I was extremely skeptical of all the changes they were doing - I said it myself 100 times, "they're just building a Chrome clone, they're killing all the features I like in favor of speed".
But here I am, running Nightly because holy shit this thing flies. Their work has paid off and they're not even done yet. Webrender is coming, it's not quite stable enough for daily use yet (mostly just graphics glitching and integration performance issues as far as I could see), but there's a lot of work being done and it's only getting better.
Their whole "Project Quantum" eliminated the UI performance issues that used to plague the browser and they're improving security sandboxing all the time.
To those who loved the power and control like myself, they still offer a ridiculous level of configuration flexibility and extension APIs - while no longer as powerful as they were - are still better than other browsers on the market today.
waterfox has been doing since firefox stopped doing it, actually waterfox is doing right everything firefox does wrong:
Disabled Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)
Disabled Web Runtime (deprecated as of 2015)
Removed Pocket
Removed Telemetry
Removed data collection
Removed startup profiling
Allow running of all 64-Bit NPAPI plugins
Allow running of unsigned extensions
Removal of Sponsored Tiles on New Tab Page
Addition of Duplicate Tab option
Locale selector in about:preferences > General
One wonders why all the UI issues weren't solved long ago. Good that they're fixing them now, but what were they waiting for to decide to do it? (Rendering performance is a separate topic, that's been waiting on rust/servo.)
Yeah, but that's nonsense that bad journalists write or Mozilla marketing people say, because it's more understandable for normal readers and makes it more credible that things will change.
The truth is that they were in a dilemma situation where they had to choose between not killing all extensions or fixing performance by introducing a multiprocess architecture (which required breaking all extensions).
So, the first thing they did was to simply wait. The performance issues were not that bad yet, so it just didn't yet weigh up to kill all extensions.
Eventually they started work on the multiprocess architecture. That was around 2012, if I remember correctly. They've been doing that in the background without visible results for the public for a long time. It's considered the biggest architectural change that Firefox ever went through, so yeah, that just takes time. Cleaning up technical debt that Chrome never had.
And then they also figured, if they already break all extensions, they should also switch to a new extension API in the same breath (because the old one has had big problems for as long as its existed). So, then they implemented that, too, in the background, in parallel, just to be able to throw it all on the table one day, so that extension authors would only have to rewrite their stuff once.
If this is referring to Electrolysis, that has been in stable Firefox for about a year now, and it was an initiative whose planning began in 2009. Seven years from inception to delivery is a long time, and indeed was largely attributable to trying to find ways to avoid breaking every extension in the universe, and then being forced to break every extension anyway, and then laboriously fixing up all the broken extensions over a very long period. After such a grueling task I don't blame them for coming to the painful conclusion that Firefox simply can't keep pace with other browsers while maintaining the all-pervasive legacy extension system, especially since Electrolysis was just a first tentative step towards effective multiprocessing.
Indeed, I'm one of the people who has suffered from losing legacy Firefox extensions (find me a substitute for LeechBlock, please!), but I can see how much of a burden it was for the developers to compete on performance and security, which I value more. I'm hopeful that Firefox will continue to add sane extension APIs to help close the gap with what was previously possible without regressing to the old quagmire. Fingers crossed, but they've done well delivering so far with 57.
The first Firefox release with multiprocessing work was one of the 3.6 ones where they shipped out of process plugins in a patch release. Judging by Wikipedia, that was 3.6.4 in 2010 (look for OOPP). I thought it was later…
Having to break legacy extensions due to internal changes is understandable. It would have reduced stress for the users if the new API was shipped first, then the changes made and the old one broken, though. Heck, they even thought of it first and did that - you may remember Jetpack. It never picked up steam because the APIs were too limited and too many people ended up resorting to the old APIs, though. Even now with WebExtensions they're shipping lots of new API extensions want in the same release that drops support for the old ones…
Oh, and they had multiple breakages as more and more things went out of process, not one giant one. That's life, really; things take time to build. I believe part of the pushback is that people just finished porting to e10s only to find that their new code will need to be rewritten again for WebExtensions.
A Large part of the reason they couldn't easily address the UI performance was because of the old extensions.
The reason that Firefox switched to webextensions was in order to switch to a formal extension API that could be supported long term, instead of the old open integration API which made it difficult to readable without breaking all sorts of extensions.
There reason they adapted the web extension API that chrome uses, was because it largely made sense, was already pretty fleshed out and would allow extension writers that were already familiar with that to also target Firefox.
My outside perspective is that as with any other major project, backwards compatibility and the momentum of old code/bugs.
I don't think they've been "waiting" to solve the UI issues: it's been years of slowly deprecating old systems like XUL, and implementing new systems like e10s. That's been years of anger or at least angst for extension developers, as much backwards compatibility was broken one piece at a time.
Unfortunately, for me at least, it's not a viable option. Firefox on android still feels significantly more sluggish than chrome. Plus, googles questionable business practice of embedding chrome into many apps, while making opening links very fast, adds another three clicks to someone not using chrome.
I use the Brave browser to address this. It's based on Chromium with built in features based on Privacy Badger and HTTPS everywhere. It also replaces "Chrome view" so that if you click a link from an app and it opens up with the app, you're still getting the privacy features. And since it's Chromium based I don't see the sluggishness I do in Firefox for Android.
> Firefox on android still feels significantly more sluggish than chrome.
Note that none of the Quantum work has been turned on for mobile Firefox yet. I hear it will be coming online in nightly this cycle, targeting Firefox 58.
The Quantum project includes more than Stylo and WebRender. There are lots of small performance fixes ("Quantum Flow") in core Gecko code that should improve performance on Android. Stylo for Android is currently targeting Firefox 59. I don't know if WebRender will support Android.
I got the beta two days ago and oh my God this thing is super fast. I used to dread opening web pages, now it's my favorite thing! I am extremely impressed with the work they did.
From a technical position that may be true, but one cannot discount the speedup you subsequently get if you run an ad/script/tracker blocker on mobile...
Best i can tell, Firefox is doing something on Android during first (cold?) launch that just chugs the storage. The really problem source is that all this is stored in the cache dir for the app, and that can and will be flushed at irregular intervals. This resulting in Firefox doing it over again next time it is launched.
Your lucky, I'm dealing with an app crash every hour or so(if I'm lucky), ui freeze, then hang for 5 seconds , then ' email us the details box', before it restarts.
The chrome embedding is in theory cross browser compatible. Firefox nightly supports the API. It's still possible for the embedding app to hardcode to chrome (which the Google app seems to do) but the Android developer page recommends the cross browser approach
> Firefox on android still feels significantly more sluggish than chrome.
Interesting because for me it's the exact opposite: Firefox is fast but when I need to open Chrome (webview or full) it's a slow and painful process (tested on two phones, one 3 year old). Maybe it's because Firefox has everything cached and Chrome needs to load from network... Not to mention full screen, aggressive ads :)
It also has a very nifty feature (IIRC off by default) where if you click on a link instead of switching to Firefox it shows a "Tab opened in Firefox" toast which you can tap on to switch to. This means I can for example click on the links in an email whilst still reading it, and then switch to the browser later to read them all. This does make opening links two taps by default (tap on the link, and then tap on the toast), but there's no tap-hold so it's fast and nice. Plus my workflow prefers opening tabs that i look at later, not immediately.
Disagreed. I might have 3GB of RAM on this phone, but the browser(s) often get moved out of RAM. It's slower to start than Chrome/Brave. Cold-boot performance matters. I keep Firefox Beta around, and just checked, it's still almost twice as slow as Brave in a adhoc cold start test.
Yep, been using FF on Android for three years now. Its the best mobile browser around.
And ublock origin must have saved me hundreds of euros and days of time already. (God the internet with ads and trackers is terrible. Gizmodo has a dozen trackers, one of them is called summerhamster. True story).
They broke something in the latest nightlies, my fans become really loud when I open it for a while (high CPU usage). You're better off in beta right now until they fix it.
The amount of work, the extent for how long they've been doing so, all relative to the funding they got.. it's even painful to think about. Chrome shadowed them overnight, had Google infinite wallet and started from scratch. Mozilla became the old slug..
Since then they got Rust off ground, servo yielding good fruits, firefox cool n quiet.
When you consider where the funding they do have comes from, it's not surprising it happened. Especially with Bing / Yahoo starting to bid up traffic acquisition at the time, it's a strategic no-brainer.
Not sure what you're downloading, but have you ever given youtube-dl (https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/) a try? It's got support for tons of other sites than just YouTube. It doesn't have a GUI, but it's pretty simple to use.
There's a checkbox to control smooth scrolling in about:preferences#advanced , but I just tried both options and didn't notice any difference, neither when using the touchpad nor with j/k in Vimium-FF.
I just found "Use smooth scrolling" under Vimium's advanced options. Might be this page: moz-extension://78ac0671-3b7c-4a05-8771-f46ecdb2b65c/pages/options.html#advancedOptions unless that random string is unique per-user and I just broadcast my password.
I switched to it yesterday from VimFX. Basic stuff works the same as in VimFX, but:
- Yanking does not work at all.
- "Follow in new tab" (F) does not work. (EDIT: Working now, so maybe I did something weird yesterday.)
- "Open" (o) does not respect search keywords. "wikipedia Test" gives me a search for "wikipedia test" instead of the Wikipedia page for "test".
- Most of the shortcuts don't work on a blank page, or on "about:" pages. For example, when I open a new tab with "t", then change my mind and press "[Esc]x", it doesn't work. Nor does any other letter command.
I filed a bug for the first one, and it seems to be related to shortcomings in FF's clipboard API for WebExtensions, so I suppose that at least the last issue in my list is also related to what the browser allows WebExtensions to do. But at this point, I don't really care about filing more bug reports. I'm looking for alternatives instead. (Any suggestions?)
Why don't you switch to waterfox ? it has support for legacy extension and plans to keep them alive, it's even currently working on hosting its own copy of the addon store.
That is not representative of either the time frame or the resources available to Mozilla. Mozilla has had Hundreds of millions of annual income through their search associations [1]. It’s surprising how they’ve wasted that amount of money to finally in 2017 build a browser that can compete again. This is 9 years after google chrome was released!
They have absolutely no excuse for falling this far behind. They squandered a lot of money, while neglecting their core business (their web browser).
I still hope they’ll keep it up. I have been a Firefox fan ever since beta 1. Hopefully they can recover their market share loss.
It's also still considered one of the main-reasons for Chrome eating up all market share, that they now have the leading mobile OS under their control. You can invest a lot of money trying to remedy that, before it's actually a waste of money.
And a lot of technologies and standards that were developed as part of Firefox OS still are very much around today.
In terms of standards, they did a lot of work for camera and microphone integration, which they now needed again anyways with Google having pushed WebRTC to a web standard.
In terms of technology, the biggest thing is probably Asynchronous Panning and Zooming (APZ). Basically offloading scrolling, zooming and window resizing on the desktop to a separate thread.
If you remember how horribly laggy scrolling on Android Firefox was prior to Firefox 46, APZ is what fixed that.
And it's one of the main-reasons why desktop Firefox with multiprocess immediately felt so much better.
(Released in Firefox 48, but extensions needed to be updated to be compatible with multiprocess, so most people here probably didn't experience multiprocess and APZ on the desktop until around Firefox 51.)
"It's also still considered one of the main-reasons for Chrome eating up all market share,"
I remember one reason Chrome gobbled up a lot of marketshare - it was the browser to install because it had Flash built in. Google definitely leveraged that, and then slowly roped people into the Googlesphere from there once they had the browser as your new default.
I understand that it's quite trendy to shit on Google's parade these days.
But how exactly is bundling Flash player sneaky?
Or are you alluding to some sort of bait and switch that was executed to suck people into the Google sphere? If so, please explain! Chrome was never marketed as a privacy-minded browser, was it?
I didn't see it as shitting on Google because there are newer, "hungrier" companies that I think will do sneakier things and cross lines Google wouldn't cross. I think it was valid as a general talking point. We do need to be careful about who we support.
For example, there is apparently a $40B rural Internet access bill that Dems are pushing. I love greater access to the internet but I'm more than a little skeptical.
Chrome bundles the Flash Pepper plugin, but Adobe's Flash NPAPI plugin installer also bundled Chrome as an opt-out "make Chrome my default browser" setting. So a Firefox user downloading the Flash NPAPI plugin (for their Firefox) would, by default, end up downloading the Flash NPAPI plugin, Chrome, and Chrome's Flash Pepper plugin. If the user really wanted Chrome, they would have downloaded it instead of downloading Flash NPAPI plugin that works in Firefox and not in Chrome.
I use firefox on linux but when I need flash (maybe once a year) then I use chrome. I wouldn't be suprised if normal users that regularly depend on flash just want a browser that always works instead of switching between two browsers.
For a while, wasn't it quite difficult to install Flash without it also installing Chrome and setting it as your default browser? I seem to recall you had to find a fairly well-hidden link to a different Flash installer from the one the site tried to direct you to.
I thought the reasons that they lost market share was that they started cloning the chrome interface stripping out usable features (i.e. status bar) at the expense of fixing memory and performance issues. I stopped using Firefox when they removed the status bar and made it an extension and then went and bundled in a read later service extension.
The main reason is google used its piles of cash to push their browser.
The side reason is firefox made counterproductive and unnecessary changes: removing the status bar, australis UI, removing the ability to disable script, dropping alsa support and many other useful features removed proving that user have no freedom of choice and no say. While adding unwanted things (DRM, pocket, hello, etc.) and not fixing broken things.
Some power users and long supporter would have sticked with firefox despite google's marketing, had it not piled bad move after bad move and not listening to its users.
To my knowledge, it was actually Google cloning the Australis interface, they just happened to release it earlier.
And no, these UI changes were not made at the expense of fixing memory and performance issues.
The reason why they didn't fix those memory and performance issues, is because it would have required introducing the (now introduced) multiprocess architecture.
That would have required breaking all extensions (which is now being done with Firefox 57, along with breaking them to switch to a new extension API). So, that would have pissed off power users even more.
And also just in general, you have to understand that power users are not that important for market share. They make up maybe 1%. If they bring their friends and family all along, then maybe 15%.
There's a big number of users that are able to choose their own browser, but are not power users by any means. For example, around 40% of Firefox users don't have any extensions installed [1].
[1] The figure is from Sep 2015, but I don't think things have changed much since then. And if anything, the trend has so far been for this number to increase. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1229949
Now more than ever, I would actually prefer to be running a Mozilla OS phone. The reasons why it was important are even more relevant today with vendor lock-in and the continued flow of out-of-support devices.
While Mozilla has had quite a few projects that didn't really pan out, I'm not sure you're giving them enough credit.
They developed (well... became the first and most significant major backer of) an entirely new programming language, purely for the purposes of building a better browser. And then devoted tons of resources for years into developing Servo, a massive and complex project that is only being realized now. I'd rather they think big and be ambitious like this, than be yet another stagnating tech company kept alive by former glory.
Also, it's unfair to argue that they have neglected the browser. Firefox is a massive legacy codebase that couldn't be cleaned up without breaking A LOT OF THINGS, and at every step in the process they faced people begging them not to break their things, despite the alternative being the continued rot of Firefox's internals. But they did try, for years, to move forward without breaking everything - it just came at the cost of glacially slow and cautious progress.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
I thought Firefox OS could've found a niche on low-end phones. There's still nothing fundamentally wrong with a phone OS that uses web technologies for its UI, Mozilla wasn't even the first to try it (the Palm Pre got there first). Also, there are tons of phone apps that are just websites in an application wrapper, so it's not like they had to start from scratch to build up their app ecosystem. Lastly, whilst Mozilla has stopped funding it, a fork of it lives on as a smart TV OS for a major TV manufacturer, so it did find a niche, just not the intended one.
> There's still nothing fundamentally wrong with a phone OS that uses web technologies for its UI
There isn't, of course. But that wasn't why it failed. It failed because it didn't answer any questions that weren't already answered, except for some (like "more privacy") that too few people wanted an answer to, to have a market. And that part, unfortunately, was utterly predictable.
As I said before, I saw Firefox OS's primary niche being low-end phones. In that market, many people barely care about the OS being run. They could've easily racked up some decent sales in this area without many of their customers caring about the long term benefits. In some ways, Firefox OS was a case of unfortunate timing, part of me wonders if it would've been better to have a longer incubation period to make the platform better before announcing it, but another part of me thinks that they had to release it when they did, before the vacuum that Symbian had left behind was completely filled by Android.
Google closed off the market with Android One. In another world they couldn't get it together, or weren't interested in low margin competition. Firefox OS was a reasonable bet, it could have paid off, even if the technology was manifestly limited at the time. I actually wish they'd kept it going as an ongoing experiment, with a very low budget, once they'd done the work to get it running on a device like the Nexus 5, you'd have thought improvements would flow almost automatically from the work on the browser.
It was also a really bad implementation. I developed for the firefox os reference phone before the launch - it was atrociously slow.
Think low end android phone (of the time!) running software that was 10x slower than android's.
It's really hard to describe how slow it was if you didn't personally use a firefox os phone. There were times when it felt significantly slower than a 386 running windows 3.11.
If those phones were actually available to buy. I wanted to buy one but they were not available to western europe, then were distributed over weird channels and turned out to have performance issues. So I gave up and got an older android phone for free.
1. I'm not a venture capitalist and startups don't/can't generally accept small investments.
2. I thought they were bloody stupid ideas.
I'm not convinced that investing in ideas I think are stupid because things I have previously thought were stupid did well is a sound strategy. All it shows is I'm bad at predicting what will do well, so it makes more sense for me to invest broadly across as many markets as possible.
FirefoxOS was a way out of Apple's proprietary walled garden and of being Google's product and information slave.
Maybe it was unrealistic to expect it to work out - one relatively small company fighting with Google and Apple - but I guess some people are optimists and want to believe that the world can be made into something else than corporate dystopia or whatever.
Firefox OS was the out of reality belief from mozilla that computer were dead in a handful of years to be replaced by mobile, combined with the absolute nonsense that they could compete without hardware manufacturer support.
Wanting to believe in something is a thing, neglecting your core product and users to bet on a personal belief is something else.
I don't get people complaining about FirefoxOS. It didn't work out because at that time, the phone hardware wasn't ready, and because they didn't have the political power and economies of scale.
But at least they tried. Everyone else just gave up and either accepted Apple's overpriced walled garden or handed over their deepest secrets to Google.
It was worth a shot certainly, no company ever didn't undertake projects that didn't pan out in the end, at least somebody tried to break the smartphone duopoly. I can imagine the money being spent on much worse things.
It was not about the hardware. It was their goals, and their partners.
First off their goals, effectively OLPC the phone. A cheap "smartphone" built on web tech that allowed the owner to modify the software as he saw fit.
This then clashed with the partners they found, carriers that had zero interest in owner-modifiable phones.
It was doomed from the start, but it allowed some execs to pat themselves on the back and tell their fellow gallery dwellers that they had done something for the third world...
The above poster is also neglecting to realise Mozilla is not a normal business in it for profit (as far as I understand it - correct me if I'm wrong.)
The foundation has a crazy long history of funding open source and various pursuits. Comparing their style of execution to google is just rediculously unfair on so many levels.
Not only that, but it fails to recognize how much money Google has 'wasted' on projects they went on to kill off. They have quite a reputation for it. Google just has a lot more money to 'waste' on research.
Are you confusing the not for profit mozilla foundation and the for profit mozilla corporation here ?
The foundation had engaged in tax evasion over the money raised through the corporation and ended up settling with the IRS by paying a $1.5 millions fine[1], they had provisioned $15 millions for this fine, suddenly they got a few unexpected millions to spend on whatever.
I agree that comparing mozilla to google makes little sense as mozilla was working for google in exchange for 85-95% of their revenue. Without google paying mozilla for their users privacy, mozilla would have had to find an actual business model and would not have had the option to wander away from their core product.
On the other hand, without mozilla google would have been mostly the same though would have probably missed some data about millions of users .
> Firefox is a massive legacy codebase that couldn't be cleaned up without breaking A LOT OF THINGS, and at every step in the process they faced people begging them not to break their things, despite the alternative being the continued rot of Firefox's internals.
I've made a couple small contributions to Firefox. Though I'd been a Firefox user for years, this never occurred to me until I looked at the source in 2015 and saw TODO comments to upgrade a C++ operation to something available in C++11 (that's C++ released in 2011) when Firefox dropped Windows XP support.
I was surprised at the time that so much of the code was ES6. My mentor pointed out that web app companies might need to wait a few years for users to mass-adopt ES6 browsers. On the other hand, Firefox can use ES6 everywhere in its own code where JS makes sense, since it's only going to be running on latest Firefox JS engine.
I think Firefox hit full ES6 compatibility first among the browsers because there was this extra incentive to modernize the codebase.
Chrome didn't have to build off of the Netscape source, so it didn't have the same legacy problems in 2008 that Firefox did. I think Mozilla has done a remarkable job keeping pace with Google, taking this into account.
> something available in C++11 (that's C++ released in 2011)
Nit: The standard was finalized in 2011 - August 2011 to be more specific, so quite late in the year. Full compliance in various compilers was not achieved for quite some time after that - MSVC being quite problematic in that regard.
