Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #201028 > unrolled thread

Slow firefox and high cpu usage

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Slow firefox and high cpu usage Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 20:10 +0200
    Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 21:10 +0200
      Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 22:10 +0200
        Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 02:10 +0200
          Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 22:10 +0200
            Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2018-10-11 00:00 +0200
              Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-11 00:20 +0200
                Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-11 00:40 +0200
                  Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 05:30 +0200
                Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-11 00:40 +0200
                  Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2018-10-11 01:10 +0200
                    Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-11 01:20 +0200
                      Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-10-11 02:50 +0200
                        Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-11 03:10 +0200
                          Re: Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage dekks herton <dekkzz78@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 12:50 +0200
                          Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-10-11 21:40 +0200
                            Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-14 03:50 +0200
                              Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-10-17 00:20 +0200
                                Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2018-10-17 00:50 +0200
                                  Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-10-17 01:30 +0200
                                    Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-10-17 15:10 +0200
                                      Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-10-17 21:30 +0200
                                        Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-10-17 22:10 +0200
                                          Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-10-17 23:20 +0200
                            Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-14 03:50 +0200
                              Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-10-17 00:40 +0200
                                Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-20 02:40 +0200
                            Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-14 05:20 +0200
                              Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2018-10-14 11:30 +0200
                              Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-10-17 00:20 +0200
                Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2018-10-11 00:40 +0200
                Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2018-10-11 00:50 +0200
                  Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-10-12 20:00 +0200
                    Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2018-10-12 20:50 +0200
                      Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage rhkramer@gmail.com - 2018-10-12 21:40 +0200
              Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 21:30 +0200
            Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 01:20 +0200
        Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> - 2018-10-10 20:50 +0200
          Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> - 2018-10-12 11:50 +0200
        Re: Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage dekks herton <dekkzz78@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 13:00 +0200
    Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2018-10-08 23:40 +0200
      Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 20:20 +0200
        Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> - 2018-10-10 20:40 +0200
    Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2018-10-10 23:30 +0200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#201028 — Slow firefox and high cpu usage

Hi,

I experience a very slow response time (and high cpu usage) for firefox 
in debian sid these days.

I use the 62.0.3 version and the latency is particularly present at the 
startup. I have to wait few seconds before being able to enter text in 
the address bar.

I tried to reset (install new profile) firefox and launch it in safe 
mode (ie without extensions). No improvements.

Are other users of sid experiencing the same behavior ?

Pétùr

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#201040

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 20:07:26 +0200
Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I experience a very slow response time (and high cpu usage) for
> firefox in debian sid these days.
> 
> I use the 62.0.3 version and the latency is particularly present at
> the startup. I have to wait few seconds before being able to enter
> text in the address bar.
> 
> I tried to reset (install new profile) firefox and launch it in safe 
> mode (ie without extensions). No improvements.
> 
> Are other users of sid experiencing the same behavior ?

I'm using Firefox Quantum (62.0.3) on Stretch. Works just fine.
Responsive. Very Little CPU usage.  What does Top show is using the cpu?

B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201048

Le 08/10/2018 à 20:59, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 20:07:26 +0200
> Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> I experience a very slow response time (and high cpu usage) for
>> firefox in debian sid these days.
>>
>> I use the 62.0.3 version and the latency is particularly present at
>> the startup. I have to wait few seconds before being able to enter
>> text in the address bar.
>>
>> I tried to reset (install new profile) firefox and launch it in safe
>> mode (ie without extensions). No improvements.
>>
>> Are other users of sid experiencing the same behavior ?
> 
> I'm using Firefox Quantum (62.0.3) on Stretch. Works just fine.
> Responsive. Very Little CPU usage.  What does Top show is using the cpu?


Top shows several threads with high cpu usage such as :

  PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU  %MEM     TIME+ 
COMMAND

12452 petur    20   0 4030664   1,9g  67248 R  72,4  50,1   2:54.34 
firefox
12937 petur    20   0 1830092 381016 156676 R  82,7   9,7   0:12.11 Web 
Content
12503 petur    20   0 1715976 216820  87436 R  81,3   5,5   0:55.60 Web 
Content
13078 petur    20   0 1454508  95080  65480 R  81,3   2,4   0:05.02 Web 
Content

I am using Xfce.

