Font viewer, responsive design tools, the 3d view (very handy in debugging silly box model issues) and highlight painted area mode (handy in optimizing visualizations) are all things I love that I haven't been able to find good analogues for in other browsers.
Also, I'm pretty convinced the dev tools have some sort of memory leak in them. Every 3-5 days I have to restart Firefox or my game runs so slow it's unplayable. I don't think it has to do with my code because I've got no persistent store and refreshing the page doesn't fix it. Restarting the browser always does.
Sometimes the debugger gets confused and puts breakpoints on things I no longer have breakpoints on.
The profiler does not have a very useful view. I can't figure out how to delete reports I've made without closing the dev tools. More importantly, I can't find a convenient way to answer the question, "What are the slowest parts of this code?" I have to do a lot of manual labor expanding deeply nested trees.
As I said, it's pretty good. These are just things I'd like to see improved, not things that drive me crazy. I prefer the dev tools to firebug because firebug takes a relatively long time to start up.
Re: this update, I'm embarrassed to say I didn't know console.error even existed (I don't consider myself a JS expert). I've been using `throw new Error("message")`. Will that show stack traces now, too? I always have to put breakpoints on the line with the throw to figure out the call stack. This can add a lot of time to my debugging if I'm not sure how to reproduce the error.
You might want to leave feedback there.
I don't recommend using it any longer...
is there something similar for the built-in console?
Hi, Google. Would you just look at what I downloaded!
Reading the changelog, it also mentions having local and remote blacklists, but how FF chooses which one to use wasn't clear to me. Local blacklists are not as scary to me for obvious reasons. Being able to use this without the remote blacklist would be nice.
I would really love some additional info on this feature from Mozilla, as well as a more user-friendly way of disabling it.
There's a third way according to the feature's development documentation [0]: uncheck "Options"/"Preferences" -> "Security" -> "Block reported attack sites".
[0]: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Features/Application_Reput...
1) Check local blacklist 2) Check local whitelist 3) If no hits on either, check remote service
> It’s important to note that any time Safe Browsing sends data back to Google, such as information about a suspected phishing page or malicious file, the information is only used to flag malicious activity and is never used anywhere else at Google.
* Unless the NSA has asked us to share it with them.
Edit: This is a serious concern. Google's promise not to use this data is completely meaningless in today's world.
But does it say the information is anonymized and promptly deleted, and nothing is logged?
* 47% improvement in malware detection with the current implementation
* 87% improvement in malware detection possible when the feature is complete
I can see why that trade-off was made.
But why not allow users to make their own choice and disable the privacy compromise easily?
They used to use a bloom filter with a regular download list, which would allow local checks without revealing every URL, but it looks like that changed at least for Chrome: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=71832
(safebrowsing.appRepURL for the curious)
but every page. as that service is run for every url. at least it was on aurora.
also, expect network pre-fetch links soon since google also likes that. so they can know what you visited even if you don't click it.
Same with clearing the download list. They removed that feature with the last major UI overhaul.
The number of tiny addons I have to install just to get features back that have been removed for no reason at all is starting to get too large...
Better support but not by Firefox and more discoverable, but not in Firefox...
I already have to use some user CSS because they removed the ability to set the tab min width via `browser.tabs.tabMinWidth`, because that property wasn't "worth it" according to one developer.
Edit: Turns out Classic Theme Restorer has an option for that.
That is a nightmare to set now if you want tabs to go below about 40 pixels, thanks to the Australis swoops. It used to be one line of CSS to set min width to 0-ish, now I have a giant blob of custom CSS on top of Classic Theme Restorer.
.tab-close-button { visibility: collapse !important; }
Chrome had an experimental version, but removed it for performance reasons:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink...
Usually it happens with Gmail so maybe there is a conspiracy there to drive adoption for Chrome :p
It looks like the prefs to enable it have been shipping beyond the nightly and are in the latest release.
EDIT: looks fairly stable. Back to Firefox.
[1] http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/process-...
- Ability to re-order existing panels in browser homescreen - Added ability to refresh synced tabs on demand
Just that Firefox itself shouldn't cause it any more.
"What happens when you download malware? Firefox checks URLs associated with the download against a local Safe Browsing blocklist. If the binary is signed, Firefox checks the verified signature against a local allowlist of known good publishers. If no match is found, Firefox 32 and later queries the Safe Browsing service with download metadata (NB: this happens only on Windows, because signature verification APIs to suppress remote lookups are only available on Windows). In case malware is detected, the Download Manager will block access to the downloaded file and remove it from disk, displaying an error in the Downloads Panel below.
How can I turn this feature off? This feature respects the existing Safe Browsing preference for malware detection, so if you’ve already turned that off, there’s nothing further to do. Below is a screenshot of the new, beautiful in-content preferences (Preferences > Security) with all Safe Browsing integration turned off. I strongly recommend against turning off malware detection, but if you decide to do so, keep in mind that phishing detection also relies on Safe Browsing."
The MathML torture test shoes some very nice progress[1] but makes me ask myself once again, why do TeX fonts always look like crap? Isn't that the one thing that TeX should get right? Anyway, at least they look great as rendered by Firefox 31.
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/MathML_Proj...
Finally! I've been waiting for this. This means we can drop the polyfill on MediaCrush soon. I'm also pretty excited about the add-on debugger.
I'm talking about actions you do multiple times an hour - opening a new tab, closing a tab, rearranging tabs etc.
This is with no extensions in use, on a mid-2011 fully specced out macbook air.
It's unfortunate but the lag is clear and I can't use it as my primary when I know a better solution is right in front of me, that being Chrome.
Instead of accepting that Firefox may indeed have performance problem, you immediately discount this possibility, instead blaming it on mr_november's computer.
It's irrelevant that it isn't happening on your laptop that's over 2 years newer than his is. It's irrelevant that it isn't happening on your Ubuntu system. None of that matters.
I don't doubt for a second that he is in fact running into performance problems with Firefox. He isn't alone. Many people report Firefox having worse performance than Chrome does on the same system. I've experienced this, too.
Yet instead of addressing and fixing these very real performance problems that have been brought up time and time again by many users, the Firefox community and developers seem content to deny that they exist, or refuse to consider that it may be a problem with Firefox (like you've done), or point to useless and totally unrealistic benchmarks to suggest it isn't a problem.
But worst of all is how mr_november's comment has been voted down. It's one thing to deny that the problem exists, but it's much worse to try to actively censor those who have merely pointed out a very legitimate and troubling issue.
Firefox has been losing market share for some time now, and this trend will only continue as long as Firefox's performance problems go unaddressed, and the Firefox community mistreats anyone who dares mention that such problems still exist.
Hope to see this land in Chrome.
This should also only apply if you have the HTML5 player enabled on YouTube, the Flash player should still show the 1080p option.
EME is for browser video DRM.
I'm asking because of course some videos do not have a 1080p option in the first place.
status-firefox31: disabled
status-firefox32: fixed
Note the "we haven't seen any demand for this in our feedback channels".
Since there is no free-lunch, i'm pretty sure the people running those services are mining that data for advertising or something. I know google is with chrome. Malware protection and translator services phoning home on every page, and pre-fetch adding the links you haven't clicked yet to that list...