Firefox Electrolysis (multi-process) won’t come out this year

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by ArchiveX, Nov 28, 2015.

  1. ArchiveX

    ArchiveX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Posts:
    1,016
  2. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Interesting stuff, but I'm not going to lie, I have never been a fan of this multi-process architecture. It has only made browsers loggy and more resource hungry. Just take a look at browsers based on Chromium.
     
  3. quietman

    quietman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Posts:
    491
    Location:
    Earth .... occasionally
    Oh yes !

    I second that ; do we really need a separate process for each and every browser tab ?

    It may sound stupid and idealistic , but why can't Firefox just be Firefox ?
    ..... "If it ain't broke then don't fix it ! " .... ( I'll try to come up with some other glib cliches before I finish typing ) .

    As a long-time Firefox user , I'm starting to see a real purpose in forks such as Palemoon ,
    starting with their total rejection of the useless Australis , or whatever it was that Mozilla called it .

    - End of Rant -
     
  4. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Yes exactly, I know they say it's for stability and security, but I have never had problems with Opera 11 and 12 when it came to this. Plus the old Opera was snappy and fast as hell. The current Firefox doesn't even feel that fast, what do you think that will happen when they implement this?
     
  5. Windows_Security

    Windows_Security Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2013
    Posts:
    3,083
    Location:
    Netherlands
    A cleaner architecture? Less code? Better security? Higher stability? Higher performance? It is like the nespresso advertisement with Clooney, what else could be a viable alternative considering the benefits of OOP?
     
  6. bjm_

    bjm_ Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Posts:
    2,283
    A visit to Are We e10s site tracking add-on compatibility in regards to multi-process Firefox, highlights that a large portion of Firefox add-ons are not yet compatible with Electrolysis. Among the incompatible add-ons popular extensions such as NoScript, Adblock Plus, Web of Trust, Ghostery, LastPass or Session Manager.

    If Mozilla would launch multi-process Firefox today, those incompatible add-ons would either fail to work at all, partially, or would cause other issues in the browser.
     
  7. Brummelchen

    Brummelchen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Posts:
    1,734
    chromium (chrome/opera/vivaldi/aso.) is using it since nearly beginning - so its a really stupid comparison.
    purpose is to separate extensions, plugins and websites from the core and raise security. even cross access between websites is not really possible, but chrome had some issues with that, were solved.

    and ofc it needs more memory, but for now e10s is switchable, who cares. and moreover older extension are still compatible with e10s off.

    check your extensions: http://arewee10syet.com/

    palemoon is complete off mozillas development, it uses another engine fork from gecko and result are non compatible extensions. and when the new extension sdk is needed palemoon is close as dead, only few authors would maintain the old extension sdk for few users. from my view waste of time to investigate in palemoon or other surrogates.

    old opera 12 is already dead. its engine is pretty outdated and not compatible to newer web technics. it may show older styled websites but thats it.

    HTH
     
  8. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Old Opera was the best browser ever created.
     
  9. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,872
    I think your information in regard to the pale moon browser is a bit misleading and not entirely correct.
    If people want correct information then the palemoon forum would be a good start.
    http://forum.palemoon.org/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=07476d38bd3f15203793e5f2e2b4dbda
     
  10. Brummelchen

    Brummelchen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Posts:
    1,734
    palemoon is off gecko, uses goanna
    http://www.ghacks.net/2015/06/22/pale-moon-to-switch-from-gecko-to-goanna-rendering-engine/

    and there is a discussion about upcoming deprecation of XPCOM in gecko
    http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=8756

    and that are facts. people start saving xpi extensions offline for purpose, asking for future development of eg TabMix Plus (TMP) aso.

    There seems also a big break with mozilla forums (mozillazine)
    http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9780

    btw you wrote nearly same ;)
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/firefox-forks.368128/page-2#post-2545101
     
  11. Windows_Security

    Windows_Security Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2013
    Posts:
    3,083
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Great news, Firefox is making up ground, mhh sounds familiar see OLD THREAD :p

    Without XPCOM, XUL and XBL and with OOP (and sandbox) FF will be a lot safer :thumb:

    Announced in 2009 with luck implemented in mid 2016 :D
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2015
  12. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,872

    Yes i did air those very concerns on the pale moon forum and received a courteous and concise reply from the developer.These are obvious concerns and the palemoon developer is very upfront with anyconcerns that may arise.
    Not many browser developers fully integrate with their users like moonchild does and i applaud him for that.