Pétùr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201062

On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:06:18 +0200
Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 08/10/2018 à 20:59, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
> > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 20:07:26 +0200
> > Pétùr <peturvilj@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I experience a very slow response time (and high cpu usage) for
> >> firefox in debian sid these days.
> >>
> >> I use the 62.0.3 version and the latency is particularly present at
> >> the startup. I have to wait few seconds before being able to enter
> >> text in the address bar.
> >>
> >> I tried to reset (install new profile) firefox and launch it in
> >> safe mode (ie without extensions). No improvements.
> >>
> >> Are other users of sid experiencing the same behavior ?  
> > 
> > I'm using Firefox Quantum (62.0.3) on Stretch. Works just fine.
> > Responsive. Very Little CPU usage.  What does Top show is using the
> > cpu?  
> 
> 
> Top shows several threads with high cpu usage such as :
> 
>   PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU  %MEM     TIME+ 
> COMMAND
> 
> 12452 petur    20   0 4030664   1,9g  67248 R  72,4  50,1   2:54.34 
> firefox
> 12937 petur    20   0 1830092 381016 156676 R  82,7   9,7   0:12.11
> Web Content
> 12503 petur    20   0 1715976 216820  87436 R  81,3   5,5   0:55.60
> Web Content
> 13078 petur    20   0 1454508  95080  65480 R  81,3   2,4   0:05.02
> Web Content
> 
> I am using Xfce.

Openbox window manager only. Phenom II x4 3.0GHZ CPU on my
5 to 11 year old system -- numerous upgrades over those 11 years.

First, Firefox is using 50% of your RAM.  That's way too much unless
you have very little RAM to begin with.  How much total RAM do you have?
My system has 8GB. Firefox Quantum only shows on average 3 to 4% RAM
usage even when streaming a video.  

Also, check what those three "web contents" are.  I'm think THEY are the
cause of Firefox's slowness.  As I don't know what they are, I can't
hazard a guess as to what's causing the high CPU usage.  The only time
I've seen something like this is when an app has crashed into an
infinite loop of some sort.  "Kill" those one at a time and see what
happens to Firefox's CPU usage. Also, clear you cache.  Check to see if
files are being written continuously to your hard drive.

FWIW, I'd purge Firefox and reinstall.  You're running Sid after all,
and all kinds of things can go wrong at any time.  Why ARE you running
Sid anyway?

B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201132

Le 09/10/2018 à 02:04, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
> First, Firefox is using 50% of your RAM.  That's way too much unless
> you have very little RAM to begin with.  How much total RAM do you have?
> My system has 8GB. Firefox Quantum only shows on average 3 to 4% RAM
> usage even when streaming a video.


I have 8GB of RAM.

> Also, check what those three "web contents" are.  I'm think THEY are the
> cause of Firefox's slowness.  As I don't know what they are, I can't
> hazard a guess as to what's causing the high CPU usage.  The only time
> I've seen something like this is when an app has crashed into an
> infinite loop of some sort.  "Kill" those one at a time and see what
> happens to Firefox's CPU usage. Also, clear you cache.  Check to see if
> files are being written continuously to your hard drive.

I think also these "web content" threads are the causes of my problem. 
But they appears even if I disable all modules.

> FWIW, I'd purge Firefox and reinstall.  You're running Sid after all,
> and all kinds of things can go wrong at any time.  Why ARE you running
> Sid anyway?

I did purge and refresh (ie new profile) firefox. I don't complain for 
this bug. I use sid because I need last versions of some packages for my 
work.

