Firefox 31.0(mozilla.org) |
Firefox 31.0(mozilla.org) |
Since there is no free-lunch, i'm pretty sure the people running those services are mining that data for advertising or something. I know google is with chrome. Malware protection and translator services phoning home on every page, and pre-fetch adding the links you haven't clicked yet to that list...
Font viewer, responsive design tools, the 3d view (very handy in debugging silly box model issues) and highlight painted area mode (handy in optimizing visualizations) are all things I love that I haven't been able to find good analogues for in other browsers.
Also, I'm pretty convinced the dev tools have some sort of memory leak in them. Every 3-5 days I have to restart Firefox or my game runs so slow it's unplayable. I don't think it has to do with my code because I've got no persistent store and refreshing the page doesn't fix it. Restarting the browser always does.
Sometimes the debugger gets confused and puts breakpoints on things I no longer have breakpoints on.
The profiler does not have a very useful view. I can't figure out how to delete reports I've made without closing the dev tools. More importantly, I can't find a convenient way to answer the question, "What are the slowest parts of this code?" I have to do a lot of manual labor expanding deeply nested trees.
As I said, it's pretty good. These are just things I'd like to see improved, not things that drive me crazy. I prefer the dev tools to firebug because firebug takes a relatively long time to start up.
Re: this update, I'm embarrassed to say I didn't know console.error even existed (I don't consider myself a JS expert). I've been using `throw new Error("message")`. Will that show stack traces now, too? I always have to put breakpoints on the line with the throw to figure out the call stack. This can add a lot of time to my debugging if I'm not sure how to reproduce the error.
You might want to leave feedback there.
I don't recommend using it any longer...
is there something similar for the built-in console?
Hi, Google. Would you just look at what I downloaded!
Same with clearing the download list. They removed that feature with the last major UI overhaul.
The number of tiny addons I have to install just to get features back that have been removed for no reason at all is starting to get too large...
Better support but not by Firefox and more discoverable, but not in Firefox...
I already have to use some user CSS because they removed the ability to set the tab min width via `browser.tabs.tabMinWidth`, because that property wasn't "worth it" according to one developer.
Edit: Turns out Classic Theme Restorer has an option for that.
That is a nightmare to set now if you want tabs to go below about 40 pixels, thanks to the Australis swoops. It used to be one line of CSS to set min width to 0-ish, now I have a giant blob of custom CSS on top of Classic Theme Restorer.
.tab-close-button { visibility: collapse !important; }
Chrome had an experimental version, but removed it for performance reasons:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink...
Usually it happens with Gmail so maybe there is a conspiracy there to drive adoption for Chrome :p
It looks like the prefs to enable it have been shipping beyond the nightly and are in the latest release.
EDIT: looks fairly stable. Back to Firefox.
[1] http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/process-...
- Ability to re-order existing panels in browser homescreen - Added ability to refresh synced tabs on demand
Just that Firefox itself shouldn't cause it any more.
"What happens when you download malware? Firefox checks URLs associated with the download against a local Safe Browsing blocklist. If the binary is signed, Firefox checks the verified signature against a local allowlist of known good publishers. If no match is found, Firefox 32 and later queries the Safe Browsing service with download metadata (NB: this happens only on Windows, because signature verification APIs to suppress remote lookups are only available on Windows). In case malware is detected, the Download Manager will block access to the downloaded file and remove it from disk, displaying an error in the Downloads Panel below.
How can I turn this feature off? This feature respects the existing Safe Browsing preference for malware detection, so if you’ve already turned that off, there’s nothing further to do. Below is a screenshot of the new, beautiful in-content preferences (Preferences > Security) with all Safe Browsing integration turned off. I strongly recommend against turning off malware detection, but if you decide to do so, keep in mind that phishing detection also relies on Safe Browsing."
The MathML torture test shoes some very nice progress[1] but makes me ask myself once again, why do TeX fonts always look like crap? Isn't that the one thing that TeX should get right? Anyway, at least they look great as rendered by Firefox 31.
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/MathML_Proj...
Finally! I've been waiting for this. This means we can drop the polyfill on MediaCrush soon. I'm also pretty excited about the add-on debugger.
I'm talking about actions you do multiple times an hour - opening a new tab, closing a tab, rearranging tabs etc.
This is with no extensions in use, on a mid-2011 fully specced out macbook air.
It's unfortunate but the lag is clear and I can't use it as my primary when I know a better solution is right in front of me, that being Chrome.
Hope to see this land in Chrome.
This should also only apply if you have the HTML5 player enabled on YouTube, the Flash player should still show the 1080p option.
EME is for browser video DRM.
