Firefox Quantum

MiyoLinux · 2017-11-17 16:01:21

I know there's not much "love" for Firefox lately, but I have to say...

...this latest Firefox Quantum is blazing fast.

Version 57.0, first offered to Release channel users on November 14, 2017
Brace yourself for an all-new Firefox. It’s fast. Really fast. It’s over twice as fast as Firefox from 6 months ago, built on a completely overhauled core engine with brand new technology from our advanced research group, and graced with a clean, modern interface. Today is the first of several releases we’re calling Firefox Quantum, all designed to get to the things you love and the stuff you need faster than ever before. Experience the difference on desktops running Windows, macOS, and Linux; on Android, speed improvements are landing as well, and both Android and iOS have a new look and feel. To learn more about Firefox Quantum, visit the Mozilla Blog.
Making Firefox look, feel and perform faster was no small feat. Employees and volunteers from around the world worked in record time to create the best Firefox yet. We'd like to extend a special thank you to all of the new Mozillians who contributed to this release of Firefox!

golinux · 2017-11-17 16:21:55

And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you . . . FF without the addons I've been using for years is a non-starter regardless of how fast it supposedly is. My old FF is pretty snappy so had no complaints about speed before. The biggest annoyance I have is that it's a memory hog and needs to be reloaded regularly.

MiyoLinux · 2017-11-17 16:34:13

golinux wrote:

And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you . . . FF without the addons I've been using for years is a non-starter regardless of how fast it supposedly is. My old FF is pretty snappy so had no complaints about speed before. The biggest annoyance I have is that it's a memory hog and needs to be reloaded regularly.

So you're the one who owns that bridge! I would offer you a 5-spot for it, but I don't want it.

I don't know golinux...I'm not much of an internet surfer, so I can only say what I personally experience. I've never had a problem with the speed of Firefox before, and the only add-ons I use are uBlock-Origin and Privacy Badger.

All that I know is based on my internet habits, the new Firefox Quantum is definitely much faster...but that doesn't really matter to me. I just thought it might be of interest to others...whether good or bad.

golinux · 2017-11-17 17:21:37

Well, I have 23 addons. Many of them help to put FF back like it was before Mozilla screwed the pooch. Without them, being online would really, really suck.

MiyoLinux · 2017-11-17 17:58:48

Wow! I have about 4...maybe 5 sites that I visit regularly. Every now and then, I go all whack-a-doodle and search to see if there's any new Openbox stuff of interest. I guess I'm just boring. LOL!

greenjeans · 2017-11-17 22:39:21

Trying it now (just extracted, not installed) and I have to say first impressions are good, it's so much faster than the crappy esr (52?) that it doesn't even seem like the same family of browser.

@golinux: you may have an add-on problem, lol, 23 seems a little.....excessive.

Honored my GTK2 theme (Miyolinux Dark + Vuu-do'ed Numix Frost) right out of the box, I appreciate that quite a bit.

*EDIT* woops, spoke too soon, tried youtube and this browser says it requires Pulseaudio for sound, zero chance i'm installing that junk just to use this browser. Pretty stupid move IMO.

Last edited by greenjeans (2017-11-17 22:43:14)

fungus · 2017-11-18 01:29:58

I can see tor people moving their show to palemoon or iceweasel

It seems like Mozilla is adopting an Intel approach to things. The faster it becomes and the quicker it evolves the less of importance security issues have when they are discovered. Who is putting money that this thing is not going to become the next big security nightmare for the next 2 years? I am on

Why does it sound scary to me just reading your reviews?

Because I am paranoid, that's why.

OK move on, there is nothing to see here
Mozilla has gotten this odor of stinkin ( a real word in the US dictionary) for years now.
Just follow the money, they always go to those who are after "no good".

fungus · 2017-11-18 01:33:12

greenjeans wrote:

*EDIT* woops, spoke too soon, tried youtube and this browser says it requires Pulseaudio for sound, zero chance i'm installing that junk just to use this browser. Pretty stupid move IMO.

Can you smell a rat?