Pétùr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201135

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 09:59:00PM +0200, Pétùr wrote:
> Le 09/10/2018 à 02:04, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
> > First, Firefox is using 50% of your RAM.  That's way too much unless
> > you have very little RAM to begin with.  How much total RAM do you have?
> > My system has 8GB. Firefox Quantum only shows on average 3 to 4% RAM
> > usage even when streaming a video.
> 
> 
> I have 8GB of RAM.
> 
> > Also, check what those three "web contents" are.  I'm think THEY are the
> > cause of Firefox's slowness.  As I don't know what they are, I can't
> > hazard a guess as to what's causing the high CPU usage.  The only time
> > I've seen something like this is when an app has crashed into an
> > infinite loop of some sort.  "Kill" those one at a time and see what
> > happens to Firefox's CPU usage. Also, clear you cache.  Check to see if
> > files are being written continuously to your hard drive.
> 
> I think also these "web content" threads are the causes of my problem. But
> they appears even if I disable all modules.
 
That's because Firefox is now multiprocess.

The main Firefox process handles the user interface, fetching
web pages, decoding them, and some of the rendering work. 

The Web Content process(es) are fired off to run things that the
web pages demand be run: JavaScript, CSS animations, weird media
things. Mostly JavaScript.

Killing them off won't help. You need to solve the underlying
problem.

I don't know what that is, exactly, but advertising and trackers
now take up 90% of most web processing time and space. Running a
good ad blocker like uBlock Origin will help a lot.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201138

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, Dan Ritter wrote:

> That's because Firefox is now multiprocess.
> 
> The main Firefox process handles the user interface, fetching
> web pages, decoding them, and some of the rendering work. 
> 
> The Web Content process(es) are fired off to run things that the
> web pages demand be run: JavaScript, CSS animations, weird media
> things. Mostly JavaScript.
> 
> Killing them off won't help. You need to solve the underlying
> problem.
> 
> I don't know what that is, exactly, but advertising and trackers
> now take up 90% of most web processing time and space. Running a
> good ad blocker like uBlock Origin will help a lot.
> 
> -dsr-
> 
> 

How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all 
the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201139

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

> On 11/10/2018 11:15, bw wrote:
> > How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
> > the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?
> 
> Install an extension built for webextensions such as Adblock Plus 3.0 or later
> using Firefox Add-ons Manager?:
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/
> 
> I see that there is a webext-ublock-origin for sid but I have never used it:
> https://packages.debian.org/sid/web/webext-ublock-origin
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> -- 
> Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz>
> Director
> Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
> New Zealand
> 
> 

That might be against my religion.  I use debian because I prefer software 
that complies with DFSG, and mozilla does not have the same guidelines for 
the definition of
"free"
.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201149

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:34:32 -0400 (EDT)
bw <bwtnguy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> 
> > On 11/10/2018 11:15, bw wrote:
> > > How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
> > > the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?
> > 
> > Install an extension built for webextensions such as Adblock Plus 3.0 or later
> > using Firefox Add-ons Manager?:
> > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/

...

> That might be against my religion.  I use debian because I prefer software 
> that complies with DFSG, and mozilla does not have the same guidelines for 
> the definition of
> "free"

You can use privoxy - not a plugin, but it does the trick.

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201140

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

> On 11/10/2018 11:15, bw wrote:
> > How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
> > the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?
> 
> Install an extension built for webextensions such as Adblock Plus 3.0 or later
> using Firefox Add-ons Manager?:
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/
> 
> I see that there is a webext-ublock-origin for sid but I have never used it:
> https://packages.debian.org/sid/web/webext-ublock-origin
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> -- 
> Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz>
> Director
> Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
> New Zealand
> 
> 

p.s. and I use stable, because it is stable, not sid, which is unstable.
thanks anyway but I think your advice is a little dubious.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201144

On 11/10/2018 11:36, bw wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
>> On 11/10/2018 11:15, bw wrote:
>>> How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
>>> the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?
>> I see that there is a webext-ublock-origin for sid but I have never used it:
>> https://packages.debian.org/sid/web/webext-ublock-origin
> p.s. and I use stable, because it is stable, not sid, which is unstable.
> thanks anyway but I think your advice is a little dubious.

