Firefox desktop extensions coming soon for the upcoming Android release(blog.mozilla.org)
blog.mozilla.org
Firefox desktop extensions coming soon for the upcoming Android release
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2023/08/10/prepare-your-firefox-desktop-extension-for-the-upcoming-android-release/
481 comments
I see people hating on Mozilla, not Firefox. They absolutely deserve it too. They got one billion dollars and they're reducing software development spending to focus on agenda pushing instead. One would think they'd try to fix the web by making Firefox the dominant browser.
Half that billion has probably been spent on interviews that they randomly decide they no longer are hiring for right before they take the entire company to Hawaii.
I'm not salty about the 6+ interviews or anything.
I'm not salty about the 6+ interviews or anything.
Ha, you made it to 6, that's impressive! I only got scheduled for one interview, the interviewer was a no-show, and they never answered any of my attempts to reschedule or even find out what happened.
I honestly don't remember the total number, but it was up there. I know they said it was the final interview before an offer would be given.
The manager of the team I would have been going on (FF for Android funnily enough) knew of some of (and said he actively used) my past work which was probably a leg up.
In the end they were far from the worst interviewers (hello Hopper for that title*), but it soured me against Mozilla after putting that much time and effort into it and just getting a "we're no longer hiring for this position" form email.
*: Never paying out their tech screening "payment", to rejecting me over an answer I never gave (we didn't like when you said "XYZ").
The manager of the team I would have been going on (FF for Android funnily enough) knew of some of (and said he actively used) my past work which was probably a leg up.
In the end they were far from the worst interviewers (hello Hopper for that title*), but it soured me against Mozilla after putting that much time and effort into it and just getting a "we're no longer hiring for this position" form email.
*: Never paying out their tech screening "payment", to rejecting me over an answer I never gave (we didn't like when you said "XYZ").
On the plus side, interviews work both ways. You got lucky to need less than one interview to understand that they would be a bad fit for you.
what the eff do they need more than 6 interviews for
What does any company need more than 2? They don't but we inflate the process to make people exhausted just thinking about interviewing.
Didn't they let go the curl guy?
> They got one billion dollars and they're reducing software development spending to focus on agenda pushing instead
Where have they announced that they're focusing on "agenda pushing"? Mozilla's "agenda" feels like a very tiny part of what they do, it's just that people talk about it endlessly.
Where have they announced that they're focusing on "agenda pushing"? Mozilla's "agenda" feels like a very tiny part of what they do, it's just that people talk about it endlessly.
I dunno if it's their "focus" but it's a big part of their PR. eg their lobbying to get Amazon and NextDoor to cooperate less with law enforcement. The Mozilla incubator has a goal of spending 40% of its money on social justice initiatives. Meanwhile they're cutting staff and resources for browser development, which IMO should be their bread and butter.
> eg their lobbying to get Amazon and NextDoor to cooperate less with law enforcement
Maybe that's a great example of the different ways you can look at the exact same thing. To me that's a privacy cause, and it's one I agree with. What percentage of Ring customers are aware they're providing the police with a direct feed of their front yard?
"Ring Reveals They Give Videos to Police Without User Consent or a Warrant"
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/07/ring-reveals-they-give...
Maybe that's a great example of the different ways you can look at the exact same thing. To me that's a privacy cause, and it's one I agree with. What percentage of Ring customers are aware they're providing the police with a direct feed of their front yard?
"Ring Reveals They Give Videos to Police Without User Consent or a Warrant"
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/07/ring-reveals-they-give...
The claim above, disputed by you: "They got one billion dollars and they're reducing software development spending to focus on agenda pushing instead"
"Privacy cause" is an agenda they're pushing. An agenda I happen to agree with, but promoting that privacy agenda is not software development spending no matter how you look at it. You can't reasonably claim these are equivalent just because you like them both. Telling people that Ring is bad isn't software development, a "different way of looking at it" doesn't cut it.
"Privacy cause" is an agenda they're pushing. An agenda I happen to agree with, but promoting that privacy agenda is not software development spending no matter how you look at it. You can't reasonably claim these are equivalent just because you like them both. Telling people that Ring is bad isn't software development, a "different way of looking at it" doesn't cut it.
Perhaps there was a time when Mozilla's sole monetary focus was development of the Firefox browser but if there was it was a long time ago.
There aren't only two pots of money in the Mozilla budget, one labeled "software development" and another "agendas", they do all kinds of things. An increase in "agendas" does not automatically mean a decrease in software development. Case in point: Mozilla used to have a "Mozilla Science Lab" from 2013-18[1]. When it was shut down there was presumably extra cash made available. Maybe it went to "agendas", maybe it didn't. And hey, maybe it couldn't: the foundation receives donations for specific projects, they're not able to just say "thanks for the money, we're actually going to spend it on something totally different". If they shut down a program they might well lose the funding associated with it and the whole thing would be a zero-sum exercise.
To interpret this as a binary choice between two activities is an oversimplification.
[1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/ScienceLab
There aren't only two pots of money in the Mozilla budget, one labeled "software development" and another "agendas", they do all kinds of things. An increase in "agendas" does not automatically mean a decrease in software development. Case in point: Mozilla used to have a "Mozilla Science Lab" from 2013-18[1]. When it was shut down there was presumably extra cash made available. Maybe it went to "agendas", maybe it didn't. And hey, maybe it couldn't: the foundation receives donations for specific projects, they're not able to just say "thanks for the money, we're actually going to spend it on something totally different". If they shut down a program they might well lose the funding associated with it and the whole thing would be a zero-sum exercise.
To interpret this as a binary choice between two activities is an oversimplification.
[1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/ScienceLab
Nobody said it's a binary. The claim is that they've reduced development spending, which is factual. They laid off a ton of developers, are you forgetting that? Or do you think that doesn't count as reduced development spending?
> The claim is that they’ve reduced development spending
The claim was more specific than that: it was “reducing software development spending to focus on agenda pushing instead”.
Two factual statements:
1) the Mozilla Corporation laid off engineers
2) the Mozilla Foundation spent money pursuing “agendas”
I am suggesting that those two events are not necessarily connected to each other.
The claim was more specific than that: it was “reducing software development spending to focus on agenda pushing instead”.
Two factual statements:
1) the Mozilla Corporation laid off engineers
2) the Mozilla Foundation spent money pursuing “agendas”
I am suggesting that those two events are not necessarily connected to each other.
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/
Just read their blog. Latest three: - EU's AI Act - Fakespot school supplies? - Making trustworthy chatbots to support women plagued by violence and abuse
The first one might make sense? Second one WTF? And third is disgusting (I know people effected and the LAST thing they want is some chatbot).
None of these are related strongly to Firefox. I quit donating to them years ago after it was obvious they have their priorities messed up.
Just read their blog. Latest three: - EU's AI Act - Fakespot school supplies? - Making trustworthy chatbots to support women plagued by violence and abuse
The first one might make sense? Second one WTF? And third is disgusting (I know people effected and the LAST thing they want is some chatbot).
None of these are related strongly to Firefox. I quit donating to them years ago after it was obvious they have their priorities messed up.
There really aren't any software engineering resources taken up with writing those blog entries. Would it help if they posted a weekly blog entry entitled "Yes, we're still working on Firefox"?
I don't understand why everyone keeps talking about this as if it's an either/or.
I don't understand why everyone keeps talking about this as if it's an either/or.
Because the things an organization talks about gives you an idea of their priorities and their values. If a technical org you otherwise supported suddenly started posting blog entries about how Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, and maybe they could write a chatbot to help correct misconceptions about Nazis, you would probably change your opinion about them, regardless of how much effort it took to write the post.
Well today, the Mozilla blog is talking about extensions in the Firefox Android browser, so that seems cool?
Equating any of the three examples the OP gave with "Hitler wasn't such a bad guy" is... an interesting take. But nevertheless, you're only looking at one thing. Why not look at the Firefox release notes?
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/116.0/releasenotes/
Three releases so far this month! Look at that technical organization iterating on its core product!
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/116.0/releasenotes/
Three releases so far this month! Look at that technical organization iterating on its core product!
Someday HN may learn the difference between equation and comparison...
It seems more likely that a part of HN needs to learn the difference between mathematics and human language.
Humans in general haven't so we'll hope for a better tomorrow, together, tomorrow.
[deleted]
The third one isn't something they're doing, it's the winner they selected in a "responsible AI challenge" competition.
> the winner they selected in a "responsible AI challenge" competition
How is hosting "responsible AI" competitions not something they're doing? Sounds like a huge waste and a distraction from what should be their core mission of protecting the web by making the best browser they possibly can. If they want to dip their toes into the AI space to stay trendy and relevant, they could at least do it in a way that constructively relates to creating a web browser. Their local translation extension is a good example of this, they did a great job with it. They could do more, like maybe experiment with AI-guided adblocking or something. But a competition to create responsible chatbots? How is that relevant to Firefox? Besides the winner of the competition being stupid, the whole competition was stupid. What did they even hope to accomplish with such a competition, to sway the development of commercial chatbots from the likes of OpenAI or Facebook? They gave out $100k to the top 3 winners and not one of them has anything to do with making a better browser. If I'm wrong, then please explain how any of this relates to making Firefox better. Don't copy-paste their vapid corporate rambling explanation to me, if you can't explain it in plain normal english then it's bullshit.
How is hosting "responsible AI" competitions not something they're doing? Sounds like a huge waste and a distraction from what should be their core mission of protecting the web by making the best browser they possibly can. If they want to dip their toes into the AI space to stay trendy and relevant, they could at least do it in a way that constructively relates to creating a web browser. Their local translation extension is a good example of this, they did a great job with it. They could do more, like maybe experiment with AI-guided adblocking or something. But a competition to create responsible chatbots? How is that relevant to Firefox? Besides the winner of the competition being stupid, the whole competition was stupid. What did they even hope to accomplish with such a competition, to sway the development of commercial chatbots from the likes of OpenAI or Facebook? They gave out $100k to the top 3 winners and not one of them has anything to do with making a better browser. If I'm wrong, then please explain how any of this relates to making Firefox better. Don't copy-paste their vapid corporate rambling explanation to me, if you can't explain it in plain normal english then it's bullshit.
> what should be their core mission of protecting the web by making the best browser they possibly can
In your opinion. I disagree. They could spend a billion dollars on making the best browser the world has ever seen and it would still be used by next to no-one. People use the browser they're given, especially in the smartphone era we're in now. Android users use Chrome. iOS users use Safari, Mozilla isn't even allowed to make a real version of Firefox for iOS.
So they've clearly decided to expand their mission to protect the web. Ensuring AI is used ethically strikes me as relevant to the topic, a little too much like chasing buzzwords to my taste but it's clearly an area of current interest. And hey, maybe a few more people will learn about the Mozilla brand and consider converting to Firefox some day.
In your opinion. I disagree. They could spend a billion dollars on making the best browser the world has ever seen and it would still be used by next to no-one. People use the browser they're given, especially in the smartphone era we're in now. Android users use Chrome. iOS users use Safari, Mozilla isn't even allowed to make a real version of Firefox for iOS.
So they've clearly decided to expand their mission to protect the web. Ensuring AI is used ethically strikes me as relevant to the topic, a little too much like chasing buzzwords to my taste but it's clearly an area of current interest. And hey, maybe a few more people will learn about the Mozilla brand and consider converting to Firefox some day.
> "They could spend a billion dollars on making the best browser the world has ever seen and it would still be used by next to no-one. [...] So they've clearly decided to expand their mission to protect the web."
Seems like you're now conceding matheusmoreira's point you disputed before:
> They got one billion dollars and they're reducing software development spending to focus on agenda pushing instead.
And you haven't bothered to answer my question, so I'll put it to you again: How does rewarding the development of a chatbot to talk about sexual violence relate to furthering their mission to "protect the web"? It's nothing more than the predictable synthesis of AI hype and a popular social cause, it has nothing to do with the web at all. If the best you can come up with is people will hear about this chatbot and then maybe they'll use Firefox, then why don't you just admit the whole thing is a farce?
And as for it being an effective promotion of firefox and "clearly an area of current interest", then where, besides Mozilla's corporate blog, have you ever heard of this chatbot competition or any of the three winners? The winner of the competition is "Sanative AI", never mentioned on HN before this comment. Do a general web search for "Sanative AI" tell me if any of the results you find are likely to inform people of Firefox's existence and benefits. I feel confident in asserting that this competition has not brought a single new user to Firefox, and was not in earnest ever meant to.
Seems like you're now conceding matheusmoreira's point you disputed before:
> They got one billion dollars and they're reducing software development spending to focus on agenda pushing instead.
And you haven't bothered to answer my question, so I'll put it to you again: How does rewarding the development of a chatbot to talk about sexual violence relate to furthering their mission to "protect the web"? It's nothing more than the predictable synthesis of AI hype and a popular social cause, it has nothing to do with the web at all. If the best you can come up with is people will hear about this chatbot and then maybe they'll use Firefox, then why don't you just admit the whole thing is a farce?
And as for it being an effective promotion of firefox and "clearly an area of current interest", then where, besides Mozilla's corporate blog, have you ever heard of this chatbot competition or any of the three winners? The winner of the competition is "Sanative AI", never mentioned on HN before this comment. Do a general web search for "Sanative AI" tell me if any of the results you find are likely to inform people of Firefox's existence and benefits. I feel confident in asserting that this competition has not brought a single new user to Firefox, and was not in earnest ever meant to.
afavour(1)
Mozilla is a non-profit, and Firefox is explicitly a means (one of them) to an end, i.e. a healthy internet as described in the Mozilla Manifesto: https://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto/
There's definitely an agenda. It's one that's good for users IMHO though, as opposed to the agendas of the for-profit browser makers.
There's definitely an agenda. It's one that's good for users IMHO though, as opposed to the agendas of the for-profit browser makers.
Can someone elaborate why Mozilla gets hate? I don't pay much attention to that and just use Firefox.
Well... there are a few reasons but i believe the biggest ones are that
- they fired lots of good devs to cut on expenses but then keep paying more and more to top execs (and we're not getting any anomalous good results that justify it iyam)...
- from what i understood, they also "kind of" kicked Brendan Eich (yeah, Brave's CEO, the guy that invented JS, etc...) out over some "personal" things that had nothing to do with Mozilla (but then again... you should go read about this and take your own conclusions)
- Firefox, also start following the herd and that led to it cutting lots of features people loved (e.g.: Firefox had tab grouping addons - and then a native feature - way before we had Chrome browser... now everyone complains firefox is the only browser that does not support tab groups... kind of ironic!)
- some more .......
All in all it's a love-hate relation! We love and need Firefox because it's the only good thing left around, but people are very pissed up with "Mozilla's attitudes and decisions"
then again... this is just what i understand from the "news"!!! You should really go out and see what others think about it!!!
- they fired lots of good devs to cut on expenses but then keep paying more and more to top execs (and we're not getting any anomalous good results that justify it iyam)...
- from what i understood, they also "kind of" kicked Brendan Eich (yeah, Brave's CEO, the guy that invented JS, etc...) out over some "personal" things that had nothing to do with Mozilla (but then again... you should go read about this and take your own conclusions)
- Firefox, also start following the herd and that led to it cutting lots of features people loved (e.g.: Firefox had tab grouping addons - and then a native feature - way before we had Chrome browser... now everyone complains firefox is the only browser that does not support tab groups... kind of ironic!)
- some more .......
All in all it's a love-hate relation! We love and need Firefox because it's the only good thing left around, but people are very pissed up with "Mozilla's attitudes and decisions"
then again... this is just what i understand from the "news"!!! You should really go out and see what others think about it!!!
> - from what i understood, they also "kind of" kicked Brendan Eich (yeah, Brave's CEO, the guy that invented JS, etc...) out over some "personal" things that had nothing to do with Mozilla
Was it for public statements that might be construed as creating a hostile work environment?
I don’t know why it’s so hard for leadership to just keep their nose clean, avoid making any sweepingly bigoted statements, do their jobs, and make their millions. If you’re an embarrassment for the company as an IC you’re gone, even if it happened in your personal life and not at work. Why should leadership be held to a lesser standard, especially when they actually do hold power over people’s lives and careers?
Its 2023 and we’re still doing the “blizzard defense”, employees just need to live with the hostile work environment, it’s personal beliefs/not serious, right? And while some companies might let you get away with it, the law is not exactly on your side either.
Was it for public statements that might be construed as creating a hostile work environment?
I don’t know why it’s so hard for leadership to just keep their nose clean, avoid making any sweepingly bigoted statements, do their jobs, and make their millions. If you’re an embarrassment for the company as an IC you’re gone, even if it happened in your personal life and not at work. Why should leadership be held to a lesser standard, especially when they actually do hold power over people’s lives and careers?
Its 2023 and we’re still doing the “blizzard defense”, employees just need to live with the hostile work environment, it’s personal beliefs/not serious, right? And while some companies might let you get away with it, the law is not exactly on your side either.
Any political statement might be construed as creating a hostile work environment. CEOs have the right to voice political opinions off work just as much as anybody.
I mean, I realize that's a lost cause, but I still believe it.
I mean, I realize that's a lost cause, but I still believe it.
>Firefox had tab grouping addons - and then a native feature - way before we had Chrome browser... now everyone complains firefox is the only browser that does not support tab groups... kind of ironic!
I think tab containers are way better after getting used to them. But they are much jankier and feel they needs a UX pass to really make it shine. There were a half dozen instances where I wanted to do something, thought it wasn't a feature, and then found it in a weird context menu. Which includes the fact that the feature itself is behind an add-on! A add-on with native level support, but an add-on nonetheless.
All the ideas of tab groups and much more is there but scattered all over the place.
I think tab containers are way better after getting used to them. But they are much jankier and feel they needs a UX pass to really make it shine. There were a half dozen instances where I wanted to do something, thought it wasn't a feature, and then found it in a weird context menu. Which includes the fact that the feature itself is behind an add-on! A add-on with native level support, but an add-on nonetheless.
All the ideas of tab groups and much more is there but scattered all over the place.
Check out this news post from 5 days ago about Mozilla's finances:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37015592
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37015592
[deleted]
I was not aware of this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This just made my mind blow up...
If it's true, then it's REALLY BAD!!!
This just made my mind blow up...
If it's true, then it's REALLY BAD!!!
You really, really, really should not take anything Brian Lunduke says at face value.
Because it's the only non-profit browser maker, and the only one that explicitly has a mission to protect the free and open internet, so people care about it. There's just the risk of people killing it with love though.
> They got one billion dollars and they're reducing software development spending to focus on agenda pushing instead.
What else do you do with a billon dollars? Even a browser on FF's scale doesn't need a billion to operate properly. Most of that would go towards advertising and lobbying for stuff to secure their place.
What else do you do with a billon dollars? Even a browser on FF's scale doesn't need a billion to operate properly. Most of that would go towards advertising and lobbying for stuff to secure their place.
Mozilla got something of 6(!) billion(!) dollars if my mind serves me right.
What agendas are Mozilla pushing?
I think Firefox's addon policy is one of the reasons they lost market share. Moving from oldscool extensions to webextensions they lost their unique selling point. Firefox was the only browser that you could really theme. It's adblock existed earlier and was better than others (and is soon again due to Manifest v3?).
Especially for non-tech-savvy people, who don't know what a browser is, if they need a certain feature then you just replaced their chrome with firefox + this feature and they were happy. But if Firefox is just another Chrome clone, then it is neccessarily an inferior one.
Especially for non-tech-savvy people, who don't know what a browser is, if they need a certain feature then you just replaced their chrome with firefox + this feature and they were happy. But if Firefox is just another Chrome clone, then it is neccessarily an inferior one.
