Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 58 Gets Graphics Speed Boost, Web App Abilities (cnet.com)
Mozilla released on Tuesday a new version of its Firefox Quantum browser, boosting its graphics speed and improving a couple of new technologies designed to make the web more powerful. From a report: The browser, version 58, is the first major update since Mozilla's recovery plan hit full stride in November with the debut of Firefox Quantum. Speed is of the essence in Mozilla's recovery plan, and Firefox 58 does better than its predecessor in some graphics tasks by splitting work better across the multiple processor cores that computer chips have these days. The result should be scrolling that's smooth, uninterrupted by the stuttering that in computing circles goes by the disparaging term "jank." [...] Firefox 58 helps with two new web technologies. One, called WebAssembly, provides for dramatically faster web apps. Firefox 58 can get WebAssembly software running faster so you don't have to twiddle your thumbs waiting as long after clicking a link. Another is progressive web apps (PWAs), an initiative that came out of Google to help make the web a better match for the apps we all drop on our phones.
On Linux, its still night and day difference in favor of Chrome.
I wish FF performance was as good as it is on Windows.
As much as I want to like Mozilla, even with Quantum, there's pretty much no hardware acceleration at all, missing out on potentially big performance benefits.
As others mentioned, e.g. VDPAU has been available for a long time now and there's no excuse for not taking advantage of GPU acceleration. FF performance on simple tube sites like pornhub and furfactor is nothing short of abysmal.
I'm very grateful to the Firefox project and its contributors for their dedication to bringing us a fast and modern browser to act not only as a useful product, but as an essential counterweight to corporate hegemony over the www. Switching to 57 was a bit of pain as I had to find replacements to many of my beloved extensions, but it was worth it for the speed upgrade and smaller memory footprint. I'm glad they are keeping on the path of optimization and bringing more technologies that I can use both as an end user and as a web developer.
I doubt the fixed it, but the new Quantum "faster" Firefox was really dragging down my system. At first, I thought some malicious add-on was mining cryptocurrency on my machine. But it turns out Firefox was just spawning orphan processes. I found the fix at the link below, which is basically to disable multi-threading in Firefox.
Multiple Firefoxes in the background, exiting the program doesn't clear them up. They persist.
I am still missing a few of my favorite add-ons as well. The bulk download manager DownThemAll was great, but it sounds like Firefox does not want that functionality, so no add-on has yet to be as useful.
I think there's a good amount of "written before me" attitudes causing problems.
Maintaining the code of someone else is seldom attractive to developers, who would rather make their own mark, and refuse to entertain the idea that what they create might be worse than what was already there.
Re-inventing the wheel seldom leads to an improvement on the circular shape, centered hub and perpendicular axis.
How does this fix the problems that cause Firefox to take as much ram as it can while taking it away from other processes? 7GB+ for less than 10 tabs, with no extensions, plug-ins, or anything? When multiple processes are used it crashes the entire system, forcing someone to reset the system. Chrome and Vivaldi do much more while using less ram, and they were built from the ground up to handle tough tasks. Firefox, not so much. Right now Firefox is as useful as Internet Explorer 6 was in its day.
Focusing on improving the core technology is the right decision IMHO. Recent performance improvements have been quite impressive, and the distance to Chrome has become really small.
Nevertheless I would really like to see a way to measure webworker performance. Sometimes I have the feeling that there is quite some fluctuation. For example when I work with iconfu.com, sometimes the icons get rendered blazingly fast, and sometimes it takes seconds. Not sure what is causing this, also since I cannot measure webworker performance, there is not really an easy way to find out.
Anyway, keep up the great work!
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
... if Firefox put back some of the lost functionality due to all the extensions that no longer work due to Mozilla's apparent race to be a Chrome clone.
The only thing that separated Firefox from the competition were the plugins (to be more exact, the power of these plugins) and Firefox threw it out and replaced it with lobotomized versions incapable to replicate the functionality of the previous versions.
