MozillaZine

Why not block CPU-intensive content by default?

Discussion of features in Mozilla Firefox
yong321
 
Posts: 38
Joined: October 1st, 2004, 7:29 am

Post Posted March 5th, 2017, 9:15 am

This is a general question. By CPU intensive content, I mean auto playing videos, flashes, animated GIFs, low-interval Javascript-controlled image frames which simulate animated GIFs, etc. I can install various ad blockers to block some so that *I* control whether to play them. But the add-ons could cause more problems in terms of memory usage. Why does Firefox not build some commonly requested features into the browser as default so we don't rely on third-party add-on? I like to run FF in safe-mode. But going to sites like dictionary.com causes high CPU usage.

JayhawksRock

User avatar
 
Posts: 10374
Joined: October 24th, 2010, 8:51 am

Post Posted March 5th, 2017, 11:02 am

There are over one billion websites on the internet ..... why don't you make a list of the ones that You want blocked and submit the list to Mozilla :? :shock:
https://www.google.com/search?site=&sou ... rmGG4_5QZo
The open Internet should NOT manage anything for Me.
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."
~ Mark Twain

the-edmeister

User avatar
 
Posts: 31795
Joined: February 25th, 2003, 12:51 am
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Post Posted March 5th, 2017, 12:08 pm

yong321 wrote: I like to run FF in safe-mode.


For what purpose?

Firefox "Safe Mode" doesn't make you any "safer" on the internet. It is a troubleshooting mode to help the user "zero in" on potential causes for some issues the user may be having with Firefox.

And it may provoke an issue that isn't present in "normal mode".

.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Mine has wandered off and I'm out looking for it.

yong321
 
Posts: 38
Joined: October 1st, 2004, 7:29 am

Post Posted March 5th, 2017, 2:56 pm

the-edmeister wrote:
yong321 wrote: I like to run FF in safe-mode.

For what purpose?
.


If I understand it correctly, running in safe mode disables all installed addons and plugins. Mostly, I want to block auto playing videos. Tried a couple of AD blockers. They seem to cause memory and CPU issues of their own. I bet a FF that comes with its own blockers wouldn't have such issues.

I run FF in safe-mode not because I want to be safe on the Internet.

DanRaisch
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 116111
Joined: September 23rd, 2004, 8:57 pm
Location: Somewhere on the right coast

Post Posted March 5th, 2017, 4:29 pm

If I understand it correctly, running in safe mode disables all installed addons and plugins.


No, Safe Mode does nothing to disable plug-ins. Those are installed at the operating system level. And there is no reason to assume that built in blockers would have any fewer issues than the extensions for the same purpose display.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting dfoulkes:

-- What safe-mode does ..... Safe Mode temporarily affects the following:
* All extensions are disabled. --- * The userChrome.css and userContent.css files are ignored.
* The default theme is used, without a persona. --- * The default toolbar layout is used.
* The Just-in-time (JIT) JavaScript compiler is disabled. --- * Hardware acceleration is disabled.

-- Safe Mode has no effect on the following --
* The status of plugins is not affected.
* Custom preferences are not affected.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yong321
 
Posts: 38
Joined: October 1st, 2004, 7:29 am

Post Posted March 5th, 2017, 6:29 pm

DanRaisch wrote:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting dfoulkes:

-- What safe-mode does ..... Safe Mode temporarily affects the following:
* All extensions are disabled. --- * The userChrome.css and userContent.css files are ignored.
* The default theme is used, without a persona. --- * The default toolbar layout is used.
* The Just-in-time (JIT) JavaScript compiler is disabled. --- * Hardware acceleration is disabled.

-- Safe Mode has no effect on the following --
* The status of plugins is not affected.
* Custom preferences are not affected.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dan,
Thank you for your clarification. I mixed up extensions with other things.

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 17108
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted March 6th, 2017, 5:47 am

If you don't want Plugins to run, set them to 'Never Activate' in Addons Manager.
Likewise you can set gif animations to never.
HTML5, that's harder, & not sure what Prefs to tell you to change on that end?
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

yong321
 
Posts: 38
Joined: October 1st, 2004, 7:29 am

Post Posted March 6th, 2017, 7:53 am

Thanks to all.

My main question is, Why does not the Firefox team consider incorporating some popular plugins/add-ons into the default browser build? The developers are smart, open-minded, with no business or commercial motive. And doing so is technically quite easy.

LIMPET235
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 37232
Joined: October 19th, 2007, 1:53 am
Location: The South Coast of N.S.W. Oz.

Post Posted March 6th, 2017, 8:02 am

What can one say to those ^ comments?
Ha!
Ancient Amateur Astronomer
Win-7-HP/Intel® DualCore-2.0GHz/500G HDD/4 Gig Ram/550Watt PSU/350WattUPS/Firefox-20.0-50.0/T-bird-2.0.0.24/SnagIt-v10.0.1/MWP-7.11.0.
RadioYachting. Conficker Test. (Always choose the "Custom" Install.)

