SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the just-release-nightly-builds-oh-wait dept.
Mozilla is planning to speed up Firefox's current 18-week release cycle, code in multiprocess support, and phase out the XUL and XBL languages currently used to build the Firefox UI (a change that may eventually break extensions):
Mozilla is planning big changes in how it builds its Firefox web browser, including speeding up its release schedule and – in the long term – getting rid of some of the Mozilla-specific technologies that have traditionally been used to build the browser's UI and add-ons. The decisions were discussed at Moz's "Coincidental Work Week" meetup in Whistler, British Columbia, Canada during the last week of June and were made public in a pair of forum posts by Mozilla engineering director Dave Camp on Monday. For starters, Mozilla plans to ditch its current 18-week release cycle in favor of something more agile. "We think there are big wins to be had in shortening the time that new features reaches users," Camp wrote. "Critical fixes should ship to users in minutes, not days. Individual features rolling out to small audiences for focused and multi-variate testing."
Firefox 39 was released on Monday. Changes include vsync (smooth scrolling) on Mac OS X, the addition of Unicode 8.0 skin tone emoji, removal of SSLv3, improving IPv6 fallback to IPv4, and support for the ECMAScript 2015 Proxy object. Mozilla has also unveiled a "Games Technology Roadmap," which sets out goals of further improving HTML5 + JavaScript performance relative to native applications, shipping the unfinished WebGL 2.0, and minimizing common issues like audio/graphics latency and "jitter".
Google says TurboFan, a new optimizing JavaScript compiler that will replace Crankshaft, will speed up various aspects of JavaScript performance (it currently shows a "29% increase on the zlib score of the Octane benchmark"). It has been shipping since Chrome 41, but will be improved and switched on in more code scenarios over time until it completely replaces the Crankshaft compiler.
Microsoft's new Edge browser will not include ActiveX and Silverlight support, and will instead use HTML5's Media Source and Encrypted Media Extensions for "premium media", as well as MPEG-DASH and Common Encryption (CENC). Internet Explorer 11 will retain Silverlight support.
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 08 2015, @03:27PM
I've run Firefox since the early milestone versions. At times, I've swapped between alpha and beta channels, just to be "cutting edge". But, I began to feel that Firefox was just going to far, trying to put to much into the browser. I felt even more so, when one of their updates just killed my installation in Debian. I was running an aging Opteron - or maybe I should say "obsolete" Opteron. Their update incorporated multi-threading, and it promptly died on my Optie. And, that started me thinking again - just what is it that I need from a browser?
Well, I switched over to Pale Moon browser. Basically, it's a fork of Firefox, that broke away around version 24 I guess. As is to be expected, Pale Moon is slowly distancing itself from Firefox, and building up momentum as time passes. In some respects, at least, Pale Moon is taking the path that Firefox SHOULD have taken.
I may fire up a new Firefox soon. I've upgraded from a dual core Opti to twin six-core Opties. I almost certainly have the resources to run anything that Firefox wants to throw at me now. But, why USE all of those resources, when a much lighter-weight browser can do everything I need? I can save those resources for distributed computing, if nothing else.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday July 08 2015, @03:55PM
I gave PM a good try, on win7 and linux. on both, it failed. plugins often did not work, flash never worked (yes, I had to rely on youtube and some other video stuff for my job) and I got tired of 'waiting for it to be stable'. I don't fully understand why their plugins had to be different (in some cases) but that was a dealbreaker for me.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 08 2015, @04:28PM
Hmmm - you have a point. I don't use very many addons, and the ones I consider essential do work. Turning off compatibility checks allows a lot of addons to work, but not all. Of course, the fact that an extension "works" isn't a good indication that it "fits". I love dark themes. I found one that could be made to work. Kept it for a week or so, until the browser started doing strange things. After futzing around for a day or so, I disabled addons, one at a time. When the theme went, the problems went. I thought that sucked.
But, you're right. A lot of people love Firefox for it's extensibiility. Screw that up, and Mozilla has lost a HUGE audience!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 08 2015, @04:33PM
Works For Me(tm). I've been running it on Windows and Linux for the last year or so and if anything it seems *more* reliable than Firefox. And I do use it heavily.
I do wonder, though--the problem with Pale Moon diverging is that the Firefox extension library over time stops being compatible. Ironically, it looks like Mozilla itself is going to be heavily contributing to this problem.
Which raises the issue, do Firefox extension developers rewrite their plugins, or jump ship to Pale Moon? I'm not naive enough to expect them to do the latter, but hey. After all the version headaches since 4.0 I guess they're just used to a certain level of constant pain? ;)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 09 2015, @06:04PM
Just trying palemoon now. Thanks all for the tip.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2015, @07:56PM
"why USE all of those resources"
Why not? Isn't that the entire point of getting a faster computer, to use the resources provided so that you can have a faster smoother experience?
Perhaps firefox can give various options, do you want your browser to run fast (ie: use more resources) or do you want it to run slower and use less resources.
I'm not saying that the browser shouldn't use those resources efficiently. For instance, in Windows I disable windows animate because it makes things faster. I also make the background black to use less electricity and video memory & processing. I similarly tweak my phone to remove various animations. I don't need all the eyecandy and bloat and would much rather have something simple. but, given the choice of using more available resources for a faster experience vs using fewer and leaving valuable resources idle for a slower one I would choose using more. Otherwise what's the point of getting a faster computer with more memory? When the browser is active, when I'm using it, it should use resources. If I'm doing something else then resources should be directed at whatever it is I'm doing (and perhaps spare resources, like an extra core, could be directed at background process and the browser if the browser is loading something in the background while I'm using another app).
and, I agree, that over the years programs have become more and more inefficient and unnecessarily bloated in their use of resources. I agree that's something that should be addressed. But that's a separate issue.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Wednesday July 08 2015, @09:35PM
Because it's a browser. It's a program that is not run as main application (at least not by everyone) but as application besides the main one, in order to look up things. The resources should be available for the actual work, not be eaten by the browser running on the side. When the browser consumes more resources than the stuff the computer is actually used for, there's something wrong.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 08 2015, @09:07PM
Pale Moon is slowly distancing itself from Firefox
For those who missed it late last month, [google.com] Pale Moon has renamed their fork of the Gecko rendering engine.
The new name is that of a carnivorous lizard: Goanna. [moonchildproductions.info]
gewg_