Slow firefox and high cpu usage

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
44 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Slow firefox and high cpu usage

Pétùr
Hi,

I experience a very slow response time (and high cpu usage) for firefox
in debian sid these days.

I use the 62.0.3 version and the latency is particularly present at the
startup. I have to wait few seconds before being able to enter text in
the address bar.

I tried to reset (install new profile) firefox and launch it in safe
mode (ie without extensions). No improvements.

Are other users of sid experiencing the same behavior ?

Pétùr

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

Patrick Bartek-2
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 20:07:26 +0200
Pétùr <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I experience a very slow response time (and high cpu usage) for
> firefox in debian sid these days.
>
> I use the 62.0.3 version and the latency is particularly present at
> the startup. I have to wait few seconds before being able to enter
> text in the address bar.
>
> I tried to reset (install new profile) firefox and launch it in safe
> mode (ie without extensions). No improvements.
>
> Are other users of sid experiencing the same behavior ?

I'm using Firefox Quantum (62.0.3) on Stretch. Works just fine.
Responsive. Very Little CPU usage.  What does Top show is using the cpu?

B

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

Pétùr
Le 08/10/2018 à 20:59, Patrick Bartek a écrit :

> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 20:07:26 +0200
> Pétùr <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I experience a very slow response time (and high cpu usage) for
>> firefox in debian sid these days.
>>
>> I use the 62.0.3 version and the latency is particularly present at
>> the startup. I have to wait few seconds before being able to enter
>> text in the address bar.
>>
>> I tried to reset (install new profile) firefox and launch it in safe
>> mode (ie without extensions). No improvements.
>>
>> Are other users of sid experiencing the same behavior ?
>
> I'm using Firefox Quantum (62.0.3) on Stretch. Works just fine.
> Responsive. Very Little CPU usage.  What does Top show is using the cpu?


Top shows several threads with high cpu usage such as :

  PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU  %MEM     TIME+
COMMAND

12452 petur    20   0 4030664   1,9g  67248 R  72,4  50,1   2:54.34
firefox
12937 petur    20   0 1830092 381016 156676 R  82,7   9,7   0:12.11 Web
Content
12503 petur    20   0 1715976 216820  87436 R  81,3   5,5   0:55.60 Web
Content
13078 petur    20   0 1454508  95080  65480 R  81,3   2,4   0:05.02 Web
Content

I am using Xfce.

Pétùr

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

Ben Caradoc-Davies-3
In reply to this post by Pétùr
On 09/10/2018 07:07, Pétùr wrote:
> I experience a very slow response time (and high cpu usage) for firefox
> in debian sid these days.
> I use the 62.0.3 version and the latency is particularly present at the
> startup. I have to wait few seconds before being able to enter text in
> the address bar.
> I tried to reset (install new profile) firefox and launch it in safe
> mode (ie without extensions). No improvements.
> Are other users of sid experiencing the same behavior ?

I have slow startup and a brief hang during initial UI layout, but only
with Adblock Plus enabled.

Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

Patrick Bartek-2
In reply to this post by Pétùr
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:06:18 +0200
Pétùr <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 08/10/2018 à 20:59, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
> > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 20:07:26 +0200
> > Pétùr <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >  
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I experience a very slow response time (and high cpu usage) for
> >> firefox in debian sid these days.
> >>
> >> I use the 62.0.3 version and the latency is particularly present at
> >> the startup. I have to wait few seconds before being able to enter
> >> text in the address bar.
> >>
> >> I tried to reset (install new profile) firefox and launch it in
> >> safe mode (ie without extensions). No improvements.
> >>
> >> Are other users of sid experiencing the same behavior ?  
> >
> > I'm using Firefox Quantum (62.0.3) on Stretch. Works just fine.
> > Responsive. Very Little CPU usage.  What does Top show is using the
> > cpu?  
>
>
> Top shows several threads with high cpu usage such as :
>
>   PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU  %MEM     TIME+
> COMMAND
>
> 12452 petur    20   0 4030664   1,9g  67248 R  72,4  50,1   2:54.34
> firefox
> 12937 petur    20   0 1830092 381016 156676 R  82,7   9,7   0:12.11
> Web Content
> 12503 petur    20   0 1715976 216820  87436 R  81,3   5,5   0:55.60
> Web Content
> 13078 petur    20   0 1454508  95080  65480 R  81,3   2,4   0:05.02
> Web Content
>
> I am using Xfce.

