Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 55 Arrives With WebVR on Windows, Performance Panel, and Click-to-Play Flash (venturebeat.com)

Posted by msmash on from the browser-updates dept.

Mozilla today made available a new update to Firefox for Windows to introduce support for WebVR, that the company says, will enable desktop VR users to dive into web-based experiences with ease. Firefox 55 also includes performance panel, faster startup when restoring multiple tabs, a quicker way to search across various search engines, and click-to-play Flash by default. From a report: WebVR is an experimental JavaScript API that provides support for virtual reality devices, such as the HTC Vive, Oculus Rift, and Google Cardboard. As its name implies, the technology is meant for browsers. If you find a web game or app that supports VR, just click the VR goggles icon visible on the web page to experience it using your VR headset. WebVR supports navigating and controlling VR experiences with handset controllers or your movements in physical space. [...] Firefox 55 also allows users to adjust the number of processes and how much resources they want to allocate to any of them. This setting is at the bottom of the General section in Options. In fact, if your computer has more than 8GB of RAM, Mozilla recommends "bumping up the number of content processes that Firefox uses" because it will make Firefox faster, though at the expense of using more memory. In its own tests on Windows 10, the company found that Firefox uses less memory than Chrome, even with eight content processes running.

70 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. I don't get it by zifn4b · · Score: 1, Troll

    I'm sure it will allow you to view awesome Web VR! For about 5-10 minutes until it slows to a crawl from poor memory management and then you have to restart. It's a feature!

    I'm guessing this is specifically in reference to using Web VR?

    Firefox 55 also allows users to adjust the number of processes and how much resources they want to allocate to any of them. This setting is at the bottom of the General section in Options. In fact, if your computer has more than 8GB of RAM, Mozilla recommends "bumping up the number of content processes that Firefox uses" because it will make Firefox faster, though at the expense of using more memory. In its own tests on Windows 10, the company found that Firefox uses less memory than Chrome, even with eight content processes running.

    I have a Chrome browser open that's been running for days with multiple tabs open still as snappy as when I first opened it and it's currently using a cool 163MB of RAM. My machine has 16GB of memory but it I obviously barely need to drip into it? Oh and by the way Mozilla... Chrome just figures it out without users having to tweak their browser's memory management strategy manually. I guess you can't figure out to do that? Furthermore, I guess Firefox isn't for grandma then?

    For reals, I used to use Firefox and Firebug exclusively for web development for many years before Chrome de-throned you guys. We need less spin more real value to consider switching back. C'mon Mozilla, either get in the game or admit defeat.

    --
    We'll make great pets
    1. Re:I don't get it by Luthair · · Score: 1

      AFAIK Chrome doesn't 'figure it out' it uses all the memory all the time - hence losing every memory usage benchmark.

    2. Re:I don't get it by Luthair · · Score: 1

      The graphic in this article shows the why nicely - http://www.zdnet.com/article/f...

    3. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, what it shows is that someone doesn't understand how shared memory works. Chrome looks bigger by using more processes, but the shared libraries and code is loaded only once, not each time as shown in that diagram. It makes counting memory hard.

      Don't worry, Firefox is still a bloated, slow, piece of crap browser that no one is going to bother developing for. This hasn't changed. You just have to use it for a few seconds to feel how sluggish it is compared to Chrome.

    4. Re:I don't get it by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Chrome quite often fucks up and eats 100% CPU, driving the CPU power usage through the roof and making the VRMs overheat. FireFox? Nope. Doesn't happen!

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:I don't get it by GNious · · Score: 1

      Not sure if joking .... My firefox likes to hover between 110% and 150%.

  2. Firefox may not survive WebExtensions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a long time Firefox user, I'm scared about the upcoming Firefox 57 release. According to that Mozilla blog post, as of Firefox 57 "Firefox will only run WebExtensions." So that could mean a lot of existing extensions will no longer work.

