|
I added a note to the OP to remember if you changed the setting and try turning it off for the site through the shield icon. I kinda figured that since it added a UI element people would remember, but it is pretty subtle. I do think there's value in running both Tracking Protection and uBlock, as I still see Tracking Protection activate with a very comprehensive set of uBlock filters. It stands to reason that being built-in to the browser there will be lower performance overhead, especially if you can scale back your uBlock filter sets, but I invite benchmarking on this to confirm.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
Having some strange issues with Nightly (just nightly, not firefox stable) and some fonts. See: Anyone seen this before/know how to fix it? Minor irritation especially since Nightly is, barring a few stability issues, considerably nicer to use than the current FF version. oops nvm I remembered I installed a plugin for mactype that told me to make a bunch of about :config changes. reverted them and it looks decent again Generic Monk fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Does anyone have any idea how to fix my Firefox? Not sure when it started but fonts tend to be crisp/sharp and jagged rather than smooth. For comparison, the pic below shows how it looks like in FF on the left and the one on the right is Chrome and how it used to look like.  I've already disabled Reader Mode, no luck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Disharmony posted:Does anyone have any idea how to fix my Firefox? What website is this? Have you tried with a new Firefox profile? P.S. In the future you should save screenshots of things like this as .png instead of .jpg; the jpeg artifacts have somewhat ruined whatever you're trying to show here. Retaking them would be recommended. astral fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Jun 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Are you on Windows?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Yes, Windows 8.astral posted:What website is this? Sorry, my bad. Yes, just tried a new FF profile and nothing happened. Just to be sure, I tried doing comparisons on other typographic websites and it's the same thing. edit - I was able to fix it! Turns out gfx.font_rendering.directwrite.enabled was disabled. Disharmony fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Heads up-- Mozilla is removing the ability to change the newtab page in about :config. They're saying this is so that third parties can't hijack the page, but anyone with half a brain knows it is because Mozilla pays the bills by having companies throw money at them to have their ads injected into their lovely newtab page. Thankfully there is already third party addon already that is restoring ('hijacking', according to Mozilla :dog: ) the ability for a newtab to be blank and not display any ads or whatever. It's in the bottom of the above link. I swear my list of addons I have in place just to restore Firefox's UI to a version ~25 state is growing by the month. Not to mention all of the buttons they add on each new version I instinctively remove as soon as they appear. That's why I keep using Firefox though, because I can remove most of the poo poo I don't like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Thankfully there is already third party addon already that is restoring ('hijacking', according to Mozilla :dog: ) the ability for a newtab to be blank and not display any ads or whatever. It's in the bottom of the above link. You know, the default newtab page lets you set it to be blank already (click the gear), so I'm not sure why you'd install an add-on to do that. EDIT: jeeves posted:Thankfully there is already third party addon already that is restoring ('hijacking', according to Mozilla :dog: ) the ability for a newtab to be blank and not display any ads or whatever. If Mozilla considered this to be hijacking, they wouldn't have expressly added an API for replacing the newtab page in the patch that removed the about :config option. The difference here is important: with signed add-ons, Mozilla gets to review the code of things that change the newtab page, making it harder for malicious people to change the page, but still possible for users to make the change themselves (by installing an add-on). Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:You know, the default newtab page lets you set it to be blank already (click the gear), so I'm not sure why you'd install an add-on to do that. this seems to be implying that mozilla is actually able to sign addons before the literal heat death of the universe; i'd ask you to be less misleading
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Generic Monk posted:this seems to be implying that mozilla is actually able to sign addons before the literal heat death of the universe; i'd ask you to be less misleading The signing process has already happened for a lot of add-ons, including older versions of the add-ons already posted to AMO (they have a "-signed" suffix).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:The signing process has already happened for a lot of add-ons, including older versions of the add-ons already posted to AMO (they have a "-signed" suffix). They just blanket-signed all the old already-reviewed addons blindly. How many addons do you have that received a signed update after this bullshit started? Because I'm sitting at a big fat 0 out of 3 on that. Classic Theme Restorer (25th of June), Tab Mix Plus (25th of June) and Greasemonkey (29th of May) got updated since then and the update that was pushed was just the unsigned version because Mozilla can't get its poo poo in order.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:The signing process has already happened for a lot of add-ons, including older versions of the add-ons already posted to AMO (they have a "-signed" suffix). i was under the impression it drastically affected the speed that updates could be delivered since mozilla either don't have the manpower or don't care enough to sign updated versions
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Geemer posted:They just blanket-signed all the old already-reviewed addons blindly. It should come as no surprise that reviewing an add-on is what you do to determine if it should be signed. Geemer posted:Tab Mix Plus (25th of June) Tab Mix Plus doesn't have a version released on June 25th to AMO; the latest version, including on dev channels, is June 15th, which (as far as I can tell) is signed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Tab Mix Plus doesn't have a version released on June 25th to AMO; the latest version, including on dev channels, is June 15th, which (as far as I can tell) is signed. Oops, made a typo. I meant the 15th of June, not the 25th. And no, that version is not signed. You also purposefully ignored that Greasemonkey's latest update is half a month older and still isn't signed either, to "win" the argument by pointing out an error in my post. Also if we're being pedantic, Classic Theme Restorer was actually released the 24th. Avenging Dentist posted:It should come as no surprise that reviewing an add-on is what you do to determine if it should be signed. These updates I'm talking about are the reviewed versions that get pushed out by AMO through their plugin updater. Yet they're still not signed. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Geemer posted:They just blanket-signed all the old already-reviewed addons blindly. All AMO add-ons that have at least been preliminarily reviewed have already been signed. Classic Theme Restorer, Tab Mix Plus, and Greasemonkey were all automatically signed when the new versions were published. Mozilla used the "-signed" suffix only to bump the version number so that users would update to the new signed version without developers having to do anything. If a developer submits a new version, it will be signed when it is published, and it won't have the "-signed" suffix.