mozilla :: #firefox

12 Aug 2017
00:29metrixxhow can i make a request for a url to logout from the website just before closing the firefox?
00:30metrixxwhen i click the close button or close the firefox in someway, i want to open a url to logout from a website
00:31metrixxthere is a legacy website and its logout button is not working but there is a logout link working
00:31metrixxafter personnel finished their job, sometimes they forget to open this url to logout
00:38Caspy7metrixx: my guess is you'd have to build an extension. I'd try and ask in #webextensions to see if this is in fact possible
02:04firebotJust appeared in Planet Mozilla - :
02:04firebot Cameron Kaiser: Time to sink the Admiral (or, why using the DMCA to block adblockers is a bad move)
03:54sysKinwoot what happened to url bar
03:54sysKinon current nightly I mean
03:55sysKin"url bar is too big,m let's make it smaller" " what do we do with the space then?" "dunno just leave it blank"
04:06xarcusI demand to know if Mozilla is teaming up with Soros' OSF.
04:14Tylerxarcus: Mozilla is not affiliated with soros.
04:14Tylerwhy would you think that?
04:15Tylernowhere in those articles does it say Mozilla is teamed up with soros
04:16xarcus"Mozilla, the non-profit organization which runs the Firefox internet browser, said Wednesday it was launching an effort against fake news, as fact-checking software backed by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and George Soros got its first run-out in public to shape our Orwellian nightmare of future truth arbiters."
04:16xarcuswhy shouldn't a ff user be concerned?
04:16xarcusexplain to me please
04:16Tylerxarcus: um, so because we launch a project around the same time someone else does that mean we are teamed up with them?
04:17Tylerhow about you read the mozilla announcement
04:17xarcusgive me link?
04:18Tylerand fyi, activistpost is a fake news site
04:18xarcuseverything is fake news who cares anymore
04:18xarcusright, left
04:18xarcusthey are all the same
04:18xarcusstop getting involved in politics and just make a browser to use protocols that use packet switching to connect to other computers
04:18xarcusnothing more
04:18xarcusnothing less :)
04:19Tylerxarcus: you realize this is a project by the Mozila foundation, a non-profit activist group that fights to protect an open and safe internet
04:19TylerNOT the Mozilla corp that builds Firefox
04:20xarcusi do not give a damn if you are a subsidiary or not
04:20Tylerlol ok, go to bed and cool off
04:20xarcusi will make my own project based on gecko
04:20xarcusi will call it
04:21xarcusno more sjw/refugee garbage
04:22xarcusor jus' use ice cat i suppose
05:44Guest36OMG I had to downgrade my nightly
05:44Guest36they brought down the sledge hammer
06:35tokageI fucking love Firefox.
08:35azakiGuest36: uh, why not just use beta/devedition ? as your previous nightly is now beta... =p
08:35Guest36I did
08:36Guest36I had to switch to Dev Edition
08:36Guest36cause my extensions are totally fucked now
08:37Guest36no uBlock Origin ?
08:37Guest36no Tab Mix ?
08:38Guest36no Session Manager lol
08:38Guest36lol * 10
08:38Guest36no anything, now I am living in the Dog House
08:38Guest36with dog bone only
08:39azakiugh, i just scrolled up and saw the stuff xarcus wrote.. what a douchebag. >_>
08:39azakiGuest36: ublock and umatrix have webext versions, they just aren't on the mozilla store yet.
08:39azakiyou could install them manually.
08:40Guest36what xarcus wrote is true
08:40Guest36when one single entity begins controlling what's fake news or not, I am very worried
08:41azakitab mix i think will require toolbar api, but that may not be completed in time for 57 release.
