How to Firefox(kau.sh)
kau.sh
How to Firefox
https://kau.sh/blog/how-to-firefox/
504 コメント
In two decades of using it (yep) I never had an issue. I used it on Linux, MacOS and Windows and I don't remember any issues whatsoever.
Same here, although I've had a couple issues but I actually contacted the website operator and over time they fixed the issues (either that or firefox themselves fixed it). It never hurts to reach out to tech support and ask for firefox support!
> I've never felt impeded by loading speeds
Even if this was an issue I had noticed (which I hadn't), now that's out the door because no ad blocker in Chrome, so good luck loading all the ads and trackers before getting your content...
I can't believe people keep parroting that... Even if 'chrome is faster and more responsive than firefox' was not a controversial statement (and it very much is), 'chrome with ads is fast' is outright laughable...
Even if this was an issue I had noticed (which I hadn't), now that's out the door because no ad blocker in Chrome, so good luck loading all the ads and trackers before getting your content...
I can't believe people keep parroting that... Even if 'chrome is faster and more responsive than firefox' was not a controversial statement (and it very much is), 'chrome with ads is fast' is outright laughable...
> My wimply little MacBook Pro
How old is it? Is a MacBook Pro wimpy now?
How old is it? Is a MacBook Pro wimpy now?
I'm about the same, I don't even know what the loading speeds issue is about, I still remember Firefox Quantum beating the daylights out of Chrome, and I don't know if Chrome ever fully caught up to Quantum?
What's really funny is for ages Chrome would load the browser window even if the whole browser UI wasn't done loading, and sometime after Quantum, Firefox started doing the same trick to make you feel as though it instantly runs.
I've been using Firefox for about 20 years or so, and I don't regret it, but also I have not noticed a degrade in performance. I'm using it on Linux so I don't know if that's drastically different on a Mac these days.
What's really funny is for ages Chrome would load the browser window even if the whole browser UI wasn't done loading, and sometime after Quantum, Firefox started doing the same trick to make you feel as though it instantly runs.
I've been using Firefox for about 20 years or so, and I don't regret it, but also I have not noticed a degrade in performance. I'm using it on Linux so I don't know if that's drastically different on a Mac these days.
Do you use Firefox for Android? I use it for the extension support but its noticeably slower than Chrome on Android.
I'm on iOS, I guess I mainly use Firefox on Desktop, on iOS there's no point in me using Firefox since its forced to use Webkit under the covers.
firefox on all my devices for the simple pleasure of sending tabs between devices
sometimes i'm reading something on phone and i "send to all devices", i'll sure as shit see it again this way
(even librewolf allows you to continue doing this)
sometimes i'm reading something on phone and i "send to all devices", i'll sure as shit see it again this way
(even librewolf allows you to continue doing this)
I browse with Orion (for ad blocking) but still have Firefox installed because I can click Share -> Firefox -> Send Tab. Maybe I stumble upon a video I want to watch but not now. Maybe I stumble upon a long form article or reference or something that just is shitty on a mobile interface and I push it to the computer I'm literally sitting next to while having my phone in hand too.
With ublock origin enabled on an android device I'd argue it's rather much faster
The app itself is insanely slow to start up, and it always has been. Try killing Firefox and Chrome, open the browser via a link from another app and see how long it takes for the page to start rendering. I suggest a page with a different color background and nothing else. Chrome is always fast, while Firefox is almost always very slow (pinning the app to my recent list helps on Samsung devices, but isn't available elsewhere)
Is Chrome being cached?
This is actually not a good test because there are a lot of tricky and subtle things that can make the comparison highly unfair. Smartphones will cache apps so that they don't fully close. Then, if you do actually force kill them they will start up in the background.
Are we surprised a Google phone caches the Google browser which is considered to be a high priority app, commonly used, and even the backbone of other apps?
This is actually not a good test because there are a lot of tricky and subtle things that can make the comparison highly unfair. Smartphones will cache apps so that they don't fully close. Then, if you do actually force kill them they will start up in the background.
Are we surprised a Google phone caches the Google browser which is considered to be a high priority app, commonly used, and even the backbone of other apps?
>This is actually not a good test
It is a realistic user scenario, which in my opinion makes it a good test. The real world performance is what matters here. The user doesn't care if technically there is some trick that is being used to "cheat."
It is a realistic user scenario, which in my opinion makes it a good test. The real world performance is what matters here. The user doesn't care if technically there is some trick that is being used to "cheat."
> The user doesn't care if technically there is some trick that is being used to "cheat."
Besides, if we're talking about average user, they're not force closing apps and the phone should be caching the most frequently used apps. So even then the test won't mimic real world experience even if it's about perception. Maybe initially, but not after sustained usage. People usually normalize to whatever they're using
Uhhh... he followed your own advice better than you did.
The device should be absolutely caching the most recently used apps, yes. Force closing is unnecessary, but I manage my apps on my phone not because I want to close background apps, but because I want to keep certain apps running (I don't care about steam or my email or messenger, etc, they open fast; the browser is slow and I want that to stay loaded).
Unfortunately, I can dismiss/force-close all apps on my phone, open Firefox, switch to the home screen--and when I switch back it has to start up again fresh about 25% of the time.
The only reliable way I've found to use termux (as an ssh client, not anything high-resource) and Firefox at the same time is to use multi window, dragging termux out of the way of the keyboard every time I switch, as Firefox will regularly need to be reloaded otherwise; if I'm on certain heavy or lazy-loading websites or using a link with a hash in it, it'll then also lose my scroll position. This is particularly frustrating when I ssh into minimized containers with no command completion or man pages.
The only reliable way I've found to use termux (as an ssh client, not anything high-resource) and Firefox at the same time is to use multi window, dragging termux out of the way of the keyboard every time I switch, as Firefox will regularly need to be reloaded otherwise; if I'm on certain heavy or lazy-loading websites or using a link with a hash in it, it'll then also lose my scroll position. This is particularly frustrating when I ssh into minimized containers with no command completion or man pages.
This is true, but it also applies to not just the chrome browser by Google itself, but also to derivatives (I don't actually use chrome proper unless I need to disable adblock; I still use Kiwi browser for my PWAs, because you can't export your browser profile from one device to another for Chrome[1])
[1]: you actually can with devtools and dexie import export, but it always times out for my databases. Meanwhile on Firefox you can just use devtools to backup the entire profile directory and then replace it in-place.
[1]: you actually can with devtools and dexie import export, but it always times out for my databases. Meanwhile on Firefox you can just use devtools to backup the entire profile directory and then replace it in-place.
Replied to wrong comment...
I use Firefox on Android and I don't think (?) I notice a speed difference. At least not a big one.
I don't have anything but anecdotal experience here, but I think Google Chrome was gaming Windows Defender better for awhile, when Windows Defender treats you poorly IO grinds to a halt and then some.
I've never had Firefox issues on Linux.
I've never had Firefox issues on Linux.
> I've never had Firefox issues on Linux.
My experience on Linux running on very old hardware (4th Gen Intel) is also good. Firefox feels quick and snappy. It uses a reasonable amount of resources, and has a relatively modest memory footprint by modern browser standards. In comparison, Chromium makes my fans spin on every site and eats several GB of memory.
The annoying part of Firefox is that development seems a bit stagnant in some areas, especially taking into consideration the amount of resources Mozilla has. For example, bookmarks and history still rely on a very old native UI that is quite clunky. Customization via user.js is too imperative and most options are largely undocumented.
My experience on Linux running on very old hardware (4th Gen Intel) is also good. Firefox feels quick and snappy. It uses a reasonable amount of resources, and has a relatively modest memory footprint by modern browser standards. In comparison, Chromium makes my fans spin on every site and eats several GB of memory.
The annoying part of Firefox is that development seems a bit stagnant in some areas, especially taking into consideration the amount of resources Mozilla has. For example, bookmarks and history still rely on a very old native UI that is quite clunky. Customization via user.js is too imperative and most options are largely undocumented.
And no standard way to configure extensions is something I feel they could spearhead. Ofc extensions can store state however it wants, but more often than not I'm quite fond of my extension settings.
eh, i prefer the bookmark and history library window over the sidebar
I've had various Firefox issues on Linux such as mysterious bad frame rate that I wasn't able to track down (despite toggling every feature related to gpu acceleration in about:flags), slow startup (which I found was due to some dbus configuration), and inability to print (apparmor blocked cups).
I'm certain people have issues, especially when you stick NVIDIA into the mix. I do always run rolling release software on "older"/well supported hardware with good drivers. (And I trust Firefox enough to not sandbox it though Flatpak or snaps)
It's just an anecdote, but I've had several FF issues on Windows, might be a timeline thing however.
It's just an anecdote, but I've had several FF issues on Windows, might be a timeline thing however.
Yes I hate how Ubuntu sandboxes firefox by default (even when you install it via apt, it secretly installs the snap instead). Terrible. I eventually had to use a PPA just to get firefox.
Also, Nvidia is non-negotiable due to performance requirements and local deep learning experiments. I think Nvidia has gotten a lot better lately, even Sway (Wayland window manager) works these days. Incidentally I think the bad firefox framerates were only on i3 and not on Sway.
Also, Nvidia is non-negotiable due to performance requirements and local deep learning experiments. I think Nvidia has gotten a lot better lately, even Sway (Wayland window manager) works these days. Incidentally I think the bad firefox framerates were only on i3 and not on Sway.
I'm docking my NVIDIA GPU with the vfio driver and have an Intel cheapest dGPU for my desktop.
Then i attach the NVIDIA GPU to either a Windows VM or a NixOS one for gaming or "work".
It takes space and PCIe lanes to do so however, so I run SATA6 drives still :)
But if you can splurge, having multiple GPUs isn't unreasonable, as "Postgrest" docs says(0): Use a collection of sharp tools rather than building a big ball of mud.
0: https://docs.postgrest.org/en/v13/index.html#one-thing-well
Then i attach the NVIDIA GPU to either a Windows VM or a NixOS one for gaming or "work".
It takes space and PCIe lanes to do so however, so I run SATA6 drives still :)
But if you can splurge, having multiple GPUs isn't unreasonable, as "Postgrest" docs says(0): Use a collection of sharp tools rather than building a big ball of mud.
0: https://docs.postgrest.org/en/v13/index.html#one-thing-well
I used to have both an AMD GPU and an Nvidia GPU and also dual boot Linux and Windows. But that is an incredible hassle. Nowadays, Nvidia on Linux works pretty well, and gaming on Linux on Steam often works flawlessly with one click, so it's more like a Swiss army knife rather than a big ball of mud.
I never dualboot, Linux runs my hardware. I just pass my NVIDIA GPU between different VMs.
I also wrote a little Python script that uses evdev to capture a numpad I bought and bind keys to different scripts that bind and unbind USB devices from my VMs for gaming.
I run sound though QEMU and pipewire and I get 45ms headphones to mic latency (measured with audacity) so slightly below 23ms latency. (I get essentially half doing the same measurement in Linux)
Virtualisation is a "out in the open" superpower.
I also wrote a little Python script that uses evdev to capture a numpad I bought and bind keys to different scripts that bind and unbind USB devices from my VMs for gaming.
I run sound though QEMU and pipewire and I get 45ms headphones to mic latency (measured with audacity) so slightly below 23ms latency. (I get essentially half doing the same measurement in Linux)
Virtualisation is a "out in the open" superpower.
Nvidia is really the one hurdle preventing me from fully embracing firefox-- I've had a lot of trouble getting hardware acceleration on Wayland with Nvidia drivers. At this point, I'm not sure if it's a configuration issue or if it doesn't work at all.
Debian? I noticed this too, switched from using LTS version to latest - much better. On arch, no FF issues at all.
What I've found recently is that Linux is surprisingly Firefox's achilles' heel. Canvas and WebGL run easily an order of magnitude slower than Chromium.
Check with https://webglsamples.org if you don't believe it. All of it runs capped at 60 fps on Chrome for me, Firefox struggles to break 30 on mid tier settings in aquarium and stutters horribly throughout most of them. I'm sure it's fast at loading static sites, but I wouldn't ever use it to run any web app. On Windows they're both the same though, which is weird to me.
Check with https://webglsamples.org if you don't believe it. All of it runs capped at 60 fps on Chrome for me, Firefox struggles to break 30 on mid tier settings in aquarium and stutters horribly throughout most of them. I'm sure it's fast at loading static sites, but I wouldn't ever use it to run any web app. On Windows they're both the same though, which is weird to me.
I'll test it when I get home, I'm really curious, I've not noticed a slowdown, I am using Arch so I'm not sure if that makes a meaningful difference.
thanks for the benchmark tip. FWIW, firefox 140.0.4 on Fedora 42 runs pretty much all tests at 60 fps or therebouts.
I note that the GitHub org has two public members, one of which is from Google: https://github.com/orgs/WebGLSamples/people
Google's been doing advocacy where they do things that either only work on Chrome or just magically works faster there, for a very long time.
Google's been doing advocacy where they do things that either only work on Chrome or just magically works faster there, for a very long time.
I didn't believe it and after trying those samples, I still don't. All of them run flawlessly for me on FF 104.0.4 on an up-to-date Arch install on my laptop.
Wayland or X11? I'm on Kubuntu and from what I remember reading a while back it may be Firefox using something native on X11 that Chrome rolls its own thing for, but I may be misremembering.
Also not seeing any issues, on Firefox 140.0.1 (via Flatpak) on Aeon (GNOME, Wayland). Everything's at my screen's native 165fps (except for the very first aquarium demo, which bottoms out at around 45fps with the maximum number of fish).
I've tried perhaps one third of the samples. All of them ran in 120 fps in 3840x2160 px in Firefox on Linux on my machine. Perhaps it is a configuration problem. My screen has a 120 fps refresh rate, so it probably is capped there.
I've been using Firefox since it was called Firebird, and Linux has always been a 2nd zone citizen.
Most Mozilla developers are on Mac, most users are on Windows, so Linux have never been the focus.
Most Mozilla developers are on Mac, most users are on Windows, so Linux have never been the focus.
Linux should be the focus. Windows Recall is a hell-to-the-no for me, and then having to have 'cloud accounts' to log in on desktops should be demonized. "Oh but you can just run brew for all your .." -- No, no I can't.
FF, being a pioneer of privacy (not anymore, with anonym adds): Go to Settings -> type 'advert', turn that off. FF, being a major player in FOSS, and community (irc.mozilla.org etc), now I think they do matrix
Should get their priorities straight. To me, it isn't about market share, but Linux just reached 5% market share in the US https://ostechnix.com/linux-reaches-5-desktop-market-share-i...
Valve sponsors Arch Linux https://www.pcguide.com/news/valve-officially-sponsors-arch-...
I just switched to LibreFox, which is Firefox without all the extra junk it peddles.
We'd think, by now, with video games having advanced crazy rendering engines, AI dark magic, that browsers would have it together by now.
They don't.
FF, being a pioneer of privacy (not anymore, with anonym adds): Go to Settings -> type 'advert', turn that off. FF, being a major player in FOSS, and community (irc.mozilla.org etc), now I think they do matrix
Should get their priorities straight. To me, it isn't about market share, but Linux just reached 5% market share in the US https://ostechnix.com/linux-reaches-5-desktop-market-share-i...
Valve sponsors Arch Linux https://www.pcguide.com/news/valve-officially-sponsors-arch-...
I just switched to LibreFox, which is Firefox without all the extra junk it peddles.
We'd think, by now, with video games having advanced crazy rendering engines, AI dark magic, that browsers would have it together by now.
They don't.
Many Firefox devs are on Linux; however note that not many Firefox users are on Linux (mostly because desktop Linux has a much much smaller userbase than Windows or Mac). About 4% are Linux, looks like 8-10% Mac, the rest Windows:
https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/hardware
The recently work with DMABUF on Linux might help a lot of things get faster.
I ran some of these in comparison with Chrome, and Chrome was consistently faster, but only marginally (1-20%). I'm actually quite impressed, an integrated Intel HD 620 / 4x2.4 GHz (!) rendering 10,000 fishes at 30 FPS in a webbrowser.
For reference my numbers are for an RTX 4070, Firefox has no excuse for not being able to crack 60 fps on a demo that looks like it's from the late 2000s in terms of graphics.
Sounds like hardware acceleration isnt working?
I'm running Gazebo at 10 times realtime and inference through cuda, trust me it's working. If Firefox doesn't take advantage of it that's its problem. I've enabled every config setting for acceleration I could find.
Is it possible your os is handing it your integrated gfx on cpu instead of your GPU?
Isn't the fps capping? I'm pretty confident it is because it won't go above that on my system even when I do a trivial number of fish and my monitor maxes out at 60fps...
The literal visual aesthetics aren't really important for the test. You could place some nicer shaders and it wouldn't necessarily change the compute load. Hell, it could just be highly unoptimized. Benchmarks are mostly about having something static to test, not making something visually pleasing.
> on a demo that looks like it's from the late 2000
The literal visual aesthetics aren't really important for the test. You could place some nicer shaders and it wouldn't necessarily change the compute load. Hell, it could just be highly unoptimized. Benchmarks are mostly about having something static to test, not making something visually pleasing.
I'm half kidding, it's entirely possible to overload any GPU with too many draw calls with the end result not looking like much. These fish would run reasonably well on something from that era though I'm sure, it's no GTA San Andreas.
But no it's not capped at 30, it jumps to like 33, 34 sometimes with those settings, it's capped to 60 like Chrome as well. Probably vsync.
But no it's not capped at 30, it jumps to like 33, 34 sometimes with those settings, it's capped to 60 like Chrome as well. Probably vsync.
You said 60 before so thats why I thought it was capped. Which matches what I'm seeing when I run the tests as well as others
Is your screen 60Hz? Game loops are normally using requestAnimationFrame [0], which is capped at refresh rate of your display
[0]https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/requ...
[0]https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Window/requ...
Try indexeddb. Apparently Firefox is faster than Chrome in recent years when it comes to putting items into a database, but my experience with multi-gigabyte databases (the database contains image blobs and metadata for use as a local webapp) is that chrome is far faster than Firefox. I'd rather use Firefox sure to increased indexeddb limits (for mobile devices with limited storage), but it's just that much slower. I have a chrome-based browser installed on my phone just for PWA use.
Hmm that might also be contributing to dogshit Firefox performance on a web app of mine, I'm using that to store and fetch map tiles. Though that's all async so it shouldn't really matter in terms of rendering aside from having to wait a bit longer to retrieve.
But it already lags like fuck even without that part running or anything much at all, while being buttersmooth on Chrome almost regardless of how much I load up rendering. It infuriates me to hell because there is no optimization I can make to get equal or even usable performance.
But it already lags like fuck even without that part running or anything much at all, while being buttersmooth on Chrome almost regardless of how much I load up rendering. It infuriates me to hell because there is no optimization I can make to get equal or even usable performance.
What's the webapp? Can you file a bug in Bugzilla in Core::Performance with steps to reproduce?
Can you take a profile? https://profiler.firefox.com You can attach it to the bug, or drop it in #perf on https://chat.mozilla.org (Matrix)
Can you take a profile? https://profiler.firefox.com You can attach it to the bug, or drop it in #perf on https://chat.mozilla.org (Matrix)
I'm having a different experience.
I get a bit worse on my M2 Macbook Air (128 tabs), but pretty close results.
Maybe you need to open more tabs?
Aquarium: 60fps until 20k fish, where I hit 50fps. 30k at 34fps
Blobs: maxed out resolution and number of blobs, still 60fps
Field: 60fps at "lots"
Fishtank: 60fps with 1k fish and sharks
Spacerocks: 60fps on lots
Sprites: 60fps on 10k
I get a bit worse on my M2 Macbook Air (128 tabs), but pretty close results.
Maybe you need to open more tabs?
Adding some data points to the sibling comments:
Linux Mint 22 (X11 + Cinnamon)
Firefox 139.0.4
Integrated Graphics (AMD Ryzen 7 5800U)
At 1440p 60Hz monitor, every test that listed FPS showed 60fps, and all others looked the same level of smoothness as Chrome.
Linux Mint 22 (X11 + Cinnamon)
Firefox 139.0.4
Integrated Graphics (AMD Ryzen 7 5800U)
At 1440p 60Hz monitor, every test that listed FPS showed 60fps, and all others looked the same level of smoothness as Chrome.
Displaying the window early is more than a trick, it's a properly better user experience.
>I've never felt impeded by loading speeds
I honestly think it's just something people here like to complain about. It's a complete non-issue. No everyday web experience is even close to being noticeably different. Full stop. It's almost like a meme, people say it because they think they should say it. I would ask those people that are complaining, what are you doing with all those extra milliseconds you claim you're saving?
I honestly think it's just something people here like to complain about. It's a complete non-issue. No everyday web experience is even close to being noticeably different. Full stop. It's almost like a meme, people say it because they think they should say it. I would ask those people that are complaining, what are you doing with all those extra milliseconds you claim you're saving?
> what are you doing with all those extra milliseconds you claim you're saving?
Watching more ads.
Watching more ads.
When you have web pages that that completely freeze the Firefox browser but work smoothly on Chrome, you won't call it non-issue.
This doesn't seem to happen to me anymore, certainly not since Quantum. Your experience may obviously differ. I've been running FF for like twenty years now, across Windows, Linux and Mac.
I don't know why I should lower my browsing standards to a Chrome experience because a small percentage of websites work poorly in Firefox. My password manager works in all browsers so I have Chrome with only PW manager and uBlock Lite so I can use it for the ONE website I use that doesn't work in FF.
I don't think it's frustrating to press Ctrl+L, Ctrl+C, $launcher-bind(Meta+D), Ctrl+L, Ctrl+V, Enter to open another browser.
My average experience is a lot better with Firefox and that's what I optimize for.
I don't think it's frustrating to press Ctrl+L, Ctrl+C, $launcher-bind(Meta+D), Ctrl+L, Ctrl+V, Enter to open another browser.
My average experience is a lot better with Firefox and that's what I optimize for.
I have been on Firefox for some years now on Mac, Linux, Windows, and Android. Last year the IRS website had some issues, but that seems to be resolved. Otherwise, I've had zero breakages that cone to mind. I use ublock origin, and pivacy badger, and a few other extensions. I wonder if sometimes the issues people experience with firefox are actually caused from their extensions???
If you haven't used Firefox in a minute, I recommend trying it oht again.
If you haven't used Firefox in a minute, I recommend trying it oht again.
Name one.
Youtube will after a while.
I use youtube a worrying amount, all through firefox (and I am also an ADHD 1000 tabs open person), and I have never had this experience across multiple computers.
Youtube freezes for me on Windows with Firefox. Sometimes it freezes the whole browser so added a rule to block it in uBo and use another browser for it (which also helps me reduce my time on youtube thanks to the added friction). I don't know if its an issue with my specific hardware or what. In Mac and Linux (different PC) it works fine.
You're using an add-on that blocks core functionality. That is not Firefox's fault.
I'm blocking it to avoid it freezing the browser. Before I blocked it, it froze the browser.
You need to keep the same youtube tab open and navigate the website a considerable amount on it for it to occur. I use the same tabs repeatedly, and by the end of the day I get an incredibly sluggish site. Not the end of the world, since I just close the tab and start a new one, but it does exist.
Firefox has had documented issues with youtube for the better part of a decade at least.
Firefox has had documented issues with youtube for the better part of a decade at least.
Google is known to sabotage non-Chrome browsers and ad-blockers on YouTube, accidentally on purpose at every chance it can get. That's hardly Firefox's fault.
2014: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8606879
2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10877810
2018: https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/91i0mc/youtube...
2018: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18697824
2019: https://archive.is/tgIH9
2019: https://www.thurrott.com/google/207371/google-now-forces-mic...
2020: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22422522
2023: https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/17z8hsz/youtube_ha...
2024: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41379517
2024: https://xcancel.com/brave/status/1870172541907550496
2025: Whatever you're referring to.
2014: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8606879
2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10877810
2018: https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/91i0mc/youtube...
