Changes To Look Forward To With Firefox 52

[gbcox]

All what being equal, that implies they can simply outspend Mozilla. Unfortunately, this is pretty much the current situation. Even with a stripped down Mozilla org, they don't have the resources to keep up, let alone pull ahead, with these other companies. So, with that in mind, you can see why they've made attempts to acquire alternate revenue streams, and with that failing, trying desperately to find a niche whereby Mozilla can become a sustainable endeavor.

Agreed, they can outspend - but throwing tons of money at something doesn't necessarily equate to success. Microsoft and Google both have different goals than Mozilla - and will use their resources to those ends - that more than likely doesn't translate into something that would be popular with consumers. Especially with privacy and security in the forefront of peoples minds. The "Webextensions" initiative while unpopular with some, was something they needed to do.

[Azrael5]

Video decode and presentation.

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=463440

Apparently there is a patched version of chromium running around on arch/manjaro, but upstream doesn't appear to want the feature exposed.

actually, hardware allowing, there is no reason why hardware acceleration is disabled on decoding.... anyway I answered to the user stating that chrome provide no acceleration. I'm able to enable rasterization acceleration too. Question is that chrome is so fast and efficient that firefox begins to be more more poor with the end of supporting XP it will disappear. My opinion is that firefox developers are completely incompetents.

[liam]

As a former webOS user, I know all about what went wrong (but it wasn't their hardware per se, the Pebble design of the Pre's is still the most comfortable IMHO even though I don't use my Pre 3 anymore!). But we weren't talking about technical and financial stuff. You simply implied that the idea of a web-centric OS inspired Mozilla and called out FXOS as their inspiration. I simply said that webOS could've been their inspiration since it was released way before FXOS. Doesn't matter what happened to webOS and how the web changed, all that matters is that the idea was already out there for Mozilla to get inspired by, that's all I'm saying.

No, not the casing, or screen, but the soc. Sorry for not being more clear.
I'm not entirely sure what your point is regarding Mozilla, fxos and webos. I don't think i said (and if i did, i certainly was mistaken) that Mozilla took inspiration from fxos (obviously that doesn't make sense, but I'm not sure what else you could mean), only that they (Mozilla) wanted to make a completely portable appl8cation platform that only relied "web standards" (hence the importance of getting their api additions upstream).
You're absolutely right that Mozilla could've gotten the idea, in the first place, from webos. As i said, i simply forgot about webos (even though i did use it a bit), but i don't think it really matters either way. Again, the important point was that Mozilla was trying to make the web (as exposed via a browser-like agent) a more compelling platform by looking for apis gaps and implementing solutions that were intended for a standards track.

[liam]

actually, hardware allowing, there is no reason why hardware acceleration is disabled on decoding.... anyway I answered to the user stating that chrome provide no acceleration. I'm able to enable rasterization acceleration too. Question is that chrome is so fast and efficient that firefox begins to be more more poor with the end of supporting XP it will disappear. My opinion is that firefox developers are completely incompetents.

I never said there was, and i believe i misread the focus of your reply. You were responding to the posters claim that it was due to Google's belief that Linux has "bad drivers"? I'm not sure that is the only issue. From bug reports i get the impression it's more of a political issue (literally no reason to disable vaapi support on non-chromeos Linux).

[liam]

Agreed, they can outspend - but throwing tons of money at something doesn't necessarily equate to success. Microsoft and Google both have different goals than Mozilla - and will use their resources to those ends - that more than likely doesn't translate into something that would be popular with consumers. Especially with privacy and security in the forefront of peoples minds. The "Webextensions" initiative while unpopular with some, was something they needed to do.

No, that's true, but what we can clearly see is that three other major browser providers are both well monied and competent. Hence the situation ff has been in since chrome was introduced.
I'm not going to claim i know what ms and Google's grand pretty of goals for their browsers are, but i think they both have shown (Google, since chrome, and ms since ie 11+/edge) that they understand the web, as intermediated by the browser, is a development target that's on prime importance. That means they have an incentive to make the "best" browsers possible. MS, by tying it in with their os, is able to be very efficient (but less flexible when it comes to updating), and google by ensuring that their services are best experienced through their browser/platform.
Regarding privacy, i believe that most people will put that behind features and convenience.

[Azrael5]

I never said there was, and i believe i misread the focus of your reply. You were responding to the posters claim that it was due to Google's belief that Linux has "bad drivers"? I'm not sure that is the only issue. From bug reports i get the impression it's more of a political issue (literally no reason to disable vaapi support on non-chromeos Linux).

I say that chrome has the possibility to implement hardware acceleration without any problems if only they want besides I say that chrome is better than firefox on all the platforms both microsoft or linux because developers of firefox are incompetents. firefox is not able to take benefit of hardware system stressing the hardware because it is not harmonized with it so to be slow and problematic.

[M@GOid]

You didn't notice MS dropping IE and ActiveX, too? IE11 is currently still there, beeing an optional addon, hidden deep in the Startmenu. But the future way to go if you believe MS is MS Edge, not supporting ActiveX.

Yeah I saw that. The point is, it still be there for a long time for those who need it, even if its not the hot new stuff from them. To me that's the best thing of Microsoft, they tend to support their shit for a long time.

[M@GOid]

This is not something that's happening without warning - Mozilla, and all the other browser projects, have been talking about dropping support for binary plugins for a long time now... I remember this being discussed more than ten years ago. So while there hasn't necessarily been a good alternative (e.g. WebRTC) for some things until recently, TP-Link and others can't say they didn't see this coming.

True, but at the time this camera was made many years ago, your options in Linux were Flash or VLC.

There always the chance the VLC plugin got ported to the new standard, though.

[nomadewolf]

it requires to use pulseaudio, uses more ram than Chrome and Google Hangouts does not work. It is garbage software now, used firefox for several years.

I don't know what kind of extras you use, but in my setups FF always uses way less RAM than chrome...
You're probably looking at only one chrome process. But if you sum them all, you'll see it's actually the other way around.

[nomadewolf]

You have not measured. Google has improved Chrome since old days.

Neither have you.
FF still uses way less RAM than Chrome.