No offense but you could only come to this conclusion if you've looked at literally zero data and are just shooting from your hip based on sporadic HN conversations.
Their market share was dropping for a long time before, and it was dropping for a long time after. And to the extent that switching addon models helped them improve performance during their big marketing push in 2017, it probably got them a few users back if anything.
A full half of Firefox users (even at the time) didn't use addons, and the majority of the rest only used one or two adblockers.
Their market share was dropping for a long time before, and it was dropping for a long time after. And to the extent that switching addon models helped them improve performance during their big marketing push in 2017, it probably got them a few users back if anything.
A full half of Firefox users (even at the time) didn't use addons, and the majority of the rest only used one or two adblockers.
I'd be extremely careful about using Firefox's analytics data. I can't find Firefox's telemetry coverage numbers (they gather the info, so it's probably out there somewhere), but it's not at all unreasonable to suspect that a lot of the "power user"-type interactions are correlated with an unwillingness to enable telemetry. Couple that with the fact that Firefox, as a relatively niche browser these days, has a selection bias for more techy-savvy users, and you have a recipe for extremely misleading statistics.
Seriously, there's an amazing amount of shooting from the hip happening here.
Most people don't even use ad blockers.
Firefox lost power-users because 1) performance was bad 2) Chrome does very aggressive marketing and various Google sites break randomly on Firefox. And performance was very often bad because of extensions.
Perhaps anecdotal, but whenever I ask a Chrome user why they don't use Firefox, that's the main two reasons they cite. I do ask often though.
What "certain features" do non-tech-savvy people need? I know lots of devs who rarely even know or care which browser they're using. Not to mention non-tech-savvy people..
Perhaps anecdotal, but whenever I ask a Chrome user why they don't use Firefox, that's the main two reasons they cite. I do ask often though.
What "certain features" do non-tech-savvy people need? I know lots of devs who rarely even know or care which browser they're using. Not to mention non-tech-savvy people..
Firefox randomly broke all my extensions and workflows one day in the pursuit of some obscure technical goal, via forced update that I couldn’t roll back. I asked about it, and they banned me from their subreddit, so I deleted that stupid browser and never went back
> some obscure technical goal
A multi-process architecture is not an obscure technical goal, it's an essential for modern browsing, and something that Chrome had from the outset, and is a large part of the reason that Chrome originally clobbered Firefox in both security and perceived speed.
A multi-process architecture is not an obscure technical goal, it's an essential for modern browsing, and something that Chrome had from the outset, and is a large part of the reason that Chrome originally clobbered Firefox in both security and perceived speed.
That's misleading. Multi process support was implemented in Firefox 48. XUL extension purge was in Firefox 57.
And their constant user hostile redesigns. Suddenly tabs are floating separately from their pages. And now if a page is playing audio you can no longer see its favicon, etc
Speaking of mobile firefox where did Save as PDF vanish and why? and so on
edit: I have been told in a reply the save pdf feature still exists but has been changed for no reason to a different location in the menu
Speaking of mobile firefox where did Save as PDF vanish and why? and so on
edit: I have been told in a reply the save pdf feature still exists but has been changed for no reason to a different location in the menu
"The favicon will show a special icon to show you which tab started autoplaying some stupid video"
The utter horror. It's so user hostile to make an easy way to see which tab is the source of the annoying sound you are hearing.
Oh, and it doesn't hide the favicon unless you have so many tabs open each tab can only fit the favicon. So for probably the vast majority of users who don't spend their days with 300 tabs they never check constantly open, they don't see this.
So user hostile
The utter horror. It's so user hostile to make an easy way to see which tab is the source of the annoying sound you are hearing.
Oh, and it doesn't hide the favicon unless you have so many tabs open each tab can only fit the favicon. So for probably the vast majority of users who don't spend their days with 300 tabs they never check constantly open, they don't see this.
So user hostile
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1339535
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1386107
Look what an unholy mess the new change to audio playing status has caused.
To summarize, in compact mode you will get the audio playing icon on a tab but it will hide the favicon in that case.
In normal mode, and only if you have a small number of tabs, you will find a tiny 'PLAYING' text instead. If you hover over it, you will find the playing icon...which will have hidden the favicon then.
UX geniuses with too much time on their hands.
Look what an unholy mess the new change to audio playing status has caused.
To summarize, in compact mode you will get the audio playing icon on a tab but it will hide the favicon in that case.
In normal mode, and only if you have a small number of tabs, you will find a tiny 'PLAYING' text instead. If you hover over it, you will find the playing icon...which will have hidden the favicon then.
UX geniuses with too much time on their hands.
SO I checked on a fresh profile with the floating separated tabs and all and there it shows some text underneath the tab saying playing, and the playing icon only when you hover the tab, taking the place of the favicon...which...is an even stranger behavior compared to the older design. It looks like the userchrome work to remove the gap between tab and page had caused the playing icon to show under it, which means i will have to work hard some more to combine both behaviors back to the older style ie no tab gap and both playing icon and favicon visible at same time. Either case I see no justification for this borderline bizarre change.
Revisiting this comment to reiterate and make clear: the audio playing icon was always shown...but under the website favicon...the new design makes it so that only one of the audio icon or favicon is visible at a time.
Whats the point of it? The previous design showed both the favicon and the sound playing icon together? The new one does not show the favicon anymore. The old design never felt cramped or tiny or anything like this, so I call bs on this.
you can save as PDF from the "share" menu
Ah I see so it went into the "useless UI shifting" bucket rather than the "deleted features" bin. But I am happy to know it still exists thankfully.
It's because of the salaried "UX experts". Paying somebody 6 figures to bikeshed the precise size and color of the home button is obviously farcical so they pretend to be more useful by making more dramatic changes, which amount to shuffling things around to make users relearn the software. They're ostensibly supposed to make things better for users, but in reality there's little to do on that front so they make themselves look productive by sabotaging users instead.
They can never provide rational justification for any of it. Their "data" arguments are farcical. Have you ever tried to push back against a UX expert's decrees? They can't rationally defend their changes with the data that supposedly informs them so it rapidly devolves into "your opinions on UX are invalid because you're an engineer. I'm an expert so you need to trust me." Salaried "UX experts" are a blight on software development; if their services are ever needed at all, they should be given a short contract with clearly defined goals.
They can never provide rational justification for any of it. Their "data" arguments are farcical. Have you ever tried to push back against a UX expert's decrees? They can't rationally defend their changes with the data that supposedly informs them so it rapidly devolves into "your opinions on UX are invalid because you're an engineer. I'm an expert so you need to trust me." Salaried "UX experts" are a blight on software development; if their services are ever needed at all, they should be given a short contract with clearly defined goals.
I didn't go to Reddit, but extensions breaking was the reason I left on the desktop.
On mobile though... I switched back about a year ago, when I got sick of the ads on chrome.
If the choice is between being able to install uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger vs not being able to... I'll definitely stick with Firefox on mobile.
On mobile though... I switched back about a year ago, when I got sick of the ads on chrome.
If the choice is between being able to install uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger vs not being able to... I'll definitely stick with Firefox on mobile.
"Sam Adams stopped making the beer I like so I went into a random pub to complain loudly and got thrown out. Now I just drink Bud Light!"
Today Mr. Firmwarrior stands in the public square shouting about Firefox some more.
Today Mr. Firmwarrior stands in the public square shouting about Firefox some more.
Yeah, I'm done with Firefox. The company is completely rotten and dysfunctional, and getting personally attacked by fanboys when I'm unhappy with something they do isn't going to change my mind.
If Chrome actually tries to force some crazy user-hostile breaking change like Manifest V3, we'll probably get enough pushback to see a really polished Chromium fork take off. Worst case, I can use LibreWolf as my daily driver
If Chrome actually tries to force some crazy user-hostile breaking change like Manifest V3, we'll probably get enough pushback to see a really polished Chromium fork take off. Worst case, I can use LibreWolf as my daily driver
Making beer people like is the only job of a beer company.
Ah, you mean the extension type that chrome NEVER supported? How does switching help here?
>Firefox lost power-users
There is no better vertical tab solution than FireFox + Sidebury.
If you are using horizontal tabs, you are not a "power-user" of a browser.
There is no better vertical tab solution than FireFox + Sidebury.
If you are using horizontal tabs, you are not a "power-user" of a browser.
>If you are using horizontal tabs, you are not a "power-user" of a browser.
This is just such absurd, elitist, gatekeeping. WTF. How about just not have 400 tabs open? Am I really not a "power user" of my browser because I utilize the bookmark feature.
Get over yourself man
This is just such absurd, elitist, gatekeeping. WTF. How about just not have 400 tabs open? Am I really not a "power user" of my browser because I utilize the bookmark feature.
Get over yourself man
>How about just not have 400 tabs open?
Because it allows me to access 400 tabs worth of information at a glance.
I am not "gatekeeping," I just think that you aren't using the "power" of the browser if you have <10 tabs open and limited tab name space. What's your definition of browser "power user?"
On my MBP, I have 10 windows (each with a title representing general category). In each, I have: up to 24 pinned tabs that take up three tab slots up to 30 regular tabs open that I can see without scrolling each of my tabs has 40 characters of name space, which is plenty to know exactly what the tab is
I'm sorry if my post came off as acerbic. I will admit that I am annoyed as hell that:
1. Chrome has such market share when it doesn't have a descent vertical tab solution
2. Safari's vertical tabs are a total joke and Brave's are barely better
3. Firefox doesn't have native vertical tabs so I have to rely on an extension and they make it a total pain to get rid of the horizontal tabs
I am not "gatekeeping," I just think that you aren't using the "power" of the browser if you have <10 tabs open and limited tab name space. What's your definition of browser "power user?"
On my MBP, I have 10 windows (each with a title representing general category). In each, I have: up to 24 pinned tabs that take up three tab slots up to 30 regular tabs open that I can see without scrolling each of my tabs has 40 characters of name space, which is plenty to know exactly what the tab is
I'm sorry if my post came off as acerbic. I will admit that I am annoyed as hell that:
1. Chrome has such market share when it doesn't have a descent vertical tab solution
2. Safari's vertical tabs are a total joke and Brave's are barely better
3. Firefox doesn't have native vertical tabs so I have to rely on an extension and they make it a total pain to get rid of the horizontal tabs
Point 3 is why I don't use vertical tabs on Firefox. While I don't think that vertical tabs is a necessary feature, facilitating modifications to the UI via addons would be a huge win for anyone who wants to implement such features, or even experiment with different forms of user interaction.
Firefox + TabMixPlus. Multi-row scrollable dynamic width tabs.
Even still works on newest Firefox, assuming you install a sketchy extension and disable signature checking. Thanks for your contribution, Firefox, I guess, though I can't help but notice that you spent the past decade trying your hardest to make this addon not work.
Even still works on newest Firefox, assuming you install a sketchy extension and disable signature checking. Thanks for your contribution, Firefox, I guess, though I can't help but notice that you spent the past decade trying your hardest to make this addon not work.
I'll look at that, but I really have to recommend TreeStyleTab.
Sidebury has trees too, but you can turn it off, which I do because I want 40 characters of tab name space for each tab.
Sure there is, check out Arc browser.
I hadn't even heard of that one until today. Thanks - I'll check it out.
FF has had better adblocking capabilities than Chromium before Manifest v3 was announced
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
Firefox can still be themed. Albeit less than before. IMO it was the right choice for security, even if it makes things more limited or awkward than before.
It also remains more blocking capable than Chrome, for those so inclined.
It also remains more blocking capable than Chrome, for those so inclined.
>behind Samsung fucking Internet
Supports adblock (addons) and shows tabs on top just like desktop so it's easy to switch, dark mode for all websites, etc. It's relative fast and lots of options. I use FF with no addons for some websites.
Supports adblock (addons) and shows tabs on top just like desktop so it's easy to switch, dark mode for all websites, etc. It's relative fast and lots of options. I use FF with no addons for some websites.
> shows tabs on top just like desktop
Honestly, I hate this on the phone. But I get it. I had that initial cognitive disruption when FF did this. But once that was gone (idk, like 30 minutes?) I realized it was a lot nicer because I could actually reach the address bar and tabs without needing to stretch my hand. Or if I have a bigger phone, use a second hand. I mean there's a reason navigation buttons on the phones (for the OS) were always on the bottom. It's just easier. But yeah, you gotta get through the initial cognitive disruption. But you know what? I also got used to when Android switched the time from being at the top right to top left and I'm willing to bet most people did too and don't really think about it anymore. As for the dark mode... well you got a point there. Though dark reader was one of the first add-ons on FF mobile. Though as much as I love dark mode, some websites are just unreadable with it and it drives me nuts. Specifically anything with a transparent background...
Honestly, I hate this on the phone. But I get it. I had that initial cognitive disruption when FF did this. But once that was gone (idk, like 30 minutes?) I realized it was a lot nicer because I could actually reach the address bar and tabs without needing to stretch my hand. Or if I have a bigger phone, use a second hand. I mean there's a reason navigation buttons on the phones (for the OS) were always on the bottom. It's just easier. But yeah, you gotta get through the initial cognitive disruption. But you know what? I also got used to when Android switched the time from being at the top right to top left and I'm willing to bet most people did too and don't really think about it anymore. As for the dark mode... well you got a point there. Though dark reader was one of the first add-ons on FF mobile. Though as much as I love dark mode, some websites are just unreadable with it and it drives me nuts. Specifically anything with a transparent background...
You can change the tabs and address bar positions (independently) in the Samsung Internet settings. You can also choose to display them always, on scroll, or never (for the tabs).
Same for Firefox on Android
Firefox on Android has no tabs.
Umm, what? No, this is absolutely not accurate. They're laid out differently than desktop, but at least on android Firefox does have tabs. Not sure on iOS, but that's basically reskinned safari anyway.
I am writing this from Firefox on android. Neither phone nor tablet version has tabs. It has list of open websites ordered in a scrolling window as squares (and for sync reasons call them tabs), but no tabbar and no actual tabs. Chrome and Samsung internet has actual tabbar and tabs.
Are you using firefox focus? Because otherwise idk what to tell you. You can even see it in the images on this engadget post. In both images that they show...
https://www.engadget.com/firefox-for-android-update-08000789...
https://www.engadget.com/firefox-for-android-update-08000789...
Can you poit to the picture where Firefox has tabbar?
Firefox on iOS also has tabs
Firefox on Android absolutely has tabs.
I don't mind cognitive disruption at all, as long as I'm getting something better. While the mobile switcher scales much better (how many can the desktop tab bar hold, like ten?), it can take a while to open and sometimes loses your scroll position or puts a tab in a random place in the list. The previews are also so large that it's hard to get an overview. This can make it much slower to switch tabs than on desktop.
Note you can slide over the URL bar to switch tabs left or right.
>it can take a while to open
Uhhh how many tabs do you keep open? I have 16 or so in the background on firefox on an old ass Pixel 2 phone and it never has any sort of delay.
Uhhh how many tabs do you keep open? I have 16 or so in the background on firefox on an old ass Pixel 2 phone and it never has any sort of delay.
It won't tell me, it just shows the infinity sign. I guess that means something over 99.
> Safari don't sorry(sic) add-ons at all
iOS and iPadOS Safari has supported extensions for a while now.
https://support.apple.com/guide/ipad/get-extensions-ipada7ca...
https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/get-extensions-iphab0...
iOS and iPadOS Safari has supported extensions for a while now.
https://support.apple.com/guide/ipad/get-extensions-ipada7ca...
https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/get-extensions-iphab0...
Only 11 years after the competition! Courage
This comment makes no sense. The competition is mobile Chrome, which has no extensions, and mobile Firefox, which has only a limited number of chosen extensions. Literally from the linked article:
> For the past few years Firefox for Android officially supported a small subset of extensions
If you're referring to desktop, on the other hand, Safari has had extensions since 2010.
> For the past few years Firefox for Android officially supported a small subset of extensions
If you're referring to desktop, on the other hand, Safari has had extensions since 2010.
Firefox Android had broader extension support before it was temporarily restricted, in response to an architecture shift. Still, there has been an addon capability for many years before Safari mobile saw any.
3 years is "temporarily"? https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/introducing-a-n...
And again, mobile Chrome, a much bigger competitor than Firefox, has no extensions.
And again, mobile Chrome, a much bigger competitor than Firefox, has no extensions.
My point was that Safari iOS lagged behind the competition. Firefox was and remains a viable alternative, despite the anticompetitive measures that ensure Chrome's dominance.
3 years is a long time, yet for the impatient there is an escape hatch. I've been using it for years to get more add-ons into my Firefox install. And there were some extensions available during that period, which is more than none. Mozilla has been offering more choice and customization than a trillion dollar competitor for over a decade, and for some cases still does.
3 years is a long time, yet for the impatient there is an escape hatch. I've been using it for years to get more add-ons into my Firefox install. And there were some extensions available during that period, which is more than none. Mozilla has been offering more choice and customization than a trillion dollar competitor for over a decade, and for some cases still does.
I've complained a lot about the crippled add-on support on Android and other poor decisions Mozilla has made, BUT I also donate monthly and encourage everyone who asks to just use Firefox.
So I think that on the balance, I'm a supporter.
This decision, to finally re-enable add-ons on Android, is a good one and I applaud Mozilla for making it!
So I think that on the balance, I'm a supporter.
This decision, to finally re-enable add-ons on Android, is a good one and I applaud Mozilla for making it!
With Web DRM this is over. Firefox dropped the ball and would only be useful with a high market share. As soon as there is Web DRM in most major sites, Google controls what browser is allowed to view a website and Firefox is out, Chrome will drop ad blockers. This is the long con.
(~30y Mosaic/Netscape/FF user)
(~30y Mosaic/Netscape/FF user)
iOS Safari has supported declarative content blocking extensions since iOS 9 in 2015 and a full extension API since iOS 15 released about two years ago.
Declarative blocking is the weakest, it barely removes the simplest ads.
uBlock doesn't exist for iOS because it is made impossible by apple, their extension API is not a "full" API.
uBlock doesn't exist for iOS because it is made impossible by apple, their extension API is not a "full" API.
I haven’t seen ads on mobile Safari for as long as I can remember. Whether you choose to believe that is up to you. Can you point to an example where an extension like AdGuard would let an ad slip through?
Precompiled declarative blocking is more performant and power efficient than running a content script in a JS VM at page load, which matters on a CPU and battery constrained device.
I was responding to a comment claiming that mobile Safari doesn’t support add-ons. Which is simply not true!
Precompiled declarative blocking is more performant and power efficient than running a content script in a JS VM at page load, which matters on a CPU and battery constrained device.
I was responding to a comment claiming that mobile Safari doesn’t support add-ons. Which is simply not true!
It's not only the ads slipping through. Safari is so lacking in terms of API that for many sites with anti-adblock, the only way to bypass those are allowing tracking / ads connections.
Check the `@@` filters for `ios` here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters...
Adguard's default settings already do not include many tracking connections blocking filters, due to the lack of Safari's API for redirecting to neutered sources which could easily lead to breakages / anti-adblock.
In terms of privacy-protection, Safari is one of the worst.
Check the `@@` filters for `ios` here: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/AdguardTeam/AdguardFilters...
Adguard's default settings already do not include many tracking connections blocking filters, due to the lack of Safari's API for redirecting to neutered sources which could easily lead to breakages / anti-adblock.
In terms of privacy-protection, Safari is one of the worst.
> Can you point to an example where an extension like AdGuard would let an ad slip through?
Yes, see Twitter.
