New Firefox

It is worst of all. Just starting it, without opening any pages, already takes 600 Mb. It constantly accesses HDD and stops the world of garbage collection or page unloading or something. How can something be that bad?

Firefox is shit. I was still using it because of pentadactyl but it stopped working.

What programming language is this?

>>3
C, C++, Rust, and some javascript and html.

>>2
Pentadactyl has literally not seen an update in years. And it's downright astonishing how luddites have known about all the API's being phased out and are yet still surprised that their favorite hobbyist abandonware is deprecated.

>>2,5
Upgrade to qutebrowser

I knew it would die, I ran it as long as I could. It was a good piece of software, nothing comes close, vimium and the rest are shit.

>>5
The new API is much less powerful, so it's hardly a surprise when people don't ``up''grade to something that simply doesn't support the same features. This may be too hard for your webshit mental midget brain to understand, but something doesn't become better just because the version number is higher.

>>5
Is software development a neverending journey according to your Javashitter ass? In case you didn't know, feature completeness is a thing.

"Big corporations want to restrict entry. Fake news and filter bubbles are making it harder for us to find our way. Online bullies are silencing inspired voices. And our desire to explore is hampered by threats to our safety and privacy. It’s time to join Mozilla and do our part as digital citizens. Donate today to support programs that keep the internet healthy, free and open for us all."

They advertise FF as faster and optimized, but in reality Firefox slows PC so much, that even mouse cursor stops moving. I don't understand why typical web page should take more than a megabyte to display.

>>11

Worse yet, some pages now hang completely, showing that rotating shit forever, instead of content, doing reloading sometimes help. And I hate how now it has no title bar. Why have they broken working browser, without introducing anything useful?

Firefox 57 actually crashes Windows 10. I waited 10 minutes, and mouse cursor still wasn't moving, just constant HDD access. If system doesn't answer for 10 minutes, then it is as good as crashed.

>not using Chrome
are you guys insane?

>>14
Firefox is bad, but at least it's not proprietary. And, yes, Chromium downloads proprietary blobs.

>>8,9
You say that, but Palemoon has already carved a niche for people like you, yet you'd rather complain about the big browsers than support smaller projects. You're implying that basic software maintenance is the same as adding more bloat. Vim is still being maintained, and it hasn't seen significant change in years. You know what it has seen? Support and bug fixes, something that you would comprehend if you were an actual programmer and not just a larping /g/-tard.

I'm sorry. I was being mean. I couldn't help it, just had to say it. But in all seriousness, web standards change. Web browsers are easily one of the most significant pieces of software a layman can choose at their own discretion, and superficial judgements like that dismiss the deep preponderance projects like these hold. Because it's not enough just to make a simple overlay ontop of webkit like qutebrowser or dooble and call it a day. qutebrowser may have ergonomics, and dooble may have (a modicum of) security, but in reality it's a combination of a dozen different variables that makes up such a multifaceted piece of software. Web browsers are a difficult undertaking, not your favorite sports team. I never denied the api's were significantly neutered--but think about this, if Firefox's popularity was trending downward and the software was stagnating. You can ascribe that to Mozilla's SJW agenda, but the truth is that's not what the end user sees. There are two (2) forks that maintain the status quo: Waterfox and Palemoon. Rather than whine about what could have been, just look at what's been done. You can't pretend like Firefox is a piece of proprietary software. The community has all the freedom they want, and they've taken the action that you're calling for. If you really care, then go support them. Go use their product.

>>13
delete windows 10.

I'm very butthurt that firecucks destroyed their browser so completely. No addons, even worse memory hogging than before, you can't even get a warning before closing multiple tabs, youtube pages are just the video and a white page for over a minute until the rest of the content loads. And that's just off the top of my head, there are much MUCH worse problems under the hood.

>>16
Breaking old features and ``replacing'' them with something that only does 60% of the job isn't maintenance, it's sabotage.

The second paragraph is a much too wordy and pretentious rehash of the good old ``don't like to eat shit? just fork it, the project is ^OPEN S_OURC^E!'', an all time classic that's still as dumb now as it was then. How about not shipping shitware instead?

>>18

here is a proof:
https://my.mixtape.moe/kmczix.JPG
just an empty Firefox 57 consumes:
1. over 600 MB
2. over 60% CPU
3. a lot of internet traffic, despite auto-updates are disabled

>>21
Don't bother explaining it to them. Shallow luddites aren't willing to appreciate anything unless it's right in front of them. Too butthurt about their lost extensions. We might as well be talking about metaphysics.