Major projects - esp. those compiled on multiple systems across several compilers, like Firefox - absolutely could not just go ahead and start using C++11 in 2011.
I was really into native development around that time, and C++11 was the first time I was exposed to the complexities and gotchas around standardization vs. implementation. I've stopped paying as much attention since, but I believe C++14 fared much better.
You could be right. I tried to fact check myself and couldn't find a reference to which browser hit 100% first. I did see this article about safari shipping modules first, though:
I don't know what you're trying to defend here, high ranked people from mozilla admitted themselves they made bad decision and wasted money and time and developers on the wrong things instead of focusing on their core product[1].
They've also been criticized for years for their business model being too dependent on a single income source contrary to their values. They did nothing about it until it became clear that they were losing the game. IMHO this is bad management for years.
Their core product, Firefox, has always been on shaky ground. They need to diversify. Firefox will always be at the mercy of multiple other parties.
First, OS manufacturers who have unlimited power to steer users toward their own browsers. This was true in the Windows days, and it's an order of magnitude more true in the mobile world where one of the leading platforms, iOS, won't even allow "real" versions of competitors' browsers onto their devices.
Second, they're at the mercy of purveyors of web content. How screwed would Firefox be if a couple of major sites like Facebook and Youtube started treating FF like a second-class citizen? FF already kind of feels like a second-class citizen sometimes; as far as I know Google Hangouts still doesn't work on FF: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/google-hangouts-tempora...
So, in the long run, Mozilla is going to have to do something about their tenuous position.
Realistically, they can't blow the doors off of incumbent browsers (Edge, Safari, Chrome) like they did back in the IE6 days. That was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Microsoft, having achieved dominance, had literally disbanded their browser team despite the fact that IE6 was atrocious. But that will never happen again. MS, Apple, and Google each have gobs of engineering talent allocated to their browser efforts and the only way Mozilla can excel its way to the front of the pack is if the other three major browser vendors simultaneously slack off at once and give FF an IE6-like opening.
Also, the importance of the browser is decreasing. Watch kids on phones. It's all apps. They don't do jack shit in a web browser. A web browser is something they use, at most, to look up homework answers.
The world is a better place for Mozilla's presence and I hope that, while keeping FF strong, they manage to figure out an Apple-like second act at some point.
>Also, it's unfair to argue that they have neglected the browser. Firefox is a massive legacy codebase that couldn't be cleaned up without breaking A LOT OF THINGS
They said that for Netscape too (compared to Mozilla/Firefox). At what point do they start writing nice extensible code?
Webkit based browsers don't seem to have the same issues.
You probably forgot to consider how much money / effort have Google wasted on projects that did not pan out. Their flagship products, like Hangouts, still have long-standing issues.
Nobody is perfect, and making a good and desirable product is hard.
Yeah, totally. I'm still puzzled as to why they killed it - at one point they told us "We only want to show it to a couple of invited people" and the next moment the message was that it didn't get enough traction. Go figure.
Edit: Although, thinking about it, it's really ironic how the Google project inspired by Firefly got canceled way too early.
Since Ruth Porat came in as CFO Google has reduced other projects spending to $3.5B p.a on $80B of revenue - less than 5%
Mozilla has revenue of $420M p.a - I don't know what they spent on Firefox OS but it would have been a big bet (hundreds of millions?). At the same time their Firefox marketshare was reduced.
In 2015, they only spent ~$215M on software development in total, so they couldn't have spent hundreds of millions on FxOS alone.
Plus, I think that view - that FF marketshare was reduced, therefore they weren't investing in it enough - is shortsighted. The improvements that have been landing on FF lately are the result of work being done for a long time. And you can't just dump more money into a project and expect it to be finished sooner - see The Mythical Man-Month.
Well, most of stuff that make recent Firefoxes better, like Electrolysis or WebExtensions, was either initially made for or a fundamental part of Firefox OS.
FirefoxOS produced several useful artifacts, sure, but they were things like device APIs. e10s pre-dates FirefoxOS by many years, and unless there was some very long-term secret plan that they didn't tell the rest of the company about, WebExtensions came after FirefoxOS was shuttered.
B2G extensions were already WebExtension-based when its preview release landed in Firefox 42. e10s was indeed introduced way earlier, but Firefox OS and Fennec were its main users for a while, which for sure has sped up the development significantly. Same with things like APZ.
Not sure how this 2015 figure is relevant as according to Andreas Gal who started the boot to gecko project, the shift back to firefox browser and away from firefox OS happened in 2014.
2011 to 2014, that's 4 years. Enough for firefox OS to gobble hundred millions of dollars.
You said that like anything they do is easy. But there is nothing technically, politically or economically easy in the life of mozilla. Add on top of that that they try as best as they can to have a moral stand, and i'm actually amazed they survived at all, yet alone made this come back.
> They squandered a lot of money, while neglecting their core business (their web browser).
They are not a business, they are a non-profit organization. And their aim is not to simply build a better browser, but to preserve the open web, and put control in the hands of the users. Granted, phoneOS was a failure, but given their mission, they had to try.
They are a non-profit organization owning a for profit corporation making tens to hundred millions dollars a year selling users data to search engine.
Notably this non-profit organization had provisioned $15 millions anticipating that the IRS might get into how a non-profit was actually for profit, it eventually happened and the foundation ended up getting a $1.5 million fine for their google income before setting up the for profit corporation scheme[1].
> It’s surprising how they’ve wasted that amount of money to finally in 2017 build a browser that can compete again. This is 9 years after google chrome was released!
I belive, that some tasks cannot be accelerated by additional money. There are tasks that needs time. Money may allow to deal with subtasks in parallel by many developer teams, but in complex system it leads to a lot of conflicts between parts of system, and only time can allow to settle them.
Browser is such a complex system. Old browser with massive amount of legacy is more so. Moreover if you develop the hole new language for upgrading, it becomes surprizing that mozilla have done it in less than 10 years.
Exactly (saying this as a FF user since Mosaic times and writing in FF). There was money, millions of it, and it attracted many people who captured the browser, sidelined it, spent the money on their ideological pet projects (OS, ...) and then moved on, leaving the browser behind.
After decades of FF I will soon abandon it when it no longer runs vertical tree tabs.
There’s no API to do that yet from a WebExtension, but they’re working on it: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1332447 . In the meantime it’s possible to edit your userChrome.css manually to select the tab bar and hide it.
I don't know exactly how things went down inside Mozilla, but I think their refusal to ditch their old extensions API was the biggest thing holding Firefox back. This wasn't due to poor engineering chops; I believe they simply didn't take the decision to inconvenience millions of users - many of whom were using FF perhaps solely because of the vast extension ecosystem.
I can't hate them for some of the projects they tried. FirefoxOS was actually something the world really fucking needed. We need an open mobile OS.
One of the key misconceptions about Mozilla is that Firefox is their "core business." It is not. Mozilla is not a company; their "core business" is not defined by their most successful software product. It's defined by their mission statement: "to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all."
They've used their $100-160 million (it has grown over time) budget for a lot of things in the last several years. Off the top of my head:
* Legal battles
* Advocacy for open standards like HTML5
* Web literacy projects like webmaker and MDN
* LetsEncrypt
* Bugzilla
* Thunderbird
* NSS
* Spidermonkey
* Rust
* PDF.js
* Firefox OS
* Development and support for open VR web standards
* Supporting other, non-Mozilla open source projects like Tor and NTP
Remember that the goal isn't the success of any particular software product. It's pushing the debate and forcing other vendors to adopt and stick with OSS and open standards.
In short: yes, Firefox has lagged behind chrome in the last few years in terms of speed. But remember when IOS didn't support HTML5, or any competing apps? Remember when no one was serving the global south with mobile web capable devices? Remember when HTTPS adoption was at 3% and going nowhere? Remember when CSS meant days of per-browser testing and tweaks? You're welcome.
Mozilla Corp. is taxable and had revenues of $329.5 million in 2014 per Wikipedia. Most of that money came from Google in exchange for making Google the default search engine in Firefox. Open internet and goodwill aside, Firefox is very much their core business.
Chrome wasn't started from scratch. From day 1 it was built on top of the legacy laid by WebKit, which in turn was built on top of the huge amount of work done under the KHTML project. v8 and sandboxing were its crown jewels.
If Apple hadn't open-sourced WebKit, it's unlikely Chrome would have happened.
Sure it was, but how much additional effort did Apple put into the code base by way of WebKit? Apple didn't need to open source that work, even if the original was open source, and I'm sure the leg up made a big time-to-market difference for Chrome.
Edit: Actually, KHTML is licensed LGPL, and that's a viral license if you make a derivative work. So I suppose Apple was forced to open source their changes when it finally went to market.
> Edit: Actually, KHTML is licensed LGPL, and that's a viral license if you make a derivative work. So I suppose Apple was forced to open source their changes when it finally went to market.
When LGPL code is linked with non-free code and the resulting work is distributed LGPL only requires that the changes to the LGPL code be open and that the object files for the non-free code are provided so that users can exercise their LGPL rights with regard to the LGPL portion of the work.
Apple could have separated out much of their work into separate files that contained no non-Apple code and that dynamically linked with the KHTML LGPL code and they could have kept those files closed. They would only have had to open the changes to the LGPL code.
If we accept the terminology that GPL is a viral license then LGPL is more of an immune system than a virus.
Apple's JavaScript implementation is based on KJS as well. Arguably, Microsoft was hostile towards open source in general at the time, while Apple simply stole open source software.
Legally they might have done the minimal amount necessary to not violate the license, but morally they've been a huge dick. "We have to open source our modifications to the code base, so here you get exactly one tarball of uncommented stuff."
Nowhere did I say or imply that Apple was a saint. All I said was that LGPL allows linking with closed code and distributing the resulting work without having to make the closed code open, and that Apple could have structured WebKit in such a way as to keep most of their code from having to be made open.
This is the main difference between GPL and LGPL, and a big reason why the FSF now discourages the use of LGPL.
> The reason webkit is known today, and not KHTML, is because Apple ignored their LGPL requirements.
> First, they didn't publish anything for years.
They published their KJS changes in June 2002, shortly before they released products using it. They published their KHTML changes shortly after Safari was announced.
> Then only obfuscated source dumps with all comments removed for many years.
Citation needed. My recollection is that they published their code in the form that they used it internally. The difficulty for the KHTML developers in incorporating Apple's code was (1) WebKit was designed to do what Apple needed, which was not necessarily what KDE needed, and so the two were diverging, and (2) Apple was making a lot of changes that touched a lot of code making it hard to break it down to individual improvements that could be incorporated independently.
Also (3) Apple had poured way more resources into this than the khtml developers had available. Since Apple kept its work secret for business reasons, that meant that, once Apple published their fork, the sheer amount of changes overwhelmed the KHTML developers (WebKit wasn’t just a port of KHTML; it broadened support for html features)
Yes, but they didn’t even attempt to get it merged, nor did they provide the changes on a per-commit level, but only as a single sourcedump with all comments etc removed.
To be practical, it would have been significantly painful for Apple to adapt and improve KHTML by keeping their code and changes outside it and only dynamically linking to KHTML.
If it were just as easy (or even comparably easy) to carry on (and maintain) development via external linkage, LGPL would have been long useless.
Chrome didn't start from scratch. It was based off of WebKit which was based off of KHTML [0], the code has a lineage that dates back to at least 1998.
Sorry, that’s just not what happened. I think there’s an important lesson in what happened to Mozilla, so I think it is worth clarifying.
Chrome didn’t start from scratch (they used WebKit to start) and they didn’t overtake them overnight. Mozilla couldn’t decide what their focus should be for many years, and in that time Chrome grew thanks to Google’s infinite wallet. They made worthwhile risks that didn’t work out in the end, and during this period their core product stopped improving and they eventually needed an extensive and expensive rewrite.
I think the lesson here is this: if you’re going to invest in experimental products, don’t forget about keeping your core technology up to date.
And webkit did not start from scratch either, it started from KHTML. They had considered using firefox rendering engine gecko but it was too cumbersome and got dropped.
First, many years ago, they should have made an XUL IDE.
Then they should have focused on XML and giving the world an XML based web-browser, trying to drive XML further. XML would have had a much better chance on the web, if web-servers could have responded to URL encoded XPaths (or even XQueries in POST/GET), serving back XML Fragments which could have been XMLIncluded by the browser. They could have lobbied that.
That sounds rather unpleasant from a user or non-XML-loving developer perspective. Such a heavy focus on XML for XML's sake would have guaranteed Firefox's decline into obscurity.
XUL was a horrible idea, certainly at the time. Firefox's UI felt sluggish due to it, certainly since I was used to Opera's blazing fast and responsive UI, which I stuck to for exactly that reason. I only had Firefox installed for compatibility reasons. People seem to forget that while IE was a mess, Firefox was only "better", not "amazingly fantastically better".
With computers having become faster, together with development thrown at it, that's not really an issue anymore, but developers have also realized these days that XML is far from human readable, and for the majority of applications it has been used for, simply a bad idea.
The long game, man. The long game. It can be devastating.
(Mind you, Chrome/Webkit did a similar thing 5-10 years ago wrt. JS performance. Basically, this is the good kind of back-and-forth competition we're seeing.)
You're not lying - I just downloaded it, and it is crazy fast. GMail (maybe not the best metric, but an important one for me) loads about twice as fast as in Chrome, and scrolling has no stuttering at all, even on very long pages.
I was actually thinking about switching to Chrome because of GMail (or rather Inbox). When I open Inbox in Firefox, it can take 20 to 30 seconds for the cursor to stop spinning and I have a 300 Mbps connection.
I've been running Nightly and experienced the same thing with inbox. If I attempt to interact with it before fully loaded, inbox will freeze up for minutes at a time. Love everything else about nightly, this is my biggest issue.
Seriously, when we talk so much about the Web's portability, why is a major feature from a major website not even working on identically on the two biggest browsers? Since it's Facebook we can't accuse them of browser favouritism as they're browser neutral. I wonder what APIs are missing from Firefox that makes FB Live Video broken?
> Favoritism isn't the only reason for these things. What often happens is that the website devs all use one browser and nobody tests it.
That is exactly the point the GP post makes. These things are supposed to be standardized and the standards well described, so basic things should work everywhere without any testing. But somehow for web, it is acceptable and accepted as status quo, even after years and years of smashing our heads against the wall of nonstandard, browser-specific features.
Yeah. Well, it's not just "features", it's also stuff like minor differences that the spec allows for (the spec doesn't spec everything). For example, assuming the order of elements in the indexed getter of getComputedValues().
There are also cases like where Google's U2F library doesn't work with Firefox's U2F implementation because Firefox's window.u2f is immutable, as a newer (IIRC draft) spec dictates, whereas it isn't in Chrome, and the library does `var u2f=u2f||{}` which errors in Firefox.
Works in Nightly but the video quality is beyond garbage. 1080p webcam should not look like 320p. Chrome properly sees my camera resolution and uses it.
Damn, I am commenting right now from 57.0b4 and it's so, so fast. It properly recovered the 50 or so tabs I had open from the prior version, and even as I rapidly clicked from tab to tab Firefox didn't skip a beat.
I never left Firefox though, it's been my primary browser for ~12 years. Fuck Chrome! I can say without a doubt that 57.0b4 is more performant than any Chrome / Chromium version that I've begrudgingly used to check if my client's sites are cross-browser compatible.
Google doesn't officially tell that Chrome tracks you more than other browsers do, but an ex-Google employee has said that "Google definitely uses Chrome user data and can track every click within it". https://www.siliconbeachtraining.co.uk/blog/ex-google-employ...
The article does not give any context and I am not sure what they meant by that sentence. Is it because you can log in to Chrome with your Google account?
We'll, there's the obvious argument that any open source software is better for your privacy and security than any closed source software, just because you know what it's doing. Then there's chrome's history of repeatedly discovering "whoops, we weren't supposed to be collecting that"... For me, it was when a researcher noticed that chrome kept his microphone activated all the time, because it was passively recording and sending all your audio to google. That one even made it into chromium! Then there's the abuse of their products to force people into their browser and OS - like Hangouts only working on chrome, or chrome not enabling hardware acceleration for any device but Chromebooks, despite a years old (trivial) patch to do so, and years of testing reports. Arch Linux maintains its own version of chromium just to have that patch included.
But for me, it's the conflict of interest that makes the real difference. Fundamentally, Google as a company makes it's money by selling information about me and my behavior on the internet. That's it's objective. Firefox exists to promote open standards, OSS, and privacy on the Internet. If chrome at the moment doesn't seem to be contributing towards Google's objective, that's by definition only a temporary state of affairs. And I know which objective I would rather support.
I felt guilty choosing Chrome over Firefox, but it was just so much damn faster. Writing from Nightly now, glad that I don't have to sacrifice performance to switch over.
Just chiming in... I knew they were doing major replacements in parts of their engine but it started to become observably and blatantly obvious to me when doing cross browser testing. That thing makes chrome look like a lawnmower, it renders CSS with ease - here's hoping the reset of the browser gets the love it needs to bring it all together.
It flies towards the trash can. It could be fast as lightning it would a fast as lightning piece of crap without the couple dozen extensions I had to add to restore the features they removed, remove the unwanted change they made and just to add the basic but missing features.
I've moved to waterfox which offers support for the legacy addons and this move actually fixed a few of the annoying bugs I had with firefox. Among which speed was not one.
It's truly awesome. Overtime I associated FF with hung pages and poor performance but stuck to it just to get away from Google software. Am really happy with FF 57 (Quantum). It's really really good.
BTW, also using DDG for search, Outlook for email.
I think "never looked back" is more a turn of phrase than anything here. Obviously the author has looked back, otherwise he wouldn't be writing this article.
Firefox has been my daily driver for 2-3 years now. I’d switched to Chrome several years before that but when FF fixed its lag issues I went back right away.
Mozilla overplay the “not for profit” card but with Google you can be sure they are collecting and archiving absolutely everything that passes through their servers.
Assuming that one switches to Google as the default search engine (I'd love to know how many do - additionally I beleive Google is the default outside the US anyway), there's effectively no difference. Neither browser does anything special wrt privacy, the same resources and scripts are loaded in both. Safari are the only browser brave enough to try anythng more exciting in this area. (OK, Brave are also in this area, but they're not of much significance right now.)
Sure, Firefox's private browsing does offer tracking protection. But most "normal" users don't seem to use that. And some would argue there's little value in blocking tracking in a session that will be wiped anyway.
One can assume Google is tracking a ton of data beyond just what Google searches users do.
Firefox users who pick Google as the search engine are still giving a lot of info to Google, but less info than Google would have had if the user was using Chrome.
Privacy is a tricky thing and a bit of a spectrum.
I will happily give up some information in exchange for a service that I like. I'll happily give Google my search history, including typos in the search bar, in exchange for them tailoring my responses.
Why? The difference in results is huge. I don't need to specific that I'm looking for Linux answers, math functions, or scientific results. Google knows this, it has learned it from the many years of data that I have given them. Searching anonymously makes my search much less productive and less efficient.
At the same time, I don't want Google watching me poop. I'm okay with then knowing some things, but not others. I've been pretty open with Google, knowingly so, just to get these tailored responses and, to me, they are worth it.
There's still lots of things I don't tell Google. There are still lots of companies that don't give me anything I value, so I don't willingly give them information. It's a sliding scale and needs recipricocity from the business entity, I expect a return from my giving up information.
It's also a very individual choice and best decided at the individual level. I give Google info, but I'd never say someone else should have to. I think it possible to optimize for just that.
> that I'm looking for Linux answers, math functions, or scientific results. Google knows this, it has learned it
FYI, I've been using an anonymized front-end (startpage.com) to Google for the last year and I'm not noticing any degradation in the quality of the search results. Startpage doesn't even set a cookie, so I doubt it is tracking me and learning what interests me.
I have tested, numerous times and over a period of years, and I get very different results when I'm logged in and when I'm not logged in. I have the option enabled to track me and personalize my results. I have checked the differences with use of alternative browsers and devices, while using a VPN and not, and even just using alternative profiles.
I also have a media box (well, a series of them over the years) that uses an entirely separate profile. That profile does a lot of YouTube and music. It had learned that I prefer documentaries - though not much more than that. It has also seemed to learn that I prefer isolated guitar tracks and classical guitar. It will now preferentially offer me the isolated guitar track in the top few links, even without including it in my search query. It used to offer different versions, covers, and live versions of the track. I can't get it to offer the isolated track as the primary result, at least not at this time.
I've been monitoring this for quite a while and have watched the improvements. I've even set up the second account, the one mentioned for media, just because I'd observed the effect.
To see the effect, you need to be logged in AND tell them to personalize your results. I'm not sure if that is enabled by default.
I admit this is just anecdotal, but I've made it a point to monitor this since about 2010, which is when I first noticed the option in the settings. I've checked it against being logged out, with different IP addresses, with alternative browsers, and on computers that do not belong to me. The results are remarkably different, though they are pretty generic after the first 20 listed results.
So, in this case, I've given information (privacy) in exchange for results that are more suitable for my personal needs.
I do wish I could select profiles. I'd like to be able to search with my 'generic' profile, my 'tech' profile, my 'music' profile, and my 'entertainment' profile. I think it'd give me more precision and would help me weed out my more generic searches.