    Firefox's market share has already fallen precipitously. The most-used release, Firefox 54, only has 3.75% of the market. The next most popular release of Firefox, Firefox 52, has only 0.52%. Firefox for Android has only 0.04% of the market. Overall, Firefox has only about 5% of the market.

    5% is dangerously low. Chrome, for example, is over 50%. Safari has over 10%. UC Browser for Android has over 9%. Firefox is now in the range of Opera Mini, with its 3% of the market.

    I think that Firefox 57, and this switch to WebExtensions, will be what finally eliminates Firefox as a viable web browser. Broken extensions will no doubt anger many of Firefox's few remaining users. I would not be surprised if many of them will move to some other browser. And these are users that Firefox can't afford to lose.

    Firefox 57 takes away one of the few remaining strong points of Firefox: its flexible and powerful extension system.

    Firefox doesn't even have privacy working in its favor any longer. Firefox's privacy policy shows that it sends a lot of information to Mozilla and others. For example, it indicates that even Firefox's geolocation capabilities can use Google's service, and this involves sending information to Google.

    So Firefox will soon become an almost identical clone of Chrome, including its own imitation of Chrome's UI, Chrome's extension model, and Chrome's privacy concerns. Yet Firefox still can't match Chrome's performance, even if some Firefox fanatics claim otherwise. Firefox users have clearly indicated that they find Firefox to be too slow, too bloated, and to use too much memory.

    For all intents and purposes, we should probably consider Firefox to be a "dead" browser at this point. Its market share is dropping, and could very well be under 1% by this time next year. It has dropped to such a low range that web developers no longer test with it. This will likely result in more and more web sites that don't work well with Firefox, making the Firefox user experience even worse.

    Users won't waste their time with Firefox when they can just use Chrome instead, and get the same UI and privacy experience, but with much better performance and reliability.

    The worst part of all of this is that it didn't have to be like this. Firefox's developers didn't need to copy Chrome. They didn't need to ruin the Firefox user experience that Firefox users had come to love. Firefox could have been its own independent browser. Yet all of this potential has been discarded, and the end result is disturbing: Firefox is, or soon will be, an unusable browser for most of its users.

    1. Re:Firefox may not survive WebExtensions. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      On the contrary - ripping out the base for extensions that are very useful now pushes me to consider the Pale Moon browser.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Firefox may not survive WebExtensions. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1, Informative

      Now I went for Pale Moon, and suddenly I'm back to the browser experience I'm used to since a long time - with the plugins working.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:Firefox may not survive WebExtensions. by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      Yet all of this potential has been discarded

      So what are you doing with your grand insight into the world? Why don't you use it to make your own browser and show them all how it should be done?

    4. Re:Firefox may not survive WebExtensions. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      On slashdot, everyone says they've switched to Pale Moon. Yet in the real world, Pale Moon has 0.02% market share. Would it be wise for Mozilla to do that Pale Moon users want?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re: Firefox may not survive WebExtensions. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Top of that, does anyone really want WebVR support? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that I'm not the only one that recalls VRML.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:Firefox may not survive WebExtensions. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      It would be more interesting to see the figures in a few weeks.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    7. Re:Firefox may not survive WebExtensions. by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Of course, Mozilla is now funded by Google, the largest data broker on the planet.

      I thought that changed a while ago and they are now funded by yahoo?

    8. Re:Firefox may not survive WebExtensions. by Masked+Coward · · Score: 1

      It is now official. Anonymous Coward has confirmed: firefox is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered firefox community when Anonymous Coward confirmed that firefox market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 3.75 percent of all browsers. Coming on the heels of a recent Anonymous Coward slashdot post which plainly states that firefox has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. firefox is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Anonymous Coward comprehensive slashdot post. You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict firefox's future. The hand writing is on the wall: firefox faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for firefox because firefox is dying. Things are looking very bad for firefox. As many of us are already aware, firefox continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. There can no longer be any doubt: firefox is dying. Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers. Anonymous Coward states that there are 700 trillion users of Chrome. How many users of firefox are there? Let's see. The number of Chrome versus firefox posts on slashdot is roughly in ratio of 5,000,000,000 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 firefox users. Opera posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of firefox posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of Opera. A recent article put firefox at about 0.000001 percent of the non-Chrome market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 firefox users. This is consistent with the number of firefox slashdot posts. Due to the troubles of firefox, abysmal design and so on, Mozilla went out of business and was taken over by Opera who offer another troubled browser. Now Opera is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house. All major Anonymous Coward posts show that firefox has steadily declined in market share. firefox is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If firefox is to survive at all it will be among browser dilettante dabblers. firefox continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, firefox is dead.

