
Improvements in Firefox for Desktop and Android - ehPReth
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/08/02/exciting-improvements-in-firefox-for-desktop-and-android/
======
JohnTHaller
For the curious, you're likely using one or more extensions and thus multi-
process won't be on when you update to it. Mozilla is rolling it out
cautiously, so everyone with any extensions at all is excluded and everyone
with no extensions either has it on or is in the 'control group' which will be
used to judge the affect that enabling multi-process has on stability based on
telemetry reports from both groups.

------
dchuk
I've always been a fan of Firefox, switching to it years and years ago, but
Chrome's performance was always a bit smoother because of multi-process, and
their dev tools are top notch.

The flipside is that Chrome is a major resource hog too, often taking up half
or more of my 16gb of RAM. Curious if Firefox can now compete performance-wise
without going down the same resource path.

~~~
nitrogen
It really bothered me when browsers decided they owned your machine and
removed manual cache size limits. What if I want to use my browser at the same
time as something I actually want to use all my RAM?

~~~
vmarsy
If you're using an OS that lets you setup restrictions per process, you could
do something like this:

[https://gist.github.com/juanje/9861623](https://gist.github.com/juanje/9861623):
_I was tired of Chrome eating all my laptop resources so I decided to put some
limit to it with cgroup._

------
isomorphic
Searching about:config for e10s, I see I'm in the "disqualified-control"
"e10s.rollout.cohort". Looking further, I see "extensions.e10sBlockedByAddons"
and "extensions.e10sBlocksEnabling" are both true.

So, one or more add-ons are presumably incompatible with the feature, but even
if I uninstalled those (which ones?) I might still be in Mozilla's control
group, and there's no clear way to override that.

~~~
sirn
> even if I uninstalled those (which ones?)

I think you can see the partial list of extensions at
[https://www.arewee10syet.com/](https://www.arewee10syet.com/) The result
seems to be restricted to only few top extensions, though.

Edit: I remembered it used to have a lot more extensions listed, apparently
they have recently rebuilt the site[1][2]:

[1]:
[https://github.com/andymckay/arewee10syet](https://github.com/andymckay/arewee10syet)

[2]: [https://github.com/andymckay/new-
arewee10syet.com](https://github.com/andymckay/new-arewee10syet.com)

~~~
Sylos
The previous page was just a crappy Google Doc embedded into the page, so they
probably tidied it up before release...

------
earless1
If you would like to force enable Electrolysis. Within about:config create a
new boolean pref named browser.tabs.remote.force-enable and set it to true.

~~~
Sylos
If you do, though, understand that this might actually cause you worse
performance than you currently have, depending on the add-ons that you use.

------
grok2
Since I didn't have any luck finding an answer to this at Mozilla, does anyone
know why McAfee SiteAdvisor is able to automatically enable it's add-on in
Firefox? Even after I disable it in the add-ons manager, the next update to
McAfee software re-enables the add-on by itself. (This add-on places a green
or red check-mark against google (and possibly other) search results to
indicate if it's safe or not to click on a link in the search results). When
using the McAfee security suite, they don't provide any option to choose what
it's add-on does.

~~~
Sylos
Type "about:config" into the URL-bar and hit enter. Confirm to the dialog that
you'll be cautious and then search in that page for
"xpinstall.signatures.required". I'm guessing, that this is disabled for you.

If it is, and you want to get rid of the McAfee-extension, then remove the
McAfee extension and re-enable xpinstall.signatures.required.

It shouldn't be able to reinstall then. If it does anyways, check
about:config, again, if that preference is re-enabled.

If it is re-enabled, either some add-on in your add-on-list is malicious and
re-enabling it, which then allows McAfee to reinstall, or McAfee is abusing
the prefs.js-file in your Profile-folder ([0]), which can be used to set
about:config-values.

All in all, that this is an about:config-toggle to begin with, is kind of
crap, as it makes this sort of stuff possible. Mozilla has plans to eventually
remove this about:config-toggle from standard Firefox and instead provide a
separate unbranded version of Firefox which then does still have that toggle
for people who want to use unsigned extensions, but for now, this change has
been put on hold, because things have been going fine, and it would just mean
additional organizational chaos as well as people, who don't know about the
unbranded version, screaming about Mozilla creating a walled garden. But if
all of the above applied for you, you should probably report this to Mozilla,
as that might be enough reason to get them moving on this change.