2018: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18697824
2019: https://archive.is/tgIH9
2019: https://www.thurrott.com/google/207371/google-now-forces-mic...
2020: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22422522
2023: https://old.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/17z8hsz/youtube_ha...
2024: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41379517
2024: https://xcancel.com/brave/status/1870172541907550496
2025: Whatever you're referring to.
Lets see one then
I can't answer your question directly, as I haven't experienced Firefox problems in a few years. In the past, I experienced regular hangs and crashes.
There are a few point to unpacck here:
There are a few point to unpacck here:
- Qualifying a statement with "Full stop" is a thought-terminating cliche.
- Due to the different hardware, operating systems, and use cases people have, peoples' experience, and the problems they encounter vary between users of PC software.
- Milliseconds as overhead to startup may be irrelevant. Ms in most computing contexts is a timescale to be concerned with, as it's relevant for latency, cumulative operations, and responsiveness.This isn't "most computing contexts", so that point is irrelevant. You've already admitted the point "may be" irrelevant (it is), so why bring it up.
> - Qualifying a statement with "Full stop" is a thought-terminating cliche.
Yeah, well I like it. Full stop.
Yeah, well I like it. Full stop.
I've used Firefox with on Windows, iOS, and various linux distributions with absolutely no day to day issues.
Yes, it's the Firefox version of Python's GIL.
> Much of what we said about Web Extensions support on desktop Orion stands, with further limitations in the scope of APIs we can support which are imposed by Apple. This results in a smaller number of extensions that are currently fully functional on iOS and iPadOS.
This seems to say they do not expect to actually get to full coverage on iOS like the author is talking about? https://help.kagi.com/orion/browser-extensions/ios-ipados-ex...
This seems to say they do not expect to actually get to full coverage on iOS like the author is talking about? https://help.kagi.com/orion/browser-extensions/ios-ipados-ex...
I was surprised to hit this one today. Government department, supporting exactly one browser on most people's main device.
https://www.ato.gov.au/online-services/technical-support/min...
https://www.ato.gov.au/online-services/technical-support/min...
> there's occasionally sites that have bugs because, like was the case in the 90s with Internet Explorer
Hol up! Are you saying Chrome is the new Internet Explorer?
I'm being facetious...
If so, then I agree. I have said and thought for a long time a lot of developers go all-in with everything google as if google could do no wrong. In short, they have become that which they swore to destroy.
Hol up! Are you saying Chrome is the new Internet Explorer?
I'm being facetious...
If so, then I agree. I have said and thought for a long time a lot of developers go all-in with everything google as if google could do no wrong. In short, they have become that which they swore to destroy.
I will say that it is amusing that loading speeds is the argument for sticking with Chrome. Chrome loads faster so that you can see all of those ads faster and have to take the time to close each one of them, hehe!
If the slop doesn't bother you, stick with Chrome. Plenty of people still watch network/cable TV.
If the slop doesn't bother you, stick with Chrome. Plenty of people still watch network/cable TV.
Same, no problems here, in the almost 20 years I've been using it.
Whenever I've used Chrome I find it weird and annoying. Which just goes to show it's all down to what you're used to.
If people would just try switching they'd find it normal in just a week or so. Are you really going to let Google control your computing just because you can't stand the very mild discomfort associated with change?
Whenever I've used Chrome I find it weird and annoying. Which just goes to show it's all down to what you're used to.
If people would just try switching they'd find it normal in just a week or so. Are you really going to let Google control your computing just because you can't stand the very mild discomfort associated with change?
>Are you really going to let Google control your computing just because you can't stand the very mild discomfort associated with change?
Exactly that's the big picture question and I find it mind-boggling when when people can't look past an idiosyncratic user experience to more fundamental things like Google seizing long-term control over web standards, getting rid of ad block, imposing DRM, and creating a paradigm or even its own competitors are increasingly dependent on Chromium development.
Exactly that's the big picture question and I find it mind-boggling when when people can't look past an idiosyncratic user experience to more fundamental things like Google seizing long-term control over web standards, getting rid of ad block, imposing DRM, and creating a paradigm or even its own competitors are increasingly dependent on Chromium development.
> there's occasionally sites that have bugs because [...people build for Chrome...]
I hear that a lot, but when I tried Firefox for a couple of months I only found that in a single case[1]. It's really not something that happened to me at all. I did encounter issues with ad blockers breaking sites. Disabling uBO helps quite often on misbehaving sites, but it does so on Chrome as well.
> I am surprised how many people have so many problems with Firefox.
I'm not really. Nor am I surprised it works for you and others. It has been this way with Firefox for all of its 20+ years of existence. In its history it made one big leap in that, somewhat ironically given current affairs, when they removed XUL extensions.
But Firefox has always had weird, unexplainable and unreproducible failure scenarios. Some of that is because of its customizability, but also nobody really cares about it.[2] The standard advice of "throw away your profile and try again" is a huge fuck you to users. 1) People have spend time customizing their browser and throwing that away hurts. 2) It doesn't help anybody. If it's still broken you know nothing, and if it isn't you still don't know what caused it.
I guess that was okay in 2004. Lots of software had weird bugs. Nowadays the competition is much more stable.
For me, I dropped Firefox again after a couple of months fighting to get a stable sync working.[3] It just kept failing on Android. The only resolution was to log out and log back in again. Only for it to break in the next couple of hours. I did the "commit profile suicide and rebirth" thing without a solution.
Chrome's sync at least is very stable. Sometimes it falls an hour or so behind. Not good, but so much better than Firefox.
[1] And that was intentional. Typical Google assholery. Google Photos added (adds?) extra HTML to block right-click on photos when a Firefox User-Agent was used. Using a UA switcher extension "solved" it.
[2] Makers of software for power users so often forget to give power users the tools to investigate issues themselves. It's great you allow me to add so many extensions, how about a detailed log to see which is misbehaving?
[3] Firefox's sync also has fewer features. Bookmarks don't get synced, nor do extension settings.
I hear that a lot, but when I tried Firefox for a couple of months I only found that in a single case[1]. It's really not something that happened to me at all. I did encounter issues with ad blockers breaking sites. Disabling uBO helps quite often on misbehaving sites, but it does so on Chrome as well.
> I am surprised how many people have so many problems with Firefox.
I'm not really. Nor am I surprised it works for you and others. It has been this way with Firefox for all of its 20+ years of existence. In its history it made one big leap in that, somewhat ironically given current affairs, when they removed XUL extensions.
But Firefox has always had weird, unexplainable and unreproducible failure scenarios. Some of that is because of its customizability, but also nobody really cares about it.[2] The standard advice of "throw away your profile and try again" is a huge fuck you to users. 1) People have spend time customizing their browser and throwing that away hurts. 2) It doesn't help anybody. If it's still broken you know nothing, and if it isn't you still don't know what caused it.
I guess that was okay in 2004. Lots of software had weird bugs. Nowadays the competition is much more stable.
For me, I dropped Firefox again after a couple of months fighting to get a stable sync working.[3] It just kept failing on Android. The only resolution was to log out and log back in again. Only for it to break in the next couple of hours. I did the "commit profile suicide and rebirth" thing without a solution.
Chrome's sync at least is very stable. Sometimes it falls an hour or so behind. Not good, but so much better than Firefox.
[1] And that was intentional. Typical Google assholery. Google Photos added (adds?) extra HTML to block right-click on photos when a Firefox User-Agent was used. Using a UA switcher extension "solved" it.
[2] Makers of software for power users so often forget to give power users the tools to investigate issues themselves. It's great you allow me to add so many extensions, how about a detailed log to see which is misbehaving?
[3] Firefox's sync also has fewer features. Bookmarks don't get synced, nor do extension settings.
> Bookmarks don't get synced,
*Search engines. Bookmark sync works fine.
*Search engines. Bookmark sync works fine.
Compatibility bugs are rare but definitely occur. If a key component of your workflow has bugs it can be hugely inconvenient. For example Slack Huddles blocks Firefox Firefox, if your team uses them regularly it is a big productivity loss.
It is also very annoying when the first step of every troubleshooting process is "Try using Google Chrome" and if it works the consider your problem solved.
It is also very annoying when the first step of every troubleshooting process is "Try using Google Chrome" and if it works the consider your problem solved.
Bookmarks definitely sync with Firefox sync. I have the same bookmarks on all of my devices.
Extension settings can sync, I don't know exactly if it is opt-in or opt-out but some extensions do sync on desktop. The mobile situation is definitely different, mobile doesn't sync to desktop. I don't know if different mobile devices sync with each other (I only have one).
Extension settings can sync, I don't know exactly if it is opt-in or opt-out but some extensions do sync on desktop. The mobile situation is definitely different, mobile doesn't sync to desktop. I don't know if different mobile devices sync with each other (I only have one).
> Bookmarks definitely sync
Yeah, I meant search engines. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44647014
> Extension settings can sync, I don't know exactly if it is opt-in or opt-out but some extensions do sync on desktop.
I mostly tried with uBO. Couldn't get it to work.
Yeah, I meant search engines. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44647014
> Extension settings can sync, I don't know exactly if it is opt-in or opt-out but some extensions do sync on desktop.
I mostly tried with uBO. Couldn't get it to work.
Yeah, search engines don't which is annoying and confusing. However on desktop you can use keyword bookmarks which offer basically the same functionality and do sync.
uBlock Origin does it's own weird thing where you need to trigger the sync in the settings interface. I don't think you can blame Firefox for this UX choice.
uBlock Origin does it's own weird thing where you need to trigger the sync in the settings interface. I don't think you can blame Firefox for this UX choice.
> However on desktop you can use keyword bookmarks which offer basically the same functionality and do sync.
Search engines can have completion; keyword bookmarks can't. Most search engines don't support it, but some do.
> uBlock Origin does it's own weird thing where you need to trigger the sync in the settings interface. I don't think you can blame Firefox for this UX choice.
It made the same choice in Chrome, so I was familiar with that. It works there, it doesn't work on Firefox. I think it's fair to put that on Firefox.
Search engines can have completion; keyword bookmarks can't. Most search engines don't support it, but some do.
> uBlock Origin does it's own weird thing where you need to trigger the sync in the settings interface. I don't think you can blame Firefox for this UX choice.
It made the same choice in Chrome, so I was familiar with that. It works there, it doesn't work on Firefox. I think it's fair to put that on Firefox.
I can't remember the last time something truly annoying happened, but I just ran into it demo'ing a few of the newer vibey low-code app builders, which warned me to be using a Chromium build because of how they built their tool, e.g. Bolt
100 tabs? Step aside, buddy. I have currently around ~2000 tabs. Firefox is a beast.
I was in your boat up until a few days ago, when it randomly decided in wouldn't load properly. I force quit it, and then it forgot all my tabs. Now, it actually remembered what seemed like the correct number of tabs, each with the correct container, only the address was gone from every tab!
Other than that, it works well enough for me. My only beef is I can't completely disable tabs, but I don't know of any equivalent browser that can.
Other than that, it works well enough for me. My only beef is I can't completely disable tabs, but I don't know of any equivalent browser that can.
Are you on Linux?
In any case there should have been a List of Tabs backup file ( cant remember what is was called ) and you can manually replace it to recover your Tabs.
"About:unloads" allows you to manually unload all tabs.
In any case there should have been a List of Tabs backup file ( cant remember what is was called ) and you can manually replace it to recover your Tabs.
"About:unloads" allows you to manually unload all tabs.
> My only beef is I can't completely disable tabs, but I don't know of any equivalent browser that can.
There is an addon[1] that allows you to discard tabs both manually and with a degree of automation. I've been using it for a while and it works quite well.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/auto-tab-disc...
There is an addon[1] that allows you to discard tabs both manually and with a degree of automation. I've been using it for a while and it works quite well.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/auto-tab-disc...
Oh, I wasn't talking about "unloading" tabs, but about completely disabling the tabs ui feature. By that I mean always create a new window instead of a tab.
I am a heavy user of firefox and I am still unhappy with mozillas policy.
* Firefox-Hello is a easy to pick example of a broken service run by a 3rd party being imposed on users.
* Pocket is another service I never asked for.
* Instead of focusing on the browser, mozilla puts their effort into an English language database.
It appears to me mozilla does not understand their target audience.
Recently I tried to customize firefox for screen recording and ran into lots of outdated documentation about userChrome.css
* Firefox-Hello is a easy to pick example of a broken service run by a 3rd party being imposed on users.
* Pocket is another service I never asked for.
* Instead of focusing on the browser, mozilla puts their effort into an English language database.
It appears to me mozilla does not understand their target audience.
Recently I tried to customize firefox for screen recording and ran into lots of outdated documentation about userChrome.css
Pocket is shutting down soon and fresh Firefox installs don't install its extension any more.
Which kinda makes sense. It was actually cool when it could save webpages for later reading offline (camping, airplane). Once it lost that feature, there's nothing left but bookmarks.
This is the most disappointing part for me—Pocket could sync with Kobo e-readers for offline, e-paper reading later. Great for traveling.
I have been using the extension SingleFile to save pages for offline reading and archival for ages. I started using it on the basis of reading something online and later talk to someone about it and when i try to find it again, it may be gone, dont find it, etc. So i started to save all the relevant pages to have a local reference of what i have read online.
What is the reason for criticizing Mozilla for integrating a new feature into their browser? Or am I misunderstanding the term feature, and Pocket isn't a feature for you? I mean, other browsers like Chrome have similar functionality.
Mozilla does a lot of projects that I don’t really understand, but I also don’t really see anything wrong with the browser.
The problem with the Internet is that people keep coming up with new standards and sites keep getting infected by JavaScript. Firefox itself has been fine for ages, it is just connecting us to something that gets shittier every day.
The problem with the Internet is that people keep coming up with new standards and sites keep getting infected by JavaScript. Firefox itself has been fine for ages, it is just connecting us to something that gets shittier every day.
Where does the article mention anything about loading speed?
My take is that Firefox is not very effective at marketing. For example, Chrome publishes articles like 'Chrome achieves highest score ever on Speedometer' (2024) [1]. I haven't found similar articles or any reliable scores for Firefox. Some computer magazines suggest that Firefox is in second place after Chrome in running Speedometer 3. For me, at least, it's hard to find any specific numbers. Also, it's important to note that Speedometer is a browser benchmark test developed by WebKit, Firefox, and Chrome.
Also, i don't understand why people prefer google over open source. And the sometimes disrespectful and destructive criticism of Mozilla.
[1] https://blog.chromium.org/2025/06/chrome-achieves-highest-sc...
Also, i don't understand why people prefer google over open source. And the sometimes disrespectful and destructive criticism of Mozilla.
[1] https://blog.chromium.org/2025/06/chrome-achieves-highest-sc...
Mozilla does sometimes. For instance 'Quick as a Fox: Firefox keeps getting faster'[2] from 2023 and the related articles in Mozilla Hacks[2]. They used to do that a lot more when Quantum was all the hype and had some marketing performance comparison[3] with Chrome a long time back. Recently, it feels like Mozilla is dropping that type of marketing to focus on the image of privacy and talk about some features.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/uncategorized/quick-as-a-fox-fir...
[2] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2023/10/down-and-to-the-right-fire...
[3] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/firefox-private-browsing...
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/uncategorized/quick-as-a-fox-fir...
[2] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2023/10/down-and-to-the-right-fire...
[3] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/firefox-private-browsing...
Interestingly I did much worse on my Linux FF (13.6) on Speedometer3.1[0] than my M2 Air (29.6), though for the WebGL benchmarks from above the Linux machine (which has significantly more compute power) has no problems with the WebGL tests and the Air does worse. Backbone and jQuery were real killers for the Linux machine. Looks to be mostly Adding100Items for Backbone and literally everything for jQuery was half a magnitude slower.
But what I don't get is the passionate hate and how the result often ends up being contradictory. Like complaining about FF with that Mr Robot thing (yeah, bad move) and then saying that's why they use Chrome (or some Chromium based browser). It feels like calling someone an idiot for falling face first into dog shit while you're sitting in a jacuzzi full of it. Yeah, both situations are shitty, but come on... there's a lot more shit in one of these...
[0] https://browserbench.org/Speedometer3.1
> Also, i don't understand why people prefer google over open source. And the sometimes disrespectful and destructive criticism of Mozilla.
But what I don't get is the passionate hate and how the result often ends up being contradictory. Like complaining about FF with that Mr Robot thing (yeah, bad move) and then saying that's why they use Chrome (or some Chromium based browser). It feels like calling someone an idiot for falling face first into dog shit while you're sitting in a jacuzzi full of it. Yeah, both situations are shitty, but come on... there's a lot more shit in one of these...
[0] https://browserbench.org/Speedometer3.1
I use Firefox and Chrome to separate work from personal, and I can tell you that I have to close and restart Firefox at least once a day due to spinning fans and crawling performance, whereas with Chrome it's about once a week.
Since we're sharing our respective anecdotes your experience, interestingly mirrors mine in that I do the same thing for work. Microsoft Edge for work tasks (not my choice but the IT team remotely manages the bookmarks on that one), Firefox for personal. But no issues with speed or needing to shut things down just on an ordinary Lenovo laptop.
For another anecdotal experience, I use both in the same way and never have to restart neither of them until they ask to restart because of updates. Chrome asks much more often.
I just switched from Firefox to Chromium and it is much faster. I switch back and forth.
I half suspect w/ UBO, any Firefox slowdowns would still beat Chrome with ads. I personally haven't had issues, I do actually use safari as my main (Mac user), but Firefox gets a lot of use on my Mac and PC and it hasn't been noticeably slower than chrome for me.
> 100+ tabs open across multiple desktops. My wimply little MacBook Pro doesn't seem to mind.
There's a bug on Linux where background windows continue rendering, even if they're in an inactive workspace or not visible in any other way. This really hits performance, but it doesn't seem to be fixable due to some limitation on GTK3.
If I hide/resize my system status-bar, every single window gets resized to match the new available screen space. Firefox re-renders all content in all windows, causing multiple CPUs to spike to 100%.
See: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1880467
In fact, there are a lot of bugs which are basically "unfixable due to limitations in GTK3". So the experience is likely quite different that on other platforms.
Regrettably, there don't seem to by any plans to move away from GTK in future.
There's a bug on Linux where background windows continue rendering, even if they're in an inactive workspace or not visible in any other way. This really hits performance, but it doesn't seem to be fixable due to some limitation on GTK3.
If I hide/resize my system status-bar, every single window gets resized to match the new available screen space. Firefox re-renders all content in all windows, causing multiple CPUs to spike to 100%.
See: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1880467
In fact, there are a lot of bugs which are basically "unfixable due to limitations in GTK3". So the experience is likely quite different that on other platforms.
Regrettably, there don't seem to by any plans to move away from GTK in future.
Just an idea. In my SwayWM setup, a) I run every application in its own cgroup (via systemd-run), and b) I have a daemon that subscribes to window and workspace events, gets the current tree, figures out the PIDs corresponding to invisible vs visible windows, figures out the cgroups corresponding to those PIDs, and then uses cgroup freezer file to freeze / unfreeze them. Other than a few hard-coded exceptions that I want to run while invisible (IRC client etc), any invisible application is transparently frozen and unfrozen.
For "single-instance applications" like firefox, launching a new firefox while the existing one is frozen will hang, so instead of launching /usr/bin/firefox directory I have an intermediate ~/.local/bin/firefox script that unfreezes the firefox cgroup and then exec's /usr/bin/firefox.
Of course if at least one FF window is visible then this doesn't help with your problem, since the cgroup as a whole will be unfrozen. It only helps if none of the FF windows are visible.
For "single-instance applications" like firefox, launching a new firefox while the existing one is frozen will hang, so instead of launching /usr/bin/firefox directory I have an intermediate ~/.local/bin/firefox script that unfreezes the firefox cgroup and then exec's /usr/bin/firefox.
Of course if at least one FF window is visible then this doesn't help with your problem, since the cgroup as a whole will be unfrozen. It only helps if none of the FF windows are visible.
I can't seem to reproduce any CPU spikes on my end when repeatedly hiding/unhiding various GNOME toolbars (top or bottom).
> my ADHD regularly has me forgetting to restart it, to the tune of 100+ tabs open across multiple desktops.
My Linux desktop is hooked up to my TV[0] and currently has over 100 YouTube tabs open. I'm going to watch those math videos, I swear, I'm just tired right now and so want to watch garbage.
I do have ublock origin on both machines and some stricter privacy settings, maybe that's it? But otherwise yeah, FF is just as snappy as chrome. Which I do use regularly when on other people's machines.
[0] it's a movie server, gaming machine, and for everything else there's ssh and ydotool (I wish Apple would let me make better iPhone scripts than Shortcuts allows. Shortcuts makes me want to throw my phone against a wall...)
I stopped having the same issue of 100s of tabs of "math videos that I was going to watch one day" when I started saving them in my private playlists. Now I just have 100s of videos in playlists that I just look at longingly but never watch.
lol I tried that once.
What works best for me now is to do my best at putting tabs in the correct group tbh most gather while debugging and then I can just kill the group when I'm done.
Problem is the ADHD and groups get contaminated. Mostly a few casualties is actually fine but sometimes the group gets too mixed. Eventually I nuke it all
What works best for me now is to do my best at putting tabs in the correct group tbh most gather while debugging and then I can just kill the group when I'm done.
Problem is the ADHD and groups get contaminated. Mostly a few casualties is actually fine but sometimes the group gets too mixed. Eventually I nuke it all
There is only one website with a weird issue for me in Firefox: chatgpt.com of all things.
When I open it and start typing, it resets the cursor position to the beginning after I already typed a few words. I assume this is some Next weirdness which requires a hack that only happens to work in Chrome.
When I open it and start typing, it resets the cursor position to the beginning after I already typed a few words. I assume this is some Next weirdness which requires a hack that only happens to work in Chrome.
Every Firefox post has people claiming problems with it that are literally not true.
Or if true, extremely idiosyncratic. This thread is one of the more amazing case studies for people making blanket generalizations from problems that seem to be very specific to their setups and hard to reproduce elsewhere. I don't want to say the problems aren't happening, but there seems to be a wild overconfidence in generalizing from unusual case scenarios.
Of course it's not limited to Firefox. I think it happens with everything from people's first experiences of Mastodon, to people having random bad experiences on some particular Linux distribution to any number of other things.
I think to me the most have spending one I saw was people insisting F-Droid had problems that I could never reproduce when I was using it simultaneously across like four or five devices, including a pixel C tablet with lineage OS, and old Nexus 7 also with lineage OS, and two of my phones as I was in the process of transitioning from one to the other.
Of course it's not limited to Firefox. I think it happens with everything from people's first experiences of Mastodon, to people having random bad experiences on some particular Linux distribution to any number of other things.
I think to me the most have spending one I saw was people insisting F-Droid had problems that I could never reproduce when I was using it simultaneously across like four or five devices, including a pixel C tablet with lineage OS, and old Nexus 7 also with lineage OS, and two of my phones as I was in the process of transitioning from one to the other.
there's also a lot of straight up liars, to be clear
>the most have spending
Oops, meant to say most head spinning. Speech to text strikes again.
Oops, meant to say most head spinning. Speech to text strikes again.
100% agree. I've used FF since version 1.x, but I've used Chrome as a secondary at times, and I've had more problems in Chrome than FF. In fact, I've literally never experienced a bug in FF, except for, prior to and in the early days of the Servo Rust rewrite, I had a few crashes (tabs all reopened upon restarting). I haven't even had a crash in probably 8 years. Chrome is just spyware trash, IMHO.
Lots of Firefox hate here, but little discussion about the articles kicker, which is the exclusion of uBlock Origin from Chrome.
I hope this will mean that in the long run Firefox (and other secondary browsers) will gain more users again. For me, Firefox is a solid piece of software. Works well in strict privacy mode, with uBlock Origin and Multi-Account Containers.
I hope this will mean that in the long run Firefox (and other secondary browsers) will gain more users again. For me, Firefox is a solid piece of software. Works well in strict privacy mode, with uBlock Origin and Multi-Account Containers.
In the long run Alphabet will find a way to bar non-vetted browsers from accessing the Internet.
