23 ms·

Firefox 69.0 Released

563 points by sulkie 7y ago

jnmandal 7y ago
nice
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- omershapira 7y ago
  nice
  - Jaxkr 7y ago
    glad this comment made it
    - zzetsumei 7y ago
      nice
      - moraljto 7y ago
        nice
        coolreader18 7y ago
        nice
iicc 7y ago
Thank you Mozillians!
Aardwolf 7y ago
> For our users in the US or using the en-US browser, we are shipping a new “New Tab” page experience that connects you to the best of Pocket’s content. With all due respect, if you have to call it an "experience" you know it's something nobody asked for :p
- cptskippy 7y ago
  Looks like if you're disabled Pocket, that "experience" is disabled.
  - rosybox 7y ago
    Yeah I don't see any pocket crap on the new tab page as I had pocket set to disabled.
- basch 7y ago
  Im probably in the minority, but I think its a good way to compete with Edge/MSN. The clickbait I get out of the pocket new tab page is infinitely more interesting than MSN, which has too much focus on salacious current events.
  - thirdsun 7y ago
    Sounds like a lesser evil rather than idea worth competing with.
- marrone12 7y ago
  I like the Pocket recommendations ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - welly 7y ago
    You and me both! I've had some great recommendations!
    - FillardMillmore 7y ago
      A lot of the recommendations are great. But there's also some ones recommending low-interest credit cards. I also like Pocket as software. Easily allows me to save pages for later reading and tag them as a method to introduce some organization to all the interesting pages one finds. Since I use Firefox across many devices, this makes my life easier.
  - 7y ago
kuu 7y ago
For our users in the US or using the en-US browser, we are shipping a new “New Tab” page experience that connects you to the best of Pocket’s content. Uhmmm...
- pornel 7y ago
  I don't see anyone complaining that Safari has a built-in Reader feature. Safari even has "Siri Suggestions" almost identical to this Firefox experiment. Pocket has been acquired by Mozilla, so it's not a 3rd party feature any more. It's really no different. It seems that some people are just used to hating Pocket as if it was some kind of tradition.
  - Operyl 7y ago
    People are mostly hating the advertising on the New Page from Pocket, not Pocket itself these days. EDIT: Here's a screenshot of the feature specifically that people dislike these days: https://imgur.com/a/p2rD4AY https://imgur.com/a/p2rD4AY While it can be disabled, it can be said that people are a bit annoyed that the browser that is "Privacy Focused" is shoving ads down your throat. While we as technical users can figure out how to disable it easily (in the preferences), the less technically inclined might not know that they can be disabled.
    - gfodor 7y ago
      Advertising, tracking, and privacy are three separate concerns. We conflate them due to the way current advertising networks work: they track you, storing + analyzing the data in centralized servers (which violates your privacy), to deliver ads. You can deliver ads without tracking (for example, contextually based upon the page you are looking at, without any storage of that information or historical state.) And you can track users without violating their privacy (by not sending the data to a remote server and only analyzing it locally.) So in general, it's certainly possible to be able to preserve a user's privacy while also be monetizing your product through advertising. Now of course, most people dislike ads, which is a separate issue. But advertising is not inherently a violation of privacy, at least if you see privacy through the lens of surveillance by a third party. (You could stretch the definition of privacy to a point where seeing ads I suppose could be privacy violating, but I don't feel my privacy is being violated when I see a billboard on the highway, for example.)
ohduran 7y ago
Wait, Firefox Monitor? As in "allow us to store your email and password in case your email and password are pwned in some other site"? Does anyone else think this is prone to disaster, eventually?
- uncletaco 7y ago
  It's more like "share your email and if it turns up in a leak we'll inform you." Some password managers already do this and I personally think its a nice feature. Though I often generate new emails and passwords for sites on the spot so this feature isn't of much use to me.
- sequence7 7y ago
  Firefox monitor doesn't store your password. It simply checks your email address/addresses against known breaches.
- wlesieutre 7y ago
  >How does Firefox Monitor know I was involved in these breaches? >Firefox Monitor gets its data breach information from a publicly searchable source, Have I Been Pwned. If you don’t want your email address to show up in this database, visit the opt-out page. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-monitor-faq https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-monitor-faq
- leevlad 7y ago
  Pretty sure it's keyed on your email alone. Not sure where you saw anything about passwords.
- input_sh 7y ago
  They only store an email address and let you know if that email address ever appears in a breach. They don't know your password, they're not asking for your password, and they're not interested in your password. Also, knowing your password wouldn't be enough to identify it within a breach, assuming that the breached website does the bare minimum to store them safely (as in, uses a salt). How about reading a thing or two before jumping to conclusions?
- 7y ago
manquer 7y ago
Enhanced Tracking Protection feature is enabled by default in this release.
geewee 7y ago
It didn't make it to the developer notes, but Firefox 69 should be the first one to ship with unhandledrejection event on by default[0] - I'm so looking forward to being able to catch promises and do proper error handling on them in Firefox without having to jump through hoops [0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/unhandledrejection_event#Browser_compatibility https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/unha...
- ataylor32 7y ago
  > It didn't make it to the developer notes I see it here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Releases/69#JavaScript https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Rel...
  - geewee 7y ago
    Oh yes, you're right. It obviously just didn't make into the release announcement
- ohlookabird 7y ago
  Fantastic, I was hoping Firefox will implement this finally.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  But according to that page Safari still lacks support. Seems like that could cause enough issues alone to just skip using it.
plopz 7y ago
> Firefox no longer loads userChrome.css or userContent.css by default improving start-up performance. Users who wish to customize Firefox by using these files can set the toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets preference to true to restore this ability. How much of a performance improvement does this make?
- dictum 7y ago
