|
A fun fact I found a few days ago, but I thought I'd share: turns out the browser DOM elements that make up the tab bar are load bearing UI elements. If they're not "visible" your tabs get lost because there's no independent data model. Whatever you do don't set it to `display: none` (or any equivalents). `visibility: collapse` is safe. I imagine a bunch of people installing TST and wanting to hide the top tab bar got bitten by this.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:When a tab finishes loading there's this little blue left-to-right pulse on it on the tab bar, as though it's telling me that it's finished loading. How do I turn that off? I would google it but I don't even know what a feature like that is called, since it's not an actual progress bar. Haven't tried it myself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 12:08
|
|
|
Desuwa posted:Get comfortable using the remote debugger and userChrome.css, because Mozilla isn't going to support APIs that let you hide their precious UI. LethalGeek posted:Yeah I remember seeing the dev snap back at people who said they didn't like it with "it's only a noisy minority" and going wow what a wonderful stereotype of a software developer you are. They need to fire the collection of Apple-brained idiots pushing their "UI vision" on actual users.  I expect to see Edge climb like crazy as normal users submit to "its just there and works alright" in Win 10. Firefox destroyed their only selling point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Do they have analytics on how many users are using custom userChrome? They must have had some idea of how many people had CTR installed at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
Klyith posted:52 is from a while back so it's already most of the way into the cycle. Ugh, I get it now, thanks to you and fishmech. At least I've still got a few months to decide whether to jump to a better-run shitshow or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Nevermind, it's not worth arguing with people about this.
Read fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Nov 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
List of the next batch of APIs being added in 58 https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/11/20/extensions-in-firefox-58/
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Flipperwaldt posted:https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1185022 (I'm still missing some functionality but I'm sure something "like" Tab Mix Plus will exist soon - or even already does because I haven't looked yet - so I'll survive.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
dont be mean to me posted:52 ESR. Keep in mind that 55 did something to user profiles and you'd have to start fresh on 52. It may still work. I downgraded from FF 56 to 52 ESR on Linux, and the only problem I've noticed is that the Session Manager extension loaded a significantly older session. I had to manually load the "previous browsing session".
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:They need to fire the collection of Apple-brained idiots pushing their "UI vision" on actual users. safari is real good so apple must be doing something worth learning from????
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Yeah, it's the ie6 equivalent on apple.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:They need to fire the collection of Apple-brained idiots pushing their "UI vision" on actual users. Eh I’d argue pretty much the opposite - the reason the slide started in the first place was Mozilla was dead set on catering to 101 different edge cases at the expense of producing a product with actual broad appeal. Now I do agree it’s probably too late to start making these changes (and producing an actual competitive product for the masses) but it’s more a case of too little too late than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
They really should have put out a new ESR first to hold over the “power users.” That’s a legitimate gripe. For a positive anecdote- my office full of developers and designers who only use chrome and would groan when I’d point out something was broken in Firefox have pretty much all switched over and are loving it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Is there a way for the extension API to access the 'tabs on synced devices' list?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
The Milkman posted:They really should have put out a new ESR first to hold over the “power users.” That’s a legitimate gripe. Yeah. Also breaking profiles between the last ESR and 56 was ill-advised.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Here's something weird--I installed windows 10 yesterday on a new system I just built and I'm using firefox 52 ESR. ten minutes ago I noticed menu buttons in firefox (mousing over bookmarks specifically) highlighting very slowly. I checked the task manager and GPU usage rockets up close to 100% if I just mouse over the buttons. Using EVGA precision, I can see the GPU clock and memory clock jump up to many times their idle values when I do this. I'm not seeing the UI lagging anymore but WTF? is this normal and I've just never noticed? Why would mousing over buttons do this? GPU is an EVGA 1080