Perhaps, but I'm not giving up just yet.
Alphabet will definitely try to do that (within their business interest and all that), but I still choose to believe in the precept that “the net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it”, as old and outdated as that sounds.
A number of my privacy-minded friends choose a bi-modal approach: have two phones, one for work and one for personal. They don’t get the recent model (costing half as much), hold onto the old phone for as long as they can, use one phone for “required” apps (Okta, Slack, those websites that only work on Chrome…) and the personal phone for everything else.
As annoying as it is, i think that compartmentalized devices/accounts/apps are the only way forward.
A number of my privacy-minded friends choose a bi-modal approach: have two phones, one for work and one for personal. They don’t get the recent model (costing half as much), hold onto the old phone for as long as they can, use one phone for “required” apps (Okta, Slack, those websites that only work on Chrome…) and the personal phone for everything else.
As annoying as it is, i think that compartmentalized devices/accounts/apps are the only way forward.
Probably even non-vetted firmware-to-browser chains, by requiring boot attestation to open a TLS connection or something.
I'm dreading the day when this becomes required by the government...
With the ramping up of 18+ verification in Australia and now Europe (and South Korea and China already having such a programme for many years, including game time locks for young people), yeah.
It doesn't seem that big a leap to connect the dots from device attestation > web browser integrity > identity verification > verified web access
There is actually a relatively old game series of the 2000s called Bluesky Hacker Replay that has this as the core element of its worldbuilding. Governments and corporations became tired of the internet being overrun with spam, viruses, porn and cyberterrorism and decide to create an internet 2.0, tightly controlled by corporate interests. Hackers persist on the old 1.0 internet called the SwitchNet.
And really, when you think about it.. if you composed an internet solely from the big name social media, entertainment, work, food, news and knowledge services, running atop Cloudflare who verifies everyone via government ID, how many would really complain? 99% of their internet time is already spent inside that bubble.
It doesn't seem that big a leap to connect the dots from device attestation > web browser integrity > identity verification > verified web access
There is actually a relatively old game series of the 2000s called Bluesky Hacker Replay that has this as the core element of its worldbuilding. Governments and corporations became tired of the internet being overrun with spam, viruses, porn and cyberterrorism and decide to create an internet 2.0, tightly controlled by corporate interests. Hackers persist on the old 1.0 internet called the SwitchNet.
And really, when you think about it.. if you composed an internet solely from the big name social media, entertainment, work, food, news and knowledge services, running atop Cloudflare who verifies everyone via government ID, how many would really complain? 99% of their internet time is already spent inside that bubble.
The future is now (actually 2 years ago): https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/Web-Environment-In...
[deleted]
Hopefully in the slightly shorter run, they get broken up via anti trust.
Interestingly, I think if the Chrome browser gets spun off from Google, it might make sense for Google to have to make annual payments to support the development of Chrome like they do Firefox. Obviously being the default search in Chrome should have significant value worth paying for the same as Firefox and Safari. And it might be the most plausible economic model for Chrome if it's not being funded by Google.
Some of us want a different world and believe it's possible.
How would they do that?
Now we are talking! Let's see the required steps, not necessarily in this order:
1) create a dominant browser 2) create a dominant mobile OS 3) create a dominant e-mail service 4) create a dominant search engine 5) leverage each of these to make other solutions, especially open ones, difficult to use 6) make other browsers perform badly when interacting with your services 7) lock other browsers from accessing your services, effectively crippling them
There are some more minor steps, like making your main browser competitor dependent on your funding, but we can leave out the details. So we are now at... step 6?
1) create a dominant browser 2) create a dominant mobile OS 3) create a dominant e-mail service 4) create a dominant search engine 5) leverage each of these to make other solutions, especially open ones, difficult to use 6) make other browsers perform badly when interacting with your services 7) lock other browsers from accessing your services, effectively crippling them
There are some more minor steps, like making your main browser competitor dependent on your funding, but we can leave out the details. So we are now at... step 6?
They will try, but anti-trust laws and -lawsuits should compel them otherwise. Microsoft had to pay hundreds of millions in fines to the EU for not complying with a previous browser choice order [0], following previous lawsuits in the US about their tight coupling of Internet Explorer [1] in which they settled for $1 billion. Google has to pay a fine in excess of 4 billion (!) to the EU for anti-competitive practices in Android [2].
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_13_...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Google...
[0] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_13_...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust_cases_against_Google...
This does raise a very interesting point though in my opinion. There's been some debate about whether Google should be compelled to sell off its chromium browser, but I wonder if it makes more sense to spin off Google's various attempts at boning internet infrastructure such as AMP and 8.8.8.8.
I guess AMP is being wound down but it was a play for shifting more of the Internet onto Google infrastructure.
I guess AMP is being wound down but it was a play for shifting more of the Internet onto Google infrastructure.
Multi-Account Containers is a major feature I can't sing the praises for enough. I use it all the time, both to isolate stuff to break cookie tracking, and to enable me to log into things with two different accounts without opening a separate browser, which happens more often than I'd have thought.
When I was doing IT support for ~50 SMBs I was using multi account containers + temporary locations ALL THE TIME to log into customer accounts in various places, now I don't really have the usecase but the addons are still there for the rare occasion.
> both to isolate stuff to break cookie tracking
You don't need containers for this: https://total-cookie-protection-test.netlify.app/
You don't need containers for this: https://total-cookie-protection-test.netlify.app/
There's a few pain points with containers; whenever I'm browsing in a container tab, I wish CMD-T opened a new container tab, not my default tab. I haven't been able to find a setting for this :/
I also wish there were more keyboard shortcuts for opening links in specific containers, or re-opening a current tab in a different one.
I know you can set certain domains to always open in certain containers - fine for Facebook, when I occasionally have to use it - but annoying when I'm trying to do things in different (e.g.) Bluesky accounts.
I also wish there were more keyboard shortcuts for opening links in specific containers, or re-opening a current tab in a different one.
I know you can set certain domains to always open in certain containers - fine for Facebook, when I occasionally have to use it - but annoying when I'm trying to do things in different (e.g.) Bluesky accounts.
> I also wish there were more keyboard shortcuts for opening links in specific containers, or re-opening a current tab in a different one.
fwiw, there are add-ons that allow you to do this - in one way or the other (Container Hotkeys https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container-hot... for example).
but out of curiosity,
> I know you can set certain domains to always open in certain containers - fine for Facebook, when I occasionally have to use it - but annoying when I'm trying to do things in different (e.g.) Bluesky accounts.
on this one btw, the Containerise extension i talk about (if it wasn't clear) allows you to also map "portions" of the url in specific containers. so /u/0 in one /u/1 in another; ofc, this requires the service/website to distinguish the accounts via the url. i do this for github a lot (work repos in specific containers)
fwiw, there are add-ons that allow you to do this - in one way or the other (Container Hotkeys https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container-hot... for example).
but out of curiosity,
> I know you can set certain domains to always open in certain containers - fine for Facebook, when I occasionally have to use it - but annoying when I'm trying to do things in different (e.g.) Bluesky accounts.
on this one btw, the Containerise extension i talk about (if it wasn't clear) allows you to also map "portions" of the url in specific containers. so /u/0 in one /u/1 in another; ofc, this requires the service/website to distinguish the accounts via the url. i do this for github a lot (work repos in specific containers)
Very cool, thank you - I'll check out the hotkeys add-on!
The other extension won't work for me, mostly - for example, Bluesky doesn't give me different URLs depending on who I'm logged in as. (Which is the correct thing to do, but it does make my life slightly harder. :/)
edit: oh, nevermind. It looks like it adds a single hotkey to open a new tab in a single, specified container. I was at least hoping the hotkey would work by opening a new tab in the same container I'm in currently :/
The other extension won't work for me, mostly - for example, Bluesky doesn't give me different URLs depending on who I'm logged in as. (Which is the correct thing to do, but it does make my life slightly harder. :/)
edit: oh, nevermind. It looks like it adds a single hotkey to open a new tab in a single, specified container. I was at least hoping the hotkey would work by opening a new tab in the same container I'm in currently :/
Not having subdomains work for container assignments is a baffling design decision. It's a well-known issue and oft-requested feature that the devs seemingly have no plan to fix. It's incredibly frustrating.
> whenever I'm browsing in a container tab, I wish CMD-T opened a new container tab
Not exactly what you're looking for, but Temporary Containers (no longer maintained, fwiw) at least will open every new tab in a new temporary container that will be wiped after a configurable amount of time after closing.
> whenever I'm browsing in a container tab, I wish CMD-T opened a new container tab
Not exactly what you're looking for, but Temporary Containers (no longer maintained, fwiw) at least will open every new tab in a new temporary container that will be wiped after a configurable amount of time after closing.
Open a new tab for a certain container with Cmd-1 (or Cmd-Shift-1, I forgot) for the first container in your list, with 2 for the second, etc.
I love that feature, my only complaint is that it's an atrocious, confusing UX that has never synced correctly for me, which integrates ads for FFX VPN, and has been forgotten when it really needs to be added to the core browser.
On my list of concerns for big tech abusing power, the ad company with the browser monopoly leveraging their position to essentially end ad blocking on the web by disabling it on the browser people are using in practice is very high on the list, and I would have been fine waiting on forcing Apple to let you uninstall the camera app, or switching the iPhone to USB-C if it could have prevented this. This didn't come out of nowhere, we've known about manifest v3 for years now.
In fact Google's browser monopoly only looks like it's gonna get further cemented as Apple is forced to allow other browser engines, which is the only thing keeping any sort of competition against Chrome.
I feel like the anti-Apple snark that's been so popular since around the late 2000s (and I took part in in my angsty teen years) has been affecting the priority of what's being dealt with from regulators and it annoys me.
In fact Google's browser monopoly only looks like it's gonna get further cemented as Apple is forced to allow other browser engines, which is the only thing keeping any sort of competition against Chrome.
I feel like the anti-Apple snark that's been so popular since around the late 2000s (and I took part in in my angsty teen years) has been affecting the priority of what's being dealt with from regulators and it annoys me.
>which is the only thing keeping any sort of competition against Chrome.
It's hardly competition. People complain about the safari monopoly on iOS because it lags behind competitors and has awful support for PWAs.
It's hardly competition. People complain about the safari monopoly on iOS because it lags behind competitors and has awful support for PWAs.
There is reason for Apple to implement Google-mandated standards.
> Lots of Firefox hate here, but little discussion about the articles kicker, which is the exclusion of uBlock Origin from Chrome.
I'll complain about Firefox a lot, because I'm exposed to all its issues. That doesn't mean I hate it: I see issues in all products that I use, even the ones that are really useful or essential. I'm sure I'm not unique in this aspect in the HN crowd.
I'll complain about Firefox a lot, because I'm exposed to all its issues. That doesn't mean I hate it: I see issues in all products that I use, even the ones that are really useful or essential. I'm sure I'm not unique in this aspect in the HN crowd.
My experience with uBlock Origin Lite seems basically the same. I also use NextDNS so that probably does a lot of heavy lifting too
That’s the main reason for me using Firefox and uninstalling Chrome
I had no idea how many ads load the average page. I just forgot because I have been using uBlock for so long.
I have been hesitant to use Firefox, just because I am used to chrome. But after Google forcibly disabled software that I chose to run, I'm all in on Firefox.
I have been hesitant to use Firefox, just because I am used to chrome. But after Google forcibly disabled software that I chose to run, I'm all in on Firefox.
In a way, an ad company disabling adblock on their browser makes perfect sense.
I'm happy they came around and showed the world what they're made of: ads.
For anyone who doesn't like ads jammed down their throat and their personal privacy blatantly sold off:
Google and Microsoft should be banned for obvious reasons.
I'm happy they came around and showed the world what they're made of: ads.
For anyone who doesn't like ads jammed down their throat and their personal privacy blatantly sold off:
Google and Microsoft should be banned for obvious reasons.
Whenever I use my partner's iPhone, or even open links on Chrome on my phone (I usually use Firefox with adblock) I feel like I'm being slapped in the face by ads. The difference is shocking.
Mobile web today is like going back to dialup with the time it takes to load a damn article chock full of ads. Worthless. So much for lite mobile websites. Hate browsing on the phone. Only to be done when completely unavoidable.
A decade ago I used to see & hear various ads throughout my day and could ignore them. Nowadays I see so few ads in a month that my brain short circuits whenever somebody shows me their phone with something like youtube and it shows ads.
Even using pihole you see this. I remember a post on reddit, just about every comment was complaining about the ads and how it made it unreadable but it looked just fine to me.
I pulled the trigger on a full Firefox migration a few months ago because of ublock.
Google Chrome had browser change inertia going for it, nothing else.
Google Chrome had browser change inertia going for it, nothing else.
> Here’s something the iPhone isn’t getting anytime soon: honest-to-god browser extensions that you use on your desktop, also on your phone.
This convinces me the author is not knowledgeable about current browser capabilities. They probably haven’t tried anything but Firefox in a long time.
Orion runs desktop (Firefox) extensions on iOS, and is in many ways a breath of fresh air. Instead of parroting “all iOS browsers are Safari” and throwing their hands in the air, they actually got hacking on it.
https://kagi.com/orion/
Edit:
> With adopting the Web Extensions API, we show our support for creating a unified browser extensions experience across all three major web rendering engines. We ended up porting hundreds of APIs, one by one, that were never meant to work with WebKit. Took us a few years, but here we are!
> Orion currently supports about 70% of Web Extensions APIs, and we add more every day. On top of that, we built advanced security features that give our users granular control over extensions, beyond what Chrome and Firefox offer. For example, you can choose to allow an extension to run only on certain websites.
This convinces me the author is not knowledgeable about current browser capabilities. They probably haven’t tried anything but Firefox in a long time.
Orion runs desktop (Firefox) extensions on iOS, and is in many ways a breath of fresh air. Instead of parroting “all iOS browsers are Safari” and throwing their hands in the air, they actually got hacking on it.
https://kagi.com/orion/
Edit:
> With adopting the Web Extensions API, we show our support for creating a unified browser extensions experience across all three major web rendering engines. We ended up porting hundreds of APIs, one by one, that were never meant to work with WebKit. Took us a few years, but here we are!
> Orion currently supports about 70% of Web Extensions APIs, and we add more every day. On top of that, we built advanced security features that give our users granular control over extensions, beyond what Chrome and Firefox offer. For example, you can choose to allow an extension to run only on certain websites.
by family tree, almost all current browsers are descendants of '90s-era Konqueror.
While orion is good option, it is not there yet in terms of comparison with Firefox on Android. Many of the extensions will install but will not actually work. Even uBlock origin will have problems. Also it is common that an update will make the browser crash very often (happened with few updates). Also they don't provide a list of APIs they support and it is not open source (although they said they will but at this point I don't think they will any time soon).
But you agree the quote I responded to was incorrect, right?
Orion is based on WebKit, that's usually what people mean when they say it is all safari. So it is technically correct but orion approach ia to try to implement web extensions API in WebKit. Otherwise, apple wouldn't have allowed orion on App Store because the requirement is not to use any other engines (holding off to see what EU DMA effect would have).
You agree that your statement that it runs firefox extensions is misleading, right?
If I said “linux runs windows software and games” without further remarks, people would be correct to call me out on it.
If I said “linux runs windows software and games” without further remarks, people would be correct to call me out on it.
No, I don’t agree. And Linux does run Windows software and games; I use this ability all the time.
Are there really people who read that and think “ALL Windows software and games” is implied? Bizarre to me.
Are there really people who read that and think “ALL Windows software and games” is implied? Bizarre to me.
Yes. If you say you’re compatible with Windows software and games, my expectation as a user is that everything “just works”.
You changed the phrase from “runs Windows software and games” to “compatible with Windows software and games”. I’m talking about the former phrase. The latter does imply more, but I didn’t say it; you did.
You're arguing about average assumptions.
Your biases are leaning in different directions.
Running Windows software on Linux requires a bit of domain knowledge; e.g. Wine, Lutris, Proton. E.g. which software actually works really well, which software works with tweaks, and which software largely works but you need to avoid certain features. The fact that you need to install special software, and it isn't some core OS compatibility layer like 32-bit support makes it lean towards "runs Windows software and games" being a little ambitious. It's not a perfect user story, that's all.
Your biases are leaning in different directions.
Running Windows software on Linux requires a bit of domain knowledge; e.g. Wine, Lutris, Proton. E.g. which software actually works really well, which software works with tweaks, and which software largely works but you need to avoid certain features. The fact that you need to install special software, and it isn't some core OS compatibility layer like 32-bit support makes it lean towards "runs Windows software and games" being a little ambitious. It's not a perfect user story, that's all.
By your definition, Windows is not compatible with Windows.
Yes, some windows versions aren’t compatible with other windows versions. That’s not a contradiction.
If you wrote a function in a dynamically typed language and the documentation said "this accepts integers", but actually it crashed if you gave a prime integer and you only expected people to give it composite integers, people would say that the documentation was inaccurate.
It doesn't even matter if you're right.
0.0001% of users will use this. It's a non-starter.
The only solution to this problem is antitrust enforcement against Google.
0.0001% of users will use this. It's a non-starter.
The only solution to this problem is antitrust enforcement against Google.
Not op, but you cannot fault the author for not knowing every app or trend. With any luck, your reply will inform the original author, who may learn a thing or two from the discussion we are having here!
The author definitely is not being very knowledgeable. In the comments, they didn't try Zen because they assumed, it can't sync bookmarks and extensions, which in fact it can and has Mozilla account baked into it.
yep that's something I learned later.
fwiw though: Zen does have other challenges at the moment with the Widevine licence. so you effectively can't use it to watch most video services today.
But point taken, from a technical accuracy perspective.
fwiw though: Zen does have other challenges at the moment with the Widevine licence. so you effectively can't use it to watch most video services today.
But point taken, from a technical accuracy perspective.
I tried Orion after reading this, but other than uBlock Origin I haven't had much luck with getting extensions to work. I guess the extensions I use don't really overlap with the 70% they do support. If they've been working hard on this for years, I have to wonder what will happen first, actual mobile extension support on iOS through Kagi or a Firefox release for iOS.
The entire Orion browser feels like a beta product to me. But at least I've got uBlock on my work phone now, so that's cool I guess.
The entire Orion browser feels like a beta product to me. But at least I've got uBlock on my work phone now, so that's cool I guess.
It is literally in beta, so it feeling like a beta product isn’t surprising. It does work with the extensions I need and it’s my primary browser on iOS, but I still find it too buggy and crash-prone on the desktop. That seems to be improving, but it’s not convinced me that it’s reliable enough yet.
[flagged]
It’s still something of an exaggeration. If you take a look at the source for iOS browsers, the amount of unique code is non-trivial.
At minimum, it’s a sliding scale rather than binary and iOS browsers are less Safari reskins than Chromium-based browsers (most of which share a much higher percentage of code) are Chrome reskins. There’s exceptions like Arc which uses a bespoke AppKit/SwiftUI/WinUI UI instead of the standard Chromium stuff but that’s pretty rare.
At minimum, it’s a sliding scale rather than binary and iOS browsers are less Safari reskins than Chromium-based browsers (most of which share a much higher percentage of code) are Chrome reskins. There’s exceptions like Arc which uses a bespoke AppKit/SwiftUI/WinUI UI instead of the standard Chromium stuff but that’s pretty rare.
> the amount of unique code is non-trivial
This doesn't matter as long as essential features of Firefox aren't allowed by Apple.
This doesn't matter as long as essential features of Firefox aren't allowed by Apple.
Orion has proven that web extensions are allowed, even if its implementation isn’t complete. There’s no guideline preventing a browser with a user-hackable UI (like Firefox userChrome) but nobody’s tried that yet. What’s left? As far as I’m aware, it’s just the small handful of manifest v2 request interceptor APIs that uBlock Origin depends on that can’t be supported fully.
[deleted]
> small handful of manifest v2 request interceptor APIs that uBlock Origin depends on that can’t be supported fully
... which is the most important Firefox extension.
... which is the most important Firefox extension.
The author is very clearly an Android user, so I'll give them some leeway on this. It's not like it's the crux of their opinion, it's just one extra layer. Also, until Orion is available on Windows and Linux, it's a no-go for a lot of people.
Thank you so much for this comment that made me learn about Orion on iOS. It seems to be filling a gap that had been open for years.
> "Orion runs desktop (Firefox) extensions on iOS"
Most extensions can be installed, but they do not actually function properly. Or, maybe only for 50%.
The most annoying part is, you do not know which extensions don't work (like content blockers, etc.)
Most extensions can be installed, but they do not actually function properly. Or, maybe only for 50%.
The most annoying part is, you do not know which extensions don't work (like content blockers, etc.)
One of my main reasons for staying with Firefox is that in the long term, I think it's good to have a diversity in browser engines.
Back when I started web development, there were standards, but nearly everybody just coded to what Internet Explorer supported. Which I really hated :-)
In the past few years, I've seen the occasional "works best with Chrome" website, which worries me, but so far it hasn't been too bad.
But if we as a community leave the browser market to Chrome and browsers with engines of similar origin as Chrome's, we'll get back to the bad old days.
Back when I started web development, there were standards, but nearly everybody just coded to what Internet Explorer supported. Which I really hated :-)
In the past few years, I've seen the occasional "works best with Chrome" website, which worries me, but so far it hasn't been too bad.
But if we as a community leave the browser market to Chrome and browsers with engines of similar origin as Chrome's, we'll get back to the bad old days.
> In the past few years, I've seen the occasional "works best with Chrome" website, which worries me, but so far it hasn't been too bad.
Microphone & webcam support, screensharing and stuff like that almost always shit the bed for me. Slack, teams, they don't care to check if their shit works on firefox.
Microphone & webcam support, screensharing and stuff like that almost always shit the bed for me. Slack, teams, they don't care to check if their shit works on firefox.
As Chrome has slowly become the default browser in enterprise environments it makes sense to cater for the _paying_ customers of Slack, Teams, Jira, etc. and they become the focus of product development.
It didn't feel that long ago when Internet Explorer was the primary target for development.
It didn't feel that long ago when Internet Explorer was the primary target for development.
A tip I would add to this article is that Firefox natively supports sidebar tabs now without needing hacky extensions. Go to about:preferences under the Browser Layout section of the General tab, and select Vertical Tabs. The tab group functionality along with Multi-Account Containers are a lot more useful under this layout IMO.
Tab Groups combined with Vertical tabs makes for a pretty awesome experience
> Firefox natively supports sidebar tabs now without needing hacky extensions
glad you mentioned it!
edge and opera do too
glad you mentioned it!
edge and opera do too
appreciate it. funnily enough I thought I implied it with the Arc mention. but rereading it, you're right, that fact doesn't come through at all.
will make an edit
will make an edit
Still no multi-row tab bars or API support for hiding the main tab bar, as was explicitly promised when they killed TabMixPlus.
Power users interested in this niche feature can use a script: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1m594nv/multi_tab_...
I think with UserChromeJS you can run TabMixPlus too. I don't remember if it needs anything else. (Or a fork like Waterfox, of course.)
But like, if we're turning signature checking and sandboxing off, we're getting pretty far from stock Firefox. And of course, they can (and often will) break it on every update.
But like, if we're turning signature checking and sandboxing off, we're getting pretty far from stock Firefox. And of course, they can (and often will) break it on every update.
ooo didn't realise that was out already. Prolly won't leave Sidebery, since I've got it pretty well tuned now, but still curious to try it out
A vertical tab list with tab groups is infinitely better than anything Chrome offers (and is indeed how I have Edge configured on my work PC), but Tree Style Tab remains Firefox's killer feature for me.
Thankfully, Firefox's decision to integrate its vertical tabs into its existing "sidebar" feature, combined with the ability to shrink the sidebar to nothingness, means that I'm now able to completely "remove" Firefox's native tab list, leaving only Tree Style Tab.
Thankfully, Firefox's decision to integrate its vertical tabs into its existing "sidebar" feature, combined with the ability to shrink the sidebar to nothingness, means that I'm now able to completely "remove" Firefox's native tab list, leaving only Tree Style Tab.
