Quantum kicks ass
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
I am a translator!
So.. I was curious so yesterday I downloaded it to try and see, and oh boy oh boy is it smooth and snappy. Firefox is back from the limbo of bloated crapware it would appear. If you use older hardware like myself you are in for a big surprise. About time Mouzilla, about time :)
I can confirm: 57 really flies. I’ll stick to FF 52 ESR, though, until Noscript is ready and out.
I am a translator!
Well, I have used it for a couple of days with javascript.enabled turned off in about:config. Today I installed noscript, which is also the only addon I have used lately.. So, I am set :)
When we gets the Icecat version?
(I propose we call it 'Schrodinger's Icecat' ;-) )
*Schrödinger's cat* is a thought experiment often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of *quantum* mechanics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat
Quantum is an ongoing Mozilla project encompassing several software development efforts to "build the next-generation web engine for Firefox users". It includes numerous improvements to the Gecko web browser engine of Firefox, largely incorporated from the experimental Servo project. *Firefox 57* is the initial version with a Servo component enabled. Mozilla dubs this and several planned future releases "*Firefox Quantum*".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_(software)
Ice*Cat* is a free software rebranding of the Mozilla Firefox web browser.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat
Mix all that (especially the words between "*") and IceCat 57 should be called "Schrödinger's IceCat". Good one. :-)
I am a member!
I know about that.
I was asking if the joke was funny because it was an implication that IceCat is simultaneously dead and alive, and you won't know until you install it.
No, I wasn't trying to be that clever ..
The joke was funny because it was mine - lol! XD
No problem, Heather. I'm glad you are here too. I think we have a great community here on the Trisquel forum and hopefully we can all move the cause of free software forward together :-)
I haven't tried Firefox Quantum myself yet, but I will report back if/when I do.
I dislike the new icon though. Icons are becoming simpler even as computers are becoming more powerful and therefore less burdened by detailed and complex icons.
Who needs ultra 4k HD icons?
Really thought you're talking about me!!
Thanks for the tip. It is pretty fast indeed.
I guess I will try 57 out, but I'm sticking with 52 ESR until 59 ESR comes out. Hopefully by then all of my addons will have WebExtensions versions... Specifically the password-related ones for which there are no WebExtensions APIs yet.
(By the way a WebExtensions version of NoScript is out.)
EDIT: It is faster than 52 ESR. Other than the addons thing, I'd like to tweak the UI, but I'll wait until 59 ESR before doing that. Also the new NoScript isn't as full-featured as the old one and has a different UI.
I use the KWallet extension and Saved Password Editor.
However, Abrowser will be (or "is") on the Trisquel repos? Because Parabola hackers haves some issues for compile it and I don't know if the rebranding proceeding has been changed for Firefox Quantum.
I've tested Firefox 57 and floats!
Quidam is working on it: https://devel.trisquel.info/trisquel/package-helpers/commit/c9c343408cb50b55269523d1a1be25180a2292af
Yay! Do you think Tor Browser will use this as its new base?
Once 59 ESR comes out.
Supertramp
Monsenor what version did you downloaded from? what version for windows, debian or a specific one.
Im using firefox 47.00 what version are we talking about.
Guys if new Firefox flies, what about RAM consumption?
Good question! My biggest issue with the old Firefox was that it quickly shovelled all of my RAM into a burlap sack and then made all my other applications ask *very* nicely, if they ever wanted to use any of it ..
"You other guys aren't going to be needing any of this, are you?" ;)
I am a translator!
>Guys if new Firefox flies, what about RAM consumption?
It is very good. Vanilla FF without addons takes approximately 140 mb RAM here while 52 used to take around 210..
But really, the big difference is noticeable on old hardware and on heavy pages. Diaspora for example, the feeling I get it is at least twice smoother, I kid you not :)
Mouzilllaa \o/
EDIT: it is actually consuming 138 mb of RAM with noscript installed here.. wonderful. Also, opening say 15 tabs doesn't slow it down apparently nor does it increase the RAM too much. If you go on say medium.com with an old craptop like mine with FF 52 you will have to wait like 8 seconds for the screen to become usable, so big is the lag of the GUI. With 57 it loads immediately, all the text and the page is immediately scrollable, while the ton of pictures loads.
It takes me 12 seconds to start it the first time (freshly booted OS) and then 5 seconds to hit the searx page, my home page. Used to be a lot more with 52, like 25-15 ..