Unless you have it blocked, Google also uses a tracking URL on their results. It will say, even if you mouse over it, example.com. But, when you click on it, it actually uses a URL like google.com/tracking/some numbers/example.com. So, they know what links you clicked. I suspect they also log which one you clicked last, so they have an indicator as to which result you found the most helpful.
I should note that links open in a new tab automatically, so they can also track browser session and see when I've completed my searching and can infer more from that information.
I used to also have a developer profile but I haven't really done any development for a few years. That was pretty refined and seemed to learn the languages that I was most interested in.
In each case, the profiles were made by using different email addresses. I have a different email address for the different accounts. I try to avoid cross-pollination between them but I haven't been as good with that as I'd like to have been. I can only speculate that the results would be even more precise if I had done so. As I mentioned above, I did use a third email account but I've not logged into that one in quite a while. It seemed to pick up that I was into PHP, JavaScript, HTML, and was using Wordpress or SMF. I don't know how effective it would be with other languages.
Your mileage might vary, but that sums up my observations and experiences. In my case, I made a clear choice to give up some privacy in exchange for something I value - namely more efficient search results that are more effective and personal.
Again, all an anecdote but I have made it a point to test the results against non-personalized results and the difference is very noticeable and very good. I am much, much happier with the personalized results.
I slam on Google, a lot. I complain about Google - to the point where peop...
Google Analytcs and ads are so widely that most of your browsing will be tracked regardless of browser, even regardless of your search engine (but the search engine is also quite major since they can track what you were trying to search for before jumping into the web).
A company known for tracking the ever-loving shit out of everyone across the Internet distributes a best-in-class web browser absolutely for free. If that's not enough, I really hope you're able to hold on to that innocence as you start using the Internet more and more in the future.
There are an awful lot of green user names lately shutting down conversations using things like "citation needed" or "prove it" on subjects where it's completely inconsequential or the conclusion is obvious. Everyone can easily see how old your account is and the devs of HN made it that way on purpose. Apologies if anyone here isn't willing to bend over backwards for the demands of an account that wasn't even created the last time I filled up my car's gas tank.
Google made a name for themselves giving away very expensive products for free because it furthered their tracking and advertising network. It's not only safe to assume Chrome is the same way, it's dangerous to think otherwise. Google paid $3b for DoubleClick 10 years ago, that wasn't wasted money.
Chromium has been found to phone home on a regular basis. The data (or metadata) that is sent back is most likely beneficial for Google.
I have Google Analytics on my startup's SPA when it can't even be crawled by Google due to the framework we use. The only logical explanation is that Chrome sends data back on the sites you visit.
You've described perfectly valid use cases for a browser to request additional information. But I think we can both agree that collecting data for the purpose of improving a specific product that Google owns (outside of Chrome itself) is wrong.
Just because there are legitimate reasons for sending all that data doesn't mean it's not also usable to track you or whatever. In fact, having all that data in the first place lowers the barrier to start using it for other things. We've seen that happen countless times.
What it comes down to is that Chrome sends a whole bunch of information about me to a company who's main product is serving ads. I don't know exactly what data they send or how they use it, and that in and of itself is a major problem.
In the end, sure, Firefox does the same things. But Mozilla's core business isn't selling my personal information to the highest bidder, so I trust them more than I do Google.
How many times with Google though? Of course, there are different kinds of data that may be sent too. Safe Browsing is very different from telemetry for example.
This kind of personal attacking is totally uncalled for here. Either their statement is correct or it is not, either Chrome is doing tracking on the sly or it is not.
Either there is proof, or there is not. The burden of proof is on the one making the argument.
I'm just curious why HN highlights new users. Why do you think they do? HN already tries to take action against "aggressive" accounts or astroturfing with ghosting them, so it seems possible because of that, that they highlight new accounts for similar possible reasons.
How is that relevant? Astroturfers etc have been buying old well-historied accounts for ages now, so it's not a very reliable method of distinguishing shills anymore. It's only useful for sockpuppets and amateur shills.
Firefox is fast but I'm using several profiles (one for programming websites, one for sysadmin accounts, one for personal, one for politics) and running ~3 instances is sluggish. Chrome has built-in profile management so it's just as fast with 1 or 3 instances. I don't believe it's such an unusual usecase, even my parents ask me all the time how to protect their privacy. A good idea that Ted Cruz might have missed.
This is the major roadblock for me to leave Chrome. The Firefox containers are close, but don't quite hit the mark in the same way as Chrome's profiles.
Now that I've used tab containers quite a bit they do require much more cognitive work than profiles. Having to always be aware of which tab container you are on rather than which browser window profile.
Yeah I'd really like built in profile support. Tab containers aren't the same thing for me. Neither is the round about way of using profiles currently in Firefox.
"It feels fast and light and I may just make it my default browser again once the stable version comes around."
"Is Firefox Quantum significantly better than Chrome? No. But they are on par again"
Well this ringing endorsement sure sold me. Anyone else? Bonus: you can mix your own Firefox Quantum using two regular Firefox Colas, some Jet and Nuclear Materials at any crafting bench.
While it's true the firefox debugger is lacking in certain areas, it's also better than chrome in others. Debugging CSS animations is much easier in firefox, but firefox lacks a way to look at websocket packets.
Think this is what Firefox should focus on, Chrome has had incredible resources put into making the devtools amazing, and they are amazing. If Firefox has a few killer features, it's not going to prevent people from using Chrome devtools, but they will Firefox as well, which is what everyone really wants, for the good of the web.
One essential feature for me is being able to pause the debugger and use the mouse selector on DOM elements, which doesn't work in Firefox right now. This is pretty much the only way I know how to inspect and debug popups.
Definitely not. I moved to Firefox when 57 was pushed to nightly, and I quickly realized that I have to keep Chrome around for any sort of web dev. Firefox's debugger is slow, it slows the page itself down significantly, and the layout is much less intuitive (to me).
Switched to Firefox a while ago. I love it. My little tip is to go into add-ons > Appearance, and change over to a compact theme. It looks a lot better than the default theme imo!
Damn it, I was hoping this was going to alleviate my main worry with this new Firefox - the UI. It's so Microsoft Edge-ified.
I had more trouble finding this setting than I should have. Appears to be hamburger menu -> customize -> (bottom of page) density drop-down -> select compact. Still not sure if I like it. The tabs alone are still way too big for my liking.
Coupled with Ubuntu 17.10 and the Gnome that brings, the top of screen is going to be eaten up by way more UI than I would like. Is there any way to get Gnome to have a unified Ubuntu/application menubar like Unity?
>> I had more trouble finding this setting than I should have. Appears to be hamburger menu -> customize -> (bottom of page) density drop-down -> select compact. Still not sure if I like it. The tabs alone are still way too big for my liking.
Assuming it's the same as every Firefox since they started copying Chrome, the alt key should bring up the old-fashioned (and much more usable) menu bar.
I use "No Title Bar" gnome extension and "Tab center redux" plus userChrome.css to move the tab bar to the side. The top side is actually quite compact.
Obviously, you can replace those 24px with even smaller values. it just starts to look silly at some point, because the icons get squished. There's probably a way to tell those icons to scale down differently, if you do want to go even smaller.
You can load the URL "chrome://browser/content/browser.xul" to get the browser UI displayed like a webpage, allowing you to easily use the devtools to inspect the different CSS identifiers, so that you can mess around a bit by yourself.
I was very critical of Mozilla in the past about all their
"science projects" like Rust. While I appreciate Rust, I thought it was wrong for Mozilla to be wasting resources on it, instead of focusing on Firefox.
I was so harsh with them only because I strongly believe that Firefox is my only hope for a free web.
But then I tried 57, and I must admit, boy was I wrong. This thing is fast! I haven't stopped recommending it to friends and colleagues!
Rust was pretty much designed to solve problems for Firefox. It's IMO the best bet Mozilla has made these last few years and we're just starting to see them reaping the rewards.
It was denintely a long term play. The worry i had was what if they get 80% down that road and find out it would t work for some reason (say they wouldn't be able to get performance high enough)? They’d have lost a TON of time and resources.
I don't know how this relates to the creator of Rust or its actual origin story, but Mozilla has been trying to get many of the same results out of C++ for a long time. You can look at the evolution of smart pointers in the codebase, along with more formal ways of representing error return codes (borrowed from MS COM), and general good practices.
It seems at some point they became aware of how unsuited C++ is for parallel processing, and how important it would be for browsers in the future. Even compartmentalization or running tabs in their own process is a form of parallelization. This requires an efficient way of sharing memory and preventing race conditions and errant writes, as well as a way to protect these processes from cross-site scripting attacks, buffer over- and underruns, etc.
Computing hardware has also moved on from the CPU-centric world and the gains in battery life from dedicated GPU hardware being used even for rendering tasks, and now for font processing and other things were too good to pass up.
I'm a long time follower of Mozilla's development, and extremely excited about what's happening with Firefox.
(I'm also currently a Chrome user, leaving in large part due to profile corruption issues and inferior built-in development tools. I hope to be able to run Firefox and WebRender on both Ubuntu and Windows.)
Yes, though more to HRESULTS from the Windows API. This meant return values could indicate success or a specific error which could be determined with macros.
Rust actually has a similar mechanism in its standard lib, the Result enum whuch resembles Maybe from Haskell, but has either a returned value if successful (which can be the empty object ()) or an Error.
XPCOM was modeled on the Microsoft version using the same vtable tricks that it used to enable dynamic dispatch through interfaces.
How much Rust is actually in the new Firefox? I'm not seeing any based on a casual click-around in the repo, though I'll freely admit I haven't scanned the entire source tree.
Edit: if there is any, can someone give me a link to the part of the source tree that has it?
Do they also have any write-up on how did they find Rust during these changes? Was the back count lower than usual? Did the see an increase on productivity?
These components were built as part of the Servo project and then ported to Firefox, so you'd probably just want to ask the Servo team directly. You can find them on IRC, in the channel #servo on irc.mozilla.org.
There is https://blog.servo.org/, but it's mostly gradual updates on things, not a general overview.
I don't know if there's any one location for all the Rust code; it may not make logical sense to put the MP4 parser written in Rust right next to the CSS engine, for example. I believe that https://github.com/mozilla/gecko-dev is a mirror of the repo in question, and so we can use Github's search function to find every file that it detects as being a Rust file: https://github.com/mozilla/gecko-dev/search?l=rust (which finds 3,274 Rust files, 6,701 C files, and 22,722 C++ files).
- The mp4 metadata parser. This has been shipping for a while now, and was the first shipped Rust code.
- The URL parser (rust-url). This is not shipping, because it's incomplete and there are some mismatches to deal with. But it exists.
- Stylo: Servo's CSS engine in Firefox. By far the biggest one, this is shipping in beta and nightly, and should be there in the 57 release for everything but Android
- webrender: Servo's GPU-focused renderer. Not shipping, can be flipped on in nightly. Still has work to be done
- encoding-rs: All encoding operations go through this now. Shipping
- The U2F stuff: A lot of the U2F code is in Rust. Shipping in nightly though I think it's still off by default (but that will change soon?)
- You can find "c api" rust crates scattered throughout, like mp4parse_capi, rust-url-capi, encoding_glue . These depend on the actual crate (usually, a crate that's published to crates.io) but expose an API that C can call into
- Finally, any dependency from crates.io is vendored in https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/third_party/... . Note that this includes build time dependencies (so you'll find crates that deal with CLI parsing and terminal color info that aren't actually used by firefox). Despite the folder being labeled "third_party", a lot of that code is maintained by us, but in separate repos and published to crates.io. In particular, large chunks of Servo are reusable published crates.
If you look at great science projects like the LHC, a lot of the funding is "wasted" building the infrastructure needed to actually build the project, while Mozilla missed the target a few times "Firefox OS", I never saw Rust with bad eyes, it was made to enable Firefox to become a top tier browser again.
Ironically Firefox OS would become a lot more viable with these sorts of performance improvements. Using Firefox Nightly I have actually felt an occasional sensation of blurring between native and web, because of how quickly some sites render and respond. I wonder how applicable these innovations will be on the mobile web. You'd have thought parallel processing would be particularly important in mobile processors where the single core speed is often a fraction of the multi core speed.
Firefox OS was ahead of it's time in the most literal sense. What they really should have done was FIRST work on all these new web APIs that allow you to make web apps that can accomplish things that only native apps could do before. They didn't exist 5 years ago, and that was a problem.
Perhaps if they focused on making web apps as capable as native apps first, it would have been a viable platform.
All the PWA stuff Chrome is doing is basically moving in this direction, from the opposite end, really. Instead of building an OS that needs a web based app system, they go in reverse by taking their existing OS and allowing for webapps to be work more like regular apps. This probably will involve more APIs and such.
Building new Web APIs was a core pillar of Firefox OS development, and it applied to desktop Firefox as well. Unfortunately these efforts were bogged down by poor executive leadership and the difficulty of getting any other browser vendor to take new APIs seriously, so the work went pretty slowly.
Gamepad API spec efforts began as part of this, for example. Then another vendor kicked their own inferior spec out the door without talking to anyone and that ended up being the de-facto standard (not the first time). Other APIs like exposing battery status, network connectivity status, and the ability to notify with vibration were in the works, just to name a few I remember.
So you are one of those that "Open Web" == performance only and you look the other way on things like EME, Pocket, and various other things that lower Privacy and betray the very foundation of the "Open Web"
Here are some examples: Proprietary, got integrated into firefox for no apparent reason (hard to disable), had a security breach and privacy issue, got bought by mozilla for an undisclosed sum (millions), promises to open source have only been promises so far, acquisition turned to have been more a bout buying the 10 millions user base to get into mobile and 1 billion entries to feed to the upcoming recommendation engine.
This is basically an anti-vaxx-ish comment. Open sourcing propritary software is not easy, and IDK how you come to that last conclusion if yours that you're pushing all over the place. When pocket first appeared in FF, I was mad, but when Mozilla bought it I thought I could finally use the thing.
At the risk of huge levels of snark, if the "open web" dies because Firefox dies (already a bit player in the browser wars, 11%ish), it was suicide, not murder.
One of the big issues I have with Pocket isn't even the privacy problem, it's the integration. Firefox would (IMO) be better served by having such things as extensions included in the default distribution. They could even make a separate tab in the extensions dialogue for them, perhaps hidden behind an about:config preference. That way anyone who doesn't want them could disable them and speed the browser up.
There was some discussion of doing things this way back when it was still called Phoenix. The Seamonkey suite was bloated and slow, Phoenix was the stripped-down browser that just did web browsing but had an extension system to add in extra features. But instead of adding features through the extension system the Mozilla team decided to add them into the base.
Most firefox UI code is lazy loaded, and the pocket extension was a pretty simple thing that hit an endpoint. I doubt you could speed things up by removing it.
of course you speed things up, it takes a bit of time to go through the process of removing the icon and disabling it on a fresh install. when you have several install to do, it quickly adds up.
I believe the Open Web died as soon as they Caved to MS/Google on DRM, and choose to oppose the EFF in their battle to prevent DRM in becoming a standard.
Mozilla is now an enemy of the Open Web, the EFF is one of the last organizations left actually standing up for the Open Web. Mozilla is just another Commercial Browser with anti-user features
To be clear I am not laying all the blame at the feet of Mozilla, clearly the Open Web is not an important issue, as even in Linux circles there are countless people that have chosen Google over freedom, making endless excuses and justifications about why choosing chrome was just pragmatic but in making that "pragmatic" choice they sent a clear market signal that performance and netflix was more important the Open web, privacy, and user freedom.
They sent a clear market signal to Mozilla that principles do not matter, and Mozilla took that market signal to heart and turned its back on the Principles of the Open web and privacy to focus more on Performance and Usability to appease those users
So, what would you do to oppose, say, EME? What cost would you be willing to pay? Would you be OK with, for example, some number of people being badly injured or possibly dying if it would guarantee a permanent end to DRM? How many people?
This is not hyperbole, by the way: when you adopt the sort of you-agree-with-me-completely-or-you're-my-enemy rhetoric you're using here, well, people's lives are what you're saying you're willing to sacrifice. Mozilla could have taken a suicidal stand on principle, and I guarantee it would have hurt a significant number of people, and possibly led to lives lost (through joblessness, through emboldened powerful interests flush with victory over an all-in opposition, through any number of mechanisms).
So. How many human lives would it be worth to you to get EME out of browsers?
DRM will exist with or without EME, and web-based distribution of major popular media will use that DRM in whatever form it takes. So EME versus no EME is a wash there, and I've argued at length that killing DRM cannot be done via "principled stands" -- it has to be done via market forces, as it was with online distribution of music.
Meanwhile, the rhetoric I was responding to was very much of the "people who only 99.99999% agree with me will be first against the wall when the revolution comes" school of thinking.
Exactly so there was not need to include it in the Standard
>and web-based distribution of major popular media will use that DRM in whatever form it takes.
Lost of popular media does not use DRM at all
>and I've argued at length that killing DRM cannot be done via "principled stands"
No it can only be done by principled stands
>it has to be done via market forces, as it was with online distribution of music.
That was killed by a principled stand not by market forces, the record labels wanted DRM, consumer did not give a shit, a few companies made a principled stand to say no...
That said, even if you want to claim it should be market forces that dictate DRM, then let the market decide by not ham fisting it into a Standard for HTML5.
That distorts the market and is the exact reason MS, Google and Netflix wanted to ensure it was in the Standard so they would not have to explain to the market why the DRM was there, why X device did not work with their products or have to compete in the market place on DRM or no DRM. DRM is "standard" now so there is no market competition for it.
I love all the DRM supporters (which you clearly are despite your claims to not be) that say "DRM was inevitable and putting in the standard would not change anything" Well then why put it in the standard? If it does not change anything, if it does not change the market, if having it in the standard is pointless why did MS/Google/Netflix/MPAA fight so hard to get it in?
because it does in fact matter. It does in fact change the market, and the conversation. Something being a "Standard" normalizes it in the market, allowing it to deployed faster, easier and with less consumer backlash. That was the entire point of the EME Spec, to normalize DRM to the consumer to make it less controversial, and more palatable
That was killed by a principled stand not by market forces, the record labels wanted DRM, consumer did not give a shit, a few companies made a principled stand to say no...
Apple introduced a large legal online music store with DRM. Apple got huge. Huge enough that record labels got scared and needed to break Apple's position. They turned to Amazon to start a competing music store, but had a problem: they needed to have the music from Amazon play on devices from Apple, or else people wouldn't shop at Amazon's music store. Since Apple probably wouldn't license Apple's DRM (since, after all, it would be for someone to break Apple's market position), the only option left was DRM-free. And lo and behold, Amazon became the first big music store with major-label music available DRM-free. And once there was one DRM-free store, it became hard to argue, from a market perspective, that there should be any that weren't. So Apple's ended up DRM-free too!
Market forces. Not people taking stands on principle.
That said, even if you want to claim it should be market forces that dictate DRM, then let the market decide by not ham fisting it into a Standard for HTML5.
The fact that you keep claiming EME is DRM tells me that you either don't actually know how EME works or what it does, or that you are willfully lying about it. Which is it, please?
I love all the DRM supporters (which you clearly are despite your claims to not be)
And here we are, back at the assertion that anyone who differs from your position by even a tiny amount must actually be 100% your enemy in every way. This is the kind of thinking that the twentieth century taught us to be very careful around, because it tends to lead to lots and lots and lots of dead bodies, all of them people who were "guilty" of being insufficiently perfectly compliant with the stated ideal.
>>>>Apple introduced a large legal online music store with DRM. Apple got huge... Huge enough that record labels got scared and needed to break Apple's position. They turned to Amazon to start a competing music store,
ROFL.... That is ... wow... Nothing about that is factually accurate, to state the Record Labels was the driving force behind DRM free Music...
Ummm No...
>>>The fact that you keep claiming EME is DRM tells me that you either don't actually know how EME works or what it does, or that you are willfully lying about it. Which is it, please?
The fact you believe EME has any other purpose except DRM tell me you do not actually know the purpose of EME, or what is does.
I'm not saying the labels wanted to go DRM-free. I'm saying that it was the only option they had at that point. They got legitimately scared of Apple's dominance in the market, and the only way to introduce a viable competitor was to do what they did with Amazon and a DRM-free store.
And just for the record, responses like "ROFL" and calling things "moronic" (as you did in your other comment) don't really make you look like you know what you're talking about or like you're someone who should be taken seriously.
It was not the only option that had, nor did they desire in any way to go DRM free, they had to be forced into it by both Amazon and Apple.
And just for the record, responses like your revisionist history, and Hyperbolic non-sense don't really make you look like you know what your talking about or like you're someone who should be taken seriously
The idea the opposing EME and keeping EME out of the HTML5 Standard would have some how "cost lives" is moronic and hyperbolic to such a degree I will not even waste my time responding to it.
The idea the opposing EME and keeping EME out of the HTML5 Standard would have some how "cost lives" is moronic and hyperbolic to such a degree I will not even waste my time responding to it.
So imagine a world in which you get your way. Every browser is forced to un-implement EME, the standard is force-amended to not include it anymore, etc.
Now what? Well, what happens now is popular media stays popular, and continues to be delivered via big binary-blob plugins with horrible security properties.