08:41Guest3657 should not be released till that is done
08:41DaggerTM+ will require things that we won't give it
08:42Guest36you should not release a version that will eventually go out to Firefox public release that can't even use TMP because it's impossible
08:42Daggerit could sorta get close to its current functionality by completely rewriting the tab bar, but a) that's stupid, b) it doesn't really work if you have any other extensions that also need to manipulate tabs
08:43Guest36if TMP does not work, I delete Firefox
08:43Guest36I rely on it for my work
08:43Guest36I cannot use the browser without it
08:43Guest36I have usually more than 1000 tabs open, I cannot use the browser with "single row" of tabs
08:43azakiGuest36: i havent specifically read the mozilla proposal, but most of the proposed solutions to fight fake news are *not* based on using a "single source" as an arbiter of what is or isnt fake. generally the idea is to do something like web of trust, where you have a "reputation" system with a sort of peer to peer curation system.
08:43Daggerand that's roughly what Mozilla wants
08:43Guest36I have to see multiple rows, or No Firefox
08:43Guest36That would *ruin* me
08:43Guest36It would ruin my work
08:44Guest36and it would put a severe disadvantage to my research
08:44Guest36it's very difficult to view 100 tabs in a window, when you have 1 row only and you can't see what's going on
08:44Guest36I bought big displays so that I can do this
08:45Guest36I will literally have to force my Firefox to never upgrade and start taking on browser vulnerabilities if they remove the ability for TMP to work
08:45azakiGuest36: i often have 1000 tabs too with just a row. but in any case, you shouldn't take dagger too seriously, he's known to be fairly pessimistic about webextensions. and to be fair i guess we could say i'm more optimistic about it.
08:46Guest361000 tabs with just 1 row, please, no, don't ruin my life
08:47azakidid you read the rest of what i said?
08:47Guest36Yes but it sounds like it could be a while before they realize that being unable to mod the tab bar is important in webextensions, and then figure out a cross-browser way of implementing it
08:47Guest36it's not really a cross-browser thing inherently
08:47Guest36it's pretty hard-coupled
08:47Guest36Chrome uses a pretty different tab setup
08:48Daggeryou have more than about 4 tabs open, which means you're exactly the type of user that Mozilla want to screw over in favor of the rest of their users
08:48Guest36so I am pessimistic also about something which modifies tab bar UI behavior becoming a universal extension
08:48azakiDagger: i regret being fair and generous, you're just batshit insane. lol
08:48Guest36there's *some stuff* where the old extension API was appropriate
08:48azakiyou're taking it to slanderous levels now, dagger.
08:49Daggerand perhaps I'm being uncomfortably honest for some people, but this is a description of their actual behavior
08:49azakino it isn't. it's pure slander.
08:49Guest36I think they should keep the old API, for stuff that just cannot be added via webextensions, and then disable it for most users
08:49Guest36so you have to opt-in
08:49Guest36and download the addons by-hand
08:49Daggerso what, then? where's the WE API that gives chrome access, which is necessary for this sort of thing?
08:49Daggeroh, right. we don't have it. because *Mozilla don't want to do it*
08:50azakiGuest36: they cannot keep the old system unfortunately. that's a foregone conclusion, the old addons system is completely broken, and has been the principle reason for firefox's performance woes over the years.
08:50Guest36So wtf am I going to do
08:50Daggerugh, see, that's all just wrong
08:50Guest36this is scary as shit
08:50azakieven for users with 0 addons installed, it causes problems because they have to maintain backwards compat.
08:51Daggerthey can keep the old system. they *are* keeping the old system, they're just refusing to load extensions with the wrong signature
08:51Guest36now you guys are providing conflicting facts
08:51Guest36who is dead wrong?
08:51Daggerthey don't have to maintain backwards compat. that's factually wrong. it's outright not necessary to do that
08:51azakiGuest36: well, dagger is exaggerating as usual, but see, it was known that some APIs would likely not be there on day 1
08:52Daggerobviously it would be nice, but it's not necessary
08:52Guest36Umm, okay, remove all the old API, just leave a few basics around so something like a hard-enabled TMP can function
08:52Caspy7Guest36: Dagger is a frequent contrarian on this topic, disagreeing with Mozilla's position
08:52azakiDagger: that's just flawed. haven't you heard of "deCOMtamination" ? long-term the plan is clearly to just purify the codebase of as much xpcom bullshit as possible
08:53Guest36Maybe we can get multiple-rows as an option in Firefox itself
08:53azakiDagger: if it breaks compat every single release until the day where it stops working for good... then that's not useful.
