|
Is anyone else having issues where FF29 gets oddly slow and stuttery for no reason? Not just any one site, the entire browser - scrolling is stuttery, new tabs lag when they open, and so forth. This has been happening to me for the last few days. I disabled a bunch of addons and it seemed to go away but now it's back.
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
Pikestaff posted:Is anyone else having issues where FF29 gets oddly slow and stuttery for no reason? Not just any one site, the entire browser - scrolling is stuttery, new tabs lag when they open, and so forth. This has been happening to me for the last few days. I disabled a bunch of addons and it seemed to go away but now it's back. Are you paging? Does the rest of the system get slow also? Resource Monitor on Windows, vmstat on *nix.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Pikestaff posted:Is anyone else having issues where FF29 gets oddly slow and stuttery for no reason? Not just any one site, the entire browser - scrolling is stuttery, new tabs lag when they open, and so forth. This has been happening to me for the last few days. I disabled a bunch of addons and it seemed to go away but now it's back. If I were you I would try uninstalling the addons and not just disabling them, perhaps remove all browser data and see if the problem got resolved then?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Pikestaff posted:Is anyone else having issues where FF29 gets oddly slow and stuttery for no reason? Not just any one site, the entire browser - scrolling is stuttery, new tabs lag when they open, and so forth. This has been happening to me for the last few days. I disabled a bunch of addons and it seemed to go away but now it's back. I have been seeing stuttering when loading several pages at the same time. Interestingly, resource usage doesn't spike (just increases a bit as expected) when it happens, so I'd guess it's some sort of concurrency issue. It hasn't been bad enough to really bother me yet, though. rarbatrol fucked around with this message at 01:38 on May 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Panda Time posted:FF 29 loads random links on pages without even clicking on them.. is there a way to disable this? In about :config try toggling network.seer.enabled to false.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
nvm
Ryuga Death fucked around with this message at 00:56 on May 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Superb Owls posted:So you'll basically just get the same lovely comments as Youtube, just more verbose and coherent, right? You can check Firefox's fonts in Options > Content > Fonts and Colors > Advanced
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Knormal posted:What platform are you on? Firefox should just be using the fonts installed on your system, if you set your word processor to use the same font at the same size is it bolder there too? I'm on Windows 7 and no, the dollar sign isn't bold on my word processor.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
I have been using Lavafox/Blackfox themes since forever but 29 broke them, when I set tabs to go on the bottom they appear too low and get partially obscured by the browser window and bookmarks tab (shown below). I would appreciate a way to correct this or suggestions for similar themes that are up to date. 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
I just updated to 29 on my Macbook and I'm using CTR to put tabs back on bottom but the text in the tabs looks slightly wrong (dunno if it's font issue or what.) Anyone else have this and know how to fix it? Edit: bolding it fixed it but the tab colors still seem off and I don't know why, so v0v mango sentinel fucked around with this message at 02:50 on May 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
When I last used Firefox it had memory leak issues. I've just switched to it on my Mac and I was wondering if it still had the issue.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:When I last used Firefox it had memory leak issues. I've just switched to it on my Mac and I was wondering if it still had the issue. It was your imagination.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:When I last used Firefox it had memory leak issues. I've just switched to it on my Mac and I was wondering if it still had the issue.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
And the primary way that bad (and even good) add-ons used to leak memory hasn't been possible in Firefox for a while now.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
I'm using CTR, noun button and have had status-4-eva for ... eva. Anyhow, the back button is sticky, as in you can't just click once to go back to the previous page. Instead, a single left-click causes it to pop open the right-click menu. This is annoying and counterintuitive. Has anyone been able to replicate the proper behaviour? That is, single left-click for just go back a page and right-click/click-hold for the menu.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
Has anyone else been having trouble with HTTPS Everywhere repeatedly causing crashes? Disabling the extension completely stops the crashes. I don't think it's a specific website because I can usually just re-open Firefox and navigate back to where I was. I tried installing the developer version and it's not fixed. Is there another good extension that will do the same thing?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Arob1000 posted:Has anyone else been having trouble with HTTPS Everywhere repeatedly causing crashes? Disabling the extension completely stops the crashes. I don't think it's a specific website because I can usually just re-open Firefox and navigate back to where I was. I tried installing the developer version and it's not fixed. Is there another good extension that will do the same thing? I've been seeing the same thing, though I didn't figure out what was causing it. Guess I'm disabling HTTPS-E for now. Unrelated, but ran into this!!!!!!!!!!!! when looking for those bugs: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/1906
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
I have a strange and non-technical request of the firefox thread. I'm getting kind of bored of my current default theme and was looking to change my theme to something DOS styled. Searching the add-on section didn't give me anything I liked. What I'm looking for in colors is something close to the the Norton Commander color scheme:  . I'd appreciate any help I can get.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Aleksei Vasiliev posted:Looks like FF bug 999434 GC crashes are such a bitch to track down. 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
