gcp

5 ms·

1.
by gcp 6mo ago
I don't think Firefox has the access permissions needed to read MCE status, and the vast majority of our users don't have ECC, let alone they're going to run memtest86(+) after a Firefox crash. If they did, we wouldn't b
2.
by gcp 6mo ago
No.
3.
by gcp 6mo ago
Deduplicating and identifying the source of a crash point is surprisingly hard, to the point that “it’s the only crash of its kind” could be a bug in your logic for linking issues. This is a bit vague to really reply to very specifically,
4.
by gcp 6mo ago
Did you actually read the posts that started this topic, or are you being an ass for no reason? Hint: No-one is claiming memory is to blame for 100% of the Firefox crashes. No-one is claiming it's 99% either.
5.
by gcp 6mo ago
I'm quite confident to say that millions of people use Firefox to comment on Reddit or similar sites every day, or write long posts, without seeing this problem. Without knowing more about your configuration, it's hard to give adv
6.
by gcp 6mo ago
You were seeing issues from the graphics driver, not Firefox. Any memory allocation failing within the browser forces an instant crash unless the callsite explicitly opts in to handling the allocation failure. "Check malloc failure&q
7.
by gcp 3y ago
Yeah, Dark Reader is known to totally plummet Firefox performance. Not sure if it's a coding issue in the Firefox version of Dark Reader, or it's hitting some slow path in Firefox itself.
8.
by gcp 3y ago
It helps if you file bugs in Bugzilla. You can link to them here, there's a good chance a developer will find them.
9.
by gcp 3y ago
Change tends to mean things like exciting new spying and UI regressions Or missing out on new anti-fingerprinting and anti-tracking improvements. Note that adblockers don't generally do the former.
10.
by gcp 3y ago
The whole point of the about:restartrequired warning is to avoid this problem. If you're crashing, I hope you've been filing bugs.
11.
by gcp 3y ago
This is how Mozilla's own updater works (if you use the .tar.gz version), but the distro package updater just overwrites everything without waiting and applications like Firefox have no control over that. As a user, you'd really w
12.
by gcp 3y ago
What determines "excessive"? In this case it's for a security feature that Chrome lacks(!).
13.
by gcp 3y ago
Did you report this on Bugzilla? Even if it's not Firefox's fault if you don't report it no-one knows about the issue. Recent versions of Firefox allow you to block some stuff like that: https://support.mozilla.org
14.
by gcp 5y ago
One reason why it shipped on Windows first is that the situation is more serious there. The article goes into details why the different overcommit behavior is more problematic on Windows, and you're more likely to OOM there as a result
15.
by gcp 5y ago
Because for some people their open sites, and the ability to switch quickly between them, is the most important use of their machine and what they want their RAM to be used for.
16.
by gcp 5y ago
It wasn't enabled by default because it didn't work well enough. Getting better low memory triggers was a key to making this an overall benefit, and not just a user annoyance.
17.
by gcp 5y ago
>very rarely Firefox would crash The feature stops (or reduces the likelyhood) of that happening. It literally is made to trigger in a situation where the alternative is to crash. >So, if I want to disable this, I should set a big num
18.
by gcp 5y ago
>though it's not clear to me what the difference is This one works well enough that we can default it on :-) The previous one didn't reliably detect low memory situations and you could crash with OOM before it ever triggered. T
19.
by gcp 5y ago
That's definitely something we would want to do, but it requires a (very) reliable measurement method for this kind of memory pressure. If it's not reliable, the browser unloads tabs when it's not needed, and that's way
20.
by gcp 5y ago
>No thanks, I'd rather get more RAM or swap space for paging. As the article explains, if you have enough swap you'll never trigger this. It activates right before you'd have crashed otherwise.
21.
by gcp 5y ago
People on low memory machines, or people on big boxes that read some article about how swap makes your SSD die and tried to disable Windows swapping (or downloaded some "optimization" tool that does that). The last is explicitly h
22.
by gcp 5y ago
The original ticket seems to indicate this is a leak in a Windows accessibility service and so far there was no luck in finding a way to avoid it. That sucks.
23.
by gcp 5y ago
Paste a few links from about:crashes here. If you click on them, you might find the associated bug (if it exists). Firefox should literally never crash. If it does, that's a serious bug (but especially on Windows, not necessarily in Fi
24.
by gcp 5y ago
Paste a few links from about:crashes here. If you click on them, you might find the associated bug (if it exists). Firefox should literally never crash. If it does, that's a serious bug (but especially on Windows, not necessarily in Fi
25.
by gcp 7y ago
>it looks like HN folks are not in favour of these integrations, including me. I have no idea why you think that random HN discussion afterwards (in response to an article filled with misinformation!) would have any bearing on how Firefo
26.
by gcp 7y ago
...users in the US. Quite an important detail.
27.
by gcp 7y ago
First announcements were even longer ago: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/05/a-cartoon-intro-to-dns-ove...
28.
by gcp 7y ago
This has been tested and debated for months. Initial support for Firefox rolled out 9 months ago or so: https://miketabor.com/enable-dns-over-https-and-encrypted-sn... The conclusion of the debate was that it vastly improve
29.
ICANN is considering removing price caps on .org domains(domainnamewire.com)
1 points by gcp 7y ago|0 comments
30.
by gcp 8y ago
So the machine "fixed" the "glitch"?

More ›