  I use userChrome.css and userContent.css, and I get the nagging feeling that the silent end of that sentence is "...when we eventually replace the code that currently enables user customization with faster, less flexible APIs." (I'm paranoid and FUDing because I care: there's some UX low hanging fruit before they could get rid of userChrome.css. For instance, you need userChrome.css to autohide the toolbar in full screen mode on macOS — that's not even a customization, it's a missing feature.)
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    I mean, how slow could an "if file_exists()" check have been? This smells like deprecation to me, if the user CSS doesn't exist, don't load anything. Boom, no slowdown.
    - kbenson 7y ago
      Given that the profile setting is under a subsection of "legacyUserProfileCustomizations", perhaps there's a whole legacy subsystem they spin up to handle it that's only needed for that now? I could see a whole subsystem causing significant enough delay and resource usage to be noticeable, if that's the case.
      - rrix2 7y ago
        AFAICT it's Firefox's CSS+HTML engine running the user chrome. You can even open the firefox web inspector on it (open web inspector -> settings -> enable browser chrome and add-on debugging toolboxes) which lets you fiddle with the chrome DOM and modify CSS that way.
povertyworld 7y ago
I have a bunch of Facebook domains in my hosts, but for some reason Firefox 69.0 gets DNS from somewhere else and goes right through. Weird. The other stuff in hosts resolves correctly.
- k1t 7y ago
  It could be DNS over https, which Mozilla have been experimenting with. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-dns-over-https https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-dns-over-https
  - povertyworld 7y ago
    It wasn't on by default, but yeah, once I turned it on, it entirely bypassed hosts for everything, not just Facebook owned domains.
- AndyMcConachie 7y ago
  Is DNS-over-HTTPS on by default now?
  - apearson 7y ago
    It is not, just checked my install
- norenh 7y ago
  Check that "network.trr.mode" is set to "0" in "about:config" to disable firefox using DNS over HTTPS (DoH). It was introduced in Firefox 62 I think.
  - mike-cardwell 7y ago
    You're better off setting it to "5". From https://wiki.mozilla.org/Trusted_Recursive_Resolver https://wiki.mozilla.org/Trusted_Recursive_Resolver : "Set `network.trr.mode` to 2 to make DNS Over HTTPS the browser's first choice but use regular DNS as a fallback (0 is "off by default", 1 lets Firefox pick whichever is faster, 3 for TRR only mode, 5 to explicitly turn it off)."
RussianCow 7y ago
I've been using the Firefox 69 beta since it came out, and with auto-playing audio and video set to blocked, some sites still somehow manage to auto-start muted videos. Is this a bug I should report, or is there some exception that websites are taking advantage of (like starting the video via an event handler like onscroll)?
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  Yes, it’s probably a bug you should report.
- grezql 7y ago
  maybe it should be blocked by default, then one can "whitelist" domain. My fingers are itching to ban some sites... such as cnn.com, dailymailco.uk
  - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
    dailymail.co.uk is already banned in my house for other reasons.
    - dev_dull 7y ago
      Why?
- cpeterso 7y ago
  If you know of specific sites that sidestep auto-play blocking, that would be worth reporting. I think I saw similar behavior on the Yahoo News site. I think Yahoo News was loading new article content into the same page (like Turbolinks does) instead of navigating to a new page. Clicking links becomes the user action that allows video playback for the current page and that permission is retained across articles because the browser is not navigating away to new pages. Just a theory...
- bhaile 7y ago
  I had to set this value in about:config media.autoplay.enabled.user-gestures-needed;false Now, no video auto-plays when I interact on the page.
denzil_correa 7y ago
> macOS users on dual-graphics-card machines (like MacBook Pro) will switch back to the low-power GPU more aggressively, saving battery life. macOS user base can now consider FF as a viable browser alternative.
- hutattedonmyarm 7y ago
  My MBP doesn’t have a dedicated card and yet firefox manages to eat my battery as a snack
  - seppel 7y ago
    For me (MBP from early 2015 w/o dedicated card) the upcoming FF 70 made a huge difference. I installed the beta today and I finally can go to youtube, facebook and reddit (the new design!) without the fan spinning up.
    - hutattedonmyarm 7y ago
      Sounds like I'll give FF another try on the Mac. I do love it on Windows
- mbesto 7y ago
  Please be the case - this is reason #1 why I haven't switched.
  - m-p-3 7y ago
    You could try Firefox Nightly to see it for yourself ;)
    - daveFNbuck 7y ago
      You don't need nightly. This is released already.
      - 7y ago
datapolitical 7y ago
nice
- whateveracct 7y ago
  nice
  - clarkey252 7y ago
    nice
envornment 7y ago
> The Block Autoplay feature is enhanced to give users the option to block any video that automatically starts playing, not just those that automatically play with sound. Does this also block GIFs from auto-playing? Blocking no-sound videos from auto-playing will keep GIFs alive for another decade.
- thiagomgd 7y ago
  not having a real alternative to GIFs will keep them alive for another decade. By real alternative I mean: behaves like an image, you drag'n'drop like an image, on your desktop shows the thumbnail of an image and when you open, doesn't open the video player, play just once and stops.
bobcostas55 7y ago
The font rendering on the mozilla website is absolutely horrific (Firefox 68/Windows 7): https://i.imgur.com/JMpq9Xe.png https://i.imgur.com/JMpq9Xe.png
- m-p-3 7y ago
  That won't be a concern in 5 months ;)
  - Krasnol 7y ago
    What happens in 5 months?
    - nwellnhof 7y ago
      Windows 7 support ends on Jan 14, 2020.
    - ohyea 7y ago
      Windows 7 goes EOL maybe?
- Astrobastard 7y ago
  These settings (in about:config) makes font rendering look near identical to Chrome for me: gfx.font_rendering.cleartype_params.enhanced_contrast = 0 gfx.font_rendering.cleartype_params.rendering_mode = 5 gfx.font_rendering.cleartype_params.force_gdi_classic_for_families = ""
  - bobcostas55 7y ago
    There has to be some reason why those are not the defaults though, right?
    - dblohm7 7y ago
      My understanding is that Chrome is the outlier when it comes to font rendering.
kfalencik 7y ago
nice
dejaime 7y ago
Nice
Aardwolf 7y ago
> The Block Autoplay feature is enhanced to give users the option to block any video that automatically starts playing, not just those that automatically play with sound. Good. I know a news website that was on purpose disabling sound on videos to prevent that. So not only does it autoplay, you need to click to unmute anyway to actually hear it! Why do news websites want to shove autoplaying videos on people's throats so much, what's wrong with playing at any time when you want? And why do news websites even care about doing shoving it to the small percentage of people who actually bother to disable autoplay in their browser? P.S. I already had autoplay for videos without sound disabled through about:config flags, but some videos managed to autoplay anyway. I wonder if they also fixed that issue, or simply made the about:config flag part of the settings dialog.