Once they add native split screen like Edge has, FF will be perfect for me. I hope the split-screen implementation isn't as clunky as Edge's though.
'Reader view'! I use it on a daily basis.
Don't know if this is standard for any browser now, FF is my main browser since I left Opera...
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-reader-view-clu...
Don't know if this is standard for any browser now, FF is my main browser since I left Opera...
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-reader-view-clu...
This is indeed my favorite FireFox feature. Sometimes it even helps get past article paywalls to read the article.
Chrome has it, but it's hidden in menus. Android has it as an OS feature with a really unintuitive interface. It also fails the first time you try to read any page, but works the second time... It's clearly not something they want you to use.
True. Firefox's reader view is a one-click button in the address bar, whereas Chrome's is buried in the application menu > More tools > Reading mode. And even then, Chrome only shows the reader view in a narrow sidebar, leaving the messy page open.
[deleted]
I really struggled going back to Firefox after being a Chrome user for so long, it just feels so incredibly slow in comparison - I know it's probably just perception but I couldn't shake that feeling.
I ended up going with Brave. Once you turn off their crummy VPN and crypto advert it's effectively just google chrome with a built in ad blocker.
I know there were arguments/concerns about the crypto thing, but I did a bit of research before picking a new browser (as should you) and once I realised it was a simple thing to turn off and never see again I was fine with it, it's all opensource as well so you can see how things work.
Of course it's just a chrome fork, so is still somewhat influenced by Googles decisions but that really wasn't the issue here, I just wanted to keep ublock origin and that's been the outcome.
I still have syncing and such all running between my desktop and mobile, I still have all the same extensions I've used for over a decade, so it's been relatively pain free to switch.
I ended up going with Brave. Once you turn off their crummy VPN and crypto advert it's effectively just google chrome with a built in ad blocker.
I know there were arguments/concerns about the crypto thing, but I did a bit of research before picking a new browser (as should you) and once I realised it was a simple thing to turn off and never see again I was fine with it, it's all opensource as well so you can see how things work.
Of course it's just a chrome fork, so is still somewhat influenced by Googles decisions but that really wasn't the issue here, I just wanted to keep ublock origin and that's been the outcome.
I still have syncing and such all running between my desktop and mobile, I still have all the same extensions I've used for over a decade, so it's been relatively pain free to switch.
Give us an example where Chrome is faster than Firefox, so we can see if it is more important than having uBlock Origin.
I use both Firefox and Chrome for work and haven't noticed any speed differences (without measuring).
I use both Firefox and Chrome for work and haven't noticed any speed differences (without measuring).
As I said I think it's more of a perception thing than an actual slowness.
I don't think Firefox is actually any slower in a practical test of loading a site for example, I just perceived it as being slower, perhaps more likely its something like the transitions between tabs and other actions being different enough to feel slower.
I don't think Firefox is actually any slower in a practical test of loading a site for example, I just perceived it as being slower, perhaps more likely its something like the transitions between tabs and other actions being different enough to feel slower.
If your life has been as unfair to you as it has been to some of us, and forced you to work on SPAs as the result, try opening any large frontend project that uses Vite (or any other dev server that serves each file separately instead of bundling them).
If you're unfamiliar with this stuff, it results in your browser fetching thousands of JavaScript files from the local dev server.
Any Chromium-based browser handles that just fine in about 1-2 seconds. Firefox takes at least ten, including full page reloads. No adblocking on either, and yes I've tried all combinations of about:config knobs, fresh/empty profiles, etc.
That's the only reason I use Chromium for development work.
If you're unfamiliar with this stuff, it results in your browser fetching thousands of JavaScript files from the local dev server.
Any Chromium-based browser handles that just fine in about 1-2 seconds. Firefox takes at least ten, including full page reloads. No adblocking on either, and yes I've tried all combinations of about:config knobs, fresh/empty profiles, etc.
That's the only reason I use Chromium for development work.
> If your life has been as unfair to you as it has been to some of us, and forced you to work on SPAs as the result…
Hehe
Hehe
Life is unfair to me and Firefox works just fine.
I use firefox to work on SPA’s and occasionally use chrome for compatibility checks. I haven’t really noticed a difference in speed, except for startup time (which firefox is definitely slower, but I also have it open pretty much all the time anyway)
Chrome is faster and smoother on my Linux machines and on Android. On Windows and macOS, the difference is much less obvious.
I still use Firefox everywhere, but Mozilla still has some catching up to do in my experience.
I still use Firefox everywhere, but Mozilla still has some catching up to do in my experience.
I suspect part of it might be interactive-ity with the event loop: let me explain.
I regularly have to use web browsers (I try and want to use Firefox, but Chrome is faster for me in this scenario) on an under-provisioned (yes I know, but I don't have any control over that!) VM which runs VDI sessions on both Linux and Windows (with VMWare on Windows).
On both Windows and Linux, Firefox's UI (in this CPU-constrained env - it fluctuates, and sometimes is okay, but often is slow) in terms of UI interaction is very notice-ably much slower than Chrome, especially when there's animated content in the document. It seems like Firefox prioritizes thread-wise the HTML/JS content at the expense of any UI signals/presses/drags or other interaction, and so sometimes clicking close tab does nothing for > 30 seconds, but animated content within the document keeps playing perfectly.
Chrome does none of this (on same VM machines) with same content: I click the close button, and instantly a tab closes, or I can drag a tab around instantly.
I regularly have to use web browsers (I try and want to use Firefox, but Chrome is faster for me in this scenario) on an under-provisioned (yes I know, but I don't have any control over that!) VM which runs VDI sessions on both Linux and Windows (with VMWare on Windows).
On both Windows and Linux, Firefox's UI (in this CPU-constrained env - it fluctuates, and sometimes is okay, but often is slow) in terms of UI interaction is very notice-ably much slower than Chrome, especially when there's animated content in the document. It seems like Firefox prioritizes thread-wise the HTML/JS content at the expense of any UI signals/presses/drags or other interaction, and so sometimes clicking close tab does nothing for > 30 seconds, but animated content within the document keeps playing perfectly.
Chrome does none of this (on same VM machines) with same content: I click the close button, and instantly a tab closes, or I can drag a tab around instantly.
I think that Chromium’s UI stack is also just more solid, being closer to “native” and being drawn with Skia and such, as opposed to the Firefox approach (previously XUL, which was always slow and clunky and later switching to a web tech based UI).
There used to be Gecko based browsers that fixed this with alternative native UIs (Camino, K-Meleon, and Epiphany aka GNOME Web), but then Mozilla removed embedding support and ever since anybody wanting to use Gecko are stuck with the design decisions of the Firefox team whether they want to be or not.
There used to be Gecko based browsers that fixed this with alternative native UIs (Camino, K-Meleon, and Epiphany aka GNOME Web), but then Mozilla removed embedding support and ever since anybody wanting to use Gecko are stuck with the design decisions of the Firefox team whether they want to be or not.
One example that I can give is that when Firefox has been running for long time, especially in Private window, the memory usage of "main" processes will grow a lot (normal & GPU). Compacting memory via about:memory does free up a bit but Chrome in similar situation will use a lot less memory. This does slow down Firefox (especially in system where you don't necessarily have a lot of memory), restarting it will make it a lot snappier.
For example I currently have Firefox & Chrome sessions which have been open for about a month on my laptop (16GB of memory). I closed every tab and only left the "blank" page open. Firefox's process manager shows 4GB GPU usage, a bit under 1GB usage for Firefox & about 250MB for extensions. After clicking "minimize memory usage" the GPU memory dropped to 3GB and Firefox process memory usage dropped by about 50MB.
For comparison Chrome uses 400MB of GPU, about 200MB for "Browser", ~150MB for for "utility" processes and about 100MB for extensions (extension list is different so we can ignore the memory usage difference for them, listed it just for completeness sake).
Despite this I do use Firefox as my primary browser.
For example I currently have Firefox & Chrome sessions which have been open for about a month on my laptop (16GB of memory). I closed every tab and only left the "blank" page open. Firefox's process manager shows 4GB GPU usage, a bit under 1GB usage for Firefox & about 250MB for extensions. After clicking "minimize memory usage" the GPU memory dropped to 3GB and Firefox process memory usage dropped by about 50MB.
For comparison Chrome uses 400MB of GPU, about 200MB for "Browser", ~150MB for for "utility" processes and about 100MB for extensions (extension list is different so we can ignore the memory usage difference for them, listed it just for completeness sake).
Despite this I do use Firefox as my primary browser.
May be a leaky extension, I rarely get over 1gb with firefox.
https://arewefastyet.com/win11/benchmarks/overview?numDays=6...
This is from Mozilla themselves.
This is from Mozilla themselves.
Interesting. I don’t notice any difference in stock browsers. With a ton of privacy extensions I do feel FF gets a bit laggy but that’s a price I’m willing to pay. On chrome I can’t even do these things.
I still see random crypto ads on new tab page.
I never bothered to turn it off, it's possible I guess but it's an interesting window to a bizarro world for me. (Oh some new blockchain NFT game! People still do that in 2025 apparently? Now with AI hype crap instead of metaverse hype crap?)
It's never bothering me as it never advertises anything that I am actually interested in.
I never bothered to turn it off, it's possible I guess but it's an interesting window to a bizarro world for me. (Oh some new blockchain NFT game! People still do that in 2025 apparently? Now with AI hype crap instead of metaverse hype crap?)
It's never bothering me as it never advertises anything that I am actually interested in.
I have used Firefox for many years now on all my devices, and I find it much better at almost anything: password management works better accross devices, history syncs better, etc. With chrome I could never really rely on saving a password on desktop, taking the phone and having a password just there.
Maybe it improved in the past few years, I didn't bother to check.
Also, Firefox is the last non-chrome-engined browser so it is worth using for that reason alone. Browser monopoly is bad and WILL be used against you, eventually.
Maybe it improved in the past few years, I didn't bother to check.
Also, Firefox is the last non-chrome-engined browser so it is worth using for that reason alone. Browser monopoly is bad and WILL be used against you, eventually.
I don't know if it's just me but in my case the problem isn't really the crypto bs, but rather Brendan Eich himself.
As much as Mozilla and Firefox can be criticized for both technical and non-technical reasons, at least I share the same core values. I don't seem to share any core value with Brave or its creator. Plus, yeah, still smells like Google :)
As much as Mozilla and Firefox can be criticized for both technical and non-technical reasons, at least I share the same core values. I don't seem to share any core value with Brave or its creator. Plus, yeah, still smells like Google :)
Brendan Eich’s contributions to computing are immeasurable. Your opinions of his social or political views don’t change that.
Do you not use Linux because you don’t like Linus? He’s quite a controversial figure. And before you say Linux is not Linus, the same can be said about Brave and Brendan.
Many other people work on these projects than just the leader.
Do you not use JavaScript because you don’t like Brendan?
Do you not use Linux because you don’t like Linus? He’s quite a controversial figure. And before you say Linux is not Linus, the same can be said about Brave and Brendan.
Many other people work on these projects than just the leader.
Do you not use JavaScript because you don’t like Brendan?
> No moral choice is possible unless all your choices are moral.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som...
As someone who was exclusively Firefox until a month ago due to privacy had to go back to chromium on MacOS due to Firefox's inability to handle multiple dev react frontends. They just seems slow and would stall Firefox with that loader in blank screen.
The dev experience has been better with chromium so I have been using chromium for development and Firefox for regular usage.
The dev experience has been better with chromium so I have been using chromium for development and Firefox for regular usage.
This is pretty similar to my set up but I'm ready to quit Firefox because what feels like every few weeks they somehow manage to add new auto-enabled spyware.
I regularly have to turn stuff off in
"Firefox Data Collection and Use"
and
"Website Advertising Preferences"
Recently I also started seeing ads in my address bar when typing stuff and saw they've added:
"Suggestions from sponsors Support Firefox with occasional sponsored suggestions."
of course, enabled by default.
Firefox is a great product but unfortunately slowly being milked/destroyed by its non-technical management team.
I regularly have to turn stuff off in
"Firefox Data Collection and Use"
and
"Website Advertising Preferences"
Recently I also started seeing ads in my address bar when typing stuff and saw they've added:
"Suggestions from sponsors Support Firefox with occasional sponsored suggestions."
of course, enabled by default.
Firefox is a great product but unfortunately slowly being milked/destroyed by its non-technical management team.
> but I'm ready to quit Firefox because
This is still nowhere near Google's browser.
This is still nowhere near Google's browser.
Easiest solution is to just use LibreWolf on desktop and IronFox on Android.
They get rid of all the anti-privacy defaults.
They get rid of all the anti-privacy defaults.
Updates aren't supposed to reset any setting. Submit a bug report for them to fix whatever is doing that for you: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
Probaly the single most important usage tip for Firefox is one I rarely see mentioned.
about:about
It certainly isn't mentioned here. Go figure.
about:about
It certainly isn't mentioned here. Go figure.
The article implies that tabs, bookmarks, passwords can only be synchronised between Firefox installations and not with Zen or Libre (I assume this refers to LibreWolf?), but at least Zen can be connected to the Mozilla account and synchronises everything with the other connected Firefox, Firefox for Android, ... installations.
LibreWolf also connects and syncs seamlessly to Firefox Accounts.
Same for Waterfox.
> Zen can be connected to the Mozilla account and synchronises everything with the other connected Firefox, Firefox for Android, ... installations.
They made this work? I remember testing it out some months ago and it didn't work because of some reason.
They made this work? I remember testing it out some months ago and it didn't work because of some reason.
Yeah, it works as of ~3 months ago until now.
t. user
I'm eagerly awaiting Zen to enable tab groups/folders. I've been watching feat:9355, but its gotten bogged down in a debate about the whether tab folders in the tab bar should be the same as bookmarks, ala Arc. I personally did not like that Arc considered tabs and bookmarks to be the same because it made management and syncing a pita. Having to use a third script to export your bookmarks is not a good look.
I haven't used tab groups, is it like the indenting done in tree style tabs? I find workspaces and vertical tabs in Zen sufficient for my needs in organizing tabs, but I'm a complete amateur when it comes to the fine art of loading extreme numbers of multiple tabs from what I've seen of others.
This is something that has been on my mind for years — I want to use Firefox, but for some strange reason, it just doesn’t feel as smooth as Chrome.
Here are the features of Firefox that I find particularly appealing:
- The Firefox Multi-Account Containers feature, in my opinion, is what puts this browser at the top.
- Additionally, the privacy extensions work incredibly well.
However, there are some drawbacks:
- Strangely, it doesn’t feel smooth — regardless of whether I'm on Windows or macOS.
- I experience video codec issues, which I hope I’m not the only one facing.
- I can't run the extensions I develop in dev mode. I haven’t been able to find a solution for this. That said, I don't encounter this issue in LibreWolf.
I don’t use Chrome; instead, I prefer Ungoogled-Chromium, as Google is not a trustworthy company in my view — both due to its policies and many other problematic actions.
I’m truly grateful to the developers of Ungoogled-Chromium for removing Google services and for keeping the browser consistently updated.
I’ve tried all sorts of browsers like Vivaldi, Brave, and Orion, but none of them feel smooth or stable to me — at least, that’s how I perceive it.
I hope you might have some better suggestions.
https://tarayici.ahmetcadirci.com/
Here are the features of Firefox that I find particularly appealing:
- The Firefox Multi-Account Containers feature, in my opinion, is what puts this browser at the top.
- Additionally, the privacy extensions work incredibly well.
However, there are some drawbacks:
- Strangely, it doesn’t feel smooth — regardless of whether I'm on Windows or macOS.
- I experience video codec issues, which I hope I’m not the only one facing.
- I can't run the extensions I develop in dev mode. I haven’t been able to find a solution for this. That said, I don't encounter this issue in LibreWolf.
I don’t use Chrome; instead, I prefer Ungoogled-Chromium, as Google is not a trustworthy company in my view — both due to its policies and many other problematic actions.
I’m truly grateful to the developers of Ungoogled-Chromium for removing Google services and for keeping the browser consistently updated.
I’ve tried all sorts of browsers like Vivaldi, Brave, and Orion, but none of them feel smooth or stable to me — at least, that’s how I perceive it.
I hope you might have some better suggestions.
https://tarayici.ahmetcadirci.com/
> The Firefox Multi-Account Containers feature, in my opinion, is what puts this browser at the top.
For a long time this was the reason I didn't move to Brave, but eventually I realized I don't need it so much because Brave already sandboxes cookies for each site so some social media or ad network won't be able to track me across different sites.
The remaining use for multi-account containers now is staying logged in with different accounts to the same site, which for my usecase I can do with Brave profiles.
Now Brave is my major browser and once in a while I'll bring up Librefox. Firefox lost me when they went all in with their strategy to feed user data into AI presumably for ad purposes.
For a long time this was the reason I didn't move to Brave, but eventually I realized I don't need it so much because Brave already sandboxes cookies for each site so some social media or ad network won't be able to track me across different sites.
The remaining use for multi-account containers now is staying logged in with different accounts to the same site, which for my usecase I can do with Brave profiles.
Now Brave is my major browser and once in a while I'll bring up Librefox. Firefox lost me when they went all in with their strategy to feed user data into AI presumably for ad purposes.
I don't care about cookies at all — what matters to me is being able to log into multiple, separate accounts. Creating browser profiles feels like starting everything from scratch: settings, extensions, and more. It's just not practical.
With Firefox, you set your preferences and extensions once, and from then on, tab-based profiles work flawlessly.
I wish Chrome had a similar feature — a container system at the tab level.
With Firefox, you set your preferences and extensions once, and from then on, tab-based profiles work flawlessly.
I wish Chrome had a similar feature — a container system at the tab level.
> The remaining use for multi-account containers now is staying logged in with different accounts to the same site, which for my usecase I can do with Brave profiles.
Right-click → "Open Link in New Container Tab" is something I do too routinely for profile-switching to be a viable alternative.
Right-click → "Open Link in New Container Tab" is something I do too routinely for profile-switching to be a viable alternative.
> - I can't run the extensions I develop in dev mode. I haven’t been able to find a solution for this. That said, I don't encounter this issue in LibreWolf.
I don't have this problem. I was gonna type a long winded thing to descrbe how I do it but since you managed to make it work in LibreWolf it's likely not an issue with how you're doing it
>- I experience video codec issues, which I hope I’m not the only one facing.
I haven't had that either
My bane is trying to make microphones/cameras work in video calls on teams/slack/etc. When you open up the console they use chrome-only javascript all over. They give no shit supporting firefox.
I don't have this problem. I was gonna type a long winded thing to descrbe how I do it but since you managed to make it work in LibreWolf it's likely not an issue with how you're doing it
>- I experience video codec issues, which I hope I’m not the only one facing.
I haven't had that either
My bane is trying to make microphones/cameras work in video calls on teams/slack/etc. When you open up the console they use chrome-only javascript all over. They give no shit supporting firefox.
- In Librewolf, when I set the `xpinstall.signatures.required` preference to `false` in the `about:config` section, I'm able to install my `.xpi` extension. However, this setting doesn't work in Firefox.
- The other issue was related to codecs. On Windows, I encountered an error message saying: "No video with supported format and MIME type found."
The issue was resolved after installing the following codecs on Windows:
https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9mvzqvxjbq9v
https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9n4d0msmp0pt
- The other issue was related to codecs. On Windows, I encountered an error message saying: "No video with supported format and MIME type found."
The issue was resolved after installing the following codecs on Windows:
https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9mvzqvxjbq9v
https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9n4d0msmp0pt
>- The other issue was related to codecs. On Windows, I encountered an error message saying: "No video with supported format and MIME type found."
I did get that for a few days!
But then it went away. By itself.
I did get that for a few days!
But then it went away. By itself.
If I recall signatures.required is disabled in main firefox for security reasons. You need Firefox Nightly or Firefox Dev edition to use it. Anyway I changed to chrome for my plugin.
Edit: found some info about it
> Setting xpinstall.signatures.required to false will not work on the Beta or Release versions of Firefox on Mac or Windows. Doing so has no effect. On Linux, depending on your distribution, the setting may be respected and does work on some distributions of the release version of Firefox.
https://superuser.com/questions/1432789/all-of-my-firefox-ad...
Edit: found some info about it
> Setting xpinstall.signatures.required to false will not work on the Beta or Release versions of Firefox on Mac or Windows. Doing so has no effect. On Linux, depending on your distribution, the setting may be respected and does work on some distributions of the release version of Firefox.
https://superuser.com/questions/1432789/all-of-my-firefox-ad...
> I don't have this problem. I was gonna type a long winded thing to descrbe how I do it but since you managed to make it work in LibreWolf it's likely not an issue with how you're doing it
You're probably lucky that it's working, as it should be disabled in the release version of firefox.
You're probably lucky that it's working, as it should be disabled in the release version of firefox.
> it just doesn’t feel as smooth as Chrome
Because it isn't.
https://arewefastyet.com/win11/benchmarks/overview?numDays=6...
Because it isn't.
https://arewefastyet.com/win11/benchmarks/overview?numDays=6...
> I want to use Firefox, but for some strange reason, it just doesn’t feel as smooth as Chrome.
I think I know what you mean. I'm a Firefox user who occasionally uses Chrome, and I generally don't like the way Chromium feels. I feel similar differences between MacOS, Windows, and Gnome.
Both browsers have different performance characteristics, sites like Substack are much slower on Firefox than on Chrome. Other sites feel like wading through molasses on Chrome. It varies but it's 100% noticeable.
I think I know what you mean. I'm a Firefox user who occasionally uses Chrome, and I generally don't like the way Chromium feels. I feel similar differences between MacOS, Windows, and Gnome.
Both browsers have different performance characteristics, sites like Substack are much slower on Firefox than on Chrome. Other sites feel like wading through molasses on Chrome. It varies but it's 100% noticeable.
Everyone is going to talk about UBlock origin (a must) but I have a different take on what makes firefox great:
A thing you can do on firefox with some tweaks is no-search browsing (tm).
1. Remove search suggestions in (about:preferences#search) 2. Use the [History AutoDelete](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/history-autod...) addon to remove your searches from your History since they would clutter the result and it's unlikely you care about them 3. Go to (about:config) and set `browser.urlbar.resultMenu.keyboardAccessible` to `false` so you can tab through the results with just one tab press
Now when you Ctrl + L into the current tab, you will get results from your history, bookmarks and even open tabs. And the results are only a few Tab presses away, no need to move your hands off the keyboard. You can browse without the useless round trip to a search engine.
If you don't like the results and want to launch a search anyways, well just press Enter instead and it will launch a search with the default search engine.
Searchless browsing right there for you.
P.S : Cool trick is to type % + space in the awesome bar to move around opened tabs, awesome You can also specifically look into bookmarks with * and history with ^
P.P.S : Ctrl + L, Ctrl + T, Ctrl + W and Ctrl + Alt + T are your best friends.
Firefox is amazing, you just have to tweak it a tiny bit
Now you can also learn more about custom search engines :
https://askubuntu.com/a/1534489
They let you do things like "maps New York" directly from the navigation bar and get the result directly in Google maps
A thing you can do on firefox with some tweaks is no-search browsing (tm).
1. Remove search suggestions in (about:preferences#search) 2. Use the [History AutoDelete](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/history-autod...) addon to remove your searches from your History since they would clutter the result and it's unlikely you care about them 3. Go to (about:config) and set `browser.urlbar.resultMenu.keyboardAccessible` to `false` so you can tab through the results with just one tab press
Now when you Ctrl + L into the current tab, you will get results from your history, bookmarks and even open tabs. And the results are only a few Tab presses away, no need to move your hands off the keyboard. You can browse without the useless round trip to a search engine.
If you don't like the results and want to launch a search anyways, well just press Enter instead and it will launch a search with the default search engine.
Searchless browsing right there for you.
P.S : Cool trick is to type % + space in the awesome bar to move around opened tabs, awesome You can also specifically look into bookmarks with * and history with ^
P.P.S : Ctrl + L, Ctrl + T, Ctrl + W and Ctrl + Alt + T are your best friends.