I have AdGuard installed on iOS and I do see ads. I do not see them when opening on Firefox desktop with uBlock Origin. If I disable uBlock then I do see them like on Safari.
As I said, precompiled declarative blocking only works for the weakest of blatant ads. Of course it's "more performant and power efficient" because it only runs on the bare HTTP requests. That's not what I want.
> I was responding to a comment claiming that mobile Safari doesn’t support add-ons. Which is simply not true!
Fair enough. But personally I don't count Safari's extensions as real extension, just like I don't count Firefox' previous approach of a handful of "blessed" extensions for Android as real extensions.
Yes, see Twitter.
I have AdGuard installed on iOS and I do see ads. I do not see them when opening on Firefox desktop with uBlock Origin. If I disable uBlock then I do see them like on Safari.
As I said, precompiled declarative blocking only works for the weakest of blatant ads. Of course it's "more performant and power efficient" because it only runs on the bare HTTP requests. That's not what I want.
> I was responding to a comment claiming that mobile Safari doesn’t support add-ons. Which is simply not true!
Fair enough. But personally I don't count Safari's extensions as real extension, just like I don't count Firefox' previous approach of a handful of "blessed" extensions for Android as real extensions.
Note that you've been able to use custom collections to get extra extensions on FF-for-Android for a while provided you put the browser into developer mode first.
It's a pain in the arse and certainly doesn't count as 'released' by any means but it's been at least just about possible for a while.
It's a pain in the arse and certainly doesn't count as 'released' by any means but it's been at least just about possible for a while.
> Yes, see Twitter.
Safari content blockers aside, Safari web extensions are capable of blocking Twitter ads.
Safari content blockers aside, Safari web extensions are capable of blocking Twitter ads.
AdBlock does not, so which one does?
Well... my own Safari extension Tweaks for Twitter does, but I recently discontinued it because I got sick of Twitter's shenanigans such as the strict usage limits, and I have no interest in supporting X, the so-called "everything app".
There may be other extensions, I don't know. In any case, the technical capability of the API is there.
There may be other extensions, I don't know. In any case, the technical capability of the API is there.
wildrhythms(1)
If anything, my problem is sometimes it’s too strong. Searching for a product on Google and clicking the Amazon links don’t work
I see ads on Safari on my iOS device all the time, whether you choose to believe that is up to you.
[deleted]
I’ve been using 1Blocker since day one and have nothing but praise for their product. Not as powerful as uBlock Origin, but pretty good nonetheless.
>Declarative blocking is the weakest, it barely removes the simplest ads.
That's misinformation. It may not be as good as ublock origin (I don't know) but in my experience it removes practically everything.
That's misinformation. It may not be as good as ublock origin (I don't know) but in my experience it removes practically everything.
uBlock doesn’t, but plenty of browsers have built-in adblocking, with one of the very browsers missing it being.. drumroll.. iOS Firefox!
Mozilla refuses to address how having no adblock is a security risk, so I have moved all my friends and family over to iOS Brave.
Firefox built its own demise by having a bizarre focus on woke stuff instead of features that users direly need.
Mozilla refuses to address how having no adblock is a security risk, so I have moved all my friends and family over to iOS Brave.
Firefox built its own demise by having a bizarre focus on woke stuff instead of features that users direly need.
Brave's adblocking seems decidedly worse than ublock origin. https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/16935 except on iOS where apple's restrictions are drastically limiting.
You are so insistent that the feature built in primarily because the platform you've chosen has limited your ability to do what literally every other platform can do. I know there are some benefits privacy wise to the Apple ecosystem but it appears that Apple continues to "refuse to address" the need for actual browsers other than safari on iPhone rather than skins on top of Webkit.
So neither party is doing what you please but you gave hundreds to thousands of dollars to one and nothing to the other so perhaps go ask the fellow who has all of your money if they can implement the feature.
Alternatively wait for some combination of law and or technology to work around Apple.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/03/googles_chromium_ios/...
You are so insistent that the feature built in primarily because the platform you've chosen has limited your ability to do what literally every other platform can do. I know there are some benefits privacy wise to the Apple ecosystem but it appears that Apple continues to "refuse to address" the need for actual browsers other than safari on iPhone rather than skins on top of Webkit.
So neither party is doing what you please but you gave hundreds to thousands of dollars to one and nothing to the other so perhaps go ask the fellow who has all of your money if they can implement the feature.
Alternatively wait for some combination of law and or technology to work around Apple.
https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/03/googles_chromium_ios/...
I've actually recently switched from using uBlock in Brave (desktop Brave) to the built-in blocker.
They both use the same selectable filter lists, so I notice barely if any difference.
I'll also scuttle Cookiebro once Brave's cookie auto-delete moves out of beta.
Less extensions means less attack surface.
They both use the same selectable filter lists, so I notice barely if any difference.
I'll also scuttle Cookiebro once Brave's cookie auto-delete moves out of beta.
Less extensions means less attack surface.
Selectable filter lists isn't close to uBlock equivalency, that's just table stakes for any adblocker. As far as I've been able to determine, in Brave there is no way to view a list/grid/matrix of which domains are being blocked and which sort of content is being blocked; this is a feature I use in ublock origin / umatrix a lot and don't wish to go without. (For this matter, ublock origin in advanced mode is claimed to have equivalency to umatrix in this regard, but if that's true I can't figure out how.) Also missing from Brave adblocker, as far as I can tell, is an interface for creating cosmetic filters. I use these frequently for removing things like floating headers and footers, and other obnoxious first-party elements that aren't ads but nevertheless degrade websites to satisfy some web designers random whims.
Here is an example of Brave's filtering falling short: http://0x0.st/H_YB.jpg
Do you see that wide gray box that says "Youtube Featured, RELEASED this week!" I consider that an ad for trashy commercial popculture slop, I hate it and want it gone. How do I remove it with Brave's blocker? I have ad blocking turned up to aggressive but it's still there. I can't figure out how to create a new cosmetic filter, Youtube is unusable to me without this. If I scroll down further I see similar boxes for "Trending", "Shorts", and "Celebrate World's Indigenous People's Day." All of this needs to go; in Firefox I don't see any of it because, with ublock origin, I created a cosmetic filter for ytd-rich-section-renderer. "Rich section" indeed...
Anyway, I didn't downvote your above comment, which is now flagged as well. Near as I can figure the "modern godwin" accusation leveled against you is either because you mentioned brave (is Eich claimed to be a nazi now?) or because you said Mozilla is being woke. Either way, a very stupid reaction to your inoffensive comment. This place is becoming orange reddit.
Here is an example of Brave's filtering falling short: http://0x0.st/H_YB.jpg
Do you see that wide gray box that says "Youtube Featured, RELEASED this week!" I consider that an ad for trashy commercial popculture slop, I hate it and want it gone. How do I remove it with Brave's blocker? I have ad blocking turned up to aggressive but it's still there. I can't figure out how to create a new cosmetic filter, Youtube is unusable to me without this. If I scroll down further I see similar boxes for "Trending", "Shorts", and "Celebrate World's Indigenous People's Day." All of this needs to go; in Firefox I don't see any of it because, with ublock origin, I created a cosmetic filter for ytd-rich-section-renderer. "Rich section" indeed...
Anyway, I didn't downvote your above comment, which is now flagged as well. Near as I can figure the "modern godwin" accusation leveled against you is either because you mentioned brave (is Eich claimed to be a nazi now?) or because you said Mozilla is being woke. Either way, a very stupid reaction to your inoffensive comment. This place is becoming orange reddit.
> Do you see that wide gray box that says "Youtube Featured, RELEASED this week!" I consider that an ad for trashy commercial popculture slop, I hate it and want it gone. How do I remove it with Brave's blocker? I have ad blocking turned up to aggressive but it's still there
I have literally never seen this box. Something might be wrong with your config, either manually or due to Brave. Could be worth it to hit up Brave on their Github.
For what its worth, I was an uMatrix user in the past, but I got tired of the churn of constant tiny breakage (even if my regular set of sites was beautifully set up after a while). I know very well the ins and outs of blocking.
I did a trial run for a few weeks, alternating between uBlock and Brave blocking, and the difference was so unnoticeable that I just went cold turkey.
Brave has honestly been on a roll with their built-in security features:
- HTTPS upgrading
- configurable adblock
- fingerprinting protection
- WebRTC protection
- (soon) port-scanning protection, the first browser to do so
- (soon) cookie auto-deleting
> Anyway, I didn't downvote your above comment, which is now flagged as well. Near as I can figure the "modern godwin" accusation leveled against you is either because you mentioned brave (is Eich claimed to be a nazi now?) or because you said Mozilla is being woke. Either way, a very stupid reaction to your inoffensive comment. This place is becoming orange reddit.
Thanks for saying so! And yep. The funny thing is, all these dogmatic people do is strengthen the opinion of regular tech users like me. The more vindictive they get, the harder I try to steer away more and more people from Firefox.
Funnily enough its the opposite with Thunderbird. Since they had their split, their management is a lot more neutral and tech-focused and thus I try to get as many people back on that train as possible. I've even donated to Thunderbird, as those donations are specifically earmarked for Thunderbird only.
I have literally never seen this box. Something might be wrong with your config, either manually or due to Brave. Could be worth it to hit up Brave on their Github.
For what its worth, I was an uMatrix user in the past, but I got tired of the churn of constant tiny breakage (even if my regular set of sites was beautifully set up after a while). I know very well the ins and outs of blocking.
I did a trial run for a few weeks, alternating between uBlock and Brave blocking, and the difference was so unnoticeable that I just went cold turkey.
Brave has honestly been on a roll with their built-in security features:
- HTTPS upgrading
- configurable adblock
- fingerprinting protection
- WebRTC protection
- (soon) port-scanning protection, the first browser to do so
- (soon) cookie auto-deleting
> Anyway, I didn't downvote your above comment, which is now flagged as well. Near as I can figure the "modern godwin" accusation leveled against you is either because you mentioned brave (is Eich claimed to be a nazi now?) or because you said Mozilla is being woke. Either way, a very stupid reaction to your inoffensive comment. This place is becoming orange reddit.
Thanks for saying so! And yep. The funny thing is, all these dogmatic people do is strengthen the opinion of regular tech users like me. The more vindictive they get, the harder I try to steer away more and more people from Firefox.
Funnily enough its the opposite with Thunderbird. Since they had their split, their management is a lot more neutral and tech-focused and thus I try to get as many people back on that train as possible. I've even donated to Thunderbird, as those donations are specifically earmarked for Thunderbird only.
FWIW, in Brave you can create cosmetic filters using the right-click context menu. `Brave > Block element`. There's a shortcut to the page where you can manage your custom filters in that menu, too.
iOS Firefox is just a re-skinned Safari, just like iOS Chrome because Apple has some rule against "dynamic code execution" in their AppStore.
Which sure is nice to combat some malware but not really MY problem.
It also coincidentally happens to also rule out ANY browser engines. Firefox and Chrome can only use the provided webkit "WebView" component. Apple has effectively crippled Browsers on iOS to Safari, or a worse re-skinned version of Safari.
Which sure is nice to combat some malware but not really MY problem.
It also coincidentally happens to also rule out ANY browser engines. Firefox and Chrome can only use the provided webkit "WebView" component. Apple has effectively crippled Browsers on iOS to Safari, or a worse re-skinned version of Safari.
I don't believe Mobile Safari has built-in adblock; IIRC you have to install a 3rd party content blocker. Funnily enough, Firefox Focus works as a content blocker, so when I browse with iOS Firefox it blocks the majority of ads.
Doesn't count.
Does too.
Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
I laughed entirely way too hard at this for it being 6am
all this has accomplished in the last decade is a decrease in market share
all this has accomplished in the last decade is a decrease in market share
You are confusing cause and effect. We've been saying the same things as we watch Mozilla slowly strangle Firefox to death for a decade.
That said, this is great news. I'm very much looking forward to being able to capture embedded videos on Android and maybe even get back my precious DownThemAll.
You are confusing cause and effect. We've been saying the same things as we watch Mozilla slowly strangle Firefox to death for a decade.
That said, this is great news. I'm very much looking forward to being able to capture embedded videos on Android and maybe even get back my precious DownThemAll.
Here's the thing: Mozilla could literally be shipping 2012 firefox, and I wouldn't give a fuck, and I would still use it. Why? Because they don't spend their days trying to make the internet a more ad infested dumpster fire and prevent me from blocking ads.
Google is actively doing that every single fucking day with thousands of people working towards this goal, with Chrome being an essential tool in that process, as whatever chrome does, everyone else will be forced to do.
Why the fuck would you enable that, even for a little "convenience"?
Google is actively doing that every single fucking day with thousands of people working towards this goal, with Chrome being an essential tool in that process, as whatever chrome does, everyone else will be forced to do.
Why the fuck would you enable that, even for a little "convenience"?
> Mozilla could literally be shipping 2012 firefox
That's called "Waterfox Classic".
That's called "Waterfox Classic".
> We've been saying the same things as we watch Mozilla slowly strangle Firefox to death for a decade.
Absolutely not true. I still hear people talking about FF as if it is pre-quantum. They complain about how slow it is. But quantum made it faster and more secure overnight. There's still a lot of people who are complaining and have just never tried it after the big issues were fixed. Or they try it, there's a small cognitive dissonance because checks notes "the interface is horrible", and so they call it slow attempting to justify why they dislike it rather than making an actual criticism or giving it a fair shot. Come on, the UI is almost identical across the board with browsers.
And we're doing this for what... to give Google more power over the internet? I'm sorry, I think it is you who are confusing cause and effect. You participated in the monopolization of browsers and are suffering the consequences of it. Because of a little convenience. The path to hell is indeed paved with "good intentions." Little steps is all it takes to make progress over decades. Unless you can tell me there's a huge major problem with FF that outweighs the ad focused internet, then you have it backwards.
Absolutely not true. I still hear people talking about FF as if it is pre-quantum. They complain about how slow it is. But quantum made it faster and more secure overnight. There's still a lot of people who are complaining and have just never tried it after the big issues were fixed. Or they try it, there's a small cognitive dissonance because checks notes "the interface is horrible", and so they call it slow attempting to justify why they dislike it rather than making an actual criticism or giving it a fair shot. Come on, the UI is almost identical across the board with browsers.
And we're doing this for what... to give Google more power over the internet? I'm sorry, I think it is you who are confusing cause and effect. You participated in the monopolization of browsers and are suffering the consequences of it. Because of a little convenience. The path to hell is indeed paved with "good intentions." Little steps is all it takes to make progress over decades. Unless you can tell me there's a huge major problem with FF that outweighs the ad focused internet, then you have it backwards.
I'm sorry, I think it is you who are confusing cause and effect. You participated in the monopolization of browsers and are suffering the consequences of it. Because of a little convenience. The path to hell is indeed paved with "good intentions."
Firefox has been my browser of choice since v1.5. If I didn't use it I wouldn't need to complain about it. Its slide ever-closer to Chrome-hood is why we're disappointed.
Firefox has been my browser of choice since v1.5. If I didn't use it I wouldn't need to complain about it. Its slide ever-closer to Chrome-hood is why we're disappointed.
I'd love 50% of the world use Firefox. I personally can't - had some visual issues with it (each time I tried it, on different machines - sounds like unbeliveable bad luck, eh), I just don't like it, all the small annoyances just piles up.
I'm sad that Vivaldi uses Chromium under the hood, but that the only thing that has UX I need (and I don't even care about its slow UI and random crashes every few days).
But I'm always happy to hear someone uses Firefox.
I'm sad that Vivaldi uses Chromium under the hood, but that the only thing that has UX I need (and I don't even care about its slow UI and random crashes every few days).
But I'm always happy to hear someone uses Firefox.
Samsung Internet is actually a shockingly good browser for Android, with native adblocking and dark mode for websites (that isn't atrociously slow like Dark Reader on FF)
why hate firefox? I use it rarely on linux desktop but I use it a LOT on my android as it eliminates so many ads for me, from websites to youtube, it worked well.
[deleted]
>It's popular to hate on Firefox,
I don't hate Firefox, I hate Mozilla.
I don't hate Firefox, I hate Mozilla.
I'll always love Mozilla, or at least some fictional idealized version of it, so I'm stuck being increasingly disappointed in Mozilla while holding out for the times they do something right. Giving add-on support back to firefox users is a good thing so here's hoping it won't be done in a way that disappoints me. I hope they bring back about:config next.
> or at least some fictional idealized version of it
This might be the most real comment here. All our perceptions are some fictionalized version of <insert company/product here>. Doesn't matter if it is Apple, Google, Mozilla, or whatever. Our judgements are based on narrow experiences and highly affected by the PR generated around them.
This might be the most real comment here. All our perceptions are some fictionalized version of <insert company/product here>. Doesn't matter if it is Apple, Google, Mozilla, or whatever. Our judgements are based on narrow experiences and highly affected by the PR generated around them.
> Our judgements are based on narrow experiences and highly affected by the PR generated around them.
When it comes to Firefox, a lot of users' judgements might be from actual experience using the product back in its heyday (before it was lobotomized), as opposed to PR?
However, bringing PR into the discussion is a good point. Mozilla turned from a browser/web tools maker into a PR agency with unclear profit motives that happens to make an increasingly-lackluster browser.
When it comes to Firefox, a lot of users' judgements might be from actual experience using the product back in its heyday (before it was lobotomized), as opposed to PR?
However, bringing PR into the discussion is a good point. Mozilla turned from a browser/web tools maker into a PR agency with unclear profit motives that happens to make an increasingly-lackluster browser.
> I hope they bring back about:config next.
I've never had to use about:config on mobile before, but I just checked and it works fine for me.
I've never had to use about:config on mobile before, but I just checked and it works fine for me.
Which settings would you like to change in about:config?
There's an ever increasing number of settings I need to change every single time I install firefox. For example network.security.banned.override allows connections to ports firefox blocks by default. I also disable things like prefetch/seer, service workers, WebRTC, autorefresh, normandy, experiments, shield, redirects, searching from the address bar, autoplay, webgl, webassembly, autofill, fingerprinting (battery level, network info, etc), mathml, Beacon, SVG, casting, and of course the recent forced pop-up ads for their VPN service (browser.vpn_promo.enabled).
>normandy
Do I even dare ask WTF William the Conqueror has to do with Firefox...? :V
Do I even dare ask WTF William the Conqueror has to do with Firefox...? :V
Normandy is the name of Mozilla’s system to run A/B experiments in Firefox. You can check if you are or have been enrolled in any experiments by entering about:studies in your Firefox address bar. Here are instructions for opting out of experiments:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/shield
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-opt-out-studies-fir...
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/shield
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-opt-out-studies-fir...
Why?
I believe that the Mozilla execs have no faith in Firefox and instead are using whatever branding remains to position themselves as champions of digital rights.
And I mean sure, it's not a bad goal, but they are letting Firefox die in the process. And once you lost your place at the standards negotiating table, then what? They already capitulated when Google decided that browsers needed DRM, and I don't see them stopping WEI either.
I don't need yet another VPN. I need a strong browser to rival Chrome.
And I mean sure, it's not a bad goal, but they are letting Firefox die in the process. And once you lost your place at the standards negotiating table, then what? They already capitulated when Google decided that browsers needed DRM, and I don't see them stopping WEI either.
I don't need yet another VPN. I need a strong browser to rival Chrome.
I'm just going to copy/paste my comment from the other day, because this thread is a perfect example.
HN loves to simultaneously criticize Mozilla for
1) being financially dependent on Google
2) spending resources on literally anything except Firefox
3) doing anything that smells like monetizing Firefox, no matter how innocuous
Spoiler alert: They have essentially no hope of avoiding 1 without doing at least a little bit of 2 or 3. Unlike Google, Apple, and Microsoft, they don't have billions of dollars coming through the backdoor from other business units. The money can't just magically appear, so either they make it from Google, from Firefox, or from alternative services.