I'm asking because of course some videos do not have a 1080p option in the first place.
status-firefox31: disabled
status-firefox32: fixed
Note the "we haven't seen any demand for this in our feedback channels".
Reading the changelog, it also mentions having local and remote blacklists, but how FF chooses which one to use wasn't clear to me. Local blacklists are not as scary to me for obvious reasons. Being able to use this without the remote blacklist would be nice.
I would really love some additional info on this feature from Mozilla, as well as a more user-friendly way of disabling it.
There's a third way according to the feature's development documentation [0]: uncheck "Options"/"Preferences" -> "Security" -> "Block reported attack sites".
[0]: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Features/Application_Reput...
1) Check local blacklist 2) Check local whitelist 3) If no hits on either, check remote service
> It’s important to note that any time Safe Browsing sends data back to Google, such as information about a suspected phishing page or malicious file, the information is only used to flag malicious activity and is never used anywhere else at Google.
* Unless the NSA has asked us to share it with them.
Edit: This is a serious concern. Google's promise not to use this data is completely meaningless in today's world.
But does it say the information is anonymized and promptly deleted, and nothing is logged?
* 47% improvement in malware detection with the current implementation
* 87% improvement in malware detection possible when the feature is complete
I can see why that trade-off was made.
But why not allow users to make their own choice and disable the privacy compromise easily?
They used to use a bloom filter with a regular download list, which would allow local checks without revealing every URL, but it looks like that changed at least for Chrome: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=71832
(safebrowsing.appRepURL for the curious)
but every page. as that service is run for every url. at least it was on aurora.
also, expect network pre-fetch links soon since google also likes that. so they can know what you visited even if you don't click it.
Instead of accepting that Firefox may indeed have performance problem, you immediately discount this possibility, instead blaming it on mr_november's computer.
It's irrelevant that it isn't happening on your laptop that's over 2 years newer than his is. It's irrelevant that it isn't happening on your Ubuntu system. None of that matters.
I don't doubt for a second that he is in fact running into performance problems with Firefox. He isn't alone. Many people report Firefox having worse performance than Chrome does on the same system. I've experienced this, too.
Yet instead of addressing and fixing these very real performance problems that have been brought up time and time again by many users, the Firefox community and developers seem content to deny that they exist, or refuse to consider that it may be a problem with Firefox (like you've done), or point to useless and totally unrealistic benchmarks to suggest it isn't a problem.
But worst of all is how mr_november's comment has been voted down. It's one thing to deny that the problem exists, but it's much worse to try to actively censor those who have merely pointed out a very legitimate and troubling issue.
Firefox has been losing market share for some time now, and this trend will only continue as long as Firefox's performance problems go unaddressed, and the Firefox community mistreats anyone who dares mention that such problems still exist.
"After two weeks, any associated information, such as your IP address, is stripped, and only the URL itself is retained." ( From: http://blog.chromium.org/2012/01/all-about-safe-browsing.htm... )
As a Firefox user, I really think it's poor form on the part of Mozilla to not provide any additional information or re-assurances on their website about the data captured and recorded by Google. Mozilla's slogan on their homepage is "Commited to your privacy and an open web". Being committed to privacy means being open and explicit about the data captured through their browser services, no matter how innocuous the data might seem. It also means presenting that information clearly and making it easy to find. People can then make informed choices about whether they want to use such services.
This is the sort of thing I would have expected them to have said:
"When you download a file from a web page, Firefox checks that the file does not contain a virus or malware before you save it. To check the file is safe to download, Firefox contacts Google to use a service they provide called Safe Browsing. Google checks if the file is harmful or safe, and sends this information back to Firefox (this normally happens in a few seconds). If the file is safe, Firefox will start the download. If the file is harmful, Firefox will block the download and display a warning message.
When Firefox uses the Safe Browsing feature, it needs to send Google information about your download. Google records the following information from Firefox: your IP address, the name of the file you are downloading, the address of the website, and [insert any other data recorded here]. [Also insert a re-assurance that Google does not keep a record of all your downloads against your Google account or against your IP address - assuming this is the case. Also explain how Google uses that info. and how long it's kept for etc.]
[Then finally explain how to switch off this feature if you don't want to use Google's Safe Browsing feature.]"
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XPCOM/...
Firebug 3.0 will be built on top of the native developer tools
Btw, here's a discussion that I found to be interesting as well: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19180494/which-advantages...
It's been a few years since I've written any Firefox code or touched XPCOM, so I could be looking on this without up-to-date information: I'd be interested if the Firebug authors or others have written any thoughts on struggles they have with this.
It's a shame that your comment has been voted down, as well. The more that the Firefox community goes out of its way to deny that users are unhappy, or even to censor them like in this case, the harder it will be for Mozilla to remain relevant.
