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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #203398 > unrolled thread

do you find old firefox is better than new one?

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  do you find old firefox is better than new one? Long Wind <longwind2@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-16 10:40 +0100
    Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> - 2018-12-16 12:10 +0100
      Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Long Wind <longwind2@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-16 12:30 +0100
        Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 17:40 +0100
      Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-12-16 12:40 +0100
        Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 01:00 +0100
      Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? "Juan R. de Silva" <juan.r.d.silva@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 17:10 +0100
        Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-12-16 17:30 +0100
          Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? "Juan R. de Silva" <juan.r.d.silva@gmail.com> - 2018-12-16 21:30 +0100
            Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2018-12-16 21:40 +0100
    Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2018-12-16 12:40 +0100
    Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> - 2018-12-16 15:30 +0100
    Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? dekkzz78@gmail.com - 2018-12-16 18:40 +0100
      Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2018-12-16 21:50 +0100
    Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> - 2018-12-17 03:00 +0100
      Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Long Wind <longwind2@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-17 05:40 +0100
        Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2018-12-17 07:50 +0100
          Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Long Wind <longwind2@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-17 08:50 +0100
    Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Stefan K <shadow_7@gmx.net> - 2018-12-17 12:20 +0100
      Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Long Wind <longwind2@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-17 12:50 +0100
        Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 16:30 +0100
    Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> - 2018-12-19 10:20 +0100
      Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 18:10 +0100
        Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2018-12-19 19:00 +0100
          Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 02:10 +0100
          Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> - 2018-12-21 16:40 +0100
            Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2018-12-21 21:00 +0100
        Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> - 2018-12-19 23:10 +0100
          Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 02:20 +0100
          Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-12-20 11:10 +0100
      Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 20:10 +0100
        Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> - 2018-12-19 23:10 +0100
          Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 00:40 +0100
            Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? "Michelle Konzack" <linux4michelle@tamay-dogan.net> - 2018-12-21 16:50 +0100
              Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-21 21:00 +0100
          Re: do you find old firefox is better than new one? Carl Fink <carlf@panix.com> - 2018-12-20 03:00 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#203398 — do you find old firefox is better than new one?

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

i have 52.9.0 and 45.9.0, both for stretch
new one often becomes unresponsive, 
and i have to close it and restart it
it often happens when i first start it
maybe some function/service is blocked in China
it seems it's doing something impossible, and takes much cpu resource 
but old firefox also face blocking

i can't describe it in more details or reproduce problem

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#203399

Dear Long Wind:
Usually I don't reply AOL but in this case I second that.
I'm an unhappy Firefox-user on Debian and am looking for alternatives.
Yes, I do have many tabs open, 'cause I need them. I got plenty of memory but 
Firefox does not seem to use it efficiently.

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 9:32:07 AM -03 Long Wind wrote:
> i have 52.9.0 and 45.9.0, both for stretch
> new one often becomes unresponsive,
or slows down extremely ...
> and i have to close it and restart it
> it often happens when i first start it
> maybe some function/service is blocked in China
I cannot second this behaviour. Do you use some or many extensions? Maybe 
legacy add-ons?
What about scripting on those pages? Here often enough scripts are stopped.
> it seems it's doing something impossible, and takes much cpu resource
> but old firefox also face blocking
Often 1 cpu of 4 is 100% in use without anything happening.
> 
> i can't describe it in more details or reproduce problem
Same here. Modern browsers are such a conglomerate of code that describing a 
problem is very difficult or impossible, even less pinning it down, not to 
mention debugging it. 

Unfortunately I also was never happy with Safari on OSX nor with IE or later 
with Edge on Win7 or 10 when I was compelled to use it.
My use of Firefox on OSX or Win10 is not as intense as on Linux so I cannot 
directly compare the OSes in this respect. As a consequence I shall not throw 
blame on the OS.

Life is too short for browsers.

Cheers,
Eike
-- 
Eike Lantzsch ZP6CGE

Yes, grey does matter.
For the 'Mercans: gray does matter.

