Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Firefox 29.0 For Linux Is Now Available For Download

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • johnc
    replied
    Originally posted by strcat View Post
    I haven't seen any numbers showing either browser consumes less CPU or has faster JavaScript. I know Firefox causes more CPU wake ups than Chromium on my machine, but that's just anecdotal and may not be the same across all hardware / environments. Mozilla's own numbers have no clear winner.
    In my particular experience Google Maps and Launchpad were extremely slow-performing in Firefox on Linux. Since I was doing Google Maps development I moved over to Chromium.

    I mean GM is horrific in Firefox on my two systems, and I know the LP issue was pinged by an nvidia engineer as being a FF issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • strcat
    replied
    Originally posted by intellivision View Post
    What you lose is freedom and performance.

    Firefox's new Javascript interpreter outperforms Chromium, it also uses less memory and CPU per tab than Chromium does too.
    ASM.js is a suitable replacement for NaCl too because, as its not running native code, there's less to exploit with malicious scripts.
    Firefox uses less memory per tab because it doesn't place each site instance renderer into an isolated process with an empty chroot, network namespace, process namespace and seccomp-bpf whitelist. You can pass --single-process to Chromium for an apples to apples comparison between two insecure browsers.

    It's not more free than Chromium in any sense. Both are open-source projects, although Firefox's artwork / branding is non-free so Debian ships it as Iceweasel while it ships Chromium unaltered.

    PNaCl (the old NaCl isn't enabled by default) is not any less secure than a JavaScript virtual machine. In fact, since it relies on very low-level guarantees to provide security rather than the correctness of an entire JavaScript virtual machine, I would consider it more secure if anything. Anyway, it's a joke to be talking about Firefox in a security context since it runs everything (image decoding, video decoding, audio decoding, JavaScript, CSS/HTML, DOM, WebRTC, networking, [...]) entirely within the same fully trusted process. A single bug in a video decoder is enough to get full control of all your browser data and anything your user owns.

    Unlike asm.js, PNaCl offers 64-bit integers, threads, shared memory and similar features expected from native code. It has negligible overhead (mostly due to the portability guarantees required, losing information about stuff like alignment) compared to the 50-100%+ hit for using asm.js since it's a proper compiler IR in SSA form rather than a hack. These features cannot be added to asm.js without destroying the entire argument behind it which is backwards compatibility.

    I haven't seen any numbers showing either browser consumes less CPU or has faster JavaScript. I know Firefox causes more CPU wake ups than Chromium on my machine, but that's just anecdotal and may not be the same across all hardware / environments. Mozilla's own numbers have no clear winner.

    Leave a comment:


  • grndzro
    replied
    Just tried the Linux version of Maxthon.
    It now remembers page zoom.
    Was the last little glitch that kept it from being my main browser.
    IMO MX did a much better job with Blink than Firefox.

    Leave a comment:


  • mmstick
    replied
    Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
    Of course, because not wanting to have your workflow broken makes you narrow minded. Sounds the same as "You don't like Gnome, you are unable to handle change!" Maybe your arguments would sound better if you wouldn't just insult people for not liking the same things as you.
    Hopefully, you realize that the new interface is highly customizable, which was one of the key points of the new UI. Furthermore, the UI change is almost unnoticable beyond the rounded tabs. Complaining just to complain makes the silliest arguments.

    Leave a comment:


  • uid313
    replied
    Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
    Of course, because not wanting to have your workflow broken makes you narrow minded. Sounds the same as "You don't like Gnome, you are unable to handle change!" Maybe your arguments would sound better if you wouldn't just insult people for not liking the same things as you.
    I kind of disliked this new interface too at the start.
    But I've been using it for a while now, since I run the nightly builds.
    After a while, you get used to it.

    It's not so bad once you get used to it. It's pretty much same as before, not much has changed.

    Leave a comment:


  • rice_nine
    replied
    Originally posted by omer666 View Post
    3 - fork a piece of software every time we want to make a change in the UI, in order to have the older version for narrow minded people and the new one for others
    tweak that to say "make a major change" and it works out fine, as long as there are also narrow-minded developers to work on the old version. I will probably never give time to a free program/project/anything unless it's something I use and this is basically what you'd expect, right? How else will they know or care how and whether it works?

