> Same-site cookies ("First-Party-Only" or "First-Party") allow servers to mitigate the risk of CSRF and information leakage attacks by asserting that a particular cookie should only be sent with requests initiated from the same registrable domain.
I like this one!
Try something like uMatrix or similar add-ons. They allow you to configure rules similar to application firewalls:
cookie * * DENY
cookie * 1stparty ALLOW
cookie creditunion.org finserv.com ALLOW
Great to see so much effort being put into the fundamentals.
Is it just to make room for "highlights"? I switched that off because it's utterly useless for me. I don't find it helpful to be shown a random selection of things I've clicked on. Besides, I am capable of scrolling.
Yes I know, there's an addon for that (probably). But it just feels like such an arbitrary restriction.
Why are only twelve "top sites" allowed?
My question still stands but at least there's a partial workaround, even if it's potentially unstable.
EDIT This setting doesn't appear to be available on Android.
It seems that there is a hard limit in Firefox of 35 top sites.
I don't want any of that "top sites" BS on a new tab, I want the local HTML file that I created as my home page. Why not allow it for new tabs?
Been waiting for this one.
(The rationale is "once the permission is denied, there's no way to bring it up again; a dismissed HTML5 box can be brought up again an infinite number of times")
As for me, I went for WebAPI Manager, which blocks most of the annoyances (Vibrate API? Never saw anyone outside malvertising use that), while still allowing me to manually whitelist sites.
I've linked a demo below with the following caveat, this demo was set up exclusively as a mobile interface and still needs plenty of work. One of the issues is the clickwheel size is initialized as a percentage of the screen height when the page loads. So if you resize the window significantly or switch to mobile mode in dev tools, you must refresh the page to get the clickwheel size to adjust accordingly.
The direct and immediate one is laziness, and I wonder what the success rate of that is.
We're not asking until until they try to use the feature that requires location, but are using the additional pop-up. Rationale being that they probably want to allow it or they wouldnt be using app, and making it so they dont mistakenly deny and have to mess with setting is really more of a convenience.
But ya it does seem to go against the OS defined behavior.
I like it when people interrupt what I do when the server I moderate and therefore are responsible for is atm being swarmed by people spamming senseless shit into the chat or someone going of the deep end and yelling racist slurs, thank you very much.
When I was single I would have had time for 3 of them - total in my life. I think systems should automatically block all requests for notifications if you already have 3 since it is not possible for more than that to be useful. (the exact number is debatable, but 3 is close). Note that I said systems - I want firefox, chrome, ie, safari to work together across all the computers I have to keep the number down - for security reasons I understand they cannot but that would be ideal.
But we are in an age where any random website wants to send you realtime push notifications.
Instead of pestering you with an overlay that takes up screen real estate, the browser should indicate what subscription options are available for a page, e.g. in the address bar next to the page info icons.
Privacy > Permission > Notification Settings > Block new requests asking to allow notifications
It should be listed under > Pause notifications until Firefox restarts
They should have disabled the popup, but still allow me to activate it on a per site basis by clicking on the ⓘ in the url bar.
Same for location, webcam and mic. I don't want sites to nag me with the location sharing notification, but on google maps I would like to enable it manually by pressing the ⓘ and granting permission.
When sites send me annoying ~~adds~~ notifications, it is a reminder for me to turn on adblock for them.
edit: adds to notifications (also I can't spell obviously)
A clean install and profile, no add-ons, and google.com/maps (for example) will max out my cpu. There must be some bug related to old hardware and OS (Macbook Pro 2009 + 10.11.x) or more people would be experiencing this.
Here are instructions if you'd like to help: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/7knnn4/firefox_qua...
When Firefox optimised for multi-process, did they test for single-core? I'm on a machine released this decade - a rare instance of a single core x86_64 machine (fanless Atom NUC)
Facebook is pretty much now unusable with they do their asynchronous page loading of stories.
Additionally, Google doesn't do much to fix their web apps performance on Firefox. I even suspect the contrary.