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

#203400

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

Thanks! i don't have any add-on on both firefoxesand i haven't check scripting on web pagesand maybe i'm unable to read scripts

 

    On Sunday, December 16, 2018 7:07 PM, Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> wrote:
 

 Dear Long Wind:
Usually I don't reply AOL but in this case I second that.
I'm an unhappy Firefox-user on Debian and am looking for alternatives.
Yes, I do have many tabs open, 'cause I need them. I got plenty of memory but 
Firefox does not seem to use it efficiently.

On Sunday, December 16, 2018 9:32:07 AM -03 Long Wind wrote:
> i have 52.9.0 and 45.9.0, both for stretch
> new one often becomes unresponsive,
or slows down extremely ...
> and i have to close it and restart it
> it often happens when i first start it
> maybe some function/service is blocked in China
I cannot second this behaviour. Do you use some or many extensions? Maybe 
legacy add-ons?
What about scripting on those pages? Here often enough scripts are stopped.
> it seems it's doing something impossible, and takes much cpu resource
> but old firefox also face blocking
Often 1 cpu of 4 is 100% in use without anything happening.
> 
> i can't describe it in more details or reproduce problem
Same here. Modern browsers are such a conglomerate of code that describing a 
problem is very difficult or impossible, even less pinning it down, not to 
mention debugging it. 

Unfortunately I also was never happy with Safari on OSX nor with IE or later 
with Edge on Win7 or 10 when I was compelled to use it.
My use of Firefox on OSX or Win10 is not as intense as on Linux so I cannot 
directly compare the OSes in this respect. As a consequence I shall not throw 
blame on the OS.

Life is too short for browsers.

Cheers,
Eike
-- 
Eike Lantzsch ZP6CGE

Yes, grey does matter.
For the 'Mercans: gray does matter.



   

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

#203498

On 12/16/18, Long Wind <longwind2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>     On Sunday, December 16, 2018 7:07 PM, Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>
> Usually I don't reply AOL but in this case I second that.
> I'm an unhappy Firefox-user on Debian and am looking for alternatives.
> Yes, I do have many tabs open, 'cause I need them. I got plenty of memory
> but Firefox does not seem to use it efficiently.
>
> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 9:32:07 AM -03 Long Wind wrote:
>> i have 52.9.0 and 45.9.0, both for stretch
>> new one often becomes unresponsive,
> or slows down extremely ...
>> and i have to close it and restart it
>> it often happens when i first start it
>> maybe some function/service is blocked in China
> I cannot second this behaviour. Do you use some or many extensions? Maybe
> legacy add-ons?
> What about scripting on those pages? Here often enough scripts are stopped.
>> it seems it's doing something impossible, and takes much cpu resource
>> but old firefox also face blocking
> Often 1 cpu of 4 is 100% in use without anything happening.
>>
>
> Thanks! i don't have any add-on on both firefoxesand i haven't check
> scripting on web pagesand maybe i'm unable to read scripts


What I read into what Eike wrote about scripting is what I experience.
There's an alert/warning that pops up asking if you want the script to
continue processing or do you want to shut it down because it's
slowing things down too much.

Mine has never clued me as to what was the immediate culprit. It's
possible I just wasn't paying close enough attention.

*Unless I'm in a humongous hurry*, those messages have never caused
undue duress. Each occurrence was triggered by not keeping an eye on
memory usage combined with whatever action I've just asked the browser
to perform.

No, no add-ons. Haven't had any in many years. Things started getting
too scary in that realm. :)

Anyway, I decided to chime in on this thread because I just found out
I had ANOTHER 1,042 tabs open THIS time. That occurred over the last 2
weeks of websurfing.

"free -m" is showing this:

              total        used        free      shared  buff/cache   available
Mem:            986         747          94          40         145          76
Swap:          3999         941        3058

Thunar, GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program), and two tabs of
xfce4-terminal are also all open during that output there. That's on
my little Valentine's Day colored ASUS 1015px, 500GB hard drive with
four partitions that include that swap space.