What's the human cost of hacks? What's the human cost of the security issues those plugins open up? How many people end up financially ruined due to personal information being stolen? How many people end up on the street because their credit gets trashed? How many in prison because a plugin vulnerability turned their computer into a node for serving kiddie porn and murder markets over Tor?
It is nowhere near unreasonable to ask how many lives you'd consider an acceptable cost for defeating EME, because there absolutely would be a human cost to it. It's a human cost we're already paying right now, and the major argument in favor of EME is that it helps us reduce or eliminate that human cost.
And this is where single-issue "you are 100% with me or 100% my enemy" stances are proven to be utterly morally bankrupt. It's not just that you implicitly accept that human cost as a means to serving your end. It's that you won't even acknowledge that the cost exists. That puts you in the company of some very evil people, and should perhaps get you to re-think your position.
>>>Now what? Well, what happens now is popular media stays popular, and continues to be delivered via big binary-blob plugins with horrible security properties.
EME is big binary blob plugins called CDM's, EME is just a different API to access the binary plugins that will have (and have already had) all kinds of security issues
>What's the human cost of hacks? What's the human cost of the security issues those plugins open up? How many people end up financially ruined due to personal information being stolen? How many people end up on the street because their credit gets trashed? How many in prison because a plugin vulnerability turned their computer into a node for serving kiddie porn and murder markets over Tor?
Hyperbolic Much, Everyone Info is already out there now and it was not Flash or Java or any browser vunerablity at all that caused it. The idea that the source of people having their Credit Card data and other personal info stolen is the browser shows your ignorance in the field of InfoSec.
Browser are a source for Fraud and Ransomware. Databases of Ruin are targets for ID Theft, that is the database of Large Corporations like Equifax, Target, Yahoo, Anthem, Sony, Adobe, Ebay, etc etc etc
Companies that collect and store PII, they are not hacking individual computers to obtain PII, they are dumping databases
>>It is nowhere near unreasonable to ask how many lives you'd consider an acceptable cost for defeating EME, because there absolutely would be a human cost to it. It's a human cost we're already paying right now, and the major argument in favor of EME is that it helps us reduce or eliminate that human cost.
So you assume in this moronic equation of your that there are zero lives lost in the implementation of EME, The sharing of knowledge via the open web is a huge driver of getting people out of poverty, and improving the lives of billions world wide. In change political regimes that abuse, and torture their population.
How many lives will be lost because all knowledge is locked into wall gardens and accessible only via "approved" platforms, and only for "approved" purposes.
The plugin world had big binary blobs that need the ability to absolutely control at least most or all of the browser and possibly other parts of the computer too.
The EME world has far smaller binary blobs communicating over a narrow defined API which does not give them control of the browser.
So. You don't actually know what you're talking about, and resort to misrepresentations and insults to try to cover up for it. Real great "principled" stand you're taking there.
I personally love Pocket, it's my bookmarking service and I'm a paying customer.
And staying true to their mission, Mozilla bought Pocket and is now releasing it as open source [1].
You're speaking of "betraying the foundation of the Open Web", but Mozilla is the only one out of the big players that isn't guilty of betrayal, the only big player that tried opposing patent encumbered video codecs or DRM, that have been promoted by Google, Microsoft and Apple, the W3C being basically a charade.
If you're upset of W3C EME, your anger should be directed at the parties responsible for it, which are Google, Microsoft and Netflix and which now control the industry, with a majority market share I might add, which would make all resistance moot.
So I hope you're boycotting Google, Microsoft and Netflix, because otherwise it's unfair to expect that from Mozilla, an organization with a responsibility towards its employees, users and customers.
I will believe that when I see the code. 7 months now still no code, and outside of the single blog post no other comments from Pocket, Read It later, or Mozilla has given any indication they will Open Source it. In fact Read It Later is still a for profit corporations operating as a subsidiary of the For Profit Mozilla Corporation, not the Mozilla Foundation the non-profit organizations
>Mozilla is the only one out of the big players that isn't guilty of betrayal, the only big player that tried opposing patent encumbered video codecs or DRM
They did... When???
>If you're upset of W3C EME, your anger should be directed at the parties responsible for it, which are Google, Microsoft and Netflix
I can be upset with W3c, Netflix, Google, Microsoft and at the same time be upset with Mozilla.
I am more upset with Mozilla because they are a Non-Profit organization that had (and I stress Had) a mission to promoting Open Standards, Open Web, and User Privacy. They have turned their back on that when those issues became less popular than performance. They turned their back on those principles because market share.
They have stopped attempting to education the public on why they should care about EME, about privacy, about anything really.
I find it sad that Mozilla is no longer a leader creating conversations about why the Open Web is needed for Society, about way Standing up for Privacy and User Freedom is important. Instead they have choosen to play follow the Leader to MS and Google.
Where is the 1990's Mozilla when Microsoft wanted to maket Active X a Standard and they stood up and said NO
Where is the 2000's Mozilla when w3c wanted to drop HTML in favor of XHTML and they formed WHATWG to force the W3C in to adopting HTML5 we have today.
Where did the Leader in the open Web go? Where did Mozilla go and what is this abomination that replace it?
Actually mozilla means Mosaic Killer as their sole purpose was to replace NCSA mosaic browser to become the n°1 browser.
It was the internal codename and user-agent for netscape and became the name of mozilla a reminder that their objective is to be the number 1 browser and the new target to replace had been IE.
It was killed by moving focus from users and long term to quarterly profits and short term, around the time Jonvon Tetzchner was pushed to leave the company.
wait are you talking about the leader in the open web or about mozilla here ?
As a long time user of wallabag why would I welcome the addition of a proprietary alternative that's difficult to disable into firefox ? Stripping user of choice is the opposite of free software and empowering users.
It's arguably not so smart to spend millions of dollars to buy the company behind pocket to release it opensource when an opensource alternative already exists.
Turns out mozilla did not buy pocket as much as the 10 millions user base and 1 billion saved link to get a foot on the mobile platform and helps with their upcoming recommendation engine. Not exactly putting the user first.
Besides there's no integration of pocket into shaarli whereas wallabag has one. Also where is the option to self host a pocket service ?
Not sorry, but pocket sucks on many counts compared to open source alternative.
I've been boycotting microsoft (because microsoft), google (because privacy), apple (because vendor lock-in), netflix (because pollution and bandwidth saturation and killing p2p) was before mozilla made its betrayal to their own words for their own profit. Yup I tend to boycott all opponent to net neutrality and open web.
Neither google, microsoft, apple, nor netflix bear responsibility for mozilla deciding to bake support for DRM for fear of becoming irrelevant. To me they showed that they do not put their money where their mouth is and as such are not worthy of trust, also their priorities are not aligned with an open web based on their actions.
Had mozilla been serious about opposing they would not have implemented it in their browser to be netflix compatible out of fear of losing market share. I've had a difficult time reconciliating myself with mozilla "let's do one evil here so we can try to do one good there" approach to things.
Disabling Pocket in Firefox has been basically a right-click and then clicking the remove button option, even in Firefox 57. Of course, this isn't really about disabling Pocket, but about removing it, being some kind of ideological struggle.
To set the records straight, Free Software has nothing to do with choice, as can be seen by how GCC and other projects were developed.
I did try wallabag. I appreciate the effort of its developers, I wish the project succeeds, but the mobile apps are pieces of shit compared with Pocket. So arguably, that open source alternative you're speaking of does not exist.
I really don't understand how Mozilla is not putting the users first, because by their actions, it seems to me like they are.
The really interesting phenomenon however is that I'm not seeing the same vitriol whenever Google's Chrome is being discussed on HN. It's like there's this really vocal minority that really wants Firefox to die, this comment included. No worries, if the current trends holds, Firefox will end up being dead and then you'll be able to have a choice between Chrome, Edge or Safari.
Or you'll be able to fork Firefox, invest in whatever projects you want to invest, build whatever features you want to build and in general put your money where your mouth is.
I don't care about firefox being faster, it has been fast enough for years. I care for functionality that i'm losing because extension are dropped, because features are dropped, because unwanted features are added. I care about my voice being heard and being dismissed with attitude. I care about privacy and freedom.
Just switched to Firefox beta to test this out. Looking good so far!
The other thing that I've been waiting for is better multi-profile support. You can get a (pre-release) version of that now by opting into the Containers experiment: https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/containers
Those aren't changing, the new feature, "Containers", is like having multiple isolated browser sessions running concurrently. So you can organize your tabs by purpose, isolate sensitive accounts, or just be logged into both your Facebook/Google/Twitter accounts at the same time.
It's not quite a new profile since the container retains all your configuration and extensions and a profile doesn't.
It's more similar to a private browsing session, except things aren't forgotten, and you can have as many as you like. And they're tab level so you can treat them they same way you would a tab.
Profiles: Every configuration change or extension has to be added in every profile to keep in sync manually across different Firefox instances.
Containers: Use the same configuration and extensions across different containers in one running Firefox instance.
Both retain configuration and extensions between traditional browser sessions (start/stop). Containers additionally "retain" configuration and extensions across contextual sessions/identities.
With profiles, each profile has it's own history, bookmarks, browser settings, and so forth. In effect, it's a separate instance of Firefox.
Sometimes that's what you want, and profiles certainly aren't going anywhere. But the idea behind Containers is just that you can be logged in to separate accounts simultaneously in multiple containers.
In practice, that means a better and more convenient UI. Containers work on a per-tab basis, so you can have multiple tabs logged in to the same account right next to each other, instead of in different Firefox processes. Plus, you can right click on a link and select "Open in New Container Tab".
So while Containers are more than a UI on top of Profiles, it practice one of the main advantages is the convenience of the UI.
Not really a reason to switch to Firefox, it's more not a reason not to switch to it - Chrome has had it for ages. Still good that they have it though!
Firefox has had support for multiple profiles since before Chrome existed. This is a different feature that let's you segment individual tabs within a session.
Firefox has has profiles since well before the first version of Chrome was released.
Unfortunately the UI has always been sort of hidden.
You can launch with `-P` or `-ProfileManager` to get a profile selection menu. Or nav to `about:profiles` for a slightly more convenient (but less attractive) version.
Firefox profiles are great. Better than Chrome profiles, though less convenient, for now. Interested to see how Containers fits in.
I used to use those profiles on Firefox - custom launchers in Debian. I did find them less convenient that Chrome, especially on Mac, so I switched to Chrome.
Firefox's new Containers aren't perfect, but I'm giving them a go and since they're in testing still I can submit feedback to influence their direction.
On Linux it's a bit simpler because a new instance is launched each time you click the launcher icon. So all you have to do is set the config to show the profile manager at each launch.
macOS (and OS X before it) is more work. The Finder will switch to the running instance if there is one, instead of launching a new one each time you click. I worked around that with an AppleScript (for the icon and double-clickability) that calls a shell script with the proper args.
It sounds sketchy when I describe it, and is clearly not an obvious option for most people, but it has worked perfectly and invisibly for years.
"great" may be stretching it more than a little. They have indeed worked for a very long time (which is definitely great), but launching multiple firefoxes at once with different profiles is (has been? haven't tried for over a year) an absolute nightmare for anyone not launching it exclusively from the CLI with aliases. I actually made app wrappers just so I could click things instead of having a weird blend of "you can click that icon... but then you'll just get the default profile" + "CLI if you want [profile X]".
My solution on macOS is an AppleScript with the usual Firefox name and icon, installed in the usual location, which runs a shell script with the proper args to pop the profile manager in a new session (`-ProfileManager -no-remote`).
The real Firefox binary is buried in a nondiscoverable location (`$HOME/Applications/.Firefox`) so that it doesn't get launched directly.
...but after getting around to making that work seamlessly, many forgotten years ago...Firefox profiles really have been great. :)
Firefox containers are heading in the direction, after using them for a couple of hours though I ended up missing the window-based system which Chrome uses.
I have one Chrome profile for my personal apps, and one for work -- creating a new tab in one of the windows will automatically open it with the same context as the rest of the window. My experience with Firefox was that I'd have to manually choose which profile to open the tab in.
1. This required me to use my mouse (geh, maybe I could use keybindings to change this though? not quite sure how difficult that would be)
2. I'm not sure if this is just a me thing, but if I create a tab stemming from my 'personal' gmail account there's a pretty strong chance that it should also be a 'personal' tab. Maybe this is just a difference in how me and the Firefox team use tabs though?
Once I figure out how to get around those issues, (and when Streak's gmail extension works on Firefox...) that's when I'd be able to move over.
edit: apparently Firefox has had true instance profiles for ages! awesome. now I'm just waiting on Streak lol.
* It's way too easy to open new pages in the wrong container, and you can't convert an existing tab into another container. By the time you've opened a tab it's too late. Solution is to copy URL, create new tab, paste URL, which is a lot to do.
* There's no "New tab in same container" keyboard shortcut or button.
* If you click on a URL in a different app, or from the shell, you get a new tab in the default container.
* There's no way to designate an entire window or macOS space to a container. I have all my work stuff in a separate space, and no personal stuff should interfere. Similarly, if I'm already in a window full of, say, Google Cloud-related tabs, I don't want to clutter that window with containers.
The idea is great, but the implementation is nowhere close to being practical.
Chrome's profiles are too heavy-weight, but it has the right idea about the ability to couple window with profiles, because windows are "collections of tabs", and the most natural-feeling container of pages.
I wish containers could be tied to which space (on macOS) I'm in. I keep all my work in one space, and all my personal stuff in another. That makes it really easy to keep things apart.
The current container extension uses the default container for new tabs and windows, which is a bit cumbersome, because you have to remember to open new tabs and windows in the current container. If it were associated with a space, it's just inherit the container from the current space.
I tried to like the new Firefox, maybe I didn't give it a fair chance, but it instantly disappointed me.I opened 5 gifs in new tabs and CPU usage rushed to 100% an all cores for half a minute.
But often it's the small things that make or break it. For me it was that HTML5 videos don't fullscreen to a new workspace on macOS like they do in Chrome or Safari.
If it still happens and you want to dig into it a little further the profiler at http://perf-html.io/ allows you to gather and dig into + share details that can help fix.
Just one study among many, but, worth keeping in mind. Firefox is making strides, but Mozilla still has work to do if they want to stop losing market share. I say this as a Firefox user.
Most of those benchmarks are (directly or indirectly) benchmarks of the JavaScript engine. The few that aren't are instead benchmarking the <canvas> implementation or the compositor. The main speedups in Firefox 57 are in styling and the DOM which are more of a "feels faster" thing than something you can easily benchmark in real-world scenarios other than "how long does this page take to load?"
But yeah, while the technical crowd sees Mozilla as favorable at roughly equal performance, the vast majority of unknowing users are probably more influenced by the world's most popular webpage, video portal, e-mail service, operating system etc. all nudging them to use Chrome.
It'll be interesting to see, if Firefox 57 can generate another major bump in that user graph like it happened with Firefox 48, or if 48 was at sort of the sweet spot where Firefox became acceptable again for most of the tech crowd and now we'd be digging into the non-tech crowd, which is much harder to pull away from what they're habitually using.
It'd be great if they fixed the memory leak so I could leave tabs open for more than a day. at about 2.4 gigs it crashes.
Edit: valid problems get downvoted. Great job guys.
That's usually a problem with one of your extensions. Maybe you can identify it through about:memory.
But good news, Firefox 57 will probably actually fix that. By 1) breaking unmaintained extensions for good and 2) switching to an extension API which makes it much harder for extension developers to make such mistakes.
Also, I don't know if this will be in 57, but extensions will probably eventually run in individual processes as well. And then you could just shoot down the process of the offending extension.
Yeah, that situation is a mess and should be embarrassing for those involved.
I can use Hangouts for simple messaging from Firefox, but as soon as we need to hop on a call I need to boot up Chrome. Often I forget and try to answer in Firefox just to get the error message. Then I have to start Chrome, login to gmail if it's logged out, wait for everything to load, and then answer the call. Ends up taking a fairly long time to answer an incoming call sometimes.
I'm really not worried about some downvotes, but am surprised to see them. How is it not embarrassing that as much progress we have made with web standards, a major feature in one of the most popular email services is browser specific?
There is no need to point any fingers, but I find it interesting that for years now we've had key players in major browsers sit around at conferences and talk up how much they're working together on standards yet this is where we end up.
I was a Firefox user since it was called Phoenix, and finally switched to Chrome in mid 2015. With the latest release, I finally feel comfortable enough to switch back. FF is a true competitor in the browser space again.
I have plenty of battery issues on MacOS with both Firefox and Chrome. When it's a concern, I try to use Safari. I would probably use it all the time, but it's still awful when it comes to speeding up HTML5 videos (edit: including the latest Safari technology preview). It wasn't all that long ago that it didn't even do pitch correction. Now it does, but it's weirdly tinny and echoey. Firefox and Chrome both handle it fine.
That's too bad. Battery on my work MacBook (and making my whole system beachball constantly, even with only a handful of tabs open) is what got me to switch from Firefox to Chrome ~6 years ago, and from there to Safari for even better battery life (and avoiding Google).
For me too, on some pages it heats up and fans start to whirl. But lets wait and see. What made me switch is that the new safari has some really aggressive caching of css and js files.
I use Firefox, Seamonkey and Chromium in rotation to make sure that anything web-related I build works is somewhat cross-browser compatible.
While FF 57 is usable on my Thinkpad 42p I can not say it is twice as fast as the previous version. Maybe the speedup depends on having a multi-core CPU, something which is notably absent in this 2004-vintage machine. Be that as it may, I think FF 57 is about as fast as its predecessor in general: faster in some tasks, slower in others, notably slower in scrolling.
SeaMonkey (mozilla suite) is the only web browser I have ever truly enjoyed using. I use the browser, email client, irc client, address book, and calendar every single day.
Extremely disappointed that Mozilla has basically given a big middle finger to the SeaMonkey/Thunderbird (comm-central) communities with the removal of XUL/XPCOM add-ons, necessity of multi-process, introduction of webextensions, removal of support for complete themes (show me a single Persona that doesn't look like shit), etc. in FF 57.
The reverberations of this decision are so stark that the SeaMonkey council has announced that it can no longer build off of the nightly mozilla-central tree; they're in the process of building RELEASES from the Firefox ESR branch. It's an absolute mess.
Very few people are bothered by the movement to WebExtensions, multi-process, or removal of complete themes. Many, however, have stopped using the browser as it has felt slow and clunky for quite a while now. The recent changes have actually attracted me back to the platform after a decade of using Chrome.
I am however one of those. While I understand the technical reasons for the switch I don't think it has been handled well. Extensions I rely on daily are going to cease functioning because the WebExtensions API isn't mature enough for the developers to migrate. Are they going to wait? Probably not... most affected will probably abandon their projects because FF rushed the transition and their user base is about to drop off a cliff due to no fault of their own. I would feel pretty abandoned.
When it was announced is somewhat irrelevant. Developers are saying Web Extensions still isn't able to support the needed functionality. That needed to be addressed before shutting down the older APIs. That is where I feel developers have been left hanging... given a "shutdown" date when the replacement isn't even ready yet.
They had to sort of rush it, because they wanted to rush out multiprocess, to stop the bleeding of users (which has very much worked [1]).
And then they needed to follow up with the switch to WebExtensions relatively quickly, so that extension authors wouldn't start porting their extensions to multiprocess and then after that effort have to rewrite their extensions to be WebExtensions-compatible. They wanted extension authors to be able to just directly port to WebExtensions.
And I do think that a lot more extension authors would have probably abandoned their projects, if they had just ported to multiprocess and then had to port to WebExtensions.
Also, a lot of extensions sort of just continue to function without active maintenance. Those are why it would have just as well been really disruptive to space out multiprocess and WebExtensions by a few years. Then we'd have to start over at 0 extensions twice.
Developers can't port to APIs that don't exist. Mozilla holding to the November deadline as implementation has slipped hasn't helped them in any way.
Mozilla kept pushing developers to make their XUL extensions multiprocess-compatible even after WebExtensions was announced. At one point, they were going to keep the multiprocess compatibility shims until the WebExtensions deadline, but then they decided to start removing them sooner.[1] SDK extensions were mostly multiprocess-compatible already.
Developers are currently maintaining multiple branches of their extensions because 52 ESR is missing APIs and 57+ won't support hybrid extensions. Aligning the WebExtensions transition with the ESR cycle would have made things a lot easier for them.
I am going to write up some extremely long-winded rant in blog form at some point before the FF57 release materializes, but suffice it to say, most developers that I know who have been involved with Mozilla since the Netscape days (and also those who build most of the add-ons/products that I care about, such as SeaMonkey) have shown nothing but disappointment at Mozilla's reckless plan for the Firefox 57 release. Literally just read the developer comment response to almost any Mozilla blog post about web-extensions/complete themes from the past ~year and you'd see that more than "Very few people" are bothered by this.
Perhaps normal users don't care (or just haven't noticed yet), but most of the features which make the Mozilla platform so enticing to power users (what ever happened to XULRunner?) are being decimated because Mozilla is losing market-share and needs free advertising.
Let's not beat around the bush; Mozilla is losing market-share because people get flustered into downloading chrome due to that Microsoft-tier advert that gets plastered onto the google search page in any non-Chrome browser. Yes, Firefox had been feeling chuggier and bloated for awhile, but the core feature-set that made the platform a dream to use for power users never waned. Speeding up the browser while retaining its core feature-set are not mutually exclusive conditions.