- MatekCopatek 7y ago
  > Why do news websites want to shove autoplaying videos on people's throats so much Advertising metrics. > And why do news websites even care about doing shoving it to the small percentage of people who actually bother to disable autoplay in their browser? I believe autoplay is off by default on mobile, so it's a significant market.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- cmrdporcupine 7y ago
  Good. I live rural and have heavily metered LTE as my Internet, or else it's really slow satellite or P2P wireless. Auto-play video is the bane of my existence; every website seems to assume these days that if you're on desktop, you have giant bandwidth.
- notjustanymike 7y ago
  CPCV, Cost Per Completed View. Advertisers pay more for completed ad views.
- pier25 7y ago
  Yes, thank god. I've never understood why news sites push silent video down your throat. They are wasting serious amounts bandwidth.
purple_ducks 7y ago
> For our users on Windows 10, you’ll see performance and UI improvements: > For our existing Windows 10 users, you can easily find and launch Firefox from a shortcut on the Win10 taskbar. ??? As opposed to before?!
- Someone1234 7y ago
  I suspect that is their way of telling us that the installer now adds a taskbar shortcut.
cmrdporcupine 7y ago
Can someone clarify for me what "Enhanced Tracking Protection" covers? The text on Mozilla's pages is a bit fluff, I'm interested in the mechanics of it. I've been out of ad-tech for about 5 years, but when I was working in that industry it was common to drop evil cookie pixels everywhere in the page and then do cookie-matching with them ("my cookie for this user is X, do we per-chance have a match with something you have?") Will this effectively end that by preventing cookies from domains that aren't the domain of the site itself? I hope so.
- SamuelAdams 7y ago
  From here [1]: For new users who install and download Firefox for the first time, Enhanced Tracking Protection will automatically be set on by default as part of the ‘Standard’ setting in the browser and will block known “third-party tracking cookies” according to the Disconnect list. We talk more about tracking cookies here. Enhanced Tracking Protection will be practically invisible to you and you’ll only notice that it’s operating when you visit a site and see a shield icon in the address bar next to the URL address and the small “i” icon. When you see the shield icon, you should feel safe that Firefox is blocking thousands of companies from your online activity. A better source is probably the disconnect site [2]: > Tracking is the collection of data regarding a particular user's activity across multiple websites or applications that aren’t owned by the data collector, and the retention, use or sharing of that data. > Our definition focuses on collection AND retention. So, for example, the definition wouldn’t apply to sites that log an IP address, but don’t save that information in a database. The definition also focuses on particular users, so data that is immediately aggregated doesn’t apply. And the collection is across context, so it doesn’t apply in cases when there is solely a first-party relationship with the user, for example the site only collects and retains information on site visitors. [1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/06/04/firefox-now-available-with-enhanced-tracking-protection-by-default/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/06/04/firefox-now-availab... [2]: https://disconnect.me/trackerprotection https://disconnect.me/trackerprotection
  - cmrdporcupine 7y ago
    This isn't really explaining the "how" to me though. The way I remember it is, as the page host I have a cookie on you. Then I drop in a 1-pixel image to a third party, and in the query string to it I write in a hashed form of the cookie I have for you. That HTTP request then itself can go through the cookie process, but for the third party. They then check their DB for both their own issued cookie and the value you passed in, and are then able to perform some asynchronous (batch or otherwise) match to associate the two IDs. From then on, an ad etc. can be targeted based on that info.
timeimp 7y ago
>Finder on macOS now displays download progress for files being downloaded It's the little things that are making me go back to Firefox more-and-more
alexryndin 7y ago
seems it works much faster on sway + wayland + 4k display, but still slower than with XWayland
shmerl 7y ago
Note, this version disables userChrome.css in new profiles. If you need it, enable it in about:config: toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets = true I spent some time wondering why it's not working. The key name is totally not obvious, especially since it doesn't have anything resembling userChrome in it.
mkr-hn 7y ago
A nice feature that should be standard: >> "The Block Autoplay feature is enhanced to give users the option to block any video that automatically starts playing, not just those that automatically play with sound." One time I hit a site with a huge anti-ad block message at the top that said I couldn't watch the video until I disabled my adblocker. But...I came for an article. The article wasn't obstructed. I assume the video was auto-playing. I decided to go back and try another result.
XJ6 7y ago
> The network panel will now show blocked resources Good! I remember losing quite some time before I realised something wasn't in the network tab because it never fired rather than failing to be triggered by the application code.
TheRealPomax 7y ago
Honestly the big one for me is being able to finally debug async code, which Chrome has been able to do for a long time, and FF simply couldn't. As someone who uses FF as main browser, not being able to use to for modern code and being forced into using a different browser for proper debugging has been quite frustrating.
classics2 7y ago
Is rss still too hard for Firefox?
techntoke 7y ago
Still no mention of hardware-accelerated video on Linux. Can't consider Firefox until this is implemented, but it works on Chromium in multiple distros. Seems like Chromium folks are more apt to actually prioritize Linux over Mozilla.
- opencl 7y ago
  Eh it works in Chromium with patches that Google won't upstream because there are a lot of configs it doesn't work on. The biggest blocker for it in Firefox seems to be webrender landing in stable. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1210726 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1210726
gourlaysama 7y ago
> With the deprecation of Adobe Flash Player, there is no longer a need to identify users on 32-bit version of the Firefox browser on 64-bit version operating systems[, ]reducing user agent fingerprinting factors. Good. User agents already contain too much. That's actually the first time I've ever seen a browser actively removing stuff from the User Agent.
- kn0where 7y ago