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Firefox 57 definitely degrades in performance the longer you use it. It needs a restart every few days, more often with heavy use, unlike 52 ESR which could keep going for months. Opening new tabs, blank or not, got noticeably faster after a restart. Scrolling was fine, this time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Desuwa posted:Firefox 57 definitely degrades in performance the longer you use it. It needs a restart every few days, more often with heavy use, unlike 52 ESR which could keep going for months. I think you might have something wrong with your setup. I think I've restarted Firefox once since 57 came out, and I haven't noticed any slowdowns. Have you tried with a fresh profile?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:I think you might have something wrong with your setup. I think I've restarted Firefox once since 57 came out, and I haven't noticed any slowdowns. Have you tried with a fresh profile? I think there's nothing wrong with it. They're not super large slowdowns, but I did come home from work and open a few tabs and notice that it wasn't as snappy. I could easily push 52 ESR into a significantly worse state but it'd recover after the tabs got suspended, even if I was still actively using it. But I've already been restarting it several times a day just to change userChrome settings so it really doesn't have excuses. I imagine It's a side effect of memory usage growing monotonically when tabs can't be discarded, and I imagine the new code hasn't been tested as rigorously and probably leaks worse than the old code. I'm sure the browser performs wonderfully if you shut your computer off daily, only have a couple of tabs, or are restarting it between benchmarks. For non-trivial usage it's really not appreciably better, especially when I've lost efficiency from missing functionality more than I've gained from faster rendering (especially for me given my particular patterns where I tend to open many things in new tabs then burn through them). e: Needs a restart is probably hyperbolic. It was probably no worse than the average case for 52 ESR and the content inside the tabs was probably still faster, as much as that's worth. But when the cost has been so high for what amounts to faster browser restarts I'm really not inclined to be charitable, especially when it's been idle for a solid 18 hours. Desuwa fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Nov 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
So I have to use flash for a while longer because reasons. With the new firefox, loading flash content on a website works fine, but loading flash files from the hard drive doesn't work, I just get a blank white screen. IE/Chrome can load flash files from the hard drive just fine. ublock origin and umatrix don't appear to be blocking anything. What's going on?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
There's definitely a memory leak of some sort, which I had also experienced prior to 57 and in my unscientific testing seems to be related to leaving Youtube open in the background overnight. An add-on might be involved, which I can only assume is uBlock and like hell am I going to turn that off. Looking at Task Manager reporting my system RAM being maxed out at ~7.9gb/8gb used, of which Firefox had a half dozen processes and one obvious culprit using ~4gb by itself. It was interesting to use about:memory to try generating a report only to see Firefox suddenly max out Disk activity to shuffle things around so several processes were running ~1gb loads and the final report becomes meaningless as a result. After the report was generated everything got shoved back into one fat process for ~3gb again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:So I have to use flash for a while longer because reasons. With the new firefox, loading flash content on a website works fine, but loading flash files from the hard drive doesn't work, I just get a blank white screen. IE/Chrome can load flash files from the hard drive just fine. ublock origin and umatrix don't appear to be blocking anything. What's going on? It's a new "security" feature that's been in place since 56. Blocking Flash content from any protocol but http(s) is somehow supposed to be more safe. There might be an about :config switch for it, but I wouldn't expect that to last. I've taken to just downloading the standalone Flash player and setting swf files to open with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
I uninstalled flash entirely. Ok, I use it for chrome but that's because it does weird things with firefox when I fullscreen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
isndl posted:There's definitely a memory leak of some sort, which I had also experienced prior to 57 and in my unscientific testing seems to be related to leaving Youtube open in the background overnight. An add-on might be involved, which I can only assume is uBlock and like hell am I going to turn that off. Yeah, I've noticed the exact same thing happening too. Firefox doesn't actually give you any easy way to figure out which tab is the problem, but if you go around and close each tab and undo the close (CTRL+SHIFT+T) while taking a peek at Task Manager, you will eventually hit the problem and all that memory should disappear. My guess is maybe a website is generating lots of JavaScript garbage that the garbage collector isn't able to free.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 08:07
|
|
|
isndl posted:There's definitely a memory leak of some sort, which I had also experienced prior to 57 and in my unscientific testing seems to be related to leaving Youtube open in the background overnight. An add-on might be involved, which I can only assume is uBlock and like hell am I going to turn that off. I'm not so sure anymore it is a memory issue, or if the Internet got loving huge in the last few months. I now regularly have 5-6 GB for Firefox (granted, I have over 100 tabs open), which is quite a bit removed from the 2,5-3 GB I had with a similar tab count a few months ago. First I thought FF 57 is such a memory hog, but compared to others it isn't:  Same pages open on both Vivaldi and Firefox. Fun fact: Chrome has two tabs open and uses nearly 400 MB already. Decius fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Nov 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