I think that if these "normal" users understood how powerful complete themes and the XUL/XPCOM apis are, they would be up in arms. It's not that people don't want complete themes, for example. Were it not for Mozilla's incompetence (there's a bug somewhere that tracks how the total reported download count for complete themes was inexplicably reduced to just 10% of what it previously was, never recovering; there used to be hundreds of thousands of users of complete themes around ~2007-2009), such as the time wasted making incessant changes to the core browser theme that nobody asked for (nothing has ever looked as good as the Suite/SeaMonkey), is what has truly been the cause of these 'modernizations.'
XUL and the add-on SDK are so powerful that I basically re-created two old unix programs ('picons newscheck-faces' and 'xfaces' [0]) over the past couple of weeks. This simple XUL/XPCOM project of mine now brings an incredibly fast & powerful cross-platform solution to two of my favorite old mail visualization programs that have suffered extreme bit rot (I swear more people used Plan 9's vismon than the verious picons/faces programs).
When the legacy add-on api removal finally hits SeaMonkey, my whole extension will cease to function. In fact, it doesn't even work in the current SeaMonkey 2.54a1 nightly. Can you explain to me a similar cross-platform browser/mail client that provides similar APIs for me to rebuild my extension? The answer is no, because in a couple of months the one that did will no longer exist.
Anyway, my point is that I'm not exactly sure who Mozilla is targeting with the Firefox 57 release — perhaps their jet-setting upper management; perhaps nobody.
(features not even pictured above: Face header decoding, X-Face header decoding, X-Image-URL header, and Contact Card Image support)
edit: also, as the one guy that has been updating the internal chrome:// url page in recent years, show me a browser that gives this amount of access to its internal to...
They are targeting something that only exist in the drug haze filling the marketing and design offices.
The same marketing that insisted that Mozilla shift their major version on every release, and that keep producing sugar coated videos for the most vapid of reasons.
Face it, the FOSS world has become a bastion of champagne pimping social climbers that just want to add to their score card that they have worked on something with a "humanitarian" angle.
On that note, i guess there is always the option of helping out with Palemoon before they go through with their planned rebase on a more recent Firefox release...
Their marketing problem is, in my interpretation, based around the flawed mindset that you should treat users as non-technical cattle. This is the chrome way. The problem is, Mozilla has historically thrived off of the opposite - the 'hacker' mentality. The only reason Mozilla even exists is due primarily to Jamie Zawinski!
I agree with your point about the shift in major version releases — this was another marketing ploy to 'catch up' to Chrome (who, for whatever reason, popularized the ridiculous practice of tagging releases with huge numbers).
When it comes to add-ons, this bigger-is-better mindset/fallacy is one of the things that Mozilla touts about the ~2000 new web-extensions on AMO. What they fail to mention is how many of these are just utterly useless (or whose core functionality is bested by something like youtube-dl, mpv, using the dev tools, etc.). People don't want the highly limited feature-set provided by web-extensions, they want add-ons that integrate themselves deep into the browser internals (noscript), leverage the add-on sdk, or modify the browser chrome:// in some way.
Edit: I cannot speak about the FOSS community as a whole (I only have experience in academia/government work), but from what I have read online about Mozilla's internal leadership, it currently seems like a difficult place to work if you legitimately care about these kinds of issues.
As for Palemoon, (I have made this clear in previous posts on HN and reddit), but I generally consider that project to be less than a joke. It would take an absolutely herculean amount of time and energy to keep their feature-set even with Firefox while retaining all of the stuff that is being decimated from mozilla-central. It's never going to work. They should focus their attention on SeaMonkey (comm-central) instead of wasting their time.
Err, and as for focusing on Seamonkey i fear that ship has long since sailed. As best i can tell, Seamonkey today is a "thin" UI wrapper around whatever Firefox source Mozilla barfs out ever so often. They are even stripping out Seamonkey features just to get the thing to compile so they can actually produce a working binary.
I find it incredibly cluttered. Seems like the push for vertical page space has lead to crunching everything together into 2 lines while ignoring usability.
I agree that the Firefox user interface feels way too cluttered these days. I know this is a highly unpopular opinion, but I find the way that the Suite (SeaMonkey) allows you to collapse/expand title bars infinitely more functional than whatever Mozilla has been doing over the past decade.
Boy, I _really_ didn't want to swap to Chrome. I'd held on through about a year ago, even despite knowing it was slower, a memory hog, and so on; at least this way, _someone_ on my team was viewing our site in FF and would notice discrepancies. I hated to let Google manage yet another aspect of my life.
But as some point, too much was too much. Unable to bear vanilla, Google-owned Chrome, I ended up in (closed-source!) Vivaldi. It was...alright.
About two months ago, I tried out FF Nightly. And by god, it's the best browser I've ever used. And the Nightly builds are (typically) _more_ stable than production-issue from other vendors.
So very happy to be back! Mozilla may have their issues, but I'll gladly take imperfect and pro-user over differently imperfect and profit-driven any day.
> And the Nightly builds are (typically) _more_ stable than production-issue from other vendors.
I actually managed to crash nightly yesterday! Maybe this seems like it ought to be banal, but I think it says something admirable when users are surprised to remember that your pre-beta software is pre-beta. :P
I think you're joking but it's the third time I heard someone say something like this today, so... profits don't pay your salary, your work pays for it.
> Work with no profits (or revenue) would likely mean no salary.
I'm pretty sure Twitter engineers get paid well. Same for Uber. They've got loses for a long time now. (But they have revenue) Profits definitely don't pay salaries there.
Mozilla (the foundation) is a non-profit corporation, but Mozilla (the corporation that creates the free browser) is a for-profit corporation. They're separate entities.
Of course, non-profit corporations are still able to turn profits as well. They just can't distribute dividends to shareholders.
To be clear: The for-profit is wholly owned by the non-profit; so there are no shareholders (except for the non-profit).
There are restrictions around what 501(c)(3)s can do. The existence of Firefox helps push the goals of Mozilla Foundation, and also bring extra money to the table of the non-profit (but not unbounded! There are similar restrictions on how much money can travel back that way)
Yes, and to be clear, I don't have any issues with this setup. I just wanted to correct the original statement, because it annoys me when "for-profit vs non-profit" is used to imply things that it doesn't actually imply (lack of a profit motive). Or when people imply that being as non-profit means that the company can't or doesn't actually turn a profit.
This is only true if your company operates to maximize shareholder value. If your company exists to serve its employees as its first priority, then your statement is false.
This is an insane discussion, but I can't resist: By definition, "profit" is the share of revenue that is not needed for the existence and work of the company.
There's even a category of enterprises successfully working in such a framework. They're called–oh happy day–"non-profits".
Some do, like most German grocery store chains, real estate corporations, etc.
They are cooperatives, all employees and customers can vote on all decisions, and surplus profit is either reinvested or paid out to employees and customers.
> Companies can't exist to serve their employees as a first priority
Yes, they can.
> because companies exist to make a profit.
They may or may not. Companies generally exist to serve their owners interests, which may or may not be profit. And the owners may be the employees, as in a labor coop.
> No profit... sooner or later, no company.
You know there are not-for-profit companies, right? (Not necessarily tax exempt nonprofits, which have additional behavioral.and other restrictions.)
Normally the company, from its inception, exists to serve its employees—i.e. the founders. It might then not be in the best interests of those employees to hire more employees under terms that share large amounts of profit with them, if they could get close to the same talent while offering considerably less.
No. Think of profits as a measure of economic inefficiency. If there is enough competition the companies would lower their prices until their profits approach $0. Ideally income always matches expenses.
> And the Nightly builds are (typically) _more_ stable than production-issue from other vendors.
Yeah, I switched to Nightly a couple releases ago (I'd use Dev edition before that because in the past Nightly used to be really unstable) and it's been great. The only time I've been getting crashes are when I flipped stylo on early (which was to be expected), and a couple of random crashes here and there.
In fact, I've had more problems in Chrome (Stable) these last two weeks, where their devtools hanged everything in multiple cases and Netflix wasn't working at all. And Chrome isn't my primary browser -- I only use it for Hangouts and Netflix (Netflix is force of habit, it works great in Firefox now). (I used the devtools because I'm using the new rewritten devtools in Firefox Nightly and they don't have a prettyprint button right now)
> Netflix is force of habit, it works great in Firefox now
Netflix doesn't work great in either Firefox or Chrome, but that's not the browser's fault. Netflix only streams 720p video to Firefox, Opera, and Chrome whereas it will stream 1080p or better to Safari, IE 11, and Edge:
You can see the playback details (formats, resolution, bit rate, etc.) of the video you're currently watching on Netflix by pressing Ctrl+Shift+Alt+D.
I use Safari to view Netflix though I'd prefer to use Firefox. I'm paying Netflix for access to 1080p video, but I only actually get 1080p video with Safari.
Yeah, I'm aware of that. IIRC a few years ago it was even worse on Firefox because of DRM issues or something (I don't recall).
Also in the past Firefox's media stack used to be a bit more RAM-hog-y, but that's no longer the case IME either. I still stick media stuff in a different browser so that if I'm doing a build or something expensive I can just close the browser.
> Netflix only streams 720p video to Firefox, Opera, and Chrome whereas it will stream 1080p or better to Safari, IE 11, and Edge
Yeah, that's due to DRM.
The simple solution is to disable the EME plugin, and just pirate everything (while still paying for Netflix). You pay for it, and have a moral right to it, and you can watch it in 1080p or 4K easily.
If you pay for Netflix, you're paying for the right to watch anything currently available in their library. If you pirate stuff, unless you're careful to keep that library up-to-date with Netflix's, you won't have the moral right to it.
Well, that’s an interesting question. If you’ve made a reasonable effort to pay, but have not found an option, some countries even allow you to copy without approval of the copyright owner, legally.
So this is a question that very much depends on ideology and jurisdiction. (I, personally, think that if I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime, I have a moral right to any older content, and if I pay for a movie ticket for newer content that’s twice as expensive as a DVD of which the cinema gets less than 10%, I have a moral right to rewatch it)
I haven't crashed nightly (I'm running the developer edition nightly) in months, but I've seen some rendering bugs since they rolled in the overhauled bits. Not as much as one might expect from a bunch of new parts, though. The quality of Firefox is just generally very high.
I am more than willing to try Firefox BUT I need a couple of things :
-an extension to allow to treat chrome + firefox history and open tabs as one on all devices (basically what I already have with chrome on desktop + mobile)
-a password manager that integrates with both (this one should be easy enough .. just buy lastpass or an alternative).
Firefox 57 is great. The interface is no longer ugly, and it's no longer oddly sluggish. Once Lastpass has their extension updated to work with WebExtensions, I'll switch.
After the most recent LastPass extension vulnerability, I no longer run LastPass extension in my default browser (Firefox). I have it installed on a different browser then copy/paste as needed.
Until the next one, then the next one, then the next one. I just figured at some point it's safer to trade a slight inconvenience of copy/paste to not have my passwords available via JavaScript.
This was what I was thinking, until three days ago someone mentioned here about Bitwarden. It's perfect, no more LP for me, you should try it too :) https://bitwarden.com/
I'm going to go ahead and second this - I switched a couple of days ago as well and my jaw just dropped at how much better it is than lastpass. The ui is better, the interface is snappy!, and it's gpl. I just wish I had learned about this earlier.
It looks good. And I don't want to come off as dismissive, I am just genuinely wondering: How can I know they are trustworthy? Has it been recommended by any security or cryptography experts? This is the first time I am hearing about Bitwarden and not being a security expert, I don't know how I can ascertain their trustworthiness.
Tangentially, this is a rare moment when I want a service to charge me money to assure myself that they are adequately incentivized to take my service/business seriously.
Why is it people never offer 1Password as an alternative? Sure, it's paid and slightly more expensive, but they have regular security audits and their apps on each platform are really well made and second to none. Their change logs are also always a pleasure to read, they even mention each bug by issue tracker number! Only problem is no Linux app.
Password managers are kind of a funny niche; the Venn diagram of people who use them, and power users, are probably more overlapping than most. I would venture that those (power) users want full cross-platform compatibility (Win, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android).
Additionally, it's probably not helping that their historical pricing model makes no sense for users who interact with many platforms on a daily basis. I didn't even know it had changed until I re-checked it after reading your comment.
Just my 2¢ as someone who previously considered 1Password once upon a time, and dismissed them. They may deserve a fresh look these days, but now they're competing against much more robust competitors than they were back in 2010(?).
I used (and paid for) LastPass and even convinced work to go with LastPass Enterprise. Then LogMeIn came along and bought them. Using an MBP as my primary machine at the time, I switched to 1Password (paying for the full version for my MBP, iPad, and iPhone) the very same day. Then, they pulled the ol' switcheroo and went to a subscription model.
That turned a lot of people off from 1Password.
Since my primary workstation and primary laptop now both run Arch Linux -- which 1Password has no desire to support (and don't even mention how shitty the Windows version runs under Wine) -- I'm back to where I was years ago, running KeePass/variants. I don't expect to switch to anything else for a long time -- my "secrets" are mine and only mine, once again.
Switched from Chrome to Nightly as my main browser 2 days ago when KeepassHttpConnector [0] got it's 1.0 release. Speed is absolutely on par with Chrome (which is something I never had in my earlier tries, usually gave FF a chance 2 times per year). Had 1 full browser crash which never happened with Chrome (in recent years), but then I was also running stable vs nightly now.
I'm still missing one extension (Join for Android), but I can live without it for now and might actually just help joaoapps in developing it.
One thing that annoyed me was the large min tab size as I didn't like scrolling tabs. Someone on Reddit pointed me to the right userChrome.css tweak though [1]
Overall I'm pretty happy being back on Firefox after many, many years.
> I'm still missing one extension (Join for Android)
AFAIK Firefox extension is pending addition of push API support in extensions. Joao has filed a bug report[0] for that, but there hasn't been much activity on it for some time.
The only thing that is keeping me on Chrome is buttery-smooth gestures (swipe left / right to go to previous / next page) on a MBP touchpad. If they have that built in I'd probably switch.
Also, Chrome has proper two finger pinch zooming on touchscreens. Firefox just simulates ctrl+scroll wheel, which is 1. slow and 2. not nearly as useful for the user. But that's not something I use often, I gladly switched over to Firefox again, this new version is really something.
I've been a Chrome user since it was first available. I've tried to go back to Firefox multiple times. When the containers plugin hit the front page a week or two ago I decided to try it out.
I'm not using the beta or nightly builds because I'm lazy. However, Firefox with containers has sold me and I've switched to it for everything except development. I'm too used to Chrome Dev tools it's been hard to switch :|
I absolutely love Firefox+Containers though. I just wish I could make it auto-open-in-container with wildcards. For example, open all *.mywork.com pages in my Work profile.
Mozilla provided an add-on API for the Container Tabs, so maybe someone writes an add-on to do this. Or if you want to get your hands dirty yourself, you can try writing one yourself. I imagine hard-coding a few URLs and respective Container Tabs wouldn't be that much work.
I was using developer extension and it disabled all of my beloved plugins. I hurried back to the "normal version". How is the update of the plugins to the new browser? Will it go live with uBlock, Tree tabs etc?
This is the version that breaks the legacy plugins and switches over to WebExtensions API.
Add-on developer are still catching up, but I think that the majority will be ready for the 57 release in November. I tried switching maybe two weeks ago, and I couldn't, simply because of one extension that wasn't ported.
Looking around, and I was able to find out that they've been working on it and two days ago I've installed the testing version of the add-on and made a complete switch to Nightly.
Give Firefox another chance, after Mozilla recently announced opt-out telemetry? Give them another chance now that they're siding with the likes of privacy-ignorant Microsoft? The same vendor that keeps bolting on features that seem irrelevant to its user base, such as "assumed touch", app store etc?
Surely one would only offer Mozilla another chance once they have extended an olive branch, rather than a closed-circuit television camera?
Telemetry doesn't collect any private data. It's all performance measurements. I run Nightly with all the additional opt-in telemetry flags because I want to help Firefox development.
> It’s no secret that Mozilla squandered a lot of time and energy on various projects that went nowhere (think its mobile phone OS, IoT services, creating a built-in video chat service, etc.).
The "built-in video chat service" is a webstandard. Called WebRTC, got mainly pushed by Google. Every modern browser implements this. Mozilla just decided to build a service which implements the server-side of this protocol. Which they needed anyways to test their client-side implementation.
So, the only squandered time and energy is that of the UX people that polished that server-side implementation up for public use.
And in return for that, Mozilla got excellent testing of their client-side implementation and direct feedback, if maybe people would want the Foundation to allocate some money to run such a service.
732 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 327 ms ] threadBut here I am, running Nightly because holy shit this thing flies. Their work has paid off and they're not even done yet. Webrender is coming, it's not quite stable enough for daily use yet (mostly just graphics glitching and integration performance issues as far as I could see), but there's a lot of work being done and it's only getting better.
Their whole "Project Quantum" eliminated the UI performance issues that used to plague the browser and they're improving security sandboxing all the time.
To those who loved the power and control like myself, they still offer a ridiculous level of configuration flexibility and extension APIs - while no longer as powerful as they were - are still better than other browsers on the market today.
The truth is that they were in a dilemma situation where they had to choose between not killing all extensions or fixing performance by introducing a multiprocess architecture (which required breaking all extensions).
So, the first thing they did was to simply wait. The performance issues were not that bad yet, so it just didn't yet weigh up to kill all extensions.
Eventually they started work on the multiprocess architecture. That was around 2012, if I remember correctly. They've been doing that in the background without visible results for the public for a long time. It's considered the biggest architectural change that Firefox ever went through, so yeah, that just takes time. Cleaning up technical debt that Chrome never had.
And then they also figured, if they already break all extensions, they should also switch to a new extension API in the same breath (because the old one has had big problems for as long as its existed). So, then they implemented that, too, in the background, in parallel, just to be able to throw it all on the table one day, so that extension authors would only have to rewrite their stuff once.
Indeed, I'm one of the people who has suffered from losing legacy Firefox extensions (find me a substitute for LeechBlock, please!), but I can see how much of a burden it was for the developers to compete on performance and security, which I value more. I'm hopeful that Firefox will continue to add sane extension APIs to help close the gap with what was previously possible without regressing to the old quagmire. Fingers crossed, but they've done well delivering so far with 57.
I never said I agreed with it.
Having to break legacy extensions due to internal changes is understandable. It would have reduced stress for the users if the new API was shipped first, then the changes made and the old one broken, though. Heck, they even thought of it first and did that - you may remember Jetpack. It never picked up steam because the APIs were too limited and too many people ended up resorting to the old APIs, though. Even now with WebExtensions they're shipping lots of new API extensions want in the same release that drops support for the old ones…
Oh, and they had multiple breakages as more and more things went out of process, not one giant one. That's life, really; things take time to build. I believe part of the pushback is that people just finished porting to e10s only to find that their new code will need to be rewritten again for WebExtensions.
The reason that Firefox switched to webextensions was in order to switch to a formal extension API that could be supported long term, instead of the old open integration API which made it difficult to readable without breaking all sorts of extensions.
There reason they adapted the web extension API that chrome uses, was because it largely made sense, was already pretty fleshed out and would allow extension writers that were already familiar with that to also target Firefox.
I don't think they've been "waiting" to solve the UI issues: it's been years of slowly deprecating old systems like XUL, and implementing new systems like e10s. That's been years of anger or at least angst for extension developers, as much backwards compatibility was broken one piece at a time.
The fruit after all that hard work is the new UI.
> And since it's Chromium based I don't see the sluggishness I do in Firefox for Android.
The point of the article is that you'll be able to have a quick experience with Android, without using that one tracker called Google.
Note that none of the Quantum work has been turned on for mobile Firefox yet. I hear it will be coming online in nightly this cycle, targeting Firefox 58.
The thing that is not on mobile Firefox is Stylo.
I do have to find the webextension equivalent of half my add-ons though.
Trying the beta now though, fingers crossed!
For instance, it takes me exactly one click to open a link from the HN app I'm using in Firefox.
Interesting because for me it's the exact opposite: Firefox is fast but when I need to open Chrome (webview or full) it's a slow and painful process (tested on two phones, one 3 year old). Maybe it's because Firefox has everything cached and Chrome needs to load from network... Not to mention full screen, aggressive ads :)
Firefox also supports https://developer.chrome.com/multidevice/android/customtabs .
It also has a very nifty feature (IIRC off by default) where if you click on a link instead of switching to Firefox it shows a "Tab opened in Firefox" toast which you can tap on to switch to. This means I can for example click on the links in an email whilst still reading it, and then switch to the browser later to read them all. This does make opening links two taps by default (tap on the link, and then tap on the toast), but there's no tap-hold so it's fast and nice. Plus my workflow prefers opening tabs that i look at later, not immediately.
Notice that they could not support Android 4.4 because they would require using geckoview.
Also, there is no way a browser of only 4MB can contain a whole web engine. The only Android browsers that get so small depend on webview.
Consider this, even the old Presto based Opera Mobile clocked in at 15MB on Android.
