Vivaldi browser v1.8 released, with calendar-style browsing history(vivaldi.com)
vivaldi.com
Vivaldi browser v1.8 released, with calendar-style browsing history
https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-makes-history/
165 comments
> but also how I got there and where I went
The tails project experiments with this in Servo and browser.html:
https://medium.freecodecamp.com/lossless-web-navigation-with...
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13518919
The tails project experiments with this in Servo and browser.html:
https://medium.freecodecamp.com/lossless-web-navigation-with...
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13518919
Let's expand that further.
I would like to do a custom search of the content of sites that I have visited.
Oftentimes, I'll remember I read something in the past few days, then it's a mad scramble to open various links to try to figure out if it's the right one.
I would like to do a custom search of the content of sites that I have visited.
Oftentimes, I'll remember I read something in the past few days, then it's a mad scramble to open various links to try to figure out if it's the right one.
This. Susan Dumais at Microsoft had a project called "Stuff I've Seen" [1] in the early days of desktop search. In a nutshell, it's indexing and information retrieval on the data that you use in your daily life -- web browsing, calendar events, etc.
I've often thought about trying to re-implement some of their ideas with a local caching proxy or a browser extension. If there's an open source attempt at this already, I'd love to hear about it.
[1] http://susandumais.com/SISCore-SIGIR2003-Final.pdf
I've often thought about trying to re-implement some of their ideas with a local caching proxy or a browser extension. If there's an open source attempt at this already, I'd love to hear about it.
[1] http://susandumais.com/SISCore-SIGIR2003-Final.pdf
There is a chrome extension for that: https://github.com/lengstrom/falcon
This looks interesting. Thanks.
Other use cases that I have are:
* I want to be able search all content & comments of HN submissions that I have either upvoted or saved.
* Want to search all the content of items saved in Pocket
Other use cases that I have are:
* I want to be able search all content & comments of HN submissions that I have either upvoted or saved.
* Want to search all the content of items saved in Pocket
There is http://fetching.io/
Sounds a bit like a project we worked on for a while until various VC convinced us that getting people to change browsers was impossible, especially since you can't change the default on iOS:
http://www.azinman.com/#/stateless/
http://www.azinman.com/#/stateless/
Ok, this is one of those ideas that is clearly dumb but still just might work... you could hack a personal history report out of Google Analytics.
You create a browser extension that adds the GA pagetag to every site you visit. Have the Client ID isolated by tab, but persist from one domain to another, so every tab is reported as a different "User." Then you can use the Behavior Flow reports to see the next-page/previous-page/next-domain/previous-domain data for everything you viewed!
This of course has the enormous caveat that now all your browser history is setting in a Google Analytics account, instead of just only on the browser. But considered Congress just allowed your ISP to sell that data anyways, maybe that's not such a big drawback anymore?
You create a browser extension that adds the GA pagetag to every site you visit. Have the Client ID isolated by tab, but persist from one domain to another, so every tab is reported as a different "User." Then you can use the Behavior Flow reports to see the next-page/previous-page/next-domain/previous-domain data for everything you viewed!
This of course has the enormous caveat that now all your browser history is setting in a Google Analytics account, instead of just only on the browser. But considered Congress just allowed your ISP to sell that data anyways, maybe that's not such a big drawback anymore?
> you could hack a personal history report out of Google Analytics
It's interesting that many businesses (and probably governments) have better access to a user's browsing history than the user.
It's interesting that many businesses (and probably governments) have better access to a user's browsing history than the user.
Mozilla prototyped something like that back in 2014 called the "Interest Dashboard". The extension is no longer supported however.
http://www.ghacks.net/2014/11/14/firefoxs-interest-dashboard...
http://www.ghacks.net/2014/11/14/firefoxs-interest-dashboard...
This is very neat. Thank you!
> The extension is no longer supported however.
Sad. Unfortunately that's all too common...
> The extension is no longer supported however.
Sad. Unfortunately that's all too common...
It's Chrome only but "GraphiTab" might be of interest for you: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/graphitabs/dcfclem...
I'm a bit hesitant to use a closed source browser. Browsers these days have such a large attack surface... I wouldn't trust something that is not developed and updated in the open
The most striking thing about Vivaldi's decision to remain closed-source is its provenance. Granted, von Tetzchner does have a history of working with closed-source software, but one would think after the loss of Presto (excepting that one brief leak[1]), that any ex-Opera heads would understand the potential value of open source and community contribution.
As someone who put a lot into the old pre-12 Opera community, I will never use a closed-source browser again. This is not a commentary on quality - Opera was hands down the best browser ever built, despite being closed-source - but rather on commitment. If Vivaldi fails, all of its users will be left out in the cold. Again.
Admittedly, it is not quite so bad a situation as Opera 12. Vivaldi is mostly/largely open source[2]. It still seems like a massive missed opportunity though.
[1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2017/2017-01-12-P...
[2] https://vivaldi.net/userblogs/entry/a-few-words-about-open-s...
As someone who put a lot into the old pre-12 Opera community, I will never use a closed-source browser again. This is not a commentary on quality - Opera was hands down the best browser ever built, despite being closed-source - but rather on commitment. If Vivaldi fails, all of its users will be left out in the cold. Again.
Admittedly, it is not quite so bad a situation as Opera 12. Vivaldi is mostly/largely open source[2]. It still seems like a massive missed opportunity though.
[1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2017/2017-01-12-P...
[2] https://vivaldi.net/userblogs/entry/a-few-words-about-open-s...
Yes, this is a bit concerning as Vivaldi development was last I heard self funded by Jon von Tetzchner (http://www.wionews.com/science-tech/wionspecial-ceo-explains...). He claims it's otherwise meant to get funds from search engine and bookmark bundle deals. Sounds like a fragile base to build on in a niche browser aimed for power users, who tend to be unusually quick at removing/reverting exactly such features?
Isn't the way out of this via open source and community efforts essentially why Firefox has been successful despite not being OS bundled or backed by a huge search engine company like Google?
Isn't the way out of this via open source and community efforts essentially why Firefox has been successful despite not being OS bundled or backed by a huge search engine company like Google?
No, Firefox is successful because it's lineage from Netscape, and then subsequently releasing its browser during a time when the only competition was terrible. If Firefox had started today it would have the same problems as Vivaldi.
Firefox definitely does benefit from community contributions (a lot), but the vast majority of the important code is written by paid employees.
Firefox definitely does benefit from community contributions (a lot), but the vast majority of the important code is written by paid employees.
It seems to me that you're conflating "open source" with "developed for free".
I don't think GP has any issues with Vivaldi being developed by paid developers per se, but if Vivaldi Technologies decides to stop development there is no guarantee that anyone else will be able to take over development. Firefox wouldn't have that issue if it started today.
I don't think GP has any issues with Vivaldi being developed by paid developers per se, but if Vivaldi Technologies decides to stop development there is no guarantee that anyone else will be able to take over development. Firefox wouldn't have that issue if it started today.
I'm not conflating anything.
I don't disagree that it would be better if Vivaldi were open source. I just don't think that reason is all that compelling to Vivaldi the company. Who thinks about "what happens when my company folds"? There are other advantages to being open source than just that.
I don't disagree that it would be better if Vivaldi were open source. I just don't think that reason is all that compelling to Vivaldi the company. Who thinks about "what happens when my company folds"? There are other advantages to being open source than just that.
I think, in this case, it would seem the company founder(s?) might be likely to care, given their apparent reasons for starting the company. Jon left Opera when it started to go south in terms of serving it's existing user-base, and very clearly started Vivaldi explicitly to serve that orphaned user-base. It does seem like he would/should care if history repeats itself with Vivaldi the company.
I would have moved to vivaldi a while ago if it were open source.
I've tried it out and it seems nice and powerful.