Good kitty!

golinux · 2017-11-18 02:46:53

@greenjeans . . . it's possible to use apulse.

fsmithred · 2017-11-18 10:52:11

It’s over twice as fast as Firefox from 6 months ago

I think that's right around when i noticed that firefox suddenly became about half as fast (or twice as slow). I think they're pulling a "New Coke". (They added lemon, called it new, waited for complaints, then returned to "original" but replaced sugar with HFCS. The lemon phase was to get you to forget what it really tasted like.)

Last night someone told me that noscript will be ready for FF57 very soon. That's good news.

MiyoLinux · 2017-11-18 13:39:34

fungus wrote:

Why does it sound scary to me just reading your reviews?

There's a really neat browser that I've heard of, and I think you might like it. It's called Google Chrome. It's stinkin' AWESOME!

However...

If that one doesn't suit your taste, there's another great browser that I've heard of called Edge. From what I hear, it's even more AWESOMER!!! You'd have to figure out how to compile it on Linux though.

Last edited by MiyoLinux (2017-11-18 13:40:06)

fungus · 2017-11-18 14:26:06

I use to go through about:config on firefox and run a search for google and chrome and turn everything off

You'd be surprised how much of it has crawled in

I use to paint chrome bumpers black

greenjeans · 2017-11-18 20:52:45

fungus wrote:

I use to go through about:config on firefox and run a search for google and chrome and turn everything off

It doesn't even matter last time I checked, been a while but the first thing FF used to do when you first fired it up, was download about 70 mb of crap from google, bad website lists and whatnot, haven't checked 57 yet, but it really used to piss folks off when they'd go on about how they used FF because they didn't want google spyware on their machine, and i'd point out that file.

fungus · 2017-11-18 22:07:54

How often have you opened up a .conf file in linux and there is a comment with a link to search google for examples and information about how to set something up within the .conf file.
I understand that a specific reference may not be there tomorrow so a google search for a phrase "will" be there. It is like government, it is always there,
I believe that the cleanest, most efficient, and safe version of firefox is that of torproject bundle. If you wish you can turn scripts on, proxy-off, and use it as any browser, "in an unsafe fashion". Then you will realize that there are some "features" that don't exist in that firefox. There is usually a very good reason for turning those off.

Here is a test of uniqueness in fingerprint left by your browser. https://browserprint.info/captcha
Use NoScript turn all scripts off, then take the test again. EFF has a similar test called panopticlick or something, which is crappy compared to what this guy measures. Scary, they can tell your screen size, what fonts you are using, your timezone, keymaps. all with a single visit to a web page. After some data is collected you become very unique. Then off you go to another page that incorporates some google-tags and ads and ...

Dev1galaxy doesn't seem to have any of this, and the forum works just fine with scripts off. Try reading an article in NYT or Guardian, and see how many sites are on to you.

golinux · 2017-11-18 22:14:01

fungus wrote:

Dev1galaxy doesn't seem to have any of this, and the forum works just fine with scripts off. Try reading an article in NYT or Guardian, and see how many sites are on to you.

We didn't just fall off the turnip truck . . .

fungus · 2017-11-18 22:15:46

No, it was the prune truck

greenjeans · 2017-11-18 23:00:12

golinux wrote:

fungus wrote:
Dev1galaxy doesn't seem to have any of this, and the forum works just fine with scripts off. Try reading an article in NYT or Guardian, and see how many sites are on to you.
We didn't just fall off the turnip truck . . .

Yeah this site's great, my little python browser works great here.

LambOfNothing · 2017-11-23 15:50:47

MiyoLinux wrote:

golinux wrote:
And I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you . . . FF without the addons I've been using for years is a non-starter regardless of how fast it supposedly is. My old FF is pretty snappy so had no complaints about speed before. The biggest annoyance I have is that it's a memory hog and needs to be reloaded regularly.
So you're the one who owns that bridge! I would offer you a 5-spot for it, but I don't want it.
I don't know golinux...I'm not much of an internet surfer, so I can only say what I personally experience. I've never had a problem with the speed of Firefox before, and the only add-ons I use are uBlock-Origin and Privacy Badger.
All that I know is based on my internet habits, the new Firefox Quantum is definitely much faster...but that doesn't really matter to me. I just thought it might be of interest to others...whether good or bad.

