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

Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 574 posts

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#551

Post by IronBacon »

29jm wrote: post #357
IronBacon wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, it doesn't pick up the actions associated, for example, to the "double-click" or "middle-click" or at least not on my desktop. Someone knows if it's customizable in the config menu, searching the obvious "titlebar" reports only two not useful entries?

It is, it's a checkbox at the bottom left of the "Customize" panel.

I should have explained it better, I was asking about associating actions to the "compact" titlebar (or what's called). I guess I need to wait for a proper GTK3 "header bar", if it's planned at all...

Anyway thanks.

Edit: in Chrome/Chromium works as I expected, I think I should file a bug then.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#552

Post by anticensor »

kevin_b_er wrote: post #135
ekianjo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok I was not aware of that. Has it always been the case?

After chrome started a policy of version number inflation, firefox, firefox did the same for marketing reasons, else'd we'd be on like... version 6.6 instead of 66.0

No, it would be 5.10. Because, 1 to 4 are non-rapid releases, 5 would be the Servo epoch.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#553

Post by reanimated »

meruru wrote: post #536
colordrops wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

recommendations are not driven by cookies.

What are they driven by then? My youtube recommendations reset completely every time I clear my cookies.

Only if you use Youtube without logging in. Otherwise, your watch history is stored in your account so the cleaning of the cookies does nothing.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#554

Post by vetinari »

cmurf wrote: post #289
vetinari wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under linux with apt/dnf. These package managers update Firefox while it is running. On MacOS or Windows (maybe even Linux with the Mozilla updater, never tried it), the updater does the update on the next restart.

Exactly. The package manager method of updating stomps on the in-use libraries for the running application. The built-in Mozilla updater knows better, downloads an update payload but doesn't apply it until the user relaunches and on "first run" it actually does the update rather than launching, and after that completes it launches the updated application. It's the same on macOS, Windows, and Linux. Chrome on macOS an…

> The package manager method of updating stomps on the in-use libraries for the running application.

This is not a problem on Unix-like systems, actually. Any running process, that has some file open, will keep the original file open, even if the filename points to another file now. Only processes that open the file after the change will get the new version.

I suspect that the protocol that multiple processes of Firefox used to communicate together could change between version and the mismatch between old and newly launched processes caused the problem. So it is versioned now, and if the versions are mismatched, warning is being shown.

> for whatever reason Chrome on Linux installs a google.chrome repository, uses the distro package manager, and clobbers the running binary

As others have said, it is actually the right approach. The custom updaters for Firefox and Chrome under Windows and MacOS are there, because they are lacking any system for centralized package management.

Flatpak solves this in a third way: it doesn't clobber the current tree, it creates a new, separate one and signals the application, that it was updated, and can restart into a new version, when it is convenient. It gets the best of the custom windows/mac updaters (not overwriting running apps), together with the best of linux package managers (centralized management).

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#555

Post by krageon »

msravi wrote: post #538
noglorp wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better yet is when you type "Ar" looking for "Arrow" and get 1) Arrow 2) Arboles 3) Area And then type another 'r' before you realize your result is there ("Arr") and as you go to select "Arrow" the auto-suggest results turn into 1) Array 2) Arrogant 3) Arrow Like, how does adding the second 'r' make "Array" higher probability than "Arrow"?!

Your not accepting the 1st suggestion (Arrow) when you typed "Ar" decreased the probability that that was the term you intended. The next suggestion factored in that you were probably looking for something else and bumped up other suggestions.

This actually made me laugh with how tone-deaf it appears to be about how users normally interact with a search field. Is this response based on industry "knowledge"? How did this sort of thinking come about?

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#556

Post by airstrike »

noglorp wrote: post #508
airstrike wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens to me every single day on the Windows 10 start menu and on my iPhone using the swipe-down search on the Home screen. Why in God's green Earth the developers who implemented these don't cache obvious local results (like app names) to quickly return them is beyond me, and why the position of the results has to move after the fact is even more maddening I typed "Arro" for an app I use last night, it took a…

Better yet is when you type "Ar" looking for "Arrow" and get 1) Arrow 2) Arboles 3) Area And then type another 'r' before you realize your result is there ("Arr") and as you go to select "Arrow" the auto-suggest results turn into 1) Array 2) Arrogant 3) Arrow Like, how does adding the second 'r' make "Array" higher probability than "Arrow"?!

I can relate to this so much... It's just egregiously bad design

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#558

Post by krageon »

SpaceManNabs wrote: post #407

Honestly, Reader Mode, in built ad blocker, tree tabs, and containers make Firefox so streamlined for me. I think that Google sites must not be thoroughly tested on firefox though! Vanilla Gmail (no add-ons or theme, but not the basic HTML version) isn't too fast. Not as fast as it used to be a year ago on Chrome either, but not as bad as FF.

I haven't tried this with gmail yet, but I know that if you use a user agent switcher on the google search page to set your useragent to chrome the search page will have more features (summaries, etc). This is especially noticeable on mobile, where Chrome will have a ton more legibility (IMO) unless you do this.

It's always been a little surprising that this isn't grounds for a huge fine, but apparently they get away with it by saying something vague and corporate like "we can't be sure this works".

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#559

Post by linsomniac »

anoncake wrote: post #320
benj111 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair I find it with the web in general. That site that you're about to reload because it isn't doing anything? Suddenly loads just as your finger is depressing the mouse button to reload. That JavaScript heavy site that has brought your pc to its knees? Works just as you've elected to kill the process. I assume its a variant of Sods Law.

> That site that you're about to reload because it isn't doing anything? Suddenly loads just as your finger is depressing the mouse button to reload. I dont think thats coincidence. More likely, the browser already has downloaded the page itself but is waiting for some resource before rendering it. If you reload, it renders what it has immediately.

How does it know my finger is swiftly moving towards the "R" part of ctl-shift-R? :-) I swear that I sometimes see it render right as my finger is getting ready to contact R.

Re: Firefox 66.0 Aims to Reduce Online Annoyances

#560

Post by naikrovek »

Scramblejams wrote: post #548
jodrellblank wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How Microsoft managed to ruin the Start Menu, on the other hand, is amazing. My Windows 10 start menu lags. Press windows key or click on it, no response for a good ten seconds or more. I have this on my work machine, a previous install, my home machine, a Surface Book, a remote desktop server on Windows 2016. And yet, I've never seen anyone else talking about it. I can't believe I'm the only one who has this "my sta…

Same here. Sometimes I’ll click on it a good five or eight times before it comes up. When people say Windows 10 is good, I feel like they’re living in an alternate dimension.

I think you guys are the exceptions to the norm here, and not the norm.

I have too many computers at home, some verrry slow ones, and they all pop up the start menu within a second or two unless I've just booted the PC.

I work with a lot of people who use Windows 10 all day long, and I've never heard one of them ever complain about a slow start menu. Complaints about search results? Absolutely.

I suspect it's something you're installing, and I'm sure you'll deny that (and you very well could be right, I don't know) and these things are time consuming to diagnose, unfortunately.

Post reply on HN