My point is not that you should use unstable, but that the evidence on 
sid suggests that webext-* packages are coming to stable ... when stable 
is called buster. I did not see any webext-* packages in 
stretch-backports. The workaround is to install them directly from 
upstream via Firefox.

I agree that it is sad that Firefox on stretch has been upgraded to 
break the xul-ext-* packages before webext-* packages are available. 
Unfortunately Debian is wedged between upstream dropping support for 
xul-ext-* extensions in ESR 60 and the end of life of ESR 52. You do 
want security patches, don't you? I think that ESR 60 with unpackaged 
extensions is the lesser evil. Normal service will likely be resumed in 
buster.

Kind regards,

-- 
Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201145

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

> On 11/10/2018 11:36, bw wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> > > On 11/10/2018 11:15, bw wrote:
> > > > How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
> > > > the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?
> > > I see that there is a webext-ublock-origin for sid but I have never used
> > > it:
> > > https://packages.debian.org/sid/web/webext-ublock-origin
> > p.s. and I use stable, because it is stable, not sid, which is unstable.
> > thanks anyway but I think your advice is a little dubious.
> 
> My point is not that you should use unstable, but that the evidence on sid
> suggests that webext-* packages are coming to stable ... when stable is called
> buster. I did not see any webext-* packages in stretch-backports. The
> workaround is to install them directly from upstream via Firefox.
> 
> I agree that it is sad that Firefox on stretch has been upgraded to break the
> xul-ext-* packages before webext-* packages are available. Unfortunately
> Debian is wedged between upstream dropping support for xul-ext-* extensions in
> ESR 60 and the end of life of ESR 52. You do want security patches, don't you?
> I think that ESR 60 with unpackaged extensions is the lesser evil. Normal
> service will likely be resumed in buster.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> -- 
> Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz>
> Director
> Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
> New Zealand
> 
> 

I agree with this opinion, and also what Dan Ritter replied.  Firefox is 
now unreliable on stretch and should be avoided.  Security updates to a 
browser that crashes with strange processes named "Web Content" aren't 
really all that secure are they?  

Why not just remove the package from stretch if it is insecure, or since 
it relies on pkgs from outside the repo, should it be moved to "contrib" 
until buster is released and we have working extensions?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201147

On Wed 10 Oct 2018 at 19:11:46 (-0400), bw wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> 
> > On 11/10/2018 11:36, bw wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> > > > On 11/10/2018 11:15, bw wrote:
> > > > > How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
> > > > > the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?
> > > > I see that there is a webext-ublock-origin for sid but I have never used
> > > > it:
> > > > https://packages.debian.org/sid/web/webext-ublock-origin
> > > p.s. and I use stable, because it is stable, not sid, which is unstable.
> > > thanks anyway but I think your advice is a little dubious.

I find a lot of adverts are blocked by my very long /etc/hosts file.
I download the bulk of it from http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
occasionally. (The rest of the file is static addresses for my LAN.)

I originally did this because the adverts would totally overload a
browser running on a 1.5GHz laptop with 500MB memory. But I've kept
using it because the side effects are so minor: occasional nagging by
sites that notice you're blocking ads, and the inability to click on
the paid-for links at the top of google searches.

> > My point is not that you should use unstable, but that the evidence on sid
> > suggests that webext-* packages are coming to stable ... when stable is called
> > buster. I did not see any webext-* packages in stretch-backports. The
> > workaround is to install them directly from upstream via Firefox.
> > 
> > I agree that it is sad that Firefox on stretch has been upgraded to break the
> > xul-ext-* packages before webext-* packages are available. Unfortunately
> > Debian is wedged between upstream dropping support for xul-ext-* extensions in
> > ESR 60 and the end of life of ESR 52. You do want security patches, don't you?
> > I think that ESR 60 with unpackaged extensions is the lesser evil. Normal
> > service will likely be resumed in buster.

I have noticed that the old xul…runner processes have gone, and that
plugin-container processes are pretty rare, presumably being replaced
by these Web Content processes.