    9. Re:Firefox may not survive WebExtensions. by Masked+Coward · · Score: 1

      Fucking formatting....

      It is now official. Anonymous Coward has confirmed: firefox is dying

      One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered firefox community when Anonymous Coward confirmed that firefox market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 3.75 percent of all browsers. Coming on the heels of a recent Anonymous Coward slashdot post which plainly states that firefox has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. firefox is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Anonymous Coward comprehensive slashdot post.

      You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict firefox's future. The hand writing is on the wall: firefox faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for firefox because firefox is dying. Things are looking very bad for firefox. As many of us are already aware, firefox continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

      There can no longer be any doubt: firefox is dying.

      Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

      Anonymous Coward states that there are 700 trillion users of Chrome. How many users of firefox are there? Let's see. The number of Chrome versus firefox posts on slashdot is roughly in ratio of 5,000,000,000 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 firefox users. Opera posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of firefox posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of Opera. A recent article put firefox at about 0.000001 percent of the non-Chrome market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 firefox users. This is consistent with the number of firefox slashdot posts.

      Due to the troubles of firefox, abysmal design and so on, Mozilla went out of business and was taken over by Opera who offer another troubled browser. Now Opera is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

      All major Anonymous Coward posts show that firefox has steadily declined in market share. firefox is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If firefox is to survive at all it will be among browser dilettante dabblers. firefox continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, firefox is dead.

    10. Re:Firefox may not survive WebExtensions. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      As a long time Firefox user, I'm scared about the upcoming Firefox 57 release.

      I'm very nervous about it as well. My approach is going to be to put off upgrading for a good while until I hear the experiences of others about it. Then I'll decide.

    11. Re:Firefox may not survive WebExtensions. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      the fact is there isn't much reason to choose one over the other technically.

      That all depends on your needs. For my needs, Chrome is a nonstarter because there are no extensions that can accomplish what I need. As to UI, that's a matter of taste. I absolutely loathe the Chrome UI, but I'm not going to call people who are OK with it "wrong". I will, however, be pushed away from Firefox if I can no longer make it stop looking and acting like Chrome.

    12. Re:Firefox may not survive WebExtensions. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      It might be wise for Firefox to make it possible to have the experience that Pale Moon offers. There's no reason why it has to be either/or.

      Right now, with the use of plugins, I can make the current FireFox do just that. The issue is if this will still be possible after 57.

    13. Re:Firefox may not survive WebExtensions. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      As a long time Firefox user, I'm scared about the upcoming Firefox 57 release. According to that Mozilla blog post, as of Firefox 57 "Firefox will only run WebExtensions." So that could mean a lot of existing extensions will no longer work.

      Fun Fact: on OSX, there is no true full screen mode in Firefox. The full screen mode still leaves a couple interface elements visible, it's not just the page view. There are a couple extensions that can accomplish full screen mode -- but they wont work on Firefox 57+, and judging by the bug, Mozilla doesn't care.

  3. Re:Flash? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    No, it's a *GOOD POLICY* to enable "click to flash", it's just 15 years too late.

  4. "world of web-extensions"? by NettiWelho · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What "world"? Out of 15 extensions I have enabled 14 are currently are showing [LEGACY] flag on the options page.

    Looks to me like firefox is about to die.