  I believe Safari stopped increasing the browser version in the user agent some time ago.
  - thekyle 7y ago
    So what does it do now? Is it just an older version number or did they remove the number altogether.
Siecje 7y ago
How do you block cryptominers?
- aorth 7y ago
  Install uBlock Origin and activate its "resource abuse" lists?
beardedman 7y ago
ANY news on the fact that FF makes my Mac sound like it's gonna take off?? I honestly can't understand how an issue so prevalent gets ignored for so long by them. For those doubting, do a simple Google with "firefox cpu".
- joduplessis 7y ago
  Not happening with mine.
isarat 7y ago
The privacy aspect of Firefox is great. The containers also a great thing and help us to a great extend. Beyond the privacy aspects, I really wish if Firefox pays attention to little things that can make the life of a user a bit better. - The Firefox sign in process is considerably improved, with a link based sign in with email. The fact is that you will not be singed in to email on the first time usage. So you are behind a wall to start browsing and the cognitive load not to leave the tab before completing setup. This experience with Google Chrome is far far better, as it’s one time setup using your Google Account . Even if you discount the google’s ownership and single account sign in, there are considerable improvements to be made in the onboarding process - The Pocket integration is substandard to the Pocket extension. - The Top sites and highlights are too big for my aesthetics. It could be little cuter in the way it appears. - Moving a video to full screen makes your blank for a second and not a smooth transition as in Chrome or Safari - Lack of certain platform specific integrations such as Look Up on macOS to get the dictionary triggered by selected word. It works across all the other browsers well. On Firefox, I need to make a google search. - The tab bar is ugly and has lot of blank spaces - No default support for dark mode which works beautifully well on Chrome and Safari in a very early stage. More than a feature, the slowness in picking up platform specific features. - The containers concept is really great but not for most of the general users to make use of it. It’s still a bit geeky in nature. - I’ve to go with standard privacy settings to make my sites work including google. Making the privacy settings strong doesn’t help much and get signed out of the sessions very frequently. - I use an app called Magnet on Mac to snap my windows easily by dragging to corners. The snapping works great on all browsers by dragging a tab to one of the corners. But Firefox just releases the tab once it’s pulled out from the current window. We need to drag again this to the corners. More than a third-party workflow, it’s about how these windows are defined and behaves in a standard way
- steve19 7y ago
  > - The containers concept is really great but not for most of the general users to make use of it. It’s still a bit geeky in nature. This. Containers are quite complicated to reason about, require a fair amount of setup and do not sync. Not to mention the color pallete is bizarrely limited. I use both Firefox and Chrome but use Chrome for work because Profiles are much easier to use. I just open another profile, which loads with a nice theme and a set of extensions (limiting my exposure to some extensions in other profiles). Profiles are so simple and just work. Firefox of course has profiles, but you cannot run two of them at the same time without using the command line (or creating shortcuts to launch multiple versions of the browser).
filmgirlcw 7y ago
Nice
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
manbartlett 7y ago
nice
henrytcasey 7y ago
nice
FascinatedBox 7y ago
nice
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- almondfestival 7y ago
  ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
dewaine 7y ago
here for the jokes
dewaine 7y ago
edit: super disappointed with the lack of jokes
JohnClark1337 7y ago
Nice
Heliophite 7y ago
nice
- ronanyeah 7y ago
  nice
epic_Anon 7y ago
haha nice
keithnz 7y ago
Just out of interest, how many people run the "release" version of Firefox? I'm currently using Firefox Developer on the latest auroua update channel version ( 70.0b3 ). I haven't really expereienced any problems and am only vaugely aware of new things from time to time. Actually mostly I'm not sure if I'm noticing something new or something that's existed for a long time. Like for instance the other day I put in an address in the address bar and it gave me a "switch to tab" option because I already had that open in a browser window, I swear that's new, but I'm not sure!
- nitemice 7y ago
  I have been using Firefox Developer for about 6 months, but after two incidents of week-long bugs that caused my browser to crash after a variable number of minutes, no matter what I had open, I've decided to swap back to the release version. Yeah, you get a few cool features a bit early, but I just can't stand the instability anymore. Pluis, I'm not actually using any of the "Developer" features, so there's really no reason for me to not just run release.
floatboth 7y ago
nice
m712 7y ago
The good: ETP by default, battery life improvements, flash deprecation (finally!), about:debugging, event breakppints (finally! #2) The bad: userChrome/userContent not being loaded by default, I don't understand why it would cause a delay at startup. The ugly: More Pocket crap.
daveheq 7y ago
No way dude
emeraldx 7y ago
Nice
MarcysVonEylau 7y ago
Nice.
kup0 7y ago
Hope this release somehow magically fixes an ongoing issue in Windows 10 I've had with Firefox. The gist of it is that Firefox, and only Firefox, will cause my Windows 10 system to completely hard freeze (no mouse movement, no response period) for about 30-60 seconds at a time, multiple times daily. It's so frustrating that it makes FF unusable for me. It's odd because it seems to be a rare issue that has to do with it not letting go of a GPU handle/process/thread or something, from what I've been able to deduce from others having this issue that have posted bugs in the tracker. I've tried everything under the sun to fix it, but no other program, period has this problem. I game, I use other browsers, I do all sorts of stuff on this PC with zero issues, but Firefox gives me these temporary hard-freezes. Ugh.
- canada_dry 7y ago
  > only Firefox will cause my Windows 10 system to completely hard freeze Whenever I experience this type of thing I can't help but speculate that issues like this are not serendipity at work. I recollect reading an article years back from a Microsoft developer who spoke about how it was quite common for Windows code to take specific actions based on which app was running - ostensibly to 'improve the user experience'. Though, it's not hard to imagine MS using this for the opposite purpose. And, since their code is proprietary, who would know?
  - kup0 7y ago
    Seems somewhat unlikely in this instance, because apparently the issue I'm running into is pretty rare. There are millions of people using FF on W10 daily without any issues. Heck, even I have other W10 machines where it doesn't happen.
oarabbus_ 7y ago
nice

