
Firefox Hello – Browse the Web with Friends - duck
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/hello/?v=b
======
ktamura
Firefox's problem is not lack of features. It's performance.

To be sure, Firefox isn't the worst by many metrics, but it's no longer the
stand-out that it was circa 2005-2008. That's why Firefox users left it for
Chrome.

And here we are in 2016, I feel that Firefox has a legitimate chance of
fighting back if they get their act together. Chrome has become heavy on
resource usage while Safari can be sluggish at times. Microsoft has done a
great job with Edge but it's bound to Windows 10. This is the opportunity that
Firefox should seize.

Yet, they seem to be permanently confused about what they want to do. Chucking
Firefox OS was a brave and laudable choice (I say this as a former user, not
just an owner, of Firefox OS). But then they work on this? Seriously? Just
keep your heads down and concentrate your resources on making Firefox faster
and more efficient. Everything else will come with it.

~~~
Aldo_MX
TBH, I used to hate Firefox's performance, because even loading Facebook froze
the entire browser for several msecs (enough to be perceptible), but recently
I turned e10s[1] on and the browser feels almost as responsive as Chrome now.

The documentation seems to be outdated, there seems to be an A/B testing right
now, and it's recommended to turn off some extensions[2], but this is how I
forced e10s to be turned on in `about:config` in the beta:

    
    
        {
            e10s.rollout.cohort: "control",
            e10s.rollout.cohortSample: 78,
            extensions.e10sBlockedByAddons: false
        }
    

[1]
[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis)

[2] [https://www.arewee10syet.com/](https://www.arewee10syet.com/)

~~~
felipc
Thanks for testing e10s! There's a simpler a better way to test it though,
which is just setting `browser.tabs.remote.autostart` to true.

These prefs that you mentioned won't stick (they will be reset after startup)
and are just used for some internal state.

I'll make sure the info on that wiki page is up to date for people who want to
test it.

Note: Multiprocess is not available in the Release channel yet. Please use our
Developer/Test channels if you want to use it.

Also, if you have add-ons, multiprocess is by default blocked from running on
Beta (but allowed on Nightly/Aurora). If you're on Beta and want to use it
together with add-ons, look at that wiki page to see how to work around that.
Or just use Aurora :)

~~~
Aldo_MX
Thank you and every person involved for e10s! :)

------
fpgaminer
Lots of negativity in these comments surrounding Firefox and Mozilla's
direction with it. I've been using Rust, a Mozilla product, quite a bit
recently and have even contributed to the project. I am throughly impressed
with Rust, the language, the ecosystem, and most importantly the way it's
maintained by Mozilla. It's an incredible gift by Mozilla to the community at
large, and for that they've earned a lot of respect from me.

I agree that Firefox's performance is quite bad these days, but Mozilla is
already working on that (with Servo). Pouring more devs into it is not likely
to make progress on that front faster (too many cooks). They could have taken
a more gradual approach to the problem, by slowly evolving the existing
codebase, chipping away at performance. But they've been trying that for a
long time. Servo is, in my opinion, the better plan. And with it also comes a
massive security hardening. It's a long road, but one worth waiting for.

So, Mozilla has already dedicated the necessary resources to handle
performance. What are they to do with the rest of their company's resources,
and most importantly, what can they do to grow the company? Firefox Hello and
other projects like it are part of that effort. We may not agree that Firefox
Hello is a good idea. Personally I don't have a use for it either. But bless
them for trying and experimenting.

And let's not forget that Firefox is a "free" product. I can't imagine Mozilla
is swimming in money. They don't have the resources that Google or Microsoft
have, and yet they still have a solid chance at leap-frogging their
competition with Servo.

Personally, I continue to use Firefox as my daily driver, because it appears
to respect my privacy more than Chrome, despite its performance issues.

~~~
idobai
> I agree that Firefox's performance is quite bad these days, but Mozilla is
> already working on that (with Servo).

I've checked out servo and compiled and started it in release mode - it
required 600MB RAM and 700% CPU to load google(!) with the same speed as my
little firefox with tons of extensions - forgive my ignorance but I've
expected more from the hype. I've tested some other websites but no luck -
Servo is a heavy and slow beast.

> I am throughly impressed with Rust, the language, the ecosystem, and most
> importantly the way it's maintained by Mozilla.

Rust programs consume so much resources that it could just use a GC instead of
the complex manual memory management. The syntax and the standard library is
as 'modern' as in cpp - I'm not as impressed as I was a fan of Mozilla.

> Personally, I continue to use Firefox as my daily driver, because it appears
> to respect my privacy more than Chrome, despite its performance issues.

