|
Holy poo poo, Text Link finally got updated after being dead in the water for 2 years and works properly again and will apparently also work with e10s.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
Firefox 42 x64 isn't detecting Silverlight on Windows 10 - anyone else experiencing this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:Firefox 42 x64 isn't detecting Silverlight on Windows 10 - anyone else experiencing this? Did you actually install 64 bit Silverlight?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:Firefox 42 x64 isn't detecting Silverlight on Windows 10 - anyone else experiencing this? Firefox x64 dropped a ton of plugin support from 41. More accurately: they implemented a whitelist for plugins. The only things on it are OpenH264, Adobe Primetime (similar to Widevine), and because apparently the cosmos is Hell motherfucking Adobe Flash. v v v That doesn't change that what I said is Mozilla's intent and implementation, but PRAISE XENU. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
To clarify, Silverlight is end-of-life and support is being removed from all browsers (except potentially IE?) in the coming weeks. Any sites using it are completing their HTML5 transitions as we speak.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Amazon UK is still using it for video and there's no Universal app for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Silver95280 posted:Am I the only person who puts their tabs on the actual bottom? I do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Microsoft declared Silverlight dead in the water years ago, I really don't get why so many big companies still use it for streaming video. I hate Flash as much as anyone, but at least it's still actively maintained.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
Because silverlight has drm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
In the coming weeks? So both Netflix and Amazon Prime will use HTML5 only soon™?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
Knormal posted:Microsoft declared Silverlight dead in the water years ago, I really don't get why so many big companies still use it for streaming video. I hate Flash as much as anyone, but at least it's still actively maintained. Not trying to defend using Silverlight as a video player, but it was only EOLed in 2013.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
cebrail posted:In the coming weeks? So both Netflix and Amazon Prime will use HTML5 only soon™? Netflix uses it already for everything that's not Firefox.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
I don't mind about Netflix since their Modern app is pretty good, but I need to be able to play Amazon Instant Video in Windows 10.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
It works in Firefox 32-bit, doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Yes, and such a feature mismatch is a problem. If I wasn't the kind of fool to think they were operating in good faith I'd assume they sent Firefox Win64 out to die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:Yes, and such a feature mismatch is a problem. If I wasn't the kind of fool to think they were operating in good faith I'd assume they sent Firefox Win64 out to die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Because 64 bit Silverlight has been supported in the nightly 64 bit builds for years?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Silverlight's end-date is before the first public release of 64-bit Firefox. Why does it make any sense for them to go to the effort of supporting an obsolete plug-in in 64-bit Firefox just so testers can use it for a few weeks? Silverlight support in 32-bit Firefox isn't a feature, it's a bug that's already been fixed in 64-bit and will be fixed in 32-bit very soon. Because the plugin whitelist that I discussed earlier isn't being brought to Firefox Win32 (at least nowhere near yet) and as far as I've determined from MozDev etc. this is by design. EDIT: They're not blocking Silverlight specifically. They're blocking everything but Flash. As if the kind of person who'd keep around Flash for ... I guess Facebook stuff? ... would intentionally go to Firefox Win64 in the first place. Or even know what that meant. I'm having trouble figuring out a motive for allowing Flash and nothing else, alongside everything else they're doing, that isn't "Mozilla wants Firefox to be Chrome Without Google". dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:Because the plugin whitelist that I discussed earlier isn't being brought to Firefox Win32 (at least nowhere near yet) and as far as I've determined from MozDev etc. this is by design. I know it kind of sucks if you have some legacy Shockwave or Java applet you really want to use, but on the whole it's critical that those avenues of delivering garbage to users be closed. I don't think it's too much of an inconvenience to suggest you keep a portable 32-bit version or something around if you are one of the tiny, tiny minority of people who actually want another plug-in as opposed to just having it forced upon them. I feel bad sounding like an Apple fanboy telling you you don't need things, but there are EXTREMELY compelling reasons for modern plug-in policies, it's not just herd mentality or being allergic to user choice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Plug-ins are bad and need to go away as soon as possible, both because they are the #1 vectors for malware and because they ruin the browser experience for users in terms of performance and reliability. This is something all browser vendors and security experts agree on, so I'm sorry if you have a favorite obsolete plug-in you use, but that ship sailed a few years back. Google and Microsoft don't allow plug-ins at all, though they do include and manage updates for Adobe Flash. Mozilla switched to the whitelist model for Firefox 64-bit because developers would need to develop new plug-ins anyway, so it was the perfect time to say "No. loving don't." They whitelisted the plug-ins users might actually need, which obviously didn't include Silverlight for the reasons discussed above. You've misread me entirely. My point is that claiming anything is in the service of user security while still supporting Adobe Flash of all things is profoundly hypocritical, especially with an audience that is already pretty healthily anti-Flash, and especially when they're not doing the same thing with OSX64 or Linux64. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Yeah I'd honestly trust Java way before Flash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:You've misread me entirely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Also why Mozilla is trying to make a JS implementation of Flash to replace it for good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Flash is poo poo but most people still can't live without it, which is why it's the major exception to every browser's "no plug-ins" policy. Well that makes it all better. Think about who would actually choose Win64 Firefox, because it's probably not going to be the default for a while. Leaving not-Flash plugin support in Win32 and not-Windows Firefox while this is going on comes off as concern-trolling and paternalistic, if not a straight-up slap to the face. For the record I'm also upset that you have to manually ask Google for Win64 Chrome on Win64 environments. It still defaults to 32-bit, and it didn't take Microsoft (as it turns out idly) threatening to drop WoW64 support for Google to start a Win64 fork. It DID take that for Mozilla, hence the lack of confidence. Adobe and Apple and Google and Microsoft and Mozilla need to start openly - and possibly annoyingly - planning for the end of Flash Player. It's going to happen eventually because of mobile (and Adobe's Flash content creation tools at the very least support HTML5, if not prefer it over Flash and AIR binaries), but enterprise and government will probably lumber on with it unless forced to transition away from it, and things will suck for anyone who has to associate with enterprise or government until they do, so the sooner the better. After that, sure, summon the plugin-dammerung. But until then this all rings hollow. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1185532#c14 "We won't ship 64-bit Firefox until the sandbox works, so we won't be shipping 64-bit with Firefox 41 anyways." 64bit slipped again?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
xamphear posted:https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1185532#c14 This means Electrolysis?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Your arguments seem to boil down to the following: 1. Plug-ins should be an all-or-nothing thing, either users are not allowed to install any plug-ins, or they can install any plug-ins they want. This seems like a weird argument that ignores the practical reality that plug-ins are bad, but that a lot of content on the web (currently) requires Flash, so the web can't be enjoyed without it. You also seem to be ignoring WHY Mozilla made a policy change with 64-bit Firefox, which is that plug-ins would need to be re-developed anyway, so this was the best time to make a new plug-in policy while only minimally impacting users. And yes, of course it's paternalistic, the job of a browser vendor is to make decisions for your users because they cannot reliably make correct decisions for themselves. 2. It is a moral requirement to serve 64-bit software to users of 64-bit operating systems. I don't really see why you think the benefits to most users are compelling, but generally 32-bit applications work more like users expect., especially with regards to inter-app compatibility. 3. Browser vendors should be working hard to kill Flash, which makes sense, and they have been for years. Mozilla already killed Adobe Reader by writing a Javascript PDF renderer, and they are working on Shumway, like Avenging Dentist mentioned, though I doubt this will ever come to fruition because it's such a hard challenge. The reality is that while we've successfully killed Flash for new content, it will take quite some time before enough existing Flash content has migrated or aged off that users aren't bumping into it throughout their day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Your arguments seem to boil down to the following: You've ignored that many plugins, certainly any that were ever worth using by someone on the open Internet (except maybe Shockwave Director) already had Win64 forks. Otherwise no one would have noticed and we would not be discussing this. Yes this means Silverlight was never worth using. You've ignored that the user most likely to elect to use 64-bit Firefox A) is using it on principle and B) is probably not a habitual user or faffabout. Users failing A wouldn't be using Firefox and users failing B wouldn't go looking for Firefox Win64. And you've ignored that the faffabouts are STILL hung out to dry in your user-hostile utopia because the whitelist isn't being downported to Win32 Firefox where, between the flawed/obsolete security models that you can't pull out of Win32 and being the place the Firefox users you're worried about are still congregating, it's probably needed most! quote:2. It is a moral requirement to serve 64-bit software to users of 64-bit operating systems. I don't really see why you think the benefits to most users are compelling, but generally 32-bit applications work more like users expect., especially with regards to inter-app compatibility. Point 1 illustrates your feelings on inter-app compatibility as regards web browsers (as regards other apps with no attachment to web browsers, not even through plugins, isn't relevant in a discussion about web browsers and plugins for web browsers), and in light of that your concern about it is absurd. Your arguments effectively leave only the Web for the browser to be interoperable with, and thanks to HTML5 the day when it no longer cares what you use for a client is nearly at hand - but your memory space sure as hell cares, and before you say process-per-tab or whatever that doesn't help you with the primary thread or with memory-heavy tabs, and you still need