But my experience is that FF on stretch is a lot more reliable than
the one on jessie ever was. The latter would crash about every couple
of weeks or so, and then there were all those scripts that "stopped
responding".

> I agree with this opinion, and also what Dan Ritter replied.  Firefox is 
> now unreliable on stretch and should be avoided.  Security updates to a 
> browser that crashes with strange processes named "Web Content" aren't 
> really all that secure are they?  

Well, I hope the Debian team ignore your opinions, take note of any
bug reports, and continue to support FF for all the happy Debian users
who are using it to do important work.

It's sensible to come here for help and advice with your problems, but
not to assume that everyone else is suffering in the same manner. If
you know of specific security problems, then report them. Meanwhile,
we'll carry on using FF as usual.

I routinely run two instances on this 4-core 1.6GHz laptop with 4GB
memory, one as myself for mainly financial and administrative sites,
and one as a different user for other sites. That's my nod to security.

> Why not just remove the package from stretch if it is insecure, or since 
> it relies on pkgs from outside the repo, should it be moved to "contrib" 
> until buster is released and we have working extensions?

Doesn't it have to Depend on packages, rather than just relying on
them, which would be more like a Recommend or Suggest. AIUI the main
difference between FF and more regular packages is that they take
upstream versions more frequently than normal, and that's in order
to increase security, recognising that applying all the security
patches to a static 2016/7 version is impractical.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201148

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, David Wright wrote:

> On Wed 10 Oct 2018 at 19:11:46 (-0400), bw wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> > 
> > > On 11/10/2018 11:36, bw wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> > > > > On 11/10/2018 11:15, bw wrote:
> > > > > > How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
> > > > > > the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?
> > > > > I see that there is a webext-ublock-origin for sid but I have never used
> > > > > it:
> > > > > https://packages.debian.org/sid/web/webext-ublock-origin
> > > > p.s. and I use stable, because it is stable, not sid, which is unstable.
> > > > thanks anyway but I think your advice is a little dubious.
> 
> I find a lot of adverts are blocked by my very long /etc/hosts file.
> I download the bulk of it from http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
> occasionally. (The rest of the file is static addresses for my LAN.)
> 
> I originally did this because the adverts would totally overload a
> browser running on a 1.5GHz laptop with 500MB memory. But I've kept
> using it because the side effects are so minor: occasional nagging by
> sites that notice you're blocking ads, and the inability to click on
> the paid-for links at the top of google searches.
> 
> > > My point is not that you should use unstable, but that the evidence on sid
> > > suggests that webext-* packages are coming to stable ... when stable is called
> > > buster. I did not see any webext-* packages in stretch-backports. The
> > > workaround is to install them directly from upstream via Firefox.
> > > 
> > > I agree that it is sad that Firefox on stretch has been upgraded to break the
> > > xul-ext-* packages before webext-* packages are available. Unfortunately
> > > Debian is wedged between upstream dropping support for xul-ext-* extensions in
> > > ESR 60 and the end of life of ESR 52. You do want security patches, don't you?
> > > I think that ESR 60 with unpackaged extensions is the lesser evil. Normal
> > > service will likely be resumed in buster.
> 
> I have noticed that the old xul…runner processes have gone, and that
> plugin-container processes are pretty rare, presumably being replaced
> by these Web Content processes.
> 
> But my experience is that FF on stretch is a lot more reliable than
> the one on jessie ever was. The latter would crash about every couple
> of weeks or so, and then there were all those scripts that "stopped
> responding".
> 
> > I agree with this opinion, and also what Dan Ritter replied.  Firefox is 
> > now unreliable on stretch and should be avoided.  Security updates to a 
> > browser that crashes with strange processes named "Web Content" aren't 
> > really all that secure are they?  
> 
> Well, I hope the Debian team ignore your opinions, take note of any
> bug reports, and continue to support FF for all the happy Debian users
> who are using it to do important work.
> 
> It's sensible to come here for help and advice with your problems, but
> not to assume that everyone else is suffering in the same manner. If
> you know of specific security problems, then report them. Meanwhile,
> we'll carry on using FF as usual.
> 
> I routinely run two instances on this 4-core 1.6GHz laptop with 4GB
> memory, one as myself for mainly financial and administrative sites,
> and one as a different user for other sites. That's my nod to security.
> 
> > Why not just remove the package from stretch if it is insecure, or since 
> > it relies on pkgs from outside the repo, should it be moved to "contrib" 
> > until buster is released and we have working extensions?
> 
> Doesn't it have to Depend on packages, rather than just relying on
> them, which would be more like a Recommend or Suggest. AIUI the main
> difference between FF and more regular packages is that they take
> upstream versions more frequently than normal, and that's in order
> to increase security, recognising that applying all the security
> patches to a static 2016/7 version is impractical.
> 
> Cheers,
> David.
> 
> 