08:53azakito anyone.
08:53Guest36but in my experience they didn't care about that type of request
08:53Guest36cause power user with 1000 tabs is rare
08:53DaggerI've heard of deCOMtamination. but I also actually understand what it means
08:53DaggerI've written extensions. many of them didn't touch XPCOM
08:53Guest36TMP does other useful things also
08:54Daggerand of the ones that used XPCOM, all of them only used it because some other Firefox component required them to
08:54azakiGuest36: right now the plan for cross-browser tab extensions will likely be to use something like the toolbar api to build your own tab strip from scratch.
08:54Daggerif all of XPCOM is removed then I'd just change the extension to use whatever the new way of interacting with that component was
08:54MardegGuest36: I'm on Fx 52ESR and that will support legacy extensions as long as it gets security updates, so a little beyond normal version 59 I guess
08:55Caspy7I wish I could find it now, but recently saw a conversation with two Devs, one was former Mozilla dev the other either current or former discussing (on twitter) how keeping addon compatibility was such a burden on Firefox development. One said it slowed things down 4x and the other disagree saying "more like 10x"
08:55Caspy7they have to worry about not changing internals
08:56azakiGuest36: the toolbar api isn't in yet, but i think the consensus is it should eventually be available
08:56firebotBug 1215064 NEW, Design and implement an API for Toolbars
08:57Daggerand again I stress that keeping backwards compatibility with all existing extensions isn't a requirement
08:58Daggerit would of course be very nice, but it's inherently impossible for many of the things you'd want to to anyway
08:58Guest36azaki thanks, that's reassuring at least
08:58azakiDagger: that is just nitpicky pedantic bullshit, when people say xul/xpcom extensions, they mean the entire interface that extensions use. which will break compat as they keep changing internals, and no, that is *not* ok unlike what you suggest.
08:58Guest36since you know a lot about this, I have another question
08:58Daggerand for the things that it *is* possible for, we have WebExtensions, so it's much less important to keep backwards compat for extensions than it once was
08:59azakiDagger: then you end up in a situation where lazy devs keep using the old api. this is similar to what happened with jetpack with every addon using require chrome.
09:00azakithere has to be a flag day, otherwise people won't budge.
09:00Daggerazaki: no, you don't. what lazy dev is going to avoid WEs when they have a choice?
09:00Guest36the best thing I ever found in my whole life for dealing with a lot of tabs is an addon for Chrome called Tabs Outliner. No, it's not similar to tree style tabs and it does not do anything like that. It shows you a list of all tabs, in all windows, and all closed sessions. You can range select and drag and drop tabs from one window to another, merge stuff, re-sort stuff, kill stuff, close them all, reopen them all, in seconds. It can
09:00Guest36 do things in 5 seconds that take minutes of messing around in Firefox. I have been at a serious disadvantage because this extension won't work in Firefox, due to a lack of file access API's
09:00azakithe same people that were too lazy to write jetpack addons properly.
09:01Daggerthose jetpack extensions used require('chrome') because jetpack was useless for what they wanted to do, not because the authors were lazy
09:01Guest36*It can do things in 5 seconds that take 30 minutes of messing around in Firefox
09:01DaggerI never touched jetpack, because I just couldn't do any of my extensions in it
09:01azakithe same people that refuse to use indexdb and keep demanding a filesystem io api in webext. (which i WOULD like to see filesystem io, but seriously, just get the addons at least ported for now)
09:01azakisession manager could already run on webext if they'd use indexdb.
09:02Guest36AND it gets its own window.. and you can see that window in task manager or make an icon for it or pin it in linux
09:02Guest36it's like a view of the whole browser session in drag and drop
09:02Guest36when I am dealing with 2000 tabs, it saved my life
09:03Daggerand breaking backwards compat is perfectly fine for some things. if your extension needs to play around with something internal, then of course the extension needs to be matched against compatible versions of the internal code
09:03Daggerthat's just how things work for this sort of thing
09:03Guest36I am worried about switching back to Chrome because it's so hard to use Firefox without this
09:03Guest36stuff takes 10 times longer sometimes
09:03azakiDagger: that's easy for you to say, but users generally don't understand nor like that their extensions are always breaking.
