[HN Gopher] Firefox 115 Now Available with Intel GPU Video Decod...
___________________________________________________________________
Firefox 115 Now Available with Intel GPU Video Decoding on Linux
Author : LinuxBender
Score : 147 points
Date : 2023-07-04 13:38 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.phoronix.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.phoronix.com)
| robertlagrant wrote:
| This sort of improvement is extremely welcome. Good job Mozilla.
| evilpie wrote:
| [deleted because I don't to be accused for ragebaiting]
| mcpackieh wrote:
| One has basically nothing to do with the other, but I'll
| humor your attempt to draw a connection and say that if I had
| to choose between Firefox having GPU video decoding and
| IBM/RH not trying to subvert the GPL, I'd choose the latter
| and forego video acceleration. This is to say, the former
| does not make up for the latter even if I humor the existence
| of a connection.
|
| Besides, I'm still going to play videos in mpv anyway. In-
| browser players suck for various other reasons besides the
| acceleration/performance issue. The bare-bones vanilla in-
| browser player has virtually no features and controls cannot
| easily be remapped. Firefox's floating video player feature
| is a nice step in the right direction, but only a tiny step.
| Furthermore the video controls implemented by websites like
| youtube are even worse and fixing that on a per-site basis
| would be a huge chore. I'll give you a specific example: my
| laptop's universal volume keys are my F1, F2, and F3 keys and
| they're right next to my 1, 2, and 3 keys. In the control
| scheme youtube has implemented, if I ever miss my volume keys
| I jump the video back to 1:00, 2:00 or 3:00 because youtube
| for whatever reason thinks number keys should be shortcuts to
| seek to that minute mark. I guess some people probably like
| this but I certainly do not. I could try to fix this by
| injecting scripts into the youtube page, but that's a hassle
| I can simply avoid in the first place by using a video player
| that has mostly sane defaults and makes configuration
| straight forward besides. I'd rather configure mpv once then
| play wack-a-mole fixing numerous websites and keeping those
| fixes up-to-date and working.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Hi - I said well done Mozilla and they let me know who did
| the work. I don't see why you're saying anything you said
| here.
| jacoblambda wrote:
| It really isn't that interesting. Red Hat engineers do great
| work and have done so for years. That controversy has little
| to do with the engineers and everything to do with Red Hat
| corporate.
| BaseballPhysics wrote:
| Honestly, not that interesting, and I hope this doesn't spin
| up a ragebait thread that's a distraction from what is
| objectively some very good news.
| dralley wrote:
| Since the other poster deleted their post, I will hazard a
| guess as to what they said.
|
| This work was done by Martin Stransky from Red Hat, as with
| most of the other linux hardware acceleration and Wayland
| enablement work that has happened over the past several years.
|
| But Red Hat is not very popular right now, so even mentioning
| that they might be due credit for this work is therefore
| considered potential "rage bait".
|
| I very much don't want to see the thread devolve into another
| argument either, but I also hope that can be avoided without
| completely ignoring such details as the engineer that did this
| work (and lots of other work) in Firefox.
|
| Disclosure: I work at Red Hat
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Very cool.
| ptsneves wrote:
| I am a hard core open source guy and make a living with it.
| It gives me huge grief to see people complaining about red
| hat. Red hat employs many many people and contributes a big
| lot. I personally do not like RHEL but worked in a company
| that more than could justify the RHEL license and even so
| went for centos. It disgusted me even further because when
| there were bugs to the red hat bug trackers they went and
| found their solutions.
|
| I support open source, I believe it needs to be sustainable
| financially otherwise it will just be replaced by closed
| source competitors and the world will be better off.
| cassepipe wrote:
| Does that mean all intel GPUs such as integrated GPUs only
| Intel's discrete GPUs ?
|
| Am I likely to find any kind of improvement on a intel 12th gen
| laptop ? I guess yes since firefox has a hard time handling 1080p
| videos on my machine, is this because it all happens on the CPUs
| ?
| [deleted]
| onli wrote:
| I was pretty certain that Firefox did already support VA-API
| with Intel and I did test that with integrated Intel graphics.
