|
JohnnyCanuck posted:This is probably an extension issue (willing to bet Tab Mix Plus has something to do with it), and I haven't done any troubleshooting yet, but I figured I'd ask you guys first! It's Tab Mix Plus. Go look at Events > New Tabs > Groups of bookmarks/history. I'm guessing you want to turn the second option in there off. Or just both.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
Geemer posted:It's Tab Mix Plus. Go look at Events > New Tabs > Groups of bookmarks/history. I'm guessing you want to turn the second option in there off. Or just both. I've been having exactly the same problem recently, and this has fixed it. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Yeah, it's real cool and good when a thing that makes it a giant pain in the rear end to look at the changelog decides to just turn on a new default like that. I guess they figure "if Mozilla and Microsoft can do it, so can we".
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Any way to hide the zoom level indicator in the URL bar (new in 51)? Now I have to aim when I want to click the dropdown menu, what a bunch of crock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 10:25
|
|
|
mike12345 posted:Any way to hide the zoom level indicator in the URL bar (new in 51)? Now I have to aim when I want to click the dropdown menu, what a bunch of crock. code:
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
Zoom level indicator seems like a great idea to put onto a Status Bar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Wasn't 51 supposed to be the release that finally rolls out multiprocess for everyone? I don't see anything about it in release notes. Second question: Does anyone know a download manager addon that puts the download manager in a tab and is compatible with multiprocess? I've been using Download Manager Tweak for years but it's not compatible with multiprocess and looks like it's dead. I don't even care what the download manager looks like really, as long as it's in a tab.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Lakitu7 posted:Wasn't 51 supposed to be the release that finally rolls out multiprocess for everyone? I don't see anything about it in release notes. Isn't there an about :config toggle for that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
I don't think so? I don't see anything like that in about:config and google searches just find extensions that haven't been updated in years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Geemer posted:It's Tab Mix Plus. Go look at Events > New Tabs > Groups of bookmarks/history. I'm guessing you want to turn the second option in there off. Or just both. That totally seems to have fixed both issues! Thanks so much!
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Read posted:
I can't find userChrome.css on my pc, but I have stylish. Will look into that. But I hoped it's some flag I can switch in about :config.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 09:15
|
|
|
mike12345 posted:I can't find userChrome.css on my pc, but I have stylish. Will look into that. But I hoped it's some flag I can switch in about :config. You have to make userChrome.css and its containing folder yourself, it's not there by default. The proper full path is %APPDATA%\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\<your profile>\chrome\userChrome.css. Stylish is much easier to use though, so I'd recommend just doing that. I mentioned userChrome because some people dislike installing addons, and because there are privacy issues (eg: tracking every webpage you visit) with the Chrome version of Stylish after the addon was bought out - and it's unclear whether or not the changes will come to the Firefox version as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
Read posted:and because there are privacy issues (eg: tracking every webpage you visit) with the Chrome version of Stylish after the addon was bought out - and it's unclear whether or not the changes will come to the Firefox version as well. So far no, the firefox version hasn't even been updated since mid-2016. Also mozilla only allows a lot of that stuff as opt-in, not opt-out. (Though I don't know where they'd fall on this "we're not sending tracking data, it's loading new styles" method of selling your web history.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
 Fuuuck.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:
That sucks, I use Findbar Tweak and Tab Groups, I guess it's not unexpected with the way extensions are going. I did start weaning myself off Tab Groups after it got spun out because I figured this would happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