HN loves to simultaneously criticize Mozilla for
1) being financially dependent on Google
2) spending resources on literally anything except Firefox
3) doing anything that smells like monetizing Firefox, no matter how innocuous
Spoiler alert: They have essentially no hope of avoiding 1 without doing at least a little bit of 2 or 3. Unlike Google, Apple, and Microsoft, they don't have billions of dollars coming through the backdoor from other business units. The money can't just magically appear, so either they make it from Google, from Firefox, or from alternative services.
> I believe that the Mozilla execs have no faith in Firefox and instead are using whatever branding remains to position themselves as champions of digital rights.
That’s a charitable interpretation. An uncharitable one would be that, due to flaws in American 501c3 legislation, at least some people involved in Mozilla view their job as a sinecure. Capture of a non-profit for personal benefit is a longstanding phenomenon in the USA.
That’s a charitable interpretation. An uncharitable one would be that, due to flaws in American 501c3 legislation, at least some people involved in Mozilla view their job as a sinecure. Capture of a non-profit for personal benefit is a longstanding phenomenon in the USA.
> Capture of a non-profit for personal benefit is a longstanding phenomenon in the USA.
No. Capture of a non-profit for personal benefit is key to the express purpose of non-profits in the USA.
The foremost function of non-profits in the US is to displace community organizations, especially democratic worker organizations which remotely resemble a workers' political party like you can find in other countries. Non-profit law in the US makes such organizations perfectly illegal while providing anti-democratic resemblances of them instead.
No. Capture of a non-profit for personal benefit is key to the express purpose of non-profits in the USA.
The foremost function of non-profits in the US is to displace community organizations, especially democratic worker organizations which remotely resemble a workers' political party like you can find in other countries. Non-profit law in the US makes such organizations perfectly illegal while providing anti-democratic resemblances of them instead.
Ah yes, meanwhile I still get to use the only browser not made by the Gigacorp trying to put advertising anywhere they can.
People get so pissy about mozilla pissing away a few dollars here and there, or maybe is full of people just extracting cash from the brand.
Meanwhile google as a corporation extracts a tax on pretty much anything that touches the internet.
But sure, mozilla is the bad guy here and we shouldn't use their browser......
People get so pissy about mozilla pissing away a few dollars here and there, or maybe is full of people just extracting cash from the brand.
Meanwhile google as a corporation extracts a tax on pretty much anything that touches the internet.
But sure, mozilla is the bad guy here and we shouldn't use their browser......
> People get so pissy about mozilla pissing away a few dollars here and there
It’s more than a few dollars. For years now, the majority of the Mozilla Foundation’s income goes to things other than developing Firefox.
It’s more than a few dollars. For years now, the majority of the Mozilla Foundation’s income goes to things other than developing Firefox.
Yes, mozilla is desperate to diversify income so google can't shut them down, and if you are a manager who can usefully direct improvements and plans for a web browser project, google can afford to pay you basically any dollar amount to keep you out of the hands of mozilla, so they probably don't have stellar management.
Meanwhile firefox works well, is plenty performant, and isn't pushing "standards" that try to make it easier to advertise to me, against my wishes. Why would you use the browser made by an advertising company instead?
Meanwhile firefox works well, is plenty performant, and isn't pushing "standards" that try to make it easier to advertise to me, against my wishes. Why would you use the browser made by an advertising company instead?
Yours is a false dilemma. Being aghast at Mozilla’s non-profit mismanagement does not mean that one is using any other browser. A lot of us here are using Firefox but hoping and praying that the Foundation will be called to account or development will be taken over by some more benevolent and competent force.
Your efforts come across as facile to me. You're wanting a democratic organization, or at least one capable of acting in the interests of the consumers despite the fact that more consumers does not necessarily benefit the organization. This is an unrealistic expectation given the political economic circumstances, being those of late-stage capitalism. Even the most benevolent leader is constrained by their circumstances and hard power. You cannot resolve this through the consumer marketplace; you need to engage in politics one way or another.
Look, I’ve only seen two comments from you (with your very new account), but both of them are trying to introduce an element of political battle beyond the subject of discussion here. Not interested, sorry.
>the majority of the Mozilla Foundation’s income
The Mozilla "Foundation" does not develop Firefox at all. In fact they cannot do so. Because that would be tantamount to a nonprofit devoting resources towards the service of a for-profit business.
The Mozilla "Foundation" does not develop Firefox at all. In fact they cannot do so. Because that would be tantamount to a nonprofit devoting resources towards the service of a for-profit business.
- They lost focus with just about every other project other than Firefox & Thunderbird which were the actual products I donated money for
- They are (recently) very top heavy for a non-profit foundation and are spending non-negligible amounts of money on C-level and execs
- Ideologically I disagree with them taking money with strings attached from Alphabet
- (Personally) their recent trends of UX with 'dummyfication' and mimicking chrome is a terrible loss
- They are (recently) very top heavy for a non-profit foundation and are spending non-negligible amounts of money on C-level and execs
- Ideologically I disagree with them taking money with strings attached from Alphabet
- (Personally) their recent trends of UX with 'dummyfication' and mimicking chrome is a terrible loss
Have you considered that they are doing some of these things to survive? That Chrome nearly killed them? Literally the strings attached from Alphabet are that they give you Google as a default search engine. Default, as in... you can change it... trivially. This isn't like they are installing a keylogger into your browser and using it to learn about your behaviors. It isn't like they are making their browser the default on your phones and devices. It isn't like they are focused on selling ads and generating long URLs that have tracking data attached to them. Sorry, I got a little side tracked, but I guess that makes two of us.
What made Firefox originally successful (and gave it significant marketshare against a preinstalled incumbent) was the features. They simply made a better browser than the status-quo at the time.
I don't understand nor approve their current strategy of trying to make a Chrome clone - even if they actually make a perfect copy, why would people use it instead of Chrome itself?
The only way for Firefox to survive and thrive is to differentiate itself from the incumbents and offer features that those incumbents can't offer due to conflicts of interest such as built-in ad blocking. Make a better browser and people will come.
At the moment there is no reason for any non-technical user to use it over Chrome, since in its default configuration it's no better (and being non-technical means they are not aware of add-ons/etc). Give non-technical users an actual reason to pick it over Chrome.
Worse, their current strategy is actually alienating their current (mostly-technical) users, effectively working against their already-tiny marketshare.
I don't understand nor approve their current strategy of trying to make a Chrome clone - even if they actually make a perfect copy, why would people use it instead of Chrome itself?
The only way for Firefox to survive and thrive is to differentiate itself from the incumbents and offer features that those incumbents can't offer due to conflicts of interest such as built-in ad blocking. Make a better browser and people will come.
At the moment there is no reason for any non-technical user to use it over Chrome, since in its default configuration it's no better (and being non-technical means they are not aware of add-ons/etc). Give non-technical users an actual reason to pick it over Chrome.
Worse, their current strategy is actually alienating their current (mostly-technical) users, effectively working against their already-tiny marketshare.
>Make a better browser and people will come.
With magic money? Do you think mozilla employees and firefox employees should starve? Should they be making firefox entirely as charity?
The other browsers are made by a GigaCorp that extracts a tax from pretty much everything on the internet, especially if you want to do any advertising, and another Megacorp that has billions upon billions of dollars in cash just waiting for a need and also extracts 30% on ANY financial transaction using their hardware.
Imagine people pushing stupid hard for everyone to use Meta's MetaVerse instead of VRChat because VRChat once had an advertising ID in their code or something. Like sure, that's not awesome, but like, what the fuck is the alternative?
With magic money? Do you think mozilla employees and firefox employees should starve? Should they be making firefox entirely as charity?
The other browsers are made by a GigaCorp that extracts a tax from pretty much everything on the internet, especially if you want to do any advertising, and another Megacorp that has billions upon billions of dollars in cash just waiting for a need and also extracts 30% on ANY financial transaction using their hardware.
Imagine people pushing stupid hard for everyone to use Meta's MetaVerse instead of VRChat because VRChat once had an advertising ID in their code or something. Like sure, that's not awesome, but like, what the fuck is the alternative?
> With magic money? Do you think mozilla employees and firefox employees should starve? Should they be making firefox entirely as charity?
Well they've got enough magic money considering the salaries of their C-suite, so short-term needs are absolutely covered.
Long-term the Google subsidy will eventually dry up but focusing on an enterprise-grade browser (see my other comment here) is worth a shot.
Charity isn't actually that bad of an idea either, since Mozilla Foundation is actually a non-profit (but somehow owns a for-profit company that pays insane salaries to execs? Shady as fuck). Developing a browser that is actually focused on the user fits with their purported mission and will do more to improve the web than all the auxiliary projects/initiatives they've done so far.
Well they've got enough magic money considering the salaries of their C-suite, so short-term needs are absolutely covered.
Long-term the Google subsidy will eventually dry up but focusing on an enterprise-grade browser (see my other comment here) is worth a shot.
Charity isn't actually that bad of an idea either, since Mozilla Foundation is actually a non-profit (but somehow owns a for-profit company that pays insane salaries to execs? Shady as fuck). Developing a browser that is actually focused on the user fits with their purported mission and will do more to improve the web than all the auxiliary projects/initiatives they've done so far.
> Have you considered that they are doing some of these things to survive?
How many Managers does one need to negotiate prices for VPN and Pocket? So far, the excessive management does not make the impression to be very valuable for making money, or even let Mozilla survive one day longer.
Of course do they need to make money, but at no point so far did they make the impression that they made any serious attempt beyond some lip service. Well, except VPN, which is just a resale of a popular service, with a natural chemistry for their philosophy.. And I'm not sure how much money their VPN really made so far.
How many Managers does one need to negotiate prices for VPN and Pocket? So far, the excessive management does not make the impression to be very valuable for making money, or even let Mozilla survive one day longer.
Of course do they need to make money, but at no point so far did they make the impression that they made any serious attempt beyond some lip service. Well, except VPN, which is just a resale of a popular service, with a natural chemistry for their philosophy.. And I'm not sure how much money their VPN really made so far.
> They lost focus with just about every other project other than Firefox & Thunderbird which were the actual products I donated money for
> Ideologically I disagree with them taking money with strings attached from Alphabet
How would they get more sources of funding if not exploring other projects? Firefox would never pay for itself.
I totally agree with the exec thing, however.
> Ideologically I disagree with them taking money with strings attached from Alphabet
How would they get more sources of funding if not exploring other projects? Firefox would never pay for itself.
I totally agree with the exec thing, however.
You see, Mozilla is stuck in this limbo where people criticise them for taking money from Google, but also criticise them when they explore alternate funding sources (Pocket, Mozilla VPN, Firefox Private Network, MDN Plus) because they're not focusing on Firefox and Thunderbird. Sometimes literally in the same comment, as the one above.
In other words, HN crowd will shit on them regardless of what they do.
In other words, HN crowd will shit on them regardless of what they do.
> where people criticise them for taking money from Google, but also criticise them when they explore alternate funding sources
What aggravates me is nobody is asking why do you need so much cash?
- Why has it become so big that it needs to spend 81M on Management payroll per year? [0]
- Why has it grown so big that it needs to spend 21M in external consultants per year? [0]
- Why do you need 1000+ staff to roll out an open source browser engine / browser and an email client?
Mozilla had almost 8M in no strings attached donations in 2021. If I go to most open source projects and say you can burn through 8M a year, most of them would agree they could build amazing things. This is even without taking into account Investment returns.
The cow grew too fat and too close to SF's money vortex.
[0] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-202...
What aggravates me is nobody is asking why do you need so much cash?
- Why has it become so big that it needs to spend 81M on Management payroll per year? [0]
- Why has it grown so big that it needs to spend 21M in external consultants per year? [0]
- Why do you need 1000+ staff to roll out an open source browser engine / browser and an email client?
Mozilla had almost 8M in no strings attached donations in 2021. If I go to most open source projects and say you can burn through 8M a year, most of them would agree they could build amazing things. This is even without taking into account Investment returns.
The cow grew too fat and too close to SF's money vortex.
[0] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-202...
That's a whole lotta words to avoid addressing the contradictions in your statements: do you want them to keep being funded mostly by Google or do you want them to venture out into other funding opportunities?
It's one or the other, you can't have neither. 8 million is tiny in comparison to who they're trying to compete with. Thank god that's not their only revenue source, otherwise they'd be dead a decade ago. I guarantee you Edge has a higher yearly budget than that without even having their own engine.
> If I go to most open source projects and say you can burn through 8M a year...
Go ahead and do that, nothing's stopping you. You've been beating this same drum for the past three years[0], don't you get tired of it? I'm begging you, do something useful for the future of the web instead of shitting on those that do. It doesn't have to be Mozilla, donate to FSF, Ladybird, Internet Archive, Wikimedia, and so on and so on. Get involved, be the change you want to see, create your own NGO that will do something better and I'm gonna be the first one to throw money your way. Just do something useful with your time instead of chasing internet points by behaving like a parrot.
> On thing I feel we are still missing is for FSF, Wiki, Archive.org, etc. to effectively gather enough cash to start lobbying in politics and in industry much in the same way Meta and Alphabet do.[1]
Guess who's been doing that? Mozilla[2], the same NGO you've been shitting on for hours in this thread! Pick. A. Lane. Stand for something that's not downplaying work done by others.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24654676
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36981953
[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/bills?c...
It's one or the other, you can't have neither. 8 million is tiny in comparison to who they're trying to compete with. Thank god that's not their only revenue source, otherwise they'd be dead a decade ago. I guarantee you Edge has a higher yearly budget than that without even having their own engine.
> If I go to most open source projects and say you can burn through 8M a year...
Go ahead and do that, nothing's stopping you. You've been beating this same drum for the past three years[0], don't you get tired of it? I'm begging you, do something useful for the future of the web instead of shitting on those that do. It doesn't have to be Mozilla, donate to FSF, Ladybird, Internet Archive, Wikimedia, and so on and so on. Get involved, be the change you want to see, create your own NGO that will do something better and I'm gonna be the first one to throw money your way. Just do something useful with your time instead of chasing internet points by behaving like a parrot.
> On thing I feel we are still missing is for FSF, Wiki, Archive.org, etc. to effectively gather enough cash to start lobbying in politics and in industry much in the same way Meta and Alphabet do.[1]
Guess who's been doing that? Mozilla[2], the same NGO you've been shitting on for hours in this thread! Pick. A. Lane. Stand for something that's not downplaying work done by others.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24654676
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36981953
[2] https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/bills?c...
> - Why do you need 1000+ staff to roll out an open source browser engine / browser and an email client?
Writing fast moving mature Software for multiple platforms, is not something you can do with three nerds in your spare-time. Web browsers are highly complex, and Firefox has still many historical grown baggage to improve and maintain. And let's be fair, their software has a very high quality-level, even we can dispute on the details. Whether 1000+ people are necessary for this, I don't know, but considering everything they do even in their core-area, it's not something which can be done with small budget.
> If I go to most open source projects and say you can burn through 8M a year, most of them would agree they could build amazing things.
Amazing by their perspective, but not by the standards of end-users. And 8 Millionen, that's around 666k per month, meaning you have either around 3-5 well paid workers who are worth that price, or 10-20 poorly paid workers, who are probably average competent at best. And this is nowhere near the number of people necessary for such a big project.
Writing fast moving mature Software for multiple platforms, is not something you can do with three nerds in your spare-time. Web browsers are highly complex, and Firefox has still many historical grown baggage to improve and maintain. And let's be fair, their software has a very high quality-level, even we can dispute on the details. Whether 1000+ people are necessary for this, I don't know, but considering everything they do even in their core-area, it's not something which can be done with small budget.
> If I go to most open source projects and say you can burn through 8M a year, most of them would agree they could build amazing things.
Amazing by their perspective, but not by the standards of end-users. And 8 Millionen, that's around 666k per month, meaning you have either around 3-5 well paid workers who are worth that price, or 10-20 poorly paid workers, who are probably average competent at best. And this is nowhere near the number of people necessary for such a big project.
I think you're mixing up annual and monthly salaries/employee expenses. At 666K/month the 3 "well paid" workers are costing 222K/month and the 20 "poorly paid" workers are costing 33K/month. I'd be rather okay getting paid this poorly!
I like where you were going with your comment but the math doesn't support the specific argument.
I like where you were going with your comment but the math doesn't support the specific argument.
[deleted]
I think this is valid criticism, but it's more nuanced than the usual "mozilla bad because google money" and "mozilla bad because not firefox". Thank you for providing data.
Is there a more sustainable path where they don't rely on Google so much? Maybe? Developing a browser doesn't seem to be cheap. Do we know how many resources are used in Firefox versus the rest? I'd like to see a strong argument that Mozilla could be fully/more independent while still developing Firefox.
The thing is, even if they're badly managed today, they're still the best agent fighting for the open web. Apple helps, but I don't think they care much about it and would happily change if it were better for their bottom line.
Is there a more sustainable path where they don't rely on Google so much? Maybe? Developing a browser doesn't seem to be cheap. Do we know how many resources are used in Firefox versus the rest? I'd like to see a strong argument that Mozilla could be fully/more independent while still developing Firefox.
The thing is, even if they're badly managed today, they're still the best agent fighting for the open web. Apple helps, but I don't think they care much about it and would happily change if it were better for their bottom line.
> Do we know how many resources are used in Firefox versus the rest?
Well the C-suite sure isn't writing code, so that's already a few million going to "the rest" as opposed to Firefox.
Well the C-suite sure isn't writing code, so that's already a few million going to "the rest" as opposed to Firefox.
> Why do you need 1000+ staff to roll out an open source browser engine / browser and an email client?
How many people do you think work on the Chrome team? Then include companies like Microsoft, Samsung, Igalia, and others that contribute to Chromium.
How many people do you think work on the Chrome team? Then include companies like Microsoft, Samsung, Igalia, and others that contribute to Chromium.
Firefox would actually pay for itself. The Enterprise spends insane money on (potentially dubious) security products.
The browser is the primary interface to untrusted and often-malicious code, as well as a window to the outside world. It's the perfect place for security features that would actually make a difference.
Sell an enterprise-focused browser with built-in ad & tracker blocking (important for security), website restriction policies (which are currently implemented via various hacks such as DNS blocking), logging and data loss prevention and centralized management. Use that to subsidize the free version.
They won't even need to restrict the free version's features; all the code can remain open-source. Enterprise customers pay for the support and the hosted services (case in point - Okta has a successful business despite there being plenty of free, self-hostable alternatives).
Mozilla has a huge competitive advantage here - they have brand recognition (especially among IT folks which would help sell it to the enterprise), a competent and up-to-date rendering engine (no small feat these days) and at least some skill left to work on said rendering engine. They're in the perfect position to actually be able to offer a browser product (as opposed to a Chromium reskin which is all that the competition does).
The browser is the primary interface to untrusted and often-malicious code, as well as a window to the outside world. It's the perfect place for security features that would actually make a difference.
Sell an enterprise-focused browser with built-in ad & tracker blocking (important for security), website restriction policies (which are currently implemented via various hacks such as DNS blocking), logging and data loss prevention and centralized management. Use that to subsidize the free version.
They won't even need to restrict the free version's features; all the code can remain open-source. Enterprise customers pay for the support and the hosted services (case in point - Okta has a successful business despite there being plenty of free, self-hostable alternatives).