| Maybe this release is more about enabling it by default, or to
| also support the discrete GPUs?
|
| It's a pity the changelog does not link a more detailed
| writeup.
| nicolaslem wrote:
| A modern CPU should be able to decode 1080p in software without
| breaking a sweat. I had hardware decoding disabled in Firefox
| until recently and the difference is unnoticeable to me.
| redox99 wrote:
| > A modern CPU should be able to decode 1080p in software
| without breaking a sweat.
|
| Not true for modern codecs such as AV1
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| hardware decoding generally improves battery life by a lot.
| why disable it?
| nicolaslem wrote:
| I was hitting a bug that would randomly crash the GPU when
| hardware decoding VP9. I re-enabled hardware decoding after
| adding a Firefox extension that let me chose the codec
| Youtube uses.
|
| Regarding battery life, I really haven't noticed a
| difference on a 6800U. Both hover around a disappointing
| 7W.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Software decoding is generally more customizable and better
| quality, also better stability depending on the
| circumstances.
| wtallis wrote:
| Adjustability of codec parameters and quality are reasons
| to prefer software over hardware for _en_ coding, but
| I've never seen any evidence or explanation for how
| software _de_ coding can likewise be significantly better
| --unless you're referring to post-processing that can
| just as easily be done after hardware decoding.
| slashink wrote:
| Encoding yes. Decoding the image is equal, at least with
| h.264
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| You probably read this about software encoding and got
| them mixed up in your head.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| I've messed around in the anime fansubbing scene many
| years ago and still tinker around with codecs and filters
| since I care about that stuff.
|
| I don't usually use hardware decoders because there are
| restrictions, such as what renderers can be used or what
| and where filters can be placed in the decoding and
| rendering pipeline.
|
| Hardware decoding is great when power (be it electrical
| or processing) is limited, but if you really want to have
| all the knobs available software decoding is what you
| want.
| abrouwers wrote:
| Strange, my fan (12th gen intel) spins up instantly on
| software, and my battery life takes a hit.
| arp242 wrote:
| VA-API is available on integrated CPUs as well. You can run
| "vainfo" to check support on your system.
|
| That said, even my slow Celeron can do 1080p fine, so not sure
| why your system can't.
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| This is awesome, maybe we can get more user feedback for devices
| on hw video decoding.
|
| HW video decode on Linux (just for browsers) has dragged at a
| snail's pace for the longest time. Firefox seems to take the lead
| in this regard but Chromium is just terrible.
|
| Chromium devs create flags that break hw video every few months
| or so (and when the flags break you are forced to go on a random
| easter egg hunt to find out how to make hw video work again) and
| currently has a bug that leads to a memory leak. Sigh.
| random_mutex wrote:
| > Chromium devs create flags that break hw video every few
| months or so (and when the flags break you are forced to go on
| a random easter egg hunt to find out how to make hw video work
| again) and currently has a bug that leads to a memory leak.
| Sigh.
|
| The Xorg leak was awful, it took me three days to find its
| cause.
| Timber-6539 wrote:
| I get this problem on Xwayland which is the only way [0] to
| enable HW video decode on official Chromium binaries on
| Wayland ATM. Am on Arch and if the Chrome team doesn't fix
| the issue in future releases I just might give this
| workaround [1] a chance.
|
| [0] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=132
| 675...
|
| [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/chromium-wayland-vaapi
| abrouwers wrote:
| This caused me to switch to FF. But, now I have native,
| well-functioning wayland & vaapi - wish I had switched
| sooner!
| [deleted]
| sdwolfz wrote:
| "Certain Firefox users may come across a message in the
| extensions panel indicating that their add-ons are not allowed on
| the site currently open. We have introduced a new back-end
| feature to only allow some extensions monitored by Mozilla to run
| on specific websites for various reasons, including security
| concerns."
|
| https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/quarantined-domains
|
| _Tin foil hat on_
|
| This will be used by Google to force Mozilla into disabling ad
| blockers on YouTube (dare I say: SponsorBlock as well).