This is for Firefox Quantum 62.0.3. I've played around with 63 and 65,
but seem to keep having to come back to that 62.0.3 for some reason.

This browser's been open for about a day and a half now. Several
HUNDRED of those tabs are currently "alive" and actively in use for
whatever various reasons of information gathering.

For me, it's phenomenal. Never had that fortune with respect to any
browsers. I did flub up the libjs package assortment during my last
debootstrap'ing. I forgot to take notes when I got a good combination
to work mid-November. A couple of frequently visited pages are back to
working haphazardly when they had just begun finally working
consistently. *smack my head!*

Several of the currently live tabs are about building the elinks
terminal text browser with javascript capability. Knowledge that
that's even a thing came about k/t finding out my bank demands
javascript capability. My bank's website closes my banking session
(logs me out) the second it determines javascript isn't going to
happen via a base elinks installation.

The instructions for building elinks with javascript weren't hard to
follow, but my effort got hung up by a missing header file at the
./configure step early on. Midway through trying to work that out, I
was startled by two new directories under root: /lib32 and /libx32.

Those two new directories undoubtedly came about while playing with
package libx32gcc1 and a couple related things. I smell another
debootstrap coming on way sooner than later. Business as usual. A
two-day old instance of Buster's core files is sitting in the wings
twiddling its thumbs as I type this. :)

Cindy :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with birdseed *

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

#203402

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 08:07:06 -0300
Eike Lantzsch <zp6cge@gmx.net> wrote:


> 
> Life is too short for browsers.

Indeed so, the main problem being that web designers charge a lot of
money, and for that the customer expects to see lots of whizzy things
on the pages, many of which can simply not be achieved in HTML. Every
page must have links to all the fashionable social media, and not just
links, but calls to chunks of JavaScript.

And there we have the real villain: the point of a programming
language is that arbitrary programs can be written in it, and there's
no way to optimise the browser to handle every possible program
efficiently. 

So many pages now have little or no functionality unless you permit half
a dozen scripts to run, many of them written by idiots who can just
barely drive a web authoring package. Look at the page source: 90% of
it is font commands, workarounds for many different rendering engines
and screen sizes, and other housekeeping stuff, and half the rest is JS
calls. I write the odd web application for my own use, and I do it
(usually) in php with embedded HTML. No web designer would ever
consider doing that, he wants to dash off rubbish in the shortest time
possible, and he assumes everyone is using the same browser, on a
high-powered workstation, that he uses for testing.

-- 
Joe

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

#203425

Joe wrote:

> So many pages now have little or no functionality unless you permit half
> a dozen scripts to run, many of them written by idiots who can just
> barely drive a web authoring package. Look at the page source: 90% of
> it is font commands, workarounds for many different rendering engines
> and screen sizes, and other housekeeping stuff, and half the rest is JS
> calls. I write the odd web application for my own use, and I do it
> (usually) in php with embedded HTML. No web designer would ever
> consider doing that, he wants to dash off rubbish in the shortest time
> possible, and he assumes everyone is using the same browser, on a
> high-powered workstation, that he uses for testing.

Many of them even do not know what is the source they produce. Don't blame
them - they use kind of tools that generate the code. All is getting
automated and at the cost of data transfer and processing.
As of PHP ... I found symfony framework, spent some time to learn it and ...
much better now.

regards

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

#203409

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 08:07:06 -0300, Eike Lantzsch wrote:

> Dear Long Wind:
> Usually I don't reply AOL but in this case I second that.
> I'm an unhappy Firefox-user on Debian and am looking for alternatives.
> Yes, I do have many tabs open, 'cause I need them. I got plenty of
> memory but Firefox does not seem to use it efficiently.

After arival of FF Quantum I switched to Vivaldi. It's and exellent 
browser to my surpise and is manages tabs very well. Give it a try.