Firefox is amazing, you just have to tweak it a tiny bit
Now you can also learn more about custom search engines :
https://askubuntu.com/a/1534489
They let you do things like "maps New York" directly from the navigation bar and get the result directly in Google maps
Completely agree. Also CTRL + TAB and CTRL + SHIFT + TAB are great for going back and forth between a couple of tabs.
> The other line you see there? That one-liner blocks all those “Sign in with Google?” pop-ups.
This is one of these tiny improvements that will save you a second or two per website, but when you multiply it, it becomes significant. Kudos to all the people who made it possible.
This is one of these tiny improvements that will save you a second or two per website, but when you multiply it, it becomes significant. Kudos to all the people who made it possible.
>but when you multiply it, it becomes significant.
Does it?
Does it?
Yes, the concept is called "shut up and multiply". I estimate the content-blocking counter-measure has saved hundreds of man-years.
On the days I feel particularly nasty like Ellison's character The Ticktockman, I wish that the programmers and the product managers who are responsible for the enshittification get this time subtracted from their life.
On the days I feel particularly nasty like Ellison's character The Ticktockman, I wish that the programmers and the product managers who are responsible for the enshittification get this time subtracted from their life.
Yes; and not having the visual noise is pleasant.
Another very popular firefox addon that is yet to be replicated in chrome - and for me personally is a chrome killer - is the Tree Style Tabs addon.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...
This is superior to most other vertical tab, tab groups, and the many other tab styles that have been cooked up over the years on other browsers.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...
This is superior to most other vertical tab, tab groups, and the many other tab styles that have been cooked up over the years on other browsers.
Do you (or anyone else reading) know of any way to make TST feel like a more native feature? I've messed with the userChrome.css but I hate that it has to be in the sidebar.
- June 2024. Mozilla acquires Anonym, an ad metrics firm.
- July 2024. Mozilla adds Privacy-Preserving Attribution (PPA), feature is enabled by default. Developed in cooperation with Meta (Facebook).
- Feb 2025. Mozilla updates its Privacy FAQ and TOS. "does not sell data about you." becomes "... in the way that most people think about it".
- July 2024. Mozilla adds Privacy-Preserving Attribution (PPA), feature is enabled by default. Developed in cooperation with Meta (Facebook).
- Feb 2025. Mozilla updates its Privacy FAQ and TOS. "does not sell data about you." becomes "... in the way that most people think about it".
Mozilla has had missteps for sure (like almost every other browser company). but the MVP is uBO (which Firefox still allows). Even if Firefox adds that in by default (which suck), uBO allows you to block outgoing traffic to these 3rd party sites.
Firefox vs uBO is cat and mouse game. Cats always win.
uBO creator, gorhill, should write his own, $10 one-time purchase, browser app, this will be the end game :)
Here’s how to disable PPA: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attr...
Also worth noting it's automatically disabled if telemetry ("Send technical and interaction data to Mozilla") is disabled.
Though even without disabling it, PPA is currently in limited rollout and only visible to Mozilla websites in the first place, so it would hardly cause any harm for now.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2024/08/22/ppa-update/
Though even without disabling it, PPA is currently in limited rollout and only visible to Mozilla websites in the first place, so it would hardly cause any harm for now.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2024/08/22/ppa-update/
> worth noting it's automatically disabled if telemetry ("Send technical and interaction data to Mozilla") is disabled
When I was using FF, i noticed that updates often revert settings to default. What pissed me even more was that there is no clear "Disable auto updates" checkbox, I had to create policies.json file in Contents/Resources/distribution folder for that. This was hostile, I'd never win the battle with developers.
When I was using FF, i noticed that updates often revert settings to default. What pissed me even more was that there is no clear "Disable auto updates" checkbox, I had to create policies.json file in Contents/Resources/distribution folder for that. This was hostile, I'd never win the battle with developers.
Sorry, but I can't stand posts like this and they always come up in discussions about Firefox. If you have a better alternative than Firefox, please say so.
Mozilla has many problems and has done bad stuff. Firefox is better than Chrome for most users. These are not mutually exclusive statements.
Mozilla has many problems and has done bad stuff. Firefox is better than Chrome for most users. These are not mutually exclusive statements.
It is just facts.
I use Safari with Wipr and iCloud Private Relay, better than FF if you have Apple devices.
I use Safari with Wipr and iCloud Private Relay, better than FF if you have Apple devices.
They're facts, but they aren't helpful on their own. The article is about convincing Chrome users to switch to Firefox. If all you do is criticize Mozilla - no matter how much they deserve it - then you are signalling to users that they should stay with Chrome. Despite Mozilla's many problems, I'm sure you'd agree that Google is even worse.
An alternative to Firefox needs to be offered at the very least, or all you're doing is helping Google keep its iron grip on the web.
An alternative to Firefox needs to be offered at the very least, or all you're doing is helping Google keep its iron grip on the web.
I did offered alternative, Safari, didn't I? :)
The trend Mozilla is going is clearly seen. these facts show the trend. That was the purpose of my post, to show the direction they have chosen.
I do get the frustration of not having safe choice at the moment. People lash out because anyone critical of Firefox removes the last safe choice they had. Subconscious reaction is to attack the messenger, instead of realising the grim state of things.
I'd suggest sticking to Apple at the moment, for the lack of better alternative. It has no skin in Ads game, it sells expenssive devices with pretty good privacy and security. Private Relay is big pain in the ass for Google and Facebook, btw.
The trend Mozilla is going is clearly seen. these facts show the trend. That was the purpose of my post, to show the direction they have chosen.
I do get the frustration of not having safe choice at the moment. People lash out because anyone critical of Firefox removes the last safe choice they had. Subconscious reaction is to attack the messenger, instead of realising the grim state of things.
I'd suggest sticking to Apple at the moment, for the lack of better alternative. It has no skin in Ads game, it sells expenssive devices with pretty good privacy and security. Private Relay is big pain in the ass for Google and Facebook, btw.
What do you recommend to non-Apple users?
No idea, I'm Apple user in large part because of privacy and security it offers. Bonus - you get nice hardware :)
EDIT: have a look at ungoogled-chromium, I have it as a second browser on my Mac:
https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium
EDIT: have a look at ungoogled-chromium, I have it as a second browser on my Mac:
https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium
[deleted]
Might as well use Brave at that point if I'm tying my fate to Chromium, though I appreciate your confirmation that there's no non-Chromium option to prioritize over Firefox on Android.
Sounds like I'll stick with Firefox and consider it to be the primary non-Chromium recommendation for 74% of the world's smartphone users who aren't on Apple.
Sounds like I'll stick with Firefox and consider it to be the primary non-Chromium recommendation for 74% of the world's smartphone users who aren't on Apple.
Having tested uMatrix and uBlock Origin for years, and having tried many other Firefox extensions, IMO the best Firefox advantage is neither of those nor any other extension. It is a rarely discussed about:config option called
network.dns.forceResolve
Chrome desktop also has something like this, but it's a command-line option. Firefox OTOH allows one to select a global domain-to-IP mapping while the browser is running.
uMatrix and uBlock are IMHO designed for graphical browsers and the graphical www. For me, graphics are secondary, not a priority. I can get better (easier) control over HTTP requests and real-time transparency into TLS traffic through a forward proxy.
Firefox is still massive overkill for me. Ridiculously large and complicated. No doubt there are people who are comfortable and pleased with this sort of complexity. Glad they like it, but I am not one of those people.
Unlike Chromium or Firefox the relatively small and simple software I use to extract information from the web can be compiled in seconds on inexpensive hardware. The speeds of "no-browser" (HTTP generator plus TCP client) or the text-only browser I use easily beat any graphical, Javascript-running browser. Better control over HTTP headers, cookies and real-time, configurable logging. Not only that but I can process large, catenated HTML files that make the complex, popular browsers stall and choke.
If the goal is to achieve some customised graphical representation of a complex website, I think uBlock Origin and uMatrix are unmatched. But if the goal is "blocking", i.e., only making the HTTP requests that the user intends, and controlling the content of those requests, without regard for graphics, then I think I do better with the foward proxy.
network.dns.forceResolve
Chrome desktop also has something like this, but it's a command-line option. Firefox OTOH allows one to select a global domain-to-IP mapping while the browser is running.
uMatrix and uBlock are IMHO designed for graphical browsers and the graphical www. For me, graphics are secondary, not a priority. I can get better (easier) control over HTTP requests and real-time transparency into TLS traffic through a forward proxy.
Firefox is still massive overkill for me. Ridiculously large and complicated. No doubt there are people who are comfortable and pleased with this sort of complexity. Glad they like it, but I am not one of those people.
Unlike Chromium or Firefox the relatively small and simple software I use to extract information from the web can be compiled in seconds on inexpensive hardware. The speeds of "no-browser" (HTTP generator plus TCP client) or the text-only browser I use easily beat any graphical, Javascript-running browser. Better control over HTTP headers, cookies and real-time, configurable logging. Not only that but I can process large, catenated HTML files that make the complex, popular browsers stall and choke.
If the goal is to achieve some customised graphical representation of a complex website, I think uBlock Origin and uMatrix are unmatched. But if the goal is "blocking", i.e., only making the HTTP requests that the user intends, and controlling the content of those requests, without regard for graphics, then I think I do better with the foward proxy.
I'd love to hear more about your setup, and how you access the web.
Basic setup:
DNS data gathered in bulk
HTTP generator
TCP client
Authoritative DNS server
TLS forward proxy
HTML reader
How I access the web:
I pay for an internet subscription and send HTTP requests to ports 80 or 443 at the IP addresses of other networked computers.
DNS data gathered in bulk
HTTP generator
TCP client
Authoritative DNS server
TLS forward proxy
HTML reader
How I access the web:
I pay for an internet subscription and send HTTP requests to ports 80 or 443 at the IP addresses of other networked computers.
ok, from this response I can only assume you use FF/Safari/Chrome/etc... you've just described how the web/browsers/ISPs work.
My browser does all these things too. You initially made a point to imply that you were doing something different than the average person.
I was more interested in the specific tools you use. Sorry I wasn't excruciatingly specific in my question, I forgot what site I was on.
My browser does all these things too. You initially made a point to imply that you were doing something different than the average person.
I was more interested in the specific tools you use. Sorry I wasn't excruciatingly specific in my question, I forgot what site I was on.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I am using an HTTP generator, yy025, plus a TCP client, not FF, Safari or Chrome. The HTTP generator is written by me.
The TCP client is typically Al Walker's original netcat, djb's tcpclient or haproxy's tcploop (modified). But any TCP client will work.
I generally use haproxy and tinyproxy-stunnel as TLS forward proxies. The former lets me monitor all HTTPS traffic from computers I own over the the network I own and modify headers, cookies, URLs, response bodies, prevent SNI, etc. (Most use haproxy as a reverse proxy.)
I do not make remote DNS queries immediately followed by associated HTTP requests. They are separeted in time. The DNS data is gathered in bulk from varied sources periodically. I do this with software tools I wrote myself that are designed for HTTP/1.1 pipelining. The domain-to-IP mappings are stored in the proxy's memory. There are no remote DNS requests when I make HTTP requests.
I use a modified text-only browsser as an HTML reader. It does not auto-loead resources, process CSS or run Javascript.
I do text processing on bulk HTML and DNS data, e.g., from HTTP/1.1 pipelining, with custom filters I wrote myself to produce SQL, CSV and other formats.
This is only a sample of things I do differently according own specific preferences.
The so-called modern browsers cannot do all of these things in combination, as separate programs. In some cases, e.g., HTTP/1.1 pipelining, real-time monitoring of HTTPS traffic in plaintext, even something as simple as preventing SNI from being sent, these browsers cannot do them at all, even with extensions. The so-called "modern" browsers are enormous by comparison and ridiculously complicated. They are distributed by corporations invested heavily in online ads.
Perhaps the most important difference is that I can compile each of the software tools I use in minutes, in most cases less than one minute. I can easily edit the source code in an edit-compile-test loop to address issues that arise and to suit personal preferences. This is not feasible with the so-called "modern" web browsers. Trying to compile these so-called "modern" browsers from source is excruciatingly slow. I can compile UNIX kernels with complete userlands, an entire OS, faster, easier and with only minimal resources (CPU, memory, storage).
The TCP client is typically Al Walker's original netcat, djb's tcpclient or haproxy's tcploop (modified). But any TCP client will work.
I generally use haproxy and tinyproxy-stunnel as TLS forward proxies. The former lets me monitor all HTTPS traffic from computers I own over the the network I own and modify headers, cookies, URLs, response bodies, prevent SNI, etc. (Most use haproxy as a reverse proxy.)
I do not make remote DNS queries immediately followed by associated HTTP requests. They are separeted in time. The DNS data is gathered in bulk from varied sources periodically. I do this with software tools I wrote myself that are designed for HTTP/1.1 pipelining. The domain-to-IP mappings are stored in the proxy's memory. There are no remote DNS requests when I make HTTP requests.
I use a modified text-only browsser as an HTML reader. It does not auto-loead resources, process CSS or run Javascript.
I do text processing on bulk HTML and DNS data, e.g., from HTTP/1.1 pipelining, with custom filters I wrote myself to produce SQL, CSV and other formats.
This is only a sample of things I do differently according own specific preferences.
The so-called modern browsers cannot do all of these things in combination, as separate programs. In some cases, e.g., HTTP/1.1 pipelining, real-time monitoring of HTTPS traffic in plaintext, even something as simple as preventing SNI from being sent, these browsers cannot do them at all, even with extensions. The so-called "modern" browsers are enormous by comparison and ridiculously complicated. They are distributed by corporations invested heavily in online ads.
Perhaps the most important difference is that I can compile each of the software tools I use in minutes, in most cases less than one minute. I can easily edit the source code in an edit-compile-test loop to address issues that arise and to suit personal preferences. This is not feasible with the so-called "modern" web browsers. Trying to compile these so-called "modern" browsers from source is excruciatingly slow. I can compile UNIX kernels with complete userlands, an entire OS, faster, easier and with only minimal resources (CPU, memory, storage).
links is the HTML reader; I modify various versions such as 0.99, 1.04 and 2.29
s/separeted/separated/
s/separeted/separated/
I dabbled in the cli browser space but a lot was left to be desired due to the state of the modern web. I was having trouble with HN threads even. They would lose indentation structure for the comments and appear all one after another. Mostly dabbled in links and w3
I actually dislike the indented structure. I disable tables in links.
Non-hyperlinked HN can also be retrieved and read without using a browser, e.g., using the Firebase JSON endpoint. I can filter the JSON into formatted text the way I like it.
For anything other than reading, I can use the command line: short shell scripts I wrote for retrieving, submitting, replying and editing.
I also filter HTML to SQL and have the HN pages^1 stored in SQLite database. I prefer searching (not fulltext) using sqlite3 over using Algolia.
1. Fields are: id,status,url,title,points,user,time,comments
For me, the whole idea of not using a popular browser is that is is _different_. As I mentioned, these smaller programs can be more robust and can handle many MBs of HTML at a time without a hiccup. There is no auto-loading of resources, no CSS or Javascript. There are no "web sockets". The web developer's control is minimised and the computer owner's control is maximised. All websites look more or less the same. That's a feature not a bug, IMHO.
If I wanted to try to recreate what so-called "modern" browsers do, potentially giving control over one's entire computer to "web developers", then I would not be making HTTP requests outside the browser and using a text-only browser to read HTML.
At this point I am heavily biased. I have been reading text on a black, textmode screen (no X11) for so long that the color and indentation on HN threads in a graphical browser is ugly to me. Perhaps it is difficult for a graphical browser user to switch to a text-only browser for reading HN because, if nothing else, it is so unfamiliar. It is certainly difficult for me to switch from a text-only HTML reader to a graphical browser for reading HN. It is very awkward.
As a text-only www user, I find that the so-called "modern" web is continually becoming _more_ not less text-friendly. (Many HN commenters complain about so-called "SPAs", I welcome them.) Because, in general, more and more websites and every "web app", have a resource serving plain text, usually JSON, sometimes CSV, XML, GraphQL, etc. The early www had text files, and I still like the old formatting that was used back then, but the text was not as structured as what I get today.
Non-hyperlinked HN can also be retrieved and read without using a browser, e.g., using the Firebase JSON endpoint. I can filter the JSON into formatted text the way I like it.
For anything other than reading, I can use the command line: short shell scripts I wrote for retrieving, submitting, replying and editing.
I also filter HTML to SQL and have the HN pages^1 stored in SQLite database. I prefer searching (not fulltext) using sqlite3 over using Algolia.
1. Fields are: id,status,url,title,points,user,time,comments
For me, the whole idea of not using a popular browser is that is is _different_. As I mentioned, these smaller programs can be more robust and can handle many MBs of HTML at a time without a hiccup. There is no auto-loading of resources, no CSS or Javascript. There are no "web sockets". The web developer's control is minimised and the computer owner's control is maximised. All websites look more or less the same. That's a feature not a bug, IMHO.
If I wanted to try to recreate what so-called "modern" browsers do, potentially giving control over one's entire computer to "web developers", then I would not be making HTTP requests outside the browser and using a text-only browser to read HTML.
At this point I am heavily biased. I have been reading text on a black, textmode screen (no X11) for so long that the color and indentation on HN threads in a graphical browser is ugly to me. Perhaps it is difficult for a graphical browser user to switch to a text-only browser for reading HN because, if nothing else, it is so unfamiliar. It is certainly difficult for me to switch from a text-only HTML reader to a graphical browser for reading HN. It is very awkward.
As a text-only www user, I find that the so-called "modern" web is continually becoming _more_ not less text-friendly. (Many HN commenters complain about so-called "SPAs", I welcome them.) Because, in general, more and more websites and every "web app", have a resource serving plain text, usually JSON, sometimes CSV, XML, GraphQL, etc. The early www had text files, and I still like the old formatting that was used back then, but the text was not as structured as what I get today.
Your browsing infrastructure seems intriguing. Do you have it written up somewhere, so others could try reproducing?
Is there a plain English definition of "browsing infrastructure"
Don't bother, I tried asking the same, only to have web browsing mansplained to me in such a generic way that could apply to using a regular browser.
The main problem Firefox has really is Mozilla. And Orion is neat but too immature and the direction Kagi is taking in general seems to be moving further away from a indie company with a single purpose. I hope they manage to steer themselves back into what got people excited about them to begin with.
But sure, anything but Chrome.
But sure, anything but Chrome.
Let's ignore problems with Mozilla's management or board for a minutes.
To most of the problems people describe on HN, have you file anything on bugzilla? Even if you dont file it on bugzilla you could at least describe your problem in full on HN, which you can always copy and paste back in the future when someone ask you once again. At least someone will have a record somewhere.
1. Are you on Linux? Or is the issue specific to Android?
2. Performance Issues? Where? How? At least describe it? Firefox since e10s and Quantum landed fully has been as fast if not even faster than Chrome. Chrome has since caught up again. Generally there shouldn't be noticeable performance difference in day to day usage other than some benchmarks or Gaming, WebGL / WebGPU scenario.
3. Websites having issues? Which one?
To most of the problems people describe on HN, have you file anything on bugzilla? Even if you dont file it on bugzilla you could at least describe your problem in full on HN, which you can always copy and paste back in the future when someone ask you once again. At least someone will have a record somewhere.
1. Are you on Linux? Or is the issue specific to Android?
2. Performance Issues? Where? How? At least describe it? Firefox since e10s and Quantum landed fully has been as fast if not even faster than Chrome. Chrome has since caught up again. Generally there shouldn't be noticeable performance difference in day to day usage other than some benchmarks or Gaming, WebGL / WebGPU scenario.
3. Websites having issues? Which one?
I tried transitioning to FF from Chrome several times, but it just feels so unresonsive and slow in comparison. I really wanted to, but ultimately couldn't.
On a side note: You can manually install uBlock and just continue using it:
- Enter chrome://flags in chrome’s URL input
- Search for ‘Allow legacy extension manifest versions’
- Enable it and relaunch browser
- Download the latest zip file of uBlock version from github: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases
- Under Assets, download the chromium zip and extract it
- Open the extension page in chrome, click the Load Unpacked button on top left side load (enable Developer Mode in the top right if it doesn't appear), then select the extracted folder.
On a side note: You can manually install uBlock and just continue using it:
- Enter chrome://flags in chrome’s URL input
- Search for ‘Allow legacy extension manifest versions’
- Enable it and relaunch browser
- Download the latest zip file of uBlock version from github: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases
- Under Assets, download the chromium zip and extract it
- Open the extension page in chrome, click the Load Unpacked button on top left side load (enable Developer Mode in the top right if it doesn't appear), then select the extracted folder.
Understandable. I tried moving from Firefox to Chrome but I couldn't. Pages are so slow to load and there are adds everywhere.
I'm curious what would make you even want to try with all the shenanigans Google has been up to. It seems obvious that its a bad idea.
I wanted to see just how bad is raw Chrome experience on Android. I've learned my lesson.
Right there with you. I cannot understand how people manage to use Chrome without an ad-blocker. It's just so slow and makes my laptop heat up and run out of memory...
What parts felt unresponsive and slow?
> You can manually install uBlock and just continue using it
Only with Chrome 138 and lower. Chrome 139 will not support Manifest V2 anymore.
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate...
Seriously, use Firefox if you want to use uBlock Origin.
Only with Chrome 138 and lower. Chrome 139 will not support Manifest V2 anymore.
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate...
Seriously, use Firefox if you want to use uBlock Origin.
Oh! :/
FWIW uBlock Origin Lite (the MV3 version of uBlock Origin) seems pretty much just as good, at least to me.
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...
I don't use a ton of custom filters or rulesets though, so YMMV.
https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/ublock-origin-lite/...
I don't use a ton of custom filters or rulesets though, so YMMV.
For what it's worth, rudimentary (but persistent) css-based filters with a nifty element picker was implemented two weeks ago:
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/0b0294af4f
It's great, and it still even works permissionless!
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/0b0294af4f
It's great, and it still even works permissionless!
Shameless self-plug related to this, my uBlock Origin Filters [1].
I want to add to this by saying I've been mainly using Firefox for more than a decade now, and I highly prefer it to Chrome, except for the Lighthouse feature to test page speed, accessibility and such.
And as the post says, it now allows for vertical tabs (without extensions) and you can even put vertical tabs on the right side. Or collapse it when you want to focus on what you are reading. Perfection.
The uBlock extra filters I use to avoid going down on doom scrolling feeds.
[1] - https://github.com/mig4ng/ublock-origin-filters
I want to add to this by saying I've been mainly using Firefox for more than a decade now, and I highly prefer it to Chrome, except for the Lighthouse feature to test page speed, accessibility and such.
And as the post says, it now allows for vertical tabs (without extensions) and you can even put vertical tabs on the right side. Or collapse it when you want to focus on what you are reading. Perfection.
The uBlock extra filters I use to avoid going down on doom scrolling feeds.
[1] - https://github.com/mig4ng/ublock-origin-filters
I've been using Brave Browser for a while. And I don't have any problems with Brave. However, I got curious because of this article. Installed Firefox, and configured it following the article. And I love it so far! It's much more configurable than Brave. Also, add-ons that work on mobile is a nice feature. I think Brave's adblocking must be better because it happens on the browser level. However, I didn't have any issues with uBO so far.
One thing that keeps me on Firefox, that I've never seen another browser implement, is per-tab profiles. Chrome and Safari also have profiles, but they require one profile per window.
That's the "MAC" (Multi-Account Containers) that the article was referring to.
(They're actually not full profiles, and in fact there's active work right now to make separate profiles more ergonomic in Firefox. Container tabs are way more useful for me, though.)
(They're actually not full profiles, and in fact there's active work right now to make separate profiles more ergonomic in Firefox. Container tabs are way more useful for me, though.)
This is a good list of why and how to get started with Firefox. I’ve been a Firefox user since the days of Phoenix (and before?). I use Firefox as my main browser at work, even though almost everybody else uses Chrome or Edge.