>>19
My point wasn't that you should just use a fork if something goes wrong; of course I understand the implications of a fork. Waterfox is a significantly smaller project than that of Firefox, and the prospects of maintenance and longevity come into serious question, so of course Mozilla's abandonment is an issue. My point was that Firefox's market share was stagnating. There are hundreds and hundreds of you complaining, but how many of you, when push come to shove, are actually using a fork like Palemoon? Why not? Because there's more to Firefox than just those superficial features, of which you yourself admitted there would be no innovation. If software has no feature progression, why not make a fork? What would change, anyways? Web standards. User expectations. Those things change. You fixate on one thing, you even acknowledge the complexity of the situation, but you're not willing to evaluate that nuance to understand why Mozilla made its decision. We could be talking about Servo and Rust and the practical merits of the new Firefox engine, but we're not even to the point where you take your fingers out of year ears and open your eyes.

>The new API is designed to be more secure because it lives within a sandbox
The same could be done for the old API.

>You can't update the XUL system to be multiprocess and be simultaneously backwards compatible.
Not true

Still, you fail to address the point where they deprecated the old API without even bothering to implement all of its features in the new API.

>>24
fail quote

Still, you fail to address the point where they deprecated the old API without even bothering to implement all of its features in the new API.

Well, it's kind of an obvious answer, but the way you phrased the question is just so weirdly comfy, I have to answer. It's obviously on their roadmap. Firefox has been working to assimilate Servo well before 57, even 55. What's astonishing isn't that they're too slow but rather how quickly they've introduced so many new features, often at the risk of bugs. It's a marketing tactic. I mean, who else would call a piece of software executed on a binary computer ``quantum" other than marketing?

You keep on forgetting how much Mozilla's marketshare's been slipping. And to inject my own thoughts into the conversation, Netscape basically went under when the did an up-to-down reimplementation of their browser, the reason being that there was so much time between their new, then-modern version of Netscape in the one previously, and they lost their grasp on the market. From the ashes of Netscape came a company composed of many former Netscape members whose name was derived from their mascot, Mozilla, and said company forked Netscape into what is presently known as Firefox. It's really ironic, when you think about it. It's easy to criticize Mozilla for the changes they made, but, frankly, the writing was already on the wall: stagnate and end up like their progenitors, or modernize their product to address contemporary end-user needs. Servo was an experiment and their last resort.

>>21
FUCK that "security" BULLSHIT. The "security experts" won't stop until we're reduced to subservient blobs of mass idiocy, unable to think or do anything because it's "for your safety".

>>19
+1

>>20
Empty IE6 consumes <10MB of RAM, no CPU, and no network traffic.

...and it still displays this site just fine.

The amount of Mozilla shills in this thread is astounding.

>>27
fuck security! Russian hackers getting root on your computer with aleph0 shell from 1996 due to stack-based buffer overflow known but not fixed since 1999 and then stealing all your money is FREEDOM!

>>24
Oops, forgot to quotelink you. Sorry. I guess I have more to say, anyways.

>The new API is designed to be more secure because it lives within a sandbox
The same could be done for the old API.

Just because there is a sandbox doesn't mean it's a good one. And besides, that's only a very specific example. Look at CVE details, and compare the nontrivial exploits for FF these past two years with Chromium. Kind of comparable, yes, but Firefox is clearly behind. XUL in some capacity can be sandboxed, but not if you consider all its features. Firefox specifically is has the least mature sandbox of all its competitors despite having battle-tested for decades, so the ``just works" argument means practically nothing. And beyond that, XUL's fundamentally insecure. Their new process model is of much higher quality--that is, it's actually sane.

>You can't update the XUL system to be multiprocess and be simultaneously backwards compatible.
Not true

It's true that Firefox has supported multi-process for ages, but they've never enabled that feature default, mostly because, ironically, it broke much of the functionality of certain XUL addons. So even in your ideal scenario, you still couldn't have your cake and eat it.

I'm not saying these features are something you have to appreciate, but, at the very least, you have to be understand Mozilla's rationale--and the true desires of their average user (at least as they perceive it to be). It wouldn't have been pragmatic for Mozilla to simply carry on with the status quo. You (not you, I'm pretty sure, but someone with a similar opinion to yours) keep insisting on criticizing my for pointing out the two obvious forks of Firefox whose direction is more in your same interests, but the reality is that it would have ended the same even if Mozilla did take the direction you wanted. I'm beginning to wonder what the point of your argument even is.

>>28
You know, I'm not completely against your strawman. I mean, overall, I agree with you in the sense that I disagree with them, but I should just point out--and you all keep rejecting this point for some reason, I don't know why, but there are two viable forks that address precisely what they're complaining about. Isn't that what free software entails? I mean, if that isn't freedom, I don't know what is.

>>30
confusing post. who are you agreeing?

>>30
>>28, of course. >>28-chan tamodachi!

