|
hooah posted:Recently (maybe since the last stable-channel update? not entirely sure) I've been seeing this kind of image corruption if Firefox has been open for a while or I open a lot (>~10) tabs at once: On Aurora [Dev] (38.0.1 Win64) I don't get stalled images but I do get empty ones, and sometimes ones that end up looking like they got shrunk down and then blown up like a texture error (you can probably stress test this with a screenshot LP*); seems to corroborate the "loading a ton of crap from the same site" story). I DID get what you described on 36.0.1 but it's too early to claim the same problem with different symptoms. If it matters, I'm using a GTX 560 Ti with the official GeForce 347.71 driver package. EDIT: *Well this is interesting: the Chaos Rings LP uses Imgur, which Firefox 38 takes like a champ, while the Kyrandia 2 LP hosted on LPix misloads poo poo left and right. I would say it's a thing between my ISP's IP block and LPix but loading the same images manually in IE 11 works fine, but either way it's probably not the same problem. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Mar 11, 2015 |
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 09:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 10:10 |
|
|
Mr. Fortitude posted:I've got 16GB. But as far as I know the 64-bit derivatives of Firefox are really poorly optimized and are barely updated unless that changed lately? You probably weren't using an official 64-bit Firefox build on Windows, since while Mozilla is finally serious about adding one it's still only available in dev and nightly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
It might be a teething thing or an extension giving you headaches. Incidentally I haven't had a crash (other than a couple I did intentionally for testing purposes) in Firefox 38 (dev) Win64 so far. Also I wonder if all browsers are falling victim to Chrome and Firefox's six-week update cycle - even relatively stable ones like IE and Safari, not because of their own issues but because of declining user standards because of the six-week update cycle. "Welcome to the Internet, where 'stable' means 'obsolete'."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Toast Museum posted:I get this on my phone, but I had no idea it was a thing on desktop Firefox as well. It does seem to have been going on for a while now. Yeah, it's in Linux too. It's safe to say that it's a Firefox problem, and it might be because it gives up on stuff in a not-graceful way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
I actually stepped back to 37 when I found a Win64 beta, so I wouldn't know. That said, you could try searching about:config, and even if you do find it there, tell Mozilla that the way it's currently being done is kinda rear end-handed. (I know, bugzilla lol.) Also consider bringing it up on Twitter in Mozilla's general direction, but civilly and comprehensibly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
For Youtube: Enable Media Source Extensions (about :config > media.mediasource.webm.enabled; you'll also have to whitelist mediasource: in NoScript or similar extensions, if you use them.) That way you can just use the HTML5 version of Youtube. For other Flash stuff: Probably can't be done: Google blacklisted most plugins and where it uses its own, like Flash for Chrome, it's tweaked to tell Google explicitly that it's playing audio. The Firefox Flash plugin, not so much. It'd be nice if they could use two icons - one for "yup this is audio" and another for "this is a plugin and we have no idea if it's generating sound but you might want to look at it" but it probably gives Mozilla's UI people flop sweats. Also stop with the wanton task-killing - it probably has something to do with Flash not releasing audio claims properly. Use the off button like a human being; it destroys the process gracefully unless your extensions are misbehaving. If there's still a memory leak report it. Xenomorph posted:So is Adblock really as evil as I keep reading about? I've been suspecting it as the cause of my performance issues. Evil, no. Complacent, yes. Unoptimized, oh you betcha. Also, as noble as their intent is (that eventually getting advertisers to behave themselves would in theory make ad-blocking obsolete), it makes the more ideologically-minded of users head for the hills (which uBlock doesn't) and their intent is tragicomedically futile as long as there's bad actors who capitalize on the facts that A) ad hosts generally don't perform due diligence to make sure that ads that serve up malware - or, for that matter, modes of social engineering or psychological exploitation that have been criminalized, or have been rejected by advertisers' associations, in other media - don't actually get served to users and that B) it seems almost impossible to hold ad hosts to account - whether criminal, civil, or equitable - for allowing such ads to be served to users (which may be why they don't perform due diligence). Maybe a couple DO, but I'd be surprised if anyone but maybe Apple actually looks over changes made to already-approved ads in flight for malicious stuff or exploits of the ad host's software. And it's gotten harder and harder to find the lists AdBlock Plus maintains on their website instead of having to dive into their client. So maybe evil isn't off the table. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 10:37 on Mar 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
This also means that you can expect OSX and Win32 to auto to 37.0 soon (and Linux and other centrally-managed OSes to see it in repository soon). Title change I guess? Win64 has no release fork yet, but 38.0b1 hit today; you might have to dig that out of ftp.mozilla.org manually. Also the whole "official Win64 Firefox" thing probably belongs in the OP. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Im_Special posted:They turned them off because the one on the front page and in autoupdate made DirectX 11 break. Avenging Dentist posted:The second statement contradicts the first: if a build is only published on the FTP, it hasn't actually been released yet. I'd recommend waiting until the beta is officially released (read: it's posted on the website), unless you like running builds that haven't had a sanity check yet. Even setting aside the whole Mozilla Win64 internal politics thing, [img-4k-  ]Oh yeah, 38.0 beta Win64 is being pushed through autoupdate to 37.0 beta Win64 users now. I can't imagine why they wouldn't push it to Win32 beta users! (Oh wait yeah I can they saw how it worked with Chrome OS X.) Flipperwaldt posted:All this Youtube/HTML5 talk has me so confused. I never had to opt into anything or had to change things in about :config. It all just worked perfectly by not having Flash installed at least since (verfied that) version 32. A lot of stuff is going MSE+H.264 though, which means on Firefox a lot of stuff is getting kicked back to Flash. Workaround: about :config posted:media.mediasource.enabled = TRUE // may already be enabled Your call on whether you want to disable the media.mediasource.whitelist. I think Mozilla's waiting to see if their default-install Cisco OpenH264 and Adobe Primetime Content Decryption plugins do the trick first. If you're feeling especially human and not worried about Mozilla knowing about your goat porn or whatever you might consider turning on some of the phone-home stuff with it. There's also something about ignore_codecs you might find searching for it but it doesn't seem to be necessary anymore so why clutter it up. You still have to say yes to the HTML5 player. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Apr 2, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I've never said yes or no to html5, but according to this page I don't have that option anymore. 37 is causing youtube to load html5 but fails and refreshes back into flash on each video I watch, so I'd like to get this sorted out. Technically: eh. I don't know if Google's willing to cut Flash loose quite yet. Maybe as a matter of principle. If you use NoScript, you need to whitelist mediasource: and you might want to do it manually because you have less than a second to catch it when a video loads before YouTube defaults to a Flash version of the video's page.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
SpeedGem posted:Bet you 100 bucks you can't get all the gifs to load on this page. I'm pretty sure the lightning round for your browser's gif engine is rekall.tumblr.com. Also I had this problem before the VLC plugin.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
dis astranagant posted:Adobe themselves are working on it to an extent. They're gearing up for making the flash dev tools compile to html5 instead of having to maintain their own vm. Yup. Adobe ActionScript to HTML5, Unity3D to HTML5, gently caress a Java, gently caress a Silverlight, and that's pretty much all the valid reasons to have plugins gone. Ookla's going to have to work on their network metrics stuff if they want a seat at the table in the future.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Internet Explorer's Tracking Protection Lists can actually be used as adblock filters. The most popular TPLs on IE's add-on gallery are Easylist and EasyPrivacy, Fanboy has their own IE stuff, and someone even maintains a version of Malware Domains for it. On the other hand Internet Explorer itself is going to be a legacy product in Windows 10, and Trident has aged even worse than Gecko has.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I like to use this old ultraportable Thinkpad from 2005 for browsing sometimes. It's a 1.5 ghz single core system with 1.5 GB of RAM, so it'd be really great if I could force any HTML5 video/audio/animated content to be click-to-play or simply blocked unless I need to use it for a specific page, because to be honest such stuff runs like poo poo on this. Most HTML5 apps are just accelerated ECMA (JavaScript). So NoScript or something similar. Whitelist is now your only friend.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
Blowdryer posted:Running a browser while running a game is why I was looking for a lightweight browser, it gets bad when I play dota or divinity original sin and try to have something up (music/guides/whatever). Browsers are essentially accelerated Javascript virtual machines now. There are no lightweight browsers worth using in 2015. (And you're not in a thread for one now.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Lum posted:So, offical 64bit Firefox on Tuesday? Nope. Death to Flash Player.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
EDIT: Never mind, Ubuntu officially deprecated the thing I was using to make HTML5 H.264 work. Sigh. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
mike12345 posted:So will Firefox eventually update to the 64 bit version? Or do I have to look for an alternate download link at some point, if I want to make the switch. They just haven't edited the download page, apparently. EN-US Win64 link; other languages are like the relevant Windows link but with os=win64 instead of win.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Applebees posted:https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1185532 and the bugs it depends on. Yes, because resolved bugs block things all the time.  Officially, they're "waiting for some partner changes", whatever the hell that means (no seriously, I'm not sure Mozilla knows how words work anymore). I already told you how to get it last page.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:I'm not sure how that's hard to interpret. Mozilla is waiting for a (business) partner to make some changes to something before they advertise 64-bit builds. It's a vague claim without meaningful disclosure, and who exactly are they in bed with that not only can't they move forward on a decade-old platform near majority adoption rate, but they can't even say who's stopping them?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:Just tried it out, and I can confirm that it also works in 64-bit Firefox 42 Hm. So if Cisco's H.264 seems to work, and Adobe Flash seems to work, and Adobe EME seems to work, then it seems unlikely that any of those can be the reason Mozilla would stabilize and release Firefox Win64 and then pretend it doesn't exist.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Applebees posted:There are problems with Flash on 64-bit such as https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1180684 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1201904 The former isn't even being addressed anymore and the latter appears to be a consequence of their current sandboxing method. Either way: if it was that big an issue, then either - they shouldn't even be providing a release-channel build of Firefox Win64 - yeah they said they would by now, but 'oh it's not up to it and we have completely valid reason to withhold it, but we're releasing it on the DL anyway even though it's a bad idea because we said we would' is probably not a good reason to do it - or - they should accept that philosophical rigor (that is, death to NPAPI in Win64) has consequences (that is, losing the audience that believes themselves dependent on Flash Player, which is a fair bit larger than the audience that actually is dependent on Flash Player but not other NPAPI plugins), or - they should stop playing at philosophical rigor. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Nov 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