Search the internet for optimizations, my firefox feels like as fast as chrome
- sometime even faster. It just needs some tweaks. Even if ff would be much
slower I wouldn't leave it because of firefox's wonderful extension platform
and its nice complete theme suites.

~~~
pcwalton
> I've checked out servo and compiled and started it in release mode - it
> required 600MB RAM and 700% CPU to load google(!) with the same speed as my
> little firefox with tons of extensions - forgive my ignorance but I've
> expected more from the hype.

Thanks for the bug report, but I can't reproduce. According to the built-in
memory profiler, Servo uses 39 MB of explicit allocations to load google.com,
which is well in line with other browsers even without a whole lot of
optimization for memory use.

A large amount of CPU usage during initial pageload, on the other hand, is a
feature, not a bug. Using more resources lets us get the page loaded faster,
which not only shows you the page faster but also typically reduces power
consumption since we can get the CPU into an idle state.

> Rust programs consume so much resources that it could just use a GC instead
> of the complex manual memory management.

Manual memory management isn't about some broad notion of "resource
consumption": it's about having low-level control of resources, which can not
only reduce memory usage but also eliminate pauses. I think it's very unlikely
that the JavaScript garbage collector could be made thread-safe without
regressing performance (which is what you presumably mean by "just use a GC").

> The syntax and the standard library is as 'modern' as in cpp - I'm not as
> impressed as I was a fan of Mozilla.

Just to name the first features that come to mind: Rust has a module system
and hygienic macros, which are syntactic features not in C++. Rust comes with
a standard library that includes networking, which isn't in C++.

> Search the internet for optimizations, my firefox feels like as fast as
> chrome - sometime even faster. It just needs some tweaks.

Those "tweaks" are in fact likely to be slowing down your browser.

~~~
idobai
> Thanks for the bug report, but I can't reproduce. According to the built-in
> memory profiler, Servo uses 39 MB of explicit allocations to load
> google.com, which is well in line with other browsers even without a whole
> lot of optimization for memory use.

If you say so, I'll check out a new version and try it again. I've tried it a
few weeks ago on linux.

> A large amount of CPU usage during initial pageload, on the other hand, is a
> feature, not a bug. Using more resources lets us get the page loaded faster,
> which not only shows you the page faster but also typically reduces power
> consumption since we can get the CPU into an idle state.

Large CPU usage slows down other apps - that's one reason why I use ff instead
of chrome. 8GB RAM seems too few nowadays...

> Manual memory management isn't about some broad notion of "resource
> consumption": it's about having low-level control of resources, which can
> not only reduce memory usage but also eliminate pauses. I think it's very
> unlikely that the JavaScript garbage collector could be made thread-safe
> without regressing performance (which is what you presumably mean by "just
> use a GC").

I was pointing to the promise that it shouldn't leak while it seems to be
doing it seriously.

> Just to name the first features that come to mind: Rust has a module system
> and hygienic macros, which are syntactic features not in C++. Rust comes
> with a standard library that includes networking, which isn't in C++.

I don't really like Rust's module system but +1 for the hygienic macros.

> Those "tweaks" are in fact likely to be slowing down your browser.

Have you heard about experimental features like pipelining and prefetch? Or
content restrictors like uBlock and disconnect? Or session+history limits?
When I reset my ff settings(due to ff profile problems) the vanilla ff takes
at least 2x as much time to load the same page. If these "tweaks" wouldn't
present - I wouldn't be a happy ff user.

~~~
pcwalton
> Large CPU usage slows down other apps - that's one reason why I use ff
> instead of chrome.

The idea that apps should intentionally throttle their CPU usage to avoid
"slowing down other apps" at the expense of performance is nonsensical. Apps
should use all the resources in the machine to get the job done faster and go
to sleep faster. The kernel, not userland apps, is responsible for
multiplexing the system resources: that's literally its job, and only it is in
a position to do so properly.

> I was pointing to the promise that it shouldn't leak while it seems to be
> doing it seriously.

Nothing you've cited has been evidence of a leak. Adding a global garbage
collector would do nothing to reduce the (non-)"leaks" you observe.

> Have you heard about experimental features like pipelining and prefetch?

Enabling those via about:config tweaks and addons slows down your browser.
Session and history limits do not affect your browser performance.

------
educar
Daily firefox user checking in. Every mozilla feature gets me upset because
firefox was the poster boy for the underdog. I got behind them completely
during the browser wars and have written firefox extensions as well.

But look at them today. Firefox OS. Ads on the initial browser page. Pocket.
They were extremely slow to catch up with multi-process tabs. And firefox just
freezes up arbitrarily periodically. So very sad.

Performance issues aside, Firefox has not been big on my privacy issues
either. Running sync server is so incredibly complicated and it doesn't need
to be that way. All it's doing is stash bookmark/password data and the amount
of configuration required to run this on your own is mind numbing :/ Just see
the wiki pages and they all say the pages need work.

------
mangeletti
Imagine your Tesla Model S has an issue where it won't charge. You call your
buddy who also has a Model S, and she's having the same issue with hers. So,
you call Tesla and tell them, "I can't use my Model S because the battery
won't charge!". They're like "no worries, send us the diagnostic information
and we'll get it fixed in no time".

In a sigh of relief, you quickly head to your garage and use 1 of the the
remaining 3 percent of your battery charge to send diagnostic data to Tesla...

12 weeks later, you're frustrated because you've been driving a sub-standard
rental car, and you call Tesla again. "Why haven't you fixed this, yet?!".
They reply, "We have! We just finished the update you've been waiting for. Go
have a look!".

You run to the garage and plug the car in to the wall. You get in and look at
the screen to see if it's charging. Your Model S's computer welcomes you with
a message:

    
    
        Drive with your friends now with Tesla Hello!
    
        You can now see where your friends are while you drive!
    

Now, your battery is at 0.5%.

That's Firefox.