Yes I know they publish some source and no I don't use Chrome - for the same reason.
I've tried it out and it seems nice and powerful.
Yes I know they publish some source and no I don't use Chrome - for the same reason.
They actually haven't published much at all - just their chromium patches, not even close to enough to build the browser with.
There is "Otter Browser"[1] that is FOSS. It aims to be an Opera 12 clone (it doesn't use presto of course). I don't use it but it seems to have active development.
[1] https://otter-browser.org/
[1] https://otter-browser.org/
As an "alternative browser" I prefer Brave. It seems to load tabs the fastest, even faster than Opera with its own native ad-blocking. I used to like Opera before, but I stopped using it when it was bought by that Chinese group, and after seeing what they did to Opera Max, and app I found essential for saving data roaming costs. But they pretty much killed its usefulness when they started pushing their ads through it all the time.
https://brave.com/
https://brave.com/
I wish http://midori-browser.org would run on macOS natively. This is one app that I miss from my few months with (unstable) Elementary OS. Clean, simple, light, very functional.
I second Brave! It's pretty fast, they have some smart security people on board to prevent them from making dumb mistakes (though that doesn't mean there can't be security flaws, obviously).
Best of all, it's open source: https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/blob/master/LICENSE....
Best of all, it's open source: https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop/blob/master/LICENSE....
I wanted to give it a try on my second laptop running 32-bit Ubuntu. However it looks like they dont support 32 bit Linux machines. SAD!
Brave is awful. It removes ads on websites and replaces them with their own ads, which is incredibly unethical. Please, please don't use it.
No it doesn't, they proposed a 3rd party ad replacement back in 2016 it wasn't popular so it never happened. Please stop repeating this.
Brave blocks ads by default it does not replace them.
Brave blocks ads by default it does not replace them.
Shit, I'm sorry. Of course I don't use a browser that announced plans like that, so I'm not really up to date on it. My mistake.
I've used it briefly on desktop, and use it daily on my phone. Can you please share more info on this? Are you refering to this https://brave.com/about_ad_replacement.html? Are they already doing this, or are these just plans?
It's my understanding that they replace them with ads from their own network, but revenue still goes to the publisher.
It's my understanding that they replace them with ads from their own network, but revenue still goes to the publisher.
The revenue only goes to the publisher if the publisher goes through Brave. How do you think Brave pays publishers? It's not magic. The answer is most publishers don't get paid.
Uh, yeah, that's worrisome. I'm guessing ad networks themselves could also go to Brave, if Brave gets enough users...
You're right that this is "problematic", but your initial description of "Brave replacing ads with their own", while technically correct, leaves out any subtlety. They might me misguided, but this doesn't looks as malicious...
You're right that this is "problematic", but your initial description of "Brave replacing ads with their own", while technically correct, leaves out any subtlety. They might me misguided, but this doesn't looks as malicious...
This isn't actually true. Brave intends to do this at some point with user opt-in. But currently it just blocks all 3rd party ads, HTTPSE, finger print protection, and is OS. Additionally, ad-replacement will be opt-in to allow people to support content providers with anonymous financial support.
Edit: formatting
Edit: formatting
It's about as unethical as removing the packaging from groceries and serving them on your own plates.
What?
False equivalent.
Using your analogical line of reasoning, the equivalent would be stealing the groceries from a supermarket and replacing them with your own. I don't think Brave's proposed (but apparently never implemented) ad-replacement was quite this bad, but analogies are never very accurate.
Using your analogical line of reasoning, the equivalent would be stealing the groceries from a supermarket and replacing them with your own. I don't think Brave's proposed (but apparently never implemented) ad-replacement was quite this bad, but analogies are never very accurate.
I like my analogy.
I buy the food (content) and get the branded packaging (ads)
I then serve the same food, replacing the branded packaging with my own plates.
My dinner guests will give me credit for the plates, instead of giving eyeballs to the original branded packaging.
I buy the food (content) and get the branded packaging (ads)
I then serve the same food, replacing the branded packaging with my own plates.
My dinner guests will give me credit for the plates, instead of giving eyeballs to the original branded packaging.
Honestly, I need to retract my above comment completely. You're absolutely right.
The fact it took a second explanation/clarification is a pretty good insight into how accepting we've become of advertising as a thing tbh.
The fact it took a second explanation/clarification is a pretty good insight into how accepting we've become of advertising as a thing tbh.
You know what's unethical? Ads. So replacing one pile of crap with another, well, can't say it changes that much.
Here are sources of old versions: https://vivaldi.com/source/
Given that I don't write code, I'm happier with the idea of a closed-source browser. The problem I have with using Vivaldi is that it's too much like any other Chrome hack without really bringing back the stuff that made Opera a wonderful browser in a fundamental and meaningful way. Then again, I feel that Presto (and the "limitations" of that engine) was one of the greatest strengths, along with a built-in mindset that the user should control all of what they load and/or see.
> happier with the idea of a closed-source browser
How come? Is there an upside to this I'm not seeing?
How come? Is there an upside to this I'm not seeing?
After reading it a few times I presume the author is happier than 'somebody who writes code', in the same way that I'm happier to have my car stolen than somebody who needs their car every day.
No, it's simple - if I don't know what I'm looking at, I don't want anybody who DOES know to get to look at it, either. The person who does know how to program in whatever language has an inherent advantage in that situation. Frankly, they also have no real ethical or legal imperative to prevent using whatever possible weakness they can exploit against me; doubly so if they can profit by it.
Rather than the idea of "happier to have my car stolen, etc.", it's more, I'm happier to be the guy who rides the train rather than the bus. I don't know exactly how the train is operated (even if I know the concepts that make it work) - my knowledge extends only so far that I know that it does what it's supposed to. I'd go so far as to suggest that relatively few rail transit riders do know how to properly operate a train - and add to that, trains can only run on rails; i.e. they do one thing well (generally speaking - let's not discuss the number of issues NJTransit's had recently). The potential for hijacking is significantly reduced by inherent limitation and obscurity of control.
So too do I want software along that same thought process. Relatively few users know how to do more than what they need to know; and even so those that would hijack it are locked into a specific set of operations.
Rather than the idea of "happier to have my car stolen, etc.", it's more, I'm happier to be the guy who rides the train rather than the bus. I don't know exactly how the train is operated (even if I know the concepts that make it work) - my knowledge extends only so far that I know that it does what it's supposed to. I'd go so far as to suggest that relatively few rail transit riders do know how to properly operate a train - and add to that, trains can only run on rails; i.e. they do one thing well (generally speaking - let's not discuss the number of issues NJTransit's had recently). The potential for hijacking is significantly reduced by inherent limitation and obscurity of control.
So too do I want software along that same thought process. Relatively few users know how to do more than what they need to know; and even so those that would hijack it are locked into a specific set of operations.
Consider this:
Most humans want trains to be safe (A). Some humans are lazy fucks and will risk hurting people or deliberately hurt them to save time and make money (B). Some humans know a lot about how trains work (C). Most humans don't know much about how trains work (D). Some humans don't know anything about how trains work (E).
A train is an object that operates at normal scales, in multiple senses. It is very natural for the state of the safety of a train to be observable to its users. They would know if its rusty and unkempt, if the doors weren't put on properly, if the engine is making unusual sounds, if the conductor looks shady and may be there to scam them. Group D may not know exactly how the train is going to kill them, but you don't need to be in Group C to recognise most design failures. The safety of trains is ensured in part by the size of Group D, operators (Some C, Some B) won't make enough money if Group D refuse to ride the train so they keep standards high.
Now software isn't quite the same as trains. Software has nearly everyone, like yourself, nearest to Group E. Group D is not insignificant - these are those who work with software at a design level, and can spot design faults. Group C are minuscule.