Mozilla has a huge competitive advantage here - they have brand recognition (especially among IT folks which would help sell it to the enterprise), a competent and up-to-date rendering engine (no small feat these days) and at least some skill left to work on said rendering engine. They're in the perfect position to actually be able to offer a browser product (as opposed to a Chromium reskin which is all that the competition does).
Oh fuck off. How is Mozilla supposed to build a browser that outcompetes two companies that literally build all in one corporate environments? Firefox could literally provide regular oral sex to the CEO and still be less attractive to businesses than whatever shlock microsoft has bought and re-sold.
> How is Mozilla supposed to build a browser that outcompetes two companies that literally build all in one corporate environments?
Do any of those companies' browsers actually come anywhere close to the feature set I just outlined? Chrome is functionally a very good browser but lacks those features, and Edge is malware disguised as a browser that needs a full-time sysadmin to keep on top of the group policies to disable whatever bullshit "feature" they release every few weeks.
None of them have ad/tracker/malware blocking, logging or data loss prevention. Not sure if any have website/domain blocking capabilities. All of these are features that big enterprises currently use expensive third-party solutions (such as TLS intercepting proxies) for. A browser that has that built-in would actually be an upgrade.
> Oh fuck off
Shall we keep it civil? I think we’re both ultimately on the same side in wanting a browser that puts users’ interests first instead of adtech or dubious corporate interests (I’m not even sure of Mozilla’s current strategy because the user-hostility and annoyance of Firefox isn’t even due to actual ads).
Do any of those companies' browsers actually come anywhere close to the feature set I just outlined? Chrome is functionally a very good browser but lacks those features, and Edge is malware disguised as a browser that needs a full-time sysadmin to keep on top of the group policies to disable whatever bullshit "feature" they release every few weeks.
None of them have ad/tracker/malware blocking, logging or data loss prevention. Not sure if any have website/domain blocking capabilities. All of these are features that big enterprises currently use expensive third-party solutions (such as TLS intercepting proxies) for. A browser that has that built-in would actually be an upgrade.
> Oh fuck off
Shall we keep it civil? I think we’re both ultimately on the same side in wanting a browser that puts users’ interests first instead of adtech or dubious corporate interests (I’m not even sure of Mozilla’s current strategy because the user-hostility and annoyance of Firefox isn’t even due to actual ads).
So basically you want them to fund the top end engineers working on it … how?
> money with strings attached from Alphabet
What are those strings, apart from being default search engine?
What are those strings, apart from being default search engine?
Thanks for explaining. I can't help but ask why you believe these things have happened? What went wrong and what is the alternative to Firefox?
I am approximately as cynical as they come, and I'm not sure how Firefox could even exist if Google weren't keeping Mozilla alive (on life support), so I am intrigued by your criticism. I'd like to understand your viewpoint and what ideology is behind it, if any. In your view, what should be done?
I am approximately as cynical as they come, and I'm not sure how Firefox could even exist if Google weren't keeping Mozilla alive (on life support), so I am intrigued by your criticism. I'd like to understand your viewpoint and what ideology is behind it, if any. In your view, what should be done?
Yeah, I'm asking myself the same questions, too. It's obvious they have been trying many options. Some of them worked, some didn't. I criticized some of them in the past but objectively, if I was in their position, I might have made worse mistakes.
That's actually pretty big to say. All I have to say is really just make sure you make criticisms rather than complaints. They need to be constructive (__actionable__) and less emotional. Otherwise the truth is that you may be just throwing fuel onto the fire rather than water. It's easy to get these two confused.
They actively screw up Firefox (which I love).
(Samsung Internet isn't too bad for another forum website I use. At least it has the option to do tabs in lists as opposed to the unwieldy grids Chrome forced on users, deprecating tab lists...)
It feels like Chrome's original protest was that extensions would be too slow.
But phones are so much faster now! And with MV3 chrome claims they have prevented a variety of ways extensions might be slow.
I don't know how Chrome can keep justifying this old old choice.
But phones are so much faster now! And with MV3 chrome claims they have prevented a variety of ways extensions might be slow.
I don't know how Chrome can keep justifying this old old choice.
My wishlist for firefox on ios: just make the important addons built-in: ublock origin, facebook containers, cookie auto-delete... really, that's about it.
Most of Firefox's publicity is based on the fact that they are "on your side". That means that they are held to a much higher standard. Pretending to be on the side of the user and then screwing users up over and over seems like wanting their cake and eating it too?
It's funny because, you know, I expect chrome to screw me over while I expect firefox not to screw me over but chrome has screwed me over fewer times than firefox over the years.
It's funny because, you know, I expect chrome to screw me over while I expect firefox not to screw me over but chrome has screwed me over fewer times than firefox over the years.
How exactly has Firefox “screwed you over”? I’ve used Firefox since it was called Phoenix… although I don’t like the governance of the project, I would hardly say I’ve been screwed over.
Firefox has been an amazing product since day one.
Meanwhile, Chrome has literally been developed to probe your ass for data they can sell to advertisers.
Firefox has been an amazing product since day one.
Meanwhile, Chrome has literally been developed to probe your ass for data they can sell to advertisers.
Last time it was 2 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36077360
In that thread there are a few more examples, most of them somewhat recent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36077683
In that thread there are a few more examples, most of them somewhat recent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36077683
I have never seen these myself, being on FF for most of it's life, but I also fail to see how these "screw you over." Oh my god an ad! I better instead use a browser that has a built in keylogger and created the ad based internet! That'll show those assholes!
[deleted]
Google: Let’s put DRM in the browser, hijack the address bar, webmanifest
Omg, firefox screwed me over by showing me an ad.
I see. I think no further illustration needed.
Omg, firefox screwed me over by showing me an ad.
I see. I think no further illustration needed.
Textbook whataboutism. Google is objectively evil, what that has to do with Firefox, my "user agent", showing me Disney ads?
When you choose to continue using the browser from the "objectively evil" company, helping them continue to push those objectively evil goals, because "firefox showed me A ad", because for some reason that is more screwing over your users than literally fucking the open internet....
It's astounding how far people bend over backwards just to not change browsers for the good of the internet as a whole.
"Yeah I could stop hanging out with a serial baby stabber, but the other guy once said my hat was funny, so that's terrible and I will stay with the baby stabber"
It's astounding how far people bend over backwards just to not change browsers for the good of the internet as a whole.
"Yeah I could stop hanging out with a serial baby stabber, but the other guy once said my hat was funny, so that's terrible and I will stay with the baby stabber"
I choose to use Firefox, for more than a decade. It does not mean I am a happy user, and it does not mean that I can't complain about Mozilla being shittifed year after year.
Textbook idiocy. Whataboutism is not a phallacy when the discussion is about comparing things.
I have to ask... did you deliberately spell it "phallacy" because you mentioned 'comparing things'??
No comment :)
Yes, the people in charge of Mozilla have been doing dumb stuff like this, eroding our trust.
Hardly screwing us over, though. They’ve been doing even worse things, for example constantly opting us in for “anonymous statistics” etc.
If it one day comes out they’ve been sharing this data deanonymized with 3rd parties, then you can say you’ve been screwed over.
Hardly screwing us over, though. They’ve been doing even worse things, for example constantly opting us in for “anonymous statistics” etc.
If it one day comes out they’ve been sharing this data deanonymized with 3rd parties, then you can say you’ve been screwed over.
[deleted]
I've yet to notice any event where firefox "screw users over" that was not vastly overblown, especially compared to the competitors.
People tend to just judge Mozilla way more harshly.
It's very unfair: they do good, and we ask even more of them.
People tend to just judge Mozilla way more harshly.
It's very unfair: they do good, and we ask even more of them.
I know that its against the rules to imply this, but seriously, there is always so much vitriol that I just don't understand thrown towards Firefox every update that it really gets the old noggin get going.
Can we seriously not even contemplate the idea that there might be a certain corporate entity out there with a vested interest in ensuring that Firefox usage is kept deliberately low while at the same ensuring they _just_ enough funding to keep going so they can point to it and say "look, we're not a monopoly!"
Can we seriously not even contemplate the idea that there might be a certain corporate entity out there with a vested interest in ensuring that Firefox usage is kept deliberately low while at the same ensuring they _just_ enough funding to keep going so they can point to it and say "look, we're not a monopoly!"
How many members of this very forum are straight up google employees, complete with regular internal propaganda efforts to reassure employees that aktually, google is the good guys protecting you from the evil, politically driven mozilla?
Honestly in my original comment I almost tried to make a joke about how this website calls conspiracy on far less. But I didn't know how to properly do it and so removed it. But yeah, you're not alone in thinking this looks like astroturfing. But I'm not entirely convinced it is not-natural. FF did fuck up in the past, but I think people are still angry about the browser 10 years ago and not updating their beliefs. I think there is also a bias because Mozilla is 501c and so their fuck-ups and everything is out in the open. It's like comparing a democracy to an autocracy, and thinking the autocracy is better because you hear that the people are doing well and never hear about things going wrong.
I'm seeing a lot of "boo Mozilla" in this thread, but honestly I'm seeing pretty much zero "yay Chrome"/"yay Google". I think it's more like saying "this democracy has a lot of issues that make me angry" and getting the reply "so you prefer the autocracy? Damn fascist."
they're the best game in town, but they've also gone against long term user-base wishes again and again to either 1) try to create wider popularity with feature parity (didn't work) and 2) to capitalize in inappropriate ways that are against the ideals first set forward.
It doesn't take a lot of mental effort to realize that the userbase left doesn't want telemetry and third party partnerships; Mozilla knew this, they tried to get away with it and lost goodwill.
It's not the thing, it's the attempt to get away with it that irks me. No one except The Paid wanted pocket integration and Mr Robot promotions.
It doesn't take a lot of mental effort to realize that the userbase left doesn't want telemetry and third party partnerships; Mozilla knew this, they tried to get away with it and lost goodwill.
It's not the thing, it's the attempt to get away with it that irks me. No one except The Paid wanted pocket integration and Mr Robot promotions.
Oh you were definitely harmed by the company using their money to buy a semi-popular bookmarking alternative for their users, that someone probably thought their users would like to use, with zero requirement to ever use pocket. My firefox install hasn't even had the pocket icon in however long, I can't remember.
Meanwhile google is pushing an attempt to strangle the open internet to death, in the open, for all eyes to see.
But no, lets keep pretending that mozilla doing a poorly executed ad is comparable to THAT
Meanwhile google is pushing an attempt to strangle the open internet to death, in the open, for all eyes to see.
But no, lets keep pretending that mozilla doing a poorly executed ad is comparable to THAT
This opinion might differ from others but my main complaint is with their useless and sometimes hostile UI changes rather than the occasional ad for other Mozilla services. For example recently the change to tabs floating disconnected from the pages, which I had to use userchrome to override. Next problem I am trying to tackle right now is favicon being hidden when the audio playing icon is on a tab that seems to have been done in a recent update.
>the change to tabs floating disconnected from the pages
What does this mean? My experience using tabs in firefox has not changed in like twenty years!
What does this mean? My experience using tabs in firefox has not changed in like twenty years!
The "user hostile" tab design change was the addition of a space of a few pixels between the tabs and address bar: https://www.theverge.com/2021/6/1/22463321/firefox-design-re...
If they had just thickened the continuous bar connected to the tab a few pixels I probably wont even have noticed. Instead introducing a gap between the tab and its page completely changes its look making it seem like its floating separately and the tabs are independent buttons. But the point is either of these makes no sense at all. What even was the point of this weird change from the perfectly functional and normal looking tabs before?
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1339535
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1386107
Look what an unholy mess the new change to audio playing status has caused.
To summarize, in compact mode you will get the audio playing icon on a tab but it will hide the favicon in that case.
In normal mode, and only if you have a small number of tabs, you will find a tiny 'PLAYING' text instead. If you hover over it, you will find the playing icon...which will have hidden the favicon then.
UX geniuses with too much time on their hands.
Look what an unholy mess the new change to audio playing status has caused.
To summarize, in compact mode you will get the audio playing icon on a tab but it will hide the favicon in that case.
In normal mode, and only if you have a small number of tabs, you will find a tiny 'PLAYING' text instead. If you hover over it, you will find the playing icon...which will have hidden the favicon then.
UX geniuses with too much time on their hands.
> People tend to just judge Mozilla way more harshly.
It's a self-inflicted problem though. Mozilla uses every opportunity to claim they're on your side and want to protect you from the evil guys.
The nagging itself is annoying to begin with (and incomprehensible - at least ads make sense from a business point of view - but why interrupt my workflow to let me know about Colorways?), but it's made even worse with all their self-righteous BS about privacy while the browser actually being pretty poor (and not GDPR compliant due to default-on telemetry) in its default configuration.
It's a self-inflicted problem though. Mozilla uses every opportunity to claim they're on your side and want to protect you from the evil guys.
The nagging itself is annoying to begin with (and incomprehensible - at least ads make sense from a business point of view - but why interrupt my workflow to let me know about Colorways?), but it's made even worse with all their self-righteous BS about privacy while the browser actually being pretty poor (and not GDPR compliant due to default-on telemetry) in its default configuration.
Perhaps that is because they screw you over in secret? Whenever Firefox makes a mistake it gets very publicised, but whenever chrome does it it's just business as normal so no one really publicises it.
As far as I know Chrome doesn't use every possible opportunity to nag you about self-righteous BS on how they're better and more private than everyone else?
It's one thing to make a mistake or do user-hostile decisions inline with your business model. But it's another to loudly shout about how "good" you are (and everyone else is bad) and then do the exact same thing.
Same reason why a policeman or some law-enforcement figure gets more outrage for committing a crime than a normal citizen.
It's one thing to make a mistake or do user-hostile decisions inline with your business model. But it's another to loudly shout about how "good" you are (and everyone else is bad) and then do the exact same thing.
Same reason why a policeman or some law-enforcement figure gets more outrage for committing a crime than a normal citizen.
Are you pretending that chrome doesn't advertise? Every single fucking day for a decade now, google.com told me to install chrome, and would even render "pop up" dialogs to that effect on google properties!!
What are you all smoking?
What are you all smoking?
An ad telling you to install Chrome is one thing. I don't believe any Google nor Chrome ad had self-righteous BS about privacy, "improving the web" or similar like Mozilla constantly does.
Also, ads on websites are one thing. Ads/nags within the browser itself (which I'm already using) are another. I'm pretty sure Google doesn't bother advertising Chrome to users who already use Chrome.
Also, ads on websites are one thing. Ads/nags within the browser itself (which I'm already using) are another. I'm pretty sure Google doesn't bother advertising Chrome to users who already use Chrome.
Okay, then how should mozilla fund firefox? They don't have billions upon billions in advertising revenue to backstop a project that exists only to exert more influence and control of the internet.
God damn, people act like money grows on trees when it comes to firefox. I don't care if they flub an attempt at advertising, like the Mr Robot nonsense, because mozilla isn't actively pushing "standards" meant to prevent me from some day being anonymous on the internet or blocking advertising
God damn, people act like money grows on trees when it comes to firefox. I don't care if they flub an attempt at advertising, like the Mr Robot nonsense, because mozilla isn't actively pushing "standards" meant to prevent me from some day being anonymous on the internet or blocking advertising
> Okay, then how should mozilla fund firefox?
Virtue-signalling and wasting people's times does not contribute to funding either. I'd disagree with but understand actual ads, or promotions for Pocket/VPN/etc... but wasting users' time on virtue-signalling or "Colorways"?
(look at my other comments for actual long-term funding ideas for Firefox)
Virtue-signalling and wasting people's times does not contribute to funding either. I'd disagree with but understand actual ads, or promotions for Pocket/VPN/etc... but wasting users' time on virtue-signalling or "Colorways"?
(look at my other comments for actual long-term funding ideas for Firefox)
> I don't believe any Google nor Chrome ad had self-righteous BS about privacy, "improving the web" or similar
I constantly see Chrome ads about privacy and security. Your argument also isn't consistent. Your complaint is that Mozilla has "failed" to achieve their stated goals. The quotes because they've definitely made progress towards that, but just not to your expectations. That is fine to have higher expectations, but you're literally discouraging Mozilla from working in that direction, where others aren't making those moves __at all__. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
And can we stop copy pasting that line? You're starting to sound like a bot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyUIEYE13jE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfXnLAa6zWc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u9_3umb5LY
I constantly see Chrome ads about privacy and security. Your argument also isn't consistent. Your complaint is that Mozilla has "failed" to achieve their stated goals. The quotes because they've definitely made progress towards that, but just not to your expectations. That is fine to have higher expectations, but you're literally discouraging Mozilla from working in that direction, where others aren't making those moves __at all__. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
And can we stop copy pasting that line? You're starting to sound like a bot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyUIEYE13jE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfXnLAa6zWc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u9_3umb5LY
Haha what? Since when does Safari not offer add-ons?
On mobile? From 2007-2022, and it's still not as fully featured as FF.
Anything is more fully featured than Firefox, since it didn’t have them at all.
Did you mean "Safari"? Because it was Firefox that had them the whole time, albeit significantly fewer after Quantum update.
Except the story you're commenting on is Firefox getting them soon.
Firefox is restoring access to more add-ons. Most were actually available to folks running Nightly or Fennec, yet with no guarantees all APIs had been ported.
Regardless, my point stands, Safari mobile lacked extensions for over a decade while Firefox was offering some on Android. Can iOS browsers even offer meaningful extensions so long as Apple forces them to be a skin on Webkit? (With Safari getting privileged access of course.)
Regardless, my point stands, Safari mobile lacked extensions for over a decade while Firefox was offering some on Android. Can iOS browsers even offer meaningful extensions so long as Apple forces them to be a skin on Webkit? (With Safari getting privileged access of course.)
The other browsers you mention though don’t pretend to be on your side and don’t use every possible opportunity to tell you about it.
Firefox on the other hand, despite having a lot of user-hostile functionality and design decisions, will constantly nag you pretending to be on your side, misleading you into a false sense of security.
Firefox on the other hand, despite having a lot of user-hostile functionality and design decisions, will constantly nag you pretending to be on your side, misleading you into a false sense of security.
Those arguments always remind me of this comic: https://www.cjr.org/wp-content/themes/cjr2017/images-body/NY...
Out of curiosity I recently did an experiment to investigate Add-Ons in Firefox for Android.
Some facts:
One does not need Firefox Nightly to run more extensions than the "supported" ones.
Creating a "custom" collection of Add-Ons on addons.mozilla.org can be done using a disposable email address.
There is no visible Settings option to add a custom collection in Fennec from F-Droid. To make it visible, one has to go the About page under Settings and tap the Firefox logo three or more times.
One needs to enter an "ID" in Fennec to add a "custom" collection. The addons.mozilla.org site does not tell the user her ID, it's in the URL that points to her collection.
After a custom collection is added, one loses the default collection of Add-Ons "supported" by Mozilla. No way to easily switch between collections. Need to remove the current collection.
After installing a custom collection, whenever the user access the Add-Ons menu in Fennec, Firefox tries to connect to addons.mozilla.org. Mozilla's definition of user privacy excludes telemetry and data collection by Mozilla.
As another commenter mentioned, many of the Add-Ons that are not "supported" by Mozilla work just fine. They work just as well as uBblock origin, NoScript and the other "supporteed" ones.
Some facts:
One does not need Firefox Nightly to run more extensions than the "supported" ones.
Creating a "custom" collection of Add-Ons on addons.mozilla.org can be done using a disposable email address.
There is no visible Settings option to add a custom collection in Fennec from F-Droid. To make it visible, one has to go the About page under Settings and tap the Firefox logo three or more times.
One needs to enter an "ID" in Fennec to add a "custom" collection. The addons.mozilla.org site does not tell the user her ID, it's in the URL that points to her collection.