09:04Guest36so my question is.. how can we load this in Firefox
09:04Guest36and can Firefox even do it now?
09:04Daggerazaki: which is exactly why we should introduce some sort of stable API that covers as many extensions as possible. and we've done that! and I'm not saying it's a bad idea!
09:04DaggerI'm talking about the rest of the extensions, the ones that inherently can't be done like that
09:05azakiGuest36: look up "chrome store foxified", maybe it already works, maybe not. i dunno.
09:05azakiyou have to just try it
09:05Guest36azaki it does not work
09:05Guest36I tried that already
09:05Guest36It gives a critical error
09:05azakiit certainly looks like something i'd like to see myself tho
09:05Guest36there is an API call that does not exist in Firefox
09:06Guest36azaki: it's the *best* thing ever made for tabs
09:06Guest36I promise
09:06Guest36we are at a serious disadvantage not having this for FF
09:07Guest36the only reason I stopped using Chrome is because I had no other option, because they disabled the ability to stop all tabs from loading at startup
09:07Guest36You can't just kill the tabs off anymore
09:07Guest36I used to start Chrome with all tabs, then kill them
09:08Guest36Now you have to wait for 1000 tabs to load and consume 15 gigs of memory or whatever
09:08Guest36no option.
09:08azakiah. that recently got even better in firefox. it used to be that firefox wouldn't load the page content, but it still loaded an empty browser object per tab
09:08Guest36Yeah 906076
09:09azakithis was changed recently when 'lazy tabs' landed
09:09azakiya. pretty cool, i can start a session with 1000 tabs and it just starts working pretty quickly
09:09Guest36Firefox is like doing an incredible job on that
09:09Mardegstill waiting for the "longly unused" tab unloading
09:09Guest36and Chrome is a piece of shit because of 1 guy named peter kasting who WONTFIX'd it
09:09Mardegfirebot: longly bugs
09:09firebot NEW Automatically unload (stall/hibernate) longly unused tabs to free resources
09:10Guest36he decided that Chrome will load all tabs forever, end of story, no possibility to disable, no possibility to disable at startup, even if it takes 4 hours to start up
09:10azakias for tabs outliner, it doesn't help that it seems to be closed source, which means it couldn't be ported by someone else.. hm.. =\
09:10Guest36and he shut down all threads ever asking for Lazy loading, or delayed loading, or anything related
09:10azakido you know specifically what api it needs?
09:11Guest36azaki it was a File access, he was doing some kind of JSON file or something last time I looked
09:11Guest36chrome file access api
09:11azakifirefox does aim to have parity with the chrome extensions api for the most part, and to then extend beyond what chrome offers.
09:11Guest36there was an attempt to re-engineer this extension for Firefox once
09:12azakiyeah i found that, it looks stalled.
09:12azakiand pretty weird license choice.
09:12azakiGPL is one thing.. but AGPL ?
09:13firebotBug 1266960 NEW, Extensions can not load file: URLs
09:13azakicould this be it?
09:13Guest36azaki are you good with the console ?
09:14Guest36if you have a few minutes to try loading in Tabs Outliner in Chrome Store Foxified, to see the error message
09:14Guest36I looked at it before and didn't understand it
09:14Guest36that would be really awesome.
09:15Guest36I wanted to ask people about which API calls are in Chrome WebExt to make this possible
09:16DaggerAGPL seems like a bizarre choice for something that doesn't provide any service over a network
09:16Daggerbut I guess the effect is that it's not functionally much different to GPL in this case, so it shouldn't be a problem
09:17Daggerunless my rough understanding of AGPL isn't correct
09:19azakiGuest36: you could pastebin the error
09:20Guest36I'm not sure even how to see the errors in all the right places
09:20azakiby the way, i should clarify something, just because a webext api may not ship in v57, that doesn't mean it wont ever be available at all.
09:21azakiin some situations they just want to make sure they have all the security stuff in place, as well as some real use cases that're impossible with existing APIs, etc.