Decius posted:I'm not so sure anymore it is a memory issue, or if the Internet got loving huge in the last few months. I now regularly have 5-6 GB for Firefox (granted, I have over 100 tabs open), which is quite a bit removed from the 2,5-3 GB I had with a similar tab count a few months ago. I never see more than 2GB on old-firefox with a staggering amount of tabs split between several open instances. Maybe you caught a coin-mining bug or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I never see more than 2GB on old-firefox with a staggering amount of tabs split between several open instances. 32-bit edition? It can't use more than 2GB. Using a lot of memory isn't a bad thing in itself. You've paid for the RAM, why not use it? Right now I have three tabs open, SA, FB and a New Yorker article. Firefox is using 1GB over 6 processes. Is that a problem? A lot of the perceived "bloat" in memory use (this goes for all browsers) is just the developers responding to the desire for faster page loads by keeping more stuff in memory, history, closed tabs, addons, media playback resources etc etc. If something else needs to use more than my ~5 GB of free RAM, then the OS and the apps together will figure out how. If the performance is generally snappy and nothing is maxed out, there's isn't really a problem. If it bogs down on something it normally can handle and CPU or RAM is maxed out, ok something might be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Ola posted:32-bit edition? It can't use more than 2GB. Using a lot of memory isn't a bad thing in itself. You've paid for the RAM, why not use it? Right now I have three tabs open, SA, FB and a New Yorker article. Firefox is using 1GB over 6 processes. Is that a problem? A lot of the perceived "bloat" in memory use (this goes for all browsers) is just the developers responding to the desire for faster page loads by keeping more stuff in memory, history, closed tabs, addons, media playback resources etc etc. If something else needs to use more than my ~5 GB of free RAM, then the OS and the apps together will figure out how. If the performance is generally snappy and nothing is maxed out, there's isn't really a problem. If it bogs down on something it normally can handle and CPU or RAM is maxed out, ok something might be wrong. This machine is 32bit, the other one is 64, but it also never really gets past around 2.5 (and I am one of those "many open tabs across several open instances" people anywhere I sit and computer at). The 64bit one lags a bit, but that is also running a shitload of extensions so I write that off as my problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
Yeah I'm pretty sure my issue is a leak/bloat issue somewhere as it doesn't really manifest until I have a day or two of uptime and it starts showing traditional memory leak symptoms - tabs loading slowly, delayed response when clicking scripted objects/buttons, etc. I'm also running very lean with only six extensions at the moment so it shouldn't be crusty old add-ons causing problems (they all got killed with 57 after all). I'm also getting the impression that Firefox for Android guzzles down battery like never before after the update but it's hard to test properly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Maybe you caught a coin-mining bug or something? I have both No Coin and of course the uBlock blocklist installed for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Desuwa posted:Firefox 57 definitely degrades in performance the longer you use it. It needs a restart every few days, more often with heavy use, unlike 52 ESR which could keep going for months. I found the problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Szmitten posted:I found the problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Szmitten posted:I found the problem. While this looked crazy to me as well at first sight, I remembered that I never turn off/restart my computer at work either, except when there's a kernel update. Which, in Fedora it can be as often as once per week or even months can pass at a time. So, it is not a far fetched scenario by any means. But, websites can and do have memory leaks. Not the browser's fault, but the browser can mitigate somewhat bad behaving websites.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Volguus posted:But, websites can and do have memory leaks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Thats fair too. As an example facebook is a thing I would never leave open. (Although I dont know if its facebook by iteself, or the ad/script blockers that end up doing the memory bloat as the go to battle.) Both, definitely both. My browser (and computer) get restarted daily at least, sometimes twice a day. Personally, from my "pulling poo poo out of my rear end" experience, 57 does feel faster. I'm also not a power user with 9001 addons though. I ran 5 at most (one of which I could do without), and two of them ended up dying with 57. One is dead dead, and at least the other has some interest in being restored.