After a custom collection is added, one loses the default collection of Add-Ons "supported" by Mozilla. No way to easily switch between collections. Need to remove the current collection.
After installing a custom collection, whenever the user access the Add-Ons menu in Fennec, Firefox tries to connect to addons.mozilla.org. Mozilla's definition of user privacy excludes telemetry and data collection by Mozilla.
As another commenter mentioned, many of the Add-Ons that are not "supported" by Mozilla work just fine. They work just as well as uBblock origin, NoScript and the other "supporteed" ones.
> Creating a "custom" collection of Add-Ons on addons.mozilla.org can be done using a disposable email address.
I seriously don't get it. Why do I have to create a "custom collection" with an email address to install an extension. Why can't it work like it does on PC ?
I seriously don't get it. Why do I have to create a "custom collection" with an email address to install an extension. Why can't it work like it does on PC ?
Because extension support wasn't considered ready for normal (non-developer) usage up until now, and this announcement you're commenting on literally starts with saying it's gonna be ready by the end of the year.
The irony is addons were natively supported by the regular version of Firefox for Android up until they made the Quantum update, when they removed them and only later with Nightly allowing them to return.
I used to have a number of addons installed at that time, including Stylish (prior to the hostile changes), uBlock Origin and UnMHT.
I used to have a number of addons installed at that time, including Stylish (prior to the hostile changes), uBlock Origin and UnMHT.
The Quantum update was an update to the Desktop version of Firefox that happened in 2017. Mozilla did not remove access to any mobile add-ons at that time.
You probably mean the Firefox Daylight release that happened in August 2020. Firefox Daylight or Fenix was a completely new browser, not an update. That completely new browser did not fully support add-ons at the time it was released, which is why Mozilla introduced the restricted list of "supported" add-ons. I'm not quite sure how this is ironic. You seem to think that Mozilla somehow did this to get one over on their users, but I can assure you that this isn't the case.
You probably mean the Firefox Daylight release that happened in August 2020. Firefox Daylight or Fenix was a completely new browser, not an update. That completely new browser did not fully support add-ons at the time it was released, which is why Mozilla introduced the restricted list of "supported" add-ons. I'm not quite sure how this is ironic. You seem to think that Mozilla somehow did this to get one over on their users, but I can assure you that this isn't the case.
> The Quantum update was an update to the Desktop version of Firefox that happened in 2017. Mozilla did not remove access to any mobile add-ons at that time.
Legacy addon support was removed from Firefox for Android at that point, too. Wikipedia confirms that in 2017 v56 of the Android version was the last to support them[1][2] and according to the official Android release notes the update was also called Quantum.
You're apparently correct that it didn't technically remove support for WebExtension addons though the addons I used became incompatible with the switch (which unfortunately caused me to switch to another browser after a faithful period of sticking with Firefox), including most that never became re-compatible on either desktop or Android again, including the exceptional UnMHT and sadly Firefox since has lacked MHTML support to this day.
It seems the dropping of legacy addons similarly caused others in this thread to recollect FF for Android as having dropped addon support during that period, given the impact in functionality.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_Android#Release_hi...
[2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/android/57.0/releaseno...
Legacy addon support was removed from Firefox for Android at that point, too. Wikipedia confirms that in 2017 v56 of the Android version was the last to support them[1][2] and according to the official Android release notes the update was also called Quantum.
You're apparently correct that it didn't technically remove support for WebExtension addons though the addons I used became incompatible with the switch (which unfortunately caused me to switch to another browser after a faithful period of sticking with Firefox), including most that never became re-compatible on either desktop or Android again, including the exceptional UnMHT and sadly Firefox since has lacked MHTML support to this day.
It seems the dropping of legacy addons similarly caused others in this thread to recollect FF for Android as having dropped addon support during that period, given the impact in functionality.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_for_Android#Release_hi...
[2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/android/57.0/releaseno...
Because this is just for devs to install and test their extension code before the feature is turned on officially.
hexo(1)
cubefox(4)
This is a big surprise and a welcome one. I honestly had given up hope of this happening. It's disappointing that it took this long, but it is a big deal to have full extension support on Android again. I'm very happy to see this news.
In case you didn't know, you can have full extension support on Android with Kiwi Browser, which is based on Chromium.
I do know, but
> which is based on Chromium.
unfortunately that's a dealbreaker for me.
> which is based on Chromium.
unfortunately that's a dealbreaker for me.
I did not like the look of Kiwi Browser one bit, lots of weird permissions and dodgy ad-tech smells. Plus it's not Firefox, I'd rather use the same browser on both desktop and Android.
This is great news. Can't wait to have a no-fuss paywall bypass on mobile again.
This is great news. Can't wait to have a no-fuss paywall bypass on mobile again.
The permissions are the Chromium ones.
There is literally no ads nor external SDK or ad-tech or whatever you are referring to (before there was AdMob, but it didn't make much money anyway).
https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/com.kiwibro...
The way Kiwi makes money is by partnering with Bing / Yahoo.
You launch the browser, it starts with Bing or Yahoo (depending on your country), and... that's it.
Bing then pays back a revenue-share to the browser each time the user uses the search engine.
The same way that DuckDuckGo gets a revenue-share from Yahoo and Bing too when you use DuckDuckGo.
So, if you prefer Firefox and Google, or Kiwi and Bing, this is just a matter of choice.
There is literally no ads nor external SDK or ad-tech or whatever you are referring to (before there was AdMob, but it didn't make much money anyway).
https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/com.kiwibro...
The way Kiwi makes money is by partnering with Bing / Yahoo.
You launch the browser, it starts with Bing or Yahoo (depending on your country), and... that's it.
Bing then pays back a revenue-share to the browser each time the user uses the search engine.
The same way that DuckDuckGo gets a revenue-share from Yahoo and Bing too when you use DuckDuckGo.
So, if you prefer Firefox and Google, or Kiwi and Bing, this is just a matter of choice.
I've never tried Kiwi Browser but had similarly come across it while searching. The dev themselves refers to them as ads[1] (2022), though prior to being accepted properly into Bing's referral program Kiwi redirected all search queries through their own servers[2][3] (2021) (the original Kiwi repo's issues tab has been deleted since).
Tbf the dev always sounds reasonable in their responses but was a little off-putting initially so I kinda understand the GP's impression.
[1] https://github.com/kiwibrowser/src.next/issues/91#issuecomme...
[2] https://github.com/Tobi823/ffupdater/issues/35
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20210605191305/https://github.co...
Tbf the dev always sounds reasonable in their responses but was a little off-putting initially so I kinda understand the GP's impression.
[1] https://github.com/kiwibrowser/src.next/issues/91#issuecomme...
[2] https://github.com/Tobi823/ffupdater/issues/35
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20210605191305/https://github.co...
Fyi, I'm pretty sure you're talking to kiwi's main dev :)
Then the main dev is just wrong. That issue contains the exact words "Since then, now Kiwi Browser contains ads" as an explicit reason why they can't be in F-Droid.
Iceraven has been allowing a ton more extensions than Firefox all this time, no need to go chromium.
Yeah, I was doing Iceraven for a bit, but it was a pain to keep updated.
Super stoked with this news this morning.
Super stoked with this news this morning.
How was it a pain? Ffupdater has had it available for a very long time, and there's Unobtainium that lets you update from git repo releases among other things.
> ... there's Unobtainium that lets you update from git repo releases among other things.
Did you mean Obtainium?
https://github.com/ImranR98/Obtainium
Did you mean Obtainium?
https://github.com/ImranR98/Obtainium
Lol yeah, mily mistake. But on mobile if you're trying to be 100% FOSS obtainium and f-droid are basically all you need, updates are seamless with these two.
Heh, this is exactly why posting on HN is worthwhile. Probably just wait for FF now though.
In case you didn't know, many of us would rather give up an appendage than use a Chromium-based browser.
Not all Chrome Extensions work on it. It has issues.. Having a native browser supporting the desktop extensions on the mobile is much needed.
nope. just tried an XPI file, didn't work
I use Firefox Nightly on Android but just only use adblock, privacy extensions and pay wall unblock
Same, and its amazing.
How can people complain about FF so much, when it's the only mobile browser that even gives you this option, and radically cleans up mobile browsing.
How can people complain about FF so much, when it's the only mobile browser that even gives you this option, and radically cleans up mobile browsing.
It's called motivated reasoning. "Firefox must suck because I don't want to switch to it", so when firefox buys a bookmarking tool and integrates it into the browser, that's apparently "user hostile", while google wants to force your browser to attest that you haven't blocked any ads.
But no, it's "mozilla bad"
But no, it's "mozilla bad"
Curious, why didn't you try Iceraven this whole time?
Here's a good reason not to install Iceraven:
> No warranties or guarantees of security or updates
In general it's fine for users to fork software to scratch their own itches. But browsers are super security sensitive.
> No warranties or guarantees of security or updates
In general it's fine for users to fork software to scratch their own itches. But browsers are super security sensitive.
That's just their way of saying "we don't have to build this for you". They merge upstream changes, as long as the project is maintained you'll get those updates as they're released. Last I checked you can't sue Mozilla for a security vulnerability and the open source license has a clause about no warrant of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. They don't guarantee security either.
Good question. Browser forks make me nervous -- I know Iceraven pulls fixes, but I'd rather have as short a chain as possible sitting between me and security fixes.
If uBlock Origin wasn't supported I would be on Iceraven, but I don't run a ton of extensions so I was willing to tolerate some inconvenience in order to be closer to the source.
The other thing is that Iceraven isn't a silver bullet, you can install any extension but if it's relying on an API that's not implemented yet it will break. Which is totally not their fault, but it gets back to -- Mozilla needs to actually implement full extension support beyond just flipping a switch on.
I'm glad Iceraven exists though :) I wouldn't not recommend them to someone who needs more extension support, it's just not right for my personal use case.
If uBlock Origin wasn't supported I would be on Iceraven, but I don't run a ton of extensions so I was willing to tolerate some inconvenience in order to be closer to the source.
The other thing is that Iceraven isn't a silver bullet, you can install any extension but if it's relying on an API that's not implemented yet it will break. Which is totally not their fault, but it gets back to -- Mozilla needs to actually implement full extension support beyond just flipping a switch on.
I'm glad Iceraven exists though :) I wouldn't not recommend them to someone who needs more extension support, it's just not right for my personal use case.
We need to be able to directly fund Firefox instead of all the other mozilla stuff. https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/ability-to-donate-money...
Just like chrome is it's own charity organization that only does things that are good for the open internet right?
No? We only have this requirement of the only browser not tied to an advertising organization? Huh, that's very strange....
No? We only have this requirement of the only browser not tied to an advertising organization? Huh, that's very strange....
We need to donate to a new team/foundation/corporation, anyone at all, that would fork Firefox and continue it's development. I would never, ever, give a single cent to the Mozilla Foundation. It's current form is not focused on what the users of it's products want or need. The ideology Mozilla loves to shove in it's users faces is just the cherry on top. I've been using Firefox ever since the early 2000s, and even developed some addons for it on the good old days. Nowadays I just use it while clipping my nose, to avoid giving even more power to the Devil incarnate itself that is Google.
Just for record, I'm not with you as far as the anti-mozilla stance. That being said, what's stopping you (or anyone) from funding a team that continues to work on firefox within the same fork, rather than potentially duplicating their work? Is your impression that mozilla's ideology would prevent that other team from doing meaningful work or going in a direction that you believe they need to go?
Igalia is regularly contracted to work on new Firefox features, so this is already happening.
I can think of like four Firefox forks. In no particular order: Pulse browser, Waterfox, LibreWolf, Pale Moon.
Which of those are you currently donating to?
Which of those are you currently donating to?
So you just hate everyone? Got it.
I want to load my own XPI files.
Because apparently, I'm not allowed to embrace the full potential of my browser by installing any extensions that haven't been hand-delivered and serenaded by the majestic Firefox Marketplace.
Please share if you're familiar with a method. I'm contemplating the creation of my own customized version of Android Firefox, incorporating code to enable installation from XPI files.
Because apparently, I'm not allowed to embrace the full potential of my browser by installing any extensions that haven't been hand-delivered and serenaded by the majestic Firefox Marketplace.
Please share if you're familiar with a method. I'm contemplating the creation of my own customized version of Android Firefox, incorporating code to enable installation from XPI files.
have you tried fennec from the f-droid repo? AFAIK it allows you to do that, by taping on an xpi file in your phone storage it proposes to install it for you.
Thanks, I didn't know that. I'll check it out.
Edit: Just tried it, not working: Tabbing on the xpi file -> Open with. Getting the toast "None of your Apps can open this file" even tough I just installed fennec.
Edit: Just tried it, not working: Tabbing on the xpi file -> Open with. Getting the toast "None of your Apps can open this file" even tough I just installed fennec.
Unfortunately Fennec doesn't do that right now, although it does support AMO collections.
SmartCookieWeb preview. Pretty sure it's the only browser that supports it on Android. I have bypasspaywalls clean set up on it.
That was exactly my use case. I'll look into it.
coming They removed it. It was one good thing about Firefox mobile and they removed it.
Now please bring back the old UI and fix other issues you broke with that update (so the window that shows tabs so it doesn't forget where its position was, or make external video player work again) and I might switch back.
Great! Firefox on Android was perfect until it was redesigned, and only a few extensions were allowed. I switched to the Kiwi Browser just because of that. I hope that it will work as well as it did before the extensions were removed, so I can go back.
You can also check out iceraven, if you want a gecko based browser that lets you do what you want with your property.
All this time non-approved extensions were actually available for Firefox, in the form of "collections". (source: I use them on Mull)
even though i am an exclusively firefox user both on desktop and mobile, i don't even know what kind of desktop version's extension that i would use on mobile. currently, i only use adblock and so far my experience is quite stellar.
though it should be noted that i use browser on phone just to consume text. no video, no audio, and even picture is rarely the focus.
so, what do i miss?
though it should be noted that i use browser on phone just to consume text. no video, no audio, and even picture is rarely the focus.
so, what do i miss?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nitter-redire...
So I can read Twitter links without dealing with the login modals.
So I can read Twitter links without dealing with the login modals.
You don't need a special extension for this. Just go to your uBlock Origin filter lists settings and enable these:
* AdGuard - Annoyances
* uBlock filters – Annoyances
Also, for browsing Twitter anonymously, you could use nitter.net instead of the official Twitter site.
* AdGuard - Annoyances
* uBlock filters – Annoyances
Also, for browsing Twitter anonymously, you could use nitter.net instead of the official Twitter site.
> Also, for browsing Twitter anonymously, you could use nitter.net instead of the official Twitter site.
That's precisely what that extension's doing -for- them when twitter links show up somewhere else.
That's precisely what that extension's doing -for- them when twitter links show up somewhere else.
SingleFile is the single most useful addon that I use (behind uBlock). It lets me download any website as HTML while keeping most of its layout/elements intact.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/single-file/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/single-file/
Really a great addon, I've been using it a couple of years already it on mobile using firefox nightly + personal addon collections.
Dark Reader, LocalCDN, Firefox Relay, Firefox Translations, LanguageTool among others I have installed on Iceraven, a Firefox for Android fork.
Dark Reader and Relay are both on Android. I'm not sold on LocalCDN being necessary or even helpful these days (but there was a time when it was. A bit like antiviruses other than Windows defender these days, or those registry cleaner tools).
The others are missing for sure, though.
The others are missing for sure, though.
LocalCDN is helpful because it makes Firefox use local copies of popular JS libraries instead of downloading them over and over again. This makes browsing faster.
consent-o-matic, tampermonkey
> consent-o-matic
You don't need this. Just go to your uBlock Origin filter lists settings and enable these:
* AdGuard - Annoyances
* uBlock filters – Annoyances
You don't need this. Just go to your uBlock Origin filter lists settings and enable these:
* AdGuard - Annoyances
* uBlock filters – Annoyances
Not the same - sites will then take your not opting out of "legitimate interest" as consent. Not valid under GDPR really, but I'm not interested in giving them any argument to stand on.
* The laws specify that it must be opt-in. If a site doesn't respect this, you can't expect it to respect any of your choices anyway.
* You can now also use uBlock Origin to set cookies and LocalStorage entries automatically. The annoyance lists already set opt-out cookies for sites like Google and Youtube
* Firefox has actually been isolating third-party cookies and other site data (e.g. LocalStorage) for over a year. It's pointless for you to ever be concerned about them.
* You can now also use uBlock Origin to set cookies and LocalStorage entries automatically. The annoyance lists already set opt-out cookies for sites like Google and Youtube
* Firefox has actually been isolating third-party cookies and other site data (e.g. LocalStorage) for over a year. It's pointless for you to ever be concerned about them.
Client side data is only part of the problem, and it's a common myopic argument to GDPR for opponents of GDPR to say people should just use their browser's cookie controls. Server side fingerprinting is as much as a problem, something the ad industry has adopted since Safari added ITP and are accelerating since Chrome has been making noises about following Safari and Firefox for a few years now. I suspect as soon as Google figures out how to do it without disrupting their own ad business it'll come into effect.
uBlock Origin blocks connections to trackers/marketing companies by default. If you don't even connect to them, they can't fingerprint or track you.
Thanks, I didn't know about consent-o-matic, will try it out. If it works that will be the best extension in a long time.
Tampermonkey is installable in (my, at least) Forefox Android.
From the add-ons I use in my desktop which I cannot install in android firefox from addons.mozilla.org are:
1. OneTab 2. Unhook 3. Unclutter 4. Violentmonkey
Tampermonkey shows in Add-on manager list in android, but not in addons.mozilla.org!
1. OneTab 2. Unhook 3. Unclutter 4. Violentmonkey
Tampermonkey shows in Add-on manager list in android, but not in addons.mozilla.org!
that OneTab looks nice. will definitely help with my current usage pattern. thanks.
Behindtheoverlay is a little extension that should not be as usefull as it is. I ude it daily, both on mobile and desktop, and I do not use Firefox mobile for this exact same reason.
You don't need a special extension to get rid of annoying overlays. Just go to your uBlock Origin filter lists settings and enable these:
* AdGuard - Annoyances
* uBlock filters – Annoyances
uBlock Origin also has an "element zapper" feature that lets you temporarily remove overlays that aren't covered by the lists.
* AdGuard - Annoyances
* uBlock filters – Annoyances
uBlock Origin also has an "element zapper" feature that lets you temporarily remove overlays that aren't covered by the lists.
One single click, versus at least three. And I use the annoyances lists, but they never catch the overlays I encounter, it's just a niche personal taste kind of thing.
Well, the lists are edited manually by humans. You need to report the overlays you encounter for them to be hidden for everybody else.
The "I Don't Care About Cookies" extension.
I seriously can't live without it, anytime I'm trying to read a website and a fucking pop-up obscures the text I'm trying to read, I want to throw my device on the floor.
I seriously can't live without it, anytime I'm trying to read a website and a fucking pop-up obscures the text I'm trying to read, I want to throw my device on the floor.
> so, what do i miss?
multi-containers.
How do you want to separate cookies/identities without that?
multi-containers.
How do you want to separate cookies/identities without that?
I don't. there's only a handful of sites that I regularly visit.
An extension to block video auto play perhaps.
I use the nightly firefox app so I can use the bypass paywalls extension. Looking forward to being able to use it on the stable app
How do you do that since the extension is not listed in the Mozilla repository and has to be installed via XPI?
About time!
I mean I am happy enough with Firefox on android even with it quirks, and the main add-ons I use are already supported but this will fill in the last few gaps.
Very welcome!
