Mozilla has fixed a playback issue on YouTube that affected some Firefox users for several months.

Some Firefox users noticed playback issues on YouTube for several months. These affected high resolution videos only, from 1080p and up. To make matters worse, no clear pattern could be identified.

Some videos played fine, others would stop abruptly when they ran out of buffer.

  • stormesp ( stormesp@lemm.ee ) 
    38·
    2 years ago

    Oh lol so that was it, yesterday all of a sudden 1440p and 4k videos were unwatchable, it was a stutter fest and thought something was wrong with my gpu.

    • Zetta ( Zetta@mander.xyz ) 
      9·
      2 years ago

      Ya I’ve had this issue for months now, the video will freeze when the original 10 seconds of buffer is used, and it’ll play fine if I skip another 10 seconds but just buffer indefinitely otherwise.

  • YurkshireLad ( YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca ) 
    16·
    2 years ago

    For months I’ve had problems with YouTube videos in Firefox, at any resolution. They would play at really low FPS. Sometimes the player would pause and continue at the correct FPS, but usually not. Skipping backwards or forwards usually fixes it but not always. Another step in their monopoly to destroy competition.

  • orhtej2 ( orhtej2@eviltoast.org ) 
    16·
    2 years ago

    I solved a lot of performance issues I had with yt playback by disabling Ambient Mode (it’s hidden under cog menu in the player). No clue why, but it was causing massve CPU usage.

        • Adanisi ( Adanisi@lemmy.zip ) 
          2·
          2 years ago

          Advertised as “open source”, violates several key parts of the open source definition. It’s really a “look but don’t touch” thing.

          And you do realise ANY copyleft license (GPL, etc) prevents the creation of nonfree applications using that code? Making the app proprietary (yes, GrayJay counts as proprietary) is completely unnecessary.

          I know Rossmann brought up NewPipe fakes on the Play Store as justification, but NewPipe is licensed under the GPL. These fakes were already illegal.

          • teawrecks ( teawrecks@sopuli.xyz ) 
            4·
            2 years ago

            If someone posts their source code publicly, it’s open source. It’s unreasonable to ask them to review and maintain every PR sent their way. If they want to work on it by themselves, that’s fine. If you want to fork it and make changes yourself, you can. Literally the only qualification for something to be open source is that the source is open.

            It’s also unreasonable to be upset if they tell you you’re not allowed to take their work and re-sell it for your own profit. That would be like saying that artists are in the wrong for being upset that all those AI companies used their work to train their bots without asking. “Why would they prevent the creation of nonfree applications that use their work?!” I assume that’s not your position, right?

            But as you said, NewPipe is also copyleft, and it seems like you don’t have a problem with that. So I don’t really understand what your issue is with Grayjay/FUTO. It’s reasonable to be concerned about where their funding comes from, but you haven’t mentioned that. You say they have “marketing lies”, but haven’t pointed to any.

            It’s perfectly fine for there to be multiple open source solutions to the same problem, and you’re allowed to have a favorite, but that doesn’t warrant dragging the others’ names through the mud for no reason.

            • Adanisi ( Adanisi@lemmy.zip ) 
              1·
              2 years ago

              If someone posts their source code publicly, it’s open source.

              Uh, no. That’s called “source-available”. Terms have meanings. And from the day the words “open source” started being used, this definition is what defined them: https://opensource.org/osd

              You can’t just redefine an established term because it’s inconvenient to your argument.

              It’s unreasonable to ask them to review and maintain every PR

              Good thing being free/open source doesn’t require that, then? It basically just requires the users be free to make their own modifications and distribute them. No requirement for public development involvement at all, really. It’s standard practice but by no means necessary.

              If you want to fork it and make changes for yourself, you can

              They can terminate your license for any reason or no reason (stated in the license) making your fork in violation of copyright law :).

              In other words, they can take down your fork if they feel like it. Making the ability to fork useless.

              literally the only qualification for something to be open source …

              Again, terms have established meanings. See above.

              It’s also unreasonable to be upset if they tell you you’re not allowed to take their work and re-sell it for your own profit.

              I don’t see how this paragraph relates to my point at all. Is it about the NewPipe paid clones? Because they were illegal anyways (copyleft violation), no egregious license needed.

              But as you said, NewPipe is also copyleft, and it seems like you don’t have a problem with that. So I don’t really understand what your issue is with Grayjay/FUTO.

              What do you mean “also copyleft”? Are you implying the GrayJay license is copyleft? Because it absolutely isn’t. Again, established term, definition: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html

              And finally, here’s some particularly nasty parts of the license, which funilly enough you don’t ever see in free/open source licenses (because they’re horribly restrictive terms):

              “If you issue proceedings in any jurisdiction against the provider because you consider the provider has infringed copyright or any patent right in respect of the code (including any joinder or counterclaim), your license to the code is automatically terminated.”

              “We may suspend, terminate or vary the terms of this license and any access to the code at any time, without notice, for any reason or no reason, in respect of any licensee, group of licensees or all licensees including as may be applicable any sub-licensees.”

              • teawrecks ( teawrecks@sopuli.xyz ) 
                2·
                2 years ago

                You can’t just redefine an established term because it’s inconvenient to your argument.

                Agreed, which is why you can’t expect to enforce the definition you like on everyone. The only thing about “open source” that we agree on is that the “source” is “open”.

                I’m realizing you’re working with outdated information. Take a look at the license again, it’s been updated.

                • Adanisi ( Adanisi@lemmy.zip ) 
                  1·
                  2 years ago

                  you can’t expect to enforce the definition you like on everyone

                  It is literally the definition which has been used since the term’s conception when the open source movement split off from the software freedom movement. It is a well established term with a well established meaning. Just because you don’t want to use that meaning doesn’t mean it isn’t the correct and most widely recognised. Its not that I like the definition, it’s that it is the primary definition and always has been.

  • wick ( wick@lemm.ee ) 
    1·
    2 years ago

    Affected users might have blamed Firefox for the issue. Some may even have switched to a Chromium-based browser, as these worked without any issue.

    I’ve been having issues with YouTube on Firefox for ages, not these issues, different ones. I haven’t bothered to test if it’s only Firefox that has the problem because I’m not using Firefox for a seamless experience, I’m using because why the fuck would I use anything else on Linux? I won’t put google or ms into a Linux environment, even if I don’t really care about privacy or whatever, it just feels like mixing oil and water.

    Might use another browser like brave or whatever foss solutions are out there, but I’d be surprised if anything like that is better than Firefox.