[0] [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profiles-where-
firefox-...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profiles-where-firefox-
stores-user-data)

~~~
grok2
xpinstall.signatures.required is true in about:config on my Firefox. It seems
like that doesn't matter. The only other add-ons I have are NoScript, Pocket
and LastPass and I trust these. The McAfee add-on only has a "Disable" button
and when I disable and restart, it does get disabled. I am unable to remove it
and the external McAfee installer/configuration manager does not have any
settings to prevent it from getting installed. And every-time McAfee updates
itself, it re-enables it's add-on and I have to go in and manually disable it.

I am surprised that no-one else is facing the same problem and is not
complaining about it (Google search didn't show me any results regarding this
topic and I found only mentions of similar problems (pre 2014) on the Mozilla
forums).

------
Eridrus
I really want to switch to Firefox on Android for the extensions, but I feel
like Chrome is still doing a superior job in terms of security, which makes me
stick with chrome. I hope e10s is the start of Firefox getting a content
sandbox.

~~~
technojunkie
At the very least, adding uBlock Origin add-on and using it in hard mode
([https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-
mode:-hard-m...](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-hard-
mode)) gives me some peace of mind about Firefox security.

------
sdegutis
> _Today we’re proud to announce the initial rollout of multi-process Firefox
> for Desktop to our general audience. With this, we’re taking a major step
> forward in improving Firefox for Desktop. Users should experience a Firefox
> that is less susceptible to freezing and is generally more responsive to
> input, while retaining the experience and features that users love._

Really? That's it? I mean, don't get me wrong, that's great. But I kind of
assumed FF already had this. Didn't Chrome roll this exact feature out like 6
years ago?

~~~
Sylos
Chrome was designed with multi-core processors in mind. Firefox wasn't, since
obviously multi-core processors weren't really a thing when Firefox was
initially released. As a result, Mozilla had to tear up a big chunk of the
architecture to implement it. That's why it took so long. A simple case of
technical debt.

~~~
c0nducktr
And they also didn't work on it for the entire six years since Chrome was
released. The project was shelved temporarily while development was focused on
other things.

I have been running Firefox Nightly along side Chrome for the past year or so,
and have been using it as my main browser for a few months now, and I've been
really happy with its performance.

------
vegardx
Still no way to run multiple independent windows without a lot of dirty hacks.
This is the only thing that keeps me with Chrome: The ability to close a
certain set of windows when I'm done at work and have them out of the way. Or
the other way around, close windows with private and personal things.

I don't understand what stops Firefox from implementing something similar.
They already have the concept of profiles. Just no ability to run them
simultaneously.

~~~
dsp1234
_without a lot of dirty hacks_

[http://kb.mozillazine.org/Opening_a_new_instance_of_Firefox_...](http://kb.mozillazine.org/Opening_a_new_instance_of_Firefox_with_another_profile)

Creating an independent set of windows with FF is as easy as creating a
shortcut with the '-no-remote' option. Using '-P -no-remote' will open a new
independent window and show the profile manager (so you can have one shortcut
to run multiple profiles). If you already have a short list of profiles you
like to run, then you can hard code the profile name is as well.

~~~
vegardx
It makes no sense that I have to modify the start up options or (on OSX)
create a shortcut in Automator to set the correct start up options.

In Chrome it has been solved very nicely. But it looks like this is being
solved in future versions of Firefox, which is nice.

I've tried to do it the way you described, but it just feels messy. Even more
so when your dock ends up with X-amount of Firefox-icons, instead of grouping
them together like Chrome does. But I guess people have different preferences.

~~~
jonathanyc
Do you mean you would prefer it to be a preference rather than a command line
flag?

------
pasbesoin
So, at what point do the extensions I use, and for which in good part I prefer
Firefox, start dying?

~~~
richardwhiuk
Why do you think extensions won't be supported?

~~~
Macha
[https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-
dev...](https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-
firefox-add-ons/)

WebExtensions / Chrome-style extensions are pretty limited to things which the
browser dev already anticipated needing support for, while the old model let
them do pretty much anything the browser could.

While it's certainly possible for Tree Style Tabs or uBlock Origin to be
ported to/rewritten for Web Extensions when it's finished, that's only because
there has been proven demand for the API to support those features.

When the next addon developer with an idea of that level of modification to
the browser comes around, they're simply not going to be able to do it unless
they manage to persuade Mozilla to give them APIs needed.

That's not to mention addon developers that won't care enough to update their
addons to stop using XUL when it goes away.

~~~
Macha
Additionally, since it just bit me in the ass today, a lot more short term
than the end of XUL:

I can no longer install YouTube Center on Firefox 48 on Windows. They removed
the about:config override that enabled installing unsigned addons. Which is
very annoying.

~~~
Sylos
Mozilla offers unbranded builds where this about:config override is still
available:

[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-
ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded...](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-
ons/Extension_Signing#Unbranded_Builds)

------
Hydraulix989
How will this affect battery life?

Right now, I use Firefox instead of Chrome on my Linux laptop because Chrome
consumes several watts of juice more than Firefox. This adds up to about an
hour of extra battery life over a single charge.

I suspect at least part of that is context-switching overhead?

------
scoopr
about:config settings to force it on, that I could find:

    
    
      browser.tabs.remote.autostart = true
      extensions.e10sBlocksEnabling = false