563 points by sulkie 7y ago

jnmandal 7y ago

nice

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
omershapira 7y ago
nice
- Jaxkr 7y ago
  glad this comment made it
  - zzetsumei 7y ago
    nice
    - moraljto 7y ago
      nice
      - coolreader18 7y ago
        nice

iicc 7y ago

Thank you Mozillians!

Aardwolf 7y ago

> For our users in the US or using the en-US browser, we are shipping a new “New Tab” page experience that connects you to the best of Pocket’s content. With all due respect, if you have to call it an "experience" you know it's something nobody asked for :p

cptskippy 7y ago
Looks like if you're disabled Pocket, that "experience" is disabled.
- rosybox 7y ago
  Yeah I don't see any pocket crap on the new tab page as I had pocket set to disabled.
basch 7y ago
Im probably in the minority, but I think its a good way to compete with Edge/MSN. The clickbait I get out of the pocket new tab page is infinitely more interesting than MSN, which has too much focus on salacious current events.
- thirdsun 7y ago
  Sounds like a lesser evil rather than idea worth competing with.
marrone12 7y ago
I like the Pocket recommendations ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- welly 7y ago
  You and me both! I've had some great recommendations!
  - FillardMillmore 7y ago
    A lot of the recommendations are great. But there's also some ones recommending low-interest credit cards. I also like Pocket as software. Easily allows me to save pages for later reading and tag them as a method to introduce some organization to all the interesting pages one finds. Since I use Firefox across many devices, this makes my life easier.
- 7y ago

kuu 7y ago

For our users in the US or using the en-US browser, we are shipping a new “New Tab” page experience that connects you to the best of Pocket’s content. Uhmmm...

pornel 7y ago
I don't see anyone complaining that Safari has a built-in Reader feature. Safari even has "Siri Suggestions" almost identical to this Firefox experiment. Pocket has been acquired by Mozilla, so it's not a 3rd party feature any more. It's really no different. It seems that some people are just used to hating Pocket as if it was some kind of tradition.
- Operyl 7y ago
  People are mostly hating the advertising on the New Page from Pocket, not Pocket itself these days. EDIT: Here's a screenshot of the feature specifically that people dislike these days: https://imgur.com/a/p2rD4AY https://imgur.com/a/p2rD4AY While it can be disabled, it can be said that people are a bit annoyed that the browser that is "Privacy Focused" is shoving ads down your throat. While we as technical users can figure out how to disable it easily (in the preferences), the less technically inclined might not know that they can be disabled.
  - gfodor 7y ago
    Advertising, tracking, and privacy are three separate concerns. We conflate them due to the way current advertising networks work: they track you, storing + analyzing the data in centralized servers (which violates your privacy), to deliver ads. You can deliver ads without tracking (for example, contextually based upon the page you are looking at, without any storage of that information or historical state.) And you can track users without violating their privacy (by not sending the data to a remote server and only analyzing it locally.) So in general, it's certainly possible to be able to preserve a user's privacy while also be monetizing your product through advertising. Now of course, most people dislike ads, which is a separate issue. But advertising is not inherently a violation of privacy, at least if you see privacy through the lens of surveillance by a third party. (You could stretch the definition of privacy to a point where seeing ads I suppose could be privacy violating, but I don't feel my privacy is being violated when I see a billboard on the highway, for example.)

ohduran 7y ago

Wait, Firefox Monitor? As in "allow us to store your email and password in case your email and password are pwned in some other site"? Does anyone else think this is prone to disaster, eventually?

uncletaco 7y ago
It's more like "share your email and if it turns up in a leak we'll inform you." Some password managers already do this and I personally think its a nice feature. Though I often generate new emails and passwords for sites on the spot so this feature isn't of much use to me.
sequence7 7y ago
Firefox monitor doesn't store your password. It simply checks your email address/addresses against known breaches.
wlesieutre 7y ago
>How does Firefox Monitor know I was involved in these breaches? >Firefox Monitor gets its data breach information from a publicly searchable source, Have I Been Pwned. If you don’t want your email address to show up in this database, visit the opt-out page. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-monitor-faq https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-monitor-faq
leevlad 7y ago
Pretty sure it's keyed on your email alone. Not sure where you saw anything about passwords.
input_sh 7y ago
They only store an email address and let you know if that email address ever appears in a breach. They don't know your password, they're not asking for your password, and they're not interested in your password. Also, knowing your password wouldn't be enough to identify it within a breach, assuming that the breached website does the bare minimum to store them safely (as in, uses a salt). How about reading a thing or two before jumping to conclusions?
7y ago

manquer 7y ago

Enhanced Tracking Protection feature is enabled by default in this release.

geewee 7y ago

It didn't make it to the developer notes, but Firefox 69 should be the first one to ship with unhandledrejection event on by default[0] - I'm so looking forward to being able to catch promises and do proper error handling on them in Firefox without having to jump through hoops [0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/unhandledrejection_event#Browser_compatibility https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/unha...

ataylor32 7y ago
> It didn't make it to the developer notes I see it here: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Releases/69#JavaScript https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Rel...
- geewee 7y ago
  Oh yes, you're right. It obviously just didn't make into the release announcement
ohlookabird 7y ago
Fantastic, I was hoping Firefox will implement this finally.
Someone1234 7y ago
But according to that page Safari still lacks support. Seems like that could cause enough issues alone to just skip using it.

plopz 7y ago

> Firefox no longer loads userChrome.css or userContent.css by default improving start-up performance. Users who wish to customize Firefox by using these files can set the toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets preference to true to restore this ability. How much of a performance improvement does this make?