09:21azakithey're prioritizing the most important stuff right now.
09:24Daggeryou're right, but many of the things we need are things they've outright said won't ever be shipped
09:25Guest36Ok I installed this thing
09:25Guest36here is the error
09:25Dagger(if it turns out that "we won't ever ship this" actually means that it goes out with Fx65 or whatever, then great. but I hope you'll forgive me for believing what they say rather than the opposite of what they say)
09:25Guest36window.requestFileSystem is not a function background.js:392:11
09:26azakiDagger: like what? most of the discussions i've seen, like on the filesystem api one, show that they're wary of adding it, but they may if there is a key use case that cannot use indexdb
09:27Daggerthat sounds like "we won't do it"
09:28azakiDagger: lol, ok.
09:29azakithe way i look at it is, if no use cases show up, then they are right to some extent that it's unneeded, and if they do show up, then i expect them to be reasonable and work out how they'll handle the security implications (which are NOT easy to solve as i'm sure you're aware)
09:30Daggerand more to the point, they've made it very clear that "WEs can access files your user can access" isn't going to happen, no matter how good an idea it would be
09:31Daggerso "filesystem access" is going to translate to something like "access files in one WE-specific folder", which isn't very useful
09:33Guest[-inf]why is this one working for Chrome, though?
09:35azakiDagger: that would be enough for many things like session manager for instance.
09:35azakiGuest[-inf]: you still talking about tabs outliner?
09:35azakithere is a #webextensions channel that may be able to help more for details like that
09:36Daggertrue... depending on what subset of features you want
09:36Caspy7oh good, you guys are still talking about this
09:39azakiCaspy7: could be worse, we could arguing about xarcus' conspiracy theories (scroll way up)
09:42Caspy7azaki: I literally confirmed with the person who wrote the Mozilla article on MITI that it has no association with Soros or his project. They came out on the same day. Next time feel free to tell them that
09:44azakiCaspy7: I was asleep at the time, I just scrolled up to see if anything interesting was being discussed and got that nasty surprise.. lol
09:47azakii haven't had a chance to read the post, but i've heard proposals in the past that are essentially based on a reputation/web of trust type of system. which is interesting.
09:48azakii'll read it in a bit, i'm interested in seeing how they'll handle it, but i need something to eat XD
09:48Guest[-inf]azaki I mean why is requestFileSystem working for Chrome
09:48Guest[-inf]and not creating a serious vulnerability
09:48Andoriyuso tab central is not coming back?
09:49azakiGuest[-inf]: i don't know, when i was talking about the security issues i wasn't specifically talking about that api, i meant the actual filesystem api for read/write access that was proposed.
09:49philippit's having a reincarnation as
09:50azakiGuest[-inf]: if you want more details about this stuff, and about what firefox's implementation is missing for tab outliner to work, i recommend #webextensions
09:56Caspy7Andoriyu: the main thing currently lacking from the extension philipp linked is Firefox is currently lacking the API to hide the current horizontal tab bar, but it is coming (not sure if it will be here in time for 57 or not though)
09:57Andoriyuphew, I loved that experiment.
09:59Guest[-inf]azaki they never respond on that channel
10:00Guest[-inf]I tried a few times
10:01Daggerit's 5 AM on a Saturday for the US. some of the people there will be asleep
10:14Caspy7Andoriyu: you can install it right now. Did you follow the link?
10:14Caspy7it's the same experience as I understand
10:14AndoriyuWell, I don't want upper tab bar.
10:15Caspy7Andoriyu: you can use CSS to hide it if you like
10:16Caspy7lemme know if you want some of that sweet CSS code
10:57boreeasOh dear, all my addons disappeared
11:00Caspy7boreeas: what version of Firefox are you on?