    Originally posted by Cyber Killer View Post
    The way this stuff is handled nowadays (and I'm not talking only about Firefox, but generally) - stuffing new stuff down users throats whether they like them or not is definitely unacceptable.
    And this... is the new normal. Like a crappy UI, I suggest to get used to it and just use what works for you. I'm waiting to see if someone does fork FF again over this., and if they do, I'll try it, maybe use it, and maybe contribute. In the meantime, it's just a simple
    Code:
    echo ">=www-client/firefox-29.0" >> /etc/portage/package.mask
    and check my ammo supply for when the orphan zombies arrive. Yeah, I'm not happy about it, and I'm really accustomed to being able to have things the way I like them-- Funtoo is awesome for that (gentoo is okay). The knife cuts both ways, though. I've tried to see myself as a developer and I can't quite happily anticipate having my users tell me how things should be. I'd be a user too-- the one spending raw energy into the free program.

    What bothers me about Mozilla and now Firefox is the marketing. It smells funny now that lucid people would have to admit once again that the power of the web isn't *really* in our hands, it's in the hands of the developers whose code we run. It should be obvious but I'll say it again: the only truly 100% customizable, configurable, optimized, obedient, sexy, secure, powerful, standard-conforming, kick-ass {browser|editor|reader|converter|synthesizer|engin e|library|tool} is a halfway usable text editor, a C compiler, and a CPU. Oh, also you, your time, your attention span, and your power supply. But even then, the "obedient" part can still be compromised-- just read Reflections on Trusting Trust by Ken Thompson.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vim_User
    replied
    Originally posted by omer666 View Post
    in order to have the older version for narrow minded people
    Of course, because not wanting to have your workflow broken makes you narrow minded. Sounds the same as "You don't like Gnome, you are unable to handle change!" Maybe your arguments would sound better if you wouldn't just insult people for not liking the same things as you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cyber Killer
    replied
    Originally posted by omer666 View Post
    So you think that we should either:
    1 - bloat software with plenty of UI options that would become impossible to maintain as time goes by
    2 - never change anything concerning UI in a particular software, in doing so we would have the exact same UI as in Netscape Navigator 1.0 that was sooooooo superior, running on top of a GNOME 1.0 inspired interface.
    3 - fork a piece of software every time we want to make a change in the UI, in order to have the older version for narrow minded people and the new one for others
    4 - Stop developing software after version 1.0, apart from bug-fixing. Oh wait, a bug in a 1.0 software is unacceptable. Never mind.
    Actually a mix of options 1&4 - add plenty of UI options, but after every major version (vide semantic versioning) some larger changes are acceptable, cause the user would expect something different from totally new software. Sadly this does not apply to Firefox cause they fscked up their version numbers sometime after v4 :-P.

    The way this stuff is handled nowadays (and I'm not talking only about Firefox, but generally) - stuffing new stuff down users throats whether they like them or not is definitely unacceptable.

    Leave a comment:


  • andreano
    replied
    there are bigger usability issues

    Originally posted by Cyber Killer View Post
    Yeah, it would be better if it used Qt (especially on my KDE desktop)...
    Another KDE problem: KDE session integration!
    - Everytime I turn on my computer, Firefox greets me with "This is embarrasing", asking if I want to restore the last open tabs. Perhaps not a usability problem for the average Phoronix reader, but try to explain this to your parents... I can tell you that the issue did no good to my father's already battered confidence in Linux.

    And when Firefox has learnt to exit cleanly upon KDE logout:
    - Stop fsyncing that sqlite db every mouse click! I'm totally okay with losing a few seconds of history (specifically, /proc/sys/vm/dirty_writeback_centisecs) in the unlikely event of power loss. Logging out of KDE is so drastically more likely, please optimize for that instead!

    Originally posted by Adarion View Post
    >And disable not just Java but Flash by default if they are going to switch off plugins by default at all.
    Absolutely. I would install Flash, if only to stop Firefox nagging about it, provided it was disabled by default.

    That is, on x86, I would -- just try to install Adobe Flash on ARM... Firefox needs to be more respectful of people who choose NOT to install Flash too!

    Leave a comment:


  • omer666
    replied
    Originally posted by Cyber Killer View Post
    Of course - because all interface changes after a piece of software is in production should be optional. Change whatever you want, but the default interface for the user should stay the same unless that user chooses to enable the new look.
    So you think that we should either:
    1 - bloat software with plenty of UI options that would become impossible to maintain as time goes by
    2 - never change anything concerning UI in a particular software, in doing so we would have the exact same UI as in Netscape Navigator 1.0 that was sooooooo superior, running on top of a GNOME 1.0 inspired interface.
    3 - fork a piece of software every time we want to make a change in the UI, in order to have the older version for narrow minded people and the new one for others
    4 - Stop developing software after version 1.0, apart from bug-fixing. Oh wait, a bug in a 1.0 software is unacceptable. Never mind.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X