    1. Re: "world of web-extensions"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm in the same boat. 11 of 12 of my extensions are 'legacy'. Some of them I created myself. If I have to rewrite them to be Chrome-compatible, then I will just switch to using Chrome full time. Goodbye, FF!

    2. Re: "world of web-extensions"? by johannesg · · Score: 2

      11 out of 13 for 'legacy'. Fine, let me shut down the automatic update system then because there is NO WAY I'm going to surf the web without all those extensions.

    3. Re: "world of web-extensions"? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Other noscript, adblock, and ghostery, what else are you running?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:"world of web-extensions"? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Do those 14 legacy extensions have Chrome equivalents? If so, presumably you'll be able to install the Chrome version in Firefox 57.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:"world of web-extensions"? by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 1

      What "world"? Out of 15 extensions I have enabled 14 are currently are showing [LEGACY] flag on the options page.

      I had a similar experience, and it was a good opportunity to get rid of many extensions that I can actually live without. Now, there is only AdBlock remaining as "Legacy" for which I really need a solution.

      By the way, reducing the number of extensions might be a way to improve performance or stability...

    6. Re:"world of web-extensions"? by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 1

      Replace Adblock with uBlock Origin.

      I just tried it, but it is also flagged as "Legacy" :-(

    7. Re: "world of web-extensions"? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I suppose I'd keep up more if the browser wasn't so easy to tweak as to remove the things that bother me. AdBlock has been needing replacement for a while (like since before he sold out) but last time I looked uBlock just wasn't compelling enough. Thanks for the reminder. uMatrix looks interestingly powerful.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    8. Re: "world of web-extensions"? by johannesg · · Score: 1

      I had a look and classified extensions into things I really won't do without, and things I could find alternatives for. Here's the list:

      Not marked "legacy": Enhanced Steam, Privacy Badger.

      - ShareMeNot: this functionality is apparently in Privacy Badger now, so that's good.

      - uBlock Origin: I see references to a webextension port but cannot figure out if it is production ready or not. This is a blocking point for me: I'm not using any browser that does not have ad-blocking.

      - FB Purity: has been ported, but I needed to install it manually.

      This is actually pretty good: this is the most important group by far (assuming that uBlock Origin works out fine). The rest is:

      Things I use a lot, but could find standalone alternatives for: SQLite Manager, FireFTP.

      Mostly cosmetic: Classic Theme Restorer, Custom Tab Width (I strongly prefer small tabs over scrolling them, and it's a mystery to me why the setting was removed from about:config in the first place), New Scrollbars (the default Firefox scrollbars have so little contrast I can barely see the knob).

      Things that would be annoying to lose: FlashGot, Toggle Animated Gifs.

      And finally there's Exif Viewer, which I suppose I don't use very often.

      Ok, so not too bad then.

    9. Re: "world of web-extensions"? by johannesg · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I have no flashblock because I keep flash on "ask to activate" at all times. So I consider that to be a built-in of Firefox already...

  5. VR? More crap no-one asked for by Wootery · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really now, Mozilla. Who on Earth wants VR support in their browser?

    Stop dumbing it down. Stop adding useless garbage bloat. Make the damn browser better.

    1. Re:VR? More crap no-one asked for by tepples · · Score: 1

      Would you prefer that VR be reserved for native applications? "We're sorry, but this application is not available for your platform."

    2. Re:VR? More crap no-one asked for by jeti · · Score: 1

      Web browsers provide the one device independent platform we have. If we can get it to support more use cases without compromising security, I'm all for it.

    3. Re:VR? More crap no-one asked for by tepples · · Score: 1

      Good luck getting all the major proprietary operating system publishers to agree on such a "separate standard" to be implemented by said "separate viewers" included with the operating system.

    4. Re:VR? More crap no-one asked for by tepples · · Score: 1

      If, as you claim, the premise "Web browsers provide the one device independent platform we have" is wrong, then what's the other "device independent platform"?

    5. Re:VR? More crap no-one asked for by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      When web pages start using VR, I'm pretty sure there is NOTHING device independent about that.