I was assuming that this was just Google not caring about Firefox support. But now that you mention it, this seems to have started around the time of the Quantum update and doesn't affect all my machines. So maybe I'm experiencing this bug as well? I never connected the two things.
On my PC with windows 10, Firefox eat 25% to 30% of my CPU looking at a twitch stream (1080p60). Chrome and Edge will use about 5% while looking at the same stream.
I really want to love Firefox, and I'm giving it another try with 59, but at the end of the day I need my computer to work for me. :(
I'm on HN, right? Totally fine. Amazing browser. I hit up Twitter, and I could be stuck halfway through a tweet and it freezes up for a good minute or two. Same on FB, same on many other sites.
I LOVE the browser but on my laptop (Thinkpad), I had to switch back to Chrome.
The issues came about with the Quantum update for me as well.
e.g. Animations on stripe.com would auto max out my CPU.
I could only wish they allow 3 rows of Top Site ( without editing about:preference ), and an option to have Open All Top Sites in New Tab. Which is very useful since I check those site daily.
BTW, where is the best way to ask about issues like this regarding Firefox, it seems like Googling for Firefox issues mostly only brings up years old issues and no one is publically posting about more recent issues like this. Also it's hard to describe problems like this in a reasonable way to come up with search terms that Google likes and doesn't hit old reported problems.
Try using safe-mode https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/troubleshoot-firefox-is... or maybe creating a new profile. The beta versions, just like Chromium or Chrome, occasionally have some weird bugs. At least for me most of them are always hardware acceleration related.
In the interest of not using Chrome though, when I run into such issues I use Brave as it's Chromium-based and thus allows me to side-step those problems.
The #firefox channel on irc.mozilla.org is a good place to start:
And the Firefox subreddit is pretty active:
Examples where Chrome performance and functionality is superior include:
- Inbox (try downloading attachments)
The only times I got issues with this on Firefox was due to some add-on (Disconnect for instance). On Firefox out of the box I haven't had issues with downloading attachments lately, even with the add-on on.
For me, it's: save MAFF format, foxyproxy, downthemall, "Image and flash blocker", tab mix plus, self exploding cookies, Torrent Status Tool.
It's sad.I guess I'm getting old and grumpy.
'Display preview in live bookmark item tooltip' and 'keep menu open after middle clicking items' are worth me staying on FF 55 for the time being.
Sure I have tried upgrading and using other addons but nothing really does as well for me as this addon.
Good. I get so tired of having to click that little [x] on the location prompt.
However it's really just covering up a bigger issue, which is that the permissions prompts in Firefox and Chrome should be redesigned. It would be good if they were designed so that they were still noticeable, but they:
* don't cover part of the webpage
* don't cover other parts of the browser's UI
* and don't take focus away from the webpage
I've had a stellar experience on Arch Linux. The RAM usage is down. I can't say I really ever found Chrome slow, but nor is Firefox for me. I think they're both plenty fast, but I prefer sites without lots of garbage flying around on the page anyway.
I think it has something to do with video rendering since opening Twitch/Youtube often causes the problems to start.
Pretty happy with it on long-running tabs I check once or twice a day.
Edit: There is hope for Firefox 60 or 61 -> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1409573
Break the standard behaviour slightly to make competitors product unusable in your products.
Surprised this wasn't done yet.
I never really understood this argument, you gave up Firefox since you could no longer have your XUL/XPCOM extensions in favor of serious browsers who have less WebExt APIs than Firefox and don't have those same extensions?
And lets not ignore the fact that most sites are designed with Chrome as their intended target. FF simply doesn't work as well on many sites.
I don't want to go back to one browser dominating the web.
I still use it as my main browser at home, but with the extensions that used to set Firefox apart gone and forced to reset my workflow and expectations to the minimum common functionality, I find myself using Safari more and more at work simply because the battery usage is better and has out of the box support for SPNEGO. As an added bonus, I can watch HD videos smoothly without killing my processor and draining my battery.
Did you try out the Firefox Nightly with WebRender enabled?
You're talking about GPU-accelerating complicated page renders.