Closed source software means that the only ones checking Group B are the members of Group C who have, for whatever reason, gone the extra mile. Group D are as oblivious as E.
Open source software allows Group D to get involved in checking that the operators are more of Group C than Group B.
---
Your busses vs trains scenario is interesting. Trains are controlled by widely available and auditable schedules, making them more open than the untracked antics of the completely closed source reasoning of bus and car drivers.
Most humans want trains to be safe (A). Some humans are lazy fucks and will risk hurting people or deliberately hurt them to save time and make money (B). Some humans know a lot about how trains work (C). Most humans don't know much about how trains work (D). Some humans don't know anything about how trains work (E).
A train is an object that operates at normal scales, in multiple senses. It is very natural for the state of the safety of a train to be observable to its users. They would know if its rusty and unkempt, if the doors weren't put on properly, if the engine is making unusual sounds, if the conductor looks shady and may be there to scam them. Group D may not know exactly how the train is going to kill them, but you don't need to be in Group C to recognise most design failures. The safety of trains is ensured in part by the size of Group D, operators (Some C, Some B) won't make enough money if Group D refuse to ride the train so they keep standards high.
Now software isn't quite the same as trains. Software has nearly everyone, like yourself, nearest to Group E. Group D is not insignificant - these are those who work with software at a design level, and can spot design faults. Group C are minuscule.
Closed source software means that the only ones checking Group B are the members of Group C who have, for whatever reason, gone the extra mile. Group D are as oblivious as E.
Open source software allows Group D to get involved in checking that the operators are more of Group C than Group B.
---
Your busses vs trains scenario is interesting. Trains are controlled by widely available and auditable schedules, making them more open than the untracked antics of the completely closed source reasoning of bus and car drivers.
You are describing security through obscurity, which was considered a non-starter even before the advent of widely available software. It presumes that everyone who knows something is to be trusted, and everyone who doesn't is not competent enough to bridge that knowledge gap.
See, I see it rather that, no one is to be trusted - whether they happen to know something or not. Like I said elsewhere, it's the Prisoner's Dilemma writ large. My automatic assumption is that all other prisoners are out for their own good, and therefore I want to limit their access to that which they can use to disadvantage or harm me.
Ah thanks, that makes a lot more sense.
I generally don't trust open-source. Too many people have access; and therefore I assume anything open-source has zero security. It's a related to the Prisoner's Dilemma - it's most advantageous to those who find exploits to use them for their own good rather than report them and reduce them.
>Too many people have access; and therefore I assume anything open-source has zero security.
I don't think it's fair that you were downvoted, but this is an idea that developers and IS professionals tend to disagree with [1]. Even detractors don't feel that higher code availability correlates with lower levels of application security.
1 - https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2004/10/the_non-sec...
I don't think it's fair that you were downvoted, but this is an idea that developers and IS professionals tend to disagree with [1]. Even detractors don't feel that higher code availability correlates with lower levels of application security.
1 - https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2004/10/the_non-sec...
I consider it a given that developers and IS professionals would (at least) publicly disagree with that statement. After all, if they agreed that closed-source was better, there would be fewer open-source projects, which gives them a smaller resource set. In the end, whether or not it's more secure isn't really the issue, it's what keeps the paychecks coming more effectively.
Being able to use code blocks from FOSS projects makes a developer's life easier, rather than consistently reinventing the wheel. It also allows for more code to get out the door, faster. So whether they're paid on salary so they can just browse GitHub (or SourceForge, etc) for the code they're looking for, or paid by project so they want to get things out quick, it's beneficial to have many open source projects across the entire ecosystem of computing.
Being able to review source makes an IS professional's life easier, because rather than testing the I/O of a black box (which is often time-consuming), they can look over "important sections" of the (often human-readable) code. With something like Notepad++, they have code indentation and highlighting, and can search for key phrases to identify those "important sections" which often show some kind of major security hazard. This means that they get more projects done, in turn being able to make more money.
So when you look at the situation from a "cui bono?" ("who benefits?") perspective as a relative outsider, those two groups of people who are most strongly in favor of open source are the two groups which are most likely to benefit from it. As such, I consider their statements subject to bias, whether conscious or not!
Being able to use code blocks from FOSS projects makes a developer's life easier, rather than consistently reinventing the wheel. It also allows for more code to get out the door, faster. So whether they're paid on salary so they can just browse GitHub (or SourceForge, etc) for the code they're looking for, or paid by project so they want to get things out quick, it's beneficial to have many open source projects across the entire ecosystem of computing.
Being able to review source makes an IS professional's life easier, because rather than testing the I/O of a black box (which is often time-consuming), they can look over "important sections" of the (often human-readable) code. With something like Notepad++, they have code indentation and highlighting, and can search for key phrases to identify those "important sections" which often show some kind of major security hazard. This means that they get more projects done, in turn being able to make more money.
So when you look at the situation from a "cui bono?" ("who benefits?") perspective as a relative outsider, those two groups of people who are most strongly in favor of open source are the two groups which are most likely to benefit from it. As such, I consider their statements subject to bias, whether conscious or not!
There are similar arguments that have been made by tech professionals in favour of closed source software. I'm not clear as to why you disregard the potential bias here, and why you think that subject matter expertise should disqualify an arguer. Frankly, this reads as ad hominem and conspiratorial thinking to me.
Honest question: do you personally inspect the code of the browser of your choice; trust others to do that; or are just are you feeling better about having that possibility?
Given the last few years of adventure in the OpenSSL land I make no assumption about superiority of the open sourced solutions security-wise. Hence the curiosity, what is the motivation of others.
Given the last few years of adventure in the OpenSSL land I make no assumption about superiority of the open sourced solutions security-wise. Hence the curiosity, what is the motivation of others.
No software is perfect, but I'm more confident that vulnerabilities will be discovered and dealt with on open source projects. Proprietary projects have different incentives.
I wouldn't have a clue what to do with browser code, and I don't inspect the code of the browser I use, but I am happier if people who can understand the code and who aren't dependent on the project for their living can check it.
I wouldn't have a clue what to do with browser code, and I don't inspect the code of the browser I use, but I am happier if people who can understand the code and who aren't dependent on the project for their living can check it.
Being hacked is only one of many security concerns. The authors of software don't always value the users wishes over their own, open source at least keeps them honest about what they're doing. A closed source browser (that I'm sure has some "telemetrics") who's main goal is to analyze browsing patterns is a privacy nightmare.
Agree, but beyond attack surface I just don't want to become accustomed to something that can be shut down, aqui-hire/closed down, or otherwise disappeared via the ongoing advance of technology.
This feature looks nice and I hope other browsers adopt and adapt and make more meaningful end-user advancements like this that are visible to the eye.
This feature looks nice and I hope other browsers adopt and adapt and make more meaningful end-user advancements like this that are visible to the eye.
I wonder if for a company with less security resources than Google, it actually more secure to develop to develop close-sourced? Is source helpful when developing exploits? Intuitively it seems that it would be extremely helpful for the devious minded-individual.
Security researchers are very used to attacking binaries. The small bit of obscurity you get from hiding the source buys you very little security. And the most insecure internet-facing bits of code of the past decade - Flash and Acrobat PDF viewer - have always been closed source.
Their browser based on Chromium and when there is source available it's at least possible to see how fast they apply security fixes from upstream. For end-user of product there no way closed source browser can ever be more secure.
Huh, so what it the license then? I notice that 1.8 is the latest version for downloading but on the source page you linked to the latest is 1.7. Do they release source for previous version only?
I looked around a bit and didn't see anything about the license on their site. If I missed it and someone has a link that would be appreciated!
I looked around a bit and didn't see anything about the license on their site. If I missed it and someone has a link that would be appreciated!
[deleted]
to clarify be more secure _because_ it is closed source.
You can open and edit all the UI JavaScript and CSS. While it's not open source, it does allow for local modifications of the entire code.
I always used and loved Firefox because it was open source, but there have been a few articles now showing exactly how insecure Firefox is compared to Chrome. For this reason I've started to use Chrome until Firefox ups it's game.
Apologises in advance for using sarcasm and an analogy:
Cars without the very very very best armour are completely unsafe. Don't use this nice, good, performant, practical and mostly bulletproof van, instead settle for the google armoured car because think if someone starts shooting at you with a 50 cal sniper rifle from a perfect angle!
PS: for extra goodness the hood of the google car is welded (closed source even if we know the engine from chromium), pulling trailers (real extensions) is not possible and by default it records your every turn of the wheel and sends it to Google because you never know...
PPS: Oh, at close range even the google car yields to a sniper rifle.
Me: happily using Firefox. Happily driving a reasonable family car. There are certain places I won't drive that car at night but I can live with that.
(Feel free to bookmark and reuse. : )
Cars without the very very very best armour are completely unsafe. Don't use this nice, good, performant, practical and mostly bulletproof van, instead settle for the google armoured car because think if someone starts shooting at you with a 50 cal sniper rifle from a perfect angle!
PS: for extra goodness the hood of the google car is welded (closed source even if we know the engine from chromium), pulling trailers (real extensions) is not possible and by default it records your every turn of the wheel and sends it to Google because you never know...
PPS: Oh, at close range even the google car yields to a sniper rifle.
Me: happily using Firefox. Happily driving a reasonable family car. There are certain places I won't drive that car at night but I can live with that.
(Feel free to bookmark and reuse. : )
I mean your whole argument falls apart when you take into account the fact that cars cost money and the president or PM's car is going to cost a lot more than your average car.
Browsers are free.
> pulling trailers (real extensions)
Well look what's happening to Firefox's extensions soon.
> PPS: Oh, at close range even the google car yields to a sniper rifle.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/pwn2own-2017-microsoft-edge... - Although the statement "Firefox was back at this year’s Pwn2Own after missing last year, seemingly because the browser would’ve been too easy to hack" probably sums it up nicely.
Browsers are free.
> pulling trailers (real extensions)
Well look what's happening to Firefox's extensions soon.
> PPS: Oh, at close range even the google car yields to a sniper rifle.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/pwn2own-2017-microsoft-edge... - Although the statement "Firefox was back at this year’s Pwn2Own after missing last year, seemingly because the browser would’ve been too easy to hack" probably sums it up nicely.
I mean your whole argument falls apart when you take into account the fact that cars cost money and the president or PM's car is going to cost a lot more than your average car.
Browsers are free.
Using Chrome would cost me a lot. Both because it is sub-par for my usage patterns and because it feels bad to support it.
Well look what's happening to Firefox's extensions soon.
Last I checked whey will still be miles ahead of every other browser.
"Firefox was back at this year’s Pwn2Own after missing last year, seemingly because the browser would’ve been too easy to hack" probably sums it up nicely.
Pwn2own is the equivalent of lining up cars and inviting people to bring their preferred weapon to test the armour.
As I have pointed out elsewhere either I am unusually lucky or drive-by exploits are way less common in the wild than people think. Or maybe it is just because I don't go hunting for Photoshop cracks and free movies with my work browser.
In any case: Yes, the safer the better, but we need to stop this "nothing but the most secure" mindset because in the end it only results in a Chrome monoculture which I think is worse in every way, even securitywise.
Browsers are free.
Using Chrome would cost me a lot. Both because it is sub-par for my usage patterns and because it feels bad to support it.
Well look what's happening to Firefox's extensions soon.
Last I checked whey will still be miles ahead of every other browser.
"Firefox was back at this year’s Pwn2Own after missing last year, seemingly because the browser would’ve been too easy to hack" probably sums it up nicely.
Pwn2own is the equivalent of lining up cars and inviting people to bring their preferred weapon to test the armour.
As I have pointed out elsewhere either I am unusually lucky or drive-by exploits are way less common in the wild than people think. Or maybe it is just because I don't go hunting for Photoshop cracks and free movies with my work browser.
In any case: Yes, the safer the better, but we need to stop this "nothing but the most secure" mindset because in the end it only results in a Chrome monoculture which I think is worse in every way, even securitywise.
> Using Chrome would cost me a lot. Both because it is sub-par for my usage patterns and because it feels bad to support it.
Doesn't change the fact that your analogy is flawed.
> Last I checked whey will still be miles ahead of every other browser.
Vimperator maybe, but that stopped working a while back.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/mozil...
Still, they're moving. And why do you think they're moving?
> Pwn2own is the equivalent of lining up cars and inviting people to bring their preferred weapon to test the armour.
I agree with you, but I was responding to your comment about a sniper rifle. I'd argue that pwn2own is the equivalent of using a sniper rifle - and Chrome seems to have dealt with it well.
> In any case: Yes, the safer the better, but we need to stop this "nothing but the most secure" mindset because in the end it only results in a Chrome monoculture which I think is worse in every way, even securitywise.
Like I said, I'd been using Firefox for years because I honestly think it's a better browser. That doesn't excuse how far behind they are security wise though. They seem to have the resources with the companies they've been acquiring but IMO they (the resources) are misplaced.
I much prefer open source, and on my home Arch Machine I use Chromium but at work I'm required to use Windows so I use Chrome because otherwise it's awkward.
Once Mozilla gets sandboxing implemented I will be moving back to Firefox.
Doesn't change the fact that your analogy is flawed.
> Last I checked whey will still be miles ahead of every other browser.
Vimperator maybe, but that stopped working a while back.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/mozil...
Still, they're moving. And why do you think they're moving?
> Pwn2own is the equivalent of lining up cars and inviting people to bring their preferred weapon to test the armour.
I agree with you, but I was responding to your comment about a sniper rifle. I'd argue that pwn2own is the equivalent of using a sniper rifle - and Chrome seems to have dealt with it well.
> In any case: Yes, the safer the better, but we need to stop this "nothing but the most secure" mindset because in the end it only results in a Chrome monoculture which I think is worse in every way, even securitywise.
Like I said, I'd been using Firefox for years because I honestly think it's a better browser. That doesn't excuse how far behind they are security wise though. They seem to have the resources with the companies they've been acquiring but IMO they (the resources) are misplaced.
I much prefer open source, and on my home Arch Machine I use Chromium but at work I'm required to use Windows so I use Chrome because otherwise it's awkward.
Once Mozilla gets sandboxing implemented I will be moving back to Firefox.
You could have saved yourself some typing by just writing "risk assessment."
Also- I think you vastly underestimate how often people get hacked through their browser.
Also- I think you vastly underestimate how often people get hacked through their browser.
Also- I think you vastly underestimate how often people get hacked through their browser.
As a seasoned IT pro I should know. Yet in the last 20 years I was hit by a drive by exploit once.
Other people: tons of times.
By some weird coincidence this seems to be the same people who insist on trying to run the latest crack of Photoshop etc.
I do explain to people that just as there are certain places you won't go at night there are certain places they shouldn't necessarily visit on the Internet.
Other than that it is tech support scams, driver update scams etc, but not many drive by exploits on places I frequent (HN, occacionally dzone, reddit and slashdot, technical blogs, mainstream and not so mainstream (both very correct and somewhat uncorrect ones) news in my language etc.
As a seasoned IT pro I should know. Yet in the last 20 years I was hit by a drive by exploit once.
Other people: tons of times.
By some weird coincidence this seems to be the same people who insist on trying to run the latest crack of Photoshop etc.
I do explain to people that just as there are certain places you won't go at night there are certain places they shouldn't necessarily visit on the Internet.
Other than that it is tech support scams, driver update scams etc, but not many drive by exploits on places I frequent (HN, occacionally dzone, reddit and slashdot, technical blogs, mainstream and not so mainstream (both very correct and somewhat uncorrect ones) news in my language etc.
Could you share those links, please?
This is innovative and might be enough to get me to switch browsers. I'm perplexed at why Firefox, Chrome and IE only ever seem to innovate the engine and have basically given up on doing anything novel with UI.
OK performance is nice to have but frankly I think that's just managers shoving resources at that because they know how to measure it and a 10.3% increase in speed or memory efficiency or something is easy to sell in a meeting.
UI innovation is much harder to quantify, requires more work to sell, and the payoff takes much longer to manifest, not least because every change will generate a certain number of complaints from people who think their pet issue should have been addressed first, like UI designers are interchangeable with performance specialists.
Chrome shot to first place because it kicked Firefox's ass on performance and IE's ass on reliable rendering (an opinion which you may or may not agree with). But while extensions are wonderful they can't and don't replace core UI innovation. And tbh I'm really bored with Chrome at this point; from a user point of view nothing significantly new has happened for a really long time.
Look at the bookmark management, for instance. It's been the same since forever, and if I want to socialize that information or turn it into a feed or something I have to go looking for third-party solutions, which are thin on the ground because people are reluctant to develop too much for a platform over which they have little or no control.
OK performance is nice to have but frankly I think that's just managers shoving resources at that because they know how to measure it and a 10.3% increase in speed or memory efficiency or something is easy to sell in a meeting.
UI innovation is much harder to quantify, requires more work to sell, and the payoff takes much longer to manifest, not least because every change will generate a certain number of complaints from people who think their pet issue should have been addressed first, like UI designers are interchangeable with performance specialists.
Chrome shot to first place because it kicked Firefox's ass on performance and IE's ass on reliable rendering (an opinion which you may or may not agree with). But while extensions are wonderful they can't and don't replace core UI innovation. And tbh I'm really bored with Chrome at this point; from a user point of view nothing significantly new has happened for a really long time.
Look at the bookmark management, for instance. It's been the same since forever, and if I want to socialize that information or turn it into a feed or something I have to go looking for third-party solutions, which are thin on the ground because people are reluctant to develop too much for a platform over which they have little or no control.
Mozilla had a recent project (Tofino) to experiment with browser interfaces, and one of their conclusions was
"Boy howdy do normal users have hard time with non-conventional browser interfaces!" https://medium.com/project-tofino/re-defining-the-tofino-pro...
"Boy howdy do normal users have hard time with non-conventional browser interfaces!" https://medium.com/project-tofino/re-defining-the-tofino-pro...
You really need to both do longer studies and include (and distinguish in analysis) new vs. experienced browser users to separate out short-term familiarity effects from long-term usability.
Agreed. If there's a benefit to the new interface people can adapt fair quickly. Videogames deal with this challenge as a matter of course.
Firefox Test Pilot [1] is a more recent approach to testing new UI in Firefox. It's entirely extension based. I think this is a smart approach because it lets Mozilla quickly test new UI features without building it into the core browser before it's been vetted.
However its full potential is not ready yet, since Firefox has been migrating to WebExtensions, and this has not fully stabilized yet. Long term I think the WebExtensions move also makes sense, since it gives extension authors a stable API to work with, instead of XUL which can break with each Firefox update. And the architecture makes it easier to optimize threading performance and some form of security sandboxing.
So the point is, I think more UI experimentation is on Firefox's horizon, but they have to first stabilize the technical architecture before they can go full throttle on that.
[1]: https://testpilot.firefox.com/
However its full potential is not ready yet, since Firefox has been migrating to WebExtensions, and this has not fully stabilized yet. Long term I think the WebExtensions move also makes sense, since it gives extension authors a stable API to work with, instead of XUL which can break with each Firefox update. And the architecture makes it easier to optimize threading performance and some form of security sandboxing.
So the point is, I think more UI experimentation is on Firefox's horizon, but they have to first stabilize the technical architecture before they can go full throttle on that.
[1]: https://testpilot.firefox.com/
I'll give it a whirl, thanks for the tip!
> There is a reason for that – as a rule, browsers don’t really want you to use history. They want you to search and find things multiple times because search royalties are part of their business model.
I think that that's a little paranoid. There's just little demand for a revamped history tab. I like this change a lot, but it's certainly a case of not knowing I wanted it until I saw it.
I think that that's a little paranoid. There's just little demand for a revamped history tab. I like this change a lot, but it's certainly a case of not knowing I wanted it until I saw it.
It might be paranoid from the aspect of history, but this is something that I definitely noticed with the URL bar when moving from Firefox to Chrome.
Chrome will often offer the first result as a search query, instead of a website I visited before. Feels very clear that it's a big part of their business model. Firefox is much more aggressive in serving history URLs. If I type "videos" in Firefox, it will give me "reddit.com/r/videos" as the first result, since I've been there plenty of times, but Chrome insists on offering the first result as a generic Google query for "videos".
Related sidenote, Firefox was also way superior in remembering which letters I type to go to which site in a more broad way. Chrome does it on a very basic level, prioritizing the sites that have the same string on the top level domain. Example, if I type "news" Chrome is always going to offer me sites that begin with "news" such as "news.ycombinator.com", even if I more often end up going to "randomsite.com/news" or "randomsite.com" whose page title is "News!" when typing that. Firefox remembers my preference, which means that after a few days of Firefox use, I'll have a bunch of 2 letter combos that take me to the exact site I want ("ne" to Hacker News, "vi" to reddit videos, "ap" to an apartment listing website which has "ap somewhere deep in their URL, or just in the title of the website, etc.), while Chrome will only give me top level URLs, and feels as useless on week 10 as it did on week 1. For sites where I don't remember the URL, I'll usually end up googling the page title in Chrome, while Firefox would serve me exactly what I need from history.
Part of all of that is just shit UX on Chrome's part, but it's a safe bet that shit UX drives significant revenue for Google.
Chrome will often offer the first result as a search query, instead of a website I visited before. Feels very clear that it's a big part of their business model. Firefox is much more aggressive in serving history URLs. If I type "videos" in Firefox, it will give me "reddit.com/r/videos" as the first result, since I've been there plenty of times, but Chrome insists on offering the first result as a generic Google query for "videos".
Related sidenote, Firefox was also way superior in remembering which letters I type to go to which site in a more broad way. Chrome does it on a very basic level, prioritizing the sites that have the same string on the top level domain. Example, if I type "news" Chrome is always going to offer me sites that begin with "news" such as "news.ycombinator.com", even if I more often end up going to "randomsite.com/news" or "randomsite.com" whose page title is "News!" when typing that. Firefox remembers my preference, which means that after a few days of Firefox use, I'll have a bunch of 2 letter combos that take me to the exact site I want ("ne" to Hacker News, "vi" to reddit videos, "ap" to an apartment listing website which has "ap somewhere deep in their URL, or just in the title of the website, etc.), while Chrome will only give me top level URLs, and feels as useless on week 10 as it did on week 1. For sites where I don't remember the URL, I'll usually end up googling the page title in Chrome, while Firefox would serve me exactly what I need from history.
Part of all of that is just shit UX on Chrome's part, but it's a safe bet that shit UX drives significant revenue for Google.
I never made the connection that the poor UX leads to more search results traffic (makes sense), but I've definitely noticed that the URL bar in Chrome is much worse than the one in Firefox.
I remember the ridicule Mozilla got when they introduced the "awesome bar" (doesn't look like they're still calling it that), but it really did turn out pretty awesome. It replaces both bookmarks and history for me -- which is incredible if you think about it, those are both two very heavyweight interfaces.
It also makes using Chrome very frustrating, since I keep entering keywords that I know Firefox would have indexed (such as a ticket number in a bugtracker), while Chrome sometimes does and sometimes doesn't.
I remember the ridicule Mozilla got when they introduced the "awesome bar" (doesn't look like they're still calling it that), but it really did turn out pretty awesome. It replaces both bookmarks and history for me -- which is incredible if you think about it, those are both two very heavyweight interfaces.
It also makes using Chrome very frustrating, since I keep entering keywords that I know Firefox would have indexed (such as a ticket number in a bugtracker), while Chrome sometimes does and sometimes doesn't.
You've noticed more details than I have, but I keep using firefox over chrome because Firefox's awesomebar wipes the floor with what chrome is doing in my daily workflow. I use a lot of intranet sites/internal web applications continually throughout my workday, identifying a lot of unique resoures, and firefox works great at me typing a few characters of a resource ID or URL or page title and finding it out of my history. Chrome feels terrible at it.
About remembering which letters I type to go to which site, I assumed that's just the latest and greatest with browsers, and loved it without noticing that I do. But now that I know it's a Firefox feature, I'll knowingly love it now.
One thing that Chrome's address box has over Firefox is speed. Sometimes I (mindlessly) press f and enter expecting FF to autocomplete to facebook but I get taken to google search for f. (Which of course has facebook.com as the first result)
Setup a keyword bookmark in Firefox for F and this problem will be solved.
No, it's absolutely true for Chrome. One of the reasons I went back to Firefox, as Chrome makes it intentionally impossible to find things from your history.
It may be paranoid to believe it's fully and consciously intentional, but it also comes down to general tendency and mindset. Particularly in Chrome, developing a browser for a search company, with search in mind, and investing a lot of time and energy in making the browser "good at search" and integrated well with search, will naturally lead to a search-first mindset in developers, whether intentional or not.
Google's business model is advertising. Replace all your instances of "search" with "ads" and it reads more accurately.
If they want to monetize history via search they could still do that but as a side bar or some other mechanism. i.e., Provide extensive, rich history tracking, but also add some sort of optional search based on relevant context (just please do not make it automatic).
There's just little demand
As Henry Ford apocryphally said, 'If I had asked people what they wanted they would have told me to bring them a faster horse.'
As Henry Ford apocryphally said, 'If I had asked people what they wanted they would have told me to bring them a faster horse.'
I've always wondered why browsers don't put the contents of pages I visit into something like clucene, so I can search pages in my history by their contents, not just their titles and metadata. I'm sure there are security and storage tradeoffs, but to me this seems like a much more complete solution than this revamped history UI.
Opera used to do that from 10.50
http://help.opera.com/Mac/10.50/en/history.html
http://help.opera.com/Mac/10.50/en/history.html
There is a recoll extension for Firefox, which updates an index visible from the desktop program. Not quite as neat as integrated history searching in the browser but still useful.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/recoll-indexe...
The one complication I found was ensuring that I blacklisted sensitive websites such as banks.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/recoll-indexe...
The one complication I found was ensuring that I blacklisted sensitive websites such as banks.
You might be interested in https://worldbrain.io
Back around 2000, I wrote a web proxy server that did this. It was a proxy server mainly because browser extensions were not a thing back then. I never released it because I never solved some performance issues (it was using a very naive implementation in a lot of ways). I did get a lot of use out of it for about a year, though.
I'm sure there are security/privacy trade-offs. Storage is not such a big thing. I found that index size leveled off somewhat after a point. It probably would use enough storage to make it unreasonable for mobile browsers.
I'm sure there are security/privacy trade-offs. Storage is not such a big thing. I found that index size leveled off somewhat after a point. It probably would use enough storage to make it unreasonable for mobile browsers.
Man, if this was a thing I would definitely run it. All the plugin approaches fall down for me as I use FF and Chrome interchangeably for different tasks.
This would be a good additional feature for Pinboard perhaps (which I've been intending to subscribe to for ages but never get around to).
This would be a good additional feature for Pinboard perhaps (which I've been intending to subscribe to for ages but never get around to).
Unfortunately, HTTP proxies are kind of a thing of the past. Back when I wrote it, it was easy to implement a proxy (HTTP 1.0 with some HTTP 1.1 features). Now there are two issues. The smaller one is that you have to handle a lot of complexity from HTTP 1.1. The bigger one is that increasing use of HTTPS (a good thing!) means that things like caching, ad-blocking, and history search absolutely have to be in the browser. The author of Polipo, one of the best caching proxies, has declared it obsolete for this reason.
It would be a good feature for the deluxe Pinboard subscription. As long as you're mirroring the content, you might as well index it with Lucene or something.
It would be a good feature for the deluxe Pinboard subscription. As long as you're mirroring the content, you might as well index it with Lucene or something.
I thought Safari did that, but it seems it only does it for bookmarks - did that change at some point?
This seems very cool and all, but surely 99.99% of regular users have never really thought about seeing their browsing history in a calendar view, or wanted or cared for statistics about it. I am fairly sure a significant proportion of users aren't even totally sure how to access their history - apart from during brief moments of paranoia when they want to keep nefarious things from a partner - and, if they really were looking for something they know they'd seen before, surely they'd just think, "I found this before, I'll just google for it again." (Similarly bookmarks, frankly.)
I guess my point is that this probably appeals to a very small subset of users, but it seems like a massively over-engineered solution for the majority of people, and feels a little bit like the result of trying to answer the question "What can we do that's different?" with a "Wouldn't it be cool if...", rather than solving problems that people genuinely face. Am I being unfair?
I guess my point is that this probably appeals to a very small subset of users, but it seems like a massively over-engineered solution for the majority of people, and feels a little bit like the result of trying to answer the question "What can we do that's different?" with a "Wouldn't it be cool if...", rather than solving problems that people genuinely face. Am I being unfair?
> 99.99% of regular users
My read on the philosophy of Vivaldi is that it's deliberately developed for the minority of users. It's a reaction to the trend of browser features tending towards a generic middle.
They make take it too far (developing features that 1 or 2 users want), but it's still somewhat refreshing to see anyone set out with that kind of mindset.
My read on the philosophy of Vivaldi is that it's deliberately developed for the minority of users. It's a reaction to the trend of browser features tending towards a generic middle.
They make take it too far (developing features that 1 or 2 users want), but it's still somewhat refreshing to see anyone set out with that kind of mindset.
Is making a browser for power users a bad thing? Does all software have to be lowest common denominator?
Also worth noting: users often don't know what they want until they see it. Tabs in browsers were a 'power feature' NetCaptor introduced (and Opera copied), then they got really popular.
Err, Opera was doing "tabs" for the word go. Only that Opera used MDI. This was present all the way to the end of Opera 12.
Absolutely not - and I didn't mean my post to come across as negative. If this is purely a feature intended for power users - or if the whole piece of software is intended for them - then that's totally fine. Aside from the slightly meaningless strapline, a lot of the copy on the Vivaldi homepage is definitely promoting the sort of customisation only power users care about - so perhaps you're bang on the money there.
From my own perspective, I can't quite decide whether I'm not a power user because this feature doesn't much interest me (which I'm fine with), or whether it would interest me more if I actually tried it; I guess I am interested in the product journey that led to this being built, because it is clearly a large amount of effort for a - to me - quite unusual tent-pole. Likewise, for me, it's hard to see a doughnut chart of "Link transition types" as anything more than a novelty that you would look at once and then hide.
From my own perspective, I can't quite decide whether I'm not a power user because this feature doesn't much interest me (which I'm fine with), or whether it would interest me more if I actually tried it; I guess I am interested in the product journey that led to this being built, because it is clearly a large amount of effort for a - to me - quite unusual tent-pole. Likewise, for me, it's hard to see a doughnut chart of "Link transition types" as anything more than a novelty that you would look at once and then hide.
> Does all software have to be lowest common denominator?
I'd like to believe that it's not, but my humble observation is that it ends up being so. A friend just told me that it has to do with economies of scale. I never liked economics anyway.
On a technical level, it has to do with complexity. By reducing it, you lose X% of your customers who depend on the flexibility and features but you serve way better to the remaining (100-X)% and end up with an increased market share as long as the increase in quality is meaningful and X < 20 or something.
I'd like to believe that it's not, but my humble observation is that it ends up being so. A friend just told me that it has to do with economies of scale. I never liked economics anyway.
On a technical level, it has to do with complexity. By reducing it, you lose X% of your customers who depend on the flexibility and features but you serve way better to the remaining (100-X)% and end up with an increased market share as long as the increase in quality is meaningful and X < 20 or something.
In a hard market to crack it makes sense to try and do something different. If it fails then they're no worse off then before. If it works then it's a massive boom for them.
For what it's worth, this is a feature I've long wanted but hadn't realised it until now (I've always hated the way how browsers normally organise the history).
For what it's worth, this is a feature I've long wanted but hadn't realised it until now (I've always hated the way how browsers normally organise the history).
[deleted]
This might be true but in that case I'm in the 0.01% who want to know how much time I spend on HN and other sites instead of working. I ended up installing a time tracker(ManicTime) but I just realized that history statistics in the browser would be good enough for me.
Yes, you're being unfair. 'Solving problems people genuinely face' is never going to result in innovation, because it's maintenance for the existing paradigm. You are not going to find brilliant new ideas by pulling support tickets.
Take the most innovative thing you can't think of and then apply the same arguments to it. It's easy to see what problems things solve after they come into existence, less so in advance. That's why innovation involves the risk of failure.
Take the most innovative thing you can't think of and then apply the same arguments to it. It's easy to see what problems things solve after they come into existence, less so in advance. That's why innovation involves the risk of failure.
Thank you. I've always enjoyed this quote from Francis M. Cornford, which perhaps takes an opposing view:
Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time.
Every public action which is not customary, either is wrong or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time.
At the risk of self promotion I made http://fetching.io to solve exactly this problem across all the browsers I use.
This seems like one of the first features that will make me want to use Vivaldi. It's a project I've been rooting for a while, and this might be the turning point for me.
I personally like the built-in notes app with folders, it opens in a sidebar.
It's a nice looking browser too. Been using it on Win & Linux for the last few months and it's grown on me a lot.
Nice, but… This is not the history update I wanted from Vivaldi. The url autocompletion is annoying. I think it goes for the sub pages I clicked my way to, that shows up the most in history, instead of just the domain and the home page. I may click myself to my facebook profile 10 times during a fb session, but I don't want to land there.
Anyway, I'm using Vivaldi on Linux because the clean looks. No ugly borders or any of the other ugly Linux things. That and tab stacking.
Anyway, I'm using Vivaldi on Linux because the clean looks. No ugly borders or any of the other ugly Linux things. That and tab stacking.
Almost every Linux WM let's you disable borders on certain windows. That's what I do on firefox.
Yeah, but there is a lot of uglyness going on with linux programs over all, where different settings and themes doesn't really help. Vivaldi looks good on it's own and has decent settings for changing the looks, thats what I like. Maybe FF is the same.
All these features are pretty cool, but why can I still not dock the dev tools? Developers are the most likely early adopters, like myself. But not being able to dock the dev tools is seriously a killer. I've been watching Vivaldi from beta, and have enjoyed watching it, but every version I open it up, remember I can't dock dev tools, then close it. If you want to get me using Vivaldi, it's really simple: let me dock the dev tools.
Brave has the same problem. I think it's a problem with Electron that makes doing that difficult.
Docked dev tools is in active development at Vivaldi at the moment, so fingers crossed it will be included in an upcoming release. It's easily one of the most requested features we get, understandably, and definitely not being ignored. :)
I've found Vivaldi is becoming slower and slower with each update to the point that I'm starting to lose confidence in the browser itself.
https://forum.vivaldi.net/search?term=slow&in=titlesposts&so...
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3052560/browsers/vivaldi-brow...
https://thequo.wordpress.com/2016/04/23/one-glaring-problem-...
etc...
https://forum.vivaldi.net/search?term=slow&in=titlesposts&so...
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3052560/browsers/vivaldi-brow...
https://thequo.wordpress.com/2016/04/23/one-glaring-problem-...
etc...
Lots of nice touches here to visualise your browsing data in Vivaldi, and adding History as a side panel in the browser.
It's part of the 1.8 release of the browser launched today.
It's part of the 1.8 release of the browser launched today.
Good, I don't think the visualisations are that helpful, but the timeline/calendar part is. Lots of things to do in browsing history.
I am sure that Chrome users have similar if not higher level of history analytics/statistics but most of it seems to be only available to Google itself and not the end user.
Yes there is the web history Google provides but it is very basic level of access.
Yes there is the web history Google provides but it is very basic level of access.
I switched to Vivaldi from Firefox a few weeks ago, and like it a lot. I am missing tree-style tabs a lot but the horizontal tabs come close.
You can vote for new features on the Vivaldi forum here:
https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/14250/feature-requests-for-1...
https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/14250/feature-requests-for-1...
Yeah, I know, thanks :) Somebody actually released a treestyle extension yesterday which I found a few hours ago, and it is really quite decent already! https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/15332/tree-tabs/14
Wow....any chance you could post a screencap????
very interesting, thanks!
I'm kept on Chrome just because of it's ability to have multiple browser profiles - e.g. work and personal - from what I've seen, neither Safari, Opera, Vivaldi or Brave support this - am I wrong?
My main beef with Chrome isn't privacy - it's battery usage. I keep looking for a browser that doesn't kill my battery (MBP) but allows for multiple profiles.
My main beef with Chrome isn't privacy - it's battery usage. I keep looking for a browser that doesn't kill my battery (MBP) but allows for multiple profiles.
It's worth noting that Firefox offers multiple profiles support (since before Chrome existed). I can't speak to battery life on the MBP, though, as I'm a Windows user.
Yeah Firefox isn't much better sadly in terms of battery.
Mozilla is developing a feature (currently) called Containers that allows you to easily maintain different cookie jars (work, personal, shopping, etc) per tab. I have multiple Google accounts and this Container feature is the only way I can use the effectively in the same browser session. :)
You can install the Containers experiment extension here:
https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/containers
You can install the Containers experiment extension here:
https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/containers
Sadly the touch screen support is still more miss than hit.
the address bar brings up the Win10 OSK just fine. But any input areas in pages require that i bring up the keyboard manually.
And the whole browser seems to go unresponsive to touch input at irregular intervals.
Sad really, as they give me the ability to scale the UI as i see fit. Thus making the various elements that much easier to hit with a finger.
the address bar brings up the Win10 OSK just fine. But any input areas in pages require that i bring up the keyboard manually.
And the whole browser seems to go unresponsive to touch input at irregular intervals.
Sad really, as they give me the ability to scale the UI as i see fit. Thus making the various elements that much easier to hit with a finger.
I love the idea of doing something to make history more useful. Firefox is doing experiments with this, too (activity stream), but this is a lot more comprehensive.
I've tried Vivaldi and really like it, but I'm pretty dedicated to Firefox. I'd probably play with Vivaldi more if they had a Mozilla sync adapter.
I've tried Vivaldi and really like it, but I'm pretty dedicated to Firefox. I'd probably play with Vivaldi more if they had a Mozilla sync adapter.
It would be great if Vivaldi implements all the features available in Vimium (chrome extension) natively.
[deleted]
Looks like the only thing missing is the shortcuts to select URLs to follow on the current page (which is pretty cool, btw).