      "Web VR" is pretty much the definition of device dependence.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:VR? More crap no-one asked for by tepples · · Score: 1

      I admit I phrased that wrong. What's the processor architecture- and operating system-independent application platform?

    7. Re:VR? More crap no-one asked for by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      If it's device-independent, why does the title says "on Windows"?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    8. Re:VR? More crap no-one asked for by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I literally could not care less about VR support in browsers.

      But I also don't care if it's there, so long as the browser still meets my needs. My fear about FF is that it will no longer meet my needs.

    9. Re:VR? More crap no-one asked for by tepples · · Score: 1

      Considering the hardware requirements to run it at an acceptable framerate? Yeah, I would prefer it not run in an interpreted language.

      JavaScript used to be interpreted a decade ago. Now it's JIT compiled. WebAssembly is even more explicitly JIT compiled, a replacement for the Java platform that doesn't involve Oracle's legal department. Besides, the DOM runs in retained mode, which allows the compositor to run asynchronously of the script execution engine.

      Most PCs don't qualify as "available for your platform" when it comes to VR.

      Yet VR is available for both Windows and GNU/Linux. Will VR apps compiled for GNU/Linux run unchanged in WSL? Or will VR apps compiled for Windows run unchanged in Wine?

      It's bad enough that the drivers are spying on your eyeballs, we don't need XSS, SuperCookies, and Browser Fingerprinting added to the mix

      Yet native applications have even greater privileges by default than web applications.

      Seriously, a web browser may as well be called a "Userland untrusted / unvetted code retrieval and execution tool."

      So is anything else that can download an executable. Do we ban Wget now?

      Also nevermind that creating a web browser is made more difficult by yet another moving of the goalposts, and increase in scope.

      In theory, not all web browsers for a given PC operating operating system need to support WebVR. One can switch to one that does.

      SecondLife would like a word with you.

      Second Life is still in operation.

      Until they solve the whole "need as much free physical space as the total size of the virtual environment to avoid teleporting" thing (A.K.A. "I have no control over my virtual legs")

      Is it necessarily a bad thing to simulate a power chair and add the ability to move sideways? Because that's the paradigm seen in first-person shooters for both consoles and PCs.

      You'll need 3D modeling software to make anything unique

      Microsoft maintains a popular proprietary 3D voxel modeling application called Minecraft, and Blender Foundation (formerly NaN) maintains a popular free 3D surface modeling application called Blender. I am aware of the limits of Minecraft and the unfamiliarity of Blender and concede that we're still in an experimental era of bringing sculpting capability to the masses.

      It's a "because we can, not because we should" inclusion that does practically nothing for 5% market share it has.

      The World Wide Web itself used to be the same way.

    10. Re:VR? More crap no-one asked for by Wootery · · Score: 1

      But I also don't care if it's there, so long as the browser still meets my needs.

      I'd suggest being slightly against it, then. You still pay the price in bloat - possible performance degradation, increased attack-surface, and more code to go wrong stability-wise.

      WebGL was (totally predictably) a security nightmare, for instance.

  6. "For reals"? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Do people actually use this phrase outside of TV comedy shows?

    1. Re:"For reals"? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      TV comedy shows

      What do you mean? Like, Fox News?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  7. We need a way to keep user settings after upgrade by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

    you should know the issue:
    -In About:Config you disable Pocket and buffering pages when hovering over links.
    -you upgrade to the latest version of FF
    -Pocket is back and hovering over links buffers the page of said links.

    Why does Mozilla force us to live in FF's version of Groundhog day?

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  8. Discord emoji upload is broken in Firefox by tepples · · Score: 1

    And the only instances I can think of where things were "broken" in Firefox wasn't so much that they were broken as that the layout wasn't quite right due to slight differences in CSS.