Openbox window manager only. Phenom II x4 3.0GHZ CPU on my
5 to 11 year old system -- numerous upgrades over those 11 years.

First, Firefox is using 50% of your RAM.  That's way too much unless
you have very little RAM to begin with.  How much total RAM do you have?
My system has 8GB. Firefox Quantum only shows on average 3 to 4% RAM
usage even when streaming a video.  

Also, check what those three "web contents" are.  I'm think THEY are the
cause of Firefox's slowness.  As I don't know what they are, I can't
hazard a guess as to what's causing the high CPU usage.  The only time
I've seen something like this is when an app has crashed into an
infinite loop of some sort.  "Kill" those one at a time and see what
happens to Firefox's CPU usage. Also, clear you cache.  Check to see if
files are being written continuously to your hard drive.

FWIW, I'd purge Firefox and reinstall.  You're running Sid after all,
and all kinds of things can go wrong at any time.  Why ARE you running
Sid anyway?

B

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

Pétùr
In reply to this post by Ben Caradoc-Davies-3
Le 08/10/2018 à 23:31, Ben Caradoc-Davies a écrit :
> I have slow startup and a brief hang during initial UI layout, but only
> with Adblock Plus enabled.

Thanks for the report. I have the same behavior (and lag when creating
new tab) but even with all the modules (including ublock) disabled.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

bw-2


On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, Pétùr wrote:

> Le 08/10/2018 à 23:31, Ben Caradoc-Davies a écrit :
> > I have slow startup and a brief hang during initial UI layout, but only with
> > Adblock Plus enabled.
>
> Thanks for the report. I have the same behavior (and lag when creating new
> tab) but even with all the modules (including ublock) disabled.
>
>

I can confirm the "Web Content" thing on stretch... but it only
happened once so far.  Thanks for any help tracking it down, and thanks
for the heads up letting people know about the issue.
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=138811
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

Sven Joachim
In reply to this post by Pétùr
On 2018-10-08 22:06 +0200, Pétùr wrote:

> Top shows several threads with high cpu usage such as :
>
>  PID USER      PR  NI    VIRT    RES    SHR S  %CPU  %MEM     TIME+
> COMMAND
>
> 12452 petur    20   0 4030664   1,9g  67248 R  72,4  50,1   2:54.34
> firefox
> 12937 petur    20   0 1830092 381016 156676 R  82,7   9,7   0:12.11
> Web Content
> 12503 petur    20   0 1715976 216820  87436 R  81,3   5,5   0:55.60
> Web Content
> 13078 petur    20   0 1454508  95080  65480 R  81,3   2,4   0:05.02
> Web Content
>
> I am using Xfce.

Try killing xfsettingsd, that helps according to
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=909818#15.

Cheers,
       Sven

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

Pétùr
In reply to this post by Patrick Bartek-2
Le 09/10/2018 à 02:04, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
> First, Firefox is using 50% of your RAM.  That's way too much unless
> you have very little RAM to begin with.  How much total RAM do you have?
> My system has 8GB. Firefox Quantum only shows on average 3 to 4% RAM
> usage even when streaming a video.


I have 8GB of RAM.

