6 ms·

Firefox 153.0 Beta

80 points by ErenayDev 3mo ago

vivzkestrel 3mo ago
- extremely stupid question but please entertain me here a bit - why dont any of the modern browsers open and load pages instantaneously anymore, why does it take seconds? - is this because of backward compatibility support where you are supporting html, css and JS features all the way back to the 90s - apart from gecko and v8 why dont we have browser engines? - are you familiar with anyone building an entire browser engine from scratch? how many WhatWG specifications would they have to support - with all the GPT hype of late, why havent we seen a single GPT yet capable of building a browser engine from scratch supporting the last 20 years of html, css and js specs?
- celsoazevedo 3mo ago
  > why dont any of the modern browsers open and load pages instantaneously anymore, why does it take seconds? Right click > Inspect. Go to the "network" tab, reload the page. Maybe do the same on the "performance" tab.
- dragonwriter 3mo ago
  > apart from gecko and v8 why dont we have browser engines? You mean apart from Gecko and Blink (v8 is a JS engine, not a browser engine.) But we do, for open source engines we also have WebKit and NetSurf and some others.
- madhato 3mo ago
  Ladybird is a has new browser engine and coming along nicely: https://ladybird.org/ https://ladybird.org/
- mjorgers 3mo ago
  > are you familiar with anyone building an entire browser engine from scratch? Ladybird [1] is exactly that. Started as browser for the SerenityOS project [2] but ended up being spun off as its own project. [1] https://ladybird.org/ https://ladybird.org/ [2] https://serenityos.org/ https://serenityos.org/
- ErenayDev 3mo ago
  if a website's bundle is <14kb, it will load instantly. https://endtimes.dev/why-your-website-should-be-under-14kb-in-size/ https://endtimes.dev/why-your-website-should-be-under-14kb-i...
- Springtime 3mo ago
  > with all the GPT hype of late, why havent we seen a single GPT yet capable of building a browser engine from scratch supporting the last 20 years of html, css and js specs? Macsurf is a browser project for Mac OS 9 leveraging LLMs[1] to do this. Tbh it makes sense for this given how time-consuming (absurd? Though the fact it exists tickles me) it'd be otherwise for essentially a single person to support the scope of web tech it does for such an incredibly niche userbase. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48339534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48339534
- konart 3mo ago
  > why dont any of the modern browsers open and load pages instantaneously anymore, why does it take seconds? If we are talking about a blog page, just a static html - it should take some ms. No problem here. But if we are talking about some heavy pages and fetch requests to other places, well... Or simply a page with f 10Mb header image. >apart from gecko and v8 why dont we have browser engines? gecko (Firefox), blink (chrome and friends), webkit (Safari, Kagi and some other, mostly linux distro browsers) are the only stable ones. Servo and Ladybird are on the way, but it will take quite some time for them to mature. >are you familiar with anyone building an entire browser engine from scratch? Ladybird. No idea about specifications. >with all the GPT hype of late, why havent we seen a single GPT yet capable of building a browser engine from scratch supporting the last 20 years of html, css and js specs? Well, aside from the fact that this will be a one expensive project - you (someone) will have to test this code anyway. Also this: https://ladybird.org/posts/changing-how-we-develop-ladybird/ https://ladybird.org/posts/changing-how-we-develop-ladybird/
- felooboolooomba 3mo ago
  Chrome (which I don't use) provides a really good profiler that can give you answers down to the milliseconds on what's happening during page load and also actions. Web tech provides so much functionality but web dev often don't bother optimizing their sites. I'm not saying browsers are blameless, but at least you get good tools that'll give you hints.
crote 3mo ago
> Firefox now verifies and displays Qualified Website Authentication Certificates (QWACs) in accordance with eIDAS regulations. Interesting that they just buried this in the middle without even a screenshot, considering how hostile Mozilla has been to the proposal in the past[0]. Considering that they previously made quite strong arguments that implementing QWAC would undermine security by completely bypassing the existing CA trust process and violate user's privacy by leaking browsing activity to third parties: what changed? It does seem to fit into a wider movement, though. Mozilla previously explicitly considered WebUSB, WebHID, and WebMIDI as "harmful" as they lacked an effective mechanism against hostile websites tricking users into permanently compromising their hardware. This switched to "neutral" without addressing the underlying issue, seemingly just to satisfy some users asking for parity with Chrome out of a convenience argument. Same with Firefox happily jumping onto the AI bandwagon, and only backtracking after major public outcry. Not to be dramatic, but Firefox seems hellbent on rapidly turning into a reimplementation of Chrome, completely ignoring its raison d'être. Will there be any traditional user-serving browsers left a few years from now? [0]: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21330628/mozilla.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21330628/mozilla.pdf
- ls612 3mo ago