I would sure be interested in your method of running firefox on stretch, 
without using extensions or addons from outside the debian repositories?

I never mentioned jessie, not sure what the reference is about?  My point 
was that is ff needs extensions to be "secure" or reliable, and if the 
only place to get them is from outside the debian repo, then logically, 
the pkg belongs in "contrib" or plain kicked out of the repo.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201161

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 10/10, bw wrote:

>I would sure be interested in your method of running firefox on stretch,
>without using extensions or addons from outside the debian repositories?
>
>I never mentioned jessie, not sure what the reference is about?  My point
>was that is ff needs extensions to be "secure" or reliable, and if the
>only place to get them is from outside the debian repo, then logically,
>the pkg belongs in "contrib" or plain kicked out of the repo.

It doesn't need extensions to be secure, all browsers suffer if they process all the tracking cruft that bogs down the web today.

ESR60 is a far better browser than ESR52 was, XUL was a security nightmare and was depreceated due to that, sometimes ypou have to take a step back to progress.

-- 
regards.....

Thinkpad T60p 2.33Ghz 2GB SXGA+

Jabber IM: dekkzz76@jabber.hot-chilli.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201171

On Wed 10 Oct 2018 at 21:04:58 (-0400), bw wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, David Wright wrote:
> > On Wed 10 Oct 2018 at 19:11:46 (-0400), bw wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> > > > On 11/10/2018 11:36, bw wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> > > > > > On 11/10/2018 11:15, bw wrote:
> > > > > > > How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
> > > > > > > the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?
> > > > > > I see that there is a webext-ublock-origin for sid but I have never used
> > > > > > it:
> > > > > > https://packages.debian.org/sid/web/webext-ublock-origin
> > > > > p.s. and I use stable, because it is stable, not sid, which is unstable.
> > > > > thanks anyway but I think your advice is a little dubious.
> > 
> > I find a lot of adverts are blocked by my very long /etc/hosts file.
> > I download the bulk of it from http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
> > occasionally. (The rest of the file is static addresses for my LAN.)
> > 
> > I originally did this because the adverts would totally overload a
> > browser running on a 1.5GHz laptop with 500MB memory. But I've kept
> > using it because the side effects are so minor: occasional nagging by
> > sites that notice you're blocking ads, and the inability to click on
> > the paid-for links at the top of google searches.
> > 
> > > > My point is not that you should use unstable, but that the evidence on sid
> > > > suggests that webext-* packages are coming to stable ... when stable is called
> > > > buster. I did not see any webext-* packages in stretch-backports. The
> > > > workaround is to install them directly from upstream via Firefox.
> > > > 
> > > > I agree that it is sad that Firefox on stretch has been upgraded to break the
> > > > xul-ext-* packages before webext-* packages are available. Unfortunately
> > > > Debian is wedged between upstream dropping support for xul-ext-* extensions in
> > > > ESR 60 and the end of life of ESR 52. You do want security patches, don't you?
> > > > I think that ESR 60 with unpackaged extensions is the lesser evil. Normal
> > > > service will likely be resumed in buster.
> > 
> > I have noticed that the old xul…runner processes have gone, and that
> > plugin-container processes are pretty rare, presumably being replaced
> > by these Web Content processes.
> > 
> > But my experience is that FF on stretch is a lot more reliable than
> > the one on jessie ever was. The latter would crash about every couple
> > of weeks or so, and then there were all those scripts that "stopped
> > responding".
> > 
> > > I agree with this opinion, and also what Dan Ritter replied.  Firefox is 
> > > now unreliable on stretch and should be avoided.  Security updates to a 
> > > browser that crashes with strange processes named "Web Content" aren't 
> > > really all that secure are they?  
> > 
> > Well, I hope the Debian team ignore your opinions, take note of any
> > bug reports, and continue to support FF for all the happy Debian users
> > who are using it to do important work.
> > 
> > It's sensible to come here for help and advice with your problems, but
> > not to assume that everyone else is suffering in the same manner. If
> > you know of specific security problems, then report them. Meanwhile,
> > we'll carry on using FF as usual.
> > 
> > I routinely run two instances on this 4-core 1.6GHz laptop with 4GB
> > memory, one as myself for mainly financial and administrative sites,
> > and one as a different user for other sites. That's my nod to security.
> > 
> > > Why not just remove the package from stretch if it is insecure, or since 
> > > it relies on pkgs from outside the repo, should it be moved to "contrib" 
> > > until buster is released and we have working extensions?
> > 
> > Doesn't it have to Depend on packages, rather than just relying on
> > them, which would be more like a Recommend or Suggest. AIUI the main
> > difference between FF and more regular packages is that they take
> > upstream versions more frequently than normal, and that's in order
> > to increase security, recognising that applying all the security
> > patches to a static 2016/7 version is impractical.
> 
> I would sure be interested in your method of running firefox on stretch, 
> without using extensions or addons from outside the debian repositories?