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Applebees posted:All AMO add-ons that have at least been preliminarily reviewed have already been signed. Classic Theme Restorer, Tab Mix Plus, and Greasemonkey were all automatically signed when the new versions were published. Thanks for clarifying! I didn't know that. Sorry for making an rear end out of myself, then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Generic Monk posted:i was under the impression it drastically affected the speed that updates could be delivered since mozilla either don't have the manpower or don't care enough to sign updated versions The review process is, as far as I know, identical (note: I am not an AMO reviewer). In fact, with the move towards signed add-ons, I believe Mozilla has also been improving its automated checks for add-ons, so in the medium-term, add-on reviews should be a little faster. For what it's worth, I maintain a few Thunderbird add-ons, where the review process is very similar. My experience has been that small changes, e.g. compatibility fixes, usually get reviewed in a couple of days. Large changes, like new features or wholesale rewrites, can take a few weeks for manual review. Mozilla definitely needs to improve that aspect, but I don't think it's actually gotten worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
The only time you see the ads on the new tab page is a new install with no browser history, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
pseudorandom name posted:The only time you see the ads on the new tab page is a new install with no browser history, right? Currently yes, but I think that will change eventually. But it's two clicks to turn off, so it's not really a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Heads up, NoScript users:quote:Security researcher Linus Särud has uncovered a security vulnerability in the popular NoScript browser extension that could allow an attacker to run arbitrary JavaScript in a victim's browser. An exploit of this vulnerability could expose private data or lead users to download malicious software.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
That explains why I had to whitelist https://www.googleapis.com recently, but why is this a "vulnerability in NoScript"? Any browser not running NoScript is just as vulnerable to the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
That's a few days old now and it was fixed in only a few hours. quote:Reported to NoScript
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Tamba posted:That explains why I had to whitelist https://www.googleapis.com recently, but why is this a "vulnerability in NoScript"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:This parachute has a huge rip in it, but, you know, jumping without a parachute exposes you to the same risks, so I don't see why the parachute is considered faulty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
In retrospect, a badly chosen analogy. Maybe there is an issue with calling it a vulnerability. I just don't have a problem with fingers being pointed at NoScript for this, because I agree it shouldn't handle subdomains like that and I wouldn't have been aware it did if it wasn't pointed out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Im_Special posted:That's a few days old now and it was fixed in only a few hours. Yeah, the article I posted mentions the fix. My intent was to remind people to make sure they're up to date.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
solution: don't subject yourself to noscript
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Generic Monk posted:solution: don't subject yourself to noscript Less blocking, with none of the hassle!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Generic Monk posted:solution: don't subject yourself to noscript Well, we have uMatrix on Firefox now, which gives similar functionality with a better interface imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
wooger posted:Well, we have uMatrix on Firefox now, which gives similar functionality with a better interface imo. Holy poo poo, this is awesome. Thanks for mentioning it!
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
wooger posted:Well, we have uMatrix on Firefox now, which gives similar functionality with a better interface imo. was gonna be overly cynical about that but if i'm not mistaken this looks like it does the same thing as noscript but with he option of downloading curated blocklists, which likely makes it far less of a loving timewaster. may give this a go
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
So Firefox went from not even warning about sites with weak DH keys in 38 to outright blocking them in 39.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:I need troubleshooting help! I use Sync, and between my desktop, my laptop, and my Galaxy Note, something constantly causes my bookmarks to fall out of alphabetical sort order. In fact, I can't quite figure out what order their taking, to tell the truth. I solved this! I stopped Firefox for Android from syncing bookmarks, and now my sort order is being left alone. I'll turn it back on if I really want any new bookmarks to come on over, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Is there any way to turn off the Sync error from losing internet connection? Googled and checked about:config but there's nothing obvious there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Generic Monk posted:was gonna be overly cynical about that but if i'm not mistaken this looks like it does the same thing as noscript but with he option of downloading curated blocklists, which likely makes it far less of a loving timewaster. may give this a go Where did you see the interface for lists? I just decided to give uMatrix a try but couldn't find anything mentioning lists. Edit: My floating URL bar hid the tabs in the dashboard. hooah fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Jul 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
dissss posted:So Firefox went from not even warning about sites with weak DH keys in 38 to outright blocking them in 39. Probably because 38 was an ESR. Weak DH keys really should be blocked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 14:17
|
|
|
I've several gripes with firefox. The first is that it seems to use 25% cpu at all times and the other that html5 videos only play when the tab's in focus. As soon as I switch to another tab it pauses. I would at least like to have the second one fixed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Riso posted:I've several gripes with firefox. My CPU is at 1-2% at all times with Firefox + a bunch of other random junk running, so it's not Firefox or maybe your CPU is just hella old and needs an upgrade (note: it jumps when I load some image/gif heavy page, but nothing for something like this thread.). HTML videos also work in other tabs for me as well, it's pretty much how I consume all my music. It's most likely an addon/greasemonkey thing, refresh your profile ect. ect. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Riso posted:I've several gripes with firefox. How recent are your graphics drivers?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
Whenever AMD made their last WHQL ones. Ill check if the stupid browser settings got hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 21:08
|
|