    Have you ever tried getting tech support for chrome or firefox...?.Forget it,
     
  13. Brummelchen

    Brummelchen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Posts:
    1,734
    i dont support chrome cause i dont use it (ofc i can help out with issues when they are same in firefox). i support firefox in another forum, i am an experienced user. best support for firefox is mozillazine, support.mozilla.org or camp-firefox.de. although i dont like Sören as a person he is very encouraged in firefox development (official representative). if they cant fix it, its system failure or a known bug ;) at least i never had really trouble with it.

    btw Mozilla gets (more) money from yahoo and some more, but no longer google. nevertheless they may have some joint ventures eg new form of extensions.
     
  14. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    How is this stupid? I'm just saying that I prefer single process browsers. If Opera 12 with the Presto engine was still developed, it would have probably still been superior to FF, Chrome and Edge. Browsers are getting too bloated at the moment.
     
  15. FleischmannTV

    FleischmannTV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,071
    Location:
    Germany
    Yeah, that stupid chromium sandbox. So laggy and resource hungry. It has only made all sandboxing, anti-exploit, anti-virus, anti-exe and pseudo-hips software completely obsolete when it comes to browser attacks. Imagine all software on Windows were coded that way. How slow our computers would become without all that "security" software.
     
  16. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Who cares about the Chrome sandbox, if the browser itself sucks and feels loggy. And no, it hasn't made security tools obsolete, it is still vulnerable to zero day attacks, just like any other tool.
     
  17. FleischmannTV

    FleischmannTV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,071
    Location:
    Germany
    People who care about actual improvements in security by design and not through third-party software. You obviously don't, we get it.
     
  18. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Don't get me wrong, of course Chrome has raised the bar, and the last time I checked it was kinda snappy, and apparently they are trying to improve resources usage. But I'm planning to switch to Vivaldi, and for now it seems to be even heavier than Chrome, so I'm a bit frustrated. Also, I saw that Chrome opens a separate process for every opened tab, I'm sure that's great for stability and security, but I think it's overkill. The same goes for Vivaldi and Opera 33.
     
  19. FleischmannTV

    FleischmannTV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,071
    Location:
    Germany
    Not only for every tab, but for every extension and every plugin and for the GPU process as well. You have to use a multi process architecture for a proper minimum privilege implementation. Chrome tabs, extensions and plugins (pdf, flash) run in a seperate process that has no file-system, registry (not even read in both cases) and internet access. If the browser had just one process, none of this would be possible. Further a vulnerability in any of the aforementioned would lead to a compromise in the entire browsing session in a single process architecture.
     
  20. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,872
    This is so sad to see firefox slowly losing its identity.Survived perfectly well without all this resource eating multi tab nonsense.
    Its just another nail in the firefox coffin.
     
  21. pandorax

    pandorax Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Posts:
    330
    Are you kidding? Multiprocess is the reason google chrome/chromium never lag and locks ui when other tabs loading. It is going to bring performance and security.
     
  22. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    This might be true, but I almost never use it, so I don't know. But Opera 12 with 60 tabs open also never crashes. So you don't need it for stability.

    This is true, from a security point of view, it has raised the bar. I also wonder how Edge handles this, it's using AppContainer if I'm correct. And BTW, do Vivaldi and Opera 33 also have sandbox protection, or is this a Chrome specific feature? That's still not clear to me.
     
  23. Brummelchen

    Brummelchen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Posts:
    1,734
  24. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    That hasn't got anything to do with the actual sandbox? I'm talking about stuff like AppContainer, protection against buffer overflow has been around for a longtime.
     
  25. Brummelchen

    Brummelchen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Posts:
    1,734
    nothing comparable to sandboxie if you meant that. sandboxing in windows means reducing rights.
    adobe described it here
    https://blogs.adobe.com/asset/2012/06/inside-flash-player-protected-mode-for-firefox.html

    (ofc firefox can do same now for several versions now instead using plugin-container)

    outdated HIPS from Online Armor (now Emsisoft) did same and some current programs do this way.
    i dont know AppContainer but buffer over/underflow is some kind of injection like MBAE/HMPA i think

    HTH
     
Loading...