After installing it, I type, say, my-cups to open up the browser for
CUPS administration. (Of course I get all the previously opened tabs.)
I have a slew of bash functions according to what I want to see come up,
like my-weather my-forecast my-radar … …

$ type my-cups
my-cups is a function
my-cups ()
{
    local SITE="${1:-http://localhost:631/}";
    -myfirefox "$SITE"
}
$ type -- -myfirefox
-myfirefox is a function
-myfirefox ()
{
   grep -q "$HOSTNAME-$MYCODENAME" <<< "$BROWSERCODENAMES" && printf 'myfirefox %s\n' "$1" && ( /usr/bin/firefox "$1" & ) || printf '%s\n' "Incorrect release for firefox"
}
$ 

As for other packages, here's a list of the origin of packages on this
stretch installation, but filtered with   grep -v 'main_binary'
(it's massaged output from   apt-cache dump.)

Package: amd64-microcode Version: 3.20180524.1~bpo9+1 File: /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_stretch-backports_non-free_binary-amd64_Packages
Package: emacs24-common-non-dfsg Version: 24.5+1-2 File: /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_stretch_non-free_binary-amd64_Packages
Package: firmware-amd-graphics Version: 20180825+dfsg-1~bpo9+1 File: /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_stretch-backports_non-free_binary-amd64_Packages
Package: firmware-ipw2x00 Version: 20180825+dfsg-1~bpo9+1 File: /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_stretch-backports_non-free_binary-amd64_Packages
Package: firmware-iwlwifi Version: 20180825+dfsg-1~bpo9+1 File: /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_stretch-backports_non-free_binary-amd64_Packages
Package: firmware-linux Version: 20180825+dfsg-1~bpo9+1 File: /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_stretch-backports_non-free_binary-amd64_Packages
Package: firmware-linux-nonfree Version: 20180825+dfsg-1~bpo9+1 File: /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_stretch-backports_non-free_binary-amd64_Packages
Package: firmware-misc-nonfree Version: 20180825+dfsg-1~bpo9+1 File: /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_stretch-backports_non-free_binary-amd64_Packages
Package: firmware-realtek Version: 20180825+dfsg-1~bpo9+1 File: /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_stretch-backports_non-free_binary-amd64_Packages
Package: intel-microcode Version: 3.20180807a.1~deb9u1 File: /var/lib/apt/lists/security.debian.org_debian-security_dists_stretch_updates_non-free_binary-amd64_Packages
Package: iucode-tool Version: 2.3.1-1~bpo9+1 File: /var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.us.debian.org_debian_dists_stretch-backports_contrib_binary-amd64_Packages
Package: xtoolwait Version: 1.3-6.2 File: /var/lib/dpkg/status
Package: youtube-dl Version: 2018.09.10-1 File: /var/lib/dpkg/status