>>23,26
I am very well aware that Firefox's marketshare is slipping because it is what prompted this descent into retardation during the last years. There was exactly one reason to use Firefox over Chrome after this, and it was its massive library of addons. Mozilla, in yet another stroke of genius, nuked that reason, in the name of

modernize their product to address contemporary end-user needs

which in practice consistently translated to ``turn into Chrome''. Absolutely nobody needs a reimplementation of Chrome in Rust. I'm not sure why you bring up the origins of Netscape: they are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Why is it that the posters with the longest posts say the least?

Why not? Because there's more to Firefox than just those superficial features, of which you yourself admitted there would be no innovation.

The reason I don't use a fork is not that Firefox is so much more and has a great sense of humer, but because the codebase is a massive shitpile of Sepples, so underfunded third parties have no hope of even remotely keeping up with bugfixes and security issues.

Web standards. User expectations. Those things change.

Web standards change the way they do because they are infested by the same kind of saboteurs that plague Firefox. On the other hand, the expectations of users who expect Chrome can go up the selfsame users' asses, to be soon followed by a cactus. Nobody needs a reimplementation of Chrome. As long as they don't vastly outperform Chrome on other issues — which they won't if their hilarious mismanagement in the last decade is anything to go by — addons will remain the only reason to use Firefox. I can install Chromium any time, I don't have to wait three years until Mozilla turned their browser into it.

>>33
You keep hammering on that ``Chrome clone" point. It just shows how superficial your understanding really is.

>>34
Then how about you tell me about the great features that make Firefox oh so much more that it seems on the surface? Preferably without irrelevant tangents this time.

>>33
You think the codebase is a legacy clusterfuck, yet lament the phasing out of said clusterfuck; you don't want new change in your software, but you don't want software that stagnates; you want the features that a minority of people support, yet you don't want to support a minority-sized project; you want your de facto old extensions, but you don't want what that entails for the ecosystem; you want big picture changes, but you aren't even willing to acknowledge Mozilla's big picture perspective. What the fuck do you want? Seriously. Honestly. What do you hope to achieve?

>>35
I went on that ``tangent" to illustrate Mozilla's perspective in making that strategic decision. I was illustrating parallels between their business decisions and that of their progenitor. Beyond anything else, I thought it was interesting. You know, part of a friendly conversation. You know what that is, right? The fact that your so fixed in your own petty obsessions that you can't even put yourself in their shoes--can't even look at this issue through a business lense tells us more about you than it does yourself.

Then how about you tell me about the great features that make Firefox oh so much more that it seems on the surface?

Nope. No new features. Firefox 57 is perfectly identical to the previous release. And the one before that and the one before that with no progression, no innovation, no bug fixes nothing. Absolutely nothing's changed; nothing's good, nothing's bad. They only make new releases so that they can bump the number up. Honestly, I'm utterly perplexed as to where your complaints are coming from, since FF57 clearly has no new features--or changes at all, for that matter! So, naturally, there are no new flaws, either. None. Nix.

>>36
``I don't like X and I don't like how they fixed X because it caused Y'' ≠ ``I want X and not X haha look at me I'm so silly''. Go back to whatever pit this shit works in.

>>37
TL: You can't.

>>35
Well, notwithstanding, Mozilla decided to call 57 Quantum to mark the first release that introduced Servo components, namely Stylo aka Quantum CSS. What's more significant about this release, however, isn't so much the immediate features it's introduced but rather the direction it represents, in which future Firefox versions will include more and more Servo components until possibly complete assimilation with Servo.

Now, let's look at what Firefox replaced, XUL, and some of the technical differences that are affecting us in the here and now:
• XUL extensions have the same amount of control over your OS as Firefox does, so they can download and execute scripts, modify in, say, ~/, ~/Documents/Taxes, etc.
• there is no way to limit an extension's permissions or sandbox it. XUL extensions makes it harder to implement multithread, which is in turn inefficient and a security threat if (by which I mean inevitably) implemented improperly
• XUL extensions depend on Gecko, so any update to the browser may render them unusable, guaranteeing that every (or most) extension can potentially break with an update, and reviewing every add-on uploaded to the addon store is too taxing for Mozilla (which is why the don't)
• WebExtensions have thousands of developers and are applicable to the vast majority of Firefox addons, so the change and extension fallout is far less severe than you make it out to be, most cases only affecting addons that have already been forsaken by their creator
• popular addons that cannot be ported to WebExtensions have been (or are planned to be) an inherent feature of the browser (like TreeStyleTabs)
• Mozilla is developing new APIs to give developers access to some of the same functions XUL allowed, making the ``less api's, less functionality'' argument no more than a bump in the road

>>38

I don't like X and I don't like how they fixed X because it caused Y'' ≠ ``I want X and not X haha look at me I'm so silly

Wow, I couldn't have summed it up better myself. Good job.

>>39
If what you say about inbound feature parity is true (I have my doubts, considering who we are talking about), I have a very simple question: Why the fuck did they break compatibility before the replacement was done?