process-per-tab to actually happen. This also neglects that you want to push 64-bit software on 64-bit hosts so you don't have the 80/20 rule hitting your troubleshooting team with a vengeance, multiplied by however many years it takes for users to stumble upon bad decisions no one noticed because it looked fine on testing machines and only a small fraction of users even got that codebase before Microsoft finally says "okay 32-bit is over get the hell out". quote:3. Browser vendors should be working hard to kill Flash, which makes sense, and they have been for years. Mozilla already killed Adobe Reader by writing a Javascript PDF renderer, and they are working on Shumway, like Avenging Dentist mentioned, though I doubt this will ever come to fruition because it's such a hard challenge. The reality is that while we've successfully killed Flash for new content, it will take quite some time before enough existing Flash content has migrated or aged off that users aren't bumping into it throughout their day. That's something that needs to be taken directly to content maintainers then. And if they don't care about it neither should the user, and where the user is a business or government they should already be motivated to get out from under opaque single-source no-recourse vendor crap - even such as ubiquitous as Flash - for survival value alone. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Alereon posted:3. Browser vendors should be working hard to kill Flash, which makes sense, and they have been for years. Mozilla already killed Adobe Reader by writing a Javascript PDF renderer, and they are working on Shumway, like Avenging Dentist mentioned, though I doubt this will ever come to fruition because it's such a hard challenge. The reality is that while we've successfully killed Flash for new content, it will take quite some time before enough existing Flash content has migrated or aged off that users aren't bumping into it throughout their day. Newgrounds and ytmnd are so hosed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:Point 1 illustrates your feelings on inter-app compatibility as regards web browsers (as regards other apps with no attachment to web browsers, not even through plugins, isn't relevant in a discussion about web browsers and plugins for web browsers), and in light of that your concern about it is absurd. Your arguments effectively leave only the Web for the browser to be interoperable with, and thanks to HTML5 the day when it no longer cares what you use for a client is nearly at hand - but your memory space sure as hell cares, and before you say process-per-tab or whatever that doesn't help you with the primary thread or with memory-heavy tabs, and you still need process-per-tab to actually happen. This also neglects that you want to push 64-bit software on 64-bit hosts so you don't have the 80/20 rule hitting your troubleshooting team with a vengeance, multiplied by however many years it takes for users to stumble upon bad decisions no one noticed because it looked fine on testing machines and only a small fraction of users even got that codebase before Microsoft finally says "okay 32-bit is over get the hell out".
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Newgrounds and ytmnd are so hosed. Is YTMND still up? I hadn't thought about that site in about 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Newgrounds and ytmnd are so hosed. Not to mention Homestar Runner...
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Is YTMND still up? I hadn't thought about that site in about 10 years. yeah, but it's a shadow of its former self.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
I finally figured out why Firefox sometimes annoyingly launches in full screen mode and I have to reset it. This started happening a couple of builds ago, so it's been happening for a few months. It's because sometimes I have a youtube video playing full screen and I close the browser with Alt+F4. Firefox remembers the "full screen" setting of youtube and applies it to the browser window. Which is not the default behavior of other browsers (Opera, Chrome, Edge). Is this a known issue? Any ideas how to work around it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
WinKey+Down Arrow. (How often are you relaunching firefox anyway?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:WinKey+Down Arrow. (How often are you relaunching firefox anyway?) Quite often. Firefox is not my default browser; I use it for testing web apps, for bookmarks that I have not yet ported elsewhere or as a fallback for sites that won't work well with Opera. I keep it closed when I don't use it. Thanks for the shortcut. Works great. AbstractNapper fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Hey I just switched back to FF and it has this feature that prevents redirects, I like it, but wish there was some way to whitelist sites. I searched add-ons but most of the hits are either adding this feature (old extensions) or trying to modify redirects directly. Suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
wormil posted:Hey I just switched back to FF and it has this feature that prevents redirects, I like it, but wish there was some way to whitelist sites. I searched add-ons but most of the hits are either adding this feature (old extensions) or trying to modify redirects directly. Suggestions? Are you using Web of Trust?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 10:46
|
|
|
WattsvilleBlues posted:Are you using Web of Trust? I don't even know what that is. No it's part of FF, under options, advanced, general, accessibility. I'm going to turn it off until I can figure out a way to control it because pretty much every forum uses redirects when you post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:33 |
|
|
wormil posted:I don't even know what that is. No it's part of FF, under options, advanced, general, accessibility. I'm going to turn it off until I can figure out a way to control it because pretty much every forum uses redirects when you post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:47
|
|