hooah posted:What's the best way to save my current 32-bit v42.0 setup and try out the 64-bit version? Just copy or archive it somewhere. Firefox isn't exactly delicate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
mike12345 posted:I switched to 64-bit, but now "open this link in itunes" doesn't work anymore. It's just a redirect to the iTunes download page. Any way to restore the old behaviour? Go back to 32-bit Firefox. When Mozilla said they were killing plugins*, they weren't loving around. *Except Flash Player, because apparently alienating the Facebook and Newgrounds gaming crowds is something that Just Cannot Happen
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
mike12345 posted:I don't understand. Isn't "open link in itunes" basically just a link? I wasn't even aware it was a plugin. Apple's web site wants to detect whether you have iTunes before kicking the page to it. There's no standard way to do this (I'm not sure if sandboxing really allows for it) so it needs a plugin to break out of the browser. If it can't it assumes you don't have iTunes. v v v I... guess? They could do a protocol-association thing but I guess it's hard to make clear to the lowest-expected-competence user that they don't have iTunes that way. This is actually kind of a difficult problem for supporting not-Mac users. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Nov 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2015 12:11
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Flash still works fine. It's Java that doesn't really work. Oh well! Java not working is a feature. Flash continuing to work is a bug.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Does that mean you have a patch for Shumway ready to make it work on all Flash content on the web? The proper fix is to publicly shame the gently caress out of anyone that's already HTML5'd their poo poo for mobile but won't serve it to computers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:That doesn't help users in the short term. There are already precious few reasons a person would stick with Firefox (add-ons and ideology are about the only ones), so I think it's wise not to give users another reason to switch to Chrome. If you read what Firefox's devout have to say they already think Firefox is becoming too much like Chrome, so that wouldn't change much. Also Mozilla claims killing plugins is about security when Flash is on the level of 'not blocking ads' and 'not doing software updates' in terms of making your computer a security goatse and is still specifically whitelisted.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Sir Unimaginative, do you have Flash installed? What do you do when you encounter web content that is only available in Flash? To most users simply choosing not to consume Flash content is not an acceptable option. If it is acceptable to them, users can simply NOT install Flash. I'm all about making correct security choices for users but Flash is still too large of a part of the web. I turn off Flash in IE and Chrome as a matter of course. I'm already trying to live my life without Flash Player and aside from one thing involving jury duty of all things I don't feel like I'm missing anything. Keep in mind web sites have had half a decade of iOS and three years of Flashless Android and declining PC adoption rates to contend with, so at this point I'm forced to conclude that anyone not at least trying to move off of Flash doesn't care about themselves or the future.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
NAT-T Ice posted:Flash is less and less of a necessity. My problem is that when sites do convert to HTML5 they tend to only support Chrome because Chrome drives development of new video streaming standards. Thanks to OpenH264 and Primetime EME this is markedly less of a problem now than it had been, and Mozilla can throw in open-source codecs like the VP series at leisure (although you might need to un-whitelist webm in about :config because Mozilla really does appear to be getting fed up with the more adept parts of their audience). Unless the site is namechecking Chrome, in which case name and shame. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
You probably noticed that the font is falling back to some other font when you do that. (I'd bet it's browser default and you can check by changing the default sans-serif font in Preferences/Content.) It might be an asset loading error or scripting error; without seeing what your page rendering log looks like when it happens no one can tell. (Also Firefox has had graphical glitches with Windows Intel drivers lately for some reason.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Alereon posted:It's most likely NoScript, try disabling it. Isn't NoScript objectively bad these days? It's certainly not the best option for script management now that uMatrix is a thing. v v v Origin. uBlock Origin. Regular uBlock has pretty much been left to wither while its maintainer tries to make money off of iOS content blockers. dont be mean to me fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
HTML5 and Web apps mean that huge amounts of things depend on JavaScript, and with Google and JQuery and other things providing essentially external design and function libraries, third-party scripting and stylesheets are not something you can block and expect a functional... well, Web. If you can't be judicious with uMatrix I don't think I could recommend NoScript to you either.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
astral posted:I'd recommend uBlock Origin + enabling Firefox's tracking protection (privacy.trackingprotection.enabled in about :config). Firefox's native tracking protection is like Hulkamania - it only runs wild. Try uMatrix. Unlike what the dude who made it implied no it doesn't require a drat maths degree just give it a shot.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 10:10 |
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Do I use uMatrix along side uBlock Origin/the built in tracking protection? With uBlock Origin and without Firefox native. Firefox native tracking protection is the kind of overzealous disconnect.me joint that will break more social media stuff than just Facebook. By default. There's a scorched earth option. Twitter is now apparently a legitimate source of news. You can see the problem here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 05:14
|
|