Firefox 48 finally enables Electrolysis for multi-process

>>54987581
>Mozilla says it's trying to win users and developers back to Firefox.
will they finally get their shit together

>>54987634
No they won't. You still won't like their direction even after Electrolysis

>trying to win people back
>changes nothing that made people leave in the first place

>...and people using add-ons will all be excluded from the initial e10s roll-out.

Honestly, this is a great change but they ruined Firefox too much already.

What is electrosys?
I just use waferfox cos muh unsigned shit support

So I'm always like 2 months out of date

File: Untitled-1.png (14KB, 1484x105px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 1484x105px

How the fuck do I change this garbage back?

>>54989168
Seconding this.
Pls /g/men, help.

>>54987581
>breaks extensions
>why even use Firefox then

File: capture.jpg (45KB, 542x442px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 542x442px

>>54987581
>more social media garbage nobody asked for
>accelerating the retirement of XUL and XBL
>less and less UI customization
>Potentially the most impactful aspect of WebExtensions is that it adopts the extension architecture used by browsers built on top of Chromium, notably Chrome and Opera. Mozilla is committed to implementing a large number of the individual APIs presently available to Chrome extensions.

They said I could be anything, so I became Chrome.

Bye Mozilla, have fun dying a slow painful death. Hope your developers have their resumes up to date, because they'll be filing unemployment.

>>54989245
You can't without an extension if one exists to change it back.

>>54989287
Extensions were inherently broken desu because of broken security. They need to be updated and fixed.

>>54989385
Be that as it may, if it's going to break legacy extensions there's no longer anything holding me back from moving to Chromium.

>>54989360
Don't you see?
They realize people are leaving their browser for Chrome, and instead of trying to improve on what they fucked up, they decided to just be another Chromium-based browser.

Watch, by version 50, they'll remove Gecko and be using V8.

>>54989406
Please move onto Chromium today. It will help everyone including yourself.

>>54989425
No, I'm going to wait as long as I realistically can so I can continue to use my extensions until then.

File: 1461288307951.jpg (78KB, 738x926px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 738x926px

>>54989407
that's what I said months ago on Reddit and I had a Mozilla developer come out of the woodwork and tell me I'm delusional and crazy for thinking that they're going to switch to the Blink/V8 engine after they spend all this time coding Servo. I still think they're doing all this so they can swap the browsing engine and then fire all their developers and then just have a small maintenance team work on the UI.

Another sign they plan on swapping
>Servo provides a consistent API for hosting the engine within other software. It is designed to be compatible with Chromium Embedded Framework, an API used by Adobe and Valve Corporation to incorporate the Blink rendering engine within their own products, allowing Servo to be dropped in as a replacement engine simplifies real-world testing.

>>54989478
>that quote
Kek. That's hilarious.
By the end of the decade, all major browsers will be either Blink/V8 based, or Edge/Chakra.

>>54989527
which isn't a really great thing.

I WAITED SO LONG MOZILLA

FOR SO LONG ADOBE FLASH MEMORY LEAKS DESTROYING FIREFOX'S SINGLE PROCESS MEMORY LIMIT CAUSING 5 BROWSER CRASHES PER DAY I ENDURED UNTIL I GAVE INTO THE FAGGOT BOTNET.

NO MORE 2GB MEMORY CRASHES IN MY LIFE. NO MORE FIRENIGGER.

>>54989555
How much does it really matter if it's an open source engine? Is it just because there will be less competition?

>>54989590
>How much does it really matter if it's an open source engine?
That's not really the point?
FireFox and Chromium are both Open Source. Heck, even Edge has its Javascript engine open sourced.

The main issue people are having with FireFox is that they're dumbing it down, and effectively removing any features that power-users want to keep. You could say it's the same issue with Windows, and making it harder for power users to do any customization.
On top of that, a lot of their policy decisions are being guided by people who are less than tech literate, and don't really understand programming to begin with.

>>54989630
What does any of that have to do with the rendering engine?

File: 8RBIePJ.jpg (17KB, 404x303px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 404x303px

>>54989478
So not only are they making their extension framework 1:1 compatible with Chromium, they're making their Servo rendering engine 1:1 compatible as a drop in replacement.

Now you could theorize that they're trying to replace Blink and want make it easy to transition to their new Servo engine, but we all know that's not going to happen even if the new engine does have an incredible speed and memory boost. If you look at the big picture, it's just a smoke screen to cover up the fact that they're moving to Blink/V8.

Unfortunately I don't think the Mozilla devs have caught on to the grave they're digging for themselves.

Whatever, long live Gecko and long live Firefox. The only hope is if a small community of loyalists bands together and forks Firefox and restores it to it's former glory.

>>54989571
>still using flash

>>54989644
Not much? But the post you were replying to had nothing to do with anything being open source or not.
It was about FireFox becoming more and more like Chrome.

