I'm more worried about Firefox' stability these days...
It helps if you file bugs in Bugzilla. You can link to them here, there's a good chance a developer will find them.
Readit NewsDeleted Comment
gcp commented on Mozilla's new Firefox Linux package for Ubuntu and Debian derivatives blog.mozilla.org/en/produ... · Posted by u/mfsch
End users also have plenty of reason to dislike change. Change tends to mean things like exciting new spying and UI regressions. Meanwhile, security concerns are often overblown. If you're just using your browser for e.g. email, news, facebook, youtube, netflix, amazon, and your bank, and not venturing out into the seedier parts of the web, you're probably at ~0% risk of some RCE exploit. In any case, an adblocker is probably better protection than auto-updates.
Change tends to mean things like exciting new spying and UI regressions
Or missing out on new anti-fingerprinting and anti-tracking improvements. Note that adblockers don't generally do the former.
gcp commented on Mozilla's new Firefox Linux package for Ubuntu and Debian derivatives blog.mozilla.org/en/produ... · Posted by u/mfsch
gcp commented on Mozilla's new Firefox Linux package for Ubuntu and Debian derivatives blog.mozilla.org/en/produ... · Posted by u/mfsch
> it just doesn't complain about it
This is the key point. I'm assuming that it downloads the update and then waits for me to agree to install it, but however it works it doesn't interrupt my browsing while I'm in the middle of something.
This is how Mozilla's own updater works (if you use the .tar.gz version), but the distro package updater just overwrites everything without waiting and applications like Firefox have no control over that. As a user, you'd really want to disable unattended updates for such software.
It's not an issue for these .deb packages because they enable the (experimental) forkserver.
I have malwarebytes premium and defender CPU usage is nearly 100% at times bringin Firefox to a halt. Chrome works fine..I've been blaming Firefox so far.
Did you report this on Bugzilla? Even if it's not Firefox's fault if you don't report it no-one knows about the issue.
Recent versions of Firefox allow you to block some stuff like that: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/identify-problems-third...
Though it's possible they use different code injection tricks to make blocking impossible. (You can't block Defender from listening to events for example)
"This feature is currently enabled on Windows and will be deployed later for macOS and Linux as well"
Look forward to trying this out when it becomes available for an OS I use.
One reason why it shipped on Windows first is that the situation is more serious there. The article goes into details why the different overcommit behavior is more problematic on Windows, and you're more likely to OOM there as a result.
Getting macOS to OOM is actually pretty difficult, we probably want to unload tabs before that point for performance (swap!) reasons, but that's also harder to measure very reliably.
Why wait until a crash is imminent? Before I hop on an important video conf I have to remember to open Activity Monitor and manually kill all the FirefoxCP Web Content processes. It crashes each tab and frees up all the memory.
Because for some people their open sites, and the ability to switch quickly between them, is the most important use of their machine and what they want their RAM to be used for.
Interesting because I have only 5 extensions. The heaviest extension seems to be Dark Reader which causes over 5 point changes.
Not sure if it's a coding issue in the Firefox version of Dark Reader, or it's hitting some slow path in Firefox itself.