Even for the addons that can be made to work with the new APIs the shock of having to rewrite them more or less from scratch is going to cause many to just give up and not bother. The closest analog is when Opera rewrote itself to be Chrome after Opera 12, and it still hasn't recovered. Mozilla's not going to put tons of work into allowing people to undo the work they just did on unwanted feature X (which is what classic theme restorer needs). We had a mass die off of addons for e10s but at least firefox is fast again; this is going to require even more substantial rewrites. Mozilla is going to solve the XUL maintenance burden by reducing Firefox's market share so much that they stop needing to do any maintenance at all. This is purely to reduce the maintenance burden on Mozilla engineers so they can chase Chrome faster. The silver lining for users - that it'll be marginally faster (maybe?) - is just tin foil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Desuwa posted:The silver lining for users - that it'll be marginally faster (maybe?) - is just tin foil. I've been following some of the Quantum stuff, and the performance benefits are ludicrous. As of 6 months ago, Quantum CSS was literally 4 times faster than the "regular" Gecko CSS engine. Apparently they've been optimizing it further since then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:I've been following some of the Quantum stuff, and the performance benefits are ludicrous. As of 6 months ago, Quantum CSS was literally 4 times faster than the "regular" Gecko CSS engine. Apparently they've been optimizing it further since then. What do you use to measure it? Sounds neat
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:I've been following some of the Quantum stuff, and the performance benefits are ludicrous. As of 6 months ago, Quantum CSS was literally 4 times faster than the "regular" Gecko CSS engine. Apparently they've been optimizing it further since then. That's actually really good and better than I'd have expected. I knew XUL addons were not performant but I hadn't considered how much else they'd be able to speed up without having to support XUL and other legacy technologies. I know for a fact that browser performance matters more to people than they're conscious of, and tiny improvements can lead to much more engagement by users, but even so I just can't see this tradeoff as being worth it. Even as a heavy Firefox user I would Chrome to my family members because I honestly believe it's the best browser for the majority of users. But as a power user I find Chrome to be absolutely unusable as a daily driver and Firefox is the only remaining major browser I can stand. Even in the worst case scenario I can think of with WebExtensions Firefox is still probably going to remain the least bad for my personal use amongst the major browsers, and I'm not one to use a niche browser with limited support. If I were dedicated enough to hack the features I wanted into a browser I'd probably do it based on Chromium, but that's a pipe dream and I'll just grind my teeth and be miserable instead. I'm probably among the most cynical about this because I'm one of the Opera 12 refugees.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What do you use to measure it? Sounds neat I gather that the Quantum CSS branch (stylo-central, I think) has some perf monitors in the toolbar. Here's a comparison shot from that branch circa June 2016: https://people-mozilla.org/~bholley/stylo-london-2016/stylo.html#5.0 Quantum CSS is neat because it's the first CSS engine I'm aware of that even attempts to use multiple cores. e: Another rad feature coming soon is Quantum Compositor, which puts all the "talk to the GPU" code into a separate process, so when your graphics drivers crash, it takes Firefox approximately one second to restart it and then everything's back to normal. Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Welp that one dude makes two of the extensions that are on my list of things that make use firefox. When they get rid of webextensions entirely I'll lose at least 3 or 4 others that I really like, probably. If the only extensions that still work are the same ublock / greasemonkey / stylish combo that other browsers have, why exactly am I sticking with with this one? Extensions + configurability + UI are the reason I started using FF back when it was still phoenix. Now all browsers have basically the same UI, firefox is taking away user options more often than adding them, and my extensions are gonna be trash. Looks like v52 will get an ESR version, so I guess I'll move to that for a while and use the time to decide between palemoon, reduced-function FF, or moving to vivaldi full time. Desuwa posted:I'm probably among the most cynical about this because I'm one of the Opera 12 refugees. Have you been following vivaldi? That's now my secondary browser, but I can imagine it becoming my first choice if the future of firefox continues to be pessimistic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
The bug in 51 where pressing enter in the address bar takes you to the last URL you typed is incredibly annoying I keep pressing enter to recenter on an anchor and ending up deeply confused
