You have failed to specify the version number for Firefox, the OS, the list of add-ons installed, and the URLs to test against. You're clearly not serious.
Oh, but I forgot- if you're not experiencing it personally, then it's all just fluff and anecdotal evidence and must not really be happening.
Why so irrational and emotional? If it's really a problem then all you have to do is provide your configuration and steps to reproduce the problem. Should be easy.
That leaves WebRequest API and that's so minor the majority of users won't notice nor care.
It's fundamental functionality for ad and script blocking add-ons which are among the most popular add-ons. Blockers work better in Firefox precisely because of its extensions to WebRequest. Read the articles I linked to.
Though they're not exactly the same, the WebExtensions APIs are quite similar between Firefox, Chrome, and Opera. That's a much larger ecosystem for add-on developers to work in and browser add-ons are now easier to port between browsers. This sort of thing has already been happening, such as with the Sylus add-on.
Perhaps doing that will be harder once every browser adopts EME.
Every major browser adopted EME and DRM quite some time ago. See for example Netflix's HTML5 requirements. YouTube uses DRM for its "premium content", it's why they bought WideVine.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Rust is overhyped, provdides little benefit if any in practice and won't be around in its current form in five or ten years, though.
There seems to be confusion regarding user names versus Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot. You've been using Slashdot long enough to know better, but I have no such hopes for Lunix Nutcase. He is, unfortunately, as advertised.
No. The WebExtensions framework is built to avoid this problem. Read the article. To quote from it: "The new set of browser extension APIs that make up WebExtensions, which are available in Firefox today, are inherently more secure than traditional add-ons, and are not vulnerable to the particular attack outlined in the presentation at Black Hat Asia."
Crucially, its extension catalogue will be much more mature
But less capable. Firefox's implementation of WebExtensions is a superset of Chrome's, and over time Mozilla will add more APIs to enable more add-ons. Moving to Chrome is a retrograde step.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not "Disgus" with a G, it's "Disqus" with a Q. It's a play on "discuss".
For the record, I loved STNG and DS9.
Try The Orville.
I guess I don't think we're living in a time when Star Trek could be successful
Maybe the The Orville will be successful. Even with the comedy aspect to it The Orville is more Star Trek than Star Trek is these days.
So does keeping servers powered on 24x7
That's a damn lie! You take that back. Slashdot doesn't run 24x7 and you know it!
Here you go
You have failed to specify the version number for Firefox, the OS, the list of add-ons installed, and the URLs to test against. You're clearly not serious.
This is lame.
Oh, but I forgot- if you're not experiencing it personally, then it's all just fluff and anecdotal evidence and must not really be happening.
Why so irrational and emotional? If it's really a problem then all you have to do is provide your configuration and steps to reproduce the problem. Should be easy.
Lame.
That leaves WebRequest API and that's so minor the majority of users won't notice nor care.
It's fundamental functionality for ad and script blocking add-ons which are among the most popular add-ons. Blockers work better in Firefox precisely because of its extensions to WebRequest. Read the articles I linked to.
Prove it.
examples of Rust code that is better than the equivalent C code
Read the article and read the email. Try hard.
Aren't Google and Dropbox Rust backers?
No.
First and subsequent times, loading no tabs or loading many tabs. I'm on an SSD so that helps too.
Don't they ever have any mercy?
No. They're just getting on with using Rust to improve Firefox.
The complete absense of any examples of Rust code that is better than the equivalent C code would be
You mean except for Stylo or how Tor is moving to Rust?
The lack of traction of Rust outside of those that back it
You mean except for when companies like Google use Rust and Dropbox use Rust?
You're welcome.
I think you're a little confused about what evidence is.
Though they're not exactly the same, the WebExtensions APIs are quite similar between Firefox, Chrome, and Opera. That's a much larger ecosystem for add-on developers to work in and browser add-ons are now easier to port between browsers. This sort of thing has already been happening, such as with the Sylus add-on.
start up so slowly
Firefox 57 starts up in a second or less for me. Have you tried it?
Perhaps doing that will be harder once every browser adopts EME.
Every major browser adopted EME and DRM quite some time ago. See for example Netflix's HTML5 requirements. YouTube uses DRM for its "premium content", it's why they bought WideVine.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Rust is overhyped, provdides little benefit if any in practice and won't be around in its current form in five or ten years, though.
So show your evidence. Where is it?
APK
Hmm. I suppose a benefit of the technical problems Slashdot has had in the last little is the happy side effect of blocking APK posts.
But it seems Slashdot really is back up and running now.
There seems to be confusion regarding user names versus Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot. You've been using Slashdot long enough to know better, but I have no such hopes for Lunix Nutcase. He is, unfortunately, as advertised.
The one thing that had been keeping website operators honest
No. It just made them use Flash which was a worse outcome.
So turn it off. That's what I do.
No, what you're waiting for is to feel some sense of empowerment. You plainly feel disempowered in your life, hence your misdirected rage.
superset of features?
The WebRequest API, for example, is superior in Firefox. Chrome has no support for sidebarAction or theme.
why would any end user care?
Because the add-ons will work better, silly rabbit.
WebExtensions and had the same issues.
No. The WebExtensions framework is built to avoid this problem. Read the article. To quote from it: "The new set of browser extension APIs that make up WebExtensions, which are available in Firefox today, are inherently more secure than traditional add-ons, and are not vulnerable to the particular attack outlined in the presentation at Black Hat Asia."
Crucially, its extension catalogue will be much more mature
But less capable. Firefox's implementation of WebExtensions is a superset of Chrome's, and over time Mozilla will add more APIs to enable more add-ons. Moving to Chrome is a retrograde step.