What I really want is to be able to open a link in a tab and not load it (much less render it) until I switch to that tab. Why? Because I sometimes open lots of tabs and don't want those pages to have scripts running even from origins I allow (via NoScript) until I say it's OK (by switching to the tab).
Think of it as ephemeral bookmark that I want to get to later.
So I literally want a snapshot of it staying there. This way when i switch to it, it should be close to instantaneous.
I have been thinking of another Idea, when unread tabs reach a large number, these tabs were once opened, but inactive or not touched for a period of time because i didn't have time to read it yet, should automatically move off to another Window. And this Window should be designed to have Tabs on the side, and some other changes making it more of a reading session rather then browsing / surfing session.
Why not bookmark it or Pocket it, because these action will simply means i will never touch them again or I forget about it.
Tree Style Tabs Doesn't work for me, I tried it a number of times, in theory it should, in practice it is a little over complicated. Tab List so far is working great for me. As of writing I have 260 Tabs opened, thanks to CES.
You can enable "screen capturing" in Suspender for that.
Because I can not find such an option in its settings.
My view is those pages don't actually matter to you, they're irrelevant and you won't actually miss them.
As a reluctant user of tree style tabs (holding out for the restoration of tab groups), I disagree.
I usually have different sets of tabs open:
- A set for each of the 2-3 projects I have active this month
- Casual browsing
- Read later
- Do later
Pocket or similar (ignoring my refusal to use a 3rdParty service for my own data) would only be useful for do-later and read-later.
With tab groups I had a perfect setup which supported /all/ my use cases in one go. With TST I can roughly approximate this with a top-level tab for each (it's not great).
Bookmarks need to be replaced with something that covers a wider range of use-cases without having to cobble together a bunch of different workflows.
People know about bookmarks and pocket. Most people who are actively searching out extensions are not avoiding learning a different workflow (obvious if you think about it). I've gone through many different workflows, and I'll keep testing out more. Tab groups was the best thing yet for me.
They're mostly just passing momentary fascinations, so either act on them or let them go. If something actually is important, you'll come across it again, or simply remember it.
I struggled for years with tons and tons of unread tabs, forgotten bookmarks, endless unstarted projects, hundreds of unwatched movies, unlistened albums. Learning to just let them go was the best thing that ever happened to me. The important stuff tends to stick around in memory, all by itself.
As a small part of that, I've instituted a "24 hour minimum" rule. If I see something I like, I add it to the shopping basket or save it in some other way that's not immediately visible when I'm on my PC or phone. Then I wait at least 24 hours. If I still desire that item after the waiting period has passed, I'll consider buying it. It has saved me so much money, and helped me avoid a ton of junk that would otherwise just be taking up space in my home.
Keeping too much stuff "active" is stressful as hell, and it's wonderful to be able to just not care about it.
My point about bookmarks and pocket not filling my use-case (even if I dropped read/do later) stands -- I really do want multiple switchable tab contexts.
- middle-click on a bunch of links from the front page
- pick a tab to read
- lather, rinse, repeat
- get interrupted, leave some tabs lying around unread or to comment on later
- lather, rinse, repeat
Firefox used to have this option natively. It was removed some day.
Besides, this seems like a lot easier to implement than tab warming (which, reminder, I don't want).
I don't want to have to install an add-on for something so basic.
Also, they are warming the tab when you are hovering over it. If you are just opening up a link in a new tab and not switching to or not coming close to switching to it, it will not 'pre-warm' anything.
Clever optimisation tho.
>I generally do not connect to web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites I have some special relationship with. I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me. Then I look at them using a web browser, unless it is easy to see the text in the HTML page directly. I usually try lynx first, then a graphical browser if the page needs it (using konqueror, which won't fetch from other sites in such a situation).
The more Firefox strips out, the more I feel itchy to move to something like Dillo or NetSurf. Something small, fast, reliable. Something _hackable_.
How often do you open a link in a tab, then later decide that you don't trust the site and decide to close the tab without switching to it?
> even from origins I allow (via NoScript)
This implies it's not about trust, it's about resource usage.
Why should I want to allow a bunch of tabs to run unknown scripts in the background without my approval? I mean, talk about the spectre of Spectre attacks.
I open N tabs from the HN front page, then read them asynchronously. Some I never get to, true, but certainly not most. Some I want to keep around for a while. Some I read/skim and/or close right away.