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Am I supposed to be on Firefox 51.0.1 (32 bit)? Last I checked the "about firefox" only said 51.0.1, not including the 32 bit thing. am i just being paranoid?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:Am I supposed to be on Firefox 51.0.1 (32 bit)? Last I checked the "about firefox" only said 51.0.1, not including the 32 bit thing. am i just being paranoid? 32-bit is normal for Firefox unless you went out of your way to install a 64-bit build in the past (sometimes these accidentally updated to 32-bit if I remember right)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:Am I supposed to be on Firefox 51.0.1 (32 bit)? Last I checked the "about firefox" only said 51.0.1, not including the 32 bit thing. am i just being paranoid? 51.0.1 is the current version, yes. I'm using x64 and don't have anything specifically calling that out in about firefox myself. Possibly they just now consider the x64 version to be at par with 32 so they've stopped distinguishing them. (the x64 were marked as experimental for a long-rear end time)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
About Firefox says 64 bit now for me for the first time. Pretty sure they added the bit tag in 51. Was using x64 for a long time, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Findbar is really cool, and then I got this notice today: E: oops that's a local address: http://fasezero.com/lastnotice.html From this reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/5qmqdy/i_cannot_continue_working_on_my_addons_anymore_im/ Squish fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Jan 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 11:46
|
|
|
Im sure that the 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Is there anyway whatsoever to run the Unity web player in 64-bit Firefox? Yeah, I know it's basically deprecated, but still.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
Killed By Death posted:Is there anyway whatsoever to run the Unity web player in 64-bit Firefox? Yeah, I know it's basically deprecated, but still. Give up, just install a 32bit browser (Firefox even) to use for this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
Killed By Death posted:Is there anyway whatsoever to run the Unity web player in 64-bit Firefox? Yeah, I know it's basically deprecated, but still. ESR 45? Or was x64 NPAPI gone even by then?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 09:10
|
|
|
dont be mean to me posted:ESR 45? Or was x64 NPAPI gone even by then? Not sure x64 NPAPI ever existed. Why do you want to run in 64bit? ESR 32bit should work for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 09:22
|
|
|
wooger posted:Not sure x64 NPAPI ever existed. Why do you want to run in 64bit? 1) Unity wouldn't offer a 64-bit NPAPI plugin if 64-bit NPAPI never existed. 2) Killed by Death doesn't have to justify architecture choices to you. 3) Killed by Death was the one asking, not me. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Jan 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 09:26
|
|
|
dont be mean to me posted:ESR 45? Or was x64 NPAPI gone even by then?  wooger posted:Why do you want to run in 64bit? Thanks anyway for the suggestions, guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
Killed By Death posted:Unfortunately it seems it was Yeah, I was hoping to avoid suggesting different architectures or versions of Firefox because I was hoping to avoid fights between them over your browser profile. Realistically, the future of anyone whose use case mandates a lot of Unity Web Player involves a lot of Internet Explorer or Safari, which thanks to institutional inertia probably aren't ditching ActiveX/NPAPI any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Why have they still not changed the master password prompt so it's not so easy to spoof? https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101611 This bug has been open for 15 years...it doesn't seem like something that would be that hard to solve
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Mozilla is like Microsoft in that they will completely redesign their UI every few years without rhyme nor reason, but odd little warts like modal dialogs or the font picker will be unchanged since the Netscape/Win95 days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:Mozilla is like Microsoft in that they will completely redesign their UI every few years without rhyme nor reason, but odd little warts like modal dialogs or the font picker will be unchanged since the Netscape/Win95 days. This is pretty much any large/enterprise software. Whatever dev or team that owns that particular thing just has way too much to do and doesn't get around to stuff like that. I see it in our software all the time where admin or rarely viewed screens look like they're straight out of 1996 because there's just too many priorities to bother.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Welp that one dude makes two of the extensions that are on my list of things that make use firefox. When they get rid of webextensions entirely I'll lose at least 3 or 4 others that I really like, probably. I only use Firefox for the flexibility in extensions and most of them won't work in a year, very frustrating situation. Oh well, I will check out Vivaldi.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 12:11 |
|
|
I use firefox because I can have my tabs under the adress bar. Why did the other browsers (and mozilla) change it to the top? I think most of them don't even allow you to switch it the bottom. I'm glad classic theme restore is a thing in firefox
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2017 16:07
|
|