dictum 7y ago
I use userChrome.css and userContent.css, and I get the nagging feeling that the silent end of that sentence is "...when we eventually replace the code that currently enables user customization with faster, less flexible APIs." (I'm paranoid and FUDing because I care: there's some UX low hanging fruit before they could get rid of userChrome.css. For instance, you need userChrome.css to autohide the toolbar in full screen mode on macOS — that's not even a customization, it's a missing feature.)
- StavrosK 7y ago
  I mean, how slow could an "if file_exists()" check have been? This smells like deprecation to me, if the user CSS doesn't exist, don't load anything. Boom, no slowdown.
  - kbenson 7y ago
    Given that the profile setting is under a subsection of "legacyUserProfileCustomizations", perhaps there's a whole legacy subsystem they spin up to handle it that's only needed for that now? I could see a whole subsystem causing significant enough delay and resource usage to be noticeable, if that's the case.
    - rrix2 7y ago
      AFAICT it's Firefox's CSS+HTML engine running the user chrome. You can even open the firefox web inspector on it (open web inspector -> settings -> enable browser chrome and add-on debugging toolboxes) which lets you fiddle with the chrome DOM and modify CSS that way.

povertyworld 7y ago

I have a bunch of Facebook domains in my hosts, but for some reason Firefox 69.0 gets DNS from somewhere else and goes right through. Weird. The other stuff in hosts resolves correctly.

k1t 7y ago
It could be DNS over https, which Mozilla have been experimenting with. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-dns-over-https https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-dns-over-https
- povertyworld 7y ago
  It wasn't on by default, but yeah, once I turned it on, it entirely bypassed hosts for everything, not just Facebook owned domains.
AndyMcConachie 7y ago
Is DNS-over-HTTPS on by default now?
- apearson 7y ago
  It is not, just checked my install
norenh 7y ago
Check that "network.trr.mode" is set to "0" in "about:config" to disable firefox using DNS over HTTPS (DoH). It was introduced in Firefox 62 I think.
- mike-cardwell 7y ago
  You're better off setting it to "5". From https://wiki.mozilla.org/Trusted_Recursive_Resolver https://wiki.mozilla.org/Trusted_Recursive_Resolver : "Set `network.trr.mode` to 2 to make DNS Over HTTPS the browser's first choice but use regular DNS as a fallback (0 is "off by default", 1 lets Firefox pick whichever is faster, 3 for TRR only mode, 5 to explicitly turn it off)."

RussianCow 7y ago

I've been using the Firefox 69 beta since it came out, and with auto-playing audio and video set to blocked, some sites still somehow manage to auto-start muted videos. Is this a bug I should report, or is there some exception that websites are taking advantage of (like starting the video via an event handler like onscroll)?

floatingatoll 7y ago
Yes, it’s probably a bug you should report.
grezql 7y ago
maybe it should be blocked by default, then one can "whitelist" domain. My fingers are itching to ban some sites... such as cnn.com, dailymailco.uk
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  dailymail.co.uk is already banned in my house for other reasons.
  - dev_dull 7y ago
    Why?
cpeterso 7y ago
If you know of specific sites that sidestep auto-play blocking, that would be worth reporting. I think I saw similar behavior on the Yahoo News site. I think Yahoo News was loading new article content into the same page (like Turbolinks does) instead of navigating to a new page. Clicking links becomes the user action that allows video playback for the current page and that permission is retained across articles because the browser is not navigating away to new pages. Just a theory...
bhaile 7y ago
I had to set this value in about:config media.autoplay.enabled.user-gestures-needed;false Now, no video auto-plays when I interact on the page.

denzil_correa 7y ago

> macOS users on dual-graphics-card machines (like MacBook Pro) will switch back to the low-power GPU more aggressively, saving battery life. macOS user base can now consider FF as a viable browser alternative.

hutattedonmyarm 7y ago
My MBP doesn’t have a dedicated card and yet firefox manages to eat my battery as a snack
- seppel 7y ago
  For me (MBP from early 2015 w/o dedicated card) the upcoming FF 70 made a huge difference. I installed the beta today and I finally can go to youtube, facebook and reddit (the new design!) without the fan spinning up.
  - hutattedonmyarm 7y ago
    Sounds like I'll give FF another try on the Mac. I do love it on Windows
mbesto 7y ago
Please be the case - this is reason #1 why I haven't switched.
- m-p-3 7y ago
  You could try Firefox Nightly to see it for yourself ;)
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    You don't need nightly. This is released already.
    - 7y ago

datapolitical 7y ago

nice

whateveracct 7y ago
nice
- clarkey252 7y ago
  nice

envornment 7y ago

> The Block Autoplay feature is enhanced to give users the option to block any video that automatically starts playing, not just those that automatically play with sound. Does this also block GIFs from auto-playing? Blocking no-sound videos from auto-playing will keep GIFs alive for another decade.

thiagomgd 7y ago
not having a real alternative to GIFs will keep them alive for another decade. By real alternative I mean: behaves like an image, you drag'n'drop like an image, on your desktop shows the thumbnail of an image and when you open, doesn't open the video player, play just once and stops.

bobcostas55 7y ago

The font rendering on the mozilla website is absolutely horrific (Firefox 68/Windows 7): https://i.imgur.com/JMpq9Xe.png https://i.imgur.com/JMpq9Xe.png

m-p-3 7y ago
That won't be a concern in 5 months ;)
- Krasnol 7y ago
  What happens in 5 months?
  - nwellnhof 7y ago
    Windows 7 support ends on Jan 14, 2020.
  - ohyea 7y ago
    Windows 7 goes EOL maybe?
Astrobastard 7y ago
These settings (in about:config) makes font rendering look near identical to Chrome for me: gfx.font_rendering.cleartype_params.enhanced_contrast = 0 gfx.font_rendering.cleartype_params.rendering_mode = 5 gfx.font_rendering.cleartype_params.force_gdi_classic_for_families = ""
- bobcostas55 7y ago
  There has to be some reason why those are not the defaults though, right?
  - dblohm7 7y ago
    My understanding is that Chrome is the outlier when it comes to font rendering.

kfalencik 7y ago

nice

dejaime 7y ago

Nice

Aardwolf 7y ago

> The Block Autoplay feature is enhanced to give users the option to block any video that automatically starts playing, not just those that automatically play with sound. Good. I know a news website that was on purpose disabling sound on videos to prevent that. So not only does it autoplay, you need to click to unmute anyway to actually hear it! Why do news websites want to shove autoplaying videos on people's throats so much, what's wrong with playing at any time when you want? And why do news websites even care about doing shoving it to the small percentage of people who actually bother to disable autoplay in their browser? P.S. I already had autoplay for videos without sound disabled through about:config flags, but some videos managed to autoplay anyway. I wonder if they also fixed that issue, or simply made the about:config flag part of the settings dialog.