> I never mentioned jessie, not sure what the reference is about?

Jessie is just a shorthand for "older versions of firefox" which is
what I'm comparing with FF on stretch. I've been running FF since at
least etch, and perhaps sarge and woody (I'm not sure what the package
mozilla-browser actually ran), woody being the last Debian where I ran
opera. I don't remember all the FF versions I have run, but they'll
all be listed in the mainline Debian distributions of the time.

There seems to have been a lot of criticism here of stretch, not just
per se (which is to be expected as it's the current version) but in
comparison with previous releases, and that's doesn't match my experience.
If anything, vanilla stretch has been better for me than recent releases.

> My point 
> was that is ff needs extensions to be "secure" or reliable, and if the 
> only place to get them is from outside the debian repo, then logically, 
> the pkg belongs in "contrib" or plain kicked out of the repo.

It would surely be more to the point for you to indicate what it is
you think I'm missing. I can tell you that Themes is default and
Languages is English(GB). That's it. I don't count my doctored
/etc/hosts as an add-on because it's not a software component.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201201

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, David Wright wrote:

> <quote from myself, bw>
> > My point 
> > was that is ff needs extensions to be "secure" or reliable, and if the 
> > only place to get them is from outside the debian repo, then logically, 
> > the pkg belongs in "contrib" or plain kicked out of the repo.
> 
> It would surely be more to the point for you to indicate what it is
> you think I'm missing. I can tell you that Themes is default and
> Languages is English(GB). That's it. I don't count my doctored
> /etc/hosts as an add-on because it's not a software component.
> 
> Cheers,
> David.
> 
> 

Make sure you are not missing any of these?
https://pastebin.com/RpbAxgx5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201339

On Sat 13 Oct 2018 at 21:43:58 (-0400), bw wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, David Wright wrote:
> > <quote from myself, bw>
> > > My point 
> > > was that is ff needs extensions to be "secure" or reliable, and if the 
> > > only place to get them is from outside the debian repo, then logically, 
> > > the pkg belongs in "contrib" or plain kicked out of the repo.
> > 
> > It would surely be more to the point for you to indicate what it is
> > you think I'm missing. I can tell you that Themes is default and
> > Languages is English(GB). That's it. I don't count my doctored
> > /etc/hosts as an add-on because it's not a software component.
> 
> Make sure you are not missing any of these?
> https://pastebin.com/RpbAxgx5

Probably, but I've no idea why you want me picking over your prefs file.
(Actually, it would be useful to know how to print out the about:config
page so tht it can be perused at leisure.)

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201342

David Wright composed on 2018-10-16 17:07 (UTC-0500):

> (Actually, it would be useful to know how to print out the about:config
> page so tht it can be perused at leisure.)

prefs.js is a plain text file in the profile directory.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#201345

On Tue 16 Oct 2018 at 18:42:19 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
> David Wright composed on 2018-10-16 17:07 (UTC-0500):
> 
> > (Actually, it would be useful to know how to print out the about:config
> > page so tht it can be perused at leisure.)
> 
> prefs.js is a plain text file in the profile directory.

Yes, but it only lists items that one has allegedly modified.
I estimate somewhere over 3600 options on the page (counting
PageDown keypresses), but only a couple of hundred or so in
that file.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web