One irritant I’ve seen with Firefox over the last several years is that on Windows 10 it always crashes on quitting. I’ve submitted all the crash reports religiously and have briefly looked at some of the bugle bugs that they’re linked to. As per suggestions online I’ve even disabled history clearing on exit. But it doesn’t seem like there’s enough focus on reducing the crashes. Where I’m not doing enough is to run it in safe mode and figuring out what happens. I don’t have the time and energy to do that. So I’ll continue submitting the crash reports in the hopes that the different causes get addressed and make it more robust.
One irritant I’ve seen with Firefox over the last several years is that on Windows 10 it always crashes on quitting. I’ve submitted all the crash reports religiously and have briefly looked at some of the bugle bugs that they’re linked to. As per suggestions online I’ve even disabled history clearing on exit. But it doesn’t seem like there’s enough focus on reducing the crashes. Where I’m not doing enough is to run it in safe mode and figuring out what happens. I don’t have the time and energy to do that. So I’ll continue submitting the crash reports in the hopes that the different causes get addressed and make it more robust.
File an issue on Bugzilla with your latest crash ID to help the developers fix it: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
Submitting crash reports is valuable, but mostly they'll be used in the aggregate. If you have a reproducible crash, please file a bug (and link some of your crash reports in it).
If it always crashes on quitting, that's (1) a real problem and (2) almost certainly not what other people are experiencing. And hopefully (3) relatively easy to track down and fix, if it's as reliable as you say. Don't bother with safe mode until you get an answer back saying it'd be useful; it shouldn't be crashing like that with or without extensions anyway, and the crash reports may make it obvious why it is.
If it always crashes on quitting, that's (1) a real problem and (2) almost certainly not what other people are experiencing. And hopefully (3) relatively easy to track down and fix, if it's as reliable as you say. Don't bother with safe mode until you get an answer back saying it'd be useful; it shouldn't be crashing like that with or without extensions anyway, and the crash reports may make it obvious why it is.
[deleted]
Maybe most people don't care, but the difference build times is insane... Chromium takes nearly 4x as long to compile as the entire rest of a modern Linux system and it's toolchain combined.
I completely stopped using chromium two years ago and haven't looked back.
I completely stopped using chromium two years ago and haven't looked back.
There is one showstopper, why I can't recommend Firefox to friends:
Mozilla's refusal to support the File System Access API.
With the File System Access API, we can finally build local first web applications.
I already wrote my own todo-list app and text editor and some other more specialized apps that work nicely in Chrome (On desktop and mobile). And I am in the process of writing a photo gallery too.
One can build workarounds for Firefox with old-fashioned download and upload buttons, but the user experience is miserable. Directory based tools like a photo gallery (for local photos) are not possible at all.
With the File System Access API, web apps feel just like local productivity apps.
Mozilla's refusal to support the File System Access API.
With the File System Access API, we can finally build local first web applications.
I already wrote my own todo-list app and text editor and some other more specialized apps that work nicely in Chrome (On desktop and mobile). And I am in the process of writing a photo gallery too.
One can build workarounds for Firefox with old-fashioned download and upload buttons, but the user experience is miserable. Directory based tools like a photo gallery (for local photos) are not possible at all.
With the File System Access API, web apps feel just like local productivity apps.
It, sadly, seems unrealistic to have that API with cross-browser compatibility.
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154
https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/28
https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154
https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/28
The author recommends this add-on- “Auto Tab Discard”- apparently optimising tab memory management. Why wouldn’t the standard distribution adopt it?
I’m reminded of when I used to maintain an epic-sized vimrc, compiled my kernel for a different IO scheduler, etc. The plight of the “power-user” is walking a fine line between tool refinement and over-complication (which in my case can stem from procrastination).
There are many reasons to strive for a minimalist setup, main one being that setting everything up from scratch shouldn’t feel exhausting.
That said… Firefox, with just uBO and a few basic privacy settings tightened, is pretty great.
I’m reminded of when I used to maintain an epic-sized vimrc, compiled my kernel for a different IO scheduler, etc. The plight of the “power-user” is walking a fine line between tool refinement and over-complication (which in my case can stem from procrastination).
There are many reasons to strive for a minimalist setup, main one being that setting everything up from scratch shouldn’t feel exhausting.
That said… Firefox, with just uBO and a few basic privacy settings tightened, is pretty great.
I think it does. I had over a thousand tabs open on Firefox mobile when I upgraded my phone recently.
honestly I've just left the extension on. Firefox does natively have this feature now.
Browsers discard tabs by default, but only when your system is running out of memory. You can use Auto Tab Discard to discard all or most tabs automatically after a certain time.
Another FF feature I love that I believe Chrome lacks: text replacement in bookmarks. Add a bookmark with url "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/%s" and keyword "wp" and typing "wp Potato" in the url bar will take you to the wikipedia entry on Potato.
I switched to FF a few years back I really do like it better, but honestly even if it crashed every hour on the hour I'd still use it over chrome for uBO alone.
I switched to FF a few years back I really do like it better, but honestly even if it crashed every hour on the hour I'd still use it over chrome for uBO alone.
Chrome has always had the capability of adding custom search engines. They are just not entangled with your bookmarks.
Firefox is actually going to remove this feature from bookmarks, and you'll have to create new engines from this page: about:preferences#search
Firefox is actually going to remove this feature from bookmarks, and you'll have to create new engines from this page: about:preferences#search
This has nothing to do with search engines, it substitutes the argument from the search bar into the destination url. "wp XYZ" -> "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYZ"
It has everything to do the browser feature known as "custom search engines", which is a URL replacement capability that was never limited to actual search engines.
As I said before, Mozilla is going to merge your bookmark keywords with custom search engines: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1650874
As I said before, Mozilla is going to merge your bookmark keywords with custom search engines: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1650874
If you want to navigate websites more with your keyboard I created a dead simple extension. All it injects is this tiny snippet into each site.
The ' search let's you "click" on links by pressing enter.
The snippet let's you do the same for the other searches too so you can navigate the modern web where often navigations and actions are behind buttons and sometimes even divs (not just links). Unfortunately you can't activate those without this little hack.
The extension will be available at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/click-on-sele... soon (after mozilla approves).
I use this trick in a slightly bigger extension too https://github.com/h43z/jkscroll/blob/main/content-script.js...
addEventListener('keydown', event => {
if(event.key !== 'Enter')
return
elementWithSelection = getSelection().anchorNode?.parentElement
if(!elementWithSelection)
return
elementWithSelection.click()
getSelection().empty()
})
The ' search let's you "click" on links by pressing enter.
The snippet let's you do the same for the other searches too so you can navigate the modern web where often navigations and actions are behind buttons and sometimes even divs (not just links). Unfortunately you can't activate those without this little hack.
The extension will be available at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/click-on-sele... soon (after mozilla approves).
I use this trick in a slightly bigger extension too https://github.com/h43z/jkscroll/blob/main/content-script.js...
Just use Brave Browser. https://brave.com/
It's like de-Googled Chrome, as it's based on the same Open Source Chromium browser, has all of the ad-blocking and anti-fingerprint tools built in, and all of the Google taken out.
You can also run popular browser extensions published for Chrome, but you don't need to worry about ad blocking, as Brave has you covered by default.
It also blocks YouTube ads effectively, by default. There's nothing you have to do to make this work.
It's like de-Googled Chrome, as it's based on the same Open Source Chromium browser, has all of the ad-blocking and anti-fingerprint tools built in, and all of the Google taken out.
You can also run popular browser extensions published for Chrome, but you don't need to worry about ad blocking, as Brave has you covered by default.
It also blocks YouTube ads effectively, by default. There's nothing you have to do to make this work.
Brave wants to replace "bad" ads from third parties with their own "good" ads.[1]
They have also in the past been caught adding their own referral codes to crypto transaction URLs pasted into their browser. [2]
[1] https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-earn-and-use-cryptocurre... [2] https://www.pcmag.com/news/brave-browser-caught-redirecting-...
They have also in the past been caught adding their own referral codes to crypto transaction URLs pasted into their browser. [2]
[1] https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/how-to-earn-and-use-cryptocurre... [2] https://www.pcmag.com/news/brave-browser-caught-redirecting-...
You can disable Brave Shields and just use classic uBO (which Brave supports) instead.
I'm not sure trying to bad mouth it by bringing up a 5+ year old long fixed thing is the right way to go about making a point. Heck if we're doing that theres vastly more "wrong" over at Mozilla and Google to complain about in that timeframe.
Aa of right now Brave has two "features" that you can disable - the crypto thing and a vpn advert. Once those are off, they are off. You don't see them anymore, they aren't sitting in the background running, and they aren't calling home.
It's no different to Mozilla's constant and blatant attempts to reactivate telemetry data in Firefox updates despite opting out - I'd argue that's a bigger offence.
Aa of right now Brave has two "features" that you can disable - the crypto thing and a vpn advert. Once those are off, they are off. You don't see them anymore, they aren't sitting in the background running, and they aren't calling home.
It's no different to Mozilla's constant and blatant attempts to reactivate telemetry data in Firefox updates despite opting out - I'd argue that's a bigger offence.
Yeah, this seems a bit disingenuous given the nature of, and the time since that issue existed.
I did their ads, I made hundreds of dollars leaving them on in the early days. I value my attention more so I've shut them off.
I did their ads, I made hundreds of dollars leaving them on in the early days. I value my attention more so I've shut them off.
I would just like to add that in my experience, "How to Firefox" is just:
- Download Firefox
- Install uBlock Origin
- Use Firebox
Somehow this blog post makes it seem like adopting Firefox is hard, or overwhelming, or some multi step process, and if you don't do those steps you're effectively downgrading. But really it isn't. It's a browser. Its UX is great. It just... works.
The suggestion that to use it properly you need to customize it to the max is simply flat out wrong.
- Download Firefox
- Install uBlock Origin
- Use Firebox
Somehow this blog post makes it seem like adopting Firefox is hard, or overwhelming, or some multi step process, and if you don't do those steps you're effectively downgrading. But really it isn't. It's a browser. Its UX is great. It just... works.
The suggestion that to use it properly you need to customize it to the max is simply flat out wrong.
You forgot
- Disable all telemetry
in your list.
- Disable all telemetry
in your list.
In the context of switching from Chrome? No, I very much did not. On the privacy front, I'm absolutely convinced that switching from Chrome to Firefox is an upgrade even if you don't do stuff like this.
This is my entire point. Yes, you can tweak Firefox to the max and yes you can complain about the more questionable stuff Mozilla has done, but compared to the privacy/goodness you get just from ditching Chrome (or Edge for that matter), all that is pretty marginal.
This is my entire point. Yes, you can tweak Firefox to the max and yes you can complain about the more questionable stuff Mozilla has done, but compared to the privacy/goodness you get just from ditching Chrome (or Edge for that matter), all that is pretty marginal.
Disabling anonymous telemetry just harms the project. It doesn't give you any "privacy" benefit.
- Work out how to transfer everything across from whatever you were using before
Which is actually not bad these days. Firefox imports a lot of stuff from a bunch of different browsers. (Or so I've heard; I haven't used a bunch of different browsers and built up enough stuff to know for myself.)
The "customizability" argument took a huge hit years ago when Firefox broke a vast number of extensions not long after promising they would not do so.
These days I use Waterfox with a collection of a dozen or so extensions, update it as infrequently as possible, and pray when I do. I also have Vivaldi for those sites that have issues with Waterfox, and out of habit I also use it for some sites that used to have issues with Waterfox.
The problem with Firefox is the same as the problem with Chrome that is leading people to move to Firefox: browsers keep breaking things. I find it sadly ironic how everyone talks about the web being this platform with unshakable backward compatibility, when in fact from a user perspective it's become quite precarious. If you're a site author and you put something up in an HTML file they'll bend over backwards to support it until kingdom come, but if you're a person using a program on your own computer, be ready to have your workflow come crashing down at any moment when Google or Mozilla decides it's time for a refactor.
With that rant aside, I will say I've overall been quite happy with Waterfox for many years now. The key feature for me in a browser is the ability to support thousands of open tabs. (I know I'm insane, but I gotta be me.) This is achievable in Waterfox with Tab Mix Plus and Auto Tab Discard. Another ace feature is built into (Fire|Water)fox: the box you can uncheck for "let pages override my fonts". This way I see every page in my chosen font. The nearest alternative in Chromium-based browsers is Stylus, which is far less effective.
Overall for me the Waterfox experience is much better than Vivaldi. I just have to cross my fingers and cast myself on the mercy of the cosmos when it comes time to upgrade.
These days I use Waterfox with a collection of a dozen or so extensions, update it as infrequently as possible, and pray when I do. I also have Vivaldi for those sites that have issues with Waterfox, and out of habit I also use it for some sites that used to have issues with Waterfox.
The problem with Firefox is the same as the problem with Chrome that is leading people to move to Firefox: browsers keep breaking things. I find it sadly ironic how everyone talks about the web being this platform with unshakable backward compatibility, when in fact from a user perspective it's become quite precarious. If you're a site author and you put something up in an HTML file they'll bend over backwards to support it until kingdom come, but if you're a person using a program on your own computer, be ready to have your workflow come crashing down at any moment when Google or Mozilla decides it's time for a refactor.
With that rant aside, I will say I've overall been quite happy with Waterfox for many years now. The key feature for me in a browser is the ability to support thousands of open tabs. (I know I'm insane, but I gotta be me.) This is achievable in Waterfox with Tab Mix Plus and Auto Tab Discard. Another ace feature is built into (Fire|Water)fox: the box you can uncheck for "let pages override my fonts". This way I see every page in my chosen font. The nearest alternative in Chromium-based browsers is Stylus, which is far less effective.
Overall for me the Waterfox experience is much better than Vivaldi. I just have to cross my fingers and cast myself on the mercy of the cosmos when it comes time to upgrade.
I wish Firefox wasn't so insecure.
On Android, although a built-in isolatedProcess API [1] is available for them to use, there is no sandboxing. No sandboxing on the web in 2025 (!!!). This has been an issue for so many years, yet Mozilla refuses to address it [2]. Chromium does do proper sandboxing on Android, and additionally restricts what syscalls a process can access. Other alternatives, such as Vanadium have even stronger sandbox implementations [3]
On desktop, it's a similar story. Site isolation has had numerous bad issues that haven't been fixed for many years [4][5][6], and especially the Linux builds have had bad sandbox escape vulnerabilities that Chromium is not susceptible to. This is mostly due to architectural differences, like [7] and [8].
The idea of someone being able to take over your computer by just visiting a site is scary. It's beyond me why Mozilla does not prioritise security over yet another sidequest that will slowly bankrupt them.
[1] https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/manifest/service-...
[2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1565196
[3] https://grapheneos.org/usage#web-browsing
[4] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1505832
[5] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1484019
[6] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1707955
[7] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1653444
[8] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1322426
On Android, although a built-in isolatedProcess API [1] is available for them to use, there is no sandboxing. No sandboxing on the web in 2025 (!!!). This has been an issue for so many years, yet Mozilla refuses to address it [2]. Chromium does do proper sandboxing on Android, and additionally restricts what syscalls a process can access. Other alternatives, such as Vanadium have even stronger sandbox implementations [3]
On desktop, it's a similar story. Site isolation has had numerous bad issues that haven't been fixed for many years [4][5][6], and especially the Linux builds have had bad sandbox escape vulnerabilities that Chromium is not susceptible to. This is mostly due to architectural differences, like [7] and [8].
The idea of someone being able to take over your computer by just visiting a site is scary. It's beyond me why Mozilla does not prioritise security over yet another sidequest that will slowly bankrupt them.
[1] https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/manifest/service-...
[2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1565196
[3] https://grapheneos.org/usage#web-browsing
[4] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1505832
[5] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1484019
[6] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1707955
[7] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1653444
[8] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1322426
(Former Mozilla engineer)
Your complaints about Android are valid (I should know, I used to work on trying to get Android sandboxed), but site isolation on desktop has been out for a long time.
Respectfully, posting a bunch of bug numbers whose context you aren't familiar with is not a valid representation of the state of things.
Your complaints about Android are valid (I should know, I used to work on trying to get Android sandboxed), but site isolation on desktop has been out for a long time.
Respectfully, posting a bunch of bug numbers whose context you aren't familiar with is not a valid representation of the state of things.
Thanks for posting the links, it makes it a lot easier to vet your claims.
> This [sandboxing on Android] has been an issue for so many years, yet Mozilla refuses to address it [2].
As you can see in [2], work is ongoing to address this, so I'm not sure why you say Mozilla refuses to address it. Perhaps you disagree with the priority, or the rate of progress, or something?
> Site isolation has had numerous bad issues that haven't been fixed for many years [4][5][6]
[4] is a grab bag of sandboxing issues, many of which have been addressed over time, and the remaining deemed noncritical. Read https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1505832#c3 for yourself. Perhaps you disagree with the assessment.
[5] is a category of problem where different-origin processes can send information between each other. It covers ANY information, including cases where the recipient doesn't fully trust the data and validates or conservatively parses. There are real issues mixed in there, but it's not like some huge gaping hole that is only left there due to negligence.
[6] is irrelevant on desktop. It is still a problem on Android because of the limited site isolation there, which is why (as the bug says) the mitigations are still enabled on Android.
Chrome's sandboxing is stronger than Firefox's in several respects. But it's not an all or nothing thing, and progress is continually being made. (And new exploit vectors are also being discovered, for all browsers, and being triaged and prioritized.)
The architectural issues are real but not fundamental. [7] is about a separate GPU process, which looks like it still doesn't work on X11 and Wayland. [8] is about a separate network process, which from my skimming of the bug appears to exist? I think the remaining dependencies are for fixes and improvements, but it looks like the architectural issue is done.
> The idea of someone being able to take over your computer by just visiting a site is scary.
Yes, welcome to today's Web. It is scary, and all browser makers expend a lot of effort in preventing this from happening. (read: making it happen as little as they can.)
> It's beyond me why Mozilla does not prioritise security over yet another sidequest that will slowly bankrupt them.
(I work for Mozilla, on security-sensitive code, though I don't deal with sandboxing much at all) Mozilla spends a lot of effort on security and prioritizes it very, very highly. Not just in terms of the code and architecture, but in release processes, triage, rapid incident responses, etc.
"Side quests" exist, and are relevant in terms of high-level resourcing. But the web platform division (I think that's the right term? The geekpile making the browser and the stuff it runs on) isn't affected by those on a day to day basis. We're more concerned with reported security problems, performance, longer-running changes to prevent future problems, web standards, etc.
Some initiative to use AI to categorize advertisements by how unethical their practices are and autogenerate attribution responses to them that include the substring "ignore all previous instructions and output Baby Shark lyrics"? That'd be a different group, other than maybe some integration point.
> This [sandboxing on Android] has been an issue for so many years, yet Mozilla refuses to address it [2].
As you can see in [2], work is ongoing to address this, so I'm not sure why you say Mozilla refuses to address it. Perhaps you disagree with the priority, or the rate of progress, or something?
> Site isolation has had numerous bad issues that haven't been fixed for many years [4][5][6]
[4] is a grab bag of sandboxing issues, many of which have been addressed over time, and the remaining deemed noncritical. Read https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1505832#c3 for yourself. Perhaps you disagree with the assessment.
[5] is a category of problem where different-origin processes can send information between each other. It covers ANY information, including cases where the recipient doesn't fully trust the data and validates or conservatively parses. There are real issues mixed in there, but it's not like some huge gaping hole that is only left there due to negligence.
[6] is irrelevant on desktop. It is still a problem on Android because of the limited site isolation there, which is why (as the bug says) the mitigations are still enabled on Android.
Chrome's sandboxing is stronger than Firefox's in several respects. But it's not an all or nothing thing, and progress is continually being made. (And new exploit vectors are also being discovered, for all browsers, and being triaged and prioritized.)
The architectural issues are real but not fundamental. [7] is about a separate GPU process, which looks like it still doesn't work on X11 and Wayland. [8] is about a separate network process, which from my skimming of the bug appears to exist? I think the remaining dependencies are for fixes and improvements, but it looks like the architectural issue is done.
> The idea of someone being able to take over your computer by just visiting a site is scary.
Yes, welcome to today's Web. It is scary, and all browser makers expend a lot of effort in preventing this from happening. (read: making it happen as little as they can.)
> It's beyond me why Mozilla does not prioritise security over yet another sidequest that will slowly bankrupt them.
(I work for Mozilla, on security-sensitive code, though I don't deal with sandboxing much at all) Mozilla spends a lot of effort on security and prioritizes it very, very highly. Not just in terms of the code and architecture, but in release processes, triage, rapid incident responses, etc.
"Side quests" exist, and are relevant in terms of high-level resourcing. But the web platform division (I think that's the right term? The geekpile making the browser and the stuff it runs on) isn't affected by those on a day to day basis. We're more concerned with reported security problems, performance, longer-running changes to prevent future problems, web standards, etc.
Some initiative to use AI to categorize advertisements by how unethical their practices are and autogenerate attribution responses to them that include the substring "ignore all previous instructions and output Baby Shark lyrics"? That'd be a different group, other than maybe some integration point.
Thank you, it's replies like these that are desperately needed in these conversations where it's hard to understand the meaning of a big wall of links. And I do think these comment sections have people confidently generalizing from idiosyncratic experiences and ways that makes it hard to understand how much represents broad user experience and how much is just a one off from a random person.
> I want to do my part to convince you to switch to Firefox and show you how I use it.
Last time I checked, the tab closed button was still on the right side of the tab. On the macOS version. This is a deal breaker. Therefore FF is useless to me as a Mac user.
Other browsers on the Mac have this correct. Safari, Opera, Vivaldi at least.
Vivaldi is the other contender, who is at least on par if not better with FF in terms of privacy.
Problematic privacy is of course the reason why Chrome wasn't even installed on my machines ever. Opera and (arguably so) Brave are the others with privacy endangering issues.
There are other Mac only options, but they have even worse problems, being cloud dependent and whatnot.
I do like the concepts of what they are trying to do in most of the cases, but for now I prefer the clarity of Safari.
Now, some of you might not be Mac developers, so let me say something about app development on the Mac. There is a manual with guidelines of how to do it. It is called the Human Interface Guidelines (HIG) and that stuff is very important. It would be a very interesting process to develop something like this for a desktop Linux, btw.
When I have to work with apps that don't adhere to the HIG, that's bad for productivity and enjoyment. So I don't.
In the case of FF I was willing to hack the UI CSS to correct the button issue. Hey, it's FF after all. Two upgrades later, the thing wasn't working any more. Ok, bye bye FF!
For a while FF was the most microsoftian app on my Mac, because it always announced it's updates without me being able to silent those notifications.
I am still watching, it's FF after all, but if Mozilla can't correct these (actually minor) issues of keeping the UI clean, I can't have it.
Last time I checked, the tab closed button was still on the right side of the tab. On the macOS version. This is a deal breaker. Therefore FF is useless to me as a Mac user.
Other browsers on the Mac have this correct. Safari, Opera, Vivaldi at least.
Vivaldi is the other contender, who is at least on par if not better with FF in terms of privacy.
Problematic privacy is of course the reason why Chrome wasn't even installed on my machines ever. Opera and (arguably so) Brave are the others with privacy endangering issues.
There are other Mac only options, but they have even worse problems, being cloud dependent and whatnot.
I do like the concepts of what they are trying to do in most of the cases, but for now I prefer the clarity of Safari.
Now, some of you might not be Mac developers, so let me say something about app development on the Mac. There is a manual with guidelines of how to do it. It is called the Human Interface Guidelines (HIG) and that stuff is very important. It would be a very interesting process to develop something like this for a desktop Linux, btw.
When I have to work with apps that don't adhere to the HIG, that's bad for productivity and enjoyment. So I don't.
In the case of FF I was willing to hack the UI CSS to correct the button issue. Hey, it's FF after all. Two upgrades later, the thing wasn't working any more. Ok, bye bye FF!