11:03boreeasNightly. I guess they finally forcefully disabled legacy extensions
11:03boreeasTime to use stable until the addons update, I guess :/
11:05Caspy7boreeas: Beta is at 56 fyi
11:06boreeasYeah, but I already got stable installed
11:06Caspy7also, notable is that between 55 & 56 tab sessions are saved differently, so 55 will load whatever tab session it had previously, it can't read a 56+ tab session
11:06Caspy7in case you save/restore your sessions
11:06boreeasAlso I guess I'm not convinced all my addons will update in 6 weeks, so I'd have to migrate again in 6 weeks
11:33Caspy7Tyler: I also forgot to mention that since the CU my laptop stopped going to sleep when I close the lid
11:34DuClare> 55.0 (64-bit)
11:34DuClare> Firefox is up to date
11:34DuClare> You are currently on the beta update channel.
11:36Caspy7DuClare: I'd say your options are further investigation as to why this happened (which may prove fruitless) or downloading the installer again. Admittedly someone else may have a way to force an update - I don't know of how, if it's possible, atm.
11:55est31Caspy7: gcc has a much better optimizer than llvm
11:58Caspy7est31: Ok. Not understanding all the parts of things I sure can't counter that :) I'm mainly looking at the benchmark results and seeing how much better it's doing. So it seems like it's perhaps optimizing better for those purposes
12:03est31you say chrome speed improved from the switch to clang?
12:05Caspy7est31: sorry, you replied to me here and not in #build , threw me off. See the 3rd graphic at The post says this is when Chrome switched to Clang
12:06Caspy7hm, maybe it's just win32
12:07Caspy7"The situation on Win32 is a bit worse, due to Chromes recent switch to use clang-cl on Windows instead of MSVC which gave them an around 30% speed boost on the 32-bit Speedometer score"
12:09Caspy7I suppose then it may not matter as much as we're transitioning the majority over to x64
12:12est31maybe clang is becoming better
12:12est31but historically, gcc was faster
12:12est31I guess times change
12:12est31less and less people use gcc :/
12:15DuClareI think openbsd definitely took a little performance hit from the switch to clang
12:15Caspy7est31: well, one question is did they change the compiler on x64? And was it the same time? Because that doesn't seem to reflect anything on the chart above it
12:15DuClareAnd my experience from playing with godbolt is that while clang often generates prettier code, it's not quite as well optimized
12:16DuClareBut it specific benchmarks it can go either way
12:16DuClareAnd I'd expect the difference to be relatively small in general purpose software.
12:16est31it was a 30% *improvement* according to the stats Caspy7 shared
12:16DuClareUnless there's some commonly used construct that evokes a pathological case..
12:16est31that's not small :)
12:17est31it might be though that its not due to a better optimizer
12:17Caspy7on win32 at least
12:17est31but because clang is generating sse or something that gcc was forbidden
12:17est31in a change of policy so to say
12:17DuClareSomething like that is likely
12:18DuClareI find it very hard to believe that the optimizer would be so much better
12:18DuClare(Unless, again, there's some particularly common pathological construct)
12:20est31maybe google actuall noticed a speed decrease
12:20est31and they already decided to switch to clang
12:20est31and so they devised a plan to additionally require sse so that speed improves, hiding the decrease
12:33gelswiphi, is the current nightly logo supposed to be a calvin and hobbes tribute?
12:35Caspy7not to my knowledge (I don't believe so)
12:38gelswipmy nightly downloaded the latest version today (20170812100345) and the file ./browser/icons/mozicon128.png is now
12:43gelswipappears to be in the repo as well
12:45Caspy7gelswip: oh, well, heh, alright. That's interesting.
12:46gelswipi guess someone was careless with a commit
12:46Caspy7dunno exactly what's going on there
12:47gelswipthe most recent relevant commit was by Wes Kocher apparently?
12:49Caspy7well then he's got some splainin' to do :)
12:49Caspy7btw, I just updated to the most recent and the icon has not changed for me
12:50Caspy7it's the purple/green fox
12:51philippbug 1388778 ?
12:51firebot FIXED, Nightly Icon Update - Iteration - 02
12:51philippwhat's going on?
12:52gelswipyeah my nightly launcher is a gnome .desktop file so the icon updates to whatever is in that icons folder
12:57philippnot sure if this is a joke or a placeholder gone wild :-)
12:58gelswiphehe, theres a couple of concerned posts on reddit too
13:55Herohow does it feel to have 5% marketshare? LMAO!!!
