rockdoe

28 ms·

1. 271.▲
   by rockdoe 11y ago

   Firefox is using the newer WKWebView, unlike Chrome.
2. 272.▲
   by rockdoe 11y ago

   This would be an argument if Firefox for Android didn't ship the entire browser stack. IIRC it's about 40 Mb, total.
3. 273.▲
   by rockdoe 11y ago

   >Are there any downsides for the user when disabling tracking scripts all the time? Some websites break. In my experience very few though. Also many seem to be missing a lot of ads. This is terrible, cough cough .
4. 274.▲
   by rockdoe 11y ago

   >Almost all of the lines of code are C++ Significant parts of the functionality are written in JS. >but how often is web performance bounded by UI performance? It's often bounded by JS performance. JS performance depends on the J
5. 275.▲
   by rockdoe 11y ago

   PaleMoon is even more outdated, it's an old Firefox ESR.
6. 276.▲
   by rockdoe 11y ago

   They don't have Australis because they're based on an older Firefox ESR. Stripping out features that are lazily-loaded JS files and in return being stuck with outdated stuff feels like a very weird tradeoff to me.
7. 277.▲
   by rockdoe 11y ago

   I don't think those are very reliable benchmarks because they throw the entire 64/32-bit browser engine and Android stack (which at the time was the very first spin of Android 5) into the mix. Then there's the mix of clockspe
8. 278.▲
   by rockdoe 11y ago

   They either don't sandbox at all or they backported the new 64-bit NPAPI Sandbox from Mozilla: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1185532#c29
9. 279.▲
   by rockdoe 11y ago

   So this is basically older versions of Firefox compiled with the Intel C++ Compiler? Given that most of Firefox is in JS so the actual code that you end up running is the JIT output, I'd be very skeptical it's any faster. They cer
10. 280.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    Are you sure? This is with Nightly: Your browser SUPPORTS Sub-Resource Integrity
11. 281.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    So much for open web standards? (Which definitely requires multiple implementations, that is to say competing rendering engines)
12. 282.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    That presumes Apple's Webkit has the necessary support, or even worse, that if Mozilla would improve a competing rendering engine (i.e. Webkit) to support it, then Apple would take these improvements and expose them to non-Safari brows
13. 283.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    Does it work in Firefox for Android? It has the same engine as Desktop Firefox. Firefox on iOS can't due to Apple limitations.
14. 284.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    WebRTC isn't supported as iOS WebKit has no support for it. There might be extremely elaborate workarounds possible to get it working anyway: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1200791
15. 285.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    XUL requires engine support, so I have no idea how you think that could have worked.
16. 286.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    Got any references?
17. 287.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    Bookmark and history sync I presume, as well as any other features they come up with. I'd guess Tracking Protection will come at some point?
18. 288.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    Google Chrome sure does.
19. 289.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    That's an excellent point.
20. 290.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    It's in every browsers' User Agent. I think it's code for "not ancient IE".
21. 291.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    The JS that Mozilla serves (and the server that gets the reply) is potentially under control of the US government. Trust of Mozilla has got nothing to do with it. It shouldn't even be a requirement.
22. 292.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    This reasoning just doesn't apply at all to open source software like Firefox. I think the reason OP points this out is because the old Sync system that Firefox had was much more secure (but unusable by the general public). We know thi
23. 293.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    The browser is not the question. The problem is the cloud sync feature. What this has got to do with iOS? I guess people will want to use this to cloud sync their desktop Firefox?
24. 294.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    Interesting that they seem to have dropped Project Denver in favor of A57 cores. I guess the issue is that big.LITTLE has big power advantages?
25. 295.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    ~~You only get 4 usable at any given time. Either the big core runs (A57) or the LITTLE core (A53) runs.~~ Sounds like I'm mistaken.
26. 296.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    who they think are the conspirators Whoever wants to make the ruling government accountable for their actions. Basically, look at any totalitarian society.
27. 297.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    There's the prior of the total number of women involved with the (respective) tech, though. Of course it's a self-reinforcing cycle because the conferences being hostile is clearly one thing that'd keep them out.
28. 298.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    There was some discussion about the Mozilla CoC in another sidethread here. If you constrast it with the LLVM CoC, there's an interesting tidbit in that the Mozilla one spells out explicitly that discussion in non-Mozilla spaces does n
29. 299.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    I completely agree that a generic feel-good document does nothing. It shuts the people up who demand a CoC. (Not disagreeing with anything you said). If I get it correctly, the LLVM one (comparing to the Mozilla one) spells out more expli
30. 300.▲
    by rockdoe 11y ago

    Just look at the number of libraries (even project specific ones) Chromium pulls in. The projects are huge enough to accommodate quite a few people.