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Ola posted:32-bit edition? It can't use more than 2GB. Using a lot of memory isn't a bad thing in itself. You've paid for the RAM, why not use it? Right now I have three tabs open, SA, FB and a New Yorker article. Firefox is using 1GB over 6 processes. Is that a problem? A lot of the perceived "bloat" in memory use (this goes for all browsers) is just the developers responding to the desire for faster page loads by keeping more stuff in memory, history, closed tabs, addons, media playback resources etc etc. If something else needs to use more than my ~5 GB of free RAM, then the OS and the apps together will figure out how. If the performance is generally snappy and nothing is maxed out, there's isn't really a problem. If it bogs down on something it normally can handle and CPU or RAM is maxed out, ok something might be wrong. if anyone in a position of power in web dev/policy gave a poo poo about page load times they'd stop stuffing every page with trackers and general bloat to the point where a text-only article measures multiple megabytes large iospace posted:Both, definitely both. not really a reply to this but it piqued my interest to go digging into activity monitor i run a mac mini and safari - hasn't been power cycled in about 5 days and the browser hasn't been restarted in that time either. before i restarted it last week it had been running for almost a month; i think i can count on one hand the amount of times i'd restarted safari, not because something broke, just because i had accumulated a frighteningly large array of tabs. currently have 45 tabs open with 4.7GB memory used. seems a little high for me but i also have firefox open which is using over half that amount of memory to keep just 9 tabs open. and i'm absolutely one to say that firefox is very respectful of resources compared to poo poo like chrome. also granted i have 6 active safari extensions while i have 10 active ff addons, so it's not exactly apples to apples. apple software can sometimes be a little dodgy but safari is absolute solid gold (with the exception of the weird address bar). i didn't realise how much my web browsing experience kind of hinged on at some point having to restart either my browser or computer, and without that i end up browsing like i'm on a phone or something - wherein you end up accumulating hundreds of tabs because you're never forced to close any, and there's no consequence for actually leaving them open. i guess my point is that i get moderately bemused when people complain about the 'apple-ization' or 'safari-zation' of firefox, when safari is one of the best pieces of software i have used in years. obvioiusly they're aimed at totally different target markets but i wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater that being said the extension support is a little anaemic so prob not for everyone, but ublock and a bunch of little timesavers are pretty much all i need for general browsing Generic Monk fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Nov 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Knormal posted:I just saw a commercial on TV for Firefox 57. Huh. Got an ad for this on the Comedy Bang Bang podcast. That was weird. I never had a problem with the speed of Firefox, but I do notice the difference now. Not sure the milliseconds difference was worth all the extension breaking bullshit though. Lot of time wasted switching and configuring extensions and tracking down userchrome code.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Generic Monk posted:if anyone in a position of power in web dev/policy gave a poo poo about page load times they'd stop stuffing every page with trackers and general bloat to the point where a text-only article measures multiple megabytes large I meant browser developers. Web developers obviously despise quick page loads with mouth foaming fury, which is we all use addons to sabotage their work. Faster performance has been a selling point of Firefox 57, but them actually commissioning a TV ad surprised me. How do they make money? quote:The company’s latest revenue numbers are from 2013 when the browser brought in $314 million, 97 percent of which came from royalties. These royalties refer to the percentage of advertising revenue Mozilla receives whenever someone uses the built-in search engine that the Firefox browser provides. Of Mozilla’s 2013 revenue, $275 million came from a single search engine. While the Mozilla Corporation doesn’t share the name of the company, it’s safe to assume that the money came from Google. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/041315/how-mozilla-firefox-and-google-chrome-make-money.asp Aha. I had no idea you could get royalties for serving up a search. Just a shame for the search engine provider that the ads are blocked. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Welp. NoScript 57 isn't all that good... but uBlock Origin has literally all the NoScript features I wanted hidden behind that "I am an advanced user" checkbox.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
endlessmonotony posted:Welp. NoScript 57 isn't all that good... but uBlock Origin has literally all the NoScript features I wanted hidden behind that "I am an advanced user" checkbox. Yup. uBlock Origin, HTTPS Everywhere, h264ify on my laptop, and maybe if SALR Chrome gets ported in but I'm doing pretty well without it. I don't know if that makes me a filthy casual or I just appreciate not having to use 20 extensions to make Chrome mostly tolerable - even Advanced Font Settings can't get around some of the fonts hardcoded in the Blink rendering engine. (Probably both, since I'd be using Edge on my laptop if uBO worked in Private Browsing on Edge. You can't even whitelist extensions for Private Browsing in Edge.) dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Nov 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 19:53
|
|
