class foo { #privateClassMethod() {} #privateClassField; } Finally.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe... for more details for anyone else curious
Firefox 90
71–80 of 351 posts
Re: Firefox 90
#72Background updates! Hooray! That may sound like a basic table stakes feature but honestly it's a huge improvement. And a lot of other apps do a terrible job of it, particularly on Windows. It's remarkable how many apps require 8, 10 mouse clicks and a restart to install a minor update. Firefox didn't require any clicks but the nag / need to restart was a nuisance. Actually now that I type that I wonder what has chang…
The key here is "while Firefox is not running." They have a maintenance service now that can check for updates when the browser is closed.
Personally, I wish they hadn't done that. First, because my browser is always open. But also because I don't need another service.
Re: Firefox 90
#73Background updates! Hooray! That may sound like a basic table stakes feature but honestly it's a huge improvement. And a lot of other apps do a terrible job of it, particularly on Windows. It's remarkable how many apps require 8, 10 mouse clicks and a restart to install a minor update. Firefox didn't require any clicks but the nag / need to restart was a nuisance. Actually now that I type that I wonder what has chang…
The key here is "while Firefox is not running." They have a maintenance service now that can check for updates when the browser is closed. Personally, I wish they hadn't done that. First, because my browser is always open. But also because I don't need another service.
That's not how it works, actually. The checks are done by a scheduled task.
Re: Firefox 90
#74> 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.
Could be related to the isTrusted[1] property to signify the event is caused by an user's action.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Event/isTru...
Re: Firefox 90
#75> FTP support has been removed sigh
Have they mentioned the reason of its removal somewhere?
It's insecure by default, the TLS-enabled version has never been widely adopted, never been supported by browsers and has some horrible security problems of its own (see alpaca attack).
Removing FTP thus fits into the strategy of browser to prefer HTTPS.
Re: Firefox 90
#76Honestly 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?
The missing partition between tabs irritates me greatly. Especially as the label of the tab fades out to the right, there is no indication for the exact x-space taken up by a tab. The only fixed thing is the favicon. Furthermore, the fading out of the text is greatly irritating me. My vision is the best and I constantly try to focus on those parts but they are not out of focus, but faded out. Just a vertical separator of some sorts would help with visibility in my eyes (literally! :p)
Re: Firefox 90
#77> FTP support has been removed sigh
IMO browser should focus on HTTP/HTML support. There are plenty of protocols and there are plenty of programs with proper support for those protocols. I don't see nothing wrong with using transmission for torrents, WinSCP for FTP, etc.
I can see where you're coming from - having a browser support all these protocols seems like poor design. Let everything do what they're good at, and all that. But usability suffers when users need to install and open different applications for every protocol they want to use. I think it might be good if there was some robust way to provide low-level browser extensions (that would probably be loaded in as shared objects).
That way Firefox could drop (or never add) support for FTP, bittorrent, etc., but those could still be access within the browser by installing the extensions through your package manager. I'd love it if I could send files to friends using bittorrent through the browser without having to rely on sites like instant.io or file.pizza. I do love those sites, but they're no replacement for a proper torrent client.
In a perfect world we wouldn't have to move everything into the browser for users to consider using it. Alas, we do not live in a perfect world. On that note, this probably couldn't be done because of security concerns. Making it easy for people to hand over low-level control of their browser would be problematic.
Re: Firefox 90
#78Earlier 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.
I mean sure, but realistically speaking, how can we afford to continue supporting Firefox? I can't make a plea to the CTO of "Please let us keep investing money in compatibility because it may have a minor impact on the open web." Firefox is in a downward trajectory for marketshare and mindshare. I would love to hear a realistic solution to this problem. Maybe switching to WebKit?
Given how many discussions I had in the past about people insisting to support legacy, unsupported browsers I'm surprised "5% of our users use it" isn't enough to convince almost everyone to support it.
Re: Firefox 90
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Safari is available on one platform but its engine is cross-platform and used by few browsers (Epiphany, Luakit, Nyxt, Vimb, ...).
Re: Firefox 90
#80Background updates! Hooray! That may sound like a basic table stakes feature but honestly it's a huge improvement. And a lot of other apps do a terrible job of it, particularly on Windows. It's remarkable how many apps require 8, 10 mouse clicks and a restart to install a minor update. Firefox didn't require any clicks but the nag / need to restart was a nuisance. Actually now that I type that I wonder what has chang…
The key here is "while Firefox is not running." They have a maintenance service now that can check for updates when the browser is closed. Personally, I wish they hadn't done that. First, because my browser is always open. But also because I don't need another service.
As sibling comment says the checks are a scheduled task. And it's opt-in so don't worry. You aren't forced to it.