MatekCopatek 7y ago
> Why do news websites want to shove autoplaying videos on people's throats so much Advertising metrics. > And why do news websites even care about doing shoving it to the small percentage of people who actually bother to disable autoplay in their browser? I believe autoplay is off by default on mobile, so it's a significant market.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
cmrdporcupine 7y ago
Good. I live rural and have heavily metered LTE as my Internet, or else it's really slow satellite or P2P wireless. Auto-play video is the bane of my existence; every website seems to assume these days that if you're on desktop, you have giant bandwidth.
notjustanymike 7y ago
CPCV, Cost Per Completed View. Advertisers pay more for completed ad views.
pier25 7y ago
Yes, thank god. I've never understood why news sites push silent video down your throat. They are wasting serious amounts bandwidth.

purple_ducks 7y ago

> For our users on Windows 10, you’ll see performance and UI improvements: > For our existing Windows 10 users, you can easily find and launch Firefox from a shortcut on the Win10 taskbar. ??? As opposed to before?!

Someone1234 7y ago
I suspect that is their way of telling us that the installer now adds a taskbar shortcut.

cmrdporcupine 7y ago

Can someone clarify for me what "Enhanced Tracking Protection" covers? The text on Mozilla's pages is a bit fluff, I'm interested in the mechanics of it. I've been out of ad-tech for about 5 years, but when I was working in that industry it was common to drop evil cookie pixels everywhere in the page and then do cookie-matching with them ("my cookie for this user is X, do we per-chance have a match with something you have?") Will this effectively end that by preventing cookies from domains that aren't the domain of the site itself? I hope so.

SamuelAdams 7y ago
From here [1]: For new users who install and download Firefox for the first time, Enhanced Tracking Protection will automatically be set on by default as part of the ‘Standard’ setting in the browser and will block known “third-party tracking cookies” according to the Disconnect list. We talk more about tracking cookies here. Enhanced Tracking Protection will be practically invisible to you and you’ll only notice that it’s operating when you visit a site and see a shield icon in the address bar next to the URL address and the small “i” icon. When you see the shield icon, you should feel safe that Firefox is blocking thousands of companies from your online activity. A better source is probably the disconnect site [2]: > Tracking is the collection of data regarding a particular user's activity across multiple websites or applications that aren’t owned by the data collector, and the retention, use or sharing of that data. > Our definition focuses on collection AND retention. So, for example, the definition wouldn’t apply to sites that log an IP address, but don’t save that information in a database. The definition also focuses on particular users, so data that is immediately aggregated doesn’t apply. And the collection is across context, so it doesn’t apply in cases when there is solely a first-party relationship with the user, for example the site only collects and retains information on site visitors. [1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/06/04/firefox-now-available-with-enhanced-tracking-protection-by-default/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/06/04/firefox-now-availab... [2]: https://disconnect.me/trackerprotection https://disconnect.me/trackerprotection
- cmrdporcupine 7y ago
  This isn't really explaining the "how" to me though. The way I remember it is, as the page host I have a cookie on you. Then I drop in a 1-pixel image to a third party, and in the query string to it I write in a hashed form of the cookie I have for you. That HTTP request then itself can go through the cookie process, but for the third party. They then check their DB for both their own issued cookie and the value you passed in, and are then able to perform some asynchronous (batch or otherwise) match to associate the two IDs. From then on, an ad etc. can be targeted based on that info.

timeimp 7y ago

>Finder on macOS now displays download progress for files being downloaded It's the little things that are making me go back to Firefox more-and-more

alexryndin 7y ago

seems it works much faster on sway + wayland + 4k display, but still slower than with XWayland

shmerl 7y ago

Note, this version disables userChrome.css in new profiles. If you need it, enable it in about:config: toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets = true I spent some time wondering why it's not working. The key name is totally not obvious, especially since it doesn't have anything resembling userChrome in it.

mkr-hn 7y ago

A nice feature that should be standard: >> "The Block Autoplay feature is enhanced to give users the option to block any video that automatically starts playing, not just those that automatically play with sound." One time I hit a site with a huge anti-ad block message at the top that said I couldn't watch the video until I disabled my adblocker. But...I came for an article. The article wasn't obstructed. I assume the video was auto-playing. I decided to go back and try another result.

XJ6 7y ago

> The network panel will now show blocked resources Good! I remember losing quite some time before I realised something wasn't in the network tab because it never fired rather than failing to be triggered by the application code.

TheRealPomax 7y ago

Honestly the big one for me is being able to finally debug async code, which Chrome has been able to do for a long time, and FF simply couldn't. As someone who uses FF as main browser, not being able to use to for modern code and being forced into using a different browser for proper debugging has been quite frustrating.

classics2 7y ago

Is rss still too hard for Firefox?

techntoke 7y ago

Still no mention of hardware-accelerated video on Linux. Can't consider Firefox until this is implemented, but it works on Chromium in multiple distros. Seems like Chromium folks are more apt to actually prioritize Linux over Mozilla.

opencl 7y ago
Eh it works in Chromium with patches that Google won't upstream because there are a lot of configs it doesn't work on. The biggest blocker for it in Firefox seems to be webrender landing in stable. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1210726 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1210726

gourlaysama 7y ago

> With the deprecation of Adobe Flash Player, there is no longer a need to identify users on 32-bit version of the Firefox browser on 64-bit version operating systems[, ]reducing user agent fingerprinting factors. Good. User agents already contain too much. That's actually the first time I've ever seen a browser actively removing stuff from the User Agent.

kn0where 7y ago
I believe Safari stopped increasing the browser version in the user agent some time ago.
- thekyle 7y ago
  So what does it do now? Is it just an older version number or did they remove the number altogether.