13:55Heroi told you losers what to do to fix your shitty browser but you didnt
13:55Heroi told you that you would end up just like opera
13:56Herobut NOOOOO, im just a crazy loon
13:56Herowell now look what we have here
13:56tokageok kid
13:57Caspy7Hero: do you have any support issue you need help with?
13:57Herono, this is a community issue
13:57Herocommunity *and* support channel
13:58Caspy7Hero: please stop the insults
13:58HeroHow do I wake firefox users up to the facts then?
13:58Herolook up the marketshare, it's not a joke
13:59gelswipchrome is pushed by a multi-billion dollar corporation with near monopoly control, the marketshare will continue to reflect that until governments intervene
14:00Caspy7Hero: what percent are you seeing here?
14:01HeroCaspy7, that is the desktop share
14:01Caspy7I'm seeing 12.3%
14:01Herobrowser share OVERALL is 5% for firefox
14:01Caspy7yeah, it's currently small on mobile. Dominated by the default browsers.
14:02Herooh man, competition really is tough isnt it
14:02Heroif only mozilla could make a mobile browser
14:03HeroDo you realize what happens to browsers that go below 10% marketshare? They die forever
14:03boot13Are the Firefox update servers down right now?
14:03Caspy7boot13: why?
14:03tokageHero: Firefox is also available for Android and iOS
14:04boot13Firefox thinks it's up to date but it's still 54.0.1.
14:05Heroi have 56.0b2
14:05HeroDeveloper edition
14:07Caspy7boot13: yes, there were some issues found in 55, so they paused updates until they can be fixed
14:07Caspy7boot13: it is possible to install using the installer straight from the website
14:08boot13Okay, thanks. I wish they'd make it easier to figure out what's going on. When Firefox says it's up to date, it can actually mean one of several very different things.
14:08Caspy7well, it's certainly not a common thing :)
14:09HeroFirefox is a dying browser, lets all switch to Chrome ASAP!!
14:09boot13Seems to happen regularly.
14:09tokageHero: And give up freedom and privacy? No.
14:10Caspy7Hero: the nice thing about a responsible community is that they will push out people who are toxic, antagonists and trolls
14:10boot13Thank you!
14:19Zinkerthis html4 drives me crazy , can i disable it in firefox
14:19Zinkerit works for hours , then it dont , etc ...
14:20Zinkeri want in firefox disable ability to play html4 video so it picks flash at any site
14:21Timvdeest31: clang/llvm is pretty good nowadays, it's more or less on par with gcc
14:21Zinkerhtml5 (h264)
14:22TimvdeIn some cases one compiler will generate better code, in other cases the other will, there's not really an all-round winner anymore
14:34Caspy7Timvde: well that chart is somewhat an argument that Clang at least beats MSVC. But what I haven't yet researched or found out is if they only switched it for 32 bit, because the 64 bit chart didn't seem to move
14:35TimvdeCaspy7: Oh yea, MSVC is definitely worse than both
14:35Caspy7so, the devs are investigating that topic
14:35Caspy7possibly move to Clang
14:36Caspy7perhaps just on Windows
14:36boot13The new installer apparently installs the 64-bit version automatically if the O/S is 64-bit and has at least 2 GB of RAM. Any idea whether it will handle the case where the current version is 32-bit? I'm slightly worried that it might mess things up.
14:36Caspy7anyway, like I said, just a discussion
14:36Caspy7boot13: there are no profile incompatibilities between the two
14:37boot13That's a relief, thanks. So even if I end up with both, it should be ok.
14:37philippthe installer will replace the 32bit version with a 64bit one
14:38Caspy7just don't cross the streams
14:38Caspy7eventually all qualified users will get upgraded to 64 bit through the automatic updater
14:38Caspy7I think with 56
14:39boot13Official word from Mozilla is that the 64-bit version is more stable, presumably because it has access to more memory.
14:39Caspy7fun fact: it doesn't matter where you put 64 bit executables on windows
14:39boot13Yeah, that is weird.