    Counterexample: Custom emoji uploading in Discordapp.com (a without-charge replacement for Slack) works in Chrome but not Firefox. A user with "Manage Emojis" privileges on a server can rename or delete emojis using Chrome or Firefox, but uploading new ones works only in Chrome. Clicking the "Upload Emoji" button in Firefox just makes the button go in and out; it doesn't display a file chooser as expected. I found it surprising because avatar uploading and photo attachment uploading work fine.

  9. Re:Flash? by tepples · · Score: 2

    So how do we go back in time and convince Mike and Matt Chapman to use a product other than Flash to make Homestar Runner?

    Or how do we track down the author of every SWF vector animation and every SWF game on Newgrounds, Dagobah, Albino Blacksheep, and Kongregate, have the author dig up the original FLA, and provide a one-month rental of Adobe Animate CC so that the author can reexport everything to HTML5?

  10. Just what I needed by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

    because it will make Firefox faster, though at the expense of using more memory.

    Firefox already uses an obscene amount of memory. The longer it runs, the more ridiculous its memory consumption gets, as it gets slower and slower to the point where it becomes unusable. Then crash, restart, repeat.

    This still has not been fixed and now they're thinking up new ways to make it even worse? Firefox has become the Hummer of browsers. No wonder Chrome is taking over. NoScript is Firefox's sole redeeming feature at this point.

  11. Re:Flash? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    We don't need our browsers to run Adobe Photoshop to view people's work, they just export it to JPEG or PNG.

    Flash as a video-making tool is not a problem. Export your video to H.264 or whatever.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  12. New Add-On Standard Must be Hard to Develop To by bigal123 · · Score: 2

    The process must be very hard to convert an add-on to the new standard. Even Mozilla's own "Add-on Compatibility Reporter" is listed as legacy.
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

    If Mozilla can't even do it then how do they expect others to do it it??

    Most all my add-ins are listed as Legacy. Some are listed a compatible with Multiprocess and some are not.

    1. Re:New Add-On Standard Must be Hard to Develop To by bigal123 · · Score: 1

      I still like Firefox, but have to wonder if this could a death blow.

  13. Are your extensions flaged as [LEGACY]? by williamyf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, welcome to the wonderfull world of FireFox ESR.

    Firefox ESR 52 will allow you to keep your old time extensions until Aprox April next year.

    Also, your NPAPI plug-ins (Like the ones you have to use for SabaMeeting, Cisco WebEx, and al sorts of ILO plugins for server and network gear).

    Just install (or downgrade to) Firefox ESR52.

    While this is not optimal, It will bid you time so that your Plug-ins and AdOns are ported to the new FireFox framework (which is SIMILAR BUT NOT EQUAL to that of chrome). Or ported to chrome, or whatever other solution your provider of said Plug-ins or AdOns considers...

    I've been on the ESR channel since its inception (I can not have my workflow disrupted every three months or so, when the firefox devs decide to change another thing).

    While is not a bed of roses (specially at the end of the life of the ESR, when pretty much all sites believe your browser is "out of date and insecure" [which it is NOT]), is better than the alternative for people like us who use the browser as a WORK tool first and foremost, with recreational uses in the backseat...

    Having said that, I believe that the Direction Firefox is taking under the hood (I will NOT enter a UI/UX holly war) in order to increase performance and security is the right one, and a little pain in the short term is whorthwile for the performance and security rewards that will be collcted later on....

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    1. Re:Are your extensions flaged as [LEGACY]? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      While is not a bed of roses (specially at the end of the life of the ESR, when pretty much all sites believe your browser is "out of date and insecure" [which it is NOT])

      God, how I wish that websites would stop checking which browser I'm using.

  14. List of extensions I use: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "Broken extensions will no doubt anger many of Firefox's few remaining users."

    Broken extensions will be EXTREMELY destructive to Firefox, in my opinion. Broken extensions will be as though Mozilla Foundation spent $100 million on advertising to kill Firefox. Extensions are the main reason I use Firefox and Pale Moon (Pale Moon had a 64-bit version before Firefox).