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

#203411

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

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 03:58:23PM +0000, Juan R. de Silva wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 08:07:06 -0300, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
> 
> > Dear Long Wind:
> > Usually I don't reply AOL but in this case I second that.
> > I'm an unhappy Firefox-user on Debian and am looking for alternatives.
> > Yes, I do have many tabs open, 'cause I need them. I got plenty of
> > memory but Firefox does not seem to use it efficiently.
> 
> After arival of FF Quantum I switched to Vivaldi. It's and exellent 
> browser to my surpise and is manages tabs very well. Give it a try.

Yet another Chromium. People, realize that it's Internet Game Over once
Google has both ends of it.

Cheers
-- t

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

#203422

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 17:24:20 +0100, tomas wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 03:58:23PM +0000, Juan R. de Silva wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 08:07:06 -0300, Eike Lantzsch wrote:
>> 
>> > Dear Long Wind:
>> > Usually I don't reply AOL but in this case I second that.
>> > I'm an unhappy Firefox-user on Debian and am looking for alternatives.
>> > Yes, I do have many tabs open, 'cause I need them. I got plenty of
>> > memory but Firefox does not seem to use it efficiently.
>> 
>> After arival of FF Quantum I switched to Vivaldi. It's and exellent 
>> browser to my surpise and is manages tabs very well. Give it a try.
> 
> Yet another Chromium. People, realize that it's Internet Game Over once
> Google has both ends of it.

And what makes you think that Google doesn't have them anyway? BTW, Isn't FF 
shiped with Google as the default search engine? Or does it really make much
of difference changing it to anything else (I must confess I did, I use 
Startpage instead. It gives a kind of a sweet illusion.)

I use uMatrix and it is a very revealing tool. About 90% of websites, if
not more, are simply not usable unless you allow Google sniffing anyway.

Well, it is a sad reality, I agree. But there is not much we can do about
it.

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

#203423

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

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 08:22:26PM +0000, Juan R. de Silva wrote:

[...]

> I use uMatrix and it is a very revealing tool. About 90% of websites, if
> not more, are simply not usable unless you allow Google sniffing anyway.

This is (partially) right. You'd be surprised how usable the Web is with
Javascript disabled *and* a good deal of the googlesites neutered in the
resolver. But I disgress...

> Well, it is a sad reality, I agree. But there is not much we can do about
> it.

This is wrong. There are things we can do. The worst we can do is defetism.

It's *important* to let them know we don't like that behaviour. They are
an advertising firm, and thus very dependent on their public image. Help
them getting a tainted image (as long as they do what they do now).

Cheers
-- tomás

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

#203401

Long Wind wrote:
...
> i have 52.9.0 and 45.9.0, both for stretch
> new one often becomes unresponsive, 
> and i have to close it and restart it
> it often happens when i first start it
> maybe some function/service is blocked in China
> it seems it's doing something impossible, and takes much cpu resource 
> but old firefox also face blocking
>
> i can't describe it in more details or reproduce problem

  no, perhaps you have some add-on causing issues.
have you tried restarting it without add-ons?

  i've been running version 63.0.3-1 and there
is some sort of temporary issue with and upgrade
to 64, but eventually it will be sorted out.


  songbird

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

#203405

On 12/16/18 4:32 AM, Long Wind wrote:
> i have 52.9.0 and 45.9.0, both for stretch
> new one often becomes unresponsive,
> and i have to close it and restart it
> it often happens when i first start it
> maybe some function/service is blocked in China
> it seems it's doing something impossible, and takes much cpu resource
> but old firefox also face blocking
>
> i can't describe it in more details or reproduce problem
I can maybe give details of what I have been experiencing. I have both

63.0 (release) and 60.3 (firefox-esr).

60.3 is pretty usable. Sometimes the CPU usage seems high, especially
if I have 20 or more tabs open, but it rarely causes an actual problem.