So I will stay with Firefox 56 (the last sane version) as much as I can.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
The wasteful processing needed to run these stupid "web apps" are what led to the frantic, corner-cutting optimizations that wrecked Intel and up-ended 20 years of tech.
We've had portable binary formats on the web for years - originally java bytecode and then flash. And look how bug and exploit free thar was. Why the rush to produce yet another attack surface?
So I will stay with Firefox 56 (the last sane version) as much as I can.
grandpa doesn't want to try a new brand of diapers
Yup, I can't wait to replacing my OS with a browser.
Here's how Mozilla lost its 1st place in one of their last remaining bastions. "Speed is of the essence in Mozilla's recovery plan" the article says, but in reality what should be the essence for a recovery plan is to bite the bullet and admit they were wrong in deprecating what made them unique.
I'll stick with Waterfox. What made Firefox so great was the ability to bend it to my will. Webextensions takes away my abilities and replaces them with training wheels and a balloon. YAY! This update is just more hand waving "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" tactics.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
I am still not switching back until all the old add ons work.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
While I'm all for Firefox improving performance, it can't come at the expensive of reliably rendering websites. After the upgrade, I noticed various problems across several sites I used to access without issue.
Because of that, I've been forced to switch to Chrome for the time being as my primary browser because I have enough on my plate without having to worry about "Is the website broken or is it me?"
Maybe I'll try it again after it's had a couple versions to shake out bugs.
"How does this fix the problems that cause Firefox to take as much ram as it can..."
I filed a bug report to Mozilla about that more than 10 years ago.
Firefox gobbles memory and CPU power when there are lots of Windows and tabs open. Eventually Firefox makes Windows 7 unstable, and it is necessary to restart the computer.
or was that just a special edition for Mozilla's team of fat indians and anime faggots
So, let's see, Firefox is now faster at preventing me from doing what I want to do. Big woof. I will wait to downgrade to newer FF until it incorporates the functionality it killed in helping me see The True Way of Enlightenment. It will be a long wait, I'm afraid. In the meantime, there are other browsers.
How can they have WebAssembly but leave SharedArrayBuffer disabled, for fear of spectre?
If I can use SAB to create a high performance timer using workers and javascript, why wouldn't I be able to do it with a c program running in webassembly?
What gives? Ohhhhhh caving to commercial interests, that's what gives! Secure or not, the web must be commercial and that means code needs to be obfuscated.
Good job Mozilla
Palemoon / Waterfox is maintained by 1 person... ONE; and at most, 2.
Yes, there's been minor chip-ins from a few others, but look at the git commit history and it's basically a one-man show.
And seeing how fast tech is moving and standards are evolving, Palemoon/Waterfox/Variants are already far, far behind, especially in security fixes.
It's basically a dead project without some serious number of hands contributing to maintaining it! And that of course requires serious funding, or at least, some corporate sponsorship with lots of devs.
Web browsers are probably some of the most complex pieces of applications, perhaps more so than even Operating Systems, so it's unrealistic for any 1 person to maintain, let alone develop further.
I'm not sure I really want the web more powerful.
Don't get me wrong. Firefox is (given the alternatives) my only browser. And I'm glad that it exists, and that good people are working on it.
But I can't stand browsers in general and their tendency to be "the application platform", and that marketing babble I can stand even less.
On Windows 7
Firefox v58 Gets an HTML5 Test score of 486 out of 555
Chrome v63 Gets an HTML5 Test score of 528 out of 555
I am in general still perplex why after all these years browsers are not 100% HTML 5 complaint.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
How is this news for nerds? This is Americana.
"...progressive web apps (PWAs), an initiative that came out of Google to help make the web a better match.."
maybe it's nothing, but Google seems to be ceaselessly ramming a politicized agenda down everyone's throat. Even through innocuous things like feature set names.
Re-inventing the wheel seldom leads to an improvement on the circular shape, centered hub and perpendicular axis.