|
| _Tin foil hat off_
| deadbunny wrote:
| On the page you linked it explains how to disable this
| completely. No tin foil hat needed.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Makes sense though, the amount of malware extensions is...
| unbelievable.
| goatsi wrote:
| The screenshot they use for the example specifically has ublock
| origin as the vetted extension that is permitted to run.
| depereo wrote:
| This appears to have been implemented by the security team,
| with the bugzilla issue originally made private / Mozilla staff
| only a month ago.
|
| Mozilla has earned some trust here, I think. I'll be interested
| to see why this was done, can't imagine that'll be quiet
| forever.
| SushiHippie wrote:
| This is the Bugzilla issue:
|
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1832791
| msla wrote:
| > Mozilla has earned some trust here, I think.
|
| How? Was it the opt-out telemetry, putting ads in the
| browser, or the "experiments" that were also ads?
| depereo wrote:
| The 25 years of seeking better outcomes for netizens, using
| their small influence to help people to have a better
| experience with the internet.
|
| If you always compare things to your version of utopia
| you'll be very disappointed. I appreciate their efforts in
| saving me from the alternatives like Chrome and IE, which
| are produced and pushed by groups with a million times
| their resources.
| Aleklart wrote:
| I thought Chrome saved us from slow and tarded Mozilla
| Suite and IE 7 past gen browsers. God bless Apple WebKit
| I guess. It made web 2.0 possible.
| sharps1 wrote:
| The problem with this feature is the user does not make the
| choice. Firefox should be alerting the user why they disabled
| the extensions and give them a choice to enable them.
| Xylakant wrote:
| From the linked page explaining the feature:
|
| How can I re-enable the add-ons that are not allowed on some
| websites?
|
| We understand that installing add-ons is a user choice and,
| as with your security, we also take this matter very
| seriously. If you are aware of the associated risk and still
| wish to allow the add-ons that have been disallowed on a
| website by Mozilla, you can do it from the configuration
| editor (about:config):
| Santosh83 wrote:
| This about:config toggle seems to be a "nuclear option"
| that disables the entire "quarantined domains"
| functionality. It would be better if Mozilla offered users
| a choice to toggle only certain blocked addons on certain
| domains, though the normal UI.
| Xylakant wrote:
| I agree, that would be better. But the current situation
| is strictly better than before, even if it's not perfect
| - it protects you until you flip that switch and when you
| do, you're exactly where you were before they added the
| feature. So nobody is worse off and many are better off.
| MikusR wrote:
| ""But the plans were on display..."
|
| "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to
| find them."
|
| "That's the display department."
|
| "With a flashlight."
|
| "Ah, well, the lights had probably gone."
|
| "So had the stairs."
|
| "But look, you found the notice, didn't you?"
|
| "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the
| bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused
| lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the
| Leopard." "
| iudqnolq wrote:
| Requiring users to have non-trivial general computer
| skills before disabling security features seems
| completely fine to me.
|
| If you see that an extension is blocked on a domain and
| don't think to Google "unblock extension domain Firefox",
| select an appropriate result, and follow straightforward
| instructions then you probably aren't capable of
| understanding the nuances of extension security risks.
| Aleklart wrote:
| These stupid users, can't control their computers! Let it
| be us, corporation, who decide what you can run. It is
| safe and effective.
| Xylakant wrote:
| The blocking UI shown to n the documentation of the
| feature has a "learn more" link which presumably leads to
| to exact the same documentation that I quoted. I consider
| that absolutely discoverable and fine. The one thing that
| I would wish for as an improvement is that I can unblock
| specific extensions individually instead of a single
| switch for all.
| SushiHippie wrote:
| I searched a bit through the documentation and code and these
| were my findings. I thought I'd share them for others that are
| interested and for future reference.
|
| Currently, there are no domains blocked, they would appear on
| this API endpoint:
| https://firefox.settings.services.mozilla.com/v1/buckets/mai...
|
| This is the json schema for this API endpoint:
| https://firefox.settings.services.mozilla.com/v1/buckets/mai...