Just great, they did a great work. Now the only thing to see is how much the mountain of security bugs will be tall :P
SuperTramp can you share your computer hardware specifications? (CPU, RAM, GPU)
That is true, the only way to test if a program is efficient, is with old hardware, limited ram, or netbooks.
I am a translator!
Sure, vita_cell, it's an old (2007) laptop, AMD cpu dual core 1900 Mhz max, 3 gb RAM (old original ram), GPU old nvidia.
A 2007 laptop completely loading Firefox in 5 seconds on each subsequent load, and then running smooth as hell all the time on all websites - fantastic :)
Don't have to wait 20 seconds anymore, which was one of the things that annoyed me the most.. \o/
Wow, so, they did a great job.
Yeah, this sounds very good :)
I wish Mozilla had done a release that supported both types of add-ons so that the add-on transition could be smoother. But oh well, what's done is done.
What do you mean? WebExtension's implementation in Firefox has been considered stable since version 48: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/04/29/webextensions-in-firefox-48/
Really? So version 48 supports both? In that case, I wonder what took all the add-on developers so long to convert their extensions over.
When my browser got updated, there were no add-ons that could turn JavaScript off. Now there are two that I'm aware of, and both are completely inadequate because they don't cause noscript tags to show up (NoScript is one of the two). So now, I'm stuck with toggling JavaScript in about:config, because that's literally the only possible way to toggle JavaScript (and the irony of this is that the fact that the old NoScript could effectively work as a JavaScript toggle was one of the justifications for removing the "JavaScript" checkbox in the options menu).
Hopefully add-ons will catch up eventually. As it is, the only incentives I have to use Firefox instead of another libre browser (like Midori) are WebKit security issues and the fact that I've already got all my bookmarks and saved passwords in Firefox.
* Firefox (with Greasemonkey) is the only browser I've used where user scripts work without other JavaScript enabled. I'm not sure why.
I am a member!
Firefox is the only free browser that can run free web apps.
And yes, I'm quite annoyed that just because you turn JavaScript off with an extension, every site thinks you have JS enabled, and they won't serve the non-JS version. I hate how poor the image results in searx.me are, but at least it works without Google's JavaScript botnet.
The noscript tag isn't "served" based on what the server thinks, it's a browser behavior to cause content within those tags to be visible. The problem is that the extensions in question don't actually disable JavaScript, so Firefox's un-hiding of these elements is not triggered. In the previous version of NoScript, it was (as long as you had that enabled in the add-on preferences).
For me it's not just annoying, it's completely unworkable. One of the forums I frequent has a silly JavaScript-based "rich text" post editor and a fallback basic one inside a noscript tag. If I have the new NoScript enabled, I cannot post at all on that forum (unless I whitelist that site and allow its JavaScript to run).
Abrowser is already updated to version 57.0 :)
I am a member!
What?! Really?!
Ign http://nl.archive.trisquel.info belenos-updates/main Translation-en
Fetched 5,209 B in 5s (1,011 B/s)
Reading package lists... Done
cal@leela:~$ apt search abrowser
Sorting... Done
Full Text Search... Done
abrowser/belenos-security,belenos-updates,now 56.0+build6-0ubuntu0.14.04.2+7.0trisquel49 amd64 [installed]
Safe and easy web browser from Mozilla
No...
And I did sudo apt update
I am a member!
Quantum really does kick ass. I can browse the Web while loading heavy apps like Riot. I can't wait for Abrowser 57. (Firefox is filled with annoying ads and links to services that require proprietary JavaScript.)
I am a translator!
Just a friendly reminder for those using the new noscript extension and having troubles figuring out how to make it as secure as the old one (well, almost.. clickjacking and ABE are still missing).
Instead of untrusting websites and making long list just make your default 'all unchecked'. Strictest 'custom' to make a website completely usable (diaspora for instance) is you check only "script" and "fetch".
Also, and I say this coz I've read people having trouble with it too.. To purge the default whitelist (which will let you execute js from eww google and amazon etc), click on 'debug' in the bottom and remove manually from the text below the entries in 'allowed'.
supertramp
I download from the website and I'm impress with it, specially the speed and clarity. Yet the foot print is very sort of stable.
my panoptclick results are
How well are you protected against non-consensual Web tracking? After analyzing your browser and add-ons, the answer is ...