And ublock origin must have saved me hundreds of euros and days of time already. (God the internet with ads and trackers is terrible. Gizmodo has a dozen trackers, one of them is called summerhamster. True story).
(1) Though I'm sure it's better than that.
Also chrome has had privacy oriented counterpart since the early days such as srware iron[1].
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRWare_Iron
Since then they got Rust off ground, servo yielding good fruits, firefox cool n quiet.
Once again kudos.
That said my dev edition self-updated last night and... holy shit, the new Firefox flies!
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vimium-ff/
So if it's in Firefox, it's Vimium-FF. (And I'm using Firefox, in case that wasn't clear.)
- Yanking does not work at all.
- "Follow in new tab" (F) does not work. (EDIT: Working now, so maybe I did something weird yesterday.)
- "Open" (o) does not respect search keywords. "wikipedia Test" gives me a search for "wikipedia test" instead of the Wikipedia page for "test".
- Most of the shortcuts don't work on a blank page, or on "about:" pages. For example, when I open a new tab with "t", then change my mind and press "[Esc]x", it doesn't work. Nor does any other letter command.
I filed a bug for the first one, and it seems to be related to shortcomings in FF's clipboard API for WebExtensions, so I suppose that at least the last issue in my list is also related to what the browser allows WebExtensions to do. But at this point, I don't really care about filing more bug reports. I'm looking for alternatives instead. (Any suggestions?)
https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
They have absolutely no excuse for falling this far behind. They squandered a lot of money, while neglecting their core business (their web browser).
I still hope they’ll keep it up. I have been a Firefox fan ever since beta 1. Hopefully they can recover their market share loss.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation
And a lot of technologies and standards that were developed as part of Firefox OS still are very much around today.
In terms of standards, they did a lot of work for camera and microphone integration, which they now needed again anyways with Google having pushed WebRTC to a web standard.
In terms of technology, the biggest thing is probably Asynchronous Panning and Zooming (APZ). Basically offloading scrolling, zooming and window resizing on the desktop to a separate thread.
If you remember how horribly laggy scrolling on Android Firefox was prior to Firefox 46, APZ is what fixed that.
And it's one of the main-reasons why desktop Firefox with multiprocess immediately felt so much better. (Released in Firefox 48, but extensions needed to be updated to be compatible with multiprocess, so most people here probably didn't experience multiprocess and APZ on the desktop until around Firefox 51.)
I remember one reason Chrome gobbled up a lot of marketshare - it was the browser to install because it had Flash built in. Google definitely leveraged that, and then slowly roped people into the Googlesphere from there once they had the browser as your new default.
We collectively need to factor this into our product choices and stop encouraging the sneakiest of them all.
But how exactly is bundling Flash player sneaky?
Or are you alluding to some sort of bait and switch that was executed to suck people into the Google sphere? If so, please explain! Chrome was never marketed as a privacy-minded browser, was it?
For example, there is apparently a $40B rural Internet access bill that Dems are pushing. I love greater access to the internet but I'm more than a little skeptical.
The side reason is firefox made counterproductive and unnecessary changes: removing the status bar, australis UI, removing the ability to disable script, dropping alsa support and many other useful features removed proving that user have no freedom of choice and no say. While adding unwanted things (DRM, pocket, hello, etc.) and not fixing broken things.
Some power users and long supporter would have sticked with firefox despite google's marketing, had it not piled bad move after bad move and not listening to its users.
And no, these UI changes were not made at the expense of fixing memory and performance issues.
The reason why they didn't fix those memory and performance issues, is because it would have required introducing the (now introduced) multiprocess architecture.
That would have required breaking all extensions (which is now being done with Firefox 57, along with breaking them to switch to a new extension API). So, that would have pissed off power users even more.
And also just in general, you have to understand that power users are not that important for market share. They make up maybe 1%. If they bring their friends and family all along, then maybe 15%.
There's a big number of users that are able to choose their own browser, but are not power users by any means. For example, around 40% of Firefox users don't have any extensions installed [1].
[1] The figure is from Sep 2015, but I don't think things have changed much since then. And if anything, the trend has so far been for this number to increase. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1229949
Which I might say, it has been the only Android browser supporting extensions and quite a nice browser overall ;-)
Does Microsoft make a browser for Android? Does Apple?
They developed (well... became the first and most significant major backer of) an entirely new programming language, purely for the purposes of building a better browser. And then devoted tons of resources for years into developing Servo, a massive and complex project that is only being realized now. I'd rather they think big and be ambitious like this, than be yet another stagnating tech company kept alive by former glory.
Also, it's unfair to argue that they have neglected the browser. Firefox is a massive legacy codebase that couldn't be cleaned up without breaking A LOT OF THINGS, and at every step in the process they faced people begging them not to break their things, despite the alternative being the continued rot of Firefox's internals. But they did try, for years, to move forward without breaking everything - it just came at the cost of glacially slow and cautious progress.
And without grave mistakes ?
Seriously get a reality check.
- Theodore Roosevelt
There isn't, of course. But that wasn't why it failed. It failed because it didn't answer any questions that weren't already answered, except for some (like "more privacy") that too few people wanted an answer to, to have a market. And that part, unfortunately, was utterly predictable.
Think low end android phone (of the time!) running software that was 10x slower than android's.
It's really hard to describe how slow it was if you didn't personally use a firefox os phone. There were times when it felt significantly slower than a 386 running windows 3.11.
2. I thought they were bloody stupid ideas.
I'm not convinced that investing in ideas I think are stupid because things I have previously thought were stupid did well is a sound strategy. All it shows is I'm bad at predicting what will do well, so it makes more sense for me to invest broadly across as many markets as possible.
Maybe it was unrealistic to expect it to work out - one relatively small company fighting with Google and Apple - but I guess some people are optimists and want to believe that the world can be made into something else than corporate dystopia or whatever.
Wanting to believe in something is a thing, neglecting your core product and users to bet on a personal belief is something else.
Considering this is HN, and not Slashdot, probably several readers...
But at least they tried. Everyone else just gave up and either accepted Apple's overpriced walled garden or handed over their deepest secrets to Google.
It was never going to work, and didn’t. Should never had a cent spent on it.
First off their goals, effectively OLPC the phone. A cheap "smartphone" built on web tech that allowed the owner to modify the software as he saw fit.
This then clashed with the partners they found, carriers that had zero interest in owner-modifiable phones.
It was doomed from the start, but it allowed some execs to pat themselves on the back and tell their fellow gallery dwellers that they had done something for the third world...
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla_Foundation_Projects
The foundation has a crazy long history of funding open source and various pursuits. Comparing their style of execution to google is just rediculously unfair on so many levels.
The foundation had engaged in tax evasion over the money raised through the corporation and ended up settling with the IRS by paying a $1.5 millions fine[1], they had provisioned $15 millions for this fine, suddenly they got a few unexpected millions to spend on whatever.
I agree that comparing mozilla to google makes little sense as mozilla was working for google in exchange for 85-95% of their revenue. Without google paying mozilla for their users privacy, mozilla would have had to find an actual business model and would not have had the option to wander away from their core product.
On the other hand, without mozilla google would have been mostly the same though would have probably missed some data about millions of users .
[1]: https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-gets-lucky-settles-irs-aud...
The seperation is purely legal and financial, no?
I've made a couple small contributions to Firefox. Though I'd been a Firefox user for years, this never occurred to me until I looked at the source in 2015 and saw TODO comments to upgrade a C++ operation to something available in C++11 (that's C++ released in 2011) when Firefox dropped Windows XP support.
I was surprised at the time that so much of the code was ES6. My mentor pointed out that web app companies might need to wait a few years for users to mass-adopt ES6 browsers. On the other hand, Firefox can use ES6 everywhere in its own code where JS makes sense, since it's only going to be running on latest Firefox JS engine.
I think Firefox hit full ES6 compatibility first among the browsers because there was this extra incentive to modernize the codebase.
Chrome didn't have to build off of the Netscape source, so it didn't have the same legacy problems in 2008 that Firefox did. I think Mozilla has done a remarkable job keeping pace with Google, taking this into account.
A number of ES6 additions were initially Firefox extensions (though some standard-track features like comprehensions also got removed).
Nit: The standard was finalized in 2011 - August 2011 to be more specific, so quite late in the year. Full compliance in various compilers was not achieved for quite some time after that - MSVC being quite problematic in that regard.
Major projects - esp. those compiled on multiple systems across several compilers, like Firefox - absolutely could not just go ahead and start using C++11 in 2011.
I was really into native development around that time, and C++11 was the first time I was exposed to the complexities and gotchas around standardization vs. implementation. I've stopped paying as much attention since, but I believe C++14 fared much better.
FWIW internal firefox code has had ES6-like concepts before ES6 itself; and many of these made it into the final spec in some form.
Wasn't it Webkit that hit that first? Whereas Firefox at the time was just 93%.
https://twitter.com/webkit/status/728643624464883712?lang=en
https://www.contentful.com/blog/2017/04/04/es6-modules-suppo...
They've also been criticized for years for their business model being too dependent on a single income source contrary to their values. They did nothing about it until it became clear that they were losing the game. IMHO this is bad management for years.
[1]: https://andreasgal.com/2017/05/25/chrome-won/
First, OS manufacturers who have unlimited power to steer users toward their own browsers. This was true in the Windows days, and it's an order of magnitude more true in the mobile world where one of the leading platforms, iOS, won't even allow "real" versions of competitors' browsers onto their devices.
Second, they're at the mercy of purveyors of web content. How screwed would Firefox be if a couple of major sites like Facebook and Youtube started treating FF like a second-class citizen? FF already kind of feels like a second-class citizen sometimes; as far as I know Google Hangouts still doesn't work on FF: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/google-hangouts-tempora...
So, in the long run, Mozilla is going to have to do something about their tenuous position.
Realistically, they can't blow the doors off of incumbent browsers (Edge, Safari, Chrome) like they did back in the IE6 days. That was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Microsoft, having achieved dominance, had literally disbanded their browser team despite the fact that IE6 was atrocious. But that will never happen again. MS, Apple, and Google each have gobs of engineering talent allocated to their browser efforts and the only way Mozilla can excel its way to the front of the pack is if the other three major browser vendors simultaneously slack off at once and give FF an IE6-like opening.
Also, the importance of the browser is decreasing. Watch kids on phones. It's all apps. They don't do jack shit in a web browser. A web browser is something they use, at most, to look up homework answers.
The world is a better place for Mozilla's presence and I hope that, while keeping FF strong, they manage to figure out an Apple-like second act at some point.
They said that for Netscape too (compared to Mozilla/Firefox). At what point do they start writing nice extensible code?
Webkit based browsers don't seem to have the same issues.
Nobody is perfect, and making a good and desirable product is hard.
Edit: Although, thinking about it, it's really ironic how the Google project inspired by Firefly got canceled way too early.
If I launched an app that got over a hundred million downloads and had many millions of monthly users I certainly wouldn't call that a failure!
Mozilla has revenue of $420M p.a - I don't know what they spent on Firefox OS but it would have been a big bet (hundreds of millions?). At the same time their Firefox marketshare was reduced.
Plus, I think that view - that FF marketshare was reduced, therefore they weren't investing in it enough - is shortsighted. The improvements that have been landing on FF lately are the result of work being done for a long time. And you can't just dump more money into a project and expect it to be finished sooner - see The Mythical Man-Month.
2011 to 2014, that's 4 years. Enough for firefox OS to gobble hundred millions of dollars.
They are not a business, they are a non-profit organization. And their aim is not to simply build a better browser, but to preserve the open web, and put control in the hands of the users. Granted, phoneOS was a failure, but given their mission, they had to try.
Notably this non-profit organization had provisioned $15 millions anticipating that the IRS might get into how a non-profit was actually for profit, it eventually happened and the foundation ended up getting a $1.5 million fine for their google income before setting up the for profit corporation scheme[1].
[1]: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/18/google_still_mozill...
The non-profit organization foundation
I belive, that some tasks cannot be accelerated by additional money. There are tasks that needs time. Money may allow to deal with subtasks in parallel by many developer teams, but in complex system it leads to a lot of conflicts between parts of system, and only time can allow to settle them.
Browser is such a complex system. Old browser with massive amount of legacy is more so. Moreover if you develop the hole new language for upgrading, it becomes surprizing that mozilla have done it in less than 10 years.
After decades of FF I will soon abandon it when it no longer runs vertical tree tabs.
I can't hate them for some of the projects they tried. FirefoxOS was actually something the world really fucking needed. We need an open mobile OS.
They've used their $100-160 million (it has grown over time) budget for a lot of things in the last several years. Off the top of my head:
* Legal battles * Advocacy for open standards like HTML5 * Web literacy projects like webmaker and MDN * LetsEncrypt * Bugzilla * Thunderbird * NSS * Spidermonkey * Rust * PDF.js * Firefox OS * Development and support for open VR web standards * Supporting other, non-Mozilla open source projects like Tor and NTP
Remember that the goal isn't the success of any particular software product. It's pushing the debate and forcing other vendors to adopt and stick with OSS and open standards.
In short: yes, Firefox has lagged behind chrome in the last few years in terms of speed. But remember when IOS didn't support HTML5, or any competing apps? Remember when no one was serving the global south with mobile web capable devices? Remember when HTTPS adoption was at 3% and going nowhere? Remember when CSS meant days of per-browser testing and tweaks? You're welcome.
Mozilla Corp. is taxable and had revenues of $329.5 million in 2014 per Wikipedia. Most of that money came from Google in exchange for making Google the default search engine in Firefox. Open internet and goodwill aside, Firefox is very much their core business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
If Apple hadn't open-sourced WebKit, it's unlikely Chrome would have happened.
Edit: Actually, KHTML is licensed LGPL, and that's a viral license if you make a derivative work. So I suppose Apple was forced to open source their changes when it finally went to market.
When LGPL code is linked with non-free code and the resulting work is distributed LGPL only requires that the changes to the LGPL code be open and that the object files for the non-free code are provided so that users can exercise their LGPL rights with regard to the LGPL portion of the work.
Apple could have separated out much of their work into separate files that contained no non-Apple code and that dynamically linked with the KHTML LGPL code and they could have kept those files closed. They would only have had to open the changes to the LGPL code.
If we accept the terminology that GPL is a viral license then LGPL is more of an immune system than a virus.
First, they didn't publish anything for years. Then only obfuscated source dumps with all comments removed for many years.
It took ages until they published some source code, even longer until they opened their repository.
By that time KHTML was long dead, and development had centered on WebKit.
No, Apple is no saint in this story.
> No, Apple is no saint in this story.
Nowhere did I say or imply that Apple was a saint. All I said was that LGPL allows linking with closed code and distributing the resulting work without having to make the closed code open, and that Apple could have structured WebKit in such a way as to keep most of their code from having to be made open.
This is the main difference between GPL and LGPL, and a big reason why the FSF now discourages the use of LGPL.
> The reason webkit is known today, and not KHTML, is because Apple ignored their LGPL requirements.
> First, they didn't publish anything for years.
They published their KJS changes in June 2002, shortly before they released products using it. They published their KHTML changes shortly after Safari was announced.
> Then only obfuscated source dumps with all comments removed for many years.
Citation needed. My recollection is that they published their code in the form that they used it internally. The difficulty for the KHTML developers in incorporating Apple's code was (1) WebKit was designed to do what Apple needed, which was not necessarily what KDE needed, and so the two were diverging, and (2) Apple was making a lot of changes that touched a lot of code making it hard to break it down to individual improvements that could be incorporated independently.
This made integration impossible.
If it were just as easy (or even comparably easy) to carry on (and maintain) development via external linkage, LGPL would have been long useless.
Nope, they started with webkit and wininet for networking which together might be make a good browser demo.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML
One of the worst Chrome bugs was a short sighted attempt to remain compatible with a bad decision by netscape.
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/DpOXzA...
Chrome didn’t start from scratch (they used WebKit to start) and they didn’t overtake them overnight. Mozilla couldn’t decide what their focus should be for many years, and in that time Chrome grew thanks to Google’s infinite wallet. They made worthwhile risks that didn’t work out in the end, and during this period their core product stopped improving and they eventually needed an extensive and expensive rewrite.
I think the lesson here is this: if you’re going to invest in experimental products, don’t forget about keeping your core technology up to date.
A rich set of lessons in what tends to happen with corporate uptake of a "common good".
Then they should have focused on XML and giving the world an XML based web-browser, trying to drive XML further. XML would have had a much better chance on the web, if web-servers could have responded to URL encoded XPaths (or even XQueries in POST/GET), serving back XML Fragments which could have been XMLIncluded by the browser. They could have lobbied that.
Now we've got HTML5...
With computers having become faster, together with development thrown at it, that's not really an issue anymore, but developers have also realized these days that XML is far from human readable, and for the majority of applications it has been used for, simply a bad idea.
(Mind you, Chrome/Webkit did a similar thing 5-10 years ago wrt. JS performance. Basically, this is the good kind of back-and-forth competition we're seeing.)
I may actually make the switch.
It's always a good idea to back up your profile first (where your bookmarks/passwords/etc. live), especially when downgrading:
https://support.mozilla.org/kb/back-and-restore-information-...
Would you be willing to provide us a performance profile? Instructions are here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Performance...
Feel free to email it to me if you don't want to post the link publicly. I'm mconley at mozilla dot com.
Favoritism isn't the only reason for these things. What often happens is that the website devs all use one browser and nobody tests it.
It's not like Google wants their sites to be broken on other browsers either (I presume), it's just that many teams at Google aren't bothered.
IIRC Firefox has the same WebRTC APIs as Chrome, so this might be reliance on browser-specific nonstandard behavior.
(Or it might not. It's worth looking into, but I can't because it seems like you need to ask for an FB live invite to investigate)
Edit: Figured out how to do it. Seems to work fine in Firefox Nightly.
That is exactly the point the GP post makes. These things are supposed to be standardized and the standards well described, so basic things should work everywhere without any testing. But somehow for web, it is acceptable and accepted as status quo, even after years and years of smashing our heads against the wall of nonstandard, browser-specific features.
There are also cases like where Google's U2F library doesn't work with Firefox's U2F implementation because Firefox's window.u2f is immutable, as a newer (IIRC draft) spec dictates, whereas it isn't in Chrome, and the library does `var u2f=u2f||{}` which errors in Firefox.
Other than that Nightly is amaze balls.
If you're interested in helping me figure out what's going on here, feel free to send me a performance profile.
I never left Firefox though, it's been my primary browser for ~12 years. Fuck Chrome! I can say without a doubt that 57.0b4 is more performant than any Chrome / Chromium version that I've begrudgingly used to check if my client's sites are cross-browser compatible.
But for me, it's the conflict of interest that makes the real difference. Fundamentally, Google as a company makes it's money by selling information about me and my behavior on the internet. That's it's objective. Firefox exists to promote open standards, OSS, and privacy on the Internet. If chrome at the moment doesn't seem to be contributing towards Google's objective, that's by definition only a temporary state of affairs. And I know which objective I would rather support.
I've moved to waterfox which offers support for the legacy addons and this move actually fixed a few of the annoying bugs I had with firefox. Among which speed was not one.
BTW, also using DDG for search, Outlook for email.
Why should I take browser advice from someone who doesn't pay attention? Especially someone who lauds the "simplicity" of Chrome...
I do love how fast Firefox 57 is though.
Mozilla overplay the “not for profit” card but with Google you can be sure they are collecting and archiving absolutely everything that passes through their servers.
Sure, Firefox's private browsing does offer tracking protection. But most "normal" users don't seem to use that. And some would argue there's little value in blocking tracking in a session that will be wiped anyway.
Firefox users who pick Google as the search engine are still giving a lot of info to Google, but less info than Google would have had if the user was using Chrome.
It's still giving search information to Google, but that's much more preferable to sending literally everything you type in the box.
I will happily give up some information in exchange for a service that I like. I'll happily give Google my search history, including typos in the search bar, in exchange for them tailoring my responses.
Why? The difference in results is huge. I don't need to specific that I'm looking for Linux answers, math functions, or scientific results. Google knows this, it has learned it from the many years of data that I have given them. Searching anonymously makes my search much less productive and less efficient.
At the same time, I don't want Google watching me poop. I'm okay with then knowing some things, but not others. I've been pretty open with Google, knowingly so, just to get these tailored responses and, to me, they are worth it.
There's still lots of things I don't tell Google. There are still lots of companies that don't give me anything I value, so I don't willingly give them information. It's a sliding scale and needs recipricocity from the business entity, I expect a return from my giving up information.
It's also a very individual choice and best decided at the individual level. I give Google info, but I'd never say someone else should have to. I think it possible to optimize for just that.
FYI, I've been using an anonymized front-end (startpage.com) to Google for the last year and I'm not noticing any degradation in the quality of the search results. Startpage doesn't even set a cookie, so I doubt it is tracking me and learning what interests me.
I also have a media box (well, a series of them over the years) that uses an entirely separate profile. That profile does a lot of YouTube and music. It had learned that I prefer documentaries - though not much more than that. It has also seemed to learn that I prefer isolated guitar tracks and classical guitar. It will now preferentially offer me the isolated guitar track in the top few links, even without including it in my search query. It used to offer different versions, covers, and live versions of the track. I can't get it to offer the isolated track as the primary result, at least not at this time.