  Mozilla’s executives don’t want to get arrested. It’s one thing to tell the Kazakhs to stuff it. Quite another to tell the EU, especially if any of them like overseas vacations.
  - crote 3mo ago
    If they are solely doing it for legal reasons, I would expect some form of malicious compliance - like an accompanying blog post explaining how it'll be marked as "Firefox is legally required to tell you the EU considers this page safe. We disagree. [Learn More]" and that the mark will only be shown to EU users. Complying to the exact letter of a stupid law to avoid getting sued is understandable. Voluntarily complying to the broadest interpretation without any pushback is not.
    - Yizahi 3mo ago
rustyhancock 3mo ago
> It is now possible to merge multiple PDFs by dragging a PDF into the PDF sidebar. > It is now possible to add images as new pages within PDFs using the Firefox PDF editor. I have always found it odd that browsers are also PDF editors increasingly.
- Xerox9213 3mo ago
  I very much appreciate this when working on a computer that’s not mine.
- frereubu 3mo ago
  I think it's a function of the endless tussle between browser-as-an-OS and the OS they run on. For example, I absolutely hate that there's no option in Firefox to only use the OS print dialog. Instead I am force to click print, then click "use system print dialog" every time. I seems to remember reading a bug report where Firefox deemed this intentional and wontfix. After all, if you leave Firefox to print something, maybe you won't ever come back and start using your print dialog to surf the web!
  - OkayPhysicist 3mo ago
    print.prefer_system_dialog = true in about:config does what you want, i think.
    - frereubu 3mo ago
      Ooh, thanks! Will try that out. Edit: yes it does - perfect!
- RattlesnakeJake 3mo ago
  It's odd and I'm not sure I love it compared to a nicely-done dedicated viewer (macOS Preview, SumatraPDF, whatever comes with GNOME or KDE). That said, I'll pick the in-browser tools over Adobe Reader every time.
  - 3mo ago
unethical_ban 3mo ago
They note containers as a new feature. Does this mean containers are shipping with the base installation, instead of as an extension?
- kokada 3mo ago
  It seems so, especially because they explicitly say in the help page[1] that "Multi-Account Containers" brings "a few benefits on top of the native container functionality like site-specific container assignments, syncing across devices, and integration with Mozilla VPN or your own proxy". [1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-containers https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-contain...
- sdk- 3mo ago
  Yes. Containers will be enabled by default in the regular release without the need to install the extension or flip a preference in about:config. It's also planned to integrate the ability to assign a website to a specific container. There's no information available on the other extra features from Multi-Account Containers like VPN/Proxy per container for the moment. You can follow the development on bugzilla https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?component=Containers&list_id=18048687&product=Firefox&query_format=advanced&bug_status=__open__&order=bug_id https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?component=Container...
mikae1 3mo ago
Why does this show “Containers” under new? I've used this feature for years and years...
- SahAssar 3mo ago
  They seem to be different but overlapping: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers#w_common-questions https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers#w_common-que...
  - pavon 3mo ago
    Both Firefox containers and multi-account container extention described in that link have been around for years. Nothing in that page describes what is new/changed in Firefox 153.
mmooss 3mo ago
> Containers let you keep separate parts of your online life (work, shopping, personal, banking) logged into different accounts in the same browser window, but keep your cookies and ad tracking isolated inside each container. What's new here? Containers have been an add-on, at least, for a long time? Is it integrated into core Firefox for the first time? > Quickly pick and copy a color from any page by typing "pick color", "color picker", or "eyedropper" in the address bar and selecting the "Pick a color" quick action. This seems like add-on or developer tools territory. Maybe that's what quick actions are? Does Firefox really want to add non-essential widgets to maintain, support, and integrate going forward? Maybe this one is necessary for some reason? I have a global color-picker that works in every application; I expect many who need one have the same.
- OkayPhysicist 3mo ago
  Devtools are built-in on Firefox, and this one is probably useful to more people than want to be looking at the JS console. I can't imagine the maintenance burden is unreasonable, it's just a combination of features that Firefox already has.
- erichdongubler 3mo ago
  See this reply to a sibling of your comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48980044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48980044
aorth 3mo ago
Awesome! JPEG-XL support is here. I enabled it via the new "Firefox Labs" section in the settings, then tested on https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page.html https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page.html without a restart.
vermaden 3mo ago
Did the fixed [ENTER] (or double-click) in 'Save as...' dialog finally?