|
| More information on the remote settings in general:
| AMRemoteSettings Overview - quarantinedDomains:
| https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/toolkit/mozapps/exte...
|
| Remote Settings documentation: https://remote-
| settings.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html
|
| Remote Settings Devtools - where you can see all the remote
| settings, that get set: https://github.com/mozilla-
| extensions/remote-settings-devtoo...
| thayne wrote:
| I can't imagine uBlock Origin not being on the list of
| "monitored extensions" that are allowed.
|
| That said, I am concerned that there doesn't seem to be any
| easily findable information about what domains (or even what
| kind of domains) will be quarantined, or what extensions will
| be "monitored".
| marcosdumay wrote:
| In the past, Mozilla has quarantined several things outside of
| the reach of standard Firefox customizing tools. Every time it
| has been because compromising one of those things would result
| on the user not being able to manage the configurations or even
| seeing that something different is happening.
|
| IMO, the most likely usage is that they will use it to disallow
| extensions on the extension store.
| m45t3r wrote:
| I don't think this is exactly new. For example the Add-ons
| website for Firefox already didn't allow any extensions to be
| run on it. It does seems this feature extends this list for new
| websites, but it doesn't mean Firefox will abuse (and even if
| they start abusing it, they have a explicit flag to opt-out).
| jwilk wrote:
| https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Privileged-Pages
| MikusR wrote:
| They will abuse it. Then "apologize". And then abuse again.
| suprjami wrote:
| I don't understand this. I've had h264 decoding with VAAPI since
| it's been supported in Intel GPU drivers. This is telling me
| about a new feature I've had for years?
| leni536 wrote:
| Maybe they flipped the switch om the default setting?
| panzi wrote:
| Ok, tried Firefox again: 4k YouTube videos aren't a slide-show on
| my system anymore (using an old Nvidia card, though)! Yay! But
| GeoGuessr/Google Maps Street View is still unplayable. Well,
| still will continue to use a Chromium based browser until that is
| fixed (probably never will be at this point).
| morsch wrote:
| It used to be that Google Earth worked passably well for me in
| Chromium, and was a slideshow in Firefox. As of a few weeks
| ago, it's the other way round. No idea what's changed.
|
| On a sidenote, is Google Earth still a maintained product?
| Seems like it's on life support. Is there any decent
| alternative?
| shmerl wrote:
| Now looking forward to Firefox adding Vulkan video as a better
| alternative to VAAPI.
| [deleted]
| jhoechtl wrote:
| Great achievement! How many additional years did it take compared
| to FF on Windows?
| temp0826 wrote:
| Vulkan video decoding is just around the corner (already
| working with latest mpv/ffmpeg/mesa from git). I'd imagine it'd
| be easier to implement/maintain (single API across platforms).
| I wonder if Mozilla is looking into it yet?
| hu3 wrote:
| The effort seems to have started 4 years ago but I'm probably
| wrong: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1610199
| amir wrote:
| Official release notes: https://www.mozilla.org/en-
| US/firefox/115.0/releasenotes/
|
| Also of note is that this is the last major version of Firefox
| for Windows 7 and Windows 8, as well as macOS 10.12, 10.13, and
| 10.14.
| cpeterso wrote:
| For people who haven't read the linked release notes: Mozilla
| is not dropping support for Windows 7-8.1 or macOS 10.12-10.14
| at this time. Those users will be migrated to Firefox ESR
| (Extended Support Release, an LTS branch) that will receive
| monthly security fixes and some feature fixes for at least
| another 14 months.
| vetinari wrote:
| > Also of note is that this is the last major version of
| Firefox for Windows 7 and Windows 8
|
| Note that this also means Windows 2012 and 2012R2.
| SloopJon wrote:
| Thanks, I did not realize that. I have one hackintosh still on
| 10.13.
|
| I've actually been waiting for this release to switch to ESR.
| The regular release has been getting updates three or more
| times a month, each of which prompts daily nags to update,
| which gets tiresome across three or four computers with a lot
| of tabs open. I'm hoping for more like one per month on ESR.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-07-04 23:02 UTC)