~~~
coldtea
You forgot their foray into motorcycle engines [1] and driver licences [2] ...

[1] [https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/os/) [2] [https://login.persona.org/](https://login.persona.org/)

------
bshimmin
Is this actually a problem that's really crying out for a solution? I mean, I
can't say I do collaborative remote planning of trips or shopping online very
often at all, but on the rare occasions that I have, sending an email or an
instant message of some sort with links in it really does mostly seem to do
the trick ("Do you prefer <url> or <url>?" \- "I like the first one" \-
"Great, I'll buy that, thanks").

~~~
sdegutis
I feel like that's typical of most new apps/websites coming out. Trying to
solve non-problems. That's why we never jumped onto using Slack at work. And
now I'm feeling a bit validated about that decision, seeing as just a year
later everyone's flocking away from it.

~~~
bshimmin
They are?! Whither do they flock?

~~~
educar
we use rocket.chat at work and it's quite good.

------
sanbor
I'm thankful to Mozilla to produce multi-platform software libre, but I also
have some comments about their current priorities.

I think Firefox should try to gain users again with a good browser that it's
fast and has great features expected in a browser. In this chart you can see
how Chrome users increments and Firefox users decrement [1].

A feature to chat, call and share my screen it's not a feature that I expect
from a browser. A button to store bookmarks in a third-party service it's not
a feature that I expect in a browser.

A good printing functionality or to save a page as PDF it's something that I
would expect from a browser (you can save a page as PDF in Firefox for Android
but not in desktop).

Last year I made a little web project[2] that would take a group of images and
generate a printable calendar. I'm fluent in CSS and HTML and it was pretty
easy to make. To my surprise, Firefox has the same print dialog like from
Firefox 1.0. I wasn't able to generate a decent pdf from their printing
dialog, which was extremely basic and without a preview support.

Chrome and Safari were pretty good and I was able to get very good results.
They both show you a preview of the page before sending it to print.

I am surprised to see that Firefox invests time and effort in things like
VR[3] while lacking a good printing experience (I think a good printing
experience would help lots of more people in concrete ways).

Finally, after seeing how they abandon projects like Persona, FirefoxOS or
Thunderbird, I'm not very prone to invest time in their projects that maybe
they will end up abandoning (I have the same feeling with Google).

Anyway, this is intended as feedback and hoping that they will start listening
users about what they want from their browsers. Right now seems the opposite,
Mozilla creative people trying to convince users that they want the things
that they come up with.

[1]([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/m...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/media/File:Usage_share_of_web_browsers_\(Source_StatCounter\).svg))

[2]([https://github.com/sanbor/printable-
calendar](https://github.com/sanbor/printable-calendar))

[3]([http://mozvr.com/](http://mozvr.com/))

------
gkya
Firefox bundles Pocket and this, and these are irremovable, without
maintaining one's own builds. Actually, Chromium's default install is better
at respecting my freedom than Firefox. This is incompatible with their mottos:

> Committed to you, your privacy and an open Web. [https://www.mozilla.org/en-
> US/firefox/desktop](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/desktop)

> We make it Firefox. You make it your own. -- The features you love. The
> privacy you trust. Our most customizable Firefox for Android yet.
> [https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/android/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-
> US/firefox/android/)

~~~
sp332
How is this unprivate or uncustomizable?

~~~
gkya
I can't remove them as a user. I can't be sure that they won't add more of
this third-party stuff. I can't trust their claims.

This is like the case of online searches on Unity/Ubuntu. A non-essential,
irremovable (non-destructively), annoying bit of software on my system.