63 will routinely use so much CPU my system freezes due to
overheating. (I probably need a better CPU fan, but at the same time,
no other application has ever come close to doing this.) Also tabs will
freeze. I was going to say "occasionally"  but in fact it's "about
twice an hour" if I'm actually doing anything with Firefox. The result
is that I only use the ESR version. I was actually planning to file a
bug but this has been a busy couple of weeks for me. At least FF has
added a mechanism that lets me kill just the offending tab, without
having to restart the browser entirely. Unfortunately, the mechanism
involves using htop to identify the offending thread (it will generally
be using 160% of CPU, somehow) and using kill -15.

Disappointing.

-- 
Carl Fink          carl@finknetwork.com
Thinking and logic and stuff at Reasonably Literate
http://reasonablyliterate.com

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

#203414

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

On 12/16, Long Wind wrote:
>i have 52.9.0 and 45.9.0, both for stretch
>new one often becomes unresponsive,
>and i have to close it and restart it
>it often happens when i first start it
>maybe some function/service is blocked in China
>it seems it's doing something impossible, and takes much cpu resource
>but old firefox also face blocking
>
>i can't describe it in more details or reproduce problem

New FF is for me by far the better, quicker and far better memory use.
-- 
regards.....

Dekks Herton

Thinkpad T61 2.0Ghz 2GB WSXGA+

Jabber IM: dekkzz78@jabber.hot-chilli.net

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

#203424

On 17/12/2018 06:35, dekkzz78@gmail.com wrote:
> On 12/16, Long Wind wrote:
>> i have 52.9.0 and 45.9.0, both for stretch
>> new one often becomes unresponsive,
>> and i have to close it and restart it
> New FF is for me by far the better, quicker and far better memory use.

Firefox 63 and 64 have been good for me. Earlier 60s seemed to have slow 
startup but this might have been because of plugins that have now been 
improved. I have not experienced any hangs or resource problems, and I 
use many windows and tabs. I use NoScript and Adblock Plus, which reduce 
resource consumption.

Kind regards,

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

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

#203426

Long Wind <longwind2@yahoo.com> writes:

> i have 52.9.0 and 45.9.0, both for stretch
> new one often becomes unresponsive,

Which one of “52.9.0” and “45.9.0” is the “new one”? Or do you mean some
other version?

Have you tried versions later than “52”? Debian Buster now has
‘firefox-esr’ version “60.4.0esr-1”. How does that change the behaviour
for you?

> and i have to close it and restart it

This happened for me quite often, because many of the Firefox extensions
were not compatible with Firefox 60.

So, some of the extensions which formerly blocked garbage from many
internet sites – malware like advertising and trackers – resumed when I
visited sites, so many of my tabs would contain malware that quickly
crippled the performance of the browser.

After installing newer, compatible extensions (NoScript 10, uMatrix,
uBlock Origin) and restarting the browser, that malware ceased, and my
browser is now happily fast again.

> i can't describe it in more details or reproduce problem

If you can answer some of the questions above, that might help us
understand better the behaviour you are describing.

-- 
 \             “For your convenience we recommend courteous, efficient |
  `\                            self-service.” —supermarket, Hong Kong |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

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

#203429

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

 52.9.0 is new one, i have stretch and early debian, 
i don't have buster, and can't install later firefox

since i can't reproduce problem, 
i don't expect it can be solved by seeking help here
Thanks anyway!

    On Monday, December 17, 2018, 9:59:24 AM GMT+8, Ben Finney <bignose@debian.org> wrote:  
 
 Long Wind <longwind2@yahoo.com> writes:

> i have 52.9.0 and 45.9.0, both for stretch
> new one often becomes unresponsive,

Which one of “52.9.0” and “45.9.0” is the “new one”? Or do you mean some
other version?

Have you tried versions later than “52”? Debian Buster now has
‘firefox-esr’ version “60.4.0esr-1”. How does that change the behaviour
for you?