For a while FF was the most microsoftian app on my Mac, because it always announced it's updates without me being able to silent those notifications.
I am still watching, it's FF after all, but if Mozilla can't correct these (actually minor) issues of keeping the UI clean, I can't have it.
Switched to Firefox as soon as Chrome disabled UBO. Unfortunately I found that after a day or so of Firefox being open, if I have more than a few YouTube tabs open, the YouTube interface begins to lag. I had read that the issue had been fixed but apparently not. Switched to Brave and things are going well so far.
In Firefox you can right-click and Unload Tab which leaves the tab as one you can return to but unloads all the JS (including Service Workers) until you return to it. Firefox will auto-unload tabs as you open more tabs, but for sites like YouTube that do a lot of cross-tab chatter and have mega Service Workers trying to do background stuff (they don't need to) all of the time, it's nice to be able to Unload Tab directly from the right-click menu.
Does anyone know how to reliably use Firefox from command line to take screenshots? It used to work well a few years ago but now it does not. For one, it asks that Firefox is already running and I need to kill it. This is surprising -- why can't two Firefox processes run at the same time?
Script with Playwright?
Use playwright?
It is whining about the shared use of your main profile directory. You can give it a temporary profile directory to more clearly express your intentions via "--profile=/tmp/$(uuidgen)" or similar. I'd guess you could even just straight up point <<env HOME=$(tmpdir) firefox --screenshot...>> for even stronger isolation
PROFILEDIR="$(mktemp -d)"
firefox --no-remote --profile "$PROFILEDIR" --screenshot $PWD/output.png https://xkcd.com
rm -r "$PROFILEDIR"
The CLI has long had `-noremote` for a long time to tell it you want a second Firefox. It's useful with `-ProfileManager` or `-P $profileName` for multi-profile workflows, which are out of fashion this decade, especially with Multi-Account Containers being able to do most of those workflows in the same browser window now with different tags. But some of us still have ancient profiles for ancient reasons and ingrained habits regarding them.
Ancient documentation: https://www-archive.mozilla.org/docs/command-line-args.html
Ancient documentation: https://www-archive.mozilla.org/docs/command-line-args.html
I use Firefox, Chrome, and Edge on a Windows 10 machine.
I use Chrome 90% of the time because Firefox is slow and has many bugs on video sites like 9gag. The screen goes black, the video loses vertical sync, etc. The same happens with Edge.
In my experience, the problem with Firefox's popularity is technical. I'll use Firefox more often if it improves. Before Firefox 3.6 (probably that version), Firefox was my most used browser, but after that version, Firefox started getting slower and more buggy. I switched to Chrome because IE was unusable on some sites.
I've never used Firefox much on Android, but when I did, it was slower than Chrome.
It's likely that if Firefox fixes the issues, they'll gain traction again, but right now, I don't see that happening. Mozilla's goals are different.
I use Chrome 90% of the time because Firefox is slow and has many bugs on video sites like 9gag. The screen goes black, the video loses vertical sync, etc. The same happens with Edge.
In my experience, the problem with Firefox's popularity is technical. I'll use Firefox more often if it improves. Before Firefox 3.6 (probably that version), Firefox was my most used browser, but after that version, Firefox started getting slower and more buggy. I switched to Chrome because IE was unusable on some sites.
I've never used Firefox much on Android, but when I did, it was slower than Chrome.
It's likely that if Firefox fixes the issues, they'll gain traction again, but right now, I don't see that happening. Mozilla's goals are different.
> Before Firefox 3.6 (probably that version), Firefox was my most used browser, but after that version, Firefox started getting slower and more buggy.
Haha, I remember that same feeling, with 3.6 being "peak" Firefox back in the day. My 3.6 was heavily hand-tailored to my needs via about:config etc. Just some dedicated end-user here, but I did know it very well. Version 4 felt considerably worse on a WinXP system, some essential-to-me add-ons broke, etc. I remember feeling really - as in, really - frustrated when I finally had to make the switch.
Apparently, 3.6 is the longest supported Firefox version ever, 27 months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_3.6#End_of_life
Haha, I remember that same feeling, with 3.6 being "peak" Firefox back in the day. My 3.6 was heavily hand-tailored to my needs via about:config etc. Just some dedicated end-user here, but I did know it very well. Version 4 felt considerably worse on a WinXP system, some essential-to-me add-ons broke, etc. I remember feeling really - as in, really - frustrated when I finally had to make the switch.
Apparently, 3.6 is the longest supported Firefox version ever, 27 months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_3.6#End_of_life
I seem to recall similarly about things starting to go downhill after 4.x or so. Performance, optimization, and stability seemed to take a back seat to flashier things like new features and UI themes. It stopped being the lean, mean minimal browser that it’d become famous as and turned into something a lot more unremarkable (albeit, more flexible). They wouldn’t seriously prioritize performance again until many years later with Quantum.
Looking at it that way, it’s no mystery how it lost ground to Chrome (though Google’s marketing muscle is also largely responsible). Mozilla just tossed Firefox’s claim to fame out the window and expected things to work out somehow, which is a bit like a restaurant that’d become popular for its award winning burgers deciding to pivot to the same dry turkey sandwiches you can get at most of the restaurants in town. Yeah, you’re gonna lose customers.
Looking at it that way, it’s no mystery how it lost ground to Chrome (though Google’s marketing muscle is also largely responsible). Mozilla just tossed Firefox’s claim to fame out the window and expected things to work out somehow, which is a bit like a restaurant that’d become popular for its award winning burgers deciding to pivot to the same dry turkey sandwiches you can get at most of the restaurants in town. Yeah, you’re gonna lose customers.
I had known that 3.6 was released when Firefox was at its absolute peak in terms of market share but I am somewhat surprised (not really) that this seems to also correspond with its peak in overall quality for some people. This is not the case with Internet Explorer.
So after all of the things you outlined, you're still fine with using Chrome despite the ads?
Yes, in my case, for some sites like 9gag, Chrome is the only browser that works!
Nothing is free, and ads are inevitable (Firefox makes money from... ads). I don't think ads are the worst thing about the internet.
Where I'm sure Firefox works without problems, I use it: (hackernews, for example), OR on sites where ads are the problem, pop-ups are the problem. I hope it improves so I can use it more.
Nothing is free, and ads are inevitable (Firefox makes money from... ads). I don't think ads are the worst thing about the internet.
Where I'm sure Firefox works without problems, I use it: (hackernews, for example), OR on sites where ads are the problem, pop-ups are the problem. I hope it improves so I can use it more.
> Here’s something the iPhone isn’t getting anytime soon: honest-to-god browser extensions that you use on your desktop, also on your phone. Which means… you can run uBlock Origin on Android, completely unnerfed.
Orion supports both Firefox and Chrome extensions on iOS.
Orion supports both Firefox and Chrome extensions on iOS.
At least three reasons why I prefer (reason I can think of right now) that prefer Safari on macOS is the SMS/Messages integrations for sites still using SMS for 2FA, pinch to show all tabs (useful if you have a lot of tabs open for some reason), and private browsing is exactly that, if I open Facebook in a private window and login, open a new tab and go to Facebook, it doesn't recognize that I am logged.
Other than that, I love Firefox. I switched an automation we had using Chrome/Chromium to login to the site to Firefox because every time the Chrome browser binary updated I had to download a new version of the webdriver.
Other than that, I love Firefox. I switched an automation we had using Chrome/Chromium to login to the site to Firefox because every time the Chrome browser binary updated I had to download a new version of the webdriver.
I wonder how much posts like these do to push people away from Firefox and towards other alternatives like Brave, Orion, etc.
Surely, given the HN audience, virtually nobody in here is seriously discovering that Firefox exists. However, once the HN reader's mind is set to move away from Chrome, the comments here always push various alternatives to Firefox (mostly forks) that might be unknown and interesting to try.
Another way to reason about it is such posts in such communities probably don't pull a lot of "normies" to Firefox... however they probably also push a lot of "nerds" to Firefox alternatives, not to Firefox itself.
Surely, given the HN audience, virtually nobody in here is seriously discovering that Firefox exists. However, once the HN reader's mind is set to move away from Chrome, the comments here always push various alternatives to Firefox (mostly forks) that might be unknown and interesting to try.
Another way to reason about it is such posts in such communities probably don't pull a lot of "normies" to Firefox... however they probably also push a lot of "nerds" to Firefox alternatives, not to Firefox itself.
I think the root of it is that crowd of nerds aren't particularly interested in going back to Firefox. That they have a new interest in getting off Chrome doesn't change that as they already have a browser they aren't too thrilled with installed and configured. The promise of some new variant that does things right (tm) is the only thing interesting enough to trigger a switch.
I switched after Manifest v3. I won’t go back to Chrome as long as it limits ad-blocking, but I do miss its speed.
Firefox takes a long time to open (especially when you have a lot of extensions). Even with the same number of extensions, Chrome opens in a jiffy. There are other areas of slowdown as well. Sometimes I hit Control+D to bookmark a page and nothing happens. At first I thought maybe I was doing something wrong, but now I know to just wait, and sure enough five to ten seconds after I hit the shortcut it works. A delay that long (especially one with no notification of any kind) is really bad UX.
Firefox takes a long time to open (especially when you have a lot of extensions). Even with the same number of extensions, Chrome opens in a jiffy. There are other areas of slowdown as well. Sometimes I hit Control+D to bookmark a page and nothing happens. At first I thought maybe I was doing something wrong, but now I know to just wait, and sure enough five to ten seconds after I hit the shortcut it works. A delay that long (especially one with no notification of any kind) is really bad UX.
Oof, a delay that long should not happen. Might be worth reporting at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org, ideally with a profile attached (see https://profiler.firefox.com/)?
Unless you're running it on 15+ year old hardware, it sounds like something is very wrong.
I've used Firefox / LibreWolf basically since it existed and can't remember any UI delays longer than a second.
I've used Firefox / LibreWolf basically since it existed and can't remember any UI delays longer than a second.
Note that Firefox for me within the last 3/4 months seems to have (I assume it's by design?) changed to automatically add a bookmark to the most-recently-added bookmark folder WITHOUT asking which folder to use (it just adds a blue star in the address bar) which is pretty annoying IMO and isn't the behaviour I want 95% of the time.
Pressing Ctrl/Cmd-D a second time then does "Edit bookmark", and allows you to change it.
Might that be contributing to what you're seeing? (blue star appearing is fairly obvious though).
Pressing Ctrl/Cmd-D a second time then does "Edit bookmark", and allows you to change it.
Might that be contributing to what you're seeing? (blue star appearing is fairly obvious though).
One thing which is great are the built-in VPN containers. I always have SSH tunnels with SOCKS proxies running and so I can use for certain sites always a VPN. Or just open a new tab which tunnels everything in THIS tab through the VPN. Great feature!
I switched (back) to firefox a while ago after Chrome was simply super sluggish and slow on a MacStudio (!). Not having UBlock Origin is the final killer. Firefox was always super snappy to me and just does everything I want, in a very data-protective way.
Only downside (not Firefox'es fault) is that it can't use Safari's private relay feature.
I switched (back) to firefox a while ago after Chrome was simply super sluggish and slow on a MacStudio (!). Not having UBlock Origin is the final killer. Firefox was always super snappy to me and just does everything I want, in a very data-protective way.
Only downside (not Firefox'es fault) is that it can't use Safari's private relay feature.
>With Firefox for Android, you get seamless sync of tabs, bookmarks, passwords between browser and phone
If only. In my experience this barely works in one direction and doesn't work at all in the other direction.
If only. In my experience this barely works in one direction and doesn't work at all in the other direction.
>> Let’s face it, Safari between Mac and iPhone is a sublime experience.
I daily drive safari and firefox has a far better sync experience. Safari will randomly delay syncing, i've never had that with firefox. I regularly quickly search something on a tab on phone to be picked up later at my desk. It's not a reliable sync process.
Bookmark management? Firefox wins as soon as you want to do something a bit custom because you have so many bookmarks.
Dev tools? You guessed it.
Safari is still better on battery life though.
I daily drive safari and firefox has a far better sync experience. Safari will randomly delay syncing, i've never had that with firefox. I regularly quickly search something on a tab on phone to be picked up later at my desk. It's not a reliable sync process.
Bookmark management? Firefox wins as soon as you want to do something a bit custom because you have so many bookmarks.
Dev tools? You guessed it.
Safari is still better on battery life though.
I had been using FireFox for 10+ years, but I find myself more and more using Edge. The Workspaces(0) feature is a killer feature that I have not been able to recreate with any FF extensions. If anyone knows of any it would be much appreciated.
0: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/edge/features/edge-workspace...
0: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/edge/features/edge-workspace...
I tried Multi-Account Containers to try isolate my work from my personal but it just wasn't good enough. History, bookmarks, passwords and plugins were all shared.
Do I really need twitch emotes and every personal password on my work environment? No.
What I found as a solution was `about:profiles` and creating a separate profile with a distinct theme to tell the envs apart, and to sync I had to add a different Firefox account but it all works quite well.
Mozilla shipped an easier-to-use profile manager in Firefox 138. Here are instructions for enabling it:
https://allthings.how/use-the-new-updated-profile-manager-in...
https://allthings.how/use-the-new-updated-profile-manager-in...
If you’re having performance issues with firefox and thunderbird, I recommend vacuuming the sqlite files under your profile. Compacting mailbox helps TB as well.
Yeah, I think it's been done automatically for the past decade or so but I'm still in the habit of running a quick vacuum every time I restart my computer (typically for Debian point release upgrades, so every 3 months-ish).
It's probably pure cargo-culting at this point, but unlikely to be actively harmful:
It's probably pure cargo-culting at this point, but unlikely to be actively harmful:
find $HOME/.mozilla/ \( -name "*.sqlite" \) -exec sqlite3 {} "vacuum" \;
If they’re having performance problems, then something went wrong. May be this or something else, but worth a try.
I just installed Firefox on iPhone hoping to install ublock, only to realize that you can’t and the reason you can’t is because Firefox on iOS is just WebKit with a different UI. This made me wonder, given the recent rulings around the App Store, how has Apple gotten away with basically banning every other browser engine on their mobile platform but their own? Is there any current court cases - or are iPhone users basically stuck?
Orion supports extensions on iOS, fwiw.
I didn't see the author or anyone else mention TouchID yet. That was such a quality of life improvement for me that I switched from Firefox to Chrome on my work MacBook just for that. With SSO+MFA everywhere, TouchID saved me so much hassle.
Also, I must've been using UBO wrong all these years cause I switched to UBOL and didn't notice a difference. So, thanks to the author, I've got a bunch of new settings to try!
Also, I must've been using UBO wrong all these years cause I switched to UBOL and didn't notice a difference. So, thanks to the author, I've got a bunch of new settings to try!
A lot of hate and bashing of Firefox here. On my Linux machine (relatively modern desktop) there's no difference in speed between Chrome(Chromium) and Firefox. A lot of people talk about goodies and extensions. I get it, life is easier with some of those but I just don't care. I use it barebones with enhanced tracking protection and it works flawlessly. Don't see many ads, the ones I see are not intrusive.
[deleted]
With native vertical tabs, Firefox is now perfect for me. I use it on PC and phone with Ublock Origin and some others. Not slow for me and actually feels like it handles many tabs better than Chrome or Edge.
I have tried Vivaldi also, but the UI was too slow still, even though it's very nice and custom. Brave is too weird with all the crypto stuff. So FF it is for the foreseeable future.
I have tried Vivaldi also, but the UI was too slow still, even though it's very nice and custom. Brave is too weird with all the crypto stuff. So FF it is for the foreseeable future.
When it comes to situations like this, either trying to get access to someone whatsApp message , account recovery or better still protect your account from getting hacked then you should consider requiring an expert that also helped me with my account retrieval. ; Remotespyhacker (AT) Gm ail . ĆØм can help you out
Unfortunately Firefox doesn't have the ability to save sites as an App. This is a showstopper for me. I'm not going to have GMail in some tab among my many tabs, in some browser window among my many browser windows.
Until they have this, I've switched to Brave.
Until they have this, I've switched to Brave.
Did they get rid of it? That used to be a thing on Android IIRC
Firefox was my main browser after Chrome MV3 stuff, but now I'm moving to Orion by Kagi. I found, on my Macbook M1, Firefox hog the battery a lot seen from the energy impact on Mac's activity monitor (average 12hr power >1000 compared to Orion ~350). Don't expect extensions to work well on Orion, though, but I can live with it for now.
It supports both Chrome and Firefox extensions. Vimium works flawlessly.
I use Firefox and uBlock Origin, but I'm also routing everything through AdGuard Home on an RPi5 (my router points to the RPi for DNS), and it's been an eye-opening experience.
Just checked AGH, and it's blocking 49.56% of my DNS queries for everything that's connected. I cannot recommend AGH on an RPi highly enough. It's amazing.
Just checked AGH, and it's blocking 49.56% of my DNS queries for everything that's connected. I cannot recommend AGH on an RPi highly enough. It's amazing.
A bit ironic that I cannot see the left few pixels of that site in Firefox on Android. (A 'T' starts at the vertical bar)
Why "ironic"? The website is using flexbox incorrectly, all spec-compliant browsers have that behaviour on small viewports. Using the "safe" keyword fixes that.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/align-items...
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/align-items...
sorry I'm not necessarily seeing this. could I ask for more details ?
I still remember one bug I filed to Firefox, about issues with roaming profiles on Windows. I then forgot about it, as nothing was going on with it, except few times a year someone new commented that they run a few thousand seats org, and this bug prevents them from deployong Firefox. It was finally fixed like 12 years later.
I tried Firefox just a few days ago, but it didn't work out. I just missed too many things out of the box. My main browser is Vivaldi (so all the chromium goodies + privacy + made in EU). Safari comes in as a close second, I tend to use it on the go because it syncs well with my Mac and Apple throttles any other browser on iOS.
> I just missed too many things out of the box.
Another very vague comment bashing Firefox without any real explanation.
Another very vague comment bashing Firefox without any real explanation.
I'm not sure making a list that's been done time and time again here would make a difference. But if you're truly interested, here are my top 3:
- Firefox comes packed with all kinds of telemetry and analytics turned on.
- No workspaces/profiles. I know there are extensions that can enable various flavours of this functionality, but it's just too much overhead to experiment and test every-single-one.
- Widgets! I love Vivaldi's Dashboard for when one needs more than just a homepage.
- Firefox comes packed with all kinds of telemetry and analytics turned on.
- No workspaces/profiles. I know there are extensions that can enable various flavours of this functionality, but it's just too much overhead to experiment and test every-single-one.
- Widgets! I love Vivaldi's Dashboard for when one needs more than just a homepage.
> No workspaces/profiles. I know there are extensions that can enable various flavours of this functionality, but it's just too much overhead to experiment and test every-single-one.
Most of it is built-in and these days there is generally only one recommended extension: Multi-Account Container. Containers (tabs in the same window with different cookie jars/etc) are built-in, the UI for working with them is not, and MAC is the generally agreed best UI. It lets you create as many named Containers as you want and assign them a color to gently stripe your tabs. You can right-click the new tab button and get a list of Containers to open the next tab in. You can right-click an existing tab and reopen it in a new Container. (TIL from this article there's an option to have left click on the new tab button always open the Container menu. I don't think I'd use that, but it's nice to know.)
If you want to go older school, Profiles (browser windows with different extensions/cookie jars/everything) have been around since the beginning of Firefox (and it shows in how old and ugly some of the UI still is, hah). `about:profiles` is a profile manager when you are already inside a Firefox browser. The `-ProfileManager` command line switch is the ancient startup option to manage profiles before opening a browser window at all. If you like to use side-by-side profiles often you want `-noremote -ProfileManager` and/or `-noremote -P $profileName` shortcuts. (`-noremote` says not to send it to any currently open Firefox window.)
Most of it is built-in and these days there is generally only one recommended extension: Multi-Account Container. Containers (tabs in the same window with different cookie jars/etc) are built-in, the UI for working with them is not, and MAC is the generally agreed best UI. It lets you create as many named Containers as you want and assign them a color to gently stripe your tabs. You can right-click the new tab button and get a list of Containers to open the next tab in. You can right-click an existing tab and reopen it in a new Container. (TIL from this article there's an option to have left click on the new tab button always open the Container menu. I don't think I'd use that, but it's nice to know.)
If you want to go older school, Profiles (browser windows with different extensions/cookie jars/everything) have been around since the beginning of Firefox (and it shows in how old and ugly some of the UI still is, hah). `about:profiles` is a profile manager when you are already inside a Firefox browser. The `-ProfileManager` command line switch is the ancient startup option to manage profiles before opening a browser window at all. If you like to use side-by-side profiles often you want `-noremote -ProfileManager` and/or `-noremote -P $profileName` shortcuts. (`-noremote` says not to send it to any currently open Firefox window.)
> Multi-Account Container
Last I looked, it was not possible to bind a bookmark to a preferred MAC.
Last I looked, it was not possible to bind a bookmark to a preferred MAC.
The MAC UI itself allows to assign a domain to always open in a specific container. If you need it more specific than an entire domain there are other extensions that can allow you to automate containers, but personally all I've needed are the domain-wide assignments.
Admittedly, I also tend to use unloaded tabs more than bookmarks, so if I need a very specific address in a specific container I am probably likely to just unload it but leave it open somewhere. (Sideberry "helps" me in this bad habit with multiple tab panels and tree grouping of tabs.)
Admittedly, I also tend to use unloaded tabs more than bookmarks, so if I need a very specific address in a specific container I am probably likely to just unload it but leave it open somewhere. (Sideberry "helps" me in this bad habit with multiple tab panels and tree grouping of tabs.)
I think the parent comment acknowledges that it's indeed possible but all that are so many steps one shouldn't have to perform just to get to the feature.
Firefox wants to be customisable, but instead of features, its out-of-box experience is focused on sharing activity with Google and giving you sponsored bookmarks... I agree that the priorities there are not exactly user-focused.
Firefox wants to be customisable, but instead of features, its out-of-box experience is focused on sharing activity with Google and giving you sponsored bookmarks... I agree that the priorities there are not exactly user-focused.
It's 1 (official from Mozilla) extension to install (easily, from a simple marketplace) or 1 url and/or 2 command line flags to learn just long enough to bookmark them/add them to a shortcut file somewhere.
I don't feel like that is "so many steps". Two choices, one easy thing to do whichever path you chose.
The one thing is an extension still because Mozilla still doesn't think the UX is right and doesn't want to include it out of the box until they think the UX is 100% solid, especially for general users, not just power users. The other thing has active improvements to its out-of-the-box UX already in beta testing/slow rollout.
The only activity Firefox shares with Google is if you leave Google the default search, which is a real easy to change at the top of the Settings page.
Sponsored bookmarks are dumb but easy to ignore. It is also easy to replace the New Tab page with a Blank Page (also right at the top of the Settings page) if you really don't want to see it, and there are extensions for other New Tab Page options.
Sure, making a bit of money by setting the default search to Google and showing a couple icons of brands isn't exactly "user-focused" but it's just business, and it doesn't seem to be getting in the way of prioritizing user features.
I don't feel like that is "so many steps". Two choices, one easy thing to do whichever path you chose.
The one thing is an extension still because Mozilla still doesn't think the UX is right and doesn't want to include it out of the box until they think the UX is 100% solid, especially for general users, not just power users. The other thing has active improvements to its out-of-the-box UX already in beta testing/slow rollout.
The only activity Firefox shares with Google is if you leave Google the default search, which is a real easy to change at the top of the Settings page.
Sponsored bookmarks are dumb but easy to ignore. It is also easy to replace the New Tab page with a Blank Page (also right at the top of the Settings page) if you really don't want to see it, and there are extensions for other New Tab Page options.
Sure, making a bit of money by setting the default search to Google and showing a couple icons of brands isn't exactly "user-focused" but it's just business, and it doesn't seem to be getting in the way of prioritizing user features.
> - No workspaces/profiles.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44645720
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44645720
For me the killer feature is tab stacking. It's crazy that no browser other than Presto-era Opera has this feature, that with workspaces is _so_ useful for tab organization.