I've been monitoring this for quite a while and have watched the improvements. I've even set up the second account, the one mentioned for media, just because I'd observed the effect.
To see the effect, you need to be logged in AND tell them to personalize your results. I'm not sure if that is enabled by default.
I admit this is just anecdotal, but I've made it a point to monitor this since about 2010, which is when I first noticed the option in the settings. I've checked it against being logged out, with different IP addresses, with alternative browsers, and on computers that do not belong to me. The results are remarkably different, though they are pretty generic after the first 20 listed results.
So, in this case, I've given information (privacy) in exchange for results that are more suitable for my personal needs.
I do wish I could select profiles. I'd like to be able to search with my 'generic' profile, my 'tech' profile, my 'music' profile, and my 'entertainment' profile. I think it'd give me more precision and would help me weed out my more generic searches.
Unless you have it blocked, Google also uses a tracking URL on their results. It will say, even if you mouse over it, example.com. But, when you click on it, it actually uses a URL like google.com/tracking/some numbers/example.com. So, they know what links you clicked. I suspect they also log which one you clicked last, so they have an indicator as to which result you found the most helpful.
I should note that links open in a new tab automatically, so they can also track browser session and see when I've completed my searching and can infer more from that information.
I used to also have a developer profile but I haven't really done any development for a few years. That was pretty refined and seemed to learn the languages that I was most interested in.
In each case, the profiles were made by using different email addresses. I have a different email address for the different accounts. I try to avoid cross-pollination between them but I haven't been as good with that as I'd like to have been. I can only speculate that the results would be even more precise if I had done so. As I mentioned above, I did use a third email account but I've not logged into that one in quite a while. It seemed to pick up that I was into PHP, JavaScript, HTML, and was using Wordpress or SMF. I don't know how effective it would be with other languages.
Your mileage might vary, but that sums up my observations and experiences. In my case, I made a clear choice to give up some privacy in exchange for something I value - namely more efficient search results that are more effective and personal.
Again, all an anecdote but I have made it a point to test the results against non-personalized results and the difference is very noticeable and very good. I am much, much happier with the personalized results.
I slam on Google, a lot. I complain about Google - to the point where peop...
Google Analytcs and ads are so widely that most of your browsing will be tracked regardless of browser, even regardless of your search engine (but the search engine is also quite major since they can track what you were trying to search for before jumping into the web).
But there's also a privacy policy explaining what chrome actually sends: https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/privacy/
A company known for tracking the ever-loving shit out of everyone across the Internet distributes a best-in-class web browser absolutely for free. If that's not enough, I really hope you're able to hold on to that innocence as you start using the Internet more and more in the future.
This isn't difficult to test: sandbox default chrome in a VM and see what happens.
But they don't need to because of your point. uMatrix makes it plenty clear all your bits are belong to Google.
Prove to me that Google is tracking me through Chrome. Link me to an article with proof of collection.
Most of us our developers here, surely we can apply some more rigor to this conversation then “we know Google is doing this because it’s Google”.
you'll see your browsing history, which unless you have a preference turned off deep within settings, Google may then use to target advertising.
Google made a name for themselves giving away very expensive products for free because it furthered their tracking and advertising network. It's not only safe to assume Chrome is the same way, it's dangerous to think otherwise. Google paid $3b for DoubleClick 10 years ago, that wasn't wasted money.
Sure, it "furthers their tracking and advertising network".
But do they track you through chrome, as asked?
I have Google Analytics on my startup's SPA when it can't even be crawled by Google due to the framework we use. The only logical explanation is that Chrome sends data back on the sites you visit.
* Any of the disableable features like safe browsing
* Addon code update checks (chrome web store)
* Certificate pinning list updates
* CA certificate bundle updates
* Browser code update checks
* Uploading crash reports
* HSTS list updates
* Settings synching
I also believe Firefox has analogues for every single one of these.
What it comes down to is that Chrome sends a whole bunch of information about me to a company who's main product is serving ads. I don't know exactly what data they send or how they use it, and that in and of itself is a major problem.
In the end, sure, Firefox does the same things. But Mozilla's core business isn't selling my personal information to the highest bidder, so I trust them more than I do Google.
Either there is proof, or there is not. The burden of proof is on the one making the argument.
So which is it?
If that was true, new accounts wouldn't be clearly marked as green in the comments.
How is that relevant? Astroturfers etc have been buying old well-historied accounts for ages now, so it's not a very reliable method of distinguishing shills anymore. It's only useful for sockpuppets and amateur shills.
It's not unique to Chrome. There are additional sync options that are available to Chrome, but those are all opt in.
https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
Maybe that's just me though.
"Is Firefox Quantum significantly better than Chrome? No. But they are on par again"
Well this ringing endorsement sure sold me. Anyone else? Bonus: you can mix your own Firefox Quantum using two regular Firefox Colas, some Jet and Nuclear Materials at any crafting bench.
It's a different story if you are just browsing, like the 95% or more of the internet consumers.
One thing I like about firefox is that its debugger is a just a React webapp : https://github.com/devtools-html/debugger.html. So it's fairly easy to add to it !
I don't know the stack, but I do remember there is a way to open dev tools FOR the dev tools window.
I did not know that.
If you go to the devtools settings you can add a lot of cool tools to the main pane including a canvas debugger and some other useful stuff.
One essential feature for me is being able to pause the debugger and use the mouse selector on DOM elements, which doesn't work in Firefox right now. This is pretty much the only way I know how to inspect and debug popups.
I had more trouble finding this setting than I should have. Appears to be hamburger menu -> customize -> (bottom of page) density drop-down -> select compact. Still not sure if I like it. The tabs alone are still way too big for my liking.
Coupled with Ubuntu 17.10 and the Gnome that brings, the top of screen is going to be eaten up by way more UI than I would like. Is there any way to get Gnome to have a unified Ubuntu/application menubar like Unity?
Assuming it's the same as every Firefox since they started copying Chrome, the alt key should bring up the old-fashioned (and much more usable) menu bar.
It probably won't land in time for 57, but hopefully soon!
Putting this into there should shrink it down a bit further:
Obviously, you can replace those 24px with even smaller values. it just starts to look silly at some point, because the icons get squished. There's probably a way to tell those icons to scale down differently, if you do want to go even smaller.You can load the URL "chrome://browser/content/browser.xul" to get the browser UI displayed like a webpage, allowing you to easily use the devtools to inspect the different CSS identifiers, so that you can mess around a bit by yourself.
[1] http://kb.mozillazine.org/index.php?title=UserChrome.css
I was so harsh with them only because I strongly believe that Firefox is my only hope for a free web.
But then I tried 57, and I must admit, boy was I wrong. This thing is fast! I haven't stopped recommending it to friends and colleagues!
Good job folks!
Glad to see they got it to work.
It seems at some point they became aware of how unsuited C++ is for parallel processing, and how important it would be for browsers in the future. Even compartmentalization or running tabs in their own process is a form of parallelization. This requires an efficient way of sharing memory and preventing race conditions and errant writes, as well as a way to protect these processes from cross-site scripting attacks, buffer over- and underruns, etc.
Computing hardware has also moved on from the CPU-centric world and the gains in battery life from dedicated GPU hardware being used even for rendering tasks, and now for font processing and other things were too good to pass up.
I'm a long time follower of Mozilla's development, and extremely excited about what's happening with Firefox.
(I'm also currently a Chrome user, leaving in large part due to profile corruption issues and inferior built-in development tools. I hope to be able to run Firefox and WebRender on both Ubuntu and Windows.)
are you referring to microsoft's com (component object model)?
Rust actually has a similar mechanism in its standard lib, the Result enum whuch resembles Maybe from Haskell, but has either a returned value if successful (which can be the empty object ()) or an Error.
XPCOM was modeled on the Microsoft version using the same vtable tricks that it used to enable dynamic dispatch through interfaces.
Edit: if there is any, can someone give me a link to the part of the source tree that has it?
otherwise here's the list: http://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/search?q=&path=*.rs%24
And many of the Rust things that make FF56+ fast can be found here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Quantum
Do they also have any write-up on how did they find Rust during these changes? Was the back count lower than usual? Did the see an increase on productivity?
There is https://blog.servo.org/, but it's mostly gradual updates on things, not a general overview.
- The URL parser (rust-url). This is not shipping, because it's incomplete and there are some mismatches to deal with. But it exists.
- Stylo: Servo's CSS engine in Firefox. By far the biggest one, this is shipping in beta and nightly, and should be there in the 57 release for everything but Android
- webrender: Servo's GPU-focused renderer. Not shipping, can be flipped on in nightly. Still has work to be done
- encoding-rs: All encoding operations go through this now. Shipping
- The U2F stuff: A lot of the U2F code is in Rust. Shipping in nightly though I think it's still off by default (but that will change soon?)
As far as the location of the code:
The root rust crate is at https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/toolkit/libr... . Everything can be reached from it, and the cargo file that has all these links is https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/toolkit/libr...
- All of Servo is vendored in tree in https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/servo . Not all of Servo is used, the majority of the used code is from https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/servo/compon...
- Webrender is vendored in tree in https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/gfx/webrende...
- The U2F HID stuff is vendored at https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/dom/webauthn...
- There's a bunch of stuff in libcubeb ; I don't even know what it's there for (https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/media/libcub...)
- You can find "c api" rust crates scattered throughout, like mp4parse_capi, rust-url-capi, encoding_glue . These depend on the actual crate (usually, a crate that's published to crates.io) but expose an API that C can call into
- Finally, any dependency from crates.io is vendored in https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/tip/third_party/... . Note that this includes build time dependencies (so you'll find crates that deal with CLI parsing and terminal color info that aren't actually used by firefox). Despite the folder being labeled "third_party", a lot of that code is maintained by us, but in separate repos and published to crates.io. In particular, large chunks of Servo are reusable published crates.
Perhaps if they focused on making web apps as capable as native apps first, it would have been a viable platform.
Gamepad API spec efforts began as part of this, for example. Then another vendor kicked their own inferior spec out the door without talking to anyone and that ended up being the de-facto standard (not the first time). Other APIs like exposing battery status, network connectivity status, and the ability to notify with vibration were in the works, just to name a few I remember.
I just believe that if Firefox dies then for sure "Open Web" will die.
But, yeah, of course I am not happy with Pocket. But it still better than using Chrome.
2. Mozilla Inc acquired it as a Commercial Proprietary Venture, not as a Open Source project under the Mozilla Foundation the non-profit
3. While it is Owned by Mozilla Inc, it of operated as a Separate Commercial Company separate from the Non-Profit so no it is "shares with it self"
4. The integration occurred long before the acquisition
There was some discussion of doing things this way back when it was still called Phoenix. The Seamonkey suite was bloated and slow, Phoenix was the stripped-down browser that just did web browsing but had an extension system to add in extra features. But instead of adding features through the extension system the Mozilla team decided to add them into the base.
Mozilla is now an enemy of the Open Web, the EFF is one of the last organizations left actually standing up for the Open Web. Mozilla is just another Commercial Browser with anti-user features
To be clear I am not laying all the blame at the feet of Mozilla, clearly the Open Web is not an important issue, as even in Linux circles there are countless people that have chosen Google over freedom, making endless excuses and justifications about why choosing chrome was just pragmatic but in making that "pragmatic" choice they sent a clear market signal that performance and netflix was more important the Open web, privacy, and user freedom.
They sent a clear market signal to Mozilla that principles do not matter, and Mozilla took that market signal to heart and turned its back on the Principles of the Open web and privacy to focus more on Performance and Usability to appease those users
This is not hyperbole, by the way: when you adopt the sort of you-agree-with-me-completely-or-you're-my-enemy rhetoric you're using here, well, people's lives are what you're saying you're willing to sacrifice. Mozilla could have taken a suicidal stand on principle, and I guarantee it would have hurt a significant number of people, and possibly led to lives lost (through joblessness, through emboldened powerful interests flush with victory over an all-in opposition, through any number of mechanisms).
So. How many human lives would it be worth to you to get EME out of browsers?
Meanwhile, the rhetoric I was responding to was very much of the "people who only 99.99999% agree with me will be first against the wall when the revolution comes" school of thinking.
Exactly so there was not need to include it in the Standard
>and web-based distribution of major popular media will use that DRM in whatever form it takes.
Lost of popular media does not use DRM at all
>and I've argued at length that killing DRM cannot be done via "principled stands"
No it can only be done by principled stands
>it has to be done via market forces, as it was with online distribution of music.
That was killed by a principled stand not by market forces, the record labels wanted DRM, consumer did not give a shit, a few companies made a principled stand to say no...
That said, even if you want to claim it should be market forces that dictate DRM, then let the market decide by not ham fisting it into a Standard for HTML5.
That distorts the market and is the exact reason MS, Google and Netflix wanted to ensure it was in the Standard so they would not have to explain to the market why the DRM was there, why X device did not work with their products or have to compete in the market place on DRM or no DRM. DRM is "standard" now so there is no market competition for it.
I love all the DRM supporters (which you clearly are despite your claims to not be) that say "DRM was inevitable and putting in the standard would not change anything" Well then why put it in the standard? If it does not change anything, if it does not change the market, if having it in the standard is pointless why did MS/Google/Netflix/MPAA fight so hard to get it in?
because it does in fact matter. It does in fact change the market, and the conversation. Something being a "Standard" normalizes it in the market, allowing it to deployed faster, easier and with less consumer backlash. That was the entire point of the EME Spec, to normalize DRM to the consumer to make it less controversial, and more palatable
Apple introduced a large legal online music store with DRM. Apple got huge. Huge enough that record labels got scared and needed to break Apple's position. They turned to Amazon to start a competing music store, but had a problem: they needed to have the music from Amazon play on devices from Apple, or else people wouldn't shop at Amazon's music store. Since Apple probably wouldn't license Apple's DRM (since, after all, it would be for someone to break Apple's market position), the only option left was DRM-free. And lo and behold, Amazon became the first big music store with major-label music available DRM-free. And once there was one DRM-free store, it became hard to argue, from a market perspective, that there should be any that weren't. So Apple's ended up DRM-free too!
Market forces. Not people taking stands on principle.
That said, even if you want to claim it should be market forces that dictate DRM, then let the market decide by not ham fisting it into a Standard for HTML5.
The fact that you keep claiming EME is DRM tells me that you either don't actually know how EME works or what it does, or that you are willfully lying about it. Which is it, please?
I love all the DRM supporters (which you clearly are despite your claims to not be)
And here we are, back at the assertion that anyone who differs from your position by even a tiny amount must actually be 100% your enemy in every way. This is the kind of thinking that the twentieth century taught us to be very careful around, because it tends to lead to lots and lots and lots of dead bodies, all of them people who were "guilty" of being insufficiently perfectly compliant with the stated ideal.
ROFL.... That is ... wow... Nothing about that is factually accurate, to state the Record Labels was the driving force behind DRM free Music...
Ummm No...
>>>The fact that you keep claiming EME is DRM tells me that you either don't actually know how EME works or what it does, or that you are willfully lying about it. Which is it, please?
The fact you believe EME has any other purpose except DRM tell me you do not actually know the purpose of EME, or what is does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPfdOOiuOHI
And just for the record, responses like "ROFL" and calling things "moronic" (as you did in your other comment) don't really make you look like you know what you're talking about or like you're someone who should be taken seriously.
And just for the record, responses like your revisionist history, and Hyperbolic non-sense don't really make you look like you know what your talking about or like you're someone who should be taken seriously
yes, yes it is
The idea the opposing EME and keeping EME out of the HTML5 Standard would have some how "cost lives" is moronic and hyperbolic to such a degree I will not even waste my time responding to it.
So imagine a world in which you get your way. Every browser is forced to un-implement EME, the standard is force-amended to not include it anymore, etc.
Now what? Well, what happens now is popular media stays popular, and continues to be delivered via big binary-blob plugins with horrible security properties.
What's the human cost of hacks? What's the human cost of the security issues those plugins open up? How many people end up financially ruined due to personal information being stolen? How many people end up on the street because their credit gets trashed? How many in prison because a plugin vulnerability turned their computer into a node for serving kiddie porn and murder markets over Tor?
It is nowhere near unreasonable to ask how many lives you'd consider an acceptable cost for defeating EME, because there absolutely would be a human cost to it. It's a human cost we're already paying right now, and the major argument in favor of EME is that it helps us reduce or eliminate that human cost.
And this is where single-issue "you are 100% with me or 100% my enemy" stances are proven to be utterly morally bankrupt. It's not just that you implicitly accept that human cost as a means to serving your end. It's that you won't even acknowledge that the cost exists. That puts you in the company of some very evil people, and should perhaps get you to re-think your position.
EME is big binary blob plugins called CDM's, EME is just a different API to access the binary plugins that will have (and have already had) all kinds of security issues
>What's the human cost of hacks? What's the human cost of the security issues those plugins open up? How many people end up financially ruined due to personal information being stolen? How many people end up on the street because their credit gets trashed? How many in prison because a plugin vulnerability turned their computer into a node for serving kiddie porn and murder markets over Tor?
Hyperbolic Much, Everyone Info is already out there now and it was not Flash or Java or any browser vunerablity at all that caused it. The idea that the source of people having their Credit Card data and other personal info stolen is the browser shows your ignorance in the field of InfoSec.
Browser are a source for Fraud and Ransomware. Databases of Ruin are targets for ID Theft, that is the database of Large Corporations like Equifax, Target, Yahoo, Anthem, Sony, Adobe, Ebay, etc etc etc
Companies that collect and store PII, they are not hacking individual computers to obtain PII, they are dumping databases
>>It is nowhere near unreasonable to ask how many lives you'd consider an acceptable cost for defeating EME, because there absolutely would be a human cost to it. It's a human cost we're already paying right now, and the major argument in favor of EME is that it helps us reduce or eliminate that human cost.
So you assume in this moronic equation of your that there are zero lives lost in the implementation of EME, The sharing of knowledge via the open web is a huge driver of getting people out of poverty, and improving the lives of billions world wide. In change political regimes that abuse, and torture their population.
How many lives will be lost because all knowledge is locked into wall gardens and accessible only via "approved" platforms, and only for "approved" purposes.
The plugin world had big binary blobs that need the ability to absolutely control at least most or all of the browser and possibly other parts of the computer too.
The EME world has far smaller binary blobs communicating over a narrow defined API which does not give them control of the browser.
So. You don't actually know what you're talking about, and resort to misrepresentations and insults to try to cover up for it. Real great "principled" stand you're taking there.
So it is you that do not know what you are talking about
Please point to the portion which backs your assertion.
And staying true to their mission, Mozilla bought Pocket and is now releasing it as open source [1].
You're speaking of "betraying the foundation of the Open Web", but Mozilla is the only one out of the big players that isn't guilty of betrayal, the only big player that tried opposing patent encumbered video codecs or DRM, that have been promoted by Google, Microsoft and Apple, the W3C being basically a charade.
If you're upset of W3C EME, your anger should be directed at the parties responsible for it, which are Google, Microsoft and Netflix and which now control the industry, with a majority market share I might add, which would make all resistance moot.
So I hope you're boycotting Google, Microsoft and Netflix, because otherwise it's unfair to expect that from Mozilla, an organization with a responsibility towards its employees, users and customers.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/02/27/mozilla-acquires-po...
I will believe that when I see the code. 7 months now still no code, and outside of the single blog post no other comments from Pocket, Read It later, or Mozilla has given any indication they will Open Source it. In fact Read It Later is still a for profit corporations operating as a subsidiary of the For Profit Mozilla Corporation, not the Mozilla Foundation the non-profit organizations
>Mozilla is the only one out of the big players that isn't guilty of betrayal, the only big player that tried opposing patent encumbered video codecs or DRM
They did... When???
>If you're upset of W3C EME, your anger should be directed at the parties responsible for it, which are Google, Microsoft and Netflix
I can be upset with W3c, Netflix, Google, Microsoft and at the same time be upset with Mozilla.
I am more upset with Mozilla because they are a Non-Profit organization that had (and I stress Had) a mission to promoting Open Standards, Open Web, and User Privacy. They have turned their back on that when those issues became less popular than performance. They turned their back on those principles because market share.
They have stopped attempting to education the public on why they should care about EME, about privacy, about anything really.
I find it sad that Mozilla is no longer a leader creating conversations about why the Open Web is needed for Society, about way Standing up for Privacy and User Freedom is important. Instead they have choosen to play follow the Leader to MS and Google.
Where is the 1990's Mozilla when Microsoft wanted to maket Active X a Standard and they stood up and said NO
Where is the 2000's Mozilla when w3c wanted to drop HTML in favor of XHTML and they formed WHATWG to force the W3C in to adopting HTML5 we have today.
Where did the Leader in the open Web go? Where did Mozilla go and what is this abomination that replace it?
I always felt that Mozilla was just forced in a role it never really wanted.
If you remember Mozilla was a child of the browser wars and my guesss is that if Netscape wasn’t cornered by MS it would still be closed source today.
Even today you can see that business is still in their DNA, the for-profit subsidiary.
However although Mozilla is far from perfect, they are our only hope.
It was the internal codename and user-agent for netscape and became the name of mozilla a reminder that their objective is to be the number 1 browser and the new target to replace had been IE.