Firefox is pretty much Mozilla's only semi-successful offering at this point, and even its market share has been steadily dropping (it's probably well under 20% by now). If this slide continues, nobody will have any reason to listen to Mozilla. Their influence over the web, already waning, will unfortunately become non-existent.
You could file a bug, but it'll be pretty much lost among the thousands upon thousands of other ones that already exist and haven't been dealt with.
You could comment here or in some other discussion forum, but those in the Firefox community will probably just vote you down, and continue to pretend that there isn't a problem.
You could write an article, but again, that probably won't help much, unfortunately.
The best thing to do may be to find an alternative browser, or use older browsers that aren't broken in this manner.
I just don't think that those working on Firefox these days truly care to listen to what the remaining Firefox users have to say. Time and time again lots of users have loudly expressed extreme displeasure with monumental mistakes like Australis and the removal of useful functionality, only to be totally ignored by the Firefox developers. I don't see why this situation should be any different.
This is about users having bad experiences when using Firefox. Your positive experience in no way negates these bad experiences.
We do.
> This is about users having bad experiences when using Firefox.
Every company creates bad experiences for some users. Hell, I've had bad experiences with Apple technical support, the apparent gold-standard of customer support.
> Your positive experience in no way negates these bad experiences.
And vice-versa. So what? What's the point? If I can't share my positive experience, they can't share their negative ones?
Maybe you think comments like "My experience was bad" is helpful and worthwhile. Maybe. But only if the inverse is true.
So, don't complain when people share anecdotes you don't like. Either accept them, or don't.
'Actively censor ... a troubling issue'? You make it sound like a police state.
Firefox has been losing market share for some time now, and this trend will only continue as long as Firefox's performance problems go unaddressed
Firefox's problem is shedding it's past reputation. It really isn't that slow anymore - it depends on what you're doing in the chrome vs firefox wars. I work with a bunch of chromeheads, and they all spurn ff because of that past reputation.
In actuality, they have as many problems with chrome as they do with firefox - I'm constantly saying "[bug] not evident on firefox" and they express puzzlement that The Awesomeness That Is Chrome actually has a problem other browsers don't. Not to mention that a lot of the bugs I do run into on FF are because of their 'designed-on-chrome-for-chrome' default mindset. The bugs do get sorted out, but the perception that FF is so much worse than chrome isn't reflective of the truth of the matter. They're pretty similar these days, swings and roundabouts.
As for Firefox's reputation, I think it still has a reputation for poor performance because, contrary to what you and others may claim, a lot of people still find recent releases to be slower than Chrome and other browsers.
It will never be able to shed its reputation for poor performance as long as it still suffers from those problems. And these problems will persist as long as the Firefox community continues to deny that they exist, or go out of their way to suppress discussion of these very real performance problems.
You and others involved with Firefox may choose to deny it, but a lot of people still find recent versions of Firefox to be slow and/or to suffer from stability problems.
For example, just look at the discussion at Slashdot today about the Firefox 31 release:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/07/22/1918237/firefox-31-r...
Here are some comments that specifically mention Firefox being slow and/or unstable:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5438731&cid=4751105...
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5438731&cid=4751077...
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5438731&cid=4751091...
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5438731&cid=4751127...
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5438731&cid=4751144...
Whenever Firefox is discussed, those kinds of comments seem to be quite common. While some may choose to brush them off, to me it indicates that Firefox has some real problems, and these problems just aren't being fixed. We wouldn't see people continually bringing up these problems if they truly had been fixed.
1) People making vague complaints on discussion forums or social media is not going to get the right information to the right people. We can't fix problems by spending all our time scavenging (HN|reddit|slashdot|whatever) for complaints. Even if we could, they wouldn't contain enough information to act on them. It's super important for the community to help us out: If you are having performance problems, you absolutely need to be filing them at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?format=guided
2) Just like any other type of bug, we cannot do anything about people's problems unless we know what is wrong. Ideally we would have information about the user's hardware and OS, which extensions they have installed (and better yet, is it reproducible with no extensions at all), steps to reproduce and diagnostic information to help us.
about:memory and the Gecko profiler (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Performance...) are essential tools that we provide for diagnosing this stuff. If you're savvy enough to be reading HN, you're savvy enough to use those, and you should attach output from those tools to the memory/perf bugs that you file.
3) For people who are not tech savvy, we try our best to analyze telemetry information on their behalf, but for privacy reasons we only do so on the release channel if users opt in. The more users that opt in to telemetry, the better the data that we receive.
4) Finally, IMHO many people need to come to grips with the fact that modern web browsers are much more complex and capable than their pioneers were. I see lots of complaining from people who want their browser to have the same memory footprint as Netscape 2.0 and that just isn't reasonable.