    I installed Google's Chrome browser a long time ago. I discovered Chrome had installed 3 system services. So Chrome and Google had more control over my computer than I normally allow myself. Now, no more Chrome on any of my computers.

    Why do software company managers become self-destructive? Firefox managers are EXTREMELY self-destructive, in my opinion. Google is rapidly traveling from "Do no evil" to "Do evil if it make money" if that initially makes money, in my opinion.

    My Firefox and Pale Moon extensions

    The first is a Pale Moon ad-blocker. Some Firefox extensions don't work in Pale Moon:
    1. Adblock Latitude For Pale Moon browser only. Blocks display of ads. "Adblock Latitude is a direct fork of Adblock Plus made specifically for the Pale Moon browser."
    2. BetterPrivacy Deletes Local Shared Objects, LSOs. LSOs are files placed on your computer by the Adobe Systems Flash plug-in. Use of Adobe Flash allows web sites to track you, permanently even though your browser is configured to delete the files known as "Cookies" after each re-starting of your operating system.
    3. CanvasBiocker Prevents websites from using the Javascript <canvas> API to fingerprint them.
    4. Classic Theme Restorer Quoting 3 paragraphs:

      "This add-on will stop working when Firefox 57 arrives in November 2017."

      "This add-on will stop working when Firefox 57 arrives in November 2017 and Mozilla drops support for XUL / XPCOM / legacy add-ons. It should still work on Firefox 52 ESR until ESR moves to Firefox 59 ESR in 2018 (~Q2).

      "There is no 'please port it' or 'please add support for it' this time, because the entire add-on eco system changes and the technology behind this kind of add-on gets dropped without replacement."

    5. Cookies Manager+
    6. Disconnect
    7. Facebook Blocker Prevents Facebook from following you everywhere there are Facebook "Like" buttons.
    8. Firebug "Firebug integrates with Firefox to put a wealth of development tools at your fingertips while you browse. You can edit, debug, and monitor CSS, HTML, and JavaScript live in any web page..."
    9. Ghostery DON'T UPDATE. New versions don't allow sufficient user control.
      USE THIS: ghostery-5.4.10-sm+an+fx.xpi Link: Version 5.4.10
      Ghostery sells data it collects. (Business Insider, Jun 18, 2013)
      Ghostery web site
    10. MozArchiver For Pale Moon browser only. Like Mozilla Archive Format that is used with Firefox. Saves web pages.
    11. Mozilla Archive Format For Firefox only. Saves web page
    1. Re:List of extensions I use: by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      One good add-on that no longer works is the Self-destructing cookies add-on.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:List of extensions I use: by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Thanks for Canvasback Futurepower, have to use that one :)
      This is what makes FF much better that other browsers. Control back to the user not some brand that sells ads.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  15. I like the update... by Lothsahn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've been trying to use firefox again due to privacy concerns with Chrome. I've been really frustrated by the poor performance, despite the new multi-process.

    I just realized, now that there's a GUI (performance panel) that I multi-process wasn't enabled because I had a single legacy addon. I disabled that addon and now FireFox is MUCH faster.

    I know everyone hates that the legacy addons are going away--and I do think FireFox needs to do something about this--support them longer, fund development of the most popular addons, something... but MultiProcess FF is amazingly faster than before. I would never want to go back...

    --
    -=Lothsahn=-
    1. Re:I like the update... by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 1

      I've been trying to use firefox again due to privacy concerns with Chrome. I've been really frustrated by the poor performance, despite the new multi-process. I just realized, now that there's a GUI (performance panel) that I multi-process wasn't enabled because I had a single legacy addon. I disabled that addon and now FireFox is MUCH faster. I know everyone hates that the legacy addons are going away--and I do think FireFox needs to do something about this--support them longer, fund development of the most popular addons, something... but MultiProcess FF is amazingly faster than before. I would never want to go back...

      I don't think that this is correct; I have one "legacy" add-on (AdBlock), but my FireFox is running with multiple processes. Maybe you also switched the "Use recommended performance settings" options in Options => General ?