80 points by ErenayDev 3mo ago

- extremely stupid question but please entertain me here a bit - why dont any of the modern browsers open and load pages instantaneously anymore, why does it take seconds? - is this because of backward compatibility support where you are supporting html, css and JS features all the way back to the 90s - apart from gecko and v8 why dont we have browser engines? - are you familiar with anyone building an entire browser engine from scratch? how many WhatWG specifications would they have to support - with all the GPT hype of late, why havent we seen a single GPT yet capable of building a browser engine from scratch supporting the last 20 years of html, css and js specs?

celsoazevedo 3mo ago
> why dont any of the modern browsers open and load pages instantaneously anymore, why does it take seconds? Right click > Inspect. Go to the "network" tab, reload the page. Maybe do the same on the "performance" tab.
dragonwriter 3mo ago
> apart from gecko and v8 why dont we have browser engines? You mean apart from Gecko and Blink (v8 is a JS engine, not a browser engine.) But we do, for open source engines we also have WebKit and NetSurf and some others.
madhato 3mo ago
Ladybird is a has new browser engine and coming along nicely: https://ladybird.org/ https://ladybird.org/
mjorgers 3mo ago
> are you familiar with anyone building an entire browser engine from scratch? Ladybird [1] is exactly that. Started as browser for the SerenityOS project [2] but ended up being spun off as its own project. [1] https://ladybird.org/ https://ladybird.org/ [2] https://serenityos.org/ https://serenityos.org/
ErenayDev 3mo ago
if a website's bundle is <14kb, it will load instantly. https://endtimes.dev/why-your-website-should-be-under-14kb-in-size/ https://endtimes.dev/why-your-website-should-be-under-14kb-i...
Springtime 3mo ago
> with all the GPT hype of late, why havent we seen a single GPT yet capable of building a browser engine from scratch supporting the last 20 years of html, css and js specs? Macsurf is a browser project for Mac OS 9 leveraging LLMs[1] to do this. Tbh it makes sense for this given how time-consuming (absurd? Though the fact it exists tickles me) it'd be otherwise for essentially a single person to support the scope of web tech it does for such an incredibly niche userbase. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48339534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48339534
konart 3mo ago
> why dont any of the modern browsers open and load pages instantaneously anymore, why does it take seconds? If we are talking about a blog page, just a static html - it should take some ms. No problem here. But if we are talking about some heavy pages and fetch requests to other places, well... Or simply a page with f 10Mb header image. >apart from gecko and v8 why dont we have browser engines? gecko (Firefox), blink (chrome and friends), webkit (Safari, Kagi and some other, mostly linux distro browsers) are the only stable ones. Servo and Ladybird are on the way, but it will take quite some time for them to mature. >are you familiar with anyone building an entire browser engine from scratch? Ladybird. No idea about specifications. >with all the GPT hype of late, why havent we seen a single GPT yet capable of building a browser engine from scratch supporting the last 20 years of html, css and js specs? Well, aside from the fact that this will be a one expensive project - you (someone) will have to test this code anyway. Also this: https://ladybird.org/posts/changing-how-we-develop-ladybird/ https://ladybird.org/posts/changing-how-we-develop-ladybird/
felooboolooomba 3mo ago
Chrome (which I don't use) provides a really good profiler that can give you answers down to the milliseconds on what's happening during page load and also actions. Web tech provides so much functionality but web dev often don't bother optimizing their sites. I'm not saying browsers are blameless, but at least you get good tools that'll give you hints.

crote 3mo ago

> Firefox now verifies and displays Qualified Website Authentication Certificates (QWACs) in accordance with eIDAS regulations. Interesting that they just buried this in the middle without even a screenshot, considering how hostile Mozilla has been to the proposal in the past[0]. Considering that they previously made quite strong arguments that implementing QWAC would undermine security by completely bypassing the existing CA trust process and violate user's privacy by leaking browsing activity to third parties: what changed? It does seem to fit into a wider movement, though. Mozilla previously explicitly considered WebUSB, WebHID, and WebMIDI as "harmful" as they lacked an effective mechanism against hostile websites tricking users into permanently compromising their hardware. This switched to "neutral" without addressing the underlying issue, seemingly just to satisfy some users asking for parity with Chrome out of a convenience argument. Same with Firefox happily jumping onto the AI bandwagon, and only backtracking after major public outcry. Not to be dramatic, but Firefox seems hellbent on rapidly turning into a reimplementation of Chrome, completely ignoring its raison d'être. Will there be any traditional user-serving browsers left a few years from now? [0]: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21330628/mozilla.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21330628/mozilla.pdf