Mozilla's new wheel is a triangle, attached to a bald feminist.
In the nearly 15+ years of time I've visited Slashdot, I don't recall a first post that's this sincere yet as off-topic as this one. Talk about jarring - and totally stupid to bring up here.
I wish Firefox and Mozilla the best, but it appeared in stats that 57 pretty much did nothing to increase Firefox user base, in one stat it even fell off a little.
Chrome is killing every stat for browsers I have seen. Its leaps and bounds above anything else, and it may not be any better then a FF 58 it garnered the attention of users long ago and that's a very hard thing to change.
Mozilla seems to think that everyone works on a 27-inch display.
I need to monitor over a dozen web pages throughout the day for work and enjoy having a few tabs open for other purposes as well. I'm working on a 13-inch laptop which provides space for a maximum of 14 open tabs on one line.
I have had to use TabMix for the last few years to bring back the old multi-line tab-bar in Firefox. TabMix is broken under the new architecture, with no replacement. I also have a bunch of add-ons for work that provide critical information in the status bar... which is gone and there's no add-on to bring it back in the new Firefox. I can fit 3 of these add-ons in the space provided next to the address field in Quantum.
So, either I run the old version and leave myself open to Spectre or a run the new version which has an unusable interface. ...I'm gonna end up taking option #3 and move to another web browser.
The latest version of Firefox takes 15-20 seconds to display my homepage when starting - which is on my local apache server and about 5-8 seconds to load the second page (any page) I go to. Chrome, IE, Opera, Pale Moon all open almost instantly and show the page. Firefox has also the annoying feature of not loading images that are outside the current view and waits until I scroll down on the page to even consider loading the images, which furthers the impression that Firefox is "slower" than it use to be. I suppose I can move Firefox from the SSD drive into a RAM disk and see if that helps speed it up, or just stop using it altogether.
Does this version of FF work properly with HTTP, or is it dumbassed "scareware"?
In the run up to FF57's deadline came up last year, I bitterly posted on Slashdot about how I didn't want the speed upgrades as much as I wanted to keep the extensions that were not getting ported.
I was wrong - dead wrong. Why?
1) Speed: If you were an anti-Chrome guy like me but would be a little jealous of its speed when you had to use it, this has been resolved. FF57 has been much snappier to use than previous versions. It feels like Chrome or faster.
In the end, browser speed DOES matter.
2) Extensions: Not every extension I used before FF57 has been ported to Quantum, but the important extensions I used have been since the FF57 release that weren't ready initially. NoScript, FlagFox, etc. All working now. If the extensions weren't ready last November, look again. They may be ready now.
Just as importantly, I haven't missed the ones that haven't made it. You may not miss them either.
3) The native Web Development tools are better than Firebug was in the end, IMO. And it's been nice to not have Firebugginess to deal with anymore.
So - Take it from this OCD guy who's not a marketing shill for the Mozilla org: If you're still sitting at FF52 ESR or FF56.x over any form of FUD (especially the, "but extension X is indispensible", worry,) given FF57 another look now and test it out without those, "I've gotta have extension X," extensions and see. You may be surprised.
Let's compare browser market share stats from October 2017, before Firefox 57 was released against browser market share stats December 2017, after Firefox 57 was released.
The first thing to notice is that Firefox 55 had 3.86% of the market in October, but Firefox 57 only had 3.55% as of December. This indicates to me that new users aren't adopting Firefox 57, and existing users have been avoiding or leaving it.
Firefox 54 dropped from 0.24% to 0.05%. This indicates to me that users haven't been sticking with recent older versions instead of upgrading.
We must also notice that Firefox 52 dropped from 0.49% in October down to 0.44% by December. Remember that Firefox 52 is an extended support release (ESR), and we would have expected this number to have grown, or at least remained constant, if users had chosen to stick with Firefox 52 instead of upgrading to Firefox 57.
