SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From Firefox's faster, slicker, slimmer Quantum edition now out
[...] Collectively, the performance work being done to modernize Firefox is called Project Quantum. We took a closer look at Quantum back when Firefox 57 hit the developer channel in September, but the short version is, Mozilla is rebuilding core parts of the browser, such as how it handles CSS stylesheets, how it draws pages on-screen, and how it uses the GPU.
This work is being motivated by a few things. First, the Web has changed since many parts of Firefox were initially designed and developed; pages are more dynamic in structure and applications are richer and more graphically intensive. JavaScript is also more complex and difficult to debug. Second, computers now have many cores and simultaneous threads, giving them much greater scope to work in parallel. And security remains a pressing concern, prompting the use of new techniques to protect against exploitation. Some of the rebuilt portions are even using Mozilla's new Rust programming language, which is designed to offer improved security compared to C++.
Also at: Firefox aims to win back Chrome users with its souped up Quantum browser
The fastest version of Firefox yet is now live
(Score: 5, Insightful) by crafoo on Thursday November 16 2017, @12:24PM (21 children)
Browsers should not be second-tier operating systems. Javascript was a mistake. ActiveX was a mistake, Flash was a mistake, javashit is just as big a mistake. The perversion of the web has made video playback (for example) included within the browser. Which is insane. Every website "developer" team builds their own UI for a video player in a shitty interpreted language. The browser should launch a native application of the user's choice to play video streams.
"Burn this motherfucker down" is what I am getting at.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by shrewdsheep on Thursday November 16 2017, @12:34PM (14 children)
I beg to disagree. We have almost come around full circle in that a browser is (almost) an operation system. This is the only chance for this generation to get true cross-platform applications. So far, it has allowed Linux users to easily keep up with other platforms as so much has moved to the web. I remember times, when encyclopedias, video applications, and especially interacting with companies (create an album and send it out for printing) required windows-only software.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 16 2017, @03:29PM (3 children)
Firefox is an ok operating system, but what it really needs is a decent browser.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 16 2017, @11:13PM (1 child)
I hear there is an extension for that.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday November 17 2017, @06:06AM
Which gets broken with the newest version.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday November 17 2017, @04:35PM
...I'm a consultant and I can only get into the consulting company email as webmail...which they recently changed so it's now only available from behind a Citrix "VPN" that access the webmail from a Firefox instance running through citrix inside the browser. They've literally put Firefox in my Firefox...
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 16 2017, @05:19PM (8 children)
Such a great workd we live in, where we can install a free operating system so we can run proprietary javascript applications on it.
I fail to see how this is an improvement over proprietary windows applications.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday November 16 2017, @05:33PM (7 children)
No-one's forcing you to.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 16 2017, @07:22PM (6 children)
The mere existence of proprietary software is an abomination, and people who write it are abusing those who use it, which are mostly ignorant people. Why are you okay with others being abused?
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday November 16 2017, @11:44PM (5 children)
Because I'm not a self-righteous holier-than-thou software justice warrior.
How are people being abused by proprietary software (in the general case)? That's a ridiculous hyperbole. Are people "abused" by wearing proprietary clothes, eating proprietary meals, or watching proprietary TV shows?
If you don't want to use it, don't use it. Don't start screeching at other people just because they don't agree. For the vast majority of people it makes absolutely no difference.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday November 17 2017, @01:41AM (2 children)
Proprietary meals: If your farm is next to a GMO farm, watch for lawyers. (Monsanto v. Schmeiser)
Proprietary TV shows: If you ever decide to make TV shows yourself, you are legally required to avoid making expression that is too similar to that of an existing TV show that you have seen. A successful claim of nonliteral copyright infringement requires that the alleged infringer have had access to the older work and that the works be substantially similar in expression. Even accidental similarity is actionable (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music), and even access that occurred several years prior still taints the viewer (ibid). So as far as I'm aware, the only surefire way to avoid accidental infringement is to avoid having access even once.