I mean I am happy enough with Firefox on android even with it quirks, and the main add-ons I use are already supported but this will fill in the last few gaps.
Very welcome!
I love this.
It has been possible to use extensions on Android, but keeping them loaded on Android after OOM reclamation has been a pain up until now.
I wrote up a hack where I push Android Firefox extensions over Wireguard and OCR.
https://blog.plzat.me/2023-05-23-android-in-wireguardland-pu...
Hopefully this is the end of the need for this kind of hack. I love Firefox on all my platforms and having extensions on Android makes it even better.
It has been possible to use extensions on Android, but keeping them loaded on Android after OOM reclamation has been a pain up until now.
I wrote up a hack where I push Android Firefox extensions over Wireguard and OCR.
https://blog.plzat.me/2023-05-23-android-in-wireguardland-pu...
Hopefully this is the end of the need for this kind of hack. I love Firefox on all my platforms and having extensions on Android makes it even better.
Okay, that's an impressive hack! One that should be totally unnecessary, but wow, nice job working around limitations!
By the way, seems like you could use inotify to detect new screenshots rather than polling the Syncthing API. Probably not enough of a functional difference to change something that is already working though.
By the way, seems like you could use inotify to detect new screenshots rather than polling the Syncthing API. Probably not enough of a functional difference to change something that is already working though.
Thanks for reading through that long convoluted post! I appreciate the comment.
Syncthing was necessary to get the files onto my desktop machine, and I don't know how I could have automatically pushed from my android phone otherwise. Syncthing was so ridiculously easy to use, I basically just started a docker container, and then added the backend on my Android device. Zero firewall configuration. So simple. I suppose I could have easily used inotify, but either way I needed a script to launch the OCR, and I don't really see a big value in using a filesystem watch over an API when the syncthing api is very simple.
Cheers!
Syncthing was necessary to get the files onto my desktop machine, and I don't know how I could have automatically pushed from my android phone otherwise. Syncthing was so ridiculously easy to use, I basically just started a docker container, and then added the backend on my Android device. Zero firewall configuration. So simple. I suppose I could have easily used inotify, but either way I needed a script to launch the OCR, and I don't really see a big value in using a filesystem watch over an API when the syncthing api is very simple.
Cheers!
Absolutely. I very much enjoyed the write up.
You make a good point about Syncthing. It's just that polling kind of offends my sensibilities if there's something better. But.. I'm one of those hackers running multiple bash processes per second just to update my status bar... For about ten years now! So, don't mind me. ;)
Syncthing is great software and I'm using it on all my devices. I'm glad it provided an easy solution to your use case.
You make a good point about Syncthing. It's just that polling kind of offends my sensibilities if there's something better. But.. I'm one of those hackers running multiple bash processes per second just to update my status bar... For about ten years now! So, don't mind me. ;)
Syncthing is great software and I'm using it on all my devices. I'm glad it provided an easy solution to your use case.
I remember using extensions on Firefox android years ago. Is my memory failing in this or did they remove them before putting them back?
Yes. Firefox on Android used to be basically identical to Firefox on the desktop and it was great. It supported all extensions that the desktop version did.
But then they decided they needed a mobile-specific experience and created the current dumbed down version with limited add-on support.
But then they decided they needed a mobile-specific experience and created the current dumbed down version with limited add-on support.
The old Firefox was a terrible App, performance wise. The new one tried to create a better experience so they restricted addons until they knew it wasn't a problem...
Why not just put up a warning for extensions that dont work well and let the user decide? I've used several unsupported extensions in iceraven for years and had no problems, which leaves me feeling suspicious about their stated motivation.
> Why not just put up a warning for extensions that dont work well and let the user decide?
Because the typical user will ignore the warning and install the extension. Then down the line Firefox will be slow and they forget why. Then they uninstall Firefox.
Sure, you can avoid this trap personally. But the statistical behaviour is harmful to a healthy Firefox userbase.
Because the typical user will ignore the warning and install the extension. Then down the line Firefox will be slow and they forget why. Then they uninstall Firefox.
Sure, you can avoid this trap personally. But the statistical behaviour is harmful to a healthy Firefox userbase.
But the typical user doesn't use Firefox. People who (claim to) want to empower themselves do. It doesn't have a healthy userbase, they keep screaming from the rooftops every time someone mentions that they've switched for brave or something.
If you want the typical user to use Firefox, setting yourself apart as the mobile browser that has extensions for example, or keeping features that people use and like as they used to do when they had dominant market share would be good ways to do it. They used to understand their selling point.
And beyond that, as I have personally seen using iceraven and others have noted in here, tons of extensions that firefox blacklisted work fine and have for years. They still blacklisted them. Even if we agreed that disempowering the user so that they have a good experience made sense, which I don't, the actual number they would've needed to blacklist would've been much lower than the ones they actually blacklisted. In at least one of those instances the stated reason was a blatant lie.
If you want the typical user to use Firefox, setting yourself apart as the mobile browser that has extensions for example, or keeping features that people use and like as they used to do when they had dominant market share would be good ways to do it. They used to understand their selling point.
And beyond that, as I have personally seen using iceraven and others have noted in here, tons of extensions that firefox blacklisted work fine and have for years. They still blacklisted them. Even if we agreed that disempowering the user so that they have a good experience made sense, which I don't, the actual number they would've needed to blacklist would've been much lower than the ones they actually blacklisted. In at least one of those instances the stated reason was a blatant lie.
I was quite skeptical up until now. But this article includes legitimate reasons Android has different API needs, like the absence of reliable long-lived processes. If they actually finish and release this then I'll be convinced they had a good reason to need to iterate on the API design in a semi-closed beta.
Nope, youre right. With the Firefox Quantum update they took away extension support with the exception of a handful of white listed extensions.
Your memory is failing you. Been using firefox android ( stable and beta) with the addons (ublock etc) since a few years now.
Another comment mentions the quantum Firefox update from 2017. I think I was using Firefox on Android from around 2014. But I probably also used it after the update. I guess all my extensions were quickly whitelisted by Mozilla.
You could install custom extensions on Firefox Android. Now you have to jump through hoops to install anything that isn't blessed by Mozilla.
Indeed. They have too much authority with the marketplace. Does someone know if it is feasible to build Fenix from source, fork it and then add a startup function that sideloads any extension the user chooses, not just the blessed ones?
I'm considerung doing this, but don't want to spend a lot of time doing something impossible.
This can be a starting point: https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser
Fennec allows you to install extensions you want afaik, even xpi files in your phone storage.
Fennec is dead. The current project is Fenix which has a lot of functionality missing.
Finally! I hate having to regularly clear my browser data or navigating those horrible consent UIs when I don't have cookieautodelete.
I'm very happy with Consent-O-Matic for auto accepting cookie popups with privacy preserving choices done for me. Prior to that I used "i don't care about cookies".
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/consent-o-mat...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/consent-o-mat...
On uBlock Origin, the list "Easylist/uBO Cookie Notices" and the Annoyances lists help remove a ton of those cookie popups.
Why autoaccept?
Because rejecting all tends to break things or make them work non-optimally, and practically speaking there are no negative consequences from accepting, so even the mental overhead of thinking about what to do with the dialogue is a waste of time. If you do really, truly, care that much then you would be better served by accepting everything and then simply throwing them out when some time has passed or the tab has been closed.
I meant "accept" as in OK'ing the dialog, which it does with the most restrictive options by default. So, autoreject if you wish.
Consent UI's are not for putting cookies on your computer.
One of the things might be putting cookies on your computer.
I'm fine with just blocking and not giving consent.
One of the things might be putting cookies on your computer.
I'm fine with just blocking and not giving consent.
Finally I can get off Firefox Nightly and move to the stable release
You didn't need to be using Firefox Nightly. Collections have been available on Firefox Beta for several months.
Or you can get off Firefox and stop feeling like a kicked dog all the time. It doesn't have to be a chromium fork either, there's iceraven.
What does iceraven get you compared to firefox?
Iceraven's reason for existence has been about allowing (pretty much?) all Firefox addons since day one. And about:config.
Wish you hadn't downvoted him.
Wish you hadn't downvoted him.
Yep, and I still have to deal with my settings being reset every time I update, their user hostile UX flows, strange highlights on web page elements, and all the other stuff Firefox says aren't important to users. But I do it, why? So that all those scaremongers who screech "but you have to use Firefox! Otherwise youre helping the evil only other game in town!" like they always do don't have a single argument. Mozilla shows utter disdain for their users with just about every announcement, update, new feature or new restriction. The irrationality with which people defend them is jarringly similar to a cult, it's really unsettling. I just want a web browser that doesn't feel like it fucking hates me.
> Mozilla shows utter disdain for their users with just about every announcement, update, new feature or new restriction
This is absolute hyperbole. Have you forgotten the context? You're on a story about full extension support being implemented, which is exactly what you wanted.
This is absolute hyperbole. Have you forgotten the context? You're on a story about full extension support being implemented, which is exactly what you wanted.
Taking that away was just the last straw. Trust has been broken, and I don't like being bullshitted and abused, and then brow beaten and guilt tripped for not liking it. I use tools that respect me and do what I need them to do, I refuse to be herded into a set of acceptable behaviors and thoughts like a cow, and by a corporation no less. The people making decisions at Mozilla should be ashamed of themselves.
> and I don't like being bullshitted and abused, and then brow beaten and guilt tripped for not liking it.
So after your lil'karen rant you switched to proprietary browsers that do worst?
So after your lil'karen rant you switched to proprietary browsers that do worst?
I don't use proprietary software period.
>my settings being reset every time I update, their user hostile UX flows, strange highlights on web page elements
I have used firefox since 2007. I have used the exact same firefox PROFILE, that I simply copy from device to device when I set them up, for 10 years now. I have NEVER ONCE lost ANY settings.
Maybe you're on a weird linux distro and the package manager does dumb things?
I have used firefox since 2007. I have used the exact same firefox PROFILE, that I simply copy from device to device when I set them up, for 10 years now. I have NEVER ONCE lost ANY settings.
Maybe you're on a weird linux distro and the package manager does dumb things?
Firefox works fine for me, setting have never been reset. Feels like you have some other issues to work out unrelated to free software.
Go into about:config, turn off video autoplay and then update your browser, see if it persists.
> Wish you hadn't downvoted him.
If this directed at me, well, I didn't downvote anybody. I saw the parent post being downvoted a bunch, and wanted to know what they were talking about.
I don't currently have an Android phone. Having a better browser is one of the few things which would want me to move from iOS.
It was an honest question.
If this directed at me, well, I didn't downvote anybody. I saw the parent post being downvoted a bunch, and wanted to know what they were talking about.
I don't currently have an Android phone. Having a better browser is one of the few things which would want me to move from iOS.
It was an honest question.
Edit: btw, I had originally upvoted them, even though their original statement was a little rude, and now flagged off the page (I think).
Sorry then. Just working off context clues.
No worries.
Are you able to set Firefox as the default browser for Android for the whole phone? For instance, if I clicked on a link in an app, would uBlock Origin filter everything loaded? i.e, the app loaded the page in the same app, can I have that rendering engine set to Firefox with Ublock?
Edit: Sorry for anyone reading this, I know I'm using the wrong terms, hopefully you know what I mean.
Are you able to set Firefox as the default browser for Android for the whole phone? For instance, if I clicked on a link in an app, would uBlock Origin filter everything loaded? i.e, the app loaded the page in the same app, can I have that rendering engine set to Firefox with Ublock?
Edit: Sorry for anyone reading this, I know I'm using the wrong terms, hopefully you know what I mean.
Chiming in: on my Android, I do have FF Nightly as my default browser for the whole phone. Recently some Google apps have begun to use Chrome, ignoring the system setting, but mostly, the setting is honored. There might be a few other exceptions but again... mostly honored.
(Phone is a Samsung Galaxy S23)
I've had access to all these extensions with it for years. Which tells me this restriction Firefox has had this whole time was not technical and their explanations were a bunch of bullshit.
That's awesome. I really want the Copy All Tab URLs extension. I will probably switch from Brave (which doesn't have it either, so I already have hundreds of tabs opened in it, waiting for a solution) to Firefox just for this. I don't want to sign up for any acount and use any cloud for my browsing history, just copy everything and dump it to another app I use to move data between devices.
That's very sad and weird mobile browsers usually don't have extensions. Firefox can probably repeat the history here - as I remember it was the first to introduce extensions (on desktop) and they are a cornerstone part of what have made it great in the first place.
That's very sad and weird mobile browsers usually don't have extensions. Firefox can probably repeat the history here - as I remember it was the first to introduce extensions (on desktop) and they are a cornerstone part of what have made it great in the first place.
> Once you’re ready to test the mobile version of your extension, create a collection on AMO and test it on Firefox for Android Nightly
Just in case anyone missed this, it seems that Android Firefox STILL will not allow anonymous installation of extensions. Even if you wrote the extension yourself, and want to install on your own device.
Only workaround is to only install approved extensions, or be forced into registering on AMO. if I am wrong I will be happy to hear it, but this upcoming release doesn't seem to offer any meaningful change in regards to user privacy and control.
Just in case anyone missed this, it seems that Android Firefox STILL will not allow anonymous installation of extensions. Even if you wrote the extension yourself, and want to install on your own device.
Only workaround is to only install approved extensions, or be forced into registering on AMO. if I am wrong I will be happy to hear it, but this upcoming release doesn't seem to offer any meaningful change in regards to user privacy and control.
I think you're reading too much into that one sentence—that seems more like a temporary measure to me—but it's possible that you're correct. However:
> any meaningful change in regards to user privacy and control.
There's an enormous difference in user control between the 22 extensions that are currently allowed on Firefox Android and an open library of add-ons, even if Mozilla is retaining control of the add-on installation process for now. I don't usually jump to Mozilla's defense, but saying this is no "meaningful change" is rank hyperbole.
> any meaningful change in regards to user privacy and control.
There's an enormous difference in user control between the 22 extensions that are currently allowed on Firefox Android and an open library of add-ons, even if Mozilla is retaining control of the add-on installation process for now. I don't usually jump to Mozilla's defense, but saying this is no "meaningful change" is rank hyperbole.
> Once you’re ready to test the mobile version of your extension, create a collection on AMO and test it on Firefox for Android Nightly. If you’d prefer to polish your extension before publishing it on AMO, you can also debug and run the extension with web-ext.
I think this mirrors the desktop behavior (now correct me if I'm wrong, I very well might be ;)). Firefox Developer Edition on Desktop has options for sideloading, but otherwise to sideload it needs to be signed. You can however temporarily load an extension to test it if you're a developer in I think any version of Firefox.
Their link (https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/develop/developi...) suggests that Android will work (almost) the same -- you can temporarily load an extension to test it, but it needs to be signed unless you're on nightly.
I do think forcing every extension to be signed is a mistake and I wish they'd do away with that policy. But at least on first impression, it looks to me like mobile will be as open as desktop is? Which would be a huge improvement considering how locked down the current Firefox for Android is.
I think this mirrors the desktop behavior (now correct me if I'm wrong, I very well might be ;)). Firefox Developer Edition on Desktop has options for sideloading, but otherwise to sideload it needs to be signed. You can however temporarily load an extension to test it if you're a developer in I think any version of Firefox.
Their link (https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/develop/developi...) suggests that Android will work (almost) the same -- you can temporarily load an extension to test it, but it needs to be signed unless you're on nightly.
I do think forcing every extension to be signed is a mistake and I wish they'd do away with that policy. But at least on first impression, it looks to me like mobile will be as open as desktop is? Which would be a huge improvement considering how locked down the current Firefox for Android is.
I believe that's just instructions for developers to test now, before the open ecosystem ships.
AMO account isn't actually required for the user, it's required for some entity to create the "collection", but you don't actually have to have an account to use whichever collection with FF on your phone. Certainly most people who are using this method now correspond 1:1 to AMO account holders, but that isn't a necessity of the software. Any sufficiently motivated person could make a collection called "Too Cool For Mozilla Extensions" and tweet out the user name and collection name, and anyone who wanted could use that collection instead.
You also can sideload apps in Nightly, although I understand that is not ideal.
You also can sideload apps in Nightly, although I understand that is not ideal.
> AMO account isn't actually required for the user, it's required for some entity to create the "collection", but you don't actually have to have an account to use whichever collection with FF on your phone.
the backwards logic to justify this sentence is mind boggling. I wrote my own extension, I should be able to install it on my own device without getting permission from daddy Mozilla, period. I should not have to register for that, in the same way I dont have to register with Debian to install a program on Linux.
the backwards logic to justify this sentence is mind boggling. I wrote my own extension, I should be able to install it on my own device without getting permission from daddy Mozilla, period. I should not have to register for that, in the same way I dont have to register with Debian to install a program on Linux.
The article is about changing your add-on in preparation for their changes. Maybe he's saying that right now, before the change, you have to register as a collection?
So far there's no indication you're wrong : - (
Nice!
I wish Mozilla release altstore/sideload version of IOS app with all the feature available in android.
I wish Mozilla release altstore/sideload version of IOS app with all the feature available in android.
It would probably be a lot of work for not a lot of people.
You can use Firefox extensions on iOS via Orion Browser.
[1] https://apps.apple.com/app/orion-browser-by-kagi/id148449820...
[2] https://browser.kagi.com/faq.html#iosext
You can use Firefox extensions on iOS via Orion Browser.
[1] https://apps.apple.com/app/orion-browser-by-kagi/id148449820...
[2] https://browser.kagi.com/faq.html#iosext
For a moment, I got excited for this. It did not turn up good, as the chrome extension I wanted to try is not working.
Try with the next release coming this weekend, a lot more web extension APIs will be supported on iOS.
https://browser.kagi.com/updates/orion-iOS-release-notes.htm...
https://browser.kagi.com/updates/orion-iOS-release-notes.htm...
Mozilla's already done the work to make Firefox (the full browser, not just a Safari wrapper) run on iOS multiple times.
It wouldn't be that much more work to package it up and release it for side loading.
It wouldn't be that much more work to package it up and release it for side loading.
Looking forward to finally have the i-dont-care-about-cookies add-on for my phone.
Don't. It's been acquired. Use the community fork: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/istilldontcar...
You can already do this with uBlock Origin: Just go into the (uBlock Origin) settings and enable the AdGuard and EasyList stuff under "Annoyances".
"AdGuard – Cookie Notices" and "EasyList – Cookie Notices"
"AdGuard – Cookie Notices" and "EasyList – Cookie Notices"
That's only cosmetic filters (or at least it used to be). "I don't care about cookies" or the open source fork "I still don't care about cookies" also clicks the buttons to accept/refuse.
The best one seems to be Consent-O-Matic as it actually tries to disable all trackers, but it doesn't work on some sites/popups.
The best one seems to be Consent-O-Matic as it actually tries to disable all trackers, but it doesn't work on some sites/popups.
I was scratching my head why I'd want addons at all (running DNS66 on the phone, so no need for an adblocker.) but this is honestly a great idea. God how I hate the cookie banners.
I am facing this issue in the recent versions of Android Firefox where if I switch apps and come back, or lock and unlock the phone instantly leads to the page refreshing and scrolling back to the point where I was reading.
This is quite frustrating as I have to keep the Firefox app always open or wait a frustrating amount of time for the page to completely load and scroll down. Some pages with progressive loading will take a huge amount of time for the page to completely re-download and if you scroll even slightly, the auto-scroll to where you last left is lost.
I can replicate it with just a single tab and I have excluded Firefox from all my battery saving and memory saving features.
I can replicate it with just a single tab and I have excluded Firefox from all my battery saving and memory saving features.