Otherwise you can do everything Vimium can by customising keyboards shortcuts and using the "Quick Commands" menu (similar function as the menu brought up when typing "O" in Vimium).
Keyboard Shortcuts settings: vivaldi://settings/keyboard/
Quick Commands menu: https://help.vivaldi.com/article/quick-commands-menu/
Otherwise you can do everything Vimium can by customising keyboards shortcuts and using the "Quick Commands" menu (similar function as the menu brought up when typing "O" in Vimium).
Keyboard Shortcuts settings: vivaldi://settings/keyboard/
Quick Commands menu: https://help.vivaldi.com/article/quick-commands-menu/
Any news on the mail client? They have been "working on it" for a long time now...
I just want my browser to save every page that I load and make it full-text searchable.
it looks beautiful. sometimes applications like this are hesitant to share their source code b/c of their business model or something.
are there any good "hackable" web browsers these days?
are there any good "hackable" web browsers these days?
If looked for a URL I visited two days ago and click it does the URL jump to today or is there now two entries for that same URL ? (I wish it's the second option)
Not much difference in http://arewefastyet.com
I like Vivaldi well enough. The features I use most are tab stacking, page tiling, and full-page screenshots.
The most notable feature is the partial links selection, line in old Opera.
Now we need sync and attachable dev tools window.
Now we need sync and attachable dev tools window.
I really like Vivaldi, I just would like if they allowed for custom start pages.
Do you mean custom URL for Startpage? Setting for that here:
vivaldi://settings/startup/
Or something different, e.g. customising the "Speed Dial" pages further?
vivaldi://settings/startup/
Or something different, e.g. customising the "Speed Dial" pages further?
BRILLIANT!
What a crappy title. Why isn't it "Vivaldi browser releases calendar view mode for history"?
Thanks, a moderator updated it a little while ago from “Vivaldi browser v1.8 released, with more useful browsing history”.
Where's the GitHub link? I usually download my browsers using a repository.
Now, this is an example of what an extension could provide in Firefox. And still can, today.
But in a few weeks, in Firefox stuff like this will be impossible – as the browser devs refuse to implement these features, and refuse to give extension devs the ability to override such browser-native features while still feeling native.
I built a similar extension for Firefox which I didn’t publish (the reasons will be obvious at the end of this paragraph), where I log the entire browser history on my own server, transform all loaded pages via reader mode, also log them, then provide fulltext search in all of them, which sites were visited after another, how did I open tabs, etc, forever.
This means I can search history for years, with postgres fulltext search, and find anything I’ve visited or read about, pages I saw before or after, etc.
It’s an amazing tool, but obviously once Firefox enforces WebExtensions, it’s useless, because I can’t integrate it with the omnibar or with the history tool anymore.
But in a few weeks, in Firefox stuff like this will be impossible – as the browser devs refuse to implement these features, and refuse to give extension devs the ability to override such browser-native features while still feeling native.
I built a similar extension for Firefox which I didn’t publish (the reasons will be obvious at the end of this paragraph), where I log the entire browser history on my own server, transform all loaded pages via reader mode, also log them, then provide fulltext search in all of them, which sites were visited after another, how did I open tabs, etc, forever.
This means I can search history for years, with postgres fulltext search, and find anything I’ve visited or read about, pages I saw before or after, etc.
It’s an amazing tool, but obviously once Firefox enforces WebExtensions, it’s useless, because I can’t integrate it with the omnibar or with the history tool anymore.
I've read similar complaints to this before, yet when I look at the documentation for WebExtensions it seems like there's plenty of scope to do what's wanted.
In this case, what is wrong with the history [1] and omnibox [2] APIs?
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/AP...
[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/AP...
In this case, what is wrong with the history [1] and omnibox [2] APIs?
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/AP...
[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/AP...
I don’t want to expand on the history the browser provides. I want to completely replace every bit. I want to be the history API.
That’s the problem. I don’t want to glue a new frontend on top of what exists, I want to completely replace every history API the browser provides, and replace it with my own.
I, as extension dev, can’t remove the history API’s implementation, and build my own implementation. I can’t change what backend the browser’s history UI uses, or replace that UI.
I can’t hijack the history button in the menu, or replace it.
With Firefox, today, with lots of hackery, I can get pretty close. But I still can’t fully get there.
With the new WebExtensions, I can only add UI – but not replace UI, or add backend functionality, or replace backend functionality.
That’s the problem. I don’t want to glue a new frontend on top of what exists, I want to completely replace every history API the browser provides, and replace it with my own.
I, as extension dev, can’t remove the history API’s implementation, and build my own implementation. I can’t change what backend the browser’s history UI uses, or replace that UI.
I can’t hijack the history button in the menu, or replace it.
With Firefox, today, with lots of hackery, I can get pretty close. But I still can’t fully get there.
With the new WebExtensions, I can only add UI – but not replace UI, or add backend functionality, or replace backend functionality.
You can definitely do that for Chrome extensions, not sure about Firefox.
https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/override
This would be sufficient to create the type of feature described in the article.
Not sure why you'd want to replace the backend, this could break other extensions. Both WebExtensions and Chrome extensions allow changing/deleting browser history items, which should enable most things extensions would want to do.
https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/override
This would be sufficient to create the type of feature described in the article.
Not sure why you'd want to replace the backend, this could break other extensions. Both WebExtensions and Chrome extensions allow changing/deleting browser history items, which should enable most things extensions would want to do.
> Not sure why you'd want to replace the backend, this could break other extensions. Both WebExtensions and Chrome extensions allow changing/deleting browser history items, which should enable most things extensions would want to do.
As I said above, the whole point is to do my own history tracking system, which stores history via a sync system of my own, in a server of my own.
And loads it from there, too.
The user has a webinterface, mobile interface, app integration with browsers, etc.
You can easily do fulltext search of all sites you’ve ever visited, etc.
"Breaking" other extensions is intentional – I want to replace the backend in which they search.
I want to provide far more than what any of these browsers provide, although Vivaldi is still the closest yet.
As I said above, the whole point is to do my own history tracking system, which stores history via a sync system of my own, in a server of my own.
And loads it from there, too.
The user has a webinterface, mobile interface, app integration with browsers, etc.
You can easily do fulltext search of all sites you’ve ever visited, etc.
"Breaking" other extensions is intentional – I want to replace the backend in which they search.
I want to provide far more than what any of these browsers provide, although Vivaldi is still the closest yet.
Firefox opens up their Awesomebar API on April 17 with the new FF53 release.
We are actually actively building the full-text history and bookmarks search as a chrome (and soon also FF extension) (http://worldbrain.io) It's also all open-source.
We have some ideas regarding the server infra as well: https://github.com/WorldBrain/Research-Engine/issues/43
Maybe good to connect and share some thoughts. (We are also in Germany. Berlin to be exact.)
We are actually actively building the full-text history and bookmarks search as a chrome (and soon also FF extension) (http://worldbrain.io) It's also all open-source.
We have some ideas regarding the server infra as well: https://github.com/WorldBrain/Research-Engine/issues/43
Maybe good to connect and share some thoughts. (We are also in Germany. Berlin to be exact.)
Have you considered a release for Pale Moon rather than Firefox?
Would you consider making your addon code available? I am very interested in this.
Considering that, to get it into Firefox kinda usefully, I had to do lots of hacking around in the browser UI with JS and more, and it’s tightly coupled to my own server (API keys hardcoded), maybe after I’ve cleaned it up.
If Firefox provides a sane API for this in the future, I might do a public (and FLOSS) rewrite.
If Firefox provides a sane API for this in the future, I might do a public (and FLOSS) rewrite.
In fact, this is probably the reason I like Tree Style Tab[1] so much. Instead of a simple list, it shows my tabs in the context I opened them from.
[1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...