> and is currently off by default while we test it and work out more kinks
> I know there's a setting.
EDIT: Just spotted the FN saying "Right now, we simply detect whether you’re hovering a tab with a mouse to predict that you’re likely going to choose that, but there are certain more opportunities to introduce warming based on other user behaviours." Hopefully ctrl+tab is one of those behaviors it can be baked into.
No comment on the increased CPU usage/effect on battery life this might have. I haven't tested it yet, but it seems like it could be significant. I hover over way more tabs than I switch to sometimes.
I currently have a lot of tabs open (in Chrome) and I switch frequently. However, I hover over a tab only to read the title, rarely to click. I'm interested in checking out Firefox again soon to see the new performance gains (maybe including this one), but does it affect battery life?
What if the false positive ratio is nearly 100%, like I suspect it would be for my patterns? Does this affect other performance like scrolling or typing if I've also been hovering over a lot of tabs?
> Maybe this is my Canadian-ness showing, but I like to think of it almost like coming in from shoveling snow off of the driveway, and somebody inside has already made hot chocolate for you, because they knew you’d probably be cold.
How sure are you that you won't end up with a whole bunch of hot chocolate that nobody wants? What is the waste factor when the extra work is done unnecessarily?
This is one of the things telemetry data can be used for. We can include telemetry probes in the browser that tell us what percentage of the time users end up switching tabs after hovering. Then we can make informed decisions about whether the feature is worth the extra complexity (and CPU cycles) before any development work is done. As far as tailoring the feature to individual browsing habits, telemetry could inform whether or not that would be worth implementing.
Also has to be asked, though, what's the point in making this opt-in? Is it in any way sensitive information whether you click after hovering a tab? I also prefer being more cautious than is necessary, because sometimes there just is some privacy implication you didn't think of, but with this the risk seems incredibly low and they do have a clearly defined use for the telemetry.
Titles are much more readable without hovering in Firefox than in Chrome, because the minimum tab size is larger.
http://instantclick.io/ (try their documentation page for a demo of link-clicking)
On Firefox 52.5.2.
Are you staying on 52 for a reason? Is that a ESR version and you require some addons that cannot be ported?
Yup, Tab Groups. Plus I need the Unity 3D extension, and ALSA sound (which they also disabled). And Flash (although I know that's still supported for now, I'm never not going to need it - even years from now).
I have no idea how I'll ever get off that version. Really not pleased with Mozilla. I can't even go to 57.
My current plan is to keep 52 forever, and once it's not supported use the latest version for normal browsing, and launch 52 when I need it. Maybe in some kind of sandbox, since I'm sure there will be unpatched vulnerabilities.
I'll have to do something about all my Tab Groups though - I have around 20 or 30 of them, really not looking forward to migrating them, but I'll have no choice. And I'll have to install PulseAudio.
I've been using Firefox since it was a beta project (even have bugzilla reports from 1999) and I've never been as disappointed with them.
Edit: I know we're not supposed to ask, but I just have to, why did two people downvote this? What could possibly be there to downvote? Am I not allowed to have an opinion on Mozilla or something?
There are various solutions to tab groups out there, I thought? Just recently my Nightly seemed to have something like that natively (can't find it again now, but it allowed me to categorize tabs into groups)?
Cannot comment on Unity. I wasn't aware that Firefox requires Pulseaudio, but I've never understood the resistance against that project either - let's consider it a preference.
But why are you personally disappointed with Mozilla? Do you believe that the browser got worse for the general case or is this the feeling of being left out at the side of the road because you have special & specific requirements and preferences that aren't completely common?
(I didn't downvote you and I always had and have personal issues with Firefox myself - but I believe that it's becoming a more and more improved browser for ~everyone~ insofar as that's possible)
Not when I last checked. The only solution is either a separate browser window for each group of tabs, or put them in bookmarks.
> I wasn't aware that Firefox requires Pulseaudio, but I've never understood the resistance against that project either
I can deal with PluseAudio. It's just annoying since I've never set it up, and I don't need it - except for Firefox.
> But why are you personally disappointed with Mozilla?
Because they have caught the bug that to make things better you have to remove things.
It's one thing to make an alternative - like when they ruined the UI, but created "Classic theme restorer", it's another to remove features that people actually use.
Right now, Unity and Flash are better than any kind of native web technology. They just are. But Firefox is removing them anyway because of "purity" reasons.