I can say as an active dweller of the net, that I never had a problem with Firefox's speed to begin with. My gripes were always of a security-related nature, and that's coming from someone who isn't necessarily a security guru, just someone with a budding interest in opsec/infosec and a strong desire to tinker. From a usability perspective, Firefox was always above Icecat, Palemoon, or Tor Browser. Icecat's design can break most pages (As someone said further down, it has NEVER affected this site <3), Palemoon didn't seem as responsive, and Tor Browser is noticeably slower for reasons that are obvious to anyone who even knows a trivial amount about it. I've had to essentially compromise by hardening Firefox, using certain addons (NoScript, uBlock-Origin, Privacy Badger, HTTPS Everywhere, Disconnect, etc, while modifying a few options in about:config.

This didn't get rid of all of my concerns, but it gave me more security than what I was given out of the box. There was still the concern for sites like Youtube, but I found a program called Youtube-dl which allows you to use a wget-like download process by simply copying and pasting the link to the playlist or individual videos, which can then be watched in whatever specified quality/format you downloaded it in from your favorite media player. I've been told by other people that this seemed "paranoid", so I took it as not being paranoid enough and now sandbox Firefox, any torrenting programs, and VLC player with a program called Firejail. This solved a lot of my gripes with Firefox, and seems to give me as the best medium between security and usability..

For anything sensitive or personal I use Tor Browser. There seem to be plenty of criticisms for Tor, but it is also universally praised for what it can offer out of the box. In a perfect world, I2P would have the funding, political backing, and development power of Tor and then I would just use that for everything.

Last edited by LambOfNothing (2017-11-23 15:56:29)

fog · 2017-11-25 00:19:15

fungus wrote:

How often have you opened up a .conf file in linux and there is a comment with a link to search google for examples and information about how to set something up within the .conf file.
I understand that a specific reference may not be there tomorrow so a google search for a phrase "will" be there. It is like government, it is always there,
I believe that the cleanest, most efficient, and safe version of firefox is that of torproject bundle. If you wish you can turn scripts on, proxy-off, and use it as any browser, "in an unsafe fashion". Then you will realize that there are some "features" that don't exist in that firefox. There is usually a very good reason for turning those off.
Here is a test of uniqueness in fingerprint left by your browser. https://browserprint.info/captcha
Use NoScript turn all scripts off, then take the test again. EFF has a similar test called panopticlick or something, which is crappy compared to what this guy measures. Scary, they can tell your screen size, what fonts you are using, your timezone, keymaps. all with a single visit to a web page. After some data is collected you become very unique. Then off you go to another page that incorporates some google-tags and ads and ...
Dev1galaxy doesn't seem to have any of this, and the forum works just fine with scripts off. Try reading an article in NYT or Guardian, and see how many sites are on to you.

I have FF57 installed, only nine add-ons
https://browserprint.info/captcha
1st run: Your fingerprint's UUID is dad8284d-bfef-4977-9b5c-069c820cf70b;
2nd run: Your fingerprint's UUID is 4a99f9f7-9578-4248-89bd-ddcc86d1c6ad;

I did give a chance and enabled javascript. I also disabled firejail ( I use overlay to kill anything downloaded)

No chance that this site would discover anything.

I think that FF57 is o.k. Way better than Chrome/google in terms of privacy. I do check Palemoon once in a while but it still suffers from some compatibility issues.

sgage · 2017-11-25 00:28:49

"I think that FF57 is o.k. Way better than Chrome/google in terms of privacy. I do check Palemoon once in a while but it still suffers from some compatibility issues."

That is my assessment exactly. I like the idea of Pale Moon, and have used it extensively, but I continually run into incompatibilities at the most inconvenient times. And I will have nothing to do with Google anything. So FF it is. I have the handful of addons that I 'need'. It is fast, stable, and compatible.

greenjeans · 2017-11-25 22:22:09

Anybody hear of anyone re-compiling quantum with ALSA support (disable dependency on Pulse)?