~~~
aibara
You could always easily disable online searches in Ubuntu's Unity environment.
And in 16.04 it's now off by default.

~~~
gkya
IIRC it was not easily disabled when it was first introduced, the control was
added after community reaction. However, I just included as another example.
Further, I don't know the situation now, but IIRC you can't remove (i.e.
delete the code, not disable) zeitgeist and online searches, keeping Unity,
those are hard dependencies, even though non-essential.

------
anexprogrammer
I don't understand what happened to Firefox or how they so comprehensively
lost their direction.

The whole rationale of the browser was to be something small, tight and easily
extensible and to get away from the unreliability of Netscape.

Now we learn they're deprecating full themes, changing plugins to be more
limited (but again becoming more like Chrome), and filling the browser with
pointless at best features. I can't recall ever wanting to share browsing.
Screens when coding or helping sure, but it's a solved problem, so keep it and
the kitchen sink out of the browser.

It's probably why its becoming so slow and flaky. The two key problems it was
intended to fix.

~~~
dmm
> It's probably why its becoming so slow and flaky.

I see both version of this statement all the time: "Chrome is so slow. I
switched to firefox![1]" "Firefox is so slow. I switched to chrome!"

What's going on? Do browsers get full of history/cookies/profiles/plugins and
slow down.

Is it just the act of switching that speeds things up?

[1] [http://gizmodo.com/fuck-it-im-going-back-to-
firefox-16854258...](http://gizmodo.com/fuck-it-im-going-back-to-
firefox-1685425815)

~~~
pcwalton
> I see both version of this statement all the time: "Chrome is so slow. I
> switched to firefox![1]" "Firefox is so slow. I switched to chrome!"

I think it's simply that anecdotes are extremely unreliable when it comes to
something as large and complex as a browser that's so sensitive to the
specific content you browse. Firefox is slow from time to time for some
people; Chrome is slow from time to time for some people.

------
marmaduke
This is a pretty cool alternative to Skype, and it works OK on Linux too.

why all the whining here?

~~~
CaptSpify
I'd personally love it as a skype alternative. I don't, however, want it
integrated into my browser.

------
ssivark
I consider the need to share a tab a BUG, rather than a feature. Here's the
filing on Bugzilla:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1249185](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1249185)

As I state there, Firefox Hello's user experience (before this change) was
significantly superior to both Skype and Google Hangouts. But they seem intent
on shipping a barely needed feature instead of providing excellent and usable
video chat (where no other platform comes close, IMHO).

When I last used it a few weeks ago, the "feature" was a disaster -- every
time you switch tabs the other person you're chatting with would see exactly
the page you see. This should be an opt-in feature, not a possibly opt-out
one! (they claim that in future versions there will be a way to disable tab-
sharing... though I don't see it currently)

</rant>

------
callahad
If you want to try it out, I'll leave this session open while I prep for a
talk next week.

Hello only supports 1:1 chats, not group ones, so this may not work
immediately for you.

(Edit: Link removed. It was nice meeting those of you who dropped by!)

------
marpstar
Does anyone else remember Excite.com's chat application from ~20 years ago,
which has the ability for people who were all on the same web page could chat
amongst each other. I'm pretty sure you could navigate across pages and bring
people with you, too. Very early precursor to this. I thought it was a lot of
fun back then, but I was 11 years old.

~~~
dahdum
Yes - I definitely remember shared browsing some time back in the mid/late
90's but I couldn't remember the app that did it. Excite doesn't ring a bell
though, maybe there were more?

I thought it was pretty useless back then...

------
ape4
It would be nice if you could get at Hello without adding it to your toolbar.

~~~
sp332
You could add it to the drop-down panel under the menu on the right?

~~~
ape4
Right you are. That should be the default.

------
quantisan
This could be useful for web app remote user testing and development.

------
15charlimit
>Browse the web with friends

Why? Keep that garbage out of the browser. Everything is too "social" and
integrated already.

Just give me a "dumb" viewer - nothing more, nothing less.

------
chris_wot
Um. Wat? Is this some sort of screen sharing thing? Sharing web pages?!?

~~~
callahad
Yep. Tab + voice + video sharing via WebRTC.

~~~
kardos
Does anybody want or use this? Does it share all of your tabs? How do you
control what it shares? It seems like a privacy time bomb waiting to happen.

~~~
callahad
I've found it pretty handy, especially when doing remote code reviews or
preliminary interviews.

It only shares the currently visible tab in a single window, and while
enabled, that window gets a big banner and overlay video window that make it
very difficult to accidentally share the wrong thing. Plus, WebRTC is
encrypted between peers, which would thwart passive eavesdroppers.

------
d33
The problem is that it's firefox-only.

~~~
goda90
I think it might be cross browser too. [https://support.mozilla.org/en-
US/kb/which-browsers-will-wor...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/which-
browsers-will-work-firefox-hello-video-chat)

~~~
porkloin
It doesn't work on mobile though, which kinda sucks. But it does work cross-
browser on desktop.

~~~
coldtea
Why would you do browser-sharing on mobile? It's useless enough on the
desktop, where it kind of makes sense...