There has also been a decline in the market share of the future (at the time) versions. Firefox 56 had 0.16% of the market in October, but the equivalent next version as of December, Firefox 58, had only 0.13% of the market. So Firefox wasn't even able to maintain its more advanced users, who use upcoming versions of Firefox.
So we've seen Firefox suffer from some significant market share loss within the desktop segment.
Some people will probably point out how Firefox for Android went from 0.09% in October to 0.45% in December. There's nothing to get excited about here, though. First of all, any growth here has been more than offset by declines in the usage of desktop Firefox. Second of all, it's likely that this sudden jump is a result of people trying out Firefox, but there's little to suggest that they'll continue to use it over the long run. Third of all, a market share of 0.45% still makes Firefox for Android totally irrelevant, with mobile browsers like Chrome for Android at over 28%, UC Browser for Android at almost 9%, iOS Safari at over 7%, Samsung Internet at over 3%, and even Opera Mini at just over 3%. So Firefox is at best the 6th place mobile browser, which is a rather pathetic place to be for an organization like Mozilla that has significant resources and had specialized in browser development for a long time.
I don't see how anyone can consider Firefox 57 to have been a success. The broken extensions, the unwanted new UI, and the lack of performance improvements meant it was a very painful release for end users. We see their pain reflected in these recent browser market share statistics, which clearly show that Firefox is still losing users and not gaining users, and this is something it just can't afford to have happen given how low its market share was to begin with.
If Firefox 57 was meant to "recover" Firefox, as the summary suggests, then it completely failed at achieving this goal. I think it has actually done the opposite: Firefox 57 has accelerated Firefox's decline, as indicated by the market share stats.
While people everywhere are telling us why we CAN'T do something we are out there proving them wrong. Alex isn't working alone he is simply taking the best parts of Firefox and stripping out the junk. Most of the improvements Quantum made are already incorporated into Waterfox. It just didn't implement the nanny state of removing things that many users find indispensable. Do you know how many Fortune 500 companies have JAVA front ends for their multi-million dollar enterprises? A LOT! You know what most of these companies are using for a browser? IE11!!! That is SCARY. At least with Waterfox you've got a modern browser that still allows legacy sites to work correctly.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Time to talk about how Firefox/Chrome/etc are all bad and dumb and only I know how to make the one true browser that would make everyone happy!
It's irrelevant that Chrome might be bundled with other software, or that it might be advertised by Google.
Chrome being present on somebody's system doesn't mean that they'll use it the first time. It doesn't mean that they'll continue to use it after that. It doesn't mean that they'll continue to use it for years and years and years.
Why do people use Chrome? Because it's the best browser out there. It's faster than its competitors. It works more reliably than its competitors. It works with more web sites (or more web sites work with it) than with its competitors. It uses less computing resources than its competitors. In short, users like to use Chrome!
It's really telling that so many users choose Chrome, despite their OSes coming with other browsers like IE/Edge in the case of Windows, or Safari in the case of macOS, or Firefox in the case of Linux and other niche OSes.
Even with these other browsers available, users still choose to install Chrome, and then use Chrome day in and day out, for years and years.
You and Mozilla can deny it all that you want, but the reality is that users in general hate Firefox, and they like using Chrome. That's why Chrome has managed to capture over 50% of the browser market, despite facing a lot of competition, while Firefox now flounders down around 5%.
Users voluntarily go out of their way to use Chrome, and voluntarily avoid Firefox and other browsers that come bundled with the OS they're using. That's a pretty powerful statement these users are making: they really like Chrome, while disliking the other browsers.
And that's one of the problems with browser development culture - "if you lag behind, we don't care about you. Doesn't matter if your use case is completely valid, you're in the minority and you don't matter." That's the feeling I get.
Let me guess, still no native sound on Linux (pulseaudio only since version 52), still infested with spyware/telemetry/DRM, and still not running most add-ons. Still copying chrome and doing it worst, losing all the advantages Firefox once had. But still started by SJWs and snowflakes, and that is what matters, not that almost nobody uses it anymore. Thank the level minded for brave, waterfox and palemoon, or we'd be stuck with chromium.