Paging FSR.......;)

fsmithred · 2017-11-26 14:02:15

greenjeans wrote:

Anybody hear of anyone re-compiling quantum with ALSA support (disable dependency on Pulse)?
Paging FSR.......;)

I think you overestimate my abilities. I've heard some talk about recompiling for alsa, and also that packaging firefox is difficult. After a quick look at the source package, I believe it. Doesn't apulse work anymore?

BTW, noscript is ready for 57. Support for noscript in firefox-esr52 will continue until June, when it will shift to 59.
https://noscript.net/getit

fungus · 2017-11-26 18:26:23

I tried 57 with noscript, I thought I made a mistake and it was not installed.
I hate the whole thing and it is slower than it ever was, I think.

cynwulf · 2017-11-27 14:37:17

Pulseaudio support is just the "default", it's still possible to build without it. You could try pulling down the Debianised source and changing the 'mozconfig' options (build flags):

# Uncomment the following option if you have not installed PulseAudio
#ac_add_options --disable-pulseaudio
# and uncomment this if you installed alsa-lib instead of PulseAudio
#ac_add_options --enable-alsa

(source: http://linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/s … efox.html)

Then remove pulseaudio dependencies from the control file and rebuild the package. Obviously not tried it myself, but I can't see why it wouldn't work...

greenjeans · 2017-11-27 19:28:18

cynwulf wrote:

Pulseaudio support is just the "default", it's still possible to build without it. You could try pulling down the Debianised source and changing the 'mozconfig' options (build flags):
# Uncomment the following option if you have not installed PulseAudio
#ac_add_options --disable-pulseaudio
# and uncomment this if you installed alsa-lib instead of PulseAudio
#ac_add_options --enable-alsa
(source: http://linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/s … efox.html)
Then remove pulseaudio dependencies from the control file and rebuild the package. Obviously not tried it myself, but I can't see why it wouldn't work...

You are the rock-a-doodle-doo sir!

Looks like 57 also requires some updated libraries from what's in jessie, so the whole thing may be a non-starter anyway at least for the current stable Devuan.

The officially official Devuan Forum!

#1 2017-11-17 16:01:21

Firefox Quantum

#2 2017-11-17 16:21:55

Re: Firefox Quantum

#3 2017-11-17 16:34:13

Re: Firefox Quantum

#4 2017-11-17 17:21:37

Re: Firefox Quantum

#5 2017-11-17 17:58:48

Re: Firefox Quantum

#6 2017-11-17 22:39:21

Re: Firefox Quantum

#7 2017-11-18 01:29:58

Re: Firefox Quantum

#8 2017-11-18 01:33:12

Re: Firefox Quantum

#9 2017-11-18 02:46:53

Re: Firefox Quantum

#10 2017-11-18 10:52:11

Re: Firefox Quantum

#11 2017-11-18 13:39:34

Re: Firefox Quantum

#12 2017-11-18 14:26:06

Re: Firefox Quantum

#13 2017-11-18 20:52:45

Re: Firefox Quantum

#14 2017-11-18 22:07:54

Re: Firefox Quantum

#15 2017-11-18 22:14:01

Re: Firefox Quantum

#16 2017-11-18 22:15:46

Re: Firefox Quantum

#17 2017-11-18 23:00:12

Re: Firefox Quantum

#18 2017-11-23 15:50:47

Re: Firefox Quantum

#19 2017-11-25 00:19:15

Re: Firefox Quantum

#20 2017-11-25 00:28:49

Re: Firefox Quantum

#21 2017-11-25 22:22:09

Re: Firefox Quantum

#22 2017-11-26 14:02:15

Re: Firefox Quantum

#23 2017-11-26 18:26:23

Re: Firefox Quantum

#24 2017-11-27 14:37:17

Re: Firefox Quantum

#25 2017-11-27 19:28:18

Re: Firefox Quantum

Board footer