>>41
Ah, good question. As I explained in my rant, I think it was probably out of desperation. What you suggest seems like a reasonable strategy, yes, but keep in mind that's what caused the end for Netscape--and for a bunch of other companies like Microsoft, even. The difference is that Netscape, like Mozilla, only had one product. Part of the reason why Mozilla tried (and failed) to diversify with projects like FirefoxOS. Also why they do a lot of charity work, to secure their place as a nonprofit organization and thus a fraction of their donorbase.

It's obviously on their roadmap

Should have waited before killing the old api then.

>>43
Waited for what? Wait until the have a fully-featured implementation?

>>40,41,42
Er, I should probably amend my last post. Obviously I'm not that optimistic. Mozilla doesn't yet have api's to expose some of the deep-dive functions that XUL could do in an insecure way. Yes, it's frustrating, but the logic is obvious. This is why we don't have addons that mess with passwords, create new UI elements, and more. However, much of the lost functionality is coming. Yes, yes, the counterargument to this would be that neglecting such features is kind of elitist, and, yes, absolutely, that is an elitist thing to do. But just because a decision doesn't mean it's wrong. The people who sincerely want those features can use a fork. ``But those projects are small, they aren't reliable." Yes, and you're also in the minority of people who ``need" those features.

Don't believe me? Mozilla published a blog post talking about api updates. Check it out for yourself--expanding on present functions, adding new functionality; e.g. they get it. Of course I want ALL of the features right out of the box, but, overall, it's a better browser the alternatives. And I won't deny that many of the addons ``ported" to WebEx are neutered. They're mostly there to hold over users until the transition is complete. I will admit that not all developers believe that to be the case, though.

It's not fun, but it's also not something to get buttmad about. ``I'm not mad. You're mad." Yes, you say you aren't mad, yet you consistently sage the thread despite the fact that you're clearly invested and contributing to the discussion. Now, I'm not a psychoanalyst or anything, but what could that suggest? Clearly you're not doing it out of politeness, or else you would be ashamed of the fact that you're even responding to me.

But just because a decision doesn't mean it's wrong.

Huh?

>>26

modernize their product to address contemporary end-user needs

(using 4gb of RAM to read the news)

>>45
It would be the exact opposite of elitist since it's the power users that get fucked over here. As they have been consistently, and I somewhat suspect it's because the Mozilla folks rely on their telemetrics system which most power users disable.

I don't sage the thread, I sage my posts, because I don't think they are worth alerting everybody.

Rolling out changes incrementally makes much more sense from a development standpoint, because it lets programmers focus on one big feature at a time and discover bugs introduced by that feature as soon as it rolls out, instead of scrambling to do everything at once while the old version stagnates.
The reason why they phased out the old addon API is because stopping everything to work on the new API along with the rest of the rest of the new features would have hurt Mozilla much more than losing a few /g/ros who can't live without their precious addons.
If you're that butthurt you can just stay on ESR until your favourite APIs are reimplemented and your favourite addons ported or superseded. Or use one of the forks, as >>45-san repeatedly suggested.

>>47
RAM is cheap

Firetrash just hit me with 100% CPU usage after playing a youtube video for only 1.5 hours.

>>50
No it isn't.

>>52
It is.
also free ram is wasted ram. don't you know this?

>>50

Your mom is cheap.

>>53

Nope. Free RAM is the RAM available to other processes, so that they don't crash with out of memory. Moreover, it is good design to have RAM budget, like the old DOS programs and console games had. That way you can be sure that everything will work perfectly.

>>51

Watching a Youtube shouldn't consume more than a few megabytes of RAM at any time, because decoder buffers are of fixed size, yet Firefox manages to leak gigabytes of memory during video playback. That is the pinnacle of broken design.

>>56

Watching a Youtube shouldn't consume more than a few megabytes of RAM

Youtube is poorly designed. The site is chock full of javashit and other aids.

>>57
lol your rebellion against Javascript is so pathetic
it's called the web, it's Javascript and everybody use it
but yeah go on and make a youtube in Scheme that is text only and supports only 5 concurrent connections

>>58
Are you dumb? I said that's why it consumes more than a few megabytes. It doesn't just serve videos.

>>58
So you are saying that Youtube is not poorly designed? Have you been to Youtube.com?!

>>60

Even Ulillillia left Youtube.

>>60
I just watch everything through Hooktube and mpv. Haven't seen the YouTube page in what feels like several weeks.

>>62
watch it through yt-dl instead.

>>63
Use VLC.

>>64
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

>>65
VLC media player (commonly known as VLC) is a free and open-source, portable and cross-platform media player and streaming media server developed by the VideoLAN project.

>>20
This is why /prog/ is crap. People run Windows, and shitpost.