Arob1000 posted:Has anyone else been having trouble with HTTPS Everywhere repeatedly causing crashes? Disabling the extension completely stops the crashes. I don't think it's a specific website because I can usually just re-open Firefox and navigate back to where I was. I tried installing the developer version and it's not fixed. Is there another good extension that will do the same thing?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Nick Nethercote has a great post about the memory impact of AdBlock on Firefox memory usage.quote:I load TechCrunch [...], without ABP, Firefox uses about 194 MiB of physical memory. With ABP, that number more than doubles, to 417 MiB
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Nick Nethercote has a great post about the memory impact of AdBlock on Firefox memory usage. AdBlock Plus could use 4 gigs of RAM all by itself, and it would still be worth it. I would buy more RAM and install it before turning ABP off.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
xamphear posted:AdBlock Plus could use 4 gigs of RAM all by itself, and it would still be worth it. I would buy more RAM and install it before turning ABP off. 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Mmm, I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning. I'd love an ad 'industry' that I could trust to wipe its own rear end before spreading its cheeks against my browser window, but that's about as likely as everything being paywalled. Not that any of this is relevant to the thread at hand.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
td4guy posted:I got those crashes every day (in ff28 and ff29) and the developer version definitely fixed it for me. Not a single crash in a week.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
The Merkinman posted:I can't wait until all websites have to be behind a paywall One of the biggest problems is that a lot of ads are outright vectors for malware, not just someone trying to sell you a product.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
The Merkinman posted:I can't wait until all websites have to be behind a paywall This, but not ironically. I think it's great to discover the things you like and then pay to use them. We all paid to get in here, so it's not like any of us are complete strangers to the concept. Also, ads aren't just ads anymore. The most benign ones are "just" invading your privacy, the really bad ones are malware.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
A few years ago a friend of mine was showing me an article on some website I read, on their own machine. I nearly had a heart attack/seizure when looking at the page. All this flashing poo poo everywhere, I thought he'd got a nasty adware infection. Turns out he was just using IE and didn't have anything blocking ads.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
 if you think ad companies make their money from actually getting people to buy the product or service featured on their web ads.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
pipes! posted:
It was the sheer volume of screen space taken up by shite that astounded me, since I'd been using Firefox with Adblock for years and only saw occasional ads.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Nick Nethercote has a great post about the memory impact of AdBlock on Firefox memory usage. To add to this, a guy from the Chrome dev team posted some useful stuff on reddit: quote:Chrome Dev here. We see this (and much more) with chrome as well. I agree with the other guys - I don't give a poo poo how much memory ABP needs; it's worth it. The slowdown in render speed is sometimes annoying, but it's not enough to make me want to ditch ABP.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Mozilla is going to pay Adobe to be able to plop a DRM module in Firefox in order to conform to the W3C's Encrypted Media Extensions standard.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Are they paying? I didn't hear that part. It breaks my heart (I was literally choked up ), but I don't know that they had a choice that turned out better for the web. I think open video on the web lost, at least for the next 5 years, when Google reneged on its promise to drop H.264. Maybe Daala saves us on the codec side.
Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 02:54 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
IF you really believed no one was going to use DRM in online video in the future, I don't know what to say.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
pipes! posted:
Well, Google certainly doesn't.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:IF you really believed no one was going to use DRM in online video in the future, I don't know what to say. No, I knew people were going to use it. I'd hoped it would stay beside the web, like Silverlight, rather than become part of it, like <canvas>.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:No, I knew people were going to use it. I'd hoped it would stay beside the web, like Silverlight, rather than become part of it, like <canvas>. Yeah, that's just not really thinking there. It would be impossible to actually get widespread use of video tag without supporting DRM in some way.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Every piece of video served on the web to an iPhone or iPad is non-DRM html5 video. I think it had legs, and I spent a lot lot of time talking to a lot of parties about it, but it needed more than Mozilla to care about it, and Google+Microsoft were swayed by unrealistic content owners. Music publishers got over DRM, pretty much, but it'll take longer for the same factors to tip video producers over. Still, DRM is sort of a bet against someone caring enough. Maybe Cory Doctorow will unravel it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:To add to this, a guy from the Chrome dev team posted some useful stuff on reddit: Also, this is going to sound hyperbolic today, but it actually dovetails nicely with these last two topics: How long until not just video but html, javascript, and images are also able to be DRM'd in a web browser? Not only will that handle copyright stuff, but if the content is securely encrypted by your web browser right up until the moment the pixels hit your monitor, you won't be able to block any ads from it. xamphear fucked around with this message at 03:14 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Every piece of video served on the web to an iPhone or iPad is non-DRM html5 video. I think it had legs, and I spent a lot lot of time talking to a lot of parties about it, but it needed more than Mozilla to care about it, and Google+Microsoft were swayed by unrealistic content owners. Aaand consequently a lot of sites did not make any video available to iOS users. Google and Microsoft are major content owners in their own right by the way, why wouldn't they listen to themselves? Music publishers also never stopped publishing DRM-free format music (CDs) which everyone could freely copy. Video is definitely not like that, hell most commercial videotape releases had an copy protection function built in starting in the late 80s.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:23
|
|