> Also, check what those three "web contents" are.  I'm think THEY are the
> cause of Firefox's slowness.  As I don't know what they are, I can't
> hazard a guess as to what's causing the high CPU usage.  The only time
> I've seen something like this is when an app has crashed into an
> infinite loop of some sort.  "Kill" those one at a time and see what
> happens to Firefox's CPU usage. Also, clear you cache.  Check to see if
> files are being written continuously to your hard drive.

I think also these "web content" threads are the causes of my problem.
But they appears even if I disable all modules.

> FWIW, I'd purge Firefox and reinstall.  You're running Sid after all,
> and all kinds of things can go wrong at any time.  Why ARE you running
> Sid anyway?

I did purge and refresh (ie new profile) firefox. I don't complain for
this bug. I use sid because I need last versions of some packages for my
work.

Pétùr

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

songbird
In reply to this post by Pétùr
Pétùr wrote:
...
> Are other users of sid experiencing the same behavior ?

  not that i've noticed but i only use testing most of
the time and sid/experimental only for selected items...


  songbird

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

Dan Ritter-4
In reply to this post by Pétùr
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 09:59:00PM +0200, Pétùr wrote:

> Le 09/10/2018 à 02:04, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
> > First, Firefox is using 50% of your RAM.  That's way too much unless
> > you have very little RAM to begin with.  How much total RAM do you have?
> > My system has 8GB. Firefox Quantum only shows on average 3 to 4% RAM
> > usage even when streaming a video.
>
>
> I have 8GB of RAM.
>
> > Also, check what those three "web contents" are.  I'm think THEY are the
> > cause of Firefox's slowness.  As I don't know what they are, I can't
> > hazard a guess as to what's causing the high CPU usage.  The only time
> > I've seen something like this is when an app has crashed into an
> > infinite loop of some sort.  "Kill" those one at a time and see what
> > happens to Firefox's CPU usage. Also, clear you cache.  Check to see if
> > files are being written continuously to your hard drive.
>
> I think also these "web content" threads are the causes of my problem. But
> they appears even if I disable all modules.
 
That's because Firefox is now multiprocess.

The main Firefox process handles the user interface, fetching
web pages, decoding them, and some of the rendering work.

The Web Content process(es) are fired off to run things that the
web pages demand be run: JavaScript, CSS animations, weird media
things. Mostly JavaScript.

Killing them off won't help. You need to solve the underlying
problem.

I don't know what that is, exactly, but advertising and trackers
now take up 90% of most web processing time and space. Running a
good ad blocker like uBlock Origin will help a lot.

-dsr-

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

bw-2


On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, Dan Ritter wrote:

> That's because Firefox is now multiprocess.
>
> The main Firefox process handles the user interface, fetching
> web pages, decoding them, and some of the rendering work.
>
> The Web Content process(es) are fired off to run things that the
> web pages demand be run: JavaScript, CSS animations, weird media
> things. Mostly JavaScript.
>
> Killing them off won't help. You need to solve the underlying
> problem.
>
> I don't know what that is, exactly, but advertising and trackers
> now take up 90% of most web processing time and space. Running a
> good ad blocker like uBlock Origin will help a lot.
>
> -dsr-
>
>

How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

Ben Caradoc-Davies-3
On 11/10/2018 11:15, bw wrote:
> How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
> the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?

Install an extension built for webextensions such as Adblock Plus 3.0 or
later using Firefox Add-ons Manager?:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/

I see that there is a webext-ublock-origin for sid but I have never used it:
https://packages.debian.org/sid/web/webext-ublock-origin

Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

bw-2


On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

> On 11/10/2018 11:15, bw wrote:
> > How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
> > the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?
>
> Install an extension built for webextensions such as Adblock Plus 3.0 or later
> using Firefox Add-ons Manager?:
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/
>
> I see that there is a webext-ublock-origin for sid but I have never used it:
> https://packages.debian.org/sid/web/webext-ublock-origin
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --
> Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
> Director
> Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
> New Zealand
>
>

That might be against my religion.  I use debian because I prefer software
that complies with DFSG, and mozilla does not have the same guidelines for
the definition of
"free"
.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

bw-2
In reply to this post by Ben Caradoc-Davies-3


On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

> On 11/10/2018 11:15, bw wrote:
> > How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
> > the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?
>
> Install an extension built for webextensions such as Adblock Plus 3.0 or later
> using Firefox Add-ons Manager?:
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/
>
> I see that there is a webext-ublock-origin for sid but I have never used it:
> https://packages.debian.org/sid/web/webext-ublock-origin
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --
> Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
> Director
> Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
> New Zealand
>
>

p.s. and I use stable, because it is stable, not sid, which is unstable.
thanks anyway but I think your advice is a little dubious.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

Dan Ritter-4
In reply to this post by bw-2
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 06:15:06PM -0400, bw wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> > That's because Firefox is now multiprocess.
> >
> > The main Firefox process handles the user interface, fetching
> > web pages, decoding them, and some of the rendering work.
> >
> > The Web Content process(es) are fired off to run things that the
> > web pages demand be run: JavaScript, CSS animations, weird media
> > things. Mostly JavaScript.
> >
> > Killing them off won't help. You need to solve the underlying
> > problem.
> >
> > I don't know what that is, exactly, but advertising and trackers
> > now take up 90% of most web processing time and space. Running a
> > good ad blocker like uBlock Origin will help a lot.
> >
> > -dsr-
> >
> >
>
> How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
> the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?

Ah, that's easy. Turns out that stretch is perfectly capable of
running software that the Debian Project does not package, and I
would argue that trying to keep a firefox-esr running is not the
right thing to do. Firefox just isn't ready for the Debian
definition of stable.

The Debian volunteers working on Firefox would be better serving
the community if they were only spending a few minutes packaging
up each major-number release from Mozilla, and putting the rest
of the time towards looking for security problems in it.

There may well be a use for a "stable" web browser, but Firefox
can't be that one.

-dsr-

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

Ben Caradoc-Davies-3
In reply to this post by bw-2
On 11/10/2018 11:36, bw wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
>> On 11/10/2018 11:15, bw wrote:
>>> How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
>>> the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?
>> I see that there is a webext-ublock-origin for sid but I have never used it:
>> https://packages.debian.org/sid/web/webext-ublock-origin
> p.s. and I use stable, because it is stable, not sid, which is unstable.
> thanks anyway but I think your advice is a little dubious.

My point is not that you should use unstable, but that the evidence on
sid suggests that webext-* packages are coming to stable ... when stable
is called buster. I did not see any webext-* packages in
stretch-backports. The workaround is to install them directly from
upstream via Firefox.

I agree that it is sad that Firefox on stretch has been upgraded to
break the xul-ext-* packages before webext-* packages are available.
Unfortunately Debian is wedged between upstream dropping support for
xul-ext-* extensions in ESR 60 and the end of life of ESR 52. You do
want security patches, don't you? I think that ESR 60 with unpackaged
extensions is the lesser evil. Normal service will likely be resumed in
buster.

Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
Director
Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

bw-2


On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

> On 11/10/2018 11:36, bw wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> > > On 11/10/2018 11:15, bw wrote:
> > > > How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
> > > > the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?
> > > I see that there is a webext-ublock-origin for sid but I have never used
> > > it:
> > > https://packages.debian.org/sid/web/webext-ublock-origin
> > p.s. and I use stable, because it is stable, not sid, which is unstable.
> > thanks anyway but I think your advice is a little dubious.
>
> My point is not that you should use unstable, but that the evidence on sid
> suggests that webext-* packages are coming to stable ... when stable is called
> buster. I did not see any webext-* packages in stretch-backports. The
> workaround is to install them directly from upstream via Firefox.
>
> I agree that it is sad that Firefox on stretch has been upgraded to break the
> xul-ext-* packages before webext-* packages are available. Unfortunately
> Debian is wedged between upstream dropping support for xul-ext-* extensions in
> ESR 60 and the end of life of ESR 52. You do want security patches, don't you?
> I think that ESR 60 with unpackaged extensions is the lesser evil. Normal
> service will likely be resumed in buster.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --
> Ben Caradoc-Davies <[hidden email]>
> Director
> Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
> New Zealand
>
>

I agree with this opinion, and also what Dan Ritter replied.  Firefox is
now unreliable on stretch and should be avoided.  Security updates to a
browser that crashes with strange processes named "Web Content" aren't
really all that secure are they?  