Yes! You have strong protection against Web tracking, though your software isn’t checking for Do Not Track policies.
Help us defend the Web against tracking:
Test Result
Is your browser blocking tracking ads? ✓ yes
Is your browser blocking invisible trackers? ✓ yes
Does your browser unblock 3rd parties that promise to honor Do Not Track? ✗ no
Does your browser protect from fingerprinting? ✗
your browser has a unique fingerprint
Note: because tracking techniques are complex, subtle, and constantly evolving, Panopticlick does not measure all forms of tracking and protection.
Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 846,502 tested so far.
Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 19.69 bits of identifying information.
Did you decided to use abrowser or icecat?
I am a translator!
viejito, if you open up your TorBB and copy the value for the useragent (windows7, ff-esr) and disable js and redo the test you should see your fingerprint has lowered drastically.
Another good website to check the fingerprint is https://browserprint.info/
anybody can Pocket be disabled completely it is annoying. also firefox 57 addons are not compatible with the old firefox-es
I am a translator!
extensions.pocket.enabled false
extensions.pocket.site
extensions.pocket.api
That should disable it completely I guess.
(Those are two blanks, meaning you leave it empty, the value I mean)
EDIT:
Also this one, to remove it from the GUI completely ->
browser.newtabpage.activity-stream.feeds.section.topstories false
I am a translator!
I like the 'density - compact' in customize, less space taken by GUI, more space for teh site. I heard in the next version or two there will also be an option to hide the titlebar, that's even more space, very useful for those with small monitors, think laptops.
In the meanwhile been experimenting with devilspie as described here.
Looks good..
I am a translator!
For me the latest abrowser (57) is very slow. Startup is fast, but it now takes me over 4 seconds to completely load a page, e.g. Slashdot. I'm using the following enabled add-ons: Dark Background and Light Text, NoScript, uBlock Origin (was pre-installed by default), User Agent Switcher 1.12 (as a replacement for the regular User Agent Switcher), Violentmonkey (as Greasemonkey doesn't seem to work) and YouTube Video and Audio Downloader (as a substitute for Download Flash and Video which didn't find any videos on YouTube with JavaScript disabled). I still didn't find any replacements for DownThemAll! or FlashGot. It isn't my main browser thankfully (and it won't be as long as PulseAudio is a requirement), but it's still rather disappointing.
I am a translator!
Did you start fresh when you installed it? Also ublock should definitely not come preinstalled..
I recommend you purge your .mozilla folder in home and your mozilla cache in /home/.cache, start it up and install one addon at the time, so you can spot the one that is slowing it down for you. Quantum should be fast for you.
I am a translator!
Yeah I started fresh (I deleted the profile folder).
I think uBlock came preinstalled on the version I got from AUR (on Hyperbola). I think the offending add-on is the color inverter - unfortunately the interface is unusable with inverted colors unlike Seamonkey. It takes a whole second to invert the colors after loading the page.
On a netbook Abrowser 57 simply froze while installing add-ons. On a T60 it works OK (startup is fast but pages take 2 seconds longer than Seamonkey to load), but much slower than Seamonkey (and much less functional: no ALSA, no Mozplugger/mpv, no legacy add-ons etc).
Smooth as silk...
I think the fact it has the "Recommended by Pocket" section on the new tab by default is quite intrusive. It's basically like an advertisement and it does seem to be tailored to my interests (which makes me wonder how they got this information in the first place). I know you can easily disable it but the fact that it is there in the first place by default really annoys me.
Also the fact that a lot of security-related addons are no longer supported like Request Policy really sucks. The fact that all the add-ons have to be re-written just for this quantum update seems really inconvenient.
oralfloss said:
The fact that all the add-ons have to be re-written just for this quantum update seems really inconvenient.
It boils down on the writing of the new web browser, I don't see any problems with updating those security related addons.
If the developer does not want to update and release new patches is their decision and losses. I believe the privacy part is not violated. That is just my opinion others my differ.
I am a member!
Switching to WebExtensions is important. It standardizes the format for
browser extensions so that you can write an extension once and it will
generally work in any browser that supports browser extensions.
You don't want Mozilla to keep changing the extension format, do you?
WebExtensions is the last time we'll ever have to change it, because
it's a standard supported by Chrome, Edge and Safari.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios