Firefox 51 Released With FLAC Audio Support, WebGL 2.0 By Default

[liam]

I've heard of 10 ft used as a "typical" viewing distance for a residential living room tv. According to this graph, at a 10 ft viewing distance with a 60" or 65" display (both common sizes), 1080p is the optimal resolution, and 4k is "not worth it".

I have a 46" television, and I measured my viewing distance as 11 ft 2 in. I've noticed that at this distance and display size, 1080p is barely discernible from 720p, which is again confirmed by the graph.

So for 4k to be "worth it", one either needs a very large television with a shorter than average viewing distance, or an extremely large television at a standard viewing distance. Neither are commonplace.

I happened upon a study by the bbc regarding tv viewing distance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper287

Median is 2.63m (8' 7.5").
However, if they adjust their viewing distance by screen height the same way they do for HD then, for a 70" even they'd sit about 5m (~16.5').

[liam]

You're welcome to your own opinion, as well. I'd rather have well-designed, modular software that actually conforms to the UNIX programming philosophy and is thus actually maintainable and easily-accessible and comprehensible.

Your personal attacks are completely unhelpful, and involve several incorrect assumptions: I'm not ignorant as to why the browsers are made monolithic (compatibility with a certain monolithic operating system with historically-poor speed of process spinup), and I'm hardly an elitist -- whatever THAT's supposed to mean in this context.

Yeah, I'm sorry i said that. I regretted saying it as soon as i replied but i didn't want to edit it because i still really dislike the seemingly elitist sentiment (I'm referring to the belief, of those i call elitists, that people who do web development area somehow "lesser" (read: not so smart) as their counterparts who work on the desktop, and that, in general, the web developers need to learn their place by sticking to writing static document pages) that some developers have regarding the web as platform. Interestingly, or maybe not, i see that sentiment echoed more often in these forums than any other place i frequent.
For what it's worth, i agree that the high level principle of building small, correct, modules they can be joined in a graph to produce higher level functionality is a good engineering principle when it is actually practical to do so. I also don't see what this UNIX principle has to do with the web as a platform.

https://lwn.net/Articles/576078/

[mulenmar]

You're welcome to your opinion.
My view is that ignorant elitists are a particularly toxic form of so-called "life".

You're welcome to your own opinion, as well. I'd rather have well-designed, modular software that actually conforms to the UNIX programming philosophy and is thus actually maintainable and easily-accessible and comprehensible.

Your personal attacks are completely unhelpful, and involve several incorrect assumptions: I'm not ignorant as to why the browsers are made monolithic (compatibility with a certain monolithic operating system with historically-poor speed of process spinup), and I'm hardly an elitist -- whatever THAT's supposed to mean in this context.

[Iffith]

Very glad to see flac support.

[Hi-Angel]

I gave a try to this browser with this upgrade but it has proved a completely disappointment. A disaster. Slow slow and rather overcharging resources. It lacks of optimization with hardware resources so to take benefit of hardware acceleration unlike chrome/chromium and their derivatives able to enhance hardware providing an efficient diagnostic system. Uninstalled just after few time. Problem of this browser does not concerns with the software itself but it is focused on the incompetence of developers and management. With the end of support to XP firefox will disappear.

Nah. Although I feel your pain — e.g. every time I want to watch a video, I launch Chromium — but Firefox has one important feature that justifies the use of the browser at least for plain surf of the Internet, it's Pentadactyl. Chromium/Chrome have no analogs to it both because of lack of API and wrong architecture decisions (e.g. addons don't work for some sites and, apparently, blank tabs, problems with hotkeys, just off top of my head).

[Azrael5]

I gave a try to this browser with this upgrade but it has proved a completely disappointment. A disaster. Slow slow and rather overcharging resources. It lacks of optimization with hardware resources so to take benefit of hardware acceleration unlike chrome/chromium and their derivatives able to enhance hardware providing an efficient diagnostic system. Uninstalled just after few time. Problem of this browser does not concerns with the software itself but it is focused on the incompetence of developers and management. With the end of support to XP firefox will disappear.

[liam]

I've heard of 10 ft used as a "typical" viewing distance for a residential living room tv. According to this graph, at a 10 ft viewing distance with a 60" or 65" display (both common sizes), 1080p is the optimal resolution, and 4k is "not worth it".

I have a 46" television, and I measured my viewing distance as 11 ft 2 in. I've noticed that at this distance and display size, 1080p is barely discernible from 720p, which is again confirmed by the graph.

So for 4k to be "worth it", one either needs a very large television with a shorter than average viewing distance, or an extremely large television at a standard viewing distance. Neither are commonplace.

My point was that I'm not sure we have the data for the typical viewing distance.
For me, i think one is right around 6' and the other 7'.
I think both my tvs are currently 42", so, moving to 55" doesn't seem outrageous.
It doesn't really matter, though.
Enjoy now having two browsers with flac support

[torsionbar28]

One more thing, the size of the screen doesn't mean much, and I'm not going to claim to know what a "normal" distance might be, but I'd be interested in reading about where such values come from.
For a 50" 4k tv you should be able to see a difference up to about 6.5ft.

I've heard of 10 ft used as a "typical" viewing distance for a residential living room tv. According to this graph, at a 10 ft viewing distance with a 60" or 65" display (both common sizes), 1080p is the optimal resolution, and 4k is "not worth it".

I have a 46" television, and I measured my viewing distance as 11 ft 2 in. I've noticed that at this distance and display size, 1080p is barely discernible from 720p, which is again confirmed by the graph.

So for 4k to be "worth it", one either needs a very large television with a shorter than average viewing distance, or an extremely large television at a standard viewing distance. Neither are commonplace.

[liam]

As long as the browser is not misused as that framework. A UNIX- or (some vaporware)Plan9-derivative actual operating system, sure, that's what it's for. It can even be a usermode layer.

Browsers, however, are for delivering hypertext with *suggestions* on how to display it, not for lazy developers who can't be bothered to even learn Python and QT for delivering platform-independent programs, or how to write fallback code for people with handicaps like blindness.

You're welcome to your opinion.
My view is that ignorant elitists are a particularly toxic form of so-called "life".

[torsionbar28]

Question is, do you have any reason to expect that anyone *will* follow? If yes, then by all means be the leader. But if not, not much point in spending time implementing a feature that everyone will ignore for lack of cross-browser support.

Aaaaaaaand BAM, Chrome 56 lands tonight with FLAC support built in. Does that answer your question, lol?