> Do you believe that the browser got worse for the general case
Yes. Not everyone is affected equally of course, but removing things like Unity isn't a net win. Nor is removing Flash. I know, I know, not pure. I don't care. Removing flash removes so much stuff from the internet.
> or is this the feeling of being left out at the side of the road because you have special & specific requirements and preferences that aren't completely common?
No, I can't expect that. Honestly I can (and will) deal with Tab Groups and PulseAudio. PluseAudio especially I can understand. And I guess few people used Tab Groups.
But Unity and Flash, that's just unpleasant.
> but I believe that it's becoming a more and more improved browser for ~everyone~ insofar as that's possible
It has in some ways. But they also messed up really bad. For example they switched to WebExtensions before creating a replacement API that Tab Groups would need! Read this if you haven't already: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lXF50-h... (he gave up his DNS, that's how badly Mozilla burned him).
Why do that?
They removed NAPI without leaving any possible alternative.
Make the browser better by improving it. Stop making it better by not supporting things. Look at Linux "Never Break Userspace". Linux has things that are hard to support, but they deal, because it's the right thing to do.
Pulseaudio? I think that shouldn't be a big issue imo, but you seem to agree here.
"Ruined the UI" is a tough one. For me the UI is completely fine and what isn't can be fixed in userChrome.css with little investment. What's broken or ruined?
Still unclear about Unity, are you talking about this ? It seems to say that this is unsupported/deprecated by the company itself ?
Hopefully you'll be able to migrate to a current version in the future. The 'start 52 in a sandbox' scenario doesn't sound fun at all.
3: The Unity Webplayer is no longer supported. We provide this download link to the last build for convenience, but be aware that the Unity Webplayer has been deprecated and will not get any further update.
If you want to deliver Unity made content via web browser we recommend you use WebGL.
I don't remember right now, but I do know I had to install the extension in order not to find the UI unpleasant.
> Still unclear about Unity, are you talking about this ?
> It seems to say that this is unsupported/deprecated by the company itself ?
It was depreciated right after Mozilla announced they would no longer support it - Unity had no choice at that point. I can't imagine they were very happy about it, it all but destroyed their company.
And I assume this plugin wouldn't work in Chrome (does it)?
How does a web player plugin come close to destroy a company that builds a graphic engine? I thought they make their money with licenses for game developers?
So far I understand your usability complaints, but this seems to go a bit far. At least without sources, couldn't find something myself. Mozilla all but destroying Unity because of their plugin/addon policy seems .. unlikely?
It used to - till Chrome disabled NAPI, but for a while you could reenable it, till eventually it was removed altogether.
It used to work on all browsers, then one by one it stopped working, Mozilla was the last straw.
The company has pivoted, so I guess they'll be all right, but their thing was a 3D graphics that worked everywhere. Now it's 3D graphics that you can build for many platforms - similar, but not exactly the same.
One nice thing about the web plugin was that it worked on Linux, and very few other 3D games worked on Linux, unless specially written for it.
> Mozilla all but destroying Unity because of their plugin/addon policy seems .. unlikely?
Yah, I'm going to far. Mozilla was the last straw rather than the main insult. I blame Mozilla because Firefox was what I used, I didn't really notice when it stopped working in Chrome (other than some posts urging people to install Firefox, which I thought was cool).
But today, right now, there are still a ton of Unity Web games that will soon be unplayable by anyone not running old code, and I find that sad, that all that work is just gone, destroyed.
Read this: http://www.ocsmag.com/2017/04/29/kde-vs-gnome-design-philoso...
I want Mozilla to be like KDE, not Gnome.
Not sure what happened here, but on gentoo I still have sound in firefox 57 without having installed either pulseaudio or the apulse shim. Probably some patching by the gentoo devs, but I was ready to install at least the shim, and maybe even pulse itself to get sound, but so far it has not been necessary.
Hard to recover from the add-on fiasco, IMHO.
No one would have any idea what the hell "tab warming" means without being told, which seems unnecessary for something that is a simple concept to understand. It increases the cognitive load in a field that already has a lot of it. Please just give your hack and techniques descriptive names; or better yet, think long and hard whether or not the thing even needs a name. "pre-render on hover" would suffice. It's one more word and I know exactly what it means instantly.
It is especially confusing to read this from JS developer, where one of the greatest advantages of development environment is precisely hot swapping.