> and i have to close it and restart it

This happened for me quite often, because many of the Firefox extensions
were not compatible with Firefox 60.

So, some of the extensions which formerly blocked garbage from many
internet sites – malware like advertising and trackers – resumed when I
visited sites, so many of my tabs would contain malware that quickly
crippled the performance of the browser.

After installing newer, compatible extensions (NoScript 10, uMatrix,
uBlock Origin) and restarting the browser, that malware ceased, and my
browser is now happily fast again.

> i can't describe it in more details or reproduce problem

If you can answer some of the questions above, that might help us
understand better the behaviour you are describing.

-- 
 \            “For your convenience we recommend courteous, efficient |
  `\                            self-service.” —supermarket, Hong Kong |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

  

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

#203430

On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 04:32 +0000, Long Wind wrote:
>  52.9.0 is new one, i have stretch and early debian, 
> i don't have buster, and can't install later firefox

stretch-updates has 60.4.0esr, but if I remember right you don't like
security updates?

-- 
Tixy 

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

#203431

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

new isn't necessarily better than old
i don't have enough reason to install security update and new firefox at this point.
52.9.0 performs  a little better now.
Thanks for your info. 

    On Monday, December 17, 2018 2:42 PM, Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> wrote:
 

 On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 04:32 +0000, Long Wind wrote:
>  52.9.0 is new one, i have stretch and early debian, 
> i don't have buster, and can't install later firefox

stretch-updates has 60.4.0esr, but if I remember right you don't like
security updates?

-- 
Tixy 



   

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

#203434

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

Hi Long Wind,

I use 60.4.0esr on Debian Stretch on a Lenovo T460, bevor I use Google Chrome (cause it can handle a lot of open tabs, and use for every tab a seperate process). With the 60.4.0esr everything works fine, at the moment I've more than 70 tabs open (in my "main" firefox window) and everything works fine. 
At the moment I don't use Chrome anymore, cause since FF Quantum, Mozilla did a great job with that. It's fast, never crashed and it just working. A hint: I delete all my .mozilla-files before, so I started with a "fresh" firefox profile. I guess thats a reason why I dont have problems ;)

best regards
Stefan



On Sunday, December 16, 2018 9:32:07 AM CET Long Wind wrote:


i have 52.9.0 and 45.9.0, both for stretch


new one often becomes unresponsive, 


and i have to close it and restart itit often happens when i first start it


maybe some function/service is blocked in China


it seems it's doing something impossible, and takes much cpu resource 


but old firefox also face blocking



i can't describe it in more details or reproduce problem

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

#203436

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

 Thank Stefan!  i'll try 60.4.0 tomorrow. 

    On Monday, December 17, 2018, 7:19:59 PM GMT+8, Stefan K <shadow_7@gmx.net> wrote:  
 
 #yiv7133287840 p, #yiv7133287840 li {white-space:pre-wrap;}
Hi Long Wind,

 

I use 60.4.0esr on Debian Stretch on a Lenovo T460, bevor I use Google Chrome (cause it can handle a lot of open tabs, and use for every tab a seperate process). With the 60.4.0esr everything works fine, at the moment I've more than 70 tabs open (in my "main" firefox window) and everything works fine. 

At the moment I don't use Chrome anymore, cause since FF Quantum, Mozilla did a great job with that. It's fast, never crashed and it just working. A hint: I delete all my .mozilla-files before, so I started with a "fresh" firefox profile. I guess thats a reason why I dont have problems ;)

 

best regards

Stefan



On Sunday, December 16, 2018 9:32:07 AM CET Long Wind wrote:


i have 52.9.0 and 45.9.0, both for stretch


new one often becomes unresponsive, 


and i have to close it and restart it
it often happens when i first start it


maybe some function/service is blocked in China


it seems it's doing something impossible, and takes much cpu resource 


but old firefox also face blocking



i can't describe it in more details or reproduce problem





  

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web