ls612 3mo ago
Mozilla’s executives don’t want to get arrested. It’s one thing to tell the Kazakhs to stuff it. Quite another to tell the EU, especially if any of them like overseas vacations.
- crote 3mo ago
  If they are solely doing it for legal reasons, I would expect some form of malicious compliance - like an accompanying blog post explaining how it'll be marked as "Firefox is legally required to tell you the EU considers this page safe. We disagree. [Learn More]" and that the mark will only be shown to EU users. Complying to the exact letter of a stupid law to avoid getting sued is understandable. Voluntarily complying to the broadest interpretation without any pushback is not.
  - Yizahi 3mo ago

rustyhancock 3mo ago

> It is now possible to merge multiple PDFs by dragging a PDF into the PDF sidebar. > It is now possible to add images as new pages within PDFs using the Firefox PDF editor. I have always found it odd that browsers are also PDF editors increasingly.

Xerox9213 3mo ago
I very much appreciate this when working on a computer that’s not mine.
frereubu 3mo ago
I think it's a function of the endless tussle between browser-as-an-OS and the OS they run on. For example, I absolutely hate that there's no option in Firefox to only use the OS print dialog. Instead I am force to click print, then click "use system print dialog" every time. I seems to remember reading a bug report where Firefox deemed this intentional and wontfix. After all, if you leave Firefox to print something, maybe you won't ever come back and start using your print dialog to surf the web!
- OkayPhysicist 3mo ago
  print.prefer_system_dialog = true in about:config does what you want, i think.
  - frereubu 3mo ago
    Ooh, thanks! Will try that out. Edit: yes it does - perfect!
RattlesnakeJake 3mo ago
It's odd and I'm not sure I love it compared to a nicely-done dedicated viewer (macOS Preview, SumatraPDF, whatever comes with GNOME or KDE). That said, I'll pick the in-browser tools over Adobe Reader every time.
- 3mo ago

unethical_ban 3mo ago

They note containers as a new feature. Does this mean containers are shipping with the base installation, instead of as an extension?

kokada 3mo ago
It seems so, especially because they explicitly say in the help page[1] that "Multi-Account Containers" brings "a few benefits on top of the native container functionality like site-specific container assignments, syncing across devices, and integration with Mozilla VPN or your own proxy". [1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-containers https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-contain...
sdk- 3mo ago
Yes. Containers will be enabled by default in the regular release without the need to install the extension or flip a preference in about:config. It's also planned to integrate the ability to assign a website to a specific container. There's no information available on the other extra features from Multi-Account Containers like VPN/Proxy per container for the moment. You can follow the development on bugzilla https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?component=Containers&list_id=18048687&product=Firefox&query_format=advanced&bug_status=__open__&order=bug_id https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?component=Container...

mikae1 3mo ago

Why does this show “Containers” under new? I've used this feature for years and years...

SahAssar 3mo ago
They seem to be different but overlapping: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers#w_common-questions https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers#w_common-que...
- pavon 3mo ago
  Both Firefox containers and multi-account container extention described in that link have been around for years. Nothing in that page describes what is new/changed in Firefox 153.

mmooss 3mo ago

> Containers let you keep separate parts of your online life (work, shopping, personal, banking) logged into different accounts in the same browser window, but keep your cookies and ad tracking isolated inside each container. What's new here? Containers have been an add-on, at least, for a long time? Is it integrated into core Firefox for the first time? > Quickly pick and copy a color from any page by typing "pick color", "color picker", or "eyedropper" in the address bar and selecting the "Pick a color" quick action. This seems like add-on or developer tools territory. Maybe that's what quick actions are? Does Firefox really want to add non-essential widgets to maintain, support, and integrate going forward? Maybe this one is necessary for some reason? I have a global color-picker that works in every application; I expect many who need one have the same.

OkayPhysicist 3mo ago
Devtools are built-in on Firefox, and this one is probably useful to more people than want to be looking at the JS console. I can't imagine the maintenance burden is unreasonable, it's just a combination of features that Firefox already has.
erichdongubler 3mo ago
See this reply to a sibling of your comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48980044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48980044

aorth 3mo ago

Awesome! JPEG-XL support is here. I enabled it via the new "Firefox Labs" section in the settings, then tested on https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page.html https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page.html without a restart.

vermaden 3mo ago

Did the fixed [ENTER] (or double-click) in 'Save as...' dialog finally?