Why not just remove the package from stretch if it is insecure, or since
it relies on pkgs from outside the repo, should it be moved to "contrib"
until buster is released and we have working extensions?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

David Wright-3
On Wed 10 Oct 2018 at 19:11:46 (-0400), bw wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
>
> > On 11/10/2018 11:36, bw wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> > > > On 11/10/2018 11:15, bw wrote:
> > > > > How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
> > > > > the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?
> > > > I see that there is a webext-ublock-origin for sid but I have never used
> > > > it:
> > > > https://packages.debian.org/sid/web/webext-ublock-origin
> > > p.s. and I use stable, because it is stable, not sid, which is unstable.
> > > thanks anyway but I think your advice is a little dubious.

I find a lot of adverts are blocked by my very long /etc/hosts file.
I download the bulk of it from http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
occasionally. (The rest of the file is static addresses for my LAN.)

I originally did this because the adverts would totally overload a
browser running on a 1.5GHz laptop with 500MB memory. But I've kept
using it because the side effects are so minor: occasional nagging by
sites that notice you're blocking ads, and the inability to click on
the paid-for links at the top of google searches.

> > My point is not that you should use unstable, but that the evidence on sid
> > suggests that webext-* packages are coming to stable ... when stable is called
> > buster. I did not see any webext-* packages in stretch-backports. The
> > workaround is to install them directly from upstream via Firefox.
> >
> > I agree that it is sad that Firefox on stretch has been upgraded to break the
> > xul-ext-* packages before webext-* packages are available. Unfortunately
> > Debian is wedged between upstream dropping support for xul-ext-* extensions in
> > ESR 60 and the end of life of ESR 52. You do want security patches, don't you?
> > I think that ESR 60 with unpackaged extensions is the lesser evil. Normal
> > service will likely be resumed in buster.

I have noticed that the old xul…runner processes have gone, and that
plugin-container processes are pretty rare, presumably being replaced
by these Web Content processes.

But my experience is that FF on stretch is a lot more reliable than
the one on jessie ever was. The latter would crash about every couple
of weeks or so, and then there were all those scripts that "stopped
responding".

> I agree with this opinion, and also what Dan Ritter replied.  Firefox is
> now unreliable on stretch and should be avoided.  Security updates to a
> browser that crashes with strange processes named "Web Content" aren't
> really all that secure are they?  

Well, I hope the Debian team ignore your opinions, take note of any
bug reports, and continue to support FF for all the happy Debian users
who are using it to do important work.

It's sensible to come here for help and advice with your problems, but
not to assume that everyone else is suffering in the same manner. If
you know of specific security problems, then report them. Meanwhile,
we'll carry on using FF as usual.

I routinely run two instances on this 4-core 1.6GHz laptop with 4GB
memory, one as myself for mainly financial and administrative sites,
and one as a different user for other sites. That's my nod to security.

> Why not just remove the package from stretch if it is insecure, or since
> it relies on pkgs from outside the repo, should it be moved to "contrib"
> until buster is released and we have working extensions?

Doesn't it have to Depend on packages, rather than just relying on
them, which would be more like a Recommend or Suggest. AIUI the main
difference between FF and more regular packages is that they take
upstream versions more frequently than normal, and that's in order
to increase security, recognising that applying all the security
patches to a static 2016/7 version is impractical.