Perhaps you don't realise the main reason corporate environments are using IE is because it's bundled with Windows, available on every corporate machine; and best of all: it can be remotely configured / controlled / patched using domain controller / active directory rules and WSUS. And if things go wrong, they have license agreements with Microsoft, meaning dedicated support and swift responses.
I recommend that you read Firefox's privacy policy. Its "privacy controls", as you put it, are quite suspect.
The Firefox privacy policy dated September 28, 2017 clearly indicates that it can/will send data to Mozilla, along with third parties like Google, Adjust, SalesForce, and Leanplum:
It doesn't matter if such data collection and transmission can "potentially" be disabled.
If Firefox's developers really gave a damn about Firefox's users' privacy, then Firefox wouldn't even include any support for any of that tracking and sending of private data to third parties. There'd be nothing to disable, as the code implementing such tracking and data transmission shouldn't even exist in Firefox!
The Rust programming language is a great example of how Mozilla's developers are going out of their way to create a shitty imitation of something that already exists and does the job much better.
The Rust home page describes Rust like this:
At a glance, all of that sounds nice to have. But when you give Rust a try, I think it soon becomes obvious that you're in for a world of hurt.
Rust's approach to memory management is perhaps the worst I've ever had to deal with in my decades of experience. Even when you have a full understanding of it, it's still awkward to use. While C's approach might be somewhat dangerous, at least it allows a professional to get real work done efficiently. When using Rust, it's like you have to be an expert user just to get anything accomplished.
I don't want to get into it in too much detail, but Rust suffers from a number of what I think are some very serious problems, including a mediocre imitation of a C-like syntax, a rather lacking standard library, a single implementation that's quite slow, often broken/incomplete third party libraries, far too much hype, and a rather toxic/tyrannical community.
The thing that's really devastating to Rust, however, is C++. Modern versions of C++, like C++14 and especially C++17, basically remove the alleged benefits of Rust, while at the same time offering many benefits that Rust doesn't, and may never, offer. It's hard to believe, but modern versions of C++ probably have an easier learning curve than Rust has. There are also multiple independent C++ compiler and standard library implementations, supporting many platforms. There are many high-quality, stable, tested C++ libraries available. C++ has one of the nicest, most friendly and helpful communities around.
Instead of doing the sensible thing and pushing hard to use all of the beneficial features of C++14 and C++17 while developing Firefox, we've seen Mozilla's developers waste a lot of resources building Rust. All they've ended up with in the end is a difficult to use language that's inferior to C++17 in almost every way.
I think that this failing Rust effort, along with other failures like Firefox OS and Australis, are all big reasons why Firefox has declined so severely over the last number of years. Instead of just listening to Firefox's users and giving them what they want (i.e. a fast, extensible, secure browser), we've seen Firefox's developers dick around with so much stuff that Firefox's users don't want, or don't care about.
I believe that terminating this failing Rust effort immediately would be one of the best things that Mozilla and Firefox's developers could do. Stripping out the Rust code that has made its way into Firefox should also become a priority. Firefox needs to focus on using C++17 instead of Rust, in my opinion.
You don't get mass shootings at gun shows, police stations, or sportsmans clubs.
Gun shows have had 4 mass shootings since 1987. However, there are a multitude of other shootings at gun shows.
As to police stations, 2016 mass shooting in Dallas, 2011 in Detroit, and 2012 in New Jersey where an inmate caused a mass shooting, 2012 again in New Jersey though this more a domestic issue. There have been numerous shootings of and at police stations, though they are not considered mass shootings.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Perhaps you don't realize that the reason they are using IE is they have legacy systems running ActiveX/JAVA programs that only work with IE. Most web sites don't even test against IE any longer they just pop up a message saying "Download Chrome Now!". Which means these companies have to adopt a two browser strategy to support their needs.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Why are you whining about Java front ends? They're far safer (less buggy) than C++ and dynamic languages. The only issue with Java is speed/memory when compared with other languages, but as a front end interacting with a user, those cons don't matter.