I'm talking about things like regularly seeing flashes of unstyled content on page load, which I thought we'd left behind somewhere in the last millennium.
I don't want to make excuses if you're having a bad experience though. But I'm hopeful about the future of Firefox.
OK, but surely it should at least isolate buggy extensions so they can't compromise the browser itself? Wasn't better security and stability in the presence of bad extensions a key selling point of the new extension model? In practice, Firefox was failing to shut down and restart cleanly for me perhaps one time in three since Quantum, having been solid as a rock until that point. (I say "was" because I haven't yet seen this problem since updating to 59 the other day, so it's possible that that particular bug has now been fixed.)
Likewise, if it makes better extensions possible, how come the only observable difference so far seems to be that various things that extensions used to be able to do are no longer possible? It's looking like a classic case of going all-in on a big software rewrite, but finding that a lot of little details have been overlooked and useful functionality has been lost as a result.
The advantages are speed, security, ease of installation, ease of development since more thought was put into the APIs, compatibility with Chrome extensions, and better compatibility across platforms since extensions now use less native code. Those benefits are "observable". The downside is that you have to wait for Firefox devs to think though the security, performance, and usability aspects of every bit of functionality an extension dev wants, and then wait for the new or updated extension to exist.
Not yet, they aren't. In fact, the exact opposite has been observed here, many times already. This is my point.
As you say, I'm sure we all hope that the situation will improve in the future, and then maybe the sales pitch for Quantum will start to look a bit more realistic. Until then, sad as it makes me, Firefox will remain relegated to primarily a testing tool on my system, because today other browsers are simply better in every way that matters.
Never seen on my end for quiet some time, maybe worth a bug report: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org
Did you actually read the release notes? Quoting:
> Enhanced WebExtensions API including better support for decentralized protocols and the ability to dynamically register content scripts.
Some of those are coming or pretty much ready (tab hiding, addressbar focus), and others I've almost given up on, given how Mozilla seems to have changed their philosophy.
Does this update improve its power consumption? Currently, Firefox has a significantly larger effect on my MacBook's battery life compared to Safari with similar usage.
browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers => 0
dom.ipc.processCount => 1
This will especially be noticeable when multiple tabs are actively doing something, for example if you open up multiple tabs at once or background tracking script are stealing your CPU cycles.
Either you spare a few CPU cycles or a bit of memory. Though chrome doesn't seem to be doing good on either front.
> Render the HTML preview within the Response side-panel
> Component: Developer Tools: Netmonitor
> Reported: 11 months ago
While websites do render fast, the UI is not very responsive, whether its laggy typing into the address bar  or the crawling devtools.
The "stop notifying me about permissions and just block it" is something I genuinely didn't know I wanted. Though I do hope (but will have to test later) if this also works for HTML Canvas since I use the additional anti fingerprinting.
Until such time as I can prevent the annoying floating URL pop-up in bottom corner when hovering over links, I won't be updating. I don't see why I can't have a harmless fixed status bar extending 100% at bottom of window. It creates a nice gap between Windows taskbar and the browser, with the URL hover text contained neatly within and doesn't appear over the page as an irritating floating layer.
Is it law at Mozilla that FF must imitate Chrome on interface style? Perhaps my choice of wanting choice is the wrong choice. Perhaps it's my fault as user, for wanting something that was taken away.
Another add-on I liked, now kaput, is Mozilla's own Lightbeam. The important list view and domain blocking function of that extension has been broken for some time. The march towards the "best browser" seems to involve breaking things and pissing people off.
In UI terms, the concept of a fixed footer is well established. We see it often on sites and applications. FF allows adjustment of the millisecond delay of the link text, but no control over other properties of that element. I don't get the logic. When vendors move the furniture around in their "security updates" it makes me distrust the updates, particularly when the furniture can't be moved back to how it looked before.
Should be part of Firefox 60.
My only thoughts would be the pref flip that seems to be ruled out at this point, or that you're trying to shoot an about:[SOMETHING] page for which we disable screenshots.