  16. Re:Flash? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Flash as a video-making tool is not a problem. Export your video to H.264 or whatever.

    Which means one-tenth the runtime in the same file size.

  17. Re:Flash? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Playback of Flash is always a problem. You need a computer fast enough for it and a Flash plug-in that doesn't suck.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  18. dumbest thing I've heard in awhile by crafoo · · Score: 1

    A javascript API for VR.. in a web browser. VR already taxes hardware and requires tight synchronization of sensor inputs over USB3 to video framebuffer output to produce a usable experience. Adding javascript, another layer of abstraction, and frankly, a shitty wannabe operating system masquerading as a web browser into the mix IF FUCKING STUPID AND A WASTE OF TIME.

  19. Re:We need a way to keep user settings after upgra by MarioJE · · Score: 1

    I believe it is network.predictor.enabled

  20. Performance, security and privacy please. by cutefatbird · · Score: 1

    Firefox has been moving in the right direction as far as multi process/performance updates. I don't care about the VR atm but the performance panel could be a positive addition. On the desktop Firefox is now close to- or at parity with Chrome in most benchmarks so I cant complain but I want them to focus on the baisics and forget about the flashy extras. (I hide pocket and the like first thing when I set up Firefox.)

  21. Re:Flash? by theweatherelectric · · Score: 2

    So how do we go back in time and convince Mike and Matt Chapman to use a product other than Flash to make Homestar Runner?

    I saw a documentary which explained how.

    Or how do we track down the author of every SWF vector animation

    Or maybe just build a Flash runtime in WebAssembly. It's more productive than bemoaning the demise of Flash. The proprietor of Flash doesn't care about their proprietary platform anymore. So if you do care for some reason, then you're the one who's going to have to build it.

  22. WebVR? Great! by n329619 · · Score: 1

    Now I have a reason to pick up my 32" monitor and glue it into my face! Oh I can't wait for the excitement of spinning my head in the room for the full VR experience, while my monitor smashing everything in sight. /s

  23. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  24. ugh by namoland9 · · Score: 1

    WebVR, huh... so they are bringing this stuff back. And everyone in the mainstream is painting this as some kind of wonderful news about innovation https://software.informer.com/... It's like that every time a useless gimmick is introduced, like that facebook webpage ranking https://droidinformer.org/Stor... I mean, who gives a damn? But this WebVr is going to be paraded around until people are tied of it. And then it will be obsolete and forgotten.

  25. Fix for longstandig regression - good job? by OneAhead · · Score: 1

    faster startup when restoring multiple tabs

    The long wait on startup with multiple tabs open appeared several versions ago; since I often keep lots of tabs open, it was quite noticeable. So let's see: they made a regression, took a very long time to fix it, and now we're supposed to cheer? I can run an innovative software company like that...

  26. Distributing a WIP Java implementation is "piracy" by tepples · · Score: 1

    Java is owned by Oracle. The license of the Java Language Specification appears to prohibit distributing an incomplete implementation from scratch of the Java platform, whether called Java or called something else. This means it's a breach (and therefore a copyright infringement) for a group of hobbyists to reimplement the Java platform in a public repository. Instead, a reimplementation of the Java platform must be performed behind closed doors, distributed to the public only once it becomes a "Compliant Implementation".

    ECMAScript is an Ecma standard, and HTML, CSS, and the HTML DOM are W3C Recommendations. Unlike Java, JavaScript (the combination of ECMAScript with the HTML DOM) allows making a partial implementation public.

    In what way do the advantages of Java over JavaScript outweigh the disadvantage of ownership by One Rich American Called Larry Ellison?

  27. PCs from 2000 were fast enough for SWF by tepples · · Score: 1

    PCs from the dial-up era were fast enough to play SWF animations from the dial-up era, and Flash Player let the user dial the FSAA up or down. Nowadays, CPUs are faster, and GPU acceleration is more common. Adobe is the limiting factor in making Flash Player not suck, and I concede that the company has recently punted on that.