Honest question: Waterfox have the performance improvements from 57~beyond AND the support to XUL-style addons from 56 and later?
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Sounds like you have stake in either C++17 or a competing browser.
I'm sure everything added to C++ is optional so that old, unsafe code still compiles.
"Nobody is forcing you to use safer coding practices, keep doing what you're doing" is probably the end result.
Competition is nice, but your odd plea for Firefox to predominantly use C++17 instead of Rust just isn't going to happen.
For the most part yes. From the Waterfox site:
Features Disabled Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)
Disabled Web Runtime (deprecated as of 2015)
Removed Pocket
Removed Telemetry
Removed data collection
Removed startup profiling
Allow running of all 64-Bit NPAPI plugins
Allow running of unsigned extensions
Removal of Sponsored Tiles on New Tab Page
Addition of Duplicate Tab option
Locale selector in about:preferences > General
And from the developer Alex Kontos:
"Quantum is already a part of Waterfox. It was just a collection of improvements in various aspects of the browser made at the same time, so Mozilla just decided to use the umbrella term Quantum so people would know that all these changes were happening. It has been going on for years, and Firefox 52+ were the finishing touches to it."
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Waterfox have the performance improvements from 57~beyond
No. Waterfox is still based on Firefox 56. Waterfox will just keep falling further behind.
Yet your shitty company cannot make a browser that is as good as that one guy.
Go shill somewhere else.
Firefox 52+ were the finishing touches to it.
No, there have been further performance improvements since 52. Try this simple example of the improvement in WebAssembly complication times.
In WaterFox 56.0.3 the highest result I got was: WebAssembly.instantiate took 1369.3 ms (9 MB/s)
In Firefox 58.0 the lowest result I got was: WebAssembly.instantiate took 222.5 ms (55.6 MB/s)
Waterfox will continue to fall behind as new Firefox releases come out. Eventually Waterfox will have to bite the bullet and rebase on whatever the latest Firefox is at that time.
clearly indicates that it can/will send data to Mozilla
So turn telemetry off in the settings. It's under Privacy and Security -> Firefox Data Collection and Use. While you're there you also might want to set the Tracking Protection setting to "always". That's what I do.
I see you're bitter about the loss of XUL, but every other browser's add-ons are built on chrome's web extension system at this point. Firefox is still the only exception to this since they are adding features that Google refuses to add to chrome despite heavy lobbying to do so on the part of many developers and users.
So far, that I'm aware of, Firefox has added support for noscript (even though it's popular, Google has refused to add support for it) and support for cookie autodelete to be able to delete localstorage data. No browser other than Firefox can provide that level of granular control over it, and if you're privacy conscious, that's a pretty important feature to have.
Mozilla has shown that they can't be trusted. Long time user of Mozilla products but that ended a few weeks ago.
Fuck Mozilla!
Given that Waterfox 56.0.3 was released a few weeks ago and Firefox 58 was just released I'll wait for 56.0.4 or later to do an apples to useful browser comparison. I DID however do a WF 56.0.3 to FF 57.0.4 comparison and they are pretty much identical with WF just edging out FF. I'm not saying you're wrong but your test is certainly unfair to Alex and Waterfox.
Waterfox 56.0.3
WebAssembly.instantiate took 1192.2 ms (10.4 MB/s)
Firefox 57.0.4
WebAssembly.instantiate took 1197.8 ms (10.3 MB/s)
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
but your test is certainly unfair to Alex and Waterfox
Nope, perfectly fair. I tested current release against current release. Waterfox 56.0.3 was released on the 12th of January.
Merely disabling these privacy-invading, malware-like aspects of Firefox is not sufficient.
Even when allegedly "disabled" through config settings, the code itself is still present. That's a huge problem because there's always the risk that this code could be re-enabled without a Firefox's user's consent.