Ah, nice share.
I was looking at different chrome alternatives and most of them had ~something~ wrong with them. I have not tried vivaldi yet, but from a bit of research it seems just like the browser I was looking for. Thanks for sharing.
Any specific thing a first time user should know? Use build in ad blocker or install uBlock Origin?
I was looking at different chrome alternatives and most of them had ~something~ wrong with them. I have not tried vivaldi yet, but from a bit of research it seems just like the browser I was looking for. Thanks for sharing.
Any specific thing a first time user should know? Use build in ad blocker or install uBlock Origin?
If we are talking about clean firefox setup, I really like the Firefox Gnome Theme (https://github.com/rafaelmardojai/firefox-gnome-theme). It really integrates Firefox well with the rest of GNOME apps.
To this day Firefox refuses to let me use credit card autofill on Android. I know this feature exists and I suspect it's locked to some geographical regions. It pisses me off to be a second class citizen on the same software as my American counsins. The feature is present on desktop, just not mobile.
Chrome hasn't truly 'pulled the trigger' until:
* You can no longer enable manifest V2 extensions using chrome://flags switches (You still can for now)
* You can no longer download the extension from the Chrome Web Store on a version of Chrome/Chromium which supports MV2 extensions.
* You can no longer enable manifest V2 extensions using chrome://flags switches (You still can for now)
* You can no longer download the extension from the Chrome Web Store on a version of Chrome/Chromium which supports MV2 extensions.
I stopped using Firefox when they removed support for ALSA. I think it is possible to compile with it, but the bin is just PulseAudio. I don't want to compile it every week. That is my only issue, and while I liked Firefox, but they are losing users in a stupid way.
.. and then there are panorama extensions, which ease handling a lot of tabs immensely. No other browser seems to have anything alike. No, the grouping of tabs into tabs does nothing compared to this.
https://github.com/projectdelphai/panorama-tab-groups and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/panorama-view...
https://github.com/projectdelphai/panorama-tab-groups and https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/panorama-view...
[deleted]
I would also advise people to use user.js such as arkenfox / betterfox.
Also available on mobile
https://github.com/yokoffing/Betterfox/issues/240
Also available on mobile
https://github.com/yokoffing/Betterfox/issues/240
These so-called "hardening scripts" cause a lot of issues and volunteers have to waste their time helping clueless users who copied them without understanding what they do.
I see you're quite active regarding FF. Nevertheless I'm not sure what you're talking about. I've installed Betterfox ESR on Windows, Linux and Android with no apparent issues.
I prefer stylebot to stylus, as it doesn't require an unnecessary dance to make a specific theme and then mark it as only for the current site, before you can plop some css into the sidebar for that specific site.
Android users rejoice
It should be "mobile users rejoice". I get the same sync'ing benefits from Firefox on iOS. And it lets apps use desktop passwords that I've saved in firefox and sync'ed.
It should be "mobile users rejoice". I get the same sync'ing benefits from Firefox on iOS. And it lets apps use desktop passwords that I've saved in firefox and sync'ed.
Been using Firefox since release. It's not as good as it once was, but then, nothing is anymore, on the internet. Still recommend it for every reason in this article. Honestly just UBo is enough of a reason.
Currently, Firefox has a system RAM leak for the GPU process. You need to periodically go to about:processes, scroll down to the GPU process, and close the GPU process with the X button on the right column.
If you want them to fix it:
1) Generate a profile performance with https://profiler.firefox.com/
2) Submit the link with your results to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
1) Generate a profile performance with https://profiler.firefox.com/
2) Submit the link with your results to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
Already made the bug report.
Since we're talking about Firefox:
Firefox shipped WebGPU support for Windows today.
Firefox shipped WebGPU support for Windows today.
Firefox is all that.
Except on my arm-based crhomebook. There it gets confused and do not resize properly thinking is in phone format.
Also cast to chromecast is a no-go.
If it wasn't by those 2 issues I would have ditched chrome long time ago.
Except on my arm-based crhomebook. There it gets confused and do not resize properly thinking is in phone format.
Also cast to chromecast is a no-go.
If it wasn't by those 2 issues I would have ditched chrome long time ago.
Surprised Sidebery isn't mentioned even more. It's the main reason I switched, being the tab hoarding organizer I am, though I love all the other features he mentioned.
The issue with firefox is sites don't develop or test on firefox and will outright just say use chrome/edge. e.g. on air india can't buy tickets (must use chrome, actually a _lot_ of india sites require chrome to just work), one of my work's agency website literal says on login to use chrome or edge.
I mostly blame mozilla "leadership" for going off on ridiculous directions and identity politics. They've reaped what they've sown. It's only because of short term corporate profits that chrome now has to claw back some ad revenue and by blocking ublock, now firefox gets some users back. The problem is that it's not new users.
I mostly blame mozilla "leadership" for going off on ridiculous directions and identity politics. They've reaped what they've sown. It's only because of short term corporate profits that chrome now has to claw back some ad revenue and by blocking ublock, now firefox gets some users back. The problem is that it's not new users.
Use this extension created by a Mozilla employee: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/chrome-mask
THANK YOU. I've been running a Chrome User-Agent for a few years, but my highly-manually UA editing was obnoxious. This is just what I needed.
This is really hard to read. I can't get the tone of the article or how I'm supposed to feel about it. Or is it a generation gap, I was born in 2000.
>I can't get the tone of the article or how I'm supposed to feel about it
It's a tech article. What do you expect to feel while reading it?
It's a tech article. What do you expect to feel while reading it?
The author uses a really excited tone and frequent questions like You know what? Guess what? Wow! Boom! Exaggeration obviously, but I like to connect emotionally with the author of whatever I am reading.
You can understand a lot more that way than words can convey.
I was not able to keep up with such an enthusiastic post that's all.
I suppose the author was expecting that people who read the article already knew what it's all about (i.e. the context) - switching browsers because of manifest version changes made by Google, and some "concerns" that people have about Firefox compared to Chrome. But that part is conveyed in the first two sentences of the article.
In the end, he is just "excited" to help people switch to Firefox, that's all.
In the end, he is just "excited" to help people switch to Firefox, that's all.
> This is really hard to read.
I am old and I agree.
It is full of things that break the flow of reading like asking a hypothetical question to the reader and following it up with a plosive like 'BOOM!', or inserting useless conversational stops like like 'sure,' 'But...', and '...Nope!'.
Makes it sound/feel like an excited toddler is desperate to tell you something, but cant really get to the point.
I am old and I agree.
It is full of things that break the flow of reading like asking a hypothetical question to the reader and following it up with a plosive like 'BOOM!', or inserting useless conversational stops like like 'sure,' 'But...', and '...Nope!'.
Makes it sound/feel like an excited toddler is desperate to tell you something, but cant really get to the point.
Exactly, maybe we are jaded. I like how excited these people are. Even if I can't relate.
I really like Firefox.
Unfortunately due to Apple’s restrictions on ad blockers it’s become kind of unusable for me on iOS.
Is there a way to incorporate ad blocking on mobile Firefox on iOS?
Unfortunately due to Apple’s restrictions on ad blockers it’s become kind of unusable for me on iOS.
Is there a way to incorporate ad blocking on mobile Firefox on iOS?
Try using Orion. Its not Firefox but has uBO on iOS: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/orion-browser-by-kagi/id148449...
> Customize to your heart’s content
Ok Sir https://ibb.co/fGx3Qf55
Ok Sir https://ibb.co/fGx3Qf55
The irony of writing a post about Firefox on a blog that doesn't render well on Firefox (mobile)...
The article said ubo lite does not have element zapper. Last time I used it, it does. Maybe the article is old?
Just use librewolf and be done with it. 99% of sites work and the 1% that don’t I have ungoogled chromium for.
[EDIT]: I was wrong, uBlock Origin Lite was addressed by the article and does not have the same features.
See the section in the article that starts with:
> Sure, there’s uBlock Origin “Lite” now, which does the same thing, right?
> Sure, there’s uBlock Origin “Lite” now, which does the same thing, right?
from TFA:
Filter lists update only when the extension updates, no fetching up to date lists from servers (this is a big one!)
No custom filters, so no element picker which allows you to point and zap
Many filters are dropped at conversion time due to MV3’s limited filter syntax
No strict-blocked pages
No per-site switches
No dynamic filtering
No importing external lists> No custom filters, so no element picker which allows you to point and zap
> No per-site switches
These aren't accurate. My version of uBOL in Chrome (2025.718.1921) has these features.
> No per-site switches
These aren't accurate. My version of uBOL in Chrome (2025.718.1921) has these features.
You're either not using uBlock Origin Lite or do not know what the "per-site switches" are: https://github.com/gorhill/ublock/wiki/Per-site-switches
Ah, so uBOL does have the ability to adjust the blocking level on a per-site basis, which is what I assumed "per-site switches" meant. I see now that the original uBO has/had a more granular level of configuration available. (Which I suspect most folks never used, but still... my bad there.)
great write up but my issue has always been how to persist or store changes across re-installs.
A browser won’t survive off the user share of HN Raspberry Pi Guys.
Let’s be practical, the average user isn’t concerned about browser monopolization. Firefox isn’t going to catch up because its users made some philanthropic choice to use it. This isn’t Linux, the web is far too complex to write a modern browser for without corporate backing.
Let’s be practical, the average user isn’t concerned about browser monopolization. Firefox isn’t going to catch up because its users made some philanthropic choice to use it. This isn’t Linux, the web is far too complex to write a modern browser for without corporate backing.
Just use Brave, is much better
I'll wait for the site-isolation to fully mature. Using Brave until then.
I switched to chrome just this week. firefox is so insanely slow for me
I migrated from Firefox to Orion half a year ago.
I am now ready to migrate back, since Orion has UX problems that aren't being addressed fast enough that are non-issues in Firefox. And because I haven't found a replacement for Firefox Sync that works as nicely (Vaultwarden is super nice, but the Bitwarden browser plugins suck ass.) I still use Orion for iOS because Firefox for iOS has such a broken memory consumption it kills my phone if I open the app.
In those six months of not primarily using Firefox on Desktop, it's been blocked by Cloudflare.
This is what happens when you lose market share below a certain threshold.
I really hate Mozilla Corporation.
But Firefox is not theirs to enshittify.
I'm back on Firefox on desktop, and am still using Firefox as a password store on iOS, since it doesn't start the app. So I can still have one source of password sync.
I'd rather not visit websites that block off browsers for not allowing them to track me. Sorry, guys, that's a shitty thing to do. I get it, Cloudflare is addressing a bot problem.
I am now ready to migrate back, since Orion has UX problems that aren't being addressed fast enough that are non-issues in Firefox. And because I haven't found a replacement for Firefox Sync that works as nicely (Vaultwarden is super nice, but the Bitwarden browser plugins suck ass.) I still use Orion for iOS because Firefox for iOS has such a broken memory consumption it kills my phone if I open the app.
In those six months of not primarily using Firefox on Desktop, it's been blocked by Cloudflare.
This is what happens when you lose market share below a certain threshold.
I really hate Mozilla Corporation.
But Firefox is not theirs to enshittify.
I'm back on Firefox on desktop, and am still using Firefox as a password store on iOS, since it doesn't start the app. So I can still have one source of password sync.
I'd rather not visit websites that block off browsers for not allowing them to track me. Sorry, guys, that's a shitty thing to do. I get it, Cloudflare is addressing a bot problem.
Instead of arguing about tab management and rendering performance, we should be asking what does a healthy browser ecosystem look like in five years? Do we want 95% of users on browsers controlled by advertising companies (Google), hardware manufacturers optimizing for their own services (Apple), or cloud providers with obvious conflicts of interest (Microsoft)?
Firefox's technical quirks are fixable. The uncomfortable reality is that true browser independence might require something Mozilla has consistently failed to achieve: sustainable revenue that doesn't depend on surveillance capitalism. Until that happens, we're choosing between degrees of corporate control, not between freedom and captivity.
tl;dr - how to Firefox? Blind taste test.
Had been using Arc for some time with several qualms about the UX and after trying Dia and finding it's just yet another Chrome, decided to see what Zen is like. I expected the same - but it wasn't. All qualms were solved and I had no rendering problems.
It was only when I noticed the Mozilla login flow I realized I had switched to Firefox - I had an assumption that all alternative browsers are on Chromium now. Really lucky since if I knew, I may not have given a fair chance given the rendering problems I remember from giving it a try 3-4 years ago.
Had been using Arc for some time with several qualms about the UX and after trying Dia and finding it's just yet another Chrome, decided to see what Zen is like. I expected the same - but it wasn't. All qualms were solved and I had no rendering problems.
It was only when I noticed the Mozilla login flow I realized I had switched to Firefox - I had an assumption that all alternative browsers are on Chromium now. Really lucky since if I knew, I may not have given a fair chance given the rendering problems I remember from giving it a try 3-4 years ago.
[deleted]
Sorry. This article smells like a sales pitch. I used to use Firefox but changed to Duckduckgo. Firefox had started to feel enshittified. Learned most of Firefox funding comes from .. g**gle.
First rule of Firefoxing: use a fork instead
Firefox will never become strong again under Mozilla.
Firefox has no profiles. It has a bunch of hacks, such as containers, which are cumbersome to use. Chromium provides separate windows with different profiles, and Firefox should follow Chromium here. Firefox's "solution" forces you to switch Github tabs between personal and work containers constantly.
> Firefox has no profiles.
It does now, it is being rolled out gradually:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-management
It does now, it is being rolled out gradually:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-management
I didn't know about this new feature, that looks nice. One can force-enable it with the browser.profiles.enabled config.
Firefox havs always had profiles (about:profiles, firefox -P). I do hope this new feature will be able to manage profiles created with the current method.
Firefox havs always had profiles (about:profiles, firefox -P). I do hope this new feature will be able to manage profiles created with the current method.
It definitely has "profiles" as in the entire set of settings/ preferences/history[1]. Whether or not they are usable as a replacement for Chrome's however...
[1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...
[1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...
firefox has had profiles for years, maybe decades
its hidden in about:profiles
i guess they're just adding a proper ui now
I use profiles on Firefox daily and they work fine
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...
The only way to access it with `about:profiles`? It looks like a joke. How could users possibly find this?
UPD. The more I look at this, the worse it gets. Hidden under a special URL, requires you to launch the default profile before you can switch to another profile (yes-yes, there are command-line hacks). It's more like a user data manager for devs than profiles for users. Even containers look better than these profiles.
UPD. The more I look at this, the worse it gets. Hidden under a special URL, requires you to launch the default profile before you can switch to another profile (yes-yes, there are command-line hacks). It's more like a user data manager for devs than profiles for users. Even containers look better than these profiles.
You can use "firefox -ProfileManager". I didn't even know about about:profiles. There is some work on improving the UI: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-management
Anyway, your claim was "Firefox has no profiles". That is not true.
Anyway, your claim was "Firefox has no profiles". That is not true.
Really? Then you can claim that Chrome has supported "profiles" since its inception, with the `--user-data-dir` command-line switch. If something is not user-visible, it is as good as non-existent. Firefox has no profiles as far as a regular user is concerned.
The new profile manager has already been enabled for most users.
If you don't see it in the main menu yet, type `about:config` into the address bar and toggle `browser.profiles.enabled`.
If you don't see it in the main menu yet, type `about:config` into the address bar and toggle `browser.profiles.enabled`.
[deleted]
[deleted]
what in the world are you talking about? you click settings in the upper right hand corner and its right there.
Another thing you can do is run multiple profiles at the same time with the -no-remote argument , so "firefox -P profilename -no-remote"
You don't need the -no-remote parameter anymore btw from what I can see.
> Firefox has no profiles
That is not true [1]. Firefox has profiles and while you can argue that their UX is worse than chrome but that doesn't mean it does not have profiles.
[1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...
That is not true [1]. Firefox has profiles and while you can argue that their UX is worse than chrome but that doesn't mean it does not have profiles.
[1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...
Containers feel like a much more useful feature to me than profiles - I don't wanna open a new window for each website that I want to isolate from my main session, but with containers, it's trivial.
I mostly agree, and I personally just use containers (and heavily!) However, that has not been the case for my spouse. Profiles are important to her in two scenarios:
1. The primary website she uses for grad school (canvas) REQUIRES third party cookies to be enabled for it to work. Containers cannot have different settings here, but profiles can. So she can have a School profile that enables 3rd party cookies and she just uses this profile for Canvas.
2. She likes to keep ALL of her work stuff separate and not have that sync to her personal mobile. So she has Personal Profile (with containers) and a Work Profile (also with containers). The two profiles are themed differently, so it makes it very clear if she is in her "work" browser or "personal" browser.
Firefox's profile management has been a struggle for her (I found creating different application icons for each profile worked best), and I am very excited about the new profile manager!
1. The primary website she uses for grad school (canvas) REQUIRES third party cookies to be enabled for it to work. Containers cannot have different settings here, but profiles can. So she can have a School profile that enables 3rd party cookies and she just uses this profile for Canvas.
2. She likes to keep ALL of her work stuff separate and not have that sync to her personal mobile. So she has Personal Profile (with containers) and a Work Profile (also with containers). The two profiles are themed differently, so it makes it very clear if she is in her "work" browser or "personal" browser.
Firefox's profile management has been a struggle for her (I found creating different application icons for each profile worked best), and I am very excited about the new profile manager!
This is weird to me because I so much prefer Firefox's per-tab containers to having to use separate windows for profiles. I wish chrome had something like it.
The problem here IMHO is that when many tabs are open it becomes confusing quickly which tabs have what. With a profile everything is clear.
I used Firefox and I like it but honestly the profiles were more difficult to use than Chrome's.
I used Firefox and I like it but honestly the profiles were more difficult to use than Chrome's.
Are you one of those people with a thousand tabs open so the tabs shrink to just the icon? Even in that extreme case, everything is color coded and the URL bar labels it.
Not GP and I rarely get into the thousands anymore but I am clearly of the opinion that computers can remember much better than me.
So many of the things I start looking into starts with a search in a single tab and then every link I ctrl-click during the process ends up in a tree underneath it (yes, I use Tree Style Tabs).
This has a few benefits:
- I can easily see things in context
- when I end up on a particularly useful (or useless) page I can easily see what page linked me there
- I can read the root pages and follow links from every one of them without losing track (the root page is usually a kagi search)
- when I am finished I can either export the whole tree as a nested markdown list (yes, there is a nice TST extension that allows me that, and yes, you read that correctly, it is an extension to an extension) or just close it.
So many of the things I start looking into starts with a search in a single tab and then every link I ctrl-click during the process ends up in a tree underneath it (yes, I use Tree Style Tabs).
This has a few benefits:
- I can easily see things in context
- when I end up on a particularly useful (or useless) page I can easily see what page linked me there
- I can read the root pages and follow links from every one of them without losing track (the root page is usually a kagi search)
- when I am finished I can either export the whole tree as a nested markdown list (yes, there is a nice TST extension that allows me that, and yes, you read that correctly, it is an extension to an extension) or just close it.
> Firefox has no profiles.
Patently false. Been using profiles for years.
> bunch of hacks, such as containers, which are cumbersome to use. Firefox's "solution" forces you to switch Github tabs between personal and work containers constantly.
Rarely have I had to that. Until I added rules to open certain URLs in specific containers.
> Chromium provides separate windows with different profiles, and Firefox should follow Chromium here.
Absolutely not. Profiles are a poor "alternative" to containers. How do I add a rule to pin URLs to specific profiles? How would that even work, if it did? A new window for some links? Re-use some random window with the same profile? How do I switch to it? Switch back? Don't tell me to use the Window Manager via Alt-Tab. I organise tabs into windows by shared context.
Then there's the whole issue of sync. Profiles don't share anything. Each profile needs to be configured individually. I like not having to add uBlock Origin to every browser profile. I like not having to think if I have my password for this rarely visited site in this profile or another one. Or a bookmark. Or form info.
----
Just because containers have no use to you / you couldn't find a use for them, doesn't mean the rest of us also shouldn't have the luxury of using this feature. Feel free to use Profiles as you'd like. Leave what works for us alone.
Patently false. Been using profiles for years.
> bunch of hacks, such as containers, which are cumbersome to use. Firefox's "solution" forces you to switch Github tabs between personal and work containers constantly.
Rarely have I had to that. Until I added rules to open certain URLs in specific containers.
> Chromium provides separate windows with different profiles, and Firefox should follow Chromium here.
Absolutely not. Profiles are a poor "alternative" to containers. How do I add a rule to pin URLs to specific profiles? How would that even work, if it did? A new window for some links? Re-use some random window with the same profile? How do I switch to it? Switch back? Don't tell me to use the Window Manager via Alt-Tab. I organise tabs into windows by shared context.
Then there's the whole issue of sync. Profiles don't share anything. Each profile needs to be configured individually. I like not having to add uBlock Origin to every browser profile. I like not having to think if I have my password for this rarely visited site in this profile or another one. Or a bookmark. Or form info.
----
Just because containers have no use to you / you couldn't find a use for them, doesn't mean the rest of us also shouldn't have the luxury of using this feature. Feel free to use Profiles as you'd like. Leave what works for us alone.
I personally prefer containers to profiles. Rather have one window with many tabs than many windows.
Firefox's "answer" to profiles is to run essentially two (or more) copies of the browser rather than only copying the profile-specific parts of each profile. This leads to a lot of wasted CPU cycles and RAM and is a very suboptimal solution compared to what Chromium and Safari do these days, not to mention that the ability to create and switch profiles is not included in the UI by default and requires an extension to access.
I think you may be mixing up profiles and containers.
Profiles do have a built-in UI at about:profiles or by launching Firefox with -P, neither of which requires an extension. Admittedly this UI is a bit basic, but a better version is being rolled out (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-management). Running multiple profiles side by side does indeed involve running multiple instances of the browser.
Containers are an internal API and need an extension like Multi-account Containers to provide a GUI (though this is an official extension by Mozilla), however they don't require running multiple copies of the browser.
Profiles do have a built-in UI at about:profiles or by launching Firefox with -P, neither of which requires an extension. Admittedly this UI is a bit basic, but a better version is being rolled out (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-management). Running multiple profiles side by side does indeed involve running multiple instances of the browser.
Containers are an internal API and need an extension like Multi-account Containers to provide a GUI (though this is an official extension by Mozilla), however they don't require running multiple copies of the browser.
The new profile manager has already been enabled for most users.
If you don't see it in the main menu yet, type `about:config` into the address bar and toggle `browser.profiles.enabled`.
If you don't see it in the main menu yet, type `about:config` into the address bar and toggle `browser.profiles.enabled`.
The new profile manager has already been enabled for most users.
If you don't see it in the main menu yet, type `about:config` into the address bar and toggle `browser.profiles.enabled`.
If you don't see it in the main menu yet, type `about:config` into the address bar and toggle `browser.profiles.enabled`.
I just did this and it doesn't see the multiple profiles I've been using for years through about:profile. Strange.
That's by design:
>This feature is separate from the about:profiles experience, and we currently have no plans to change how about:profiles works. You may continue to use about:profiles if that is better for your workflow.
https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/try-out-firefox-p...
>This feature is separate from the about:profiles experience, and we currently have no plans to change how about:profiles works. You may continue to use about:profiles if that is better for your workflow.
https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/discussions/try-out-firefox-p...
Just tried it out - definitely an improvement UX-wise, but it still essentially runs two copies of Firefox rather than only isolating profile-specific features.
I have a shortcut that starts a separate profile like this:
<path to firefox.exe> -profile <path to profile folder> -no-remote
I've never felt impeded by loading speeds, and my ADHD regularly has me forgetting to restart it, to the tune of 100+ tabs open across multiple desktops. My wimply little MacBook Pro doesn't seem to mind.
The only downside I've found is that, because so many people just default to "Chrome or nothing," there's occasionally sites that have bugs because, like was the case in the 90s with Internet Explorer, the site developers took the idiomatic Chrome way of building a feature instead of something universal.