1. 25

  2. 9

    Firefox has had GPU acceleration on Linux for ages.

    Finally, and more interestingly to those of on Linux, is the ability to enable GPU acceleration for Firefox on Linux for X11 (the feature is, I believe, already present on Wayland). Now, this is not enabled by default but you can turn it on manually via about:config – just search for ‘vaapi’ and change the relevant values for both results from false to true.

    This is talking about video playback acceleration, which will be a welcome improvement for any laptop user that’s watched video in Firefox. As usual the Arch wiki has more info on accelerated video playback. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Hardware_video_acceleration

    1. 7

      I recently switched to Wayland backend and enabled VA-API (widget.wayland-dmabuf-vaapi.enabled) and webrender (gfx.webrender.enabled). Both web browsing and video playback are now butter-smooth with low CPU use. It now feels like Firefox on Linux can almost compete with Safari on macOS wrt. smoothness.

      1. 1

        Excellent, that’s great to hear. Safari really is the one to match.

        1. 1

          (Touch) scrolling isn’t really butter smooth without widget.wayland_vsync.enabled (but there’s some bugs with that for now)

        2. 1

          but video playback is like 90% of the CPU usage when using a browser on linux, so you could say they enabled GPU support, at least for most of what people need GPU support for

        3. 8

          The biggest change is, as pointed out by Ghack’s Martin Brinkmann, the introduction of an add-ons block list. Unstable, unsavoury, and privacy-invading add-ons lodged on this Mozilla-maintained block-list will be unable to run in Firefox 80. This practice, though heavy-handed, will ensure that Firefox runs as well as it can for all users, whilst protecting them too.

          I really don’t like the sound of this, it has a very high potential to be abused.

          Is it possible to disable this “add-ons block list”?

          1. 20

            Yes. As a savvy developer you’re probably not going to run into the credential-stealing ad-injecting extensions that consumer desktop software often tries to sideload unless one of your extensions changes maintainers, and then it’s an enormous disaster.

            1. 5

              “Unsavory” addons could very easily mean addons that the bulk of the developers at Mozilla find politically unacceptable. Or that a group of motivated activists finds politically unacceptable, given that one of the ways an extension can make it onto the block list is via user reporting.

              1. 27

                I think rather than meaning a conspiratorial possibility with no evidence of ever occurring, it’s more likely it means the problem of malicious addons that has publicly occurred thousands of times and affected millions of users.

              2. 4

                I mean, you can always patch it out at least. If they abuse it I assume distros will patch out.

                1. 2

                  You’ll also always be able to run unsigned add-ons. If there’s a legit add-on you wanna run which Mozilla blocks, you will always be able to get Firefox Developer Edition and load the add-on from source.

                  1. 4

                    Yes, but the point is that mozilla’s giving themselves this capability represents their trusting themselves to restrict the sort of content that will be consumed by most of their users. Is it mostly harmless, and likely to work as implemented? Yes, probably, but it’s still worrying. I have similar concerns about these settings, which are turned on by default

                    Block dangerous and deceptive content

                    Block dangerous downloads

                    Warn you about unwanted and uncommon software

                    (I can’t recall if the last two are on by default, but the first definitely is.)

                    Chrome does this too FWIW, and they both use the same blocklists.

              3. 1

                Also you can set FF as your system’s default PDF reader now, for some reason.

                1. 4

                  Firefox has good content sandboxing (and pdf.js doesn’t even implement the.. questionable parts of PDF) and smooth GPU accelerated rendering. Does your traditional PDF reader have all that?

                  (also it’s sometimes really convenient to have PDFs in your browser tab bar instead of a separate app)