v…

I think this feature will protect users on websites where java applets load inconspicuously. With this feature user wouldn't click on the blocked plugin/applet because they don't have a use for it. This is not the solution that will end all our problems but hey this is one step closer and I'll take that!

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#52

Post by Crito »

spindritf wrote: post #50
lawl wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

I do the same. The one disadvantage is you lose the ability to click on overlayed links to related videos that some people often put at the end of their videos.

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#53

Post by acdha »

notjustanymike wrote: post #34

As a developer, it would just peachy if they'd start supporting HTML5 input elements.

Firefox has support for a bunch of them and that's been steadily improving – i.e. the input type=range landed in (IIRC) FF 23.

You can see the current status for just about everything here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=344614 As you can see from reading some of the linked tickets not all of the remaining work is trivial – there are questions about the spec, compatibility with webkit, etc:

type=color: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=547004 type=number: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=344616 type=date: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446510

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#55

Post by protomyth »

acdha wrote: post #49
GhotiFish wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tran…

I dearly wish the MPEG-LA members would just charge for the patents for hardware implementations and go royalty-free for software and content for H.265. It would still make them money and get it standard quick.

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#56

Post by revasm »

a1a wrote: post #45
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 v…

The main security benefit of click-to-play plugin schemes is not to question the user about the security of an object, which is unknown in most cases anyway, but to prevent accidental drive-by loading and other annoying (and risky) usage. Clicking an overlay to run a plugin should be as natural as clicking on a video to begin playback.

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#57

Post by pwnna »

acdha wrote: post #49
GhotiFish wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tran…

Hopefully Daala/Opus would take off soon so we don't have to worry about these things anymore..

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#58

Post by pwnna »

revasm wrote: post #56
a1a wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 v…

The main security benefit of click-to-play plugin schemes is not to question the user about the security of an object, which is unknown in most cases anyway, but to prevent accidental drive-by loading and other annoying (and risky) usage. Clicking an overlay to run a plugin should be as natural as clicking on a video to begin playback.

Yes. Drive-by is big deal imo.

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#59

Post by mccr8 »

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?

If you look at about:memory, it can give you information about where the memory is going. If you file a bug on bugzilla with the [MemShrink] whiteboard, we can look into it and try to figure out what is happening.

Re: Firefox 26 is released

#60

Post by bad_user »

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?

First of all, it's hard to tell how much memory a process uses. If you're on Linux or on OS X and you're using "top", there's difficulty in interpreting the results.

For example right now my Firefox 26 with about 20 tabs is being reported by "top" as using 2190MB VIRT and ~1030MB RES. VIRT reports the total amount of memory allocated, including memory that's shared between processes, including memory-mapped files, including virtual memory, including the loaded shared libraries, or anything that takes up address space, but address space is not real, the measure is next to useless. RES is the relevant measure, which in my case reports about 1 GB, however that's a little misleading too because it also counts memory that's shared between processes, although in my case I think 1 GB is an accurate measure. And if you're using some kind of GUI that doesn't specify exactly how it calculates memory consumption, then you can't trust what it says.

Second, free memory is unused memory. Browsers are caching stuff for example. Unused caches in memory-strained systems end up being flushed to disk. The kernel is quite efficient in flushing memory pages on disk and reloading them later when needed. That's why it's very hard to tell how much memory a process needs to be usable.

If you want to claim that some application leaks memory, then you need to look at growth. And if you want to claim that it's a memory hog, then you need to take a look at how it behaves on top of memory constrained systems.

In my experience, Firefox is very memory efficient, which is why I'm using it and not Chrome. And I'm on the beta channel now, so I've been on Firefox 26 since a week ago and it's OK.

Post reply on HN