Finally, now it's possible to have actually good history with proper search on mobile!
it's already possible via this Firefox fork https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser/release...
They seem to be using this custom add-on collection: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/1620123...
But that was already possible to do on regular Firefox Beta and Nightly. We just had to create our own collection, like Iceraven did.
But that was already possible to do on regular Firefox Beta and Nightly. We just had to create our own collection, like Iceraven did.
Better late than never!
While true, Mozilla unfortunately had already forfeited the Android browser market to other competitors by not enabling this day one (contrary to their claims, most extensions worked fine). I would be really interested in reading the rationale behind their decision. The real one.
Disabling extensions had nothing to do with their market share. We have extensions on desktop and they are still being squeezed out there. And judging by some other comments here there is apparently a fork of Firefox for Android that allows extensions - which even I had never heard of until now.
> Disabling extensions had nothing to do with their market share
It kinda did because it removed a reason to pick Firefox over its competitors.
If Firefox doesn't actually bring anything tangible to the table, why would people pick it over whatever they're currently using (which is likely to be Chrome)?
The average user doesn't hate Google like some people do, so a purely ideological argument of "it isn't Chrome" won't work (and didn't work as its marketshare kept declining). Users need tangible, non-niche features to switch.
It kinda did because it removed a reason to pick Firefox over its competitors.
If Firefox doesn't actually bring anything tangible to the table, why would people pick it over whatever they're currently using (which is likely to be Chrome)?
The average user doesn't hate Google like some people do, so a purely ideological argument of "it isn't Chrome" won't work (and didn't work as its marketshare kept declining). Users need tangible, non-niche features to switch.
>It kinda did because it removed a reason to pick Firefox over its competitors.
The reason to pick firefox over competitors is because they are the ONLY web browser vendor who isn't actively handicapping the internet. Firefox could smear my face with literal shit every time I use it and it would still be less hostile to end users than, let's see what chrome is doing this week, oh yes, forcing everyone to build attestation systems into the internet so that you eventually will be cryptographically prevented from blocking ads.
Jesus. Perspective people
The reason to pick firefox over competitors is because they are the ONLY web browser vendor who isn't actively handicapping the internet. Firefox could smear my face with literal shit every time I use it and it would still be less hostile to end users than, let's see what chrome is doing this week, oh yes, forcing everyone to build attestation systems into the internet so that you eventually will be cryptographically prevented from blocking ads.
Jesus. Perspective people
> The reason to pick firefox over competitors is because they are the ONLY web browser vendor who isn't actively handicapping the internet.
Nobody among regular people cares. Banking on ideology alone is in fact how you end up with a low single-digit percentage of market share.
Even if Mozilla actually had your best interests at heart, it still needs to have decent marketshare (including from people who do not know/care about ideology) to actually have any weight in web standards discussions, otherwise Chrome can just ignore it and push whatever agenda they have.
Nobody among regular people cares. Banking on ideology alone is in fact how you end up with a low single-digit percentage of market share.
Even if Mozilla actually had your best interests at heart, it still needs to have decent marketshare (including from people who do not know/care about ideology) to actually have any weight in web standards discussions, otherwise Chrome can just ignore it and push whatever agenda they have.
Mobile Firefox already had shit marketshare when they did the refresh and limited extensions. That wasn't what caused the shit marketshare.
You'll never get the real one unfortunately, because corpos (profit and non profit alike) do everything in marketingpseak and think their customers and users are stupid children that have to be bullshitted into behaving.
Tangentially related, but your comment reminded me of this classic: https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/mozilla-now-only-...
Maybe if author of that comment put as much effort into developing their own browser as they seemed to put into that weird rant we would have a new Chrome competitor which meets their exceptions.
The entitlement and blatant hypocrisy of Mozilla haters is insane. "Mozilla does weird things to try and diversify their income so that Google cannot shut them down one day randomly if they're finally competitive, but that's not the one blessed thing of committing code to the single blessed repository of Firefox, so instead I'm going to use the browser built by a company that makes all of its money through advertising, explicitly sends pretty much everything you do in their browser to their advertising apparatus, repeatedly pushed unnecessary "standards" that would make it easier to fingerprint users, and is now trying to tee-up a standard that will make it possible to cryptographically prevent users from blocking ads in the future."
Come the fuck on
Come the fuck on
See you misunderstand me. I don't use chrome. I don't like chrome. chrome mobile doesn't allow extensions either, and pretty obviously to protect google from adblockers. It seems to me that your only argument is chrome is evil, and I never once said I use chrome. You're arguing with someone that isn't here.
I don't believe Mozilla cares about the open web. If they did they wouldn't continuously kneecap their users. They use this open web argument to browbeat people into accepting their awful decisions that users don't like, then they do things one after another that have a predictable outcome of reducing their market share. Hard line firefox users make every excuse in the world for why people should tolerate any abuse they throw at people, it's similar to how political parties scaremonger about their opponents. It's grimy.
I want to like firefox. I want to use it. It's frustrating seeing it fall like this which is where the anger comes from. It's like having a fuck up brother and when you tell him he needs to quit fucking up he calls you a piece of shit tool of the bourgeoise. Who needs that bullshit in their lives? So I don't feel entitled to Firefox, I use alternatives.
I don't believe Mozilla cares about the open web. If they did they wouldn't continuously kneecap their users. They use this open web argument to browbeat people into accepting their awful decisions that users don't like, then they do things one after another that have a predictable outcome of reducing their market share. Hard line firefox users make every excuse in the world for why people should tolerate any abuse they throw at people, it's similar to how political parties scaremonger about their opponents. It's grimy.
I want to like firefox. I want to use it. It's frustrating seeing it fall like this which is where the anger comes from. It's like having a fuck up brother and when you tell him he needs to quit fucking up he calls you a piece of shit tool of the bourgeoise. Who needs that bullshit in their lives? So I don't feel entitled to Firefox, I use alternatives.
Many don't see this way. His criticisms were funny and on point to boot ;)
So I could build a web browser with 5 minutes of typing online? Wow.
Don't be ridiculous. Voicing his disillusionment in a funny witty way is orders of magnitude less effort than writing an entire browser.
> Mozilla unfortunately had already forfeited the Android browser market to other competitors by not enabling this day one
Er, Mozilla marketshare on Android is low because of Google anti competitively bundling Chrome with the Play Store.
Er, Mozilla marketshare on Android is low because of Google anti competitively bundling Chrome with the Play Store.
Firefox defeated IE which was bundled with Windows at the time.
Chrome continues to defeat everyone, including Edge which is bundled with Windows.
Firefox's reason for irrelevance today has nothing to do with whether its competitors are bundled with operating systems.
Chrome continues to defeat everyone, including Edge which is bundled with Windows.
Firefox's reason for irrelevance today has nothing to do with whether its competitors are bundled with operating systems.
Chrome is, and majorly was, pushed by Google websites. Using one near monopoly to create another.
Also, Firefox never defeated Internet Explorer. You are misremembering that. Firefox once made impressive market gains despite the anticompetitive competitor bundling. That doesn't mean it's feasible to keep doing it.
Also, Firefox never defeated Internet Explorer. You are misremembering that. Firefox once made impressive market gains despite the anticompetitive competitor bundling. That doesn't mean it's feasible to keep doing it.
IE team was disbanded and had no release for 5 years.
IE also never had mountains of supposedly techy people instructing naive users to use Chrome because "it's faster", which was only true in the very beginning, as if saving 200ms per page load is worth putting Google in full control of the internet.
I didn't get through the article, had a hard time trying to read the text with the contrast.
To check if it was just me I used this site: https://www.accessibilitychecker.org/audit/?website=https%3A...
On the up side, at least it isn't stark white on a stark black background.
To check if it was just me I used this site: https://www.accessibilitychecker.org/audit/?website=https%3A...
On the up side, at least it isn't stark white on a stark black background.
Maybe they can fix some of the many outstanding bugs in Firefox Android while they're at it... Like not suggesting logins if autofill is disabled, or at least allowing mass delete for logins so it doesn't suggest them.
It's impossible that this hasn't already been seen so it's absurd it's still an issue.
It's impossible that this hasn't already been seen so it's absurd it's still an issue.
What next?
Allowing access to about:config?
Nah, I'm dreaming. Will continue to use Nightly.
Allowing access to about:config?
Nah, I'm dreaming. Will continue to use Nightly.
Does Nightly have a different user-agent or browser fingerprint?
If so, that’s very generous of Mozilla to force users to segment themselves into an (even smaller) bucket so they can be easily tracked by fingerprint alone.
If so, that’s very generous of Mozilla to force users to segment themselves into an (even smaller) bucket so they can be easily tracked by fingerprint alone.
This is most definitely a step I the right direction but as I'll always say, the one and only killer feature on mobile is Text Reflow. Being able to zoom into a long text and knowing you'll be able to read it without scrolling sideways is a must have feature for mobile browsers, yet nearly none of them have it on Android save Opera and at least at one point Samsung Browser.
This sounds cool.
I have a wildly paranoid Firefox setup (hardened config, NoScript, Cookie AutoDelete, ClearURLs, uBlock). It basically runs everything off (js, custom fonts, cookies, etc) unless I whitelist it explicitly.
I was never quite able to replicate it on Android because some extensions didn't worked as expected or were clumsy on mobile.
Will give another try.
I have a wildly paranoid Firefox setup (hardened config, NoScript, Cookie AutoDelete, ClearURLs, uBlock). It basically runs everything off (js, custom fonts, cookies, etc) unless I whitelist it explicitly.
I was never quite able to replicate it on Android because some extensions didn't worked as expected or were clumsy on mobile.
Will give another try.
Mmm, too bad FF is so slow compared to Chrome/Chromite, at least on my older phone.
I suppose newer phones can handle it, but at the same time, I don't think many users realize the additional performance impact extensions can have on the browser.
I suppose newer phones can handle it, but at the same time, I don't think many users realize the additional performance impact extensions can have on the browser.
Never stopped me from using it on all the phones I've had - maybe somewhat slower, but I can be a little patient in return for some semblance of data protection & nuisance blocking.
Firefox is significantly faster than Chrome once you install UBlock Origin.
We have Chromite (formerly Bromite) for that, as well as its native dark mode.
Would it be possible to inject chrome extensions somehow into firefox that is the final piece where some websites force to just use chrome and it's really annoying and the singular time you have to switch for their chrome based widget/extension to do that websites functionality?
I have never run into this. What websites are you referring to?
In $LAST_JOB we used an ancient CI tool called Electric Commander. I don't know if it was us or them, but it didn't work in FF.
We currently use playfab in work, and the admin panel is missing a few features on Firefox compared to chrome. Google Meets has been doing some nonsense over the last few weeks on FF causing it to break for our team (and pushed us back to slack huddles). My bank's search functionality doesn't work on FF (but the app works so I use that instead)
Ironically, the biggest source of website breakages for me is extensions. UBlock breaks _way_ more, and I just disable it on a site by site basis.
We currently use playfab in work, and the admin panel is missing a few features on Firefox compared to chrome. Google Meets has been doing some nonsense over the last few weeks on FF causing it to break for our team (and pushed us back to slack huddles). My bank's search functionality doesn't work on FF (but the app works so I use that instead)
Ironically, the biggest source of website breakages for me is extensions. UBlock breaks _way_ more, and I just disable it on a site by site basis.
I'm not talking about having to switch to Chrome in general—I see that sometimes. I mean a website that requires a particular extension that is Chrome-only.
Oh I know. I use Firefox, but have to switch to chrome for those sites because they don't work in FF. I still use FF, and have done (proudly) since 2007!
Btw there are Chromium based browsers on Android that have allowed extensions for a long time. I do not recall the names as I’ve been on iOS for years now but I know they exist.
EDIT: It’s kiwi and yandex browser apparently.
EDIT: It’s kiwi and yandex browser apparently.
one memorable example is in tiktok ads they let you edit creatives as they go live and it is some kind of widget. It won't run it asks to switch to chrome. Not sure if there's a chrome only library it uses or what. Also a lot of marketing extensions are just built in chrome and send you to play store install link, these are two examples where firefox just won't cut it, wish somehow could embed these as i don't want to leave firefox containers.
There used to be a way to sideload extensions onto Android FF but I found it too cumbersome so I switched to Kiwi, a build of Chromium with extension support. Will definitely give this a go when it's ready, and I hope Temporary Containers works as I miss having that on mobile
The real annoying part about Kiwi is it doesn't seem to play well with 1password, never understood why.
Firefox for Android is lacking on so many basic features, it's amazing that they prioritize anything else before fixing those.
E.g deep links. Which is very, very basic feature for mobile. Firefox on Android is unusable without it - and it seems like no one prioritize this, so excuse me for not being excited by any other feature.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/54653641/app-links-not-w... https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/15202 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1809264
E.g deep links. Which is very, very basic feature for mobile. Firefox on Android is unusable without it - and it seems like no one prioritize this, so excuse me for not being excited by any other feature.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/54653641/app-links-not-w... https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/15202 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1809264
Again, like much of the discussion around Firefox, feature vs bug is in the eye of the beholder. I think the UX of deep links on Firefox is vastly preferable. I hate when a website opens the play store and forceably tells you to install an app. I'm in a browser because I want a web interface. If I want to open your app, I will click the menu button and hit open in app. But that is reserved for very very few trusted apps.
The browser is a sandbox that I use specifically to protect me from this kind of predatory shit.
The browser is a sandbox that I use specifically to protect me from this kind of predatory shit.
Yes, I also love this. I much rather have control, and decline to install apps.
The bugzilla issue you linked was fixed 3 months ago. So it would seem that they did, in fact, prioritize it.
Great to hear. I have been using Kiwi Browser (Chromium clone) on mobile for several years precisely because of full extension support and _full Developer tools_! I will reconsider going back to Firefox after this, though...
About time. Granted, uBlock Origin and maybe Tampermonkey are all I really care about on mobile, and both of those are already in Firefox for Android's whitelist, but still.
I hope they'll bring back sideloading too. It's really annoying that's not available anymore.
I'm still very annoyed there is no about:config setting to allow any desktop plugin like in the old days.
I had one for great gesture controls.
I had one for great gesture controls.
If Adblock works on this then I will switch to Firefox from Chrome - the internet is unusable without it
I'm using Firefox with Ublock Origin for years on Android.
ublock origin already works on firefox on mobile (android). it's already supported, it's already available. and it's awesome.
i don't know why and how people still use chrome on mobile. it is an awful web experience.
i don't know why and how people still use chrome on mobile. it is an awful web experience.
It is an awful experience indeed. I switched to Kiwi browser when Chrome forced tab groups on everyone with no option to disable it. Kiwi has add-on support and removes many of Chrome's annoying aspects. I could never go back to browsing on mobile without add-ons like uBlock Origin and Sticky Ducky.
Isn't Kiwi really outdated though?
Never heard of Sticky Ducky, will add. For me, the other essential to install on Kiwi is Bypass Paywalls.
You can already use uBlock Origin from Firefox Android.
[deleted]
There's a lot of talk about Chrome and Firefox. It seems simple to me -- Brave literally pays me in crypto to use it on desktop, and Firefox Nightly has by far the best extension support on mobile (I've had bypass-paywalls on there for years, which you just can't do on anything else). And then on desktop, Opera has GPT support built in, comes in handy when working on old machines for general system resource use being moderate.
Chrome never even enters the equation. Even at work, when I've got a choice between Chrome and Edge, Edge has taken over for me because of the ability to "turn a site into an app" which lets me have work resources on the taskbar as unique icons I can easily access to switch between.
I think the one thing I keep Chrome installed on my desktop for (because I have all of them) is the superior Chromecast support if I feel like casting some streaming media to the TV in the other room from a site that isn't supported by the Roku TV.
I get the social and business issues with Mozilla, but I don't see it going anywhere for me on mobile. Probably not coming back on the desktop until they literally pay me to use it though.
Chrome never even enters the equation. Even at work, when I've got a choice between Chrome and Edge, Edge has taken over for me because of the ability to "turn a site into an app" which lets me have work resources on the taskbar as unique icons I can easily access to switch between.
I think the one thing I keep Chrome installed on my desktop for (because I have all of them) is the superior Chromecast support if I feel like casting some streaming media to the TV in the other room from a site that isn't supported by the Roku TV.
I get the social and business issues with Mozilla, but I don't see it going anywhere for me on mobile. Probably not coming back on the desktop until they literally pay me to use it though.
Funny, I realized 30min ago I could not install reddit enhancement suite on firefox android.
You can install whatever you want already, it just takes a little longer and requires Beta or Nightly (both very stable)
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio... https://www.ghacks.net/2022/10/20/firefox-beta-for-android-n...
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio... https://www.ghacks.net/2022/10/20/firefox-beta-for-android-n...
Ooh, I wonder if it'll support container tabs and containerize...
Thanks for sharing this, I like it alot.
I ditched firefox after mozilla CEO spreads propaganda about january 6 and proud boys
Source?
just go to his twitter, good luck find those old tweet
Does Mitchell Baker even have a Twitter?
> the only major Android browser
So Chrome and Firefox? I already have extensions. It's too little too late Mozilla, you burned me by removing them years ago.
So Chrome and Firefox? I already have extensions. It's too little too late Mozilla, you burned me by removing them years ago.
kiwi =/= chrome
That's why I find it funny firefox is saying "only major browser" as if it's some club. Users who do not keep themselves in pens have had extensions in mobile browsers for years now. Firefox brings nothing distinguishing with this announcement, I don't have to use a "major browser".
Also
Firefox accounts for 0.48% of the mobile browser market share
Meanwhile, on the iOS version, they can't even support the OS-provided content blocker API, meaning Safari has better support for privacy-related add-ons than Firefox.
https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios/issues/7374
https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios/issues/7374
Yeah, well, if iOS didn't force everyone to use the Safari engine, maybe the situation would be better
You can’t use the App Store Safari extensions on webviews.
They’d have to add their own content blocking list, much like they did with Firefox Focus.
They’d have to add their own content blocking list, much like they did with Firefox Focus.
I never got why Firefox Focus was a separate app? I want the ad blocking from Firefox focus and the tab switching in history and whatnot from the regular Firefox on iOS.
But, mostly, I just use Android so it doesn't really matter.
But, mostly, I just use Android so it doesn't really matter.
If you’re fine with a single tab browser, Firefox Focus [1] comes with a built-in content blocker.
Firefox Focus is so poorly thought out.
How can you have a content-blocking browser that only allows one single tab at a time?
It happens so many times that while browsing an ad-heavy page an ad gets opened in a new tab (since Firefox fails to block it), but since it's a mono-tab browser it simply replaces the one I was browsing.
How can you have a content-blocking browser that only allows one single tab at a time?
It happens so many times that while browsing an ad-heavy page an ad gets opened in a new tab (since Firefox fails to block it), but since it's a mono-tab browser it simply replaces the one I was browsing.
I know there are other apps that support add-ons but the fact is that Firefox is __the only__ "mainstream" browser that does this (quotes because it's 0.25% in the US, as the 4th most popular, behind Samsung fucking Internet).
It's popular to hate on Firefox, but this is the nerdiest of nerd issues and if we're being honest, all this has accomplished in the last decade is a decrease in market share and keeping Safari and (more so) Chrome dictate the Internet and user experience. Firefox being so low puts no pressure on Chrome to add add-ons. Firefox being so low just means Chrome can continue pushing the ad first Internet.
Yeah, it's fun to complain, but which do you hate more? That Firefox only provides 80-90% of what you want (when major competitors provide __0%__), or Google dictating the Internet (like AMP)? Complain, but maybe tone it down a bit. This is not the holy war you want.