Cheers,
David.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slow firefox and high cpu usage

bw-2


On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, David Wright wrote:

> On Wed 10 Oct 2018 at 19:11:46 (-0400), bw wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/10/2018 11:36, bw wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> > > > > On 11/10/2018 11:15, bw wrote:
> > > > > > How exactly do you think stretch users should run an adblocker when all
> > > > > > the xul-ext-* extensions are now broken?
> > > > > I see that there is a webext-ublock-origin for sid but I have never used
> > > > > it:
> > > > > https://packages.debian.org/sid/web/webext-ublock-origin
> > > > p.s. and I use stable, because it is stable, not sid, which is unstable.
> > > > thanks anyway but I think your advice is a little dubious.
>
> I find a lot of adverts are blocked by my very long /etc/hosts file.
> I download the bulk of it from http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
> occasionally. (The rest of the file is static addresses for my LAN.)
>
> I originally did this because the adverts would totally overload a
> browser running on a 1.5GHz laptop with 500MB memory. But I've kept
> using it because the side effects are so minor: occasional nagging by
> sites that notice you're blocking ads, and the inability to click on
> the paid-for links at the top of google searches.
>
> > > My point is not that you should use unstable, but that the evidence on sid
> > > suggests that webext-* packages are coming to stable ... when stable is called
> > > buster. I did not see any webext-* packages in stretch-backports. The
> > > workaround is to install them directly from upstream via Firefox.
> > >
> > > I agree that it is sad that Firefox on stretch has been upgraded to break the
> > > xul-ext-* packages before webext-* packages are available. Unfortunately
> > > Debian is wedged between upstream dropping support for xul-ext-* extensions in
> > > ESR 60 and the end of life of ESR 52. You do want security patches, don't you?
> > > I think that ESR 60 with unpackaged extensions is the lesser evil. Normal
> > > service will likely be resumed in buster.
>
> I have noticed that the old xul…runner processes have gone, and that
> plugin-container processes are pretty rare, presumably being replaced
> by these Web Content processes.
>
> But my experience is that FF on stretch is a lot more reliable than
> the one on jessie ever was. The latter would crash about every couple
> of weeks or so, and then there were all those scripts that "stopped
> responding".
>
> > I agree with this opinion, and also what Dan Ritter replied.  Firefox is
> > now unreliable on stretch and should be avoided.  Security updates to a
> > browser that crashes with strange processes named "Web Content" aren't
> > really all that secure are they?  
>
> Well, I hope the Debian team ignore your opinions, take note of any
> bug reports, and continue to support FF for all the happy Debian users
> who are using it to do important work.
>
> It's sensible to come here for help and advice with your problems, but
> not to assume that everyone else is suffering in the same manner. If
> you know of specific security problems, then report them. Meanwhile,
> we'll carry on using FF as usual.
>
> I routinely run two instances on this 4-core 1.6GHz laptop with 4GB
> memory, one as myself for mainly financial and administrative sites,
> and one as a different user for other sites. That's my nod to security.
>
> > Why not just remove the package from stretch if it is insecure, or since
> > it relies on pkgs from outside the repo, should it be moved to "contrib"
> > until buster is released and we have working extensions?
>
> Doesn't it have to Depend on packages, rather than just relying on
> them, which would be more like a Recommend or Suggest. AIUI the main
> difference between FF and more regular packages is that they take
> upstream versions more frequently than normal, and that's in order
> to increase security, recognising that applying all the security
> patches to a static 2016/7 version is impractical.
>
> Cheers,
> David.
>
>
I would sure be interested in your method of running firefox on stretch,
without using extensions or addons from outside the debian repositories?

I never mentioned jessie, not sure what the reference is about?  My point
was that is ff needs extensions to be "secure" or reliable, and if the
only place to get them is from outside the debian repo, then logically,
the pkg belongs in "contrib" or plain kicked out of the repo.
123