It was killed by moving focus from users and long term to quarterly profits and short term, around the time Jonvon Tetzchner was pushed to leave the company.
wait are you talking about the leader in the open web or about mozilla here ?
It's arguably not so smart to spend millions of dollars to buy the company behind pocket to release it opensource when an opensource alternative already exists.
Turns out mozilla did not buy pocket as much as the 10 millions user base and 1 billion saved link to get a foot on the mobile platform and helps with their upcoming recommendation engine. Not exactly putting the user first.
Besides there's no integration of pocket into shaarli whereas wallabag has one. Also where is the option to self host a pocket service ?
Not sorry, but pocket sucks on many counts compared to open source alternative.
I've been boycotting microsoft (because microsoft), google (because privacy), apple (because vendor lock-in), netflix (because pollution and bandwidth saturation and killing p2p) was before mozilla made its betrayal to their own words for their own profit. Yup I tend to boycott all opponent to net neutrality and open web. Neither google, microsoft, apple, nor netflix bear responsibility for mozilla deciding to bake support for DRM for fear of becoming irrelevant. To me they showed that they do not put their money where their mouth is and as such are not worthy of trust, also their priorities are not aligned with an open web based on their actions.
Had mozilla been serious about opposing they would not have implemented it in their browser to be netflix compatible out of fear of losing market share. I've had a difficult time reconciliating myself with mozilla "let's do one evil here so we can try to do one good there" approach to things.
To set the records straight, Free Software has nothing to do with choice, as can be seen by how GCC and other projects were developed.
I did try wallabag. I appreciate the effort of its developers, I wish the project succeeds, but the mobile apps are pieces of shit compared with Pocket. So arguably, that open source alternative you're speaking of does not exist.
I really don't understand how Mozilla is not putting the users first, because by their actions, it seems to me like they are.
The really interesting phenomenon however is that I'm not seeing the same vitriol whenever Google's Chrome is being discussed on HN. It's like there's this really vocal minority that really wants Firefox to die, this comment included. No worries, if the current trends holds, Firefox will end up being dead and then you'll be able to have a choice between Chrome, Edge or Safari.
Or you'll be able to fork Firefox, invest in whatever projects you want to invest, build whatever features you want to build and in general put your money where your mouth is.
Can't wait to see that happening. Good luck.
For these reasons I switched to waterfox.
The other thing that I've been waiting for is better multi-profile support. You can get a (pre-release) version of that now by opting into the Containers experiment: https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/containers
What's it changing to, moving forward?
What does Containers add? If the only answer is "a more convenient UI", then that's good enough for me!
It's more similar to a private browsing session, except things aren't forgotten, and you can have as many as you like. And they're tab level so you can treat them they same way you would a tab.
Other way around. Profiles retain configuration and extensions between sessions.
Containers: Use the same configuration and extensions across different containers in one running Firefox instance.
Both retain configuration and extensions between traditional browser sessions (start/stop). Containers additionally "retain" configuration and extensions across contextual sessions/identities.
Sometimes that's what you want, and profiles certainly aren't going anywhere. But the idea behind Containers is just that you can be logged in to separate accounts simultaneously in multiple containers.
In practice, that means a better and more convenient UI. Containers work on a per-tab basis, so you can have multiple tabs logged in to the same account right next to each other, instead of in different Firefox processes. Plus, you can right click on a link and select "Open in New Container Tab".
So while Containers are more than a UI on top of Profiles, it practice one of the main advantages is the convenience of the UI.
And it's definitely a reason to switch to Firefox. Keeping personal and work Google and AWS accounts open and separate simultaneously is really nice.
Unfortunately the UI has always been sort of hidden.
You can launch with `-P` or `-ProfileManager` to get a profile selection menu. Or nav to `about:profiles` for a slightly more convenient (but less attractive) version.
Firefox profiles are great. Better than Chrome profiles, though less convenient, for now. Interested to see how Containers fits in.
Firefox's new Containers aren't perfect, but I'm giving them a go and since they're in testing still I can submit feedback to influence their direction.
macOS (and OS X before it) is more work. The Finder will switch to the running instance if there is one, instead of launching a new one each time you click. I worked around that with an AppleScript (for the icon and double-clickability) that calls a shell script with the proper args.
It sounds sketchy when I describe it, and is clearly not an obvious option for most people, but it has worked perfectly and invisibly for years.
My solution on macOS is an AppleScript with the usual Firefox name and icon, installed in the usual location, which runs a shell script with the proper args to pop the profile manager in a new session (`-ProfileManager -no-remote`).
The real Firefox binary is buried in a nondiscoverable location (`$HOME/Applications/.Firefox`) so that it doesn't get launched directly.
...but after getting around to making that work seamlessly, many forgotten years ago...Firefox profiles really have been great. :)
I have one Chrome profile for my personal apps, and one for work -- creating a new tab in one of the windows will automatically open it with the same context as the rest of the window. My experience with Firefox was that I'd have to manually choose which profile to open the tab in.
1. This required me to use my mouse (geh, maybe I could use keybindings to change this though? not quite sure how difficult that would be) 2. I'm not sure if this is just a me thing, but if I create a tab stemming from my 'personal' gmail account there's a pretty strong chance that it should also be a 'personal' tab. Maybe this is just a difference in how me and the Firefox team use tabs though?
Once I figure out how to get around those issues, (and when Streak's gmail extension works on Firefox...) that's when I'd be able to move over.
edit: apparently Firefox has had true instance profiles for ages! awesome. now I'm just waiting on Streak lol.
* It's way too easy to open new pages in the wrong container, and you can't convert an existing tab into another container. By the time you've opened a tab it's too late. Solution is to copy URL, create new tab, paste URL, which is a lot to do.
* There's no "New tab in same container" keyboard shortcut or button.
* If you click on a URL in a different app, or from the shell, you get a new tab in the default container.
* There's no way to designate an entire window or macOS space to a container. I have all my work stuff in a separate space, and no personal stuff should interfere. Similarly, if I'm already in a window full of, say, Google Cloud-related tabs, I don't want to clutter that window with containers.
The idea is great, but the implementation is nowhere close to being practical.
Chrome's profiles are too heavy-weight, but it has the right idea about the ability to couple window with profiles, because windows are "collections of tabs", and the most natural-feeling container of pages.
The current container extension uses the default container for new tabs and windows, which is a bit cumbersome, because you have to remember to open new tabs and windows in the current container. If it were associated with a space, it's just inherit the container from the current space.
But often it's the small things that make or break it. For me it was that HTML5 videos don't fullscreen to a new workspace on macOS like they do in Chrome or Safari.
If you've tried the stable version, the stable version is still one version behind the changes that are coming.
I honestly recommend giving it a go again in two months.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/refresh-firefox-reset-a...
If it still happens and you want to dig into it a little further the profiler at http://perf-html.io/ allows you to gather and dig into + share details that can help fix.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=firefox-...
Just one study among many, but, worth keeping in mind. Firefox is making strides, but Mozilla still has work to do if they want to stop losing market share. I say this as a Firefox user.
That's a comparison on real websites rather than browser benchmarks.
But yeah, while the technical crowd sees Mozilla as favorable at roughly equal performance, the vast majority of unknowing users are probably more influenced by the world's most popular webpage, video portal, e-mail service, operating system etc. all nudging them to use Chrome.
It'll be interesting to see, if Firefox 57 can generate another major bump in that user graph like it happened with Firefox 48, or if 48 was at sort of the sweet spot where Firefox became acceptable again for most of the tech crowd and now we'd be digging into the non-tech crowd, which is much harder to pull away from what they're habitually using.
But good news, Firefox 57 will probably actually fix that. By 1) breaking unmaintained extensions for good and 2) switching to an extension API which makes it much harder for extension developers to make such mistakes.
Also, I don't know if this will be in 57, but extensions will probably eventually run in individual processes as well. And then you could just shoot down the process of the offending extension.
Something else is wrong. For years, I've regularly had >100 tabs open for weeks at a time.
Back to Chrome it is.
I can use Hangouts for simple messaging from Firefox, but as soon as we need to hop on a call I need to boot up Chrome. Often I forget and try to answer in Firefox just to get the error message. Then I have to start Chrome, login to gmail if it's logged out, wait for everything to load, and then answer the call. Ends up taking a fairly long time to answer an incoming call sometimes.
There is no need to point any fingers, but I find it interesting that for years now we've had key players in major browsers sit around at conferences and talk up how much they're working together on standards yet this is where we end up.
While FF 57 is usable on my Thinkpad 42p I can not say it is twice as fast as the previous version. Maybe the speedup depends on having a multi-core CPU, something which is notably absent in this 2004-vintage machine. Be that as it may, I think FF 57 is about as fast as its predecessor in general: faster in some tasks, slower in others, notably slower in scrolling.
I think their specific claim was twice as fast as Firefox 52 on one benchmark:
https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/quantum-performance-test/
Extremely disappointed that Mozilla has basically given a big middle finger to the SeaMonkey/Thunderbird (comm-central) communities with the removal of XUL/XPCOM add-ons, necessity of multi-process, introduction of webextensions, removal of support for complete themes (show me a single Persona that doesn't look like shit), etc. in FF 57.
The reverberations of this decision are so stark that the SeaMonkey council has announced that it can no longer build off of the nightly mozilla-central tree; they're in the process of building RELEASES from the Firefox ESR branch. It's an absolute mess.
Hmm... August, 2015.
And then they needed to follow up with the switch to WebExtensions relatively quickly, so that extension authors wouldn't start porting their extensions to multiprocess and then after that effort have to rewrite their extensions to be WebExtensions-compatible. They wanted extension authors to be able to just directly port to WebExtensions.
And I do think that a lot more extension authors would have probably abandoned their projects, if they had just ported to multiprocess and then had to port to WebExtensions.
Also, a lot of extensions sort of just continue to function without active maintenance. Those are why it would have just as well been really disruptive to space out multiprocess and WebExtensions by a few years. Then we'd have to start over at 0 extensions twice.
[1] Multiprocess was rolled out in Firefox 48, on the 2nd August 2016: http://netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=1&qpaf=&qpcustom...
Mozilla kept pushing developers to make their XUL extensions multiprocess-compatible even after WebExtensions was announced. At one point, they were going to keep the multiprocess compatibility shims until the WebExtensions deadline, but then they decided to start removing them sooner.[1] SDK extensions were mostly multiprocess-compatible already.
Developers are currently maintaining multiple branches of their extensions because 52 ESR is missing APIs and 57+ won't support hybrid extensions. Aligning the WebExtensions transition with the ESR cycle would have made things a lot easier for them.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/02/16/the-road-to-firef...
Perhaps normal users don't care (or just haven't noticed yet), but most of the features which make the Mozilla platform so enticing to power users (what ever happened to XULRunner?) are being decimated because Mozilla is losing market-share and needs free advertising.
Let's not beat around the bush; Mozilla is losing market-share because people get flustered into downloading chrome due to that Microsoft-tier advert that gets plastered onto the google search page in any non-Chrome browser. Yes, Firefox had been feeling chuggier and bloated for awhile, but the core feature-set that made the platform a dream to use for power users never waned. Speeding up the browser while retaining its core feature-set are not mutually exclusive conditions.
I think that if these "normal" users understood how powerful complete themes and the XUL/XPCOM apis are, they would be up in arms. It's not that people don't want complete themes, for example. Were it not for Mozilla's incompetence (there's a bug somewhere that tracks how the total reported download count for complete themes was inexplicably reduced to just 10% of what it previously was, never recovering; there used to be hundreds of thousands of users of complete themes around ~2007-2009), such as the time wasted making incessant changes to the core browser theme that nobody asked for (nothing has ever looked as good as the Suite/SeaMonkey), is what has truly been the cause of these 'modernizations.'
XUL and the add-on SDK are so powerful that I basically re-created two old unix programs ('picons newscheck-faces' and 'xfaces' [0]) over the past couple of weeks. This simple XUL/XPCOM project of mine now brings an incredibly fast & powerful cross-platform solution to two of my favorite old mail visualization programs that have suffered extreme bit rot (I swear more people used Plan 9's vismon than the verious picons/faces programs).
When the legacy add-on api removal finally hits SeaMonkey, my whole extension will cease to function. In fact, it doesn't even work in the current SeaMonkey 2.54a1 nightly. Can you explain to me a similar cross-platform browser/mail client that provides similar APIs for me to rebuild my extension? The answer is no, because in a couple of months the one that did will no longer exist.
Anyway, my point is that I'm not exactly sure who Mozilla is targeting with the Firefox 57 release — perhaps their jet-setting upper management; perhaps nobody.
[0]: http://kinzler.com/picons/ftp/demo/
https://i.imgur.com/EnDMKuO.png
https://i.imgur.com/k40BISq.png
https://i.imgur.com/lvv9REm.jpg
(features not even pictured above: Face header decoding, X-Face header decoding, X-Image-URL header, and Contact Card Image support)
edit: also, as the one guy that has been updating the internal chrome:// url page in recent years, show me a browser that gives this amount of access to its internal to...
The same marketing that insisted that Mozilla shift their major version on every release, and that keep producing sugar coated videos for the most vapid of reasons.
Face it, the FOSS world has become a bastion of champagne pimping social climbers that just want to add to their score card that they have worked on something with a "humanitarian" angle.
On that note, i guess there is always the option of helping out with Palemoon before they go through with their planned rebase on a more recent Firefox release...
I agree with your point about the shift in major version releases — this was another marketing ploy to 'catch up' to Chrome (who, for whatever reason, popularized the ridiculous practice of tagging releases with huge numbers).
When it comes to add-ons, this bigger-is-better mindset/fallacy is one of the things that Mozilla touts about the ~2000 new web-extensions on AMO. What they fail to mention is how many of these are just utterly useless (or whose core functionality is bested by something like youtube-dl, mpv, using the dev tools, etc.). People don't want the highly limited feature-set provided by web-extensions, they want add-ons that integrate themselves deep into the browser internals (noscript), leverage the add-on sdk, or modify the browser chrome:// in some way.
Edit: I cannot speak about the FOSS community as a whole (I only have experience in academia/government work), but from what I have read online about Mozilla's internal leadership, it currently seems like a difficult place to work if you legitimately care about these kinds of issues.
As for Palemoon, (I have made this clear in previous posts on HN and reddit), but I generally consider that project to be less than a joke. It would take an absolutely herculean amount of time and energy to keep their feature-set even with Firefox while retaining all of the stuff that is being decimated from mozilla-central. It's never going to work. They should focus their attention on SeaMonkey (comm-central) instead of wasting their time.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/herbal-guitar... — especially with the new Photon UI (57)
https://i.imgur.com/z3cM8ve.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Oa875od.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/b5ZpLaO.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Se4rYJc.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ynphRKv.jpg
But as some point, too much was too much. Unable to bear vanilla, Google-owned Chrome, I ended up in (closed-source!) Vivaldi. It was...alright.
About two months ago, I tried out FF Nightly. And by god, it's the best browser I've ever used. And the Nightly builds are (typically) _more_ stable than production-issue from other vendors.
So very happy to be back! Mozilla may have their issues, but I'll gladly take imperfect and pro-user over differently imperfect and profit-driven any day.
I actually managed to crash nightly yesterday! Maybe this seems like it ought to be banal, but I think it says something admirable when users are surprised to remember that your pre-beta software is pre-beta. :P
I'm pretty sure Twitter engineers get paid well. Same for Uber. They've got loses for a long time now. (But they have revenue) Profits definitely don't pay salaries there.
Of course, non-profit corporations are still able to turn profits as well. They just can't distribute dividends to shareholders.
There are restrictions around what 501(c)(3)s can do. The existence of Firefox helps push the goals of Mozilla Foundation, and also bring extra money to the table of the non-profit (but not unbounded! There are similar restrictions on how much money can travel back that way)
This is not an uncommon pattern, see https://www.americanbar.org/publications/blt/2014/06/03_levi...
"Profits are unpaid wages" is a nonsensical statement.
Even if the owners care more about their employees than about profit, that profit still has to come first. No profit... sooner or later, no company.
There's even a category of enterprises successfully working in such a framework. They're called–oh happy day–"non-profits".
They are cooperatives, all employees and customers can vote on all decisions, and surplus profit is either reinvested or paid out to employees and customers.
Yes, they can.
> because companies exist to make a profit.
They may or may not. Companies generally exist to serve their owners interests, which may or may not be profit. And the owners may be the employees, as in a labor coop.
> No profit... sooner or later, no company.
You know there are not-for-profit companies, right? (Not necessarily tax exempt nonprofits, which have additional behavioral.and other restrictions.)
Yeah, I switched to Nightly a couple releases ago (I'd use Dev edition before that because in the past Nightly used to be really unstable) and it's been great. The only time I've been getting crashes are when I flipped stylo on early (which was to be expected), and a couple of random crashes here and there.
In fact, I've had more problems in Chrome (Stable) these last two weeks, where their devtools hanged everything in multiple cases and Netflix wasn't working at all. And Chrome isn't my primary browser -- I only use it for Hangouts and Netflix (Netflix is force of habit, it works great in Firefox now). (I used the devtools because I'm using the new rewritten devtools in Firefox Nightly and they don't have a prettyprint button right now)
Netflix doesn't work great in either Firefox or Chrome, but that's not the browser's fault. Netflix only streams 720p video to Firefox, Opera, and Chrome whereas it will stream 1080p or better to Safari, IE 11, and Edge:
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742
You can see the playback details (formats, resolution, bit rate, etc.) of the video you're currently watching on Netflix by pressing Ctrl+Shift+Alt+D.
I use Safari to view Netflix though I'd prefer to use Firefox. I'm paying Netflix for access to 1080p video, but I only actually get 1080p video with Safari.
Also in the past Firefox's media stack used to be a bit more RAM-hog-y, but that's no longer the case IME either. I still stick media stuff in a different browser so that if I'm doing a build or something expensive I can just close the browser.
Yeah, that's due to DRM.
The simple solution is to disable the EME plugin, and just pirate everything (while still paying for Netflix). You pay for it, and have a moral right to it, and you can watch it in 1080p or 4K easily.
So this is a question that very much depends on ideology and jurisdiction. (I, personally, think that if I pay for Netflix and Amazon Prime, I have a moral right to any older content, and if I pay for a movie ticket for newer content that’s twice as expensive as a DVD of which the cinema gets less than 10%, I have a moral right to rewatch it)
-an extension to allow to treat chrome + firefox history and open tabs as one on all devices (basically what I already have with chrome on desktop + mobile)
-a password manager that integrates with both (this one should be easy enough .. just buy lastpass or an alternative).
Tangentially, this is a rare moment when I want a service to charge me money to assure myself that they are adequately incentivized to take my service/business seriously.
Additionally, it's probably not helping that their historical pricing model makes no sense for users who interact with many platforms on a daily basis. I didn't even know it had changed until I re-checked it after reading your comment.
Just my 2¢ as someone who previously considered 1Password once upon a time, and dismissed them. They may deserve a fresh look these days, but now they're competing against much more robust competitors than they were back in 2010(?).
If you like it, offer it.
That turned a lot of people off from 1Password.
Since my primary workstation and primary laptop now both run Arch Linux -- which 1Password has no desire to support (and don't even mention how shitty the Windows version runs under Wine) -- I'm back to where I was years ago, running KeePass/variants. I don't expect to switch to anything else for a long time -- my "secrets" are mine and only mine, once again.
But maybe I'll explore this.
I'm still missing one extension (Join for Android), but I can live without it for now and might actually just help joaoapps in developing it.
One thing that annoyed me was the large min tab size as I didn't like scrolling tabs. Someone on Reddit pointed me to the right userChrome.css tweak though [1]
Overall I'm pretty happy being back on Firefox after many, many years.
[0]: https://github.com/smorks/keepasshttp-connector/releases
[1]: https://github.com/Timvde/UserChrome-Tweaks/blob/master/tabs...
AFAIK Firefox extension is pending addition of push API support in extensions. Joao has filed a bug report[0] for that, but there hasn't been much activity on it for some time.
[0]:https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1378096
I'm not using the beta or nightly builds because I'm lazy. However, Firefox with containers has sold me and I've switched to it for everything except development. I'm too used to Chrome Dev tools it's been hard to switch :|
I absolutely love Firefox+Containers though. I just wish I could make it auto-open-in-container with wildcards. For example, open all *.mywork.com pages in my Work profile.
Add-on developer are still catching up, but I think that the majority will be ready for the 57 release in November. I tried switching maybe two weeks ago, and I couldn't, simply because of one extension that wasn't ported.
Looking around, and I was able to find out that they've been working on it and two days ago I've installed the testing version of the add-on and made a complete switch to Nightly.
Surely one would only offer Mozilla another chance once they have extended an olive branch, rather than a closed-circuit television camera?
Honestly, (unpopular opinion probably but) I'm really tired of this privacy-mania…
The "built-in video chat service" is a webstandard. Called WebRTC, got mainly pushed by Google. Every modern browser implements this. Mozilla just decided to build a service which implements the server-side of this protocol. Which they needed anyways to test their client-side implementation.
So, the only squandered time and energy is that of the UX people that polished that server-side implementation up for public use.
And in return for that, Mozilla got excellent testing of their client-side implementation and direct feedback, if maybe people would want the Foundation to allocate some money to run such a service.