This is easier said than done. When you shop in a grocery store, a fraction of what you pay for groceries goes toward a royalty for the proprietary background music played over the store's speaker system when it isn't being used to make an announcement. This again taints you with access to the songs played.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday November 17 2017, @05:44PM (1 child)
I said wearing clothes, not making them. Eating food, not producing it. Watching TV shows, not producing them.
How does it "taint" me?
The shop sells things at a profit. I don't expect to have a say in how that profit is spent.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Saturday November 18 2017, @08:16PM
You may expose yourself to liability for infringement of exclusive rights in the following cases:
Or is your argument "I need not worry because I plan to never make clothes, food, or TV shows in my lifetime"?
If you listen to encumbered music in a shop, and years later write a similar song, your writing the song will infringe the copyright in the song that you listened to in the shop but didn't make.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by darnkitten on Friday November 17 2017, @03:26AM
Interestingly, I was talking to the proprietor of the local print shop today, and he told me how, after using Adobe InDesign for graphic design work since opening the business well over a decade ago, he came in one morning to find that all of the InDesign files from the past ten years no longer opened. They remained locked until he upgraded and purchased a monthly subscription. "Just like ransomware," were his exact words.
Abuse? Depends on how you define it, but, while I (might not) object to an older version not opening files created in a newer version; I would classify locking him out of his entire library of projects--created on earlier, legally licensed versions of the software--mind you, in an attempt to (figuratively) extort a monthly payment as, both objectionable and abusive.
The terms of service for his use of the software were changed to something entirely different to that which he operated under during over a decade of use. You might argue that he "should have known" not to use proprietary software, but, like most users without a background in technology issues, he didn't see the change coming until he lost access to the files he had created, and had no option but to bow to Adobe's demands.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @07:34PM
"re people "abused" by wearing proprietary clothes, eating proprietary meals, or watching proprietary TV shows?"
yes, you blithering idiot. yes.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday November 16 2017, @08:57PM
Meh. We've had plenty of opportunity from Inferno to Java. Now we're stuck with a pile of shit that refuses to take shape into something resembling an OS or platform because before you know it, it's obsolete. I agree with the GP. Burn it all down.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 16 2017, @01:12PM (1 child)
We don't use browsers to simply download/display files. Shortly after their invention, HTML forms were added and browsers became a terminal interface with a GUI starting from that point forward.
We really needed a universal, network-aware client GUI interface since xterms don't cut it in the 21st century.
You are right in that browsers as they are now are a junk solution... to that problem.
Eventually we will have something better (WASM apps), but for now, this is the junk we must use.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday November 17 2017, @01:44AM
If the comment section of the green site is to be believed, the answer is Qt. Write a native application once and compile it for all six major desktop and mobile platforms (Windows desktop, Windows UWP, macOS, X11/Linux, iOS, and Android).
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday November 17 2017, @01:47AM (2 children)
Then what not-a-browser thing should have been the second-tier operating system? Currently a web application will have much greater reach than, say, a macOS application.
Which fails if the native applications installed on the user's device don't support a particular video stream format.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday November 17 2017, @04:40PM (1 child)
There are multiple video formats supported by HTML5's video tag...and not every browser supports every format. So how is that any different?
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Saturday November 18 2017, @08:24PM
HTML5 browsers support interactivity in video. Script controlling playback can support seek points, branching paths like those in Choose Your Own Adventure gamebooks, or other ways to navigate through the video other than plain seeking. Which native video players support a format containing interactivity?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @09:27AM
Something that may cause you to re-think your opinion: All that Javascript to play video is not needed, it's something websites do just to ensure that the user has to learn a new user interface on every website they visit.
That doesn't give you the video opening in an external player, but I don't agree that should be the default. Not everyone installs a video player, and those that don't may just end up having the video open in Windows Media Player or Quicktime (not sure which is the worst). However, you can right click and "save video as", just like you can "save image as" and then open it in your favorite player. I think you can "copy video url" also, if not, that's a feature that should be implemented.