Otherwise, file an issue: https://github.com/mozilla-services/screenshots/issues
We're triaging in an hour or so :)
Is there a way to programmatically trigger this feature or sequence?
# driver is a Firefox driver
body = driver.find_element_by_tag_name('body')
screenshot = body.screenshot_as_base64 # png bytes
- a lot of (visible) elements are missing
- the screenshot is still cropped to whatever viewport is used
This worked for me:
from selenium.webdriver import Firefox
from selenium.webdriver.firefox.options import Options
geckodriver_path = '/usr/local/bin/geckodriver'
options = Options()
driver = Firefox(executable_path=geckodriver_path, firefox_options=options)
I have tried this feature when it was only in test pilot mode, but then I removed it (that was a long time ago). Can this be related?
ohh yeah finally! I somehow missed that even though I'm following Nightly.
Unfortunately, it'll still be pretty slow until then.
As in, it doesn't even use Gecko, it uses the native web engine of iOS/Android, so that's WebKit / Android Webview. With how many trackers and ads they block in Focus by default, they wouldn't exactly motivate webpage owners to support Gecko anyways, if they'd use Gecko in it.
This is the current release notes of Firefox Focus on Android: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/whats-new-focus-android...
Slightly off topic: has anyone else been getting frequent crashes lately? It's as if it's running out of memory then freezing a moment. I thought it was because I'm on an older phone at first (note 3 here) but my wife said the same thing to me and she is in an edge 7.
(Kinda hoping someone knows a config fix to it haha)
Nothing.. I wonder when they'll ever get to fully supporting u2f (probably via webauth) so I don't have to use Chrome to log into certain websites.
What's the memory usage like compare to earlier versions?
Given that, and given that Firefox does support the per-standard "wheel" event, what is the argument for implementing "mousewheel"?
The release notes only list the most visible and most unexpected changes. Ongoing memory and performance work rarely clears that bar. It's happening all the time.
- act like Mozilla just killed their extensions lightly. They gave lots of warning in advance and took many extra steps to ease the transition. They also had lots of really good reasons for doing it.
- blame Mozilla for marketing things based on what their market looks like. Most users were not affected at all by the extension ecosystem change, but were positively affected by the newfound performance, security and stability. They also would not have done it in the first place, if they did not think it was a necessary and good step. I really don't know what you'd expect them to market it as.
- in general, speak like you're the only user whose interests are worth considering.
While it is a pain, it's not as if Mozilla removed XUL support with no warning. What addons are you missing? Perhaps we can find updates or replacements?
I might add that I was a nightly user for over 30 prior versions.
I've looked for replacements but haven't found anything that comes close. From what I can gather, much of the functionality that allowed these extensions is now removed from Firefox. I thought equivalent APIs were going to be made available so they could be ported but that didn't happen.
Do they have a GitHub site?
Bug 1318532 had a patch submitted which provided a WebExtensions-compatible API which would allow the original implementation to work, but this was spiked permanently because of :reasons: The developer, DW-dev has been gamely trying to provide similar functionality via implementing a browser-managed tiling window manager, but this seems doomed to failure since it is at the mercy of the display rendering on the target OS. For example, on MacOS, a massive shadow is rendered around an active window, which thus renders over the top of a neighboring tiled window.
Doubt this one will get fixed ... unless Chrome implements it. Right now the objective seems to be full Chrome "compatibility" and Chrome doesn't have it.
Why does it matter if they're on GitHub? Firefox no longer has the APIs for many of these extensions to be possible.
I'm not OP, but usually the conversation goes like this:
Person 1: <describes problem with open source software>
Person 2: It's open source. Have you submitted a patch yet?
Absolutely. I don't personally believe that open source projects are above criticism - just explaining why the question was likely asked.
My default profile is not logged into Google or Facebook or anything similar and uses DuckDuckGo for search.
You can set URLs to always open in a container. That gives me the benefit of cookies without having every website being able to detect them.
Firefox is fast, at least as fast as Chrome, for me. I did lose some extensions but the trend is very positive.