After the recent incident where Mozilla injected a very suspicious extension into the Firefox installations of many unsuspecting users, we have no choice but to consider Firefox to be potentially vulnerable to unexpected tampering.
If extensions can be injected remotely, then the only reasonable thing to do is assume that other aspects of the browser, such as configuration settings, might also be modified without warning. This opens up the risk of tracking that was disabled by users being re-enabled without the users being aware.
There's only one solution: remove the tracking code completely. That way it's just not possible for the tracking to happen.
Anything less than a full removal of any and all tracking code from Firefox means that we can't trust it to respect our privacy.
Merely disabling these privacy-invading, malware-like aspects of Firefox is not sufficient.
Yes it is. Disable it and be happy.
Don't complain if a browser is not compliant with HTML5 ;-)
HTML5 IS A LIVING STANDARD. There never will be HTML 6, the spec is constantly changing; it is alive. This was decided because of the history of compliance and the organic nature of new features being added between new standards which took a long time to formalize or ended up in many small sub-standards.
Some HTML5 standards begin as browser projects for new features which end up being accepted into the standard. The originating browser generally has a leap ahead on new feature additions; plus it helps Chrome that Google has some people working deep within the spec... Mozilla has been busy revamping their browser and coping with bad management which has put them behind (or working on new feature tangents.)
As far as Test scores... depends upon who is writing the tests. A solid set of tests on a feature would be better since Microsoft has a history of testing positive for a feature they do not properly implement. I would not be surprised if Edge tests highly on a widespread popular test set because they would tend to work towards that, given their prior history.
HTML5 draft was getting books and browser claims for support that were poor... and misleading. At draft, features were dropped and changed - I was there. Making it a living standard embraces how things actually operate in the real world.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Waterfox will continue to fall behind as new Firefox releases come out. Eventually Waterfox will have to bite the bullet and rebase on whatever the latest Firefox is at that time.
What an ass. Your statement has been challenged so you resort to juvenile nana nana boo boo tactics. You know damn well Waterfox will release an update based on this release. Whether it will perform better or worse remains to be seen. But God forbid someone suggest you might be wrong.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
You know damn well Waterfox will release an update based on this release.
When? Unsurprisingly, a single developer is outperformed by a team of developers. Waterfox is now two releases behind Firefox.
But God forbid someone suggest you might be wrong.
I'm not wrong. Firefox 58 massively outperforms Waterfox 56.0.3 in WebAssembly compilation.
This is exactly the same kind of desperate insanity that I heard back when Pale Moon was forked from 29. See you in a couple years, when Waterfox suffers the same fate and only suits a few hobbyists who can't see the forest for the trees anymore. Even Alex wants to move on to another project based on Servo. Stroking his ego isn't going to work forever, and once he's gone you'll be right back where you started: complaining that someone else isn't doing exactly what you want for free.
Yes it is. Disable it and be happy.
No it isn't. If you think I'm wrong profile the browser and see for yourself.
There is a metric ton of crap you have to disable in about:config registry to get firefox to stop. The good news it can be done which makes it a million times better than chrome yet this isn't easy nor accessible to users whose careers do not revolve around computers.
Firefox is blowing a lot of smoke about pretending to care about privacy yet failing spectacularly to provide knobs usably by mortals to effectively control it.
Try tipping your head back a bit more and the cock should slide all the way down to the balls.
It's really not. The data is always collected even if it's not transmitted so they can backdoor into it via "experiments" which send all sorts of data back regardless of your privacy setting. This includes personally identifiable information as it's exempted from their normal privacy rules.
The data is always collected even if it's not transmitted
Cool, where's it stored? These content-free claims are boring. If you've got claims to make back them with evidence.
From the horse's mouth: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...
The question is, why is Firefox continuing to collect telemetry data when explicitly told not to?
The frontend calls Services.telemetry APIs unconditionally, but they won't send data if you've opted out.