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

Firefox 64 Released

hacks.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 527 posts

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#511

Post by kissickas »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #398
thomastjeffery wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using TreeStyle tabs for a few months now. While I love the tool, it definitely has some rough edges with integration. It has the same problem Firefox Multi-Account Containers has: Trying to change internal UI for an internal feature by using an addon simply isn't practical (yet).

It was practical before they killed XUL extensions and went with a crippled Chrome clone that can't hide it's horizontal tab bar. It's time for Mozilla to embrace and extend that garbage.

Read shridharama's comment here for the fix:

https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/issues/1525

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#512

Post by mixmastamyk »

zeotroph wrote: post #359
acqq wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that is what PgUp/PgDown are for on the keyboard, no? Definitely no: If I have a hand on the mouse I surely don't want to lift it and hunt for the PgUp or PgDown just to move one page up or down. And no, I don't want to go "there" if it's actually "somewhere" in the middle of whatever, if I just want to see the previous or the next page. Going "there" is much less frequent operation than moving to the next or the p…

So, that means a PgDown button (I guess it is mostly that direction) on the mouse is missing. The thumb button which most mice have and are mapped to forward/backwards could be remapped to that. Or a mouse gesture? FoxyGestures, a Firefox addon, has a "Scroll Down" action.

No, no changes were necessary and another thing that has to be fixed on a new install. For decades it has been:

- left click - page up/down

- middle click - go directly to this point.

Moving one of these to the other is confusing and a loss of useful functionality. Reminds me of "chesterton's fence."

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#513

Post by acdha »

rosser wrote: post #507
acdha wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s true but not what this thread was about. The person I responded to above was making a very broad claim, which is wrong, and jillesvangurp agreed with the observation and added a general point which is correct. There is a specific issue affecting a subset of people with less common configurations but that doesn’t make the sweeping claim true or the recognition that browser performance issues are notoriously poo…

No, it's specifically what this thread is about. The thread-parent absolutely cast a wider net than warranted, but everyone in this discussion who has experienced this problem knows exactly which one we're talking about, and the rest are all, "I've never seen a problem!" or "It's probably just extensions." Meanwhile, there's reliably a sub-thread somewhere in the discussion on nearly every article about Firefox, abou…

I was aware of the issue already but that’s also why I knew that the biggest impact comes from a non-default setting. I never said that it wasn’t a real problem, or that it doesn’t warrant attention — only that it wasn’t as broad as claimed and that is a very common problem with browser issues because everyone uses them but people who don’t have problems generally don’t go around posting that everything is fine whereas the percentage of users who are affected will complain regularly.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#514

Post by zapzupnz »

bastawhiz wrote: post #508
zapzupnz wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see in anything I wrote any implication that I assumed anything about what scroll bars needed or would be themed. A browser-wide scrollbar styling system, able to be opted into by use of particular CSS, doesn’t imply anything about whether we are talking about just one scroll bar or all of them. I also disagree about native controls not always being the best solution when it comes to scrolling. We all know ho…

Changing the appearance and the behavior of scrollbars (or replacing them entirely as you mention) are very different concerns.

Not really, it's the same concern; the potential for gratuitous, superfluous, or regressive modification of a stable and predictable user interface element that is representative of the most fundamental of actions when it comes to long-form document-based design: scrolling.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#515

Post by themagicteeth »

Endy wrote: post #408
kevincrane wrote: post #120

> We’re excited to introduce multiple tab selection, which makes it easier to manage windows with many open tabs. Simply hold Control (Windows, Linux) or Command (macOS) and click on tabs to select them. Once selected, click and drag to move the tabs as a group — either within a given window, or out into a new window. Yessss. It doesn't happen often, but the times when I open up 6-10 tabs for research but then decide…

Oh good, so now they're bringing in another Chrome feature. Or should I say, an Opera feature that Chrome stole and wasn't necessary in Firefox.

Was it not necessary in Chrome too then?

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#516

Post by jniedrauer »

pmoriarty wrote: post #335
trulyrandom wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, if you already have malware running on your system, all bets are off. However, I'm sure you're aware that large applications like Chromium have tons of vulnerabilities, which is why they come with a sandbox to protect against exploitation. X11 is one of the biggest holes in these sandbox solutions. Replacing X11 with Wayland would plug this hole. I'd argue that security is something the average user cares abou…

If your web browser is compromised, that's malware running on your system right there. A compromised web browser doesn't need X to control the rest of your system. It can usually already write all over your system and perform all sorts of other attacks, including substituting applications, paths, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, etc.. not to mention try kernel exploits and the like -- not that they'd need to on a single-user system,…

> If your web browser is compromised, that's malware running on your system right there.

This is a bit naive. Browsers execute malicious javascript on your system all the time. A V8 sandbox escape is worth retirement money for a reason.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#517

Post by reirob »

moosingin3space wrote: post #38

Kind of a niche thing to comment on, but this release lands a commit I made that enables XDG desktop portals support in Firefox. If you're on KDE Plasma, you can run Firefox with the environment variable `GTK_USE_PORTAL=1` set and it will use KDE file selection dialogs.

I am sorry to be the one to ask, as it seems all the other commenters know it already. I even searched internet for "What are XDG desktip portals", but this came up with results for project that seem to use these portals, but no fast explanation of what they are? Can please somebody summarize what this is about?

Disclaimer: I am a Linux user since >20 years, using XMonad window manager on Ubuntu 16.04 at the moment.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#518

Post by omnimus »

dilap wrote: post #214
omnimus wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I am ux designer and i never thought people care about this or even realize there is difference. I mean actually quite opposite lot of people i know were confused from the movements first time this feature landed in safari. Anyway surely this is not a showstopper. I mean it is not functional in any way.

Scrollbars that auto-hide and bounce scrolling are standard behavior for any macOS application. Apps that don't do this both look and feel weird. Maybe not a showstopper if Firefox were offering unavailable-anywhere-else behavior, but it's completely natural and predicable that users will migrate to one of the other two major browsers that care enough to make themselves fit in w/ the system they are running on.

Well Firefox is actually offering "unavailable-anywhere-else behavior" - it's free software that does not require you to log in and send private browsing data to google. This is the case for anyone having google account - which is almost everyone.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#519

Post by dc_gregory »

lightedman wrote: post #374
baroffoos wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever seen a game built entirely out of default OS windows and buttons? If you are building an accounting program, sure use all the defaults but if you are building a piece of art I think you can afford to change a scrollbar.

"Have you ever seen a game built entirely out of default OS windows and buttons?" Castle of the Winds, Windows 3.11.

FYI, you are probably hell-banned.

Re: Firefox 64 Released

#520

Post by dilap »

omnimus wrote: post #518
dilap wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scrollbars that auto-hide and bounce scrolling are standard behavior for any macOS application. Apps that don't do this both look and feel weird. Maybe not a showstopper if Firefox were offering unavailable-anywhere-else behavior, but it's completely natural and predicable that users will migrate to one of the other two major browsers that care enough to make themselves fit in w/ the system they are running on.

Well Firefox is actually offering "unavailable-anywhere-else behavior" - it's free software that does not require you to log in and send private browsing data to google. This is the case for anyone having google account - which is almost everyone.

"Hey, we respect privacy better, no need to make the UX top-notch!"

^^^ This attitude sucks!

UX is everything if you want your software to be used by the masses.

Post reply on HN