Siecje 7y ago

How do you block cryptominers?

aorth 7y ago
Install uBlock Origin and activate its "resource abuse" lists?

beardedman 7y ago

ANY news on the fact that FF makes my Mac sound like it's gonna take off?? I honestly can't understand how an issue so prevalent gets ignored for so long by them. For those doubting, do a simple Google with "firefox cpu".

joduplessis 7y ago
Not happening with mine.

isarat 7y ago

The privacy aspect of Firefox is great. The containers also a great thing and help us to a great extend. Beyond the privacy aspects, I really wish if Firefox pays attention to little things that can make the life of a user a bit better. - The Firefox sign in process is considerably improved, with a link based sign in with email. The fact is that you will not be singed in to email on the first time usage. So you are behind a wall to start browsing and the cognitive load not to leave the tab before completing setup. This experience with Google Chrome is far far better, as it’s one time setup using your Google Account . Even if you discount the google’s ownership and single account sign in, there are considerable improvements to be made in the onboarding process - The Pocket integration is substandard to the Pocket extension. - The Top sites and highlights are too big for my aesthetics. It could be little cuter in the way it appears. - Moving a video to full screen makes your blank for a second and not a smooth transition as in Chrome or Safari - Lack of certain platform specific integrations such as Look Up on macOS to get the dictionary triggered by selected word. It works across all the other browsers well. On Firefox, I need to make a google search. - The tab bar is ugly and has lot of blank spaces - No default support for dark mode which works beautifully well on Chrome and Safari in a very early stage. More than a feature, the slowness in picking up platform specific features. - The containers concept is really great but not for most of the general users to make use of it. It’s still a bit geeky in nature. - I’ve to go with standard privacy settings to make my sites work including google. Making the privacy settings strong doesn’t help much and get signed out of the sessions very frequently. - I use an app called Magnet on Mac to snap my windows easily by dragging to corners. The snapping works great on all browsers by dragging a tab to one of the corners. But Firefox just releases the tab once it’s pulled out from the current window. We need to drag again this to the corners. More than a third-party workflow, it’s about how these windows are defined and behaves in a standard way

steve19 7y ago
> - The containers concept is really great but not for most of the general users to make use of it. It’s still a bit geeky in nature. This. Containers are quite complicated to reason about, require a fair amount of setup and do not sync. Not to mention the color pallete is bizarrely limited. I use both Firefox and Chrome but use Chrome for work because Profiles are much easier to use. I just open another profile, which loads with a nice theme and a set of extensions (limiting my exposure to some extensions in other profiles). Profiles are so simple and just work. Firefox of course has profiles, but you cannot run two of them at the same time without using the command line (or creating shortcuts to launch multiple versions of the browser).

filmgirlcw 7y ago

Nice

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

manbartlett 7y ago

nice

henrytcasey 7y ago

nice

FascinatedBox 7y ago

nice

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
almondfestival 7y ago
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

dewaine 7y ago

here for the jokes

dewaine 7y ago

edit: super disappointed with the lack of jokes

JohnClark1337 7y ago

Nice

Heliophite 7y ago

nice

ronanyeah 7y ago
nice

epic_Anon 7y ago

haha nice

keithnz 7y ago

Just out of interest, how many people run the "release" version of Firefox? I'm currently using Firefox Developer on the latest auroua update channel version ( 70.0b3 ). I haven't really expereienced any problems and am only vaugely aware of new things from time to time. Actually mostly I'm not sure if I'm noticing something new or something that's existed for a long time. Like for instance the other day I put in an address in the address bar and it gave me a "switch to tab" option because I already had that open in a browser window, I swear that's new, but I'm not sure!

nitemice 7y ago
I have been using Firefox Developer for about 6 months, but after two incidents of week-long bugs that caused my browser to crash after a variable number of minutes, no matter what I had open, I've decided to swap back to the release version. Yeah, you get a few cool features a bit early, but I just can't stand the instability anymore. Pluis, I'm not actually using any of the "Developer" features, so there's really no reason for me to not just run release.

floatboth 7y ago

nice

m712 7y ago

The good: ETP by default, battery life improvements, flash deprecation (finally!), about:debugging, event breakppints (finally! #2) The bad: userChrome/userContent not being loaded by default, I don't understand why it would cause a delay at startup. The ugly: More Pocket crap.

daveheq 7y ago

No way dude

emeraldx 7y ago

Nice

MarcysVonEylau 7y ago

Nice.

kup0 7y ago

Hope this release somehow magically fixes an ongoing issue in Windows 10 I've had with Firefox. The gist of it is that Firefox, and only Firefox, will cause my Windows 10 system to completely hard freeze (no mouse movement, no response period) for about 30-60 seconds at a time, multiple times daily. It's so frustrating that it makes FF unusable for me. It's odd because it seems to be a rare issue that has to do with it not letting go of a GPU handle/process/thread or something, from what I've been able to deduce from others having this issue that have posted bugs in the tracker. I've tried everything under the sun to fix it, but no other program, period has this problem. I game, I use other browsers, I do all sorts of stuff on this PC with zero issues, but Firefox gives me these temporary hard-freezes. Ugh.

canada_dry 7y ago
> only Firefox will cause my Windows 10 system to completely hard freeze Whenever I experience this type of thing I can't help but speculate that issues like this are not serendipity at work. I recollect reading an article years back from a Microsoft developer who spoke about how it was quite common for Windows code to take specific actions based on which app was running - ostensibly to 'improve the user experience'. Though, it's not hard to imagine MS using this for the opposite purpose. And, since their code is proprietary, who would know?
- kup0 7y ago
  Seems somewhat unlikely in this instance, because apparently the issue I'm running into is pretty rare. There are millions of people using FF on W10 daily without any issues. Heck, even I have other W10 machines where it doesn't happen.

oarabbus_ 7y ago

nice