14:39Caspy7there are various benefits to 64 bit
14:40Caspy7leaving the install folder in place however ensures that you don't break any applications that are dependent on that path
14:41Caspy7that may have been precisely what MS had in mind when they didn't make it a strict requirement
14:52Zinkermozilla stops 32bit developement this year ?
15:06Zinkerhow to disable html5 video completlely in ff 32 bit , aslong its supported ....
15:11Caspy7Zinker: do you have a citation? What is the source of this? That Mozilla is stopping 32 bit development?
15:15Zinker54.0 Alpha 2 as public download ....
15:18Caspy7Zinker: the current version of Firefox can be found here in both 32 and 64 bit
15:20Zinkerhmm , firefox update manager didnt see that version , hmmm
15:21Caspy7if you use the stub installer and have 64 bit windows (with over 2 GB of RAM iirc) it will install the 64 bit version of Firefox
15:22Caspy7at least for Firefox 55
15:23Zinkeric , but without your url i hadnt known
15:24Caspy7most Windows 64 users don't have any specific desire to stay on 32 bit Firefox
15:25Zinkerso , ff help , check for updates is redundant , i bookmark your url ?
15:26Caspy7Zinker: there are many benefits to the 64 bit version. Why are you avoiding it?
15:27Zinkertime , just in case some wents wrong .... , but well tomorrow is sunday ,
15:30Caspy7Zinker: there are no profile incompatibilities between 32 bit and 64 bit firefox
15:34Zinkerjust in case , isthere a linux vga blacklist ?
15:35Caspy7Hardware acceleration is not on by default for Linux
15:35Zinkerdirectx was biggest mistake of ms ... , i just ask for linux since i never seen it
15:38Zinkersince directx just means use legacy drive as linux . bit pl . you dont like such discussions here ...
15:39Zinkerim off , thinking
15:58Caspy7alright, so the current icon update is intentional
15:58Caspy7though likely temporary I expect
16:01Daggerthe fact that nobody is quite sure is somewhat telling :/
16:05GrayShadei whitelisted a site in the popup blocker preferences. it opens pages in a new tab when pressing a keyboard shortcut. after 20 of those, i get the popup blocker message, although opening links still works with the mouse
16:05Caspy7Dagger: I'm sure now. They just didn't email me with a notarized signature, so I was trying to confirm. Also, it's the weekend, they're all asleep or something.
16:05GrayShademight this be intentional?
16:06GrayShadealso, the new icon looks really bad on windows
16:25firebotJust appeared in Planet Mozilla - :
16:26firebot Code Simplicity: Kindness and Code
17:20Timvde[16:35:31] Caspy7: so, the devs are investigating that topic <- Oh, cool! Bug?
17:21Caspy7Timvde: I don&#39;t know if there&#39;s a bug. I brought it up in #build and eventually received a response &quot;this has not gone unnoticed, and people are talking about whether we should switch&quot;
17:22Timvdeah, okay
17:22Timvdethanks :)
17:25DuClareBrowser is basically frozen, with 300% cpu usage..
17:26DuClarehow2debug :(
17:36Caspy7DuClare: if you&#39;re going to paste a URL, please give it some context
17:37DuClareI think that causes firefox to hang or something, if you leave it running for a little while
17:37DuClareBut I&#39;m not sure
17:40DuClareOf course it could be some addon again *sigh*
17:40DuClareYou never know
17:54DuClareOh hey I got a craaash
17:56AlexPortableSomehow the sound is weird on certain youtube videos, I hear only brrzzzzzz from some videos
17:57AlexPortableThis problem appeared after I upgraded to firefox 55 (64 bit), previous version was 54 (32 bit)
17:57AlexPortableit sounds like broken speakers
17:58AlexPortableworks fine in chrome
18:08mefistofelesAlexPortable: I really don&#39;t know for sure, but have you restarted firefox config?
18:12DuClare*sigh* I probably need to figure out how to log in on pugzilla
18:21DuClareHmm, a flood of sandbox violations
18:55firebotBug 1389812 UNCONFIRMED, may freeze or cr