>>54989667
It had to do with everyone using the same HTML/Javascript engines. And I asked why that matters as long as said engines are open source so anyone can use them. There's nothing stopping someone from making a browser using Blink/V8 with lots of power-user features and customizability.

>>54989750
>And I asked why that matters as long as said engines are open source so anyone can use them
Ah, gotcha. I somehow misread your sentence.

>There's nothing stopping someone from making a browser using Blink/V8 with lots of power-user features and customizability.
You're right. Except for how massive the Chromium source code is. It doesn't help that the Chromium and ChromiumOS source code are effectively the same.

Just ripping out V8 and Blink, and then building the UI up around it might be a good idea though.

>>54989478
They'll never give in to Blink since they want to have competition in the space. If one company controls all the software, there's not much to stop them driving the web in whatever direction they want.

>>54989168
Are you mentally challenged? you use another version instead of changing a single setting? wew.

Guys, I updates my browser to ver 48, then my idm cc or extension doesn't worked anymore, although I have checked idm version, it's says that it's within the latest versions, so what do

>>54987581
>furries - YouTube
That's the official screenshot from arstechnica. kek.

>>54989245
what exactly?

Left Firefox after the Eich situation, can't wait for them to burn

I haven't used firefox since Australis. It's the only reason I use palemoon.

File: Screen Shot 2016-06-09 at 11.27.29.png (111KB, 1614x1083px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1614x1083px

>>54992869
You could try the classic theme restorer. I did this for a while, but I eventually recustomized it using the basic options with a couple of specific extensions. It's worth it to have the up to date code in the latest versions.

was this the reason why Firefox choked on my system while browsing OfferUpp or Fbook groups with lots of images? it freezes for 2-3 seconds then it scrolls down again.

Oh great, a firefox thread.

I'm running the latest Nightly on my Windows XP machine, and the electrolysis opinion is greyed out. I've made a new profile, too, and it's still grey.

I've had

browser.tabs.remote.autostart

set to true for a while now, but on about:support it shows Multiprocess Windows as 0/1, the reason being "disabled by add-ons". What gives?

>>54993065
You need

extensions.e10sBlockedByAddons;false

, but there seems to be a specific problem with this entry and it gets reset back to true. So you have to reenter it and restart the browser. Don't forget to up

dom.ipc.processCount

to the number of cores in your processor.

>>54993216
Thanks, I had set the number of cores before but not the other thingie.

I dropped Firefox the moment they removed Tab Groups

File: 1465369699495.png (5KB, 207x124px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 207x124px

>>54987581

>autists complain while still using FF for months and years
>firefox is finally good
>move to other browser

>>54992869
Australis was a step in the right direction. The problem is it takes them way too long to take those steps.

>>54993216
>>54993065
>>54993247
Goddamn it does really feel faster, especially noticeable in the scrolling. Zero delay. I also noticed two new "plugin-container" processes have appeared, guess they're going the Chromium way... still.

>>54989168
>>54989272
multi process shit

it's not even real multiprocess. It doesn't create a single process for every tab like chromium.
open 50 tabs at the same time with firefox and chrome, you'll see how shitty Firefox is.

>>54987581
holy shit there's a 48th version already?

>>54987634
>>54988084
what happened to firefox. why all the hate?

>>54994187
Same with Chrome, version numbers stopped meaning shit years ago. They literally just slap a new one on every x number of weeks without any relation to features or changes.

>>54994196
It's hip and trendy to hate on Mozilla now.

Mozilla has made mistakes but none of them are as bad enough that moving to Chrome would be a rational decision.

Well, i would love to use Firefox again, but only when they offer again a such complex built inside feature set like available in Firefox 22.

A lot of users also moved on because Mozilla removed that features and demands now to install add-ons to get them back. They do that for being attractive to Chrome users and try to remove all built inside customization options which could get in the way of such users.

That brings up another point. I also only would use Firefox again if they stop their new found mindset that they HAVE to compete with Chrome to survive. It is interesting, Chrome has the most market share and now all other developers run around in circle and do everything to get a big chunk of Chrome users too. The thing is, Firefox had a pretty good run in the past before Australis without bowing down to the demands of Chrome users and Mozilla focusing on Chrome as main competitor, this change of plans also alienated a lot of users.

So, if Mozilla would change that 2 critical points, i could think about using Firefox again, but not earlier.

Does anyone know how to compile Firefox with Hello, Pocket, and extension signing removed?

>Dotzler says the next step is per-tab processes (so one website running out of control doesn't affect the rest of your tabs), followed by sandboxing for security and then isolating add-ons into their own processes. Mozilla's goal is for this to all happen before the end of 2016.

Chrome had this from the beginning, still not switching back to FF

>>54987581
Oh great now instead of just using the RAM of 4 processes they can use the CPU of 4 processes. Someone please come up with a good browser so I can switch