DanRaisch
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 116111
Joined: September 23rd, 2004, 8:57 pm
Location: Somewhere on the right coast

Post Posted March 6th, 2017, 9:41 am

Why does not the Firefox team consider incorporating some popular plugins/add-ons into the default browser build?


Which extensions would be appropriate to become part of the default build. You will probably name half a dozen while the Rube would have half a dozen different ones, and Limpet six still different ones, etc, etc. By the time everyone's favorites are incorporated, the download installer for Firefox would be 800GB in size!

And doing so is technically quite easy.
[/quote]

Not really. Adding in functionality for one extension might be quite easy (or it might not) but combining functionality from multiple extensions, some of which might be similar but not identical to built in functionality, would be much more involved and time consuming. Think of the all of the potential for conflicts when all of the various elements are combined. Bad enough when a user chooses to install a number of extensions, only to have one cripple some portion of the browser. Still worse to try to combine all of those elements gracefully and seamlessly into the core code that everyone will be using.

yong321
 
Posts: 38
Joined: October 1st, 2004, 7:29 am

Post Posted March 6th, 2017, 11:11 am

I imagine it's easy to find the numbers of downloads for each extension. Without the actual statistics, I'm guessing various AD blockers are among the top. So to simplify the choice, either pick the top one or two or build a default AD blocker.

therube

User avatar
 
Posts: 17108
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Post Posted March 6th, 2017, 1:29 pm

The developers are smart, open-minded, with no business or commercial motive. And doing so is technically quite easy.


Corrected.

The developers are dumb, close-minded, and do have a commercial motives.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript

the-edmeister

User avatar
 
Posts: 31795
Joined: February 25th, 2003, 12:51 am
Location: Chicago, IL, USA

Post Posted March 6th, 2017, 2:19 pm

yong321 wrote:Thanks to all.

My main question is, Why does not the Firefox team consider incorporating some popular plugins/add-ons into the default browser build? The developers are smart, open-minded, with no business or commercial motive. And doing so is technically quite easy.

NPAPI plugins are gone, except for Flash, in tomorrow's Firefox 52 Release. Edge doesn't use "plugins" and Chrome is or has dumped plugins, too. There's a new way of doing things on the internet, that "replace" the former plugin systems.

https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases ... n-firefox/

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/5 ... easenotes/ - Changed - Removed support for Netscape Plugin API (NPAPI) plugins other than Flash. Silverlight, Java, Acrobat and the like are no longer supported. And Firefox 52 Beta moves to the Release channel tomorrow.

And the reason that Mozilla hasn't provided plugins in the past, it that most all plugins are "owned" by other companies - they aren't open source which is part of the Mozilla mission; providing free open source software.

.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Mine has wandered off and I'm out looking for it.

malliz
Folder@Home

User avatar
 
Posts: 43015
Joined: December 7th, 2002, 4:34 am
Location: Aus

Post Posted March 6th, 2017, 2:20 pm

yong321 wrote:I imagine it's easy to find the numbers of downloads for each extension. Without the actual statistics, I'm guessing various AD blockers are among the top. So to simplify the choice, either pick the top one or two or build a default AD blocker.

And what about the people like me who don't want a damned intrusive and resource hungry addblocker? Get this through your head "one size does NOT fit all"
Last edited by malliz on March 7th, 2017, 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
What sort of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
"Terry Pratchett"

James
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 26777
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 3:07 pm
Location: Made in Canada

Post Posted March 7th, 2017, 1:01 am

yong321 wrote:My main question is, Why does not the Firefox team consider incorporating some popular plugins/add-ons into the default browser build? The developers are smart, open-minded, with no business or commercial motive. And doing so is technically quite easy.

yong321 wrote:I imagine it's easy to find the numbers of downloads for each extension. Without the actual statistics, I'm guessing various AD blockers are among the top. So to simplify the choice, either pick the top one or two or build a default AD blocker.

So you know what the word Addons refers to https://addons.mozilla.org/faq

Mozilla has put in a few Extensions over the years however the end result was a a more bare bone version.

The vast majority of Extensions hosted at say addons.mozilla.org are made by a third-party author or company. Ones made by Mozilla would have say Mozilla or Mozilla Labs as the author.

Spellbound for example is or was a good spell checker extension that is made by Robert Strong. Mozilla instead put in the basic inline spell checker you see in Firefox since 2.0, Robert decided to stop working on it due to this along with fact he started working for Mozilla around that time also. My point is we could have gotten something like SpellBound instead of something more bare. http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/

Return to Firefox Features


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest