Switch from Chrome to Firefox(mozilla.org)
mozilla.org
Switch from Chrome to Firefox
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/switch/
1,021 comments
Google will keep locking down Chrome and using corporate talk to hand wave it away, only recourse is to leave.
First it’s “sign in” with obtuse ways to turn it off. Then block Adblocking, once again with obtuse ways to disable... the end goal is pretty obvious, get the majority of Chrome users to turn on ads and tie their real names to their Chrome browser.
Of course let “power users” (who’ll turn that crap off anyways) have their switches to do so. It gives Google plausible deniability.
——
To those who say just fork Chrome adfm had a good article explaining why that doesn’t work:
> And while you can use or adapt Chromium to your heart's content, your new browser won't work with most internet video unless you license a proprietary DRM component called Widevine from Google. The API that connects to Widevine was standardized in 2017 by the World Wide Web Consortium, whose members narrowly voted down a proposal to change the membership rules for the W3C to require members not to abuse the DMCA to prevent DRM from becoming a tool to undermine competition.
https://boingboing.net/2019/05/29/hoarding-software-freedom....
First it’s “sign in” with obtuse ways to turn it off. Then block Adblocking, once again with obtuse ways to disable... the end goal is pretty obvious, get the majority of Chrome users to turn on ads and tie their real names to their Chrome browser.
Of course let “power users” (who’ll turn that crap off anyways) have their switches to do so. It gives Google plausible deniability.
——
To those who say just fork Chrome adfm had a good article explaining why that doesn’t work:
> And while you can use or adapt Chromium to your heart's content, your new browser won't work with most internet video unless you license a proprietary DRM component called Widevine from Google. The API that connects to Widevine was standardized in 2017 by the World Wide Web Consortium, whose members narrowly voted down a proposal to change the membership rules for the W3C to require members not to abuse the DMCA to prevent DRM from becoming a tool to undermine competition.
https://boingboing.net/2019/05/29/hoarding-software-freedom....
You know what's horrifying about the idea of "just fork Chrome"? Google can still hurt you by blocking your browser's access to their prime properties (YouTube, Gmail, Maps, etc). Just look at YouTube denying Chromium-based Edge the new redesigned experience for absolutely zero reason.
This is already happening. Web version of Skype refuses to work in Firefox, but if you change user-agent to Edge, it works.
This is risky behaviour though when dealing with other megacorps. Legal ramifications and antitrust suits come out of actions like that.
It's like Google found developer goodwill burdensome, and decided to pack it all up into container trucks and ship it all to Microsoft.
I agree. It is truly unbelievable. Same with user goodwill.
Microsoft is vaccuuming it all up. Meanwhile Microsoft is making tons of great moves to get devs and users back on their side.
Microsoft is vaccuuming it all up. Meanwhile Microsoft is making tons of great moves to get devs and users back on their side.
You have to read that comment from a long-time Microsoft developer : https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/all/2019/05/24/github...
The referenced comment rehashes the evils of Ballmer's Microsoft which Nadella has mostly corrected. Satya Nadella has embraced (but not extended!) Open Source. Their Azure strategy puts all platforms on a level playing field - yet has also made Azure an incredible place to make Windows/Microsoft technologies shine. It's a great place for all apps.
Yes, they control Office and are the defacto office document standard. What they do with Office now is affordable and ubiquitous. No other office document suite can do this. They are a for-profit company, and Office serves their customers very well. Yes, in Ballmer's days this wan't the case, but today you can run Office (365/Cloud) on a Chromebook and on Android and iPhone as supported apps.
Yes, they control Office and are the defacto office document standard. What they do with Office now is affordable and ubiquitous. No other office document suite can do this. They are a for-profit company, and Office serves their customers very well. Yes, in Ballmer's days this wan't the case, but today you can run Office (365/Cloud) on a Chromebook and on Android and iPhone as supported apps.
Do you live in a parallel universe where it was Ballmer and not Steve Jobs that founded Microsoft and was its CEO in 1995 ?
Meh, he lost me when he tried to say Microsoft success in cloud is due to Office. Microsoft's success in cloud is due to having a good enough cloud platform and being better at selling to enterprises than Amazon or Google. IBM and Oracle can sell to enterprises but lost because their cloud platforms suck.
MSOffice gives a pretty big advantage when you want to sell to enterprises !
And I've heard that these days, Office 365 collaborative work is at least as good as Google Docs, if not better !
And I've heard that these days, Office 365 collaborative work is at least as good as Google Docs, if not better !
So, in your opinion, Microsoft is a bad company because they have a better product and they're using it to make money from other corporations?
Wow, that's pretty damning!
Wow, that's pretty damning!
And what do you think will happen when all devs and users join Microsoft? The same cycle will repeat.
Linux and Open Source tech is a huge part of Azure now. They profit from people using Linux on Azure. They don't have a reason to chase customers away when they are making money from them.
There comes a time in every corporate's life where good will is neither important nor needed.
Such as switching their browser to be based on Chromium, which is controlled by Google?
>It's like Google found developer goodwill burdensome, and decided to pack it all up into container trucks and ship it all to Microsoft.
Funny how that changes. If anyone told me in 1999 that Microsoft would eventually become one of the Good Guys...
Funny how that changes. If anyone told me in 1999 that Microsoft would eventually become one of the Good Guys...
Skype is now owned and maintained by Microsoft.
I don't see goodwill in either company.
Every large player has been wilfully degrading user experience in any browser they don't approve of for a few years now. This is a ship that has sailed - from the lack of antitrust suits we can deduce that there are in fact very few legal ramifications, if any.
I am very surprised that Alphabet Inc. has gotten away with what they have so far today when I look back at the history of Big Bell being broken up.
Yeah, sure, the government spent millions to break up AT&T and the Baby Bells, then let AT&T get back into the local phone and Internet business by buying up companies left and right. Now AT&T is part of a nationwide duopoly with cable companies, and most US consumers have exactly 2 choices: either AT&T for non-cable or some other company for cable.
It's government's responsibility to foster competition to push back against companies wanting to limit it. Govt is doing a shitty job and gets an F.
It's government's responsibility to foster competition to push back against companies wanting to limit it. Govt is doing a shitty job and gets an F.
It seems like Google just treats fines due to antitrust lawsuits as the cost of doing business, and they're potentially making more money with such behavior than they are losing due to legal costs.
that seems like a slam dunk antitrust case to me, no?
> Just look at YouTube denying Chromium-based Edge the new redesigned experience for absolutely zero reason.
The reason is almost certainly a new user agent (compared to non-Chromium Edge) that YouTube didn't expect. Chromium-based Edge is still not stable, and therefore, not properly supported by YouTube.
I don't have time to test this, but I'm willing to bet that you'd get the same result by using any indie browser that happens to send a user agent that YouTube doesn't recognize.
The reason is almost certainly a new user agent (compared to non-Chromium Edge) that YouTube didn't expect. Chromium-based Edge is still not stable, and therefore, not properly supported by YouTube.
I don't have time to test this, but I'm willing to bet that you'd get the same result by using any indie browser that happens to send a user agent that YouTube doesn't recognize.
Somebody over on reddit tested different user agents: https://www.reddit.com/r/google/comments/btysl9/google_have_...
It seems pretty clear from the fact that nonsense user agents like "TotallyNotMicrosoft" and "IE6" worked, that there is a blacklist, not a whitelist.
It seems pretty clear from the fact that nonsense user agents like "TotallyNotMicrosoft" and "IE6" worked, that there is a blacklist, not a whitelist.
Do you remember when almost all sites worked fine without internet explorer but refused to work without it unless you faked the user agent? Why are you defending round 2 of best with IE?
The web is a standard. Auto failing based on user agent is a sign of developer incompetence.
The web is a standard. Auto failing based on user agent is a sign of developer incompetence.
> The web is a standard
If only that were true. The web is, at best, a series of suggestions. See also https://caniuse.com
If only that were true. The web is, at best, a series of suggestions. See also https://caniuse.com
I wouldn't be defending them if YouTube refused to work with a "strange" user agent, but that's not what happened. Judging by the screenshots, YouTube still worked, it just refused to use a new design. The old design is still perfectly functional.
Chromium-based Edge is not stable. It's a new thing that I don't expect website owners to test against. The error message showed that the new design is tested against the latest version of Edge. Complete rewrite of Edge still hasn't replaced the old Edge.
Also, no, the web is not a standard. There's no fixed set of things that a browser should implement and call it a day. It's constantly-evolving depending on the needs of the owners of the website. It's why nobody dares to create a browser from scratch nowadays.
Chromium-based Edge is not stable. It's a new thing that I don't expect website owners to test against. The error message showed that the new design is tested against the latest version of Edge. Complete rewrite of Edge still hasn't replaced the old Edge.
Also, no, the web is not a standard. There's no fixed set of things that a browser should implement and call it a day. It's constantly-evolving depending on the needs of the owners of the website. It's why nobody dares to create a browser from scratch nowadays.
> The reason is almost certainly a new user agent (compared to non-Chromium Edge) that YouTube didn't expect. Chromium-based Edge is still not stable, and therefore, not properly supported by YouTube
Why almost certainly? We're seeing antagonistic, self-preserving and dare I say abusive monopolistic behavior from Google with Chrome's anti-adblocking. Why the benefit of doubt when blocking a competitor's browser?
More pointedly, would an independent YouTube have behaved similarly for as long?
Why almost certainly? We're seeing antagonistic, self-preserving and dare I say abusive monopolistic behavior from Google with Chrome's anti-adblocking. Why the benefit of doubt when blocking a competitor's browser?
More pointedly, would an independent YouTube have behaved similarly for as long?
That isn't how the web is supposed to work. Browsers implements standards. It shouldn't matter what the user agent says.
Your company's customers aren't going to care when you tell them this. They're going to complain to your support department that your app doesn't work.
Then why did it work before?
I'd been using YouTube's new layout just fine on Edge Chromium for at least a week before getting the "not supported" message.
I'd been using YouTube's new layout just fine on Edge Chromium for at least a week before getting the "not supported" message.
I haven't seen that yet, but Meet just started working for me. Previously it didn't.
Very happy with my Edge switch so far! And I did it before the ad blocking really reared its ugly head too.
Google needs to faceplant hard on this one.
Very happy with my Edge switch so far! And I did it before the ad blocking really reared its ugly head too.
Google needs to faceplant hard on this one.
This is a rediculous justification. Websites should not be coded to a whitelist of browsers.
Biased reply - I work for Google.
It depends on what you choose as your choice of technology, if you choose web components then you really can only really offer that same experience to users that have a browser that supports that API natively (without polyfills) which old Edge did not do.
My understanding of this situation with yt was that our server side detection code was wrong based on an update in edge (or our UA management), and we don't do feature detection in the client because it is too slow... So we send people to the older version.
It depends on what you choose as your choice of technology, if you choose web components then you really can only really offer that same experience to users that have a browser that supports that API natively (without polyfills) which old Edge did not do.
My understanding of this situation with yt was that our server side detection code was wrong based on an update in edge (or our UA management), and we don't do feature detection in the client because it is too slow... So we send people to the older version.
Interpreting user agent strings is what amateur programmers do. I don't generally expect high standards from Google engineers (a whole other argument I won't entertain here) but that's still pretty tragic for a top-five website.
And besides, your claim is doubtful at best since Chromium Edge doesn't share any User Agent string elements with previous EdgeHTML versions. Your YT developers would have needed to be intentionally malicious to match "Edg/" as a trigger to downgrade the user experience.
And besides, your claim is doubtful at best since Chromium Edge doesn't share any User Agent string elements with previous EdgeHTML versions. Your YT developers would have needed to be intentionally malicious to match "Edg/" as a trigger to downgrade the user experience.
> experience
Developers care a lot more about this ‘experience’ than users do.
Yes it’s fun to play with the new shiny, but users don’t care.
User experience is an excuse, it’s double-talk.
Developers care a lot more about this ‘experience’ than users do.
Yes it’s fun to play with the new shiny, but users don’t care.
User experience is an excuse, it’s double-talk.
You appear to have somehow missed the extremely loud chorus of "we hate it, change it back" that happen every time any web app gets a new design. See also the saga of Instagram on Android.
You appear to have misunderstood the comment you are replying to.
The same could be said of you. We'll never know, since your comment could mean anything.
yeah but blacklisting or at least conscious degradation is necessary. hit that with a game I built, had to degrade the experience on chrome/iOS because of the non-accelerated canvas element
And by making captchas harder or insoluble for Firefox users they block access to lots of other sites
All the more reason to stop using those "prime" properties...
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
First of all, we have no evidence that your Edge example was intentional. In fact, we have evidence to the contrary as they fixed it within hours of it being reported [1]
Now as far as your hypothetical, sure they can, but I use all of those services, YouTube, Gmail, Maps, ... on Chromium every day and they do not block nor have they ever blocked any of them.
[1]https://twitter.com/addyosmani/status/1133782407419613184
Now as far as your hypothetical, sure they can, but I use all of those services, YouTube, Gmail, Maps, ... on Chromium every day and they do not block nor have they ever blocked any of them.
[1]https://twitter.com/addyosmani/status/1133782407419613184
Wrong! Google deliberately blocked Edge, see the tweet here for proof: https://twitter.com/sinclairinator/status/113344983464663859...
Wrong! You didn't read the full thread:
> And it may even be a quick ‘n dirty deliberate hack to exclude Chredge this way, just so it doesn’t pollute their telemetry / testing of new website features.
That test proves nothing without seeing the Google's code. Feature detection is incredibly slow, requiring JS and multiple round trips. Whereas user agent strings are instantaneous.
> And it may even be a quick ‘n dirty deliberate hack to exclude Chredge this way, just so it doesn’t pollute their telemetry / testing of new website features.
That test proves nothing without seeing the Google's code. Feature detection is incredibly slow, requiring JS and multiple round trips. Whereas user agent strings are instantaneous.
Chredge worked for many weeks, then it didn't for a day or so, then it worked again.
Turning the block on was intentional, and turning it off was intentional.
We can only guess at their motivation, and I can guarantee you it was not benevolent given what Mozilla said recently about their interactions with Google.
Turning the block on was intentional, and turning it off was intentional.
We can only guess at their motivation, and I can guarantee you it was not benevolent given what Mozilla said recently about their interactions with Google.
>How's this polluting their telemetry? Also, how is some random UA NOT polluting their telemetry? It's a horrible excuse, that's all it is. It was fine and then suddenly it became "an issue". It's singling out them, SPECIFICALLY. Nice try.
Read the reply too. ;)
Read the reply too. ;)
The day the Web sold its soul. Such a disappointment when TBL came out in support of that. People who knew better tried to warn us, but they all got shouted down and told there "was no other choice" b/c content creators were going to try an lock down with extensions and it would somehow be worse.
TBL? Can you extrapolate? I google it and its "The Basketball League". I just think your comment had the opportunity to continue to educate me on something I have never heard of or about and to throw in an acronym without having used the the 3 words before is confusing.
Tim Berners Lee
dccoolgai was probably refering to this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19363838
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19363838
[deleted]
Not with extensions, with plug-ins, and they were already doing it. Flash and Silverlight came with DRM for any publisher that wanted to use it. Many did.
Plugins would be fine; you could always point out, that they are non-standard. Now, if you fail to support the right EME plugin, it is the browsers fault.
Back in the day a browser without those plugins was not viable. Non-standard didn't matter.
I know, but that's not the point. The point is, that the pain for the non-standard support had to be taken by the proponents of DRM. Now, it is up to the foss crowd.
IOW, it was not about tech issue, but about social issue / blame-shifting.
IOW, it was not about tech issue, but about social issue / blame-shifting.
I used to have Firefox and Vivaldi ...but honestly I used Vivaldi mainly...when I heard that even Microsoft was going to use chromium I realized...Firefox is literally the last front ! I installed Firefox and started using it as my main browser! What I miss the most is Vivaldi speed dial and bookmarks. Add-ons aren't always a solution ! I miss Netscape days...internet wasn't a megacorp business playground :( !
> I miss Netscape days...internet wasn't a megacorp business playground :( !
You mean "this website is optimized for Internet Explorer 6" days? Or the earlier "this website is optimized for Netscape 2.0" days?
I think the nearest the web ever came to not being any megacorp's playground was when Firefox was at around 30% market share, and IE6 which had 60%+ market share had stopped moving. IOW, when MS still had the playground mostly to themselves, but chose to ignore it. And even then, the web / Firefox couldn't really innovate without breaking IE6 compatibility, so everyone was stuck.
You mean "this website is optimized for Internet Explorer 6" days? Or the earlier "this website is optimized for Netscape 2.0" days?
I think the nearest the web ever came to not being any megacorp's playground was when Firefox was at around 30% market share, and IE6 which had 60%+ market share had stopped moving. IOW, when MS still had the playground mostly to themselves, but chose to ignore it. And even then, the web / Firefox couldn't really innovate without breaking IE6 compatibility, so everyone was stuck.
I looked up Vivaldi Speed Dial. It looks like the same sort of thing Firefox, Chrome, and Safari have where a new tab has a pinned list of favorite or most visited sites. What does Vivaldi do that I'm not seeing?
Having switched from Vivaldi back to Firefox about a year ago, the Vivaldi speed dial is similar to the pinned lists of favorites, but it's much more user friendly. You can customize how many sites you see, how many are in each column, number of columns, etc. You can also change the icon to be anything you like. It certainly wasn't a dealbreaker for me personally, and as you said, pinned favorites serve the same purpose, but it does feel more restrictive on FF.
It used to be more customisable but FF wanted to dictate what users saw, for some reason, partially advertising ("recommended by pocket"). They really like to imitate the worst of commercial enterprise sometimes.
It has become a little more customisable now, thankfully.
It has become a little more customisable now, thankfully.
There should be addons that customize the new tab page. I’m pretty sure it’s a possibility with more recent additions to the webext api.
I don't know for sure in this case, but WebExtensions are normally forbidden in the browser's own pages.
To get around this limitation, one could set up a personal speed-dial start page.
To get around this limitation, one could set up a personal speed-dial start page.
they don't let you run in browser contexts normally but they definitely let you set your own new tab page(with webextension privileges) as part of the extension which lets an extension do whatever they want.
see: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
they also have most requested urls as a privilege too so it could be recreated and extended with a little effort.
see: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...
they also have most requested urls as a privilege too so it could be recreated and extended with a little effort.
Did you try Infinity Tab Pro (which is free)?
Sounds kinda similar to what you are looking. It does No. of sites, custom columns, custom pictures, and custom backgrounds. It really gives you a lot of control compared to all the other extensions I tried.
Sounds kinda similar to what you are looking. It does No. of sites, custom columns, custom pictures, and custom backgrounds. It really gives you a lot of control compared to all the other extensions I tried.
I'm going to check this out ! Thank you :D
It's way more than just pinning ! I organize my YouTube subscription in folders with themes like tutorials recipes and subfolders...you can do that on Firefox with the bookmark toolbar but in a less user friendly way and less visually pleasing way toi. what makes it worse is that it used to be possible on Firefox! It's not a deal breaker or anything ! But I miss that XD ! I had a hundreds of bookmarks organized on Vivaldi ! I still don't know how to "transition" that to firefox :/
You can set custom icon in FF. But yea, only rows not columns are customizable.
Add-ons are a solution, though. Have you tried the FVD Speed Dial extension?
"Most internet videos" probably is overstatement. I'm watching youtube, pornhub and twitch and I don't think that it requires any DRM. The only service with DRM I'm aware of is Netflix and it's terrible anyway.
> I'm watching youtube, pornhub and twitch and I don't think that it requires any DRM.
Depends on the content, If you are watching paid for content on YT it is most likely DRM'ed. [0] An "stats for nerds" example from such a piece of content (Notice the protected line, this line isn't present on DRM free YT Content.). But the vast majority of content on YT is DRM free.
Twitch has some DRM'ed content, things like when they streamed Thursday Night Football. But that was played via the Amazon Video player not twitches normal video player. I remember because the player threw a fit if you didn't have HDCP configured correctly, which most streamers don't. Not that they were trying to re-stream the game, but have it playing on another one of their monitors to see how it was doing. Personally I liked the idea of having a chat alongside the game :-)
Dunno about PornHub.
[0] - https://cejack.tk/2019-05-30_19-57-03-280.png
Depends on the content, If you are watching paid for content on YT it is most likely DRM'ed. [0] An "stats for nerds" example from such a piece of content (Notice the protected line, this line isn't present on DRM free YT Content.). But the vast majority of content on YT is DRM free.
Twitch has some DRM'ed content, things like when they streamed Thursday Night Football. But that was played via the Amazon Video player not twitches normal video player. I remember because the player threw a fit if you didn't have HDCP configured correctly, which most streamers don't. Not that they were trying to re-stream the game, but have it playing on another one of their monitors to see how it was doing. Personally I liked the idea of having a chat alongside the game :-)
Dunno about PornHub.
[0] - https://cejack.tk/2019-05-30_19-57-03-280.png
> The only service with DRM I'm aware of is Netflix and it's terrible anyway.
Ha! Tell that to their 150 million subscribers. :)
More seriously, using a browser without DRM would be a deal-breaker to many users like myself solely because of Netflix, unfortunately. That said, if you're serious about using a DRM-free browser, there are other ways to watch Netflix (iOS/Android, smart TVs, etc).
Ha! Tell that to their 150 million subscribers. :)
More seriously, using a browser without DRM would be a deal-breaker to many users like myself solely because of Netflix, unfortunately. That said, if you're serious about using a DRM-free browser, there are other ways to watch Netflix (iOS/Android, smart TVs, etc).
> > The only service with DRM I'm aware of is Netflix and it's terrible anyway.
> Ha! Tell that to their 150 million subscribers. :)
I'm not sure that a large number of subscribers is a convincing argument of the non-terribleness of a service. A quick Google search suggests that Comcast, excuse me, Xfinity, has somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30 million subscribers. I don't think that you will find any argument telling them how terrible Xfinity is.
> Ha! Tell that to their 150 million subscribers. :)
I'm not sure that a large number of subscribers is a convincing argument of the non-terribleness of a service. A quick Google search suggests that Comcast, excuse me, Xfinity, has somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30 million subscribers. I don't think that you will find any argument telling them how terrible Xfinity is.
Sure, but many of those Xfinity customers don't have any reasonable alternatives, whereas there are now a handful of players in the video streaming space. If someone doesn't like Netflix, they can easily cancel their subscription and switch to another service. So even though you're partially right, the subscriber count in this case is a pretty good proxy of how good the service is.
I don’t think it works like that any more.
The services used to have more or less the same catalog, but it’s become more and more broken up.
To get everything you need to subscribe to 4+ services, and if you drop Netflix, you lose a hefty part of their catalog because it’s on none of the others.
The services used to have more or less the same catalog, but it’s become more and more broken up.
To get everything you need to subscribe to 4+ services, and if you drop Netflix, you lose a hefty part of their catalog because it’s on none of the others.
I guess when someone says "it's terrible", I assume that includes the catalog and we're not just talking about the UI or something like that. You can't say Netflix is terrible, and then in the same breath praise their selection. The catalog is part of the product, especially with each service making originals now.
While Comcast the company is evil, I loved their internet service. It was blazing fast and to this day was the most rock-solid ISP I've had for uptime. YMMV of course but for people in my area Comcast was the best (tho sometimes only) choice. (I did get really tired of playing the stupid intro/promo rate game with them tho).
Once they turned on their 250GB data cap tho it became far less useful since my wife/kids would stream several gigs a day or more of TV.
Once they turned on their 250GB data cap tho it became far less useful since my wife/kids would stream several gigs a day or more of TV.
Sure but those 150 million people choose to subscribe to Netflix. Presumably they like it, otherwise why would they spend money on it every month? The people who use Comcast have no choice, because for nearly all of them, the alternative is no Internet access at home other than via cellular.
The original statement was like saying, "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
The original statement was like saying, "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
Netflix is good for our household, better than Sky or BBC's offerings (for us).
Don't they have a desktop client that works just fine? Also, Chrome's "advantage" may be having built-in DRM, but it's not much of one: Netflix limits Chrome users to 720p video. So for all practical purposes you need a different browser or client for Netflix anyway if your main browser is Chromium based.
Netflix limits all non OS bundled browsers to 720p. Safari, Internet Explorer and Chrome OS go to 1080p and Edge to 4K.
There was a time when browsers did not have built-in media players.
Seems like ffmpeg libraries, developed outside of the web browser, support nearly all video formats a user could encounter on the internet.
Also, the part of the statement that reads "your new browser won't work with most internet video" is intriguing.
Can we define "most internet video" as Amazon Video, BBC, Hulu, Netflix and Spotify? (Widevine users listed on its Wikipedia page)
Seems like there is much, much more video on the internet that does not come from those sources.
Seems like ffmpeg libraries, developed outside of the web browser, support nearly all video formats a user could encounter on the internet.
Also, the part of the statement that reads "your new browser won't work with most internet video" is intriguing.
Can we define "most internet video" as Amazon Video, BBC, Hulu, Netflix and Spotify? (Widevine users listed on its Wikipedia page)
Seems like there is much, much more video on the internet that does not come from those sources.
| Can we define "most internet video" as Amazon Video, BBC, Hulu, Netflix and Spotify?
Maybe you could in terms of unique videos, but in terms of the volume of watched video, not at all. Netflix itself is responsible for something in the range of 15% of the worlds bandwidth usage.
Either way, it not going to win an end users to have something like that.
Maybe you could in terms of unique videos, but in terms of the volume of watched video, not at all. Netflix itself is responsible for something in the range of 15% of the worlds bandwidth usage.
Either way, it not going to win an end users to have something like that.
Probably depends how you define most: by number of videos or bandwidth.
«To those who say just fork Chrome adfm had a good article explaining why that doesn’t work: [Chromium, Widevine...]»
To my knowledge Widevine DRM works with Chromium. You can watch DRM'd videos: https://forum.manjaro.org/t/how-to-install-widevine-on-chrom...
To my knowledge Widevine DRM works with Chromium. You can watch DRM'd videos: https://forum.manjaro.org/t/how-to-install-widevine-on-chrom...
I remember of projects that failed because Widevine explicitly didn't work in their Chromium. I assume that Widevine builds nicely but requires a Google-issued key to work.
Yep! Which is why the Arch package just extracts it from Chrome and then puts it in the right place for Chromium.
I mean if you could just build Widevine and decrypt content it wouldn't be very good DRM.
I mean if you could just build Widevine and decrypt content it wouldn't be very good DRM.
This is fine for power users who care enough to do it. But for the general public, as well as companies which would need to do this if they wanted to support DRM in their own kind of browser, it is not going to fly with Google and probably isn't legal.
You don't "build" Widevine. Google distributes a binary (libwidevinecdm.so) which implements a standard API that works with both Chrome and Chromium. The "master" DRM secret key is obfuscated and distributed in libwidevinecdm.so itself.
And no pirate has been able to extract the key yet?
It was broken: https://twitter.com/David3141593/status/1080606827384131590 But now we are getting kinda off topic which is that Widevine DRM does work with Chromium.
Interesting, it's a shame we never saw more (a PoC or write-up) following that though.
What difference does that make? At that point you are no longer playing by the book.
probably one has been as determined as breaking games protection
>your new browser won't work with most internet video
"most internet video"... by what metric? Hours watched? Catalog size? I find it unlikely that DRM videos outnumber non-DRM videos by any reasonable metric.
"most internet video"... by what metric? Hours watched? Catalog size? I find it unlikely that DRM videos outnumber non-DRM videos by any reasonable metric.
I wonder if that might backfire. I've been using Chromium for a while now, but whenever I need to see video, I copy paste the url over to Firefox. At some point, I'm going to be bothered enough to just switch permanently to Firefox.
Now's the perfect time, it will even import all your stuff (see the link in OP).
Make the switch.
Make the switch.
I might be doing it wrong, but did't import passwords contrary to what it did promise.
Minor annoyance, though. Still switched in desktop as I was on mobile
Minor annoyance, though. Still switched in desktop as I was on mobile
>And while you can use or adapt Chromium to your heart's content, your new browser won't work with most internet video
And genuinely, most people are choosing between privacy and convenience.
And genuinely, most people are choosing between privacy and convenience.
>And genuinely, most people are choosing between privacy and convenience.
And with Firefox you don't need to choose.
And with Firefox you don't need to choose.
Yes. And on top of the video codec issue, there is also the issue of getting Chrome to build, and integrating code changes from every upstream Chromium release, which is quite frequent. The build setup process is very manual for an outsider, and changes often.
Luckily for us, there's antitrust law. This isn't really possible:
Reproduction steps:
1. Check that Google search is working by opening Chrome, navigating to www.google.com, and searching for any term (such as the name of a newspaper and clicking the link to verify that search works as expected.)
2. Open firefox.com and navigate to www.google.com
You will receive a message:
"It looks like you have Chrome installed! For the most secure experience, please visit this page using the Chrome browser or wait and try again later.."
If you have not used Chrome in the past 1 hour from your same IP address, you receive the page as expected.
The above repro steps should be pretty much impossible under antitrust law. (Due to search monopoly.) Which is a very good thing.
Reproduction steps:
1. Check that Google search is working by opening Chrome, navigating to www.google.com, and searching for any term (such as the name of a newspaper and clicking the link to verify that search works as expected.)
2. Open firefox.com and navigate to www.google.com
You will receive a message:
"It looks like you have Chrome installed! For the most secure experience, please visit this page using the Chrome browser or wait and try again later.."
If you have not used Chrome in the past 1 hour from your same IP address, you receive the page as expected.
The above repro steps should be pretty much impossible under antitrust law. (Due to search monopoly.) Which is a very good thing.
Assuming antitrust law is enforced...
Which it hasn't been since Reagan become president.
I'd honestly be okay with using Vivaldi 99% of the time and then switching over to Chrome only to watch Netflix and the like.
And honestly, when I watch Netflix, it's usually in my Surface, in which case I'll use the app.
And honestly, when I watch Netflix, it's usually in my Surface, in which case I'll use the app.
I don't think it would be hard to make an Electron Netflix app if one doesn't already exist.
Then you're just using Chrome...
Isn't Electron basically just a Chrome tab as an app (to over simplify it?
I presume it would afford Google the same level of tracking that Chrome does.
Isn't Electron basically just a Chrome tab as an app (to over simplify it?
I presume it would afford Google the same level of tracking that Chrome does.
Electron apps' Chrome stores its cookies separately from the user's installation of it, correct? That, plus the lack of a logged-in account within Electron's Chrome might help to mitigate user cookie correlation and the like, right?
Not sure about in-browser IP tracking, though...
Not sure about in-browser IP tracking, though...
But Electron app has full access to your system unlike normal web page. So it makes sense to run Electron apps from separate user account so that they cannot read your browser history, cookies, install you an extension etc.
I wish someone with a lot more knowledge than me on this replies. You raise a very valid, practical and useful question, would love to hear the answer :-)
> Isn't Electron basically just a Chrome tab as an app (to over simplify it?
More like a full, independent installation than just a tab.
More like a full, independent installation than just a tab.
> Then you're just using Chrome...
Well, yeah, that was the whole point.
If we're saying fire up Chrome just to watch Netflix, I'm suggesting saving some effort and/or isolate the rest of your browser by wrapping it in a very basic Electron app.
At the very least, you wouldn't get auto-logged into your "browser" or anything like that.
Well, yeah, that was the whole point.
If we're saying fire up Chrome just to watch Netflix, I'm suggesting saving some effort and/or isolate the rest of your browser by wrapping it in a very basic Electron app.
At the very least, you wouldn't get auto-logged into your "browser" or anything like that.
Ah, my bad, I missed that point.
[deleted]
I've only come across widevine for Netflix content. Are there others that require widevine?
It's usually going to be around any studio produced content Broadcast or Movie. YouTube TV uses it for live broadcasts. The Studios require DRM as part of their content licensing. PlayReady is the other primary DRM competitor.
Amazon Prime, Hulu, and YouTube's paid content use Widevine DRM.
Widevine works with Firefox. Why couldn't it with Chromium?
You have to license it from Google. And they don't always say yes: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/03/googles_widevine_dr...
That's only if you are making a browser and want to distribute it. There's no way that Google is going to mail howlers to end-users who use widevine with chromium forks.
Because you would need to get a widevine license from google. Mozilla was able to do that, but I know at least one chromium fork had it's application for a license rejected. It technically is possible to copy the widevine library from a chrome install to use with chromium, but non technical people won't know how to do that.
Widevine works with chromium just fine - by which I mean that like with everything chromium it gets broken without apparent reason every now and then, but after some time they fix it.
I'm sure it could, but who would implement it?
Apparently someone has, because I was using Chromium on Linux to watch Netflix several years ago without any trouble (this was before Firefox got it working).
The same people who were motivated enough to get it into Firefox?
I tried this, it's very painful and not worth the effort.
It's a shame Microsoft didn't want to use Firefox's codebase instead of Chromium for its new Edge browser. I don't know what Microsoft thinks it gained by doing this, but I'm almost certain they'll regret it in the long run, because it's a trap by Google.
Google, Microsoft new "bestie" in this collaboration, will screw them over once it's clear that Microsoft "can't turn back" from using Chromium or even fork it.
Google, Microsoft new "bestie" in this collaboration, will screw them over once it's clear that Microsoft "can't turn back" from using Chromium or even fork it.
That would be declaring a full on browser war with Google. I expect MS don't want to do that yet. It remains an option in the future I suppose.
As I understand it Chromium is a lot easier to wrap your own GUI around than Gecko. XUL is still not completely decoupled, separating them completely is an ongoing effort I think.
Maybe when the embedded Gecko/Servo engine is production ready would be the time for MS to reconsider.
As I understand it Chromium is a lot easier to wrap your own GUI around than Gecko. XUL is still not completely decoupled, separating them completely is an ongoing effort I think.
Maybe when the embedded Gecko/Servo engine is production ready would be the time for MS to reconsider.
I’ve quit chrome for a while now but... I’m pretty sure they have your real name as long as you signed in once from the same hw and browser footprint. Is real name that important for them? I think everyone’s digital signature is already out there
So you came up with 2 things, first one is actually a good feature and second one is meh and world is going down? HN is utter ridiculous nowadays.
May I ask you to explain why you think that having to be signed in to Google in order not to gete fuxored in your Web experience is a good thing?
As a developer and power user, it's difficult for me to switch to Firefox.
However for most average Joe's it's fine and won't make a difference, so I always install and recommend Firefox when I play IT guy for family/friends. Time to start doing this again like we did in 2005!! It worked then and it can now!
However for most average Joe's it's fine and won't make a difference, so I always install and recommend Firefox when I play IT guy for family/friends. Time to start doing this again like we did in 2005!! It worked then and it can now!
As a power user, I prefer Firefox to Chrome, due to its configurability and to the power of certain add-ons. One simple example: multi-row tab bar, thanks to custom CSS for the UI. It used to be even better before the mass murder of the now-called "legacy" extensions, but today we must settle for the less restricted offer.
As a developer, I don't typically use browsers as debuggers or programming environments, so I never experienced game-breaking differences.
As a developer, I don't typically use browsers as debuggers or programming environments, so I never experienced game-breaking differences.
> It used to be even better before the mass murder of the now-called "legacy" extensions,
I can't even switch because one of the vital extensions for my workflow do not exist any more and the author of the Chrome equivalent doesn't want to port it. (I even offered a little money, I probably can't pay enough for an experienced developer to do the full port.)
I can't even switch because one of the vital extensions for my workflow do not exist any more and the author of the Chrome equivalent doesn't want to port it. (I even offered a little money, I probably can't pay enough for an experienced developer to do the full port.)
> I can't even switch
Wait, you haven't had a security update for your browser since 2017?
Wait, you haven't had a security update for your browser since 2017?
No, I am running Chrome for a long time now. I use an extension there which doesn't exist for Firefox. An equivalent existed in the old Firefox. I made an attempt at porting it but my JS skills are super meagre.
What is the extension? I could take a stab if it isn’t too complicated, and if not perhaps someone else will be interested.
https://github.com/denis-sokolov/chrome-supergenpass Thanks a lot!
I’m a developer and power user, I switched to Firefox months ago. What is making difficult to switch? I found equivalent for all my plugins so far.
What many others have already said - it's slower and many popular sites don't work properly on it. I don't feel like randomly having websites break when I am trying to get things done.
Even on a newer computer Firefox feels jagged and hangs. Memory leaks still happening years later. It is so frustrating to see Firefox using 1.5GB of RAM when only 2 tabs remain.
Quantum helped a lot, but it's still not enough for me and many others.
Even on a newer computer Firefox feels jagged and hangs. Memory leaks still happening years later. It is so frustrating to see Firefox using 1.5GB of RAM when only 2 tabs remain.
Quantum helped a lot, but it's still not enough for me and many others.
Really? Firefox feels faster to me than Chrome at this point. I use both for work, but I prefer Firefox at home.
What popular sites don't work in Firefox?
What popular sites don't work in Firefox?
> many popular sites don't work properly on it
Really? Do you have examples? I haven’t faced this issue. Some websites breaks somehow if you block 3rd party tracking (by breaking I mean that some pictures or video embedded into the page won’t load), but that’s an opt-in feature so I don’t think that’s what you mean.
Really? Do you have examples? I haven’t faced this issue. Some websites breaks somehow if you block 3rd party tracking (by breaking I mean that some pictures or video embedded into the page won’t load), but that’s an opt-in feature so I don’t think that’s what you mean.
Popular sites? If they work only with Chrome they aren't popular sites for me, and I'm happy to know that I shouldn't trust them too much.
I suffered with the same until around december last year. Ever since I cannot distinguish chrome from firefox most of the time.
I've had a terrible time using Firefox since Tab Mix Plus was killed. Dev is working on a replacement but many of the necessary APIs were also killed in the great add-on death of 2017 (Firefox 57), and have yet to be rewritten (and may never be).
Same here. I'd also highly recommend Firefox Focus for mobile. Now to convince my enterprise network admins...
It would probably take me a bit to figure out exactly how to work with the FireFox advanced debugging tools, but it's familiar territory.
It would probably take me a bit to figure out exactly how to work with the FireFox advanced debugging tools, but it's familiar territory.
What is the equivalent for one tab? It is technically simple enough that I could develop one one my own, except I remember firefox extensions to be an unbelievable pain to install back in the day.
If you want the ability to save lists of Tabs, Firefox has https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta... which makes tabs appear in the sidebar, which makes managing even dozens of tabs simple.
Installing is one click - as simple as the chrome web store.
If you want the ability to unload tabs, firefox struggles with it. The best addon is https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/unload-tabs/ but it admits that it is buggy. Haven't tried it though.
Installing is one click - as simple as the chrome web store.
If you want the ability to unload tabs, firefox struggles with it. The best addon is https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/unload-tabs/ but it admits that it is buggy. Haven't tried it though.
You don't need an equivalent, One Tab is available for Firefox also.
I consider myself the same. I quit using Chrome & started using Brave about a year ago. I haven't looked back or missed Chrome. What would you be missing?
Edge & Firefox have also been useful in the same way I once used Opera (special tasks where their features really shine). I really liked Edge's reading mode & for just browsing websites it was great.
Edge & Firefox have also been useful in the same way I once used Opera (special tasks where their features really shine). I really liked Edge's reading mode & for just browsing websites it was great.
As a developer and—I think—power user, I use Firefox without issue.
What developer tools available in chrome but not firefox?
What developer tools available in chrome but not firefox?
PHPStorm IDE Support, Netbeans Connector are both only available for Chrome. Not a game changer but it certainly makes using Firefox less convenient.
Check out browsersync if you want some of that functionality with any browser.
https://www.browsersync.io/
https://www.browsersync.io/
First, you are being overly critical. Automatic (forced) sign-in is actually useful. Second, why do you call leaving the "only" recourse? As if it's something completely horrid that you would never ever do freely. Leaving is a completely fine path to take.
With webRequest, Google is "just" testing the waters. Just like with the forced sign-in, they will back down when they see the backlash.
Based only on Google's description, they seem to have a valid reason to remove (even though they say "deprecate", they mean remove) the offending API. However, there's zero chance they can get away with this. For what reason I'm not sure, market share of Chrome is very important to them. So they'll have to keep it or implement some new, acceptable method.
With webRequest, Google is "just" testing the waters. Just like with the forced sign-in, they will back down when they see the backlash.
Based only on Google's description, they seem to have a valid reason to remove (even though they say "deprecate", they mean remove) the offending API. However, there's zero chance they can get away with this. For what reason I'm not sure, market share of Chrome is very important to them. So they'll have to keep it or implement some new, acceptable method.
If you are ever in the market for a bridge, let me know.
It is so clear to me that we need to support and promote mozilla and Firefox. They're not perfect, but they, wikipedia, eff, archive.org (who else?) are such an important part of the Internet guardianship in the face of the monopolies, that it's our duty to support them.
Doesn't hurt that Firefox is actually a great product.
> Doesn't hurt that Firefox is actually a great product.
Arguably.
On these threads there is always a handful of complaints about the state of Firefox, mostly on macOS. On my machine, I can’t even launch Firefox in headless mode without the fans turning on, which never happened on Chrome. While I haven’t benchmarked it, for normal browsing it does feel slower than Crome.
But what kills it for me is their crippled AppleScript support. Firefox is the worst major browser (even worse than smaller browsers) for an automator on macOS. I rely on browser control every day, so Firefox is useless to me.
I’d sooner switch to Safari, which despite laughable controls (can’t even disable JavaScript on a per-website basis) I can do something with.
Arguably.
On these threads there is always a handful of complaints about the state of Firefox, mostly on macOS. On my machine, I can’t even launch Firefox in headless mode without the fans turning on, which never happened on Chrome. While I haven’t benchmarked it, for normal browsing it does feel slower than Crome.
But what kills it for me is their crippled AppleScript support. Firefox is the worst major browser (even worse than smaller browsers) for an automator on macOS. I rely on browser control every day, so Firefox is useless to me.
I’d sooner switch to Safari, which despite laughable controls (can’t even disable JavaScript on a per-website basis) I can do something with.
On my machine, I can’t even launch Firefox in
headless mode without the fans turning on, which
never happened on Chrome. While I haven’t benchmarked
it, for normal browsing it does feel slower than Crome.
Truly is close to an even 50/50 split -- FF is my personal browser and I use Chrome for all work-related tasks.
And they are subjectively indistinguishable in terms of performance. The only exceptions to that statement are, well, Google properties where Google has clearly invested time and money into optimizing things for FF.
One other possible sorta-exception is when I'm using a scaled resolution mode on an external 4K monitor. MacOS warns me, straight up, that these modes will cause performance issues for me and my modest Intel Iris graphics. The whole system's a little sluggish in those modes, and I think FF fares worse than Chrome, but I won't hold that against FF.
FWIW, Safari does feel subjectively more responsive to me when it comes to scrolling and navigating. And I recently spent a few bucks upgrading my PC gaming rig to a 120hz monitor, which makes a massive difference. And I'm one of those weirdos who keeps CRTs around for his old consoles because he enjoys that true zero lag experience. So I am not exactly insensitive to latency. I don't have magic professional gamer golden magic eyes or anything, but it is an area of interest for me.
Too late to edit my post, but "where Google has clearly invested time and money into optimizing things for FF" should read "where Google has clearly invested time and money into optimizing things for Chrome."
Sorry.
Sorry.
Makes more sense :-)
Personally I feel it is worse than that: there have been som issues so bad that I hardly get Hanlons razor to work at all, notably one where just having a search result page open in Firefox would consistently spin up my CPU for no good reason twice a minute.
(Of course there were a number of other weird lagging issues as well.)
Personally I feel it is worse than that: there have been som issues so bad that I hardly get Hanlons razor to work at all, notably one where just having a search result page open in Firefox would consistently spin up my CPU for no good reason twice a minute.
(Of course there were a number of other weird lagging issues as well.)
I think one problem, especially if you have many tabs open, is that about:performance isn't very useful / accurate (at least for me) so I'm not sure which is the offending tab to close. With Chrome that is pretty easy.
When you find the culprits on FF, what do they tend to be? How many tabs do you typically have open? Do you run an ad blocker? Not saying you're doing anything wrong - just genuinely curious about which usage patterns trigger FF to be "slow."
I usually have perhaps 5-15 tabs open in FF and I've really never had a reason to even look at about:performance.
But, I do understand that different people have different usage patterns. I run an ad-blocker and I don't typically have any "heavy" resource-sucking tabs open. Hacker News, old Reddit, Twitter, Wikipedia, NYT, etc. That kind of thing. Not heavy video/streaming/interactive stuff.
Anecdotally my understanding is that really heavy tab users (like many dozens or even hundreds of tabs) feel/felt that Chrome handed that better than FF.
I usually have perhaps 5-15 tabs open in FF and I've really never had a reason to even look at about:performance.
But, I do understand that different people have different usage patterns. I run an ad-blocker and I don't typically have any "heavy" resource-sucking tabs open. Hacker News, old Reddit, Twitter, Wikipedia, NYT, etc. That kind of thing. Not heavy video/streaming/interactive stuff.
Anecdotally my understanding is that really heavy tab users (like many dozens or even hundreds of tabs) feel/felt that Chrome handed that better than FF.
Since you use both Chrome and Firefox, do you know if it's possible to import saved passwords from Chrome into FF on Mac? I was able to do it on my work PC but the Mac version of FF didn't show that option.
Yeah, unfortunately, Mozilla has consistently demonstrated over recent years that it doesn't care about Mac users. It's weird, to be honest.
The widespread issues for many, though not all, Mac users, will not make it a ubiquituous browser.
The widespread issues for many, though not all, Mac users, will not make it a ubiquituous browser.
From reading a lot of mailing list and bugzilla posts I get the impression that they do care about Macs but the current (very old) renderer is just never going to play nicely with MacOS without a major overhaul, and that major overhaul is Webrender which has been in development for several years but has yet to land in stable because writing a new renderer is just a really large undertaking. Webrender and planeshift should bring a pretty huge performance and power efficiency improvement when they finally land in stable.
That's great to hear. I keep Firefox installed on MBP for dev testing and each time do the update and see if it's worth changing too. Hopefully, the answer will be yes once Webrender arrives and smooth Mac like scrolling.
It has come a long way, and I want to like it, just really hard in its current form.
It has come a long way, and I want to like it, just really hard in its current form.
Just checked it (I have a recommended setup) - it's whooping fast.
I don't know what these commenters are talking about. I've been using FF on Mac for over a year now on 3 different Mac Machines. It's super fast, as good as Chrome. May be you need to reset it or something to get it working properly. The only issue I had with FF is Developer Tools, which are also have improved a lot with latest release, and continuing to improve.
As I noted, the issue affects many, but not all, Mac users. It seems to be a special configuration of display resolution and other factors that can be difficult to replicate. That’s great for you that it’s working, but you shouldn’t discredit this very serious problem for the general user base.
Sorry, it came of stronger than I wanted to. I actually run into high CPU utilization shortly after I posted it. Haven't had it for a full year, may be something in later version got messed up. I did go away after refreshing FF though, so I do recommend trying it to see if it will fix things. I am routing for FF, but it's definitely not perfect.
How close do you think webrender is to landing in stable? I've not heard much about it before.
Hard to say. It's actually already in stable but currently limited to a very specific set of OS/hardware combinations and they're working on gradually adding more. FF67 enabled it in stable for desktop NVIDIA hardware on Windows. AMD and Intel GPUs on Windows and Linux are currently enabled in the nightly channel, presumably MacOS is next on the list once those are stable. Webrender is mostly done and at the stage where there are mostly just lots of little bugs left to fix so it's naturally kind of hard to estimate how long things will take.
They have a webrender newsletter with progress updates usually every couple of weeks, one of the recent posts talks about the release timeline but it's all kind of vague at this point: https://mozillagfx.wordpress.com/2019/05/21/graphics-team-sh...
They have a webrender newsletter with progress updates usually every couple of weeks, one of the recent posts talks about the release timeline but it's all kind of vague at this point: https://mozillagfx.wordpress.com/2019/05/21/graphics-team-sh...
Yeah, I went and installed Firefox on my home machine after this landed in 67 since I have the right hardware and...
It's SO much fucking better.
Lots of folks on here claiming that Firefox has been just as good as chrome in terms of performance for years, and frankly that's an utter load of BS.
On top tier hardware (and honestly - most hardware in general) chrome was always blindingly fast, and Firefox just wasn't. It was perceptibly slower at just about everything.
It was just annoying enough that I'd always switch back to chrome for personal use.
Not anymore. This last week is the first time I can remember that I honestly can't tell the difference in speed. If anything, Firefox may actually be legitimately beating chrome in terms of speed.
It's been a pleasant breath of fresh air. Google may lose me as a chrome user (personal use at least), which is something I just couldn't have imagined a year ago.
It's SO much fucking better.
Lots of folks on here claiming that Firefox has been just as good as chrome in terms of performance for years, and frankly that's an utter load of BS.
On top tier hardware (and honestly - most hardware in general) chrome was always blindingly fast, and Firefox just wasn't. It was perceptibly slower at just about everything.
It was just annoying enough that I'd always switch back to chrome for personal use.
Not anymore. This last week is the first time I can remember that I honestly can't tell the difference in speed. If anything, Firefox may actually be legitimately beating chrome in terms of speed.
It's been a pleasant breath of fresh air. Google may lose me as a chrome user (personal use at least), which is something I just couldn't have imagined a year ago.
I use a mac and firefox is my main browser, I don't remember having any problems.
So do I. There are things like text replacement, download progress indication on file icons, and other Cocoa-esque things that don't work on Firefox, but outside a probably very small segment of users who would even notice these things, and a smaller yet segment who would actually care, Firefox feels at home enough in macOS.
What I think damages Firefox's user-friendliness more is how easy it is to get to setting screens that look scary to the average user. For example Firefox recently started recommending an extension called "Enhancer for YouTube" when a user visits YouTube after upgrading to some new version of Firefox. Upon installing the extension, you get taken to the extension's settings screen which has a design that would definitely throw off my non-techie family members [1]. Also, take a look at the Firefox release notes for iOS [2] – sure it's "nice" for us devs to have access to raw GitHub issue labels or whatever those are – but for non-techie users they might be interpreted as conveying a certain messaging that Firefox is not really designed for them.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/8TIetRA.png [2] https://i.imgur.com/QoUG1ZF.png
What I think damages Firefox's user-friendliness more is how easy it is to get to setting screens that look scary to the average user. For example Firefox recently started recommending an extension called "Enhancer for YouTube" when a user visits YouTube after upgrading to some new version of Firefox. Upon installing the extension, you get taken to the extension's settings screen which has a design that would definitely throw off my non-techie family members [1]. Also, take a look at the Firefox release notes for iOS [2] – sure it's "nice" for us devs to have access to raw GitHub issue labels or whatever those are – but for non-techie users they might be interpreted as conveying a certain messaging that Firefox is not really designed for them.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/8TIetRA.png [2] https://i.imgur.com/QoUG1ZF.png
I think it's crazy how everyone has such different experiences with Firefox on Mac.
I want to love it, but even after a fresh install of MacOS every time I go to use it on my 2015 MBP it grinds to a halt.
I'm sticking to ungoogled-chromium for now. I really hope it's resolved down the line!
I want to love it, but even after a fresh install of MacOS every time I go to use it on my 2015 MBP it grinds to a halt.
I'm sticking to ungoogled-chromium for now. I really hope it's resolved down the line!
Yeah, it seems like there's always this split on every Hacker News thread about Firefox.
Personally, I've use Firefox as my primary browser since before I started using Macs, and after 6 different Macs between home and work, I've never had any problems with it.
Personally, I've use Firefox as my primary browser since before I started using Macs, and after 6 different Macs between home and work, I've never had any problems with it.
What's even weirder is that a significant proportion of Mozilla's developers use Macs as their main platform (if I recall correctly the most popular platforms are Linux, then Macs and Windows a very distant third).
Headless mode maybe, but for regular users I don't think there's many issues.
I'm running firefox as my daily driver on Mojave with no issues whatsoever. Without seeing this thread, I didn't even know there were issues with the mac version.
I'm running firefox as my daily driver on Mojave with no issues whatsoever. Without seeing this thread, I didn't even know there were issues with the mac version.
Just to add to the pile of anecdotal evidence - same here...I switched to Chrome some years ago when the speed difference was just too much to ignore and switched back to FF a couple of months ago after I started realizing the growing firmness of the cold grip Google has on the web more and more...There's absolutely no noticeable speed difference any more, fans on the laptop are as always and it's been smooth sailing since (on Mojave). The only thing that still annoys me when developing is the lack of websocket frame inspection - but as a "regular" user, no issues at all.
> but for regular users I don't think there's many issues.
There are. As an example, complaints of Firefox on retina Macs abound.
> Without seeing this thread, I didn't even know there were issues with the mac version.
Read any recent HN thread on Firefox, and you’ll find more people exposing their issues with Firefox on macOS.
There are. As an example, complaints of Firefox on retina Macs abound.
> Without seeing this thread, I didn't even know there were issues with the mac version.
Read any recent HN thread on Firefox, and you’ll find more people exposing their issues with Firefox on macOS.
Interesting. Every browser than firefox is useless to me as they have no good support for plugins (addon api's) like tree style tab.
I've been using firefox as my daily driver on a 2015 macbook air for the last year. It's been fantastic, not at all slow.
I haven't tried to use applescript/automator with it so i can't comment on whether or not that works, but that doesn't seem like the biggest issue for most users, or even most developers.
I haven't tried to use applescript/automator with it so i can't comment on whether or not that works, but that doesn't seem like the biggest issue for most users, or even most developers.
> I haven't tried to use applescript/automator with it so i can't comment on whether or not that works
It doesn’t. They don’t have a dictionary.
> but that doesn't seem like the biggest issue for most users, or even most developers.
I specifically said (emphasis added):
> But what kills it for me is their crippled AppleScript support.
Though I’m sure I’m not alone, because I have several users (of tools I’ve built that interact with browsers) and fellow developers that share the same complaint.
It doesn’t. They don’t have a dictionary.
> but that doesn't seem like the biggest issue for most users, or even most developers.
I specifically said (emphasis added):
> But what kills it for me is their crippled AppleScript support.
Though I’m sure I’m not alone, because I have several users (of tools I’ve built that interact with browsers) and fellow developers that share the same complaint.
This is a very powerful JS blocking extension I used for a while:
https://jsblocker.toggleable.com/
That extension is deprecated.
I already use Firefox on the iPhone. I think it’s better than Chrome. Probably gonna switch on the desktop.
Is there any actual difference between the two beyond UI and sync? From what I understand they're both safari underneath?
I think you meant iOS WebKit for rendering rather than Safari. Firefox iOS uses WebKit while it used to use Gecko.
I seem to remember speed being a difference. It’s been awhile. I also switched from gmail to outlook because gmail was using headers and footers for ads which was annoying on a 4” SE.
I seem to remember speed being a difference. It’s been awhile. I also switched from gmail to outlook because gmail was using headers and footers for ads which was annoying on a 4” SE.
>while it used to use Gecko
How was it ever permitted to use Gecko underneath? Have the iOS app rules changed in recent years? Did they used to be more permissive?
How was it ever permitted to use Gecko underneath? Have the iOS app rules changed in recent years? Did they used to be more permissive?
Thanks, I was wrong about that. On iOS, Firefox switched to webkit for iOS for rendering (which includes JS). For the desktop, Firefox used and uses Gecko; the desktop version of course came first.
Firefox-on-Store uses Webkit but there is an experimental fork using Gecko/Servo in case Apple allows in the future. You can build and developer-sign that fork for your own.
I would switch today if Mozilla added tab completed search in the address bar that Chrome pioneered. It's very intuitive and difficult to give up.
Not everyone is understanding what you're saying, as evident by the downvotes you're getting
I'm fulltime FF but I won't pretend that the in-site (site specific) search works as smoothly as it did (does?) in Chrome
In Chrome you would go to foo.com and you would use their search input and from then on, in your address bar you can type foo (or maybe just f, depending on how often you use foo.com), and press <tab> to search within the site
This is a workflow you get used to
For the longest time I wanted this in FF, but I think the real thing that clicked for me was just heavily leaning on duckduckgo's bangs
https://duckduckgo.com/bang
(Firefox does have in-site search, which you can use by right clicking in the site's search input and clicking "Add a Keyword for this Search", but I'm not even sure how it works heh)
edit: okay so this is how it works https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-search-from-address... and I just added `a` for amazon.com and I typed `a` in the address bar and pressed <enter> and it didn't do anything, hm
edit2: so I guess my main point should have been: Firefox has a manual step for what Chrome did for "free", after you made your first in-site search, which you were probably already going to do
I'm fulltime FF but I won't pretend that the in-site (site specific) search works as smoothly as it did (does?) in Chrome
In Chrome you would go to foo.com and you would use their search input and from then on, in your address bar you can type foo (or maybe just f, depending on how often you use foo.com), and press <tab> to search within the site
This is a workflow you get used to
For the longest time I wanted this in FF, but I think the real thing that clicked for me was just heavily leaning on duckduckgo's bangs
https://duckduckgo.com/bang
(Firefox does have in-site search, which you can use by right clicking in the site's search input and clicking "Add a Keyword for this Search", but I'm not even sure how it works heh)
edit: okay so this is how it works https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-search-from-address... and I just added `a` for amazon.com and I typed `a` in the address bar and pressed <enter> and it didn't do anything, hm
edit2: so I guess my main point should have been: Firefox has a manual step for what Chrome did for "free", after you made your first in-site search, which you were probably already going to do
Not everyone is understanding what you're saying, as evident by the downvotes you're getting
Well also I'd like the address bar to be a fucking address bar and not an address-but-sometimes-search bar.
Well also I'd like the address bar to be a fucking address bar and not an address-but-sometimes-search bar.
Here are a few firefox settings to make your URL field behave only as a URL field:
user_pref("keyword.enabled", false);
user_pref("browser.fixup.alternate.enabled", false);
user_pref("browser.urlbar.suggest.searches", false);
user_pref("browser.urlbar.filter.javascript", true);
FWIW, I believe most if not all of these settings are also available under preferences | search.
Thank you for perfectly illustrating why Firefox will not find the mainstream acceptance of other browsers.
Hm, yeah, probably can't help you there
Minimally you can restore the search bar, and now `ctr-k` will focus that bar, while `ctrl-l` will continue focusing the address bar
HOWEVER.. if you type keywords and not a domain in the address bar, it's still gonna search. That's the rub you don't like, I suppose
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-search-bar-firefox-...
Minimally you can restore the search bar, and now `ctr-k` will focus that bar, while `ctrl-l` will continue focusing the address bar
HOWEVER.. if you type keywords and not a domain in the address bar, it's still gonna search. That's the rub you don't like, I suppose
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-search-bar-firefox-...
I'm pretty sure that Opera and Firefox had that search feature before Chrome was even released ?
I hope I don't sound crass, but how much is this feature going to matter to you once Google locks up the web?
You have tab completion in the search bar (Ctrl+K)!
Personally I disable the cloud-based suggestions and rely only on my local history.
Personally I disable the cloud-based suggestions and rely only on my local history.
I'm not sure if this accomplishes what you're looking for, but when I switched to Firefox I had similar complaints and turned to custom keywords:
https://www-archive.mozilla.org/docs/end-user/keywords.html
Basically, Firefox allows you to set a keyword (which I often set to an abbreviation + question mark) which you can link to a site's search URL. For example to search Google Scholar I would type my keyword, "sch?" and then my search query, and after pressing enter I am taken to the site's search results. It's a few more steps you have to take, but has the added benefit of allowing you to add the functionality for any site.
https://www-archive.mozilla.org/docs/end-user/keywords.html
Basically, Firefox allows you to set a keyword (which I often set to an abbreviation + question mark) which you can link to a site's search URL. For example to search Google Scholar I would type my keyword, "sch?" and then my search query, and after pressing enter I am taken to the site's search results. It's a few more steps you have to take, but has the added benefit of allowing you to add the functionality for any site.
Alternately you can switch the default search engine to DuckDuckGo, which lets you use DDG's "bang" search shortcuts (see https://duckduckgo.com/bang) from the Awesomebar. So you just type a search query and then append "!g" to run that search query through Google, "!w" to search for it on Wikipedia, "!yt" to search for it on HN, etc.
[deleted]
You're good to go! Just enable it in settings!
[deleted]
On top of uBlock Origin / uMatrix, some of the other Firefox's trump cards to me are:
* Tree Style Tab: makes tabs much more manageable, no parallel in Chrome. If you open dozens of tabs, after using this, you can only pity the traditional tab management [1].
* Containers and container tabs: it's a bit like having separate Chrome profiles for separate contexts, but you can also have them as tabs in the same window.
* Sync / sign-in server that is open source and that you can run on your own if you choose.
[1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...
* Tree Style Tab: makes tabs much more manageable, no parallel in Chrome. If you open dozens of tabs, after using this, you can only pity the traditional tab management [1].
* Containers and container tabs: it's a bit like having separate Chrome profiles for separate contexts, but you can also have them as tabs in the same window.
* Sync / sign-in server that is open source and that you can run on your own if you choose.
[1]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...
Container tabs have made my life much easier, as I'm managing a number of Amazon accounts, and being able to do that side-by-side is a life-saver.
I really enjoy the Containers. The only problem is that you can only have a single container tied to an individual site. I'd rather like it to be tied to a subpath or url "root" so I could use it with GitHub.
Only for the automatic association you mean? You can manually open a tab into any container.
I recommend the Search and Switch container[1] extension for that. You open a new tab, type 'co <container name' and it reloads that tab into the given container. For example, I have a container for all things Google, called "Google", and the extension use would go like this 'co google', or even 'co goo'. It's smart enough to figure it out.
Plus, you can also move existing tabs into a given container the same way, not just new tabs, all at the cost of a single tab refresh.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/search-and-sw...
Plus, you can also move existing tabs into a given container the same way, not just new tabs, all at the cost of a single tab refresh.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/search-and-sw...
[deleted]
You can do the same thing with Profiles in Chromium-based browsers, without having to add an extension.
If a person wants to test a website using several accounts in Chrome, they need to open and manage several windows. Lame.
If a person wants to access an ad-ridden website using several accounts in Chrome, they need to install, configure and maintain all of their favorite ad-blockers and anti-tracking extensions in several Chrome profiles. Lame.
In my experience, people who prefer profiles over containers are mostly casual users who don't configure profiles and use maybe one or two extensions.
If a person wants to access an ad-ridden website using several accounts in Chrome, they need to install, configure and maintain all of their favorite ad-blockers and anti-tracking extensions in several Chrome profiles. Lame.
In my experience, people who prefer profiles over containers are mostly casual users who don't configure profiles and use maybe one or two extensions.
firefox has profiles too. Profiles aren't the same as containers tabs though. They are also built in, not addons.
Correct. Firefox's profiles are not the same as Chromium.
What benefit do the Firefox containers have that Chromium profiles are missing?
What benefit do the Firefox containers have that Chromium profiles are missing?
Mostly, you can't have different profiles in the tabs of the same window in Chrome, and you can have different containers in the tabs of the same window in Firefox.
E.g. you can run your email tab in the default container, and a bank app in a separate "money" container next to it.
Or you can run one gmail (or outlook, etc) account in one tab, and an another gmail (or outlook, etc) account in another tab next to it.
E.g. you can run your email tab in the default container, and a bank app in a separate "money" container next to it.
Or you can run one gmail (or outlook, etc) account in one tab, and an another gmail (or outlook, etc) account in another tab next to it.
Also if you only want to separate (log-in) cookies, local storage and that kind of things for certain sites, but don't want separate history, bookmarks, settings, add-ons, etc., which is what you'd also get if using completely separate profiles.
First, I'd like to point out, that Containers are built-in with Firefox, even though you generally want at least the official add-on for ease of use.
Containers were actually the reason for me to switch over from Chrome about a year ago. The biggest benefit I see is that they're made easy to extend via add-ons.
In my set up I currently have a new container created every time I open a new tab, either blank or from a link, and automatically removed after I close them, which is made possible by Temporary Containers add-on in auto mode.
This creates automatic boundaries for all of my browsing. I then also have persistent containers for sites I want to be logged in to.
Containers were actually the reason for me to switch over from Chrome about a year ago. The biggest benefit I see is that they're made easy to extend via add-ons.
In my set up I currently have a new container created every time I open a new tab, either blank or from a link, and automatically removed after I close them, which is made possible by Temporary Containers add-on in auto mode.
This creates automatic boundaries for all of my browsing. I then also have persistent containers for sites I want to be logged in to.
I just discovered "Reader-View" in Firefox! Chrome doesn't have anything like that built-in and I've always had to rely on an extension to make CSS heavy pages readable. No more!
Reader view -> Save as PDF, and you have a nice readable copy of a non-interactive website to read when connectivity is sparse.
very handy to quickly get rid of visual clutter like overlays for cookie consent checkboxes, subscribe notifications or disable-your-adblocker overlays/popups.
Just hit reader mode and its all gone.
Just hit reader mode and its all gone.
I always loved using the ' key to open a find box that only searched links. great for mouseless browsing. (Although I switched off from firefox a long time ago due to their political ideology.)
I don't understand why Mac users use Chrome. Safari seems to be out of fashion: people just assume that it should not be used for some reason, even though it is actually a great browser.
I use Safari for both my own browsing and for development (a fairly large ClojureScript application), and it is by far the best browser on the platform by all measures (speed first and foremost).
The only place where Safari falls short is 3D CAD programs (like OnShape), where Chrome is faster and better.
I use Safari for both my own browsing and for development (a fairly large ClojureScript application), and it is by far the best browser on the platform by all measures (speed first and foremost).
The only place where Safari falls short is 3D CAD programs (like OnShape), where Chrome is faster and better.
Agreed. On macOS, Safari is fastest, hands down. All while preserving battery life better than Chrome, and even Firefox. PiP, swipe to peak navigation, pinch to zoom, better 1Password integration, Apple Pay, etc. are all more than just nice to have features.
However, my biggest gripe about Safari has to be the developer tools. They're noticeably slower, clunkier, and the network tab is unpredictable at times. I think it's getting better, but I defer to Firefox to do development.
However, my biggest gripe about Safari has to be the developer tools. They're noticeably slower, clunkier, and the network tab is unpredictable at times. I think it's getting better, but I defer to Firefox to do development.
> and even Firefox
if you have a retina display, this "even" is sort of a joke, because ff is so CPU-heavy (and often slow) that it's unusable for me https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404042
if you have a retina display, this "even" is sort of a joke, because ff is so CPU-heavy (and often slow) that it's unusable for me https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404042
I have a retina display and I'm using Firefox right now with 5 tabs open. Working fine for me!
Do you use scaled resolution? It seems the bug is Retina + scaled resolution which is a default on some Macbooks.
150 tabs here, lol.
But it is true that for some users Firefox on retina is barely usable. It is a confirmed bug.
But it is true that for some users Firefox on retina is barely usable. It is a confirmed bug.
> better 1Password integration
Am I using it wrong in Safari?
Because to me the Chrome integration with 1Password X extension is by far the easiest, you get the dropdown right there in the field. In Safari, I have to click the 1Password extension button next to the address field and then select Autofill.
Am I using it wrong in Safari?
Because to me the Chrome integration with 1Password X extension is by far the easiest, you get the dropdown right there in the field. In Safari, I have to click the 1Password extension button next to the address field and then select Autofill.
You can set a global keyboard shortcut for 1Password (e.g. cmd-alt-' or similar), which shows the autocompletion popup for whatever Safari window you're in.
That's what I've done. Thanks for confirming that I wasn't missing anything. I still think the Chrome implementation is the gold standard, but it's without a doubt workable in Safari.
No, that's right. It doesn't pop up next to input fields like it does on Chrome; I have to click the menu icon, or right-click > 1Password, or use a keyboard shortcut. I haven't found it a nuisance however.
The one thing about 1Password X is it doesn't integrate with the installed 1Password app on your system, which means no TouchID, for one.
The one thing about 1Password X is it doesn't integrate with the installed 1Password app on your system, which means no TouchID, for one.
Interesting. I don't have a Mac but it would be worth trying.
TBH the ability to use uBlock Origin was my only killer requirement, but Container tabs are a leap in web security. I hope that idea gets stolen and becomes a norm in browsers. (Or First Party Isolation in general).
TBH the ability to use uBlock Origin was my only killer requirement, but Container tabs are a leap in web security. I hope that idea gets stolen and becomes a norm in browsers. (Or First Party Isolation in general).
Extensions. Safari has almost none of them and I need them. And not just uBO. I have 10+ of them install and I'd say 8 of them are mandatory for me. I don't care about Safari being the fastest or battery life.
Also dev tools are so much better in Fx and Chrome...
Also dev tools are so much better in Fx and Chrome...
Safari user here—I personally have never used extensions much (probably my own loss), and on Safari I just have 1Password and uBlock°.
Besides Safari's lack of extensions I find it to be more or less on par with Firefox, assuming you're in the Apple ecosystem. The dev tools feel extremely polished and feature complete. The only thing Safari's dev tools lack IMO is no fancy CSS support for things like grid or animations.
I occasional open up Firefox Dev Edition when I get a weird bug on a webpage and that sort of thing but besides that Safari has served all my needs perfectly.
Besides Safari's lack of extensions I find it to be more or less on par with Firefox, assuming you're in the Apple ecosystem. The dev tools feel extremely polished and feature complete. The only thing Safari's dev tools lack IMO is no fancy CSS support for things like grid or animations.
I occasional open up Firefox Dev Edition when I get a weird bug on a webpage and that sort of thing but besides that Safari has served all my needs perfectly.
>The dev tools feel extremely polished and feature complete.
Much less than that of Fx or Chrome. No support of extensions means I can't use something like https://github.com/vuejs/vue-devtools, no command menu, poor debugger, no performance\memory usage information etc. The list can go on and on. Safari's dev tools are about at the same level as they were in Chrome or Fx 5+ years ago.
As for the extensions part... well, not everybody needs them, I guess, but I can't really imagine my browser without at least, 1P, uBO, Stylys, Tempermonkey, TreeStyleTabs, Tab Session manager, Bloody Vikings! and All Mangas Reader.
Much less than that of Fx or Chrome. No support of extensions means I can't use something like https://github.com/vuejs/vue-devtools, no command menu, poor debugger, no performance\memory usage information etc. The list can go on and on. Safari's dev tools are about at the same level as they were in Chrome or Fx 5+ years ago.
As for the extensions part... well, not everybody needs them, I guess, but I can't really imagine my browser without at least, 1P, uBO, Stylys, Tempermonkey, TreeStyleTabs, Tab Session manager, Bloody Vikings! and All Mangas Reader.
LiveReload, Pocket, PageCapture, Privacy.com, OneTab/TabsOutliner, VideoSpeedController, SocialBlade all add significant value.
Safari's inspector always feels obtuse compared to Chrome or Firefox but maybe I'm just not used to it.
Safari's inspector always feels obtuse compared to Chrome or Firefox but maybe I'm just not used to it.
I don't understand why people are use the same browser for browsing and development.
I use Chrome for development. It has lots of helpful extensions, like the React and Redux devtools, extensions for cookie editing, screen measuring, JSON formatting and so on. I often need to forcibly restart tabs (or the entire browser) due to misbehaving devtools, so it's great having a dedicated browser for it. Same goes for cookies and local storage state. It's completely separate.
I use Safari as a browser. I has the basic extensions (adblocker, etc.) that I need personally. Its development tools are terrible, but that's okay — I only use them in the very rare case where a rendering/JS problem only shows in Safari.
I use Chrome for development. It has lots of helpful extensions, like the React and Redux devtools, extensions for cookie editing, screen measuring, JSON formatting and so on. I often need to forcibly restart tabs (or the entire browser) due to misbehaving devtools, so it's great having a dedicated browser for it. Same goes for cookies and local storage state. It's completely separate.
I use Safari as a browser. I has the basic extensions (adblocker, etc.) that I need personally. Its development tools are terrible, but that's okay — I only use them in the very rare case where a rendering/JS problem only shows in Safari.
[deleted]
I use Safari for non-work browsing (the dev tools make it unusable for work, in my opinion). I was a Chrome user, but Chrome nuked the battery on my mbp in record time. Safari has its kinks and oddities, but it sips the battery even with a ton of tabs open, and it's good enough that I've been using it for about a year with pretty much no thoughts of switching. I also like not feeling like I have the big G looking over my shoulder all the time.
Safari doesn't support doesn't support multiple user profiles, and it doesn't support uBlock Origin.
If you're switching browsers because you're upset that Chrome is breaking uBO, it makes no sense to switch to another browser that's never supported uBO and probably never will.
If you're switching browsers because you're upset that Chrome is breaking uBO, it makes no sense to switch to another browser that's never supported uBO and probably never will.
uBlock Origin is available on Safari. Installing it results in a "will slow down your browser" which is apparently just a CYA warning from Apple for any extensions not installed via the App Store.
https://safari-extensions.apple.com/details/?id=com.el1t.uBl...
https://safari-extensions.apple.com/details/?id=com.el1t.uBl...
It's not 'a CYA warning'. The in-process JS extension API is going away.
Safari supports multiple user profiles because it’s running on a Unix operating system that provides full user accounts.
If you’re switching browser because google is breaking ad blocking, it absolutely makes sense to switch to one with a blocking technology that the browser vendor specifically added, rather than grudgingly allowed.
It also makes sense to use a browser where the blockers don’t get access to what you’re actually browsing. What’s the point of blocking trackers if the blocker just tracks what you do?
If you’re switching browser because google is breaking ad blocking, it absolutely makes sense to switch to one with a blocking technology that the browser vendor specifically added, rather than grudgingly allowed.
It also makes sense to use a browser where the blockers don’t get access to what you’re actually browsing. What’s the point of blocking trackers if the blocker just tracks what you do?
Unless you want to log out and into another mac account just to change profiles, this really isn't useful.
The utility comes from having multiple sandboxed, separate profiles running at the same time with separate cookie jars, in separate memory spaces. Kind of like docker containers for the browser. Chrome does this magnificently--I have personal, school, and work profiles all running and open at the same time. It's very useful if you have multiple accounts on any services and need access to them simultaneously (i.e. multiple google accounts). Also useful if you don't want the browser in one of the profiles to remember any sites/cookies from another area of your life. I wouldn't want some of sites I visit on my own time to autocomplete at work, but I still want to have it when I go home.
As far as I know it also isn't possible to make any sort of CLI incantation to open the safari binary as a different user (like sudo with specifying a different non-root user) and not have it override whatever is currently running.
https://www.bettercloud.com/monitor/the-academy/how-to-creat...
The utility comes from having multiple sandboxed, separate profiles running at the same time with separate cookie jars, in separate memory spaces. Kind of like docker containers for the browser. Chrome does this magnificently--I have personal, school, and work profiles all running and open at the same time. It's very useful if you have multiple accounts on any services and need access to them simultaneously (i.e. multiple google accounts). Also useful if you don't want the browser in one of the profiles to remember any sites/cookies from another area of your life. I wouldn't want some of sites I visit on my own time to autocomplete at work, but I still want to have it when I go home.
As far as I know it also isn't possible to make any sort of CLI incantation to open the safari binary as a different user (like sudo with specifying a different non-root user) and not have it override whatever is currently running.
https://www.bettercloud.com/monitor/the-academy/how-to-creat...
I seriously did not expect the terrible "macOS is a CERTIFIED(C) UNIX(R)(TM)" argument to be deployed in this manner.
Actually you can get uBO for Safari:
https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/blob/safari/README.md
https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/blob/safari/README.md
That extension has been dead for over a year.
For it to work on future macOS versions, the developers would need to convert it to a Safari App Extension and cough up $99/year. They’re not interested.
For it to work on future macOS versions, the developers would need to convert it to a Safari App Extension and cough up $99/year. They’re not interested.
If you use an iOS device, Safari is awesome. The integration between all your hardware devices syncing passwords, tabs, bookmarks, reading list, etc. kicks ass.
That’s all not to mention its excellent built-in privacy features and that it’s really really fast.
That’s all not to mention its excellent built-in privacy features and that it’s really really fast.
I would argue experiences of alternative browsers on iOS is somewhat artificially hindered...
Not that I'm saying Safari is bad browser, but on iOS you can't really set other browser as your default browser, browsers can't use their own engines, etc. etc.
Not that I'm saying Safari is bad browser, but on iOS you can't really set other browser as your default browser, browsers can't use their own engines, etc. etc.
3rd party browsers are not able to make use of the Content Blocking supported by iOS, which is a major sacrifice to use Chrome.
That was originally the case, but I believe it was opened up in iOS 11? I certainly use Firefox iOS primarily and don’t see many if any tracking ads.
Firefox may be doing their own thing, since they own the webview, but they cannot use the content blocking API.
You can set a default browser on iOS w/o Jailbreaking with my app UpTime https://www.producthunt.com/posts/uptime-3/edit
Safari is so much better at preserving battery life it's not even funny. I'm still using Firefox because I find their containers concept incredibly useful, here's hoping Apple steal that idea with the next version of macOS.
How's the dev tools (aka whatever the equivalent of Chrome "dev tools" is)?
As a web dev, the main reason I don't switch is I know how to use Chrome dev tools, and hate spending time I could be producing code instead learning new tools for something like this. But eventually I'll get myself to (prob to FF rather than safari, as long as I'm switching).
As a web dev, the main reason I don't switch is I know how to use Chrome dev tools, and hate spending time I could be producing code instead learning new tools for something like this. But eventually I'll get myself to (prob to FF rather than safari, as long as I'm switching).
I prefer Safari's dev tools, actually. The UX is far better, Chrome's dev tools UI is so incredibly cluttered. The only area I find where Chrome's dev tools outshines Safari's is JS profiling — that tree chart graph is pretty useful. The other 95% of the time I stay in Safari.
I agree, I love profiling JS in Chrome. I'd switch to FF or Safari in an instant if they compared. Last time I checked, they were both nowhere near as easy or productive to use.
The other day I had to shut down a chrome tab that was utilizing 1.5 gigs of ram though. That's crazy. There's definitely no perfect browser.
The other day I had to shut down a chrome tab that was utilizing 1.5 gigs of ram though. That's crazy. There's definitely no perfect browser.
The dev tools in Safari are OK, usable and useful enough for the odd task. But there's no reason your everyday browser has to be your primary web dev environment too. I switch to Chrome when doing front-end web dev or hacking in WebGL playgrounds.
The dev tools are pretty good, just laid out slightly differently than the other browsers, and not quite as deep in some areas. But FWIW I use Safari as my primary browser and FF Developer Edition for the dev tools, and that arrangement works well for me. I do use Safari dev tools when I’m running on battery though - I get about 2 more hours of life, which is more than worth it.
Safari dev tools are terrible and laid out in a completely un-intuitive manner. It's somewhat sad because the original Safari dev tools (which now live on as the foundation for Chrome's) were best-in-class.
At some point they decided to mimic Xcode which pretty much put a nail in them for being useful for anything.
At some point they decided to mimic Xcode which pretty much put a nail in them for being useful for anything.
> ...completely un-intuitive manner
No, it's just that you're used to something different.
I primarily use Safari for development and when I switch to Chrome or Firefox it feels unnatural and weird at first. Then I acclimate and all is well.
No, it's just that you're used to something different.
I primarily use Safari for development and when I switch to Chrome or Firefox it feels unnatural and weird at first. Then I acclimate and all is well.
I tried switching to Safari for a few months. Somehow it caused really odd beach balling and freezing of the computer. After a while I couldn't be bothered to jump all the various hoops to debug it, the solution wasn't simple or obvious, and switch to Brave, then finally back to Chrome when dark mode came about.
If uBlock stops working, I'll switch off in an instant though.
If uBlock stops working, I'll switch off in an instant though.
FWIW Brave also has a dark mode
I use a lot of different platforms, and Safari only runs on a couple of them. Firefox lets me sync bookmarks, settings and extensions across all of them.
Safari has a few things not going for it:
1) ad blocking options are really inferior to chrome (for now) or firefox so a lot of what you gain in speediness gets taken away by some of the garbage that modern websites spit back at you.
2) The dev tools are confusing now. They have good ones but they need to redesign some of the UI on it.
3) There's not a good way to containerize things which means you end up having to open private windows when trying to login to services with different users.
While I disagree about ad-blocking and webdev options, Safari's reader mode and overall OS performance is a reason enough to never touch another browser. I have no use-case for multi-user containerization so no opinion there.
To add to others points I find that safari often lags behind implementing standards features and sometimes straight up implements then wrong. For that reason I make a point of not using it.
Also as far as I can see I have to upgrade my OS in order to upgrade by browser with safari. Sometimes I just can't be bothered to wait for a 40 minute upgrade to complete.
Also as far as I can see I have to upgrade my OS in order to upgrade by browser with safari. Sometimes I just can't be bothered to wait for a 40 minute upgrade to complete.
Safari redesigned their dev tools at some point a long time ago and made the interface (IMO) terrible. Until they did that I used to use it a lot more.
Safari is a great browser if you don’t need the most cutting edge features or extensibility though, and I believe it’s also the best optimized for battery life.
Safari is a great browser if you don’t need the most cutting edge features or extensibility though, and I believe it’s also the best optimized for battery life.
That's what WebKit's devtools look like, across all branded browsers. Blink stayed with the old layout and iterated on it.
I don't really care which one I use, but change for changes' sake is frustrating. I'm used to Blink/old Webkit and I don't see any reason to learn a new layout.
I don't really care which one I use, but change for changes' sake is frustrating. I'm used to Blink/old Webkit and I don't see any reason to learn a new layout.
I legit can't even use the Safari tools even if I try. I have no idea how its supposed to work...the idea is not just terrible. It makes absolutely no sense and I have to google stuff to figure out how to use it every time I do.
People keep saying this, but I don't see how Safari dev tools are all that bad. My needs are quite simple, but by and large things appear to work in a way very similar to Chrome. What would be the main things you usually do with the dev tools where Chrome shines and Safari sucks? I'd like to understand what I'm missing by developing on Safari.
The safari dev tools used to be the exact same as chrome.
Then they were redesigned and everything was moved to different places.
I’m sure they still work fine, it’s just a learning curve to understand where everything was moved. It’s a matter of opinion but IMO the Firefox and chrome tools both have a more intuitive UI as well.
Edit: just to be clear this is what I liked https://webkit.org/blog-files/inspector-elements-panel.png
Then they were redesigned and everything was moved to different places.
I’m sure they still work fine, it’s just a learning curve to understand where everything was moved. It’s a matter of opinion but IMO the Firefox and chrome tools both have a more intuitive UI as well.
Edit: just to be clear this is what I liked https://webkit.org/blog-files/inspector-elements-panel.png
They've recently been re-redesigned, particularly the Elements and Network tabs. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the latest version.
I don't remember any recent redesigns. The Web Inspector has looked more or less the same since Safari 9 was released in 2015. [1]
[1] https://webkit.org/blog/5718/10-years-of-web-inspector/
[1] https://webkit.org/blog/5718/10-years-of-web-inspector/
I have no idea if they're actually good or not when you figure out how to do it. But its getting to figure out where feature xyz is that drives me insane.
Chrome's tabs are nicer to use. They're visually easier to parse at a glance and arguably nicer to look at. Chrome's tab dragging is really tight and predictable.
Chrome's first paint is faster and more consistent. I think when I used macOS, Chrome had DNS preloading but Safari didn't.
It's been a while since I used macOS (RIP my 2012 13" MacBook Air), but Chrome's scrolling behaviour is more effective -- "solid" is how I'd describe it.
The omnibar is simple and usually shows exactly the right suggestions. Safari's address bar often didn't have the thing I wanted, and had extra things that I definitely didn't want or took a second for my brain to parse.
Chrome's context menu has better contrast, being black on white rather than black on silver. The choices are ordered better as well.
This is all that comes to mind right now.
An employee at my old company used a Mac Mini. She's not computer-saavy, but she far preferred Chrome over Safari. I asked her why and she couldn't describe it -- just that she was certain. I think it would be really insightful to do studies where you take tiny features from Safari, like the context menu colour, put them in Chrome and survey users on how they liked the product.
Chrome's first paint is faster and more consistent. I think when I used macOS, Chrome had DNS preloading but Safari didn't.
It's been a while since I used macOS (RIP my 2012 13" MacBook Air), but Chrome's scrolling behaviour is more effective -- "solid" is how I'd describe it.
The omnibar is simple and usually shows exactly the right suggestions. Safari's address bar often didn't have the thing I wanted, and had extra things that I definitely didn't want or took a second for my brain to parse.
Chrome's context menu has better contrast, being black on white rather than black on silver. The choices are ordered better as well.
This is all that comes to mind right now.
An employee at my old company used a Mac Mini. She's not computer-saavy, but she far preferred Chrome over Safari. I asked her why and she couldn't describe it -- just that she was certain. I think it would be really insightful to do studies where you take tiny features from Safari, like the context menu colour, put them in Chrome and survey users on how they liked the product.
Tab management is worse on safari vs chrome. Until recently, there were no favicons in tabs so it was hard to differentiate, and once you have a lot of tabs you have to scroll, while on chrome there is no scrolling and you can use favicons to see all of your tabs at a glance.
FF has tab scrolling, but you also have tree style tabs which is better than chrome when you have a lot of tabs. Container tabs are also a big plus and is what made me start using firefox again. Chrome has a tree style tabs extension but the user experience makes it unusable for me. I can't find it for safari.
Firefox is still slower & consumes more CPU than chrome and safari after all of the improvements. Especially on a few heavyweight websites I use a lot, like facebook and google maps. Chrome is fast enough by comparison. So on my personal macbook I never use firefox because it's too slow.
If safari fixed it's tab issues then I would use it. But being silent apple, they will probably never fix that because it goes against some designer's idea of good design. Look how long it took to get favicons in tabs and it's still not the default option.
FF has tab scrolling, but you also have tree style tabs which is better than chrome when you have a lot of tabs. Container tabs are also a big plus and is what made me start using firefox again. Chrome has a tree style tabs extension but the user experience makes it unusable for me. I can't find it for safari.
Firefox is still slower & consumes more CPU than chrome and safari after all of the improvements. Especially on a few heavyweight websites I use a lot, like facebook and google maps. Chrome is fast enough by comparison. So on my personal macbook I never use firefox because it's too slow.
If safari fixed it's tab issues then I would use it. But being silent apple, they will probably never fix that because it goes against some designer's idea of good design. Look how long it took to get favicons in tabs and it's still not the default option.
Pro-tip for Safari: Press Command+Shift+\.
This will show an overview of all your tabs at once. Just start typing to find a particular tab by name.
A two-finger pinch-in gesture will also trigger the Tab Overview.
Another fun one: use Command-Option-<+> and Command-Option-<-> to make text larger or smaller (as opposed to zooming the entire page).
To view other shortcuts, click the View menu in Safari, and then hold down the Option key.
This will show an overview of all your tabs at once. Just start typing to find a particular tab by name.
A two-finger pinch-in gesture will also trigger the Tab Overview.
Another fun one: use Command-Option-<+> and Command-Option-<-> to make text larger or smaller (as opposed to zooming the entire page).
To view other shortcuts, click the View menu in Safari, and then hold down the Option key.
> Just start typing to find a particular tab by name.
Note that this is probably one of the least discoverable features I've ever seen.
Note that this is probably one of the least discoverable features I've ever seen.
Disclaimer: I work for Google
I actually really liked Safari when I used it. The issue for me is just that I don't only use OS X and like having my stuff synced across devices.
If I had an iPhone I would probably be very happy with Safari.
I actually really liked Safari when I used it. The issue for me is just that I don't only use OS X and like having my stuff synced across devices.
If I had an iPhone I would probably be very happy with Safari.
I'd use Safari over Chrome, but Safari has a couple of show-stopping bugs:
1. Swiping back on the trackpad to navigate backwards freezes the page for a couple of seconds. It then redraws the page with any updated elements (perhaps a refresh?).
2. The element CSS attributes in the dev tools often fail to update the DOM, duplicate with every keystroke, or revert what you have typed.
1. Swiping back on the trackpad to navigate backwards freezes the page for a couple of seconds. It then redraws the page with any updated elements (perhaps a refresh?).
2. The element CSS attributes in the dev tools often fail to update the DOM, duplicate with every keystroke, or revert what you have typed.
For me, for 1. it seems to do the same thing as the back button. There is a refresh, but it has to do that.
I'm sure it's fine for casual users, and you can't deny the battery life improvements when using Safari.
However as I posted in another comment, Safari is the new IE when it comes to bugs and standards compliance.
Here's an example that broke many many sites that use OAuth2 Auth Code Flow for login (including the main UI portal my company provides clients): https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194906
This was also an issue in iOS, and since Apple doesn't let any other browsers actually use their own rendering engine on that platform (they're just wrappers around Safari's guts) this was broken for all iPhone users no matter the browser.
This is just one example. There's been numerous other issues such as disabling third party cookies by default.
I can only surmise that Mac users use Chrome/FF because the internet just _works better_ when they do.
However as I posted in another comment, Safari is the new IE when it comes to bugs and standards compliance.
Here's an example that broke many many sites that use OAuth2 Auth Code Flow for login (including the main UI portal my company provides clients): https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194906
This was also an issue in iOS, and since Apple doesn't let any other browsers actually use their own rendering engine on that platform (they're just wrappers around Safari's guts) this was broken for all iPhone users no matter the browser.
This is just one example. There's been numerous other issues such as disabling third party cookies by default.
I can only surmise that Mac users use Chrome/FF because the internet just _works better_ when they do.
Safari seems lacking in the browser extensions department.
This is probably the only reason I don't use Safari on macOS. Especially since their new extension API came out, most of the (few) extensions I was even able to find are now manual-install pains.
No uBlock Origin. Literally the singular reason I don't use it.
No extensions, no sync between devices if you don't want to (or can't) use iOS, and overall worse experience for me than anything else I can use on Mac. But I'm using Opera, not Chrome. I think that Vivaldi is currently the best browser, but unfortunately they don't have mobile version yet.
Funny, I also use Safari on my Mac and I also work with a rather large ClojureScript application.
> The only place where Safari falls short is 3D CAD programs (like OnShape), where Chrome is faster and better.
You completely disregard one of the biggest appeals to Chrome, which is its massive extension support (which Safari is miles behind on).
You completely disregard one of the biggest appeals to Chrome, which is its massive extension support (which Safari is miles behind on).
> The only place where Safari falls short is 3D CAD programs
Safari has poor controls if you care about privacy and having some modicum of control over the websites you visit.
In Chrome we can — on a per-site basis — disable/enable JavaScript; disable/enable cookies (and local storage); allow only some cookies; set which cookies clear on exit. You can also do more, but those are the ones I use.
You can do all that without extensions, and the controls are right there on the omnibar. In Safari, I can’t even do that with an extension (that I’m aware of).
Safari has poor controls if you care about privacy and having some modicum of control over the websites you visit.
In Chrome we can — on a per-site basis — disable/enable JavaScript; disable/enable cookies (and local storage); allow only some cookies; set which cookies clear on exit. You can also do more, but those are the ones I use.
You can do all that without extensions, and the controls are right there on the omnibar. In Safari, I can’t even do that with an extension (that I’m aware of).
Safari gives you privacy by default without the need to fiddle with controls.
Ostensibly.
Safari guesses what is privacy invading or not, and as such makes mistakes. I appreciate their effort, but I don’t believe it’s good enough.
This month we got reports of browser fingerprinting on iOS that happened via the phone’s gyroscope[1]. There was a way to not be affected: disabling JavaScript.
[1]: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/21/iphone_mems_gyrosco...
Safari guesses what is privacy invading or not, and as such makes mistakes. I appreciate their effort, but I don’t believe it’s good enough.
This month we got reports of browser fingerprinting on iOS that happened via the phone’s gyroscope[1]. There was a way to not be affected: disabling JavaScript.
[1]: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/05/21/iphone_mems_gyrosco...
> I don't understand why Mac users use Chrome.
No profile support. I have four profiles in use right now, mostly "thanks" to the fact that Twitter can't run multiple accounts at once and Tweetdeck is garbage. Three "private" profiles and one for "work" stuff. That's a dealbreaker for me.
In addition, as a web developer, Chrome has way better development tools, and I like to use Chromecast integration and see full URLs in a real address bar, not just the domain like Safari does.
No profile support. I have four profiles in use right now, mostly "thanks" to the fact that Twitter can't run multiple accounts at once and Tweetdeck is garbage. Three "private" profiles and one for "work" stuff. That's a dealbreaker for me.
In addition, as a web developer, Chrome has way better development tools, and I like to use Chromecast integration and see full URLs in a real address bar, not just the domain like Safari does.
There's a setting to show the full URL in the address bar.
Preferences > Advanced > Show full website address
Preferences > Advanced > Show full website address
Ah, cool, good to know. Thanks. Still, though, the dealbreaker with profiles remains :/
I'd really like to switch to Safari especially because it is extremely battery friendly but there are so many features it lacks :'(
I'd really like to switch to Safari especially because it is extremely battery friendly but there are so many features it lacks :'(
I also use safari as my main browser. When there is the rare case when a site malfunctions (not so rare anyways... sheesh its like IE all over again) I have brave-browser pulled from brew.
I’ve tried chrome in the past but it installed some sort of GoogleUpdater daemon without permission and I absolutely hate that. The same reason I don’t install MSOffice on my machines. If a desktop application needs a background service for wathever reason I don’t want it anywhere near my computers.
I’ve tried chrome in the past but it installed some sort of GoogleUpdater daemon without permission and I absolutely hate that. The same reason I don’t install MSOffice on my machines. If a desktop application needs a background service for wathever reason I don’t want it anywhere near my computers.
Can Safari play webm files in the browser? Never works for me.
No, and due to the removal NPAPI extension support you cannot add this feature to it.
It can't. I think Apple is against Webm because there's little hardwire support for it, while mp4 (h264/265) has very good hardware support
[deleted]
Safari has a noticeable lag making a new tab, and it doesn’t support my Yubikey.
> I don't understand why Mac users use Chrome.
One word: iCloud. I don't feel like being encapsulated in Apple's ecosystem because their support on non-Apple products is limited, buggy, and/or non-existent.
One word: iCloud. I don't feel like being encapsulated in Apple's ecosystem because their support on non-Apple products is limited, buggy, and/or non-existent.
> I don't understand why Mac users use Chrome.
Because sensible people don't deliberately handcuff themselves to trillion dollar megacorps. How can I get my Safari bookmarks on my Android phone?
Because sensible people don't deliberately handcuff themselves to trillion dollar megacorps. How can I get my Safari bookmarks on my Android phone?
Safari is the only modern browser I run into that renders differently.
I can't claim the same. I get (usually minor) rendering differences between Safari, Chrome, and Firefox pretty equally at work.
Safari UX sucks -as someone who used windows all their life and recently transitioned to mac. i do not understand the choices and can't integrate them into my workflow
I tried to switch the other day and the big blocker is no u2f support.
I have switched on my phone, but desktop thats a pretty harsh trade off.
I have switched on my phone, but desktop thats a pretty harsh trade off.
As others have said, Safari has vastly inferior dev tools. I am not a fan of the UI at all. Also, Safari generally lags other browsers in supporting features. They added beacon years after others, even Edge had support for it way before Safari.
As a web developer I don't like Safari. Safari is for me the number 1 reason to implement workarounds in HTML/JS/CSS because stuff does not work in Safari which is no problem on Chrome and Safari.
mublock origin
Vastly inferior dev tools, amateur tab management (no multi selecting tabs to rearrange or close), and a lack of extensions that are super valuable in web dev.
I keep trying to switch but every time it is clear that Safari is an inferior product (aside from efficiency, where it beats the heck out of Chrome).
I keep trying to switch but every time it is clear that Safari is an inferior product (aside from efficiency, where it beats the heck out of Chrome).
I switched a couple of months ago because Chrome is just a bloated piece of garbage. One of my favorite features in Firefox is containers, which I used to have different users for in Chrome. Maybe Chrome has something similar now but it's one of the things I liked when I switched over. Haven't had any issues so far, glad I did
> One of my favorite features in Firefox is containers
I switched a couple months ago from Chrome to Firefox as well but to tell you the truth, I just heard about containers and what you could do with it. I guess I must've been living under a rock, this is amazing!
I was already glad I made the switch for the less resources being used on my aging Macbook Pro and better privacy features, but containers just took this experience to the next level for me!
EDIT: What actually triggered my switch was at one point, a few tabs on Chrome(regular things like Youtube) started causing my CPU/fan to go crazy on my MBP 2015(the last decent MBP). Instead of trying to figure out what extension or what setting was causing the problem, I thought I'd give FF a try and just couldn't look back after.
I switched a couple months ago from Chrome to Firefox as well but to tell you the truth, I just heard about containers and what you could do with it. I guess I must've been living under a rock, this is amazing!
I was already glad I made the switch for the less resources being used on my aging Macbook Pro and better privacy features, but containers just took this experience to the next level for me!
EDIT: What actually triggered my switch was at one point, a few tabs on Chrome(regular things like Youtube) started causing my CPU/fan to go crazy on my MBP 2015(the last decent MBP). Instead of trying to figure out what extension or what setting was causing the problem, I thought I'd give FF a try and just couldn't look back after.
I love FF and use it daily. But honestly, the "some random tab has runaway javascript" is as much of a problem on FF as it is on Chrome. If you leave a JS-heavy site open long enough, sooner or later you'll have some runaway JS come and bite you in the battery. The only complete solution I've got is... to turn it off and back on again. The entire browser, not just the offending tab.
My favorite features of Firefox is bookmarks tags, which IMO is way better than directories to categorize them.
I hope Mozilla won't deprecate those..
I hope Mozilla won't deprecate those..
I love Firefox's containers, but AFAIK you can't sync your settings. Makes reinstalling a major pain.
"Currently, add-on sync leaves setting synchronization to the individual add-on. If an add-on has support for syncing settings, they will be synced. If not, they won't. For now, if an add-on doesn't preserve settings during Sync, you should contact the add-on's author and request Sync support."
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Services/Sync/Addon_Sync
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Services/Sync/Addon_Sync
On the other hand Firefox actually lets you move your profile folder from one computer to another without throwing up a panic flag and resetting everything.
Same, but I was hesitant to switch. All I heard were comments like yours about containers and such. Finally after hearing about it so much, combined with all the talk about Quantum making things faster I gave FF a go. Haven't looked back.
I still use Chrome for some tasks such as watching/listening to Youtube. (edit: not bc of performance, but bc I hate OSXs Cmd-Tab ordering)
I still use Chrome for some tasks such as watching/listening to Youtube. (edit: not bc of performance, but bc I hate OSXs Cmd-Tab ordering)
> One of my favorite features in Firefox is containers
Container tabs are great. Combined with Tree Style Tabs and Containerise addons, you have something unbeatable in both terms of security, privacy and user friendliness.
Container tabs are great. Combined with Tree Style Tabs and Containerise addons, you have something unbeatable in both terms of security, privacy and user friendliness.
Wow thanks! I've been looking for something like Containerise, but for Chrome for a while. Didn't know it already exists in FF.
Does anyone know an extension or option in containers to preserve your browsing trajectory between containers?
I had a google container for a while, but opening links opens a new tab and closes the google container, so therefore you cant it back or forward without reopening that container tab. Same thing if I click a container link or something and it pushes it into a new tab, I loose that ability to go backward.
It's just a minor gripe but I'm so into the habit of hitting the back button on my mouse while browsing rather than cmd shift tab.
I had a google container for a while, but opening links opens a new tab and closes the google container, so therefore you cant it back or forward without reopening that container tab. Same thing if I click a container link or something and it pushes it into a new tab, I loose that ability to go backward.
It's just a minor gripe but I'm so into the habit of hitting the back button on my mouse while browsing rather than cmd shift tab.
History of opened URLs of the tab is accessible to sites via DOM, what you propose would be a leak.
I don't understand how it's better than multiple profiles. I use multiple accounts for the same services (Asana, AWS, email, etc.) how can I manage that with containers?
In my opinion, profiles are useful for separating "who I am." Whether that's my personal life and my professional life, or if it's me or my spouse using the same computer.
Containers are useful for separating "who I am to my providers." As far as Facebook is concerned, I am a Facebook user, but I don't use Amazon or Google. But Amazon thinks I'm an Amazon user that doesn't use Facebook or Google. You can accomplish this with profiles, but in Chrome (last I checked) that meant multiple windows, rather than just sites being displayed in tabs that indicate the container in use. So for that purpose, I believe containers are more useful.
(I also think Firefox should step up their profile game, because when my spouse and I alternate using a computer we share, it's inconvenient for me to close all her Firefox windows so I can open my profile!)
Containers are useful for separating "who I am to my providers." As far as Facebook is concerned, I am a Facebook user, but I don't use Amazon or Google. But Amazon thinks I'm an Amazon user that doesn't use Facebook or Google. You can accomplish this with profiles, but in Chrome (last I checked) that meant multiple windows, rather than just sites being displayed in tabs that indicate the container in use. So for that purpose, I believe containers are more useful.
(I also think Firefox should step up their profile game, because when my spouse and I alternate using a computer we share, it's inconvenient for me to close all her Firefox windows so I can open my profile!)
You can definitely have two profiles open simultaneously - on MacOS, this is achieved with “open -n Firefox.app --args -P [profile name]”; on Windows, “firefox -no-remote -P [profile name]”. Admittedly, that should _really_ be exposed in the UI somehow, but at least it means you can wrap up the command in a handy desktop shortcut (e.g. one that says “my Firefox” and one that says “her Firefox”).
> Admittedly, that should _really_ be exposed in the UI somehow
Go to about:profiles, click the "Launch profile in new browser" button under the profile you want.
Yes, it's not obvious, and the UI has a lot to be desired if you want to explain the feature to some non-techie, but you no longer need to close the other Firefox instances in order to launch a different profile. I think this was added a couple releases ago.
Go to about:profiles, click the "Launch profile in new browser" button under the profile you want.
Yes, it's not obvious, and the UI has a lot to be desired if you want to explain the feature to some non-techie, but you no longer need to close the other Firefox instances in order to launch a different profile. I think this was added a couple releases ago.
Thank you. I didn't know FF had profiles to begin with.
Be aware that running multiple profiles at once can cause issues with updates. One instance can end up updating, which means that the other instance can no longer create new processes, because it is still on the old version, and it gets updated in place.
OK - I hadn't come across that. I actually have the shortcut on my desktop that prompts you to pick a profile if you don't have any windows open already. I'll have to see if I can tweak the shortcuts to open each one! Thanks!!
Yust a heads up: you can open different profiles simultaneously using the about:profiles page, see my other reply.
[deleted]
Containers helps keep things sandboxed and lets you use the same window with different tabs representing different sessions.
So in your case you could have say a "work" container and a "home" container. Each of these could persist logins for all of the services you are using without having to switch between users and have different windows open you just have the 2 tabs.
What I think people find more useful is the ability to make a container for say "facebook". Anytime you open facebook it puts it in a new tab with a sandboxed browser session. It's similar to having a separate profile but it's just for facebook use and you don't have to think about it so much. If you click a link to facebook it opens it in your new container already logged in meanwhile facebook does not see you as authed in any of your other tabs.
So in your case you could have say a "work" container and a "home" container. Each of these could persist logins for all of the services you are using without having to switch between users and have different windows open you just have the 2 tabs.
What I think people find more useful is the ability to make a container for say "facebook". Anytime you open facebook it puts it in a new tab with a sandboxed browser session. It's similar to having a separate profile but it's just for facebook use and you don't have to think about it so much. If you click a link to facebook it opens it in your new container already logged in meanwhile facebook does not see you as authed in any of your other tabs.
Firefox developers even make a specific Facebook Container add on that I recommend and use.
Instead of you needing to know all the tricks and tweaks needed to make it work well, they're in the box.
I don't even know it's there until it does something unexpected but necessary. For example the Facebook Container has no idea I pay YouTube not to show adverts. So inside Facebook any inlined YouTube video has adverts. If I follow a link to YouTube, I appear outside the Container and have no adverts but don't get followed by Facebook (they'd need YouTube to co-operate)
Instead of you needing to know all the tricks and tweaks needed to make it work well, they're in the box.
I don't even know it's there until it does something unexpected but necessary. For example the Facebook Container has no idea I pay YouTube not to show adverts. So inside Facebook any inlined YouTube video has adverts. If I follow a link to YouTube, I appear outside the Container and have no adverts but don't get followed by Facebook (they'd need YouTube to co-operate)
But this co-mingles bookmarks and add-ons. For work/personal separation profiles are definitely better
You log in with one account in one container and with the other account in another, and can mix them in the same browser session?
Yes. As pointed out in another thread, containers share history. But they don't share cookies or session status so you can have multiple gmail sessions going.
Having a container is nice compared to opening a private window because you don't have to do 2FA every time.
Having a container is nice compared to opening a private window because you don't have to do 2FA every time.
LOL, I'll sometimes just use different channel versions of browsers for different accounts when I have to access them regularly. The worst imho is when you have a google personal account and a google business (apps) account for work.
It's definitely something I'd like to see worked out better as a power user feature.
It's definitely something I'd like to see worked out better as a power user feature.
[deleted]
I wouldn't call Firefox bloat-free with things like Pocket integration. But yes, it's an awesome browser anyways!
>I switched a couple of months ago because Chrome is just a bloated piece of garbage
I switched to Chrome a few years ago (and even to a Chromebox as my daily driver, on my second now because I wanted Android app support) because Firefox was a bloated piece of garbage, if I left 5-10 tabs open for a few weeks in Windows they'd be using several gigabytes of memory from a leak, memory use growing hourly.
Edit: I don't know why I'm being downvoted, this is even on Mozilla's own site showing it hasn't been fixed:
"Firefox's memory usage may increase if it's left open for long periods of time. A workaround for this is to periodically restart Firefox"
With an alternate solution being:
"Add RAM to your computer" ... "RAM is cheap"
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-uses-too-much-m...
I have not had this issue at all with Chrome in Windows 7, Windows 10 or ChromeOS.
I switched to Chrome a few years ago (and even to a Chromebox as my daily driver, on my second now because I wanted Android app support) because Firefox was a bloated piece of garbage, if I left 5-10 tabs open for a few weeks in Windows they'd be using several gigabytes of memory from a leak, memory use growing hourly.
Edit: I don't know why I'm being downvoted, this is even on Mozilla's own site showing it hasn't been fixed:
"Firefox's memory usage may increase if it's left open for long periods of time. A workaround for this is to periodically restart Firefox"
With an alternate solution being:
"Add RAM to your computer" ... "RAM is cheap"
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-uses-too-much-m...
I have not had this issue at all with Chrome in Windows 7, Windows 10 or ChromeOS.
It's already fixed:
https://www.ghacks.net/2019/03/01/firefox-67-automatically-u...
There's also this:
https://www.ghacks.net/2012/05/22/make-firefox-more-responsi...
https://www.ghacks.net/2019/03/01/firefox-67-automatically-u...
There's also this:
https://www.ghacks.net/2012/05/22/make-firefox-more-responsi...
Firefox banned Dissenter[1], a plug-in that did nothing nefarious - only enables browser users of the plug-in to chat / comment with each other about webpages.
They did this for political reasons. Regardless of what kind of trash talk takes place on Dissenter, the point is that nobody is forced to use it.
My point: neither Google nor Mozilla should be trusted and both seek to be your totalitarian Internet overlord.
1. https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/36490/firefox-and-chrome-ban...
They did this for political reasons. Regardless of what kind of trash talk takes place on Dissenter, the point is that nobody is forced to use it.
My point: neither Google nor Mozilla should be trusted and both seek to be your totalitarian Internet overlord.
1. https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/36490/firefox-and-chrome-ban...
But it looks like they didn't "ban" it, they just don't want to host it
on their store [1]. As long as they don't refuse to sign these
"problematic" add-ons, this is fine (although it's worrying that they
are able to do so because of this signing-required-crap).
[1]: https://reclaimthenet.org/firefox-rejects-free-speech-bans-f...
[1]: https://reclaimthenet.org/firefox-rejects-free-speech-bans-f...
At least one extension maintainer (yappy, a pushbullet alternative) says that they are unable to sign their extension because of the 3rd party library they use, so while they have both firefox and chrome extensions, only the chrome one works.
That would be very disappointing from mozilla! I only found a
support-thread from yappy in 2016 but if this is still up-to-date there
should be an outrage on HN's frontpage.
I also made a simple, private(!) extension before I learned about the signing-requirement and that it won't work without uploading it. So I canceled my career as an extension-writer and just went to bed angry.
They really fucked this up (without even mentioning the "armag-addon").
I also made a simple, private(!) extension before I learned about the signing-requirement and that it won't work without uploading it. So I canceled my career as an extension-writer and just went to bed angry.
They really fucked this up (without even mentioning the "armag-addon").
Use WaterFox or Pale Moon. XULExtensions are fantastic.
I have darkmode on, on the entire internet. Had it for eternities before ff, thanks to an extension. Great reader extension. Even ported (to webextensions) extensions still have great versions for xul.
I have darkmode on, on the entire internet. Had it for eternities before ff, thanks to an extension. Great reader extension. Even ported (to webextensions) extensions still have great versions for xul.
Agreed. The fact that Firefox doesn't allow unsigned addons is proof enough of this.
You can't have both the ability to install unsigned addons and one-click addons in a software designed for average Joe, and not end up with massive malware problems.
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/04/15/the-case-for-exte...
Mozilla could not advertise Firefox as secure if they allowed unsigned addons.
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/04/15/the-case-for-exte...
Mozilla could not advertise Firefox as secure if they allowed unsigned addons.
[deleted]
I hope so because almost every bug I run into during webdev is Chrome, and usually I'm told it's intended behavior or a WONTFIX.
With the way Google tries to strongarm standards and at the same time defy them, it's the modern Internet Explorer and it's a PITA to develop for.
With the way Google tries to strongarm standards and at the same time defy them, it's the modern Internet Explorer and it's a PITA to develop for.
What the heck bugs are you running into that surface as a result of chrome being chrome? I’m no google fan but I find chrome to be far and away the most stable and enjoyable browser to debug with.
Don't get me wrong-- on the Firefox side of things, it's been the user experience of the browser itself which has been suffering.
Every single update since Quantum has made things worse. Three days ago I opened up Firefox to find out all of my settings had been nuked, 200+ tabs, themes and extensions lost, about:config reset, search settings reset (hello again Google) etc. I'm still fuming mad about this.
I don't feel like drudging up old history but my most recent bug was that Chrome doesn't properly bubble mouse click events when some UI elements fire.
WONTFIX of course, apparently I should just use event.preventDefault() even though every other browser handled this particular mouse event correctly. Chrome was the only outlier. So now I am writing code specifically for Chrome.
Two years ago I had an SVG rendering bug that turned out to be so deep that I had to spend two weeks debugging and come up with an incredibly convoluted scheme for loading dynamic SVG icons because `<use/>` is broken hot garbage on Chrome. Bug report dead in the water. More code just for Chrome.
You get the picture. I now have to develop on Chrome as much as I hate it, even though FF has better debug messages and stability, just because it saves time testing every little thing out.
Every single update since Quantum has made things worse. Three days ago I opened up Firefox to find out all of my settings had been nuked, 200+ tabs, themes and extensions lost, about:config reset, search settings reset (hello again Google) etc. I'm still fuming mad about this.
I don't feel like drudging up old history but my most recent bug was that Chrome doesn't properly bubble mouse click events when some UI elements fire.
WONTFIX of course, apparently I should just use event.preventDefault() even though every other browser handled this particular mouse event correctly. Chrome was the only outlier. So now I am writing code specifically for Chrome.
Two years ago I had an SVG rendering bug that turned out to be so deep that I had to spend two weeks debugging and come up with an incredibly convoluted scheme for loading dynamic SVG icons because `<use/>` is broken hot garbage on Chrome. Bug report dead in the water. More code just for Chrome.
You get the picture. I now have to develop on Chrome as much as I hate it, even though FF has better debug messages and stability, just because it saves time testing every little thing out.
Firefox 67 tried to switch to creating a new profile folder by default. It seems that the process might have gone wrong. It's likely that your settings still exist, but in a separate profile folder.
Someone else was saying something similar but I couldn't find any more info, any idea how to restore it on Windows? Linux FF seemed to be ok.
Take a look in C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles
I know where my profiles directory is... But my profile is trashed. The only two profiles aren't mine but default releases.
It might just be the nature of computers. A similar thing happened to me on Chrome during a recent update. I was using it as a backup browser and lost everything there when Chrome stopped working. I deleted it from my laptop and haven't missed it at all. I now use multiple Firefox profiles to work as alternate browsers.
If you go into your profiles directory is the old profile still there? It might have just created a new profile for you.
If you go into your profiles directory is the old profile still there? It might have just created a new profile for you.
The nature of a stable computing environment is not to randomly delete user data.
Chrome did it to me too. I had many links saved in onetab that are now lost. No software is completely stable on all computers in all situations.
Did you double-check your profile folder? Firefox might have created a new profile for you while leaving the old profile there. If you're on Linux or Mac, try typing this in a terminal:
(I'm not sure how to find the profile folder on Windows.)
Did you double-check your profile folder? Firefox might have created a new profile for you while leaving the old profile there. If you're on Linux or Mac, try typing this in a terminal:
firefox -ProfileManager -no-remote &
(I'm not sure how to find the profile folder on Windows.)
> It might just be the nature of computers
Computers are not conscious.
Computers are not conscious.
Can’t you restore all the settings from a TimeMachine backup or similar? They’re just stored in files in the profile directory.
I upvoted you (because your suggestion is a good solution) but let’s be real, most people don’t have backups, even developers.
In my experience as a developer companies don’t even issue me a USB backup drive to run time machine on my work issued MacBook Pro unless I specifically request it.
In my experience as a developer companies don’t even issue me a USB backup drive to run time machine on my work issued MacBook Pro unless I specifically request it.
Please don't normalize that behavior. Not having regular backups is dumb, like not wearing seatbelts. On a Mac it's so easy -- just plug a drive in once a week or so and Time Machine does its thing. A 1 TB hard drive is cheap, far less than the value of a lost day.
I don't backup my computer anymore because everything I have is in the cloud anyways. I have a git repository with all of my scripts, a command I run to set up my system from scratch, and all of my files in Google Drive/Github. Any Steam games I play either automatically store my information online, or aren't important enough for me to worry about. The only think I would loose if my computer broke was my downloads folder, pretty much.
Do you back up your browser profile? Are there parts of it which change infrequently enough to version control?
The only thing I customize in my browser is the color scheme, and my script updates that manually. I mean I have some bookmarks and extensions, but those don't take more than 10 minutes to restore.
As I said elsewhere,
I'm in a weird position where this particular Firefox on this particular machine didn't have a backup.
I'm waiting on a new drive to come in the mail as we speak.
So chew me out. Sue me. I didn't have a backup for this one Firefox instance out of half a dozen.
But please don't normalize the expectation that my browser deleting everything with an automatic update is somehow a user error.
Microsoft doesn't get a free pass, neither does Mozilla.
I'm in a weird position where this particular Firefox on this particular machine didn't have a backup.
I'm waiting on a new drive to come in the mail as we speak.
So chew me out. Sue me. I didn't have a backup for this one Firefox instance out of half a dozen.
But please don't normalize the expectation that my browser deleting everything with an automatic update is somehow a user error.
Microsoft doesn't get a free pass, neither does Mozilla.
I agree, I use time machine on both work and home machines , and I also keep an additional offline drive for my home machine that I sync regularly and then move to a different area of my home and leave unplugged (providing security against a ransomware or other malicious attack).
But most people just don’t and a response of “restore from your backup” is unhelpful to them :(
But most people just don’t and a response of “restore from your backup” is unhelpful to them :(
Why? The comment that sparked this conversation is such a niche and unlikely problem that I really don't see backups as a good cost/benefit decision just to defend against things like that. All of the data I care about is backed up. I really don't see the point of full OS backups.
Why once a week? Leave it plugged in, you get more granular recent backups, and don’t have to remember to plug it in.
macOS will create local backups (space permitting) and then dump them all at once when connected to the Time Machine drive. Though of course you won't have the backups from between the last time you connected the drive to the time your computer was hosed.
I get that but what I’m saying is, why limit yourself to a “real” backup once a week? What benefit does it have to just leaving the drive plugged in?
I for one like to have some protection from crypotolockers. And power surges.
Some people use laptops, and want to move around with those laptops. Keeping an external drive connected kinda gets in the way :)
Really replying to @tlb here (reply depth is maxed), but what's the Time Machine equivalent for ? Most of the pre-rolled backup solutions I've used either have you point to a specific set of content folders (like Photos, Music, Videos, etc.), and do a terrible job at handling profile data, system files, and everything that's "in use" when using my box is handling some kind of state.
And that's firefox' problem how exactly?
Because if firefox hadn't nuked the user's config we wouldn't be talking about how to recover that config. Any time the advice is "restore from backups" then the product has exhibited a poor user experience. And this isn't because of some hardware failure, this is just the software bungling an update flow, with no special notice to the user or any obvious way to recover.
Or it was an OS bug, or sunspots, or cosmic radiation... There's a reason people have backups.
I'm not blaming Mozilla for sunspots. I'm blaming Mozilla for nuking my config with an automatic update. Let's stay on topic.
Do you similarly give Microsoft a free pass when automatic Windows updates delete your grandmother's photo album?
Do you similarly give Microsoft a free pass when automatic Windows updates delete your grandmother's photo album?
I do. I've learned over the years that any MS update could nuke my computer. And what I'm saying is on subject, you have no proof that Mozilla nuked the configuration. It could have been caused by circumstances outside their control. I've been using FF for years and years and never lost anything, presumably including after this so-called failed update.
That's the software equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome.
It's my problem, which Mozilla created. It's their responsibility.
I'm in a weird position where this particular Firefox on this particular machine didn't have a backup.
Of course, Firefox should not be pushing rushed, unfinished releases as they have been, they should never destroy data even one update every 10 years, because it is supposed to be stable software.
Of course, Firefox should not be pushing rushed, unfinished releases as they have been, they should never destroy data even one update every 10 years, because it is supposed to be stable software.
I also lost everything during an update and as for themes and extensions I do backup those from time to time since then. But losing tabs is a lot worse. At least there's a way to get them back though -
e.g. on windows it's %APPDATA%\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\your_profile\sessionstore-backups. After you close FF you can copy over the .jsonlz4 backup to your_profile and replace the sessionstore.jsonlz4 file.
e.g. on windows it's %APPDATA%\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\your_profile\sessionstore-backups. After you close FF you can copy over the .jsonlz4 backup to your_profile and replace the sessionstore.jsonlz4 file.
My profile disappeared, replaced wholesale. I use Tab Session Manager to automatically backup profiles and Mozilla figured out a way to delete those, too.
Weren't developers during the IE6 era beholden to market forces too? Do you want to be part of the problem ?
I'm not part of the problem just because I have to deal with it. My company's motives and mine are separate.
Well, if you really care about the ongoing issue, shouldn't you rather go the "Chrom(e/ium) not supported, use Firefox" route ?
That's cute, but I develop software in the real world and I am beholden to both market forces and my clients' wishes.
An example, a third party lib I used crashed because after an update Chrome changed an optional function parameter into a required one, I am referring to this function https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Element/req...
So in my case I go to work and get reports that X is no longer working, lucky for me in JS is easy to patch third party code and fix this issue but I could not find a ticket that explains why Chrome did this.
So in my case I go to work and get reports that X is no longer working, lucky for me in JS is easy to patch third party code and fix this issue but I could not find a ticket that explains why Chrome did this.
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=158753 meant PhotoStructure had to do user agent sniffing. If it's Firefox, I can stream the original image directly, and the correct thing happens. With Chrome, I have to do the rotation server-side before I send it to the browser (or I'd have to send metadata about the image to rotate it client-side with CSS, either is irritating).
There are several more #ifdefs I've had to add due to weird chrome glitches (like around the html5 video player, which just works seamlessly with Firefox).
There are several more #ifdefs I've had to add due to weird chrome glitches (like around the html5 video player, which just works seamlessly with Firefox).
I think GP means that Chrome deviates from some HTML/CSS/JS/etc official standards, and that they don't intend to fix a lot of these discrepancies. So when you write code how it's supposed to work according to the standards, and it works well in Firefox, it might not work right in Chrome. (And GP suggests this is common.)
One that's particularly annoying to me a while ago was you cannot drag and drop elements from an iframe to another iframe from another domain. IIRC it was only an issue in Chrome.
To be fair, you can't blame them for disallowing things like that. Protection against cross-site scripting, I'm sure.
I just don't see a realistic attack vector with cross-origin drag-n-drop.
This one's actually pretty easy: clickjacking.
Imagine permitting cross-origin drag-n-drop and a page is clickjacked: the user may end up dragging a sensitive item in the clickjacked page into an invisible iframe with a drop point layered on top of whatever target the user thinks they're dropping data into, and the end result would be that data intended for one endpoint, in this case the endpoint that was clickjacked, is sent to another.
It'd be a nontrivial attack to mount, but as you posed the challenge, I can see it done as part of e.g. a phish where a site like dropbox is iframed in a clickjacking attack (assuming they haven't mitigated it).
I can sketch (literally) what the dom might physically look like if it helps convey the attack I have in mind more effectively.
Imagine permitting cross-origin drag-n-drop and a page is clickjacked: the user may end up dragging a sensitive item in the clickjacked page into an invisible iframe with a drop point layered on top of whatever target the user thinks they're dropping data into, and the end result would be that data intended for one endpoint, in this case the endpoint that was clickjacked, is sent to another.
It'd be a nontrivial attack to mount, but as you posed the challenge, I can see it done as part of e.g. a phish where a site like dropbox is iframed in a clickjacking attack (assuming they haven't mitigated it).
I can sketch (literally) what the dom might physically look like if it helps convey the attack I have in mind more effectively.
Here's some stuff you used to be able to do by combining UI-redressing (clickjacking) with cross-origin drag and drop.
https://www.contextis.com/media/downloads/Context-Clickjacki...
There have also been plenty of UXSS bugs in various browsers caused by cross-origin drag-and-drop.
https://www.contextis.com/media/downloads/Context-Clickjacki...
There have also been plenty of UXSS bugs in various browsers caused by cross-origin drag-and-drop.
Anything cross-origin is a potential XSS attack.
That page is just missing one critical thing: 4. Migrate my extensions.
It would be great if they developed a graph mapping Chrome extensions to Mozilla equivalents. Then the user could confirm installation of the ones with 1:1 parity, like LastPass, allow users to select similar extensions, or skip installing an equivalent.
There are some Chrome-Exclusive extensions that keep me hooked. That and Firefox’s Storage inspector is terrible, there isn’t a native way to clear localstorage during development.
It would be great if they developed a graph mapping Chrome extensions to Mozilla equivalents. Then the user could confirm installation of the ones with 1:1 parity, like LastPass, allow users to select similar extensions, or skip installing an equivalent.
There are some Chrome-Exclusive extensions that keep me hooked. That and Firefox’s Storage inspector is terrible, there isn’t a native way to clear localstorage during development.
Have you looked into Chrome Store Foxified? It automates the conversion, signing, and installation of extensions from the Chrome Web Store into Firefox. https://github.com/Noitidart/Chrome-Store-Foxified (It wasn’t working for a while but it seems that a fix might have finally been discovered.)
Have you checked out Brave browser?
Fork of Chrome and most if not all Google extensions work.
https://brave.com/
Fork of Chrome and most if not all Google extensions work.
https://brave.com/
Once again, switching to a fork of Chrome doesn't really help anything, unless you believe that the Brave devs have the will and manpower to actually maintain a hard form of Chromium that would re-enable and maintain features disabled upstream in the long term.
It's like ditching Facebook for Instagram.
It's like ditching Facebook for Instagram.
To be honest all 11 of the extensions I used day on chrome are available and working on Firefox in 2019 compared to a few years back.
My difficulty is in the other direction. In FF I really rely on TreeStyleTab, and there's no decent alternative in Chrome.
> That and Firefox’s Storage inspector is terrible, there isn’t a native way to clear localstorage during development.
While I agree that the inspector could be improved, this is false. Dev tools > Storage tab > Expand local storage > Select domain > Right click a key/value > Select "Delete all". Done.
While I agree that the inspector could be improved, this is false. Dev tools > Storage tab > Expand local storage > Select domain > Right click a key/value > Select "Delete all". Done.
Thanks for clarifying that- you are correct. That doesn't seem to work on cache domains, but if I scroll down to other types of storage I can indeed delete items all at once or individually. When I tried that now it wasn't repainting so it appeared to have no effect, but when I refreshed within the Storage inspector the data was gone. When I refresh the page, repainting after deleting started working as expected. Weird.
I wish MIcrosoft would have worked off Firefox for the new Edge instead of Chrome. Just doesn't make sense why they would feed into a direct competitor. Bagging Edge off Firefox would have made it a real option for me as well as creating an opportunity now with all the ad blocking stuff going down...
I'm just going to copy pattpass' response to a similar comment here, because the decision to use Chromium makes more sense with this context:
What benefit does Microsoft have by using Mozilla instead? Earnest question.
Electron, the software framework VSCode uses, runs on Chromium. Github maintained and developed the framework and they are currently owned by Microsoft. If Microsoft contributes to Chromium and improves performance they benefit in a lot of places: their new browser is improved(Edge Chromium), their own framework(Electron), and their own product (VSCode).
What benefit does Microsoft have by using Mozilla instead? Earnest question.
Electron, the software framework VSCode uses, runs on Chromium. Github maintained and developed the framework and they are currently owned by Microsoft. If Microsoft contributes to Chromium and improves performance they benefit in a lot of places: their new browser is improved(Edge Chromium), their own framework(Electron), and their own product (VSCode).
On the plus side, we now have another large player working on Chromium, which may help prevent Google from forcing design decisions which benefit them alone.
This is going to become massively important. As Brave gains market share and Microsoft Edge becomes the defacto browser on Windows machines, Google Chrome could easily become the new IE6 if Blink strays too far down the path on upstream compatibility.
This is a great point. I wonder if one day either it will force them apart again, or present problems of collusion...
I hope Microsoft manages to out-Microsoft Google's Microsofting of the web.
A pox in every pot!
A pox in every pot!
It would be nice if there was also something in place which allowed Firefox to detect when an addon like uBlock Origin is also available on Firefox, then suggest installing the Firefox version during the upgrade.
I use Adblock Plus (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/), and I also have AdBlock installed (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/adblock-for-f...), just in case the first one doesn't work. They are two of the most popular adblock plugins on Firefox.
Or you could just use uBlock Origin on Firefox (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin)!
Or you could just use uBlock Origin on Firefox (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin)!
Please stop using AdBlock/AdBlockPlus. Use uBlock Origin instead.
Agreed. My mainstay for some time has been Pi-hole coupled with browser running uBO, Privacy badger, Decentraleyes, Webmail Adblock, Tracking Token Stripper, Neat URL, Referer Control, and No Coin. I see nothing but pure content. I also like how uBO blocks WebRTC from leaking local IP addresses and blocks CSP reports.
Editing to say I've been reading on the fallout of the Chrome adblocking issue and many seem to think that DNS blocking is the way forward, but how long until it isn't? I've mentioned this before, but there has to be some way to do this without using browser-based solutions. I use them as well as a Pi-hole, but I dislike the browser-based solutions as a whole. What I'd like to see is a proxy, preferably web-based (cloud) that I can point my router and mobile devices to take advantage wherever I happen to be. Imagine a proxy that acts like /dev/null. It fools the sites into believing they are sending down ad data, but the proxy strips out that garbage. I know this does nothing for the bandwidth used, but I'm just thinking as I type. I understand HOW to do this, but my coding skills are not at that level. And I doubt this should be written in Python, although it likely could be. 20 years ago, I would be doing it in Perl, although those skills have fallen by the wayside since I have no real use case for Perl these days.
Editing to say I've been reading on the fallout of the Chrome adblocking issue and many seem to think that DNS blocking is the way forward, but how long until it isn't? I've mentioned this before, but there has to be some way to do this without using browser-based solutions. I use them as well as a Pi-hole, but I dislike the browser-based solutions as a whole. What I'd like to see is a proxy, preferably web-based (cloud) that I can point my router and mobile devices to take advantage wherever I happen to be. Imagine a proxy that acts like /dev/null. It fools the sites into believing they are sending down ad data, but the proxy strips out that garbage. I know this does nothing for the bandwidth used, but I'm just thinking as I type. I understand HOW to do this, but my coding skills are not at that level. And I doubt this should be written in Python, although it likely could be. 20 years ago, I would be doing it in Perl, although those skills have fallen by the wayside since I have no real use case for Perl these days.
How come?
(I tend to use uMatrix.)
(I tend to use uMatrix.)
See:
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss...
> eyeo GmbH (owner of Adblock Plus) is a business partner of Google (through its "Acceptable Ads" business plan), and its business share some the same key characteristics as the Google's ones above:
> It gets revenues from the displaying of ads with those with which it has a contract (Google, Taboola, etc.)
> It expressly names uBlock Origin as a risk factor to its business
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss...
> eyeo GmbH (owner of Adblock Plus) is a business partner of Google (through its "Acceptable Ads" business plan), and its business share some the same key characteristics as the Google's ones above:
> It gets revenues from the displaying of ads with those with which it has a contract (Google, Taboola, etc.)
> It expressly names uBlock Origin as a risk factor to its business
uBlock Origin uses less RAM than AdBlock plus to do the same thing.
AdBlock plus also has the "acceptable ads" program that most people dislike but it can be easily turned off. The rest is mostly politics.
AdBlock plus also has the "acceptable ads" program that most people dislike but it can be easily turned off. The rest is mostly politics.
My understanding is that Adblock's blocking is purely visual? So the ads themselves actually load and get their tracking data like normal, just silently now.
Is less RAM really a selling point? I have a lot of spare RAM, I'd prefer it get used to cache more if it can speed things up.
Generally, yes. A little less so if you have spare but still important.
The main reason is, as you said, cache. The more unused RAM you have, the longer caches will be kept. It includes disk cache, browser cache, etc... But it can also make the CPU cache more efficient. L2 cache is about 10 times faster than RAM, and the less RAM you are using, the more cache will be used. L1 cache is even faster but here, access patterns matters as much as raw size, if not more.
The main reason is, as you said, cache. The more unused RAM you have, the longer caches will be kept. It includes disk cache, browser cache, etc... But it can also make the CPU cache more efficient. L2 cache is about 10 times faster than RAM, and the less RAM you are using, the more cache will be used. L1 cache is even faster but here, access patterns matters as much as raw size, if not more.
ABP will use that extra ram to show you ads.
uMatrix and uBlock Origin are complementary. Specifically uBlock Origin has cosmetic filters which uMatrix doesn't have. Using both is quite handy in my experience.
Anything "Adblock" should be avoided. Borderline malware imo, and there is no reason to use them when you've got uBO/uMatrix.
Anything "Adblock" should be avoided. Borderline malware imo, and there is no reason to use them when you've got uBO/uMatrix.
I strongly recommend uBlock Origin in favor of AdBlock. AdBlock is a commercial endevour that makes deals with advertising companies to let their ads through.
Which you can turn off. And eyeo-owned Flattr is a way to do micropayments without ads.
The fact that you have to turn it off is a clear signal of a piece of software which works in its interests, not yours. Can you justify using AdBlock Plus over an extension which doens't even need the switch in the first place?
You should only use one blocker at a time. Like antivirus apps, more is not better.
Why is this?
Presumably because an adblocker, like virus detection, consumes potentially non-trivial CPU, and may introduce race conditions of extensions applying deltas to a DOM which results in rendering and behavior bugs.
The different apps do the same thing and end up competing for resources.
Am I missing something here? There is no article just a download link correct?
I use Firefox exclusively because of the sidebar tab extension and will probably use it until Firefox dies a slow death.
I use Firefox exclusively because of the sidebar tab extension and will probably use it until Firefox dies a slow death.
Chrome's "Press Tab To Search" is way too useful for me to switch...
In Firefox you can find the search field on a page, right click, and 'add a keyword for this search'. Then you can just type that keyword in the address bar, for instance 'wp searchtermhere' for wikipedia.
That is great and all. Why do I have to type of the full keyword? tab completion on chrome is killer for this.
There's a better way in Firefox.
In Firefox, go to Preferences -> Search and click on "Add search bar in toolbar". Also uncheck "Show search suggestions in address bar results".
Then ctrl-l will only autocomplete URLs and ctrl-k will search. Once you're in the search box, press TAB to cycle through your search providers. You can add additional search providers easily.
In Firefox, go to Preferences -> Search and click on "Add search bar in toolbar". Also uncheck "Show search suggestions in address bar results".
Then ctrl-l will only autocomplete URLs and ctrl-k will search. Once you're in the search box, press TAB to cycle through your search providers. You can add additional search providers easily.
Slightly better still not there. If I have 15 search providers I have to press TAB 15 times to get to the last one, that is tiresome. I can search amazon/ebay/npm/rubygems/mdn/etc without looking at the screen or keyboard with chrome. I have probably >10 search engines I use daily.
You can set custom keywords that are the same as on Chrome. You just won't need to press TAB. I don't use that feature, but it's described here:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Using_keyword_searches
I didn't think about adding sites like rubygems and mdn, but that's a good idea.
Edit: I just tried it and it works. Example: create a bookmark in Firefox and change the URL to the one below. Set the keyword to "r" in the bookmarks editor. Then you can type `r devise` in the address bar to search rubygems.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Using_keyword_searches
I didn't think about adding sites like rubygems and mdn, but that's a good idea.
Edit: I just tried it and it works. Example: create a bookmark in Firefox and change the URL to the one below. Set the keyword to "r" in the bookmarks editor. Then you can type `r devise` in the address bar to search rubygems.
https://rubygems.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=%SI guess I just need to choose better "keywords"
what does it mean full keyword? why would you want to use more than one letter? I have it set so that:
? - default search engine
w - wikipedia
t - dictionary
y - youtube
d - duckduckgo
? - default search engine
w - wikipedia
t - dictionary
y - youtube
d - duckduckgo
I switched back from Chrome to Firefox 5 years ago. This is the only feature that I miss.
I've switched to DuckDuckGo, and using their ! operators (!w for Wikipedia, !map for Google Maps) picks up most of the slack.
I've switched to DuckDuckGo, and using their ! operators (!w for Wikipedia, !map for Google Maps) picks up most of the slack.
Use DuckDuckGo and their ! operators.
Can't be bothered to hit Ctrl+K?
Poking around for a few minutes, looks like search engines can only be added via addons? This feature is too much of a time save to switch.
Huh, I could swear back when I used FF many years ago, it had this feature. Did it disappear?
It's a response to Chrome's decision to neuter ad blocking in the base product.
Maybe we can get the black bar up too ;)
Maybe we can get the black bar up too ;)
The content is:
> Switching to Firefox is fast, easy and risk-free. Firefox imports your bookmarks, autofills, passwords and preferences from Chrome.
Edit: This page (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/download/) is the firefox download page. The article linked (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/switch/) is not that page, it's a page specifically explaining the [trivial] process of switching from Chrome. It also happens to have a download link.
> Switching to Firefox is fast, easy and risk-free. Firefox imports your bookmarks, autofills, passwords and preferences from Chrome.
1. Select what to take from Chrome.
2. Let Firefox do the rest.
3. Enjoy the web faster, all set up for you.
Edit: This page (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/download/) is the firefox download page. The article linked (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/switch/) is not that page, it's a page specifically explaining the [trivial] process of switching from Chrome. It also happens to have a download link.
In case Firefox developers read this,
Can you please make the popped up bookmark dialog box much much bigger? Please!
When clicking the star icon at the end of the address bar, the bookmark dialog box pops up. But it is too small! It only shows very few folders and choices. In order to locate a desired bookmark folder, people have to click and scroll many times. The whole dialog box is $^%&*& too small! Please make it bigger to show much more folders! Like three times bigger! Chrome has the same problem. Firefox can do better!
Also, please make the last used bookmark folder as the default folder at the next time when the bookmark dislog box opens, because people often bookmark many related/similar pages consecutively in one short period of time. Thank you. I love Firefox.
Can you please make the popped up bookmark dialog box much much bigger? Please!
When clicking the star icon at the end of the address bar, the bookmark dialog box pops up. But it is too small! It only shows very few folders and choices. In order to locate a desired bookmark folder, people have to click and scroll many times. The whole dialog box is $^%&*& too small! Please make it bigger to show much more folders! Like three times bigger! Chrome has the same problem. Firefox can do better!
Also, please make the last used bookmark folder as the default folder at the next time when the bookmark dislog box opens, because people often bookmark many related/similar pages consecutively in one short period of time. Thank you. I love Firefox.
For years I have been working with my mom to get her to be suspicious of any pop-ups in her browser. Many times she has texted me a photo asking if some pop-up update box was legit (almost always a shady ad). When she got her new computer, I set up Firefox in a fairly locked down state: uBlock Origin, third-party cookies disabled, and clear all cookies and history when firefox closes.
It's been amazing. With the ad-blocker she almost never texts me now with suspicious stuff. Also, it was super easy to teach her that if she ever gets into a situation that feels shady, just close the browser and open it up again. Starting from a clean slate every time in a well protected browser makes her feel a lot safer because she knows that if things get scary, she can just close the window and start over.
Having to log in every time hasn't turned out to be that much of an inconvenience either. See actually feels safer because of it. It makes perfect logical sense to her that the website ask her to login every time. "My bank asks me for my ID every time I go in to deposit a check, so of course it makes sense to ask for my password every time I open my browser and visit the website."
Anyway, my takeaway is that Firefox + uBlock Origin for parents is really a wonderful thing.
It's been amazing. With the ad-blocker she almost never texts me now with suspicious stuff. Also, it was super easy to teach her that if she ever gets into a situation that feels shady, just close the browser and open it up again. Starting from a clean slate every time in a well protected browser makes her feel a lot safer because she knows that if things get scary, she can just close the window and start over.
Having to log in every time hasn't turned out to be that much of an inconvenience either. See actually feels safer because of it. It makes perfect logical sense to her that the website ask her to login every time. "My bank asks me for my ID every time I go in to deposit a check, so of course it makes sense to ask for my password every time I open my browser and visit the website."
Anyway, my takeaway is that Firefox + uBlock Origin for parents is really a wonderful thing.
[deleted]
If you forked Chrome, how hard would it be to change it do DRM'd video however Firefox does?
I'm not saying forking Chrome would be easy, it's complicated software, I think it would require a lot of labor to keep it competitive over the long term, which is the real barrier.
But I'm not sure if the DRM is an insurmountable barrier, Firefox plays that same video somehow, it should be at least theoretically possible to get a forked Chrome to do it the same way?
I'm not saying forking Chrome would be easy, it's complicated software, I think it would require a lot of labor to keep it competitive over the long term, which is the real barrier.
But I'm not sure if the DRM is an insurmountable barrier, Firefox plays that same video somehow, it should be at least theoretically possible to get a forked Chrome to do it the same way?
Mozilla uses Google Widevine as well, I believe. The path forward is to license Widevine from Google, and they've already shut down other FOSS projects by refusing to give them licenses.
Wait, Mozilla has a license to a Google product to display video... that they won't give to any other OSS projects?
Like, if you forked FF, you wouldn't be able to display video either?
That is EVIL.
It means effectively there will never be another open source browser that can be display commercial-popular video, Firefox is IT, they have an open source monopoly? Oh geez.
Like, if you forked FF, you wouldn't be able to display video either?
That is EVIL.
It means effectively there will never be another open source browser that can be display commercial-popular video, Firefox is IT, they have an open source monopoly? Oh geez.
Well, from what I understand, Google insists on any project that uses that solution license it. If Firefox were to trickle this down, they could get their license revoked. The onus is on Google to stop being asshats.
How far does the DMCA reach in europe? It feels like we need some reverse engineering of widevine.
Well, I know that in France, breaking DRM is illegal (law has been aligned to EU's, which itself has aligned itself on DMCA), BUT in practice when a consumer association has tried to force the hand of justice by not only breaking DRM, but posting a detailed tutorial of how to do it (while hiding behind the "private copy" defense), and outing themselves to law enforcement to force a trial, the judge has dismissed the case by considering them as irresponsible due to force majeure :
https://www.lesnumeriques.com/loisirs/proces-anti-drm-classe... (fr)
Now might be a good time to do it, considering the lack of love for Google in EU these days ?
Now might be a good time to do it, considering the lack of love for Google in EU these days ?
an open-source implementation of DRM that is compatible with widevine would be a step in the right direction.
Is it patented ?
I may be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that FF licenses Widevine.
You can use Widevine with Chromium if you install it as an extension.
> however Firefox does
You mean stuttering and jerky? I imagine that's a result of not using Google's preferred codec DRM voodoo -- and copying it will just spread the misery, not make it better :(
You mean stuttering and jerky? I imagine that's a result of not using Google's preferred codec DRM voodoo -- and copying it will just spread the misery, not make it better :(
I never left! I've been using Firefox nonstop since 2002. For the most part, I was a Netscape Navigator user prior though had nothing against IE and sometimes used it. Since Firefox was 'Phoenix', I've stuck with it and only randomly (once every few years) checked in on Chrome. I never really did care for it, and can't say I've ever had any issues with Firefox, even in the supposed dark ages. It has been impacted with Google's use of the Shadow DOM v0 API, and probably Mozilla's own mistakes, but I never felt it was "slow".
To roll out the welcome mat for any new or returning users, I have some general suggestions.
Consider the following extensions: Containerise; Decentraleyes; HTTPS Everywhere; Livemarks; Privacy Badger; Redirect AMP to HTML; uBlock Origin.
For privacy settings: set custom privacy settings to block trackers 'in all windows', block cookies from all unvisited websites, block cryptominers and fingerprinters. Of course enable 'Do Not Track'. Then block all new permission requests for location, web cam etc. Lean towards whitelisting sites that you do want these settings, as stringent privacy settings like this can in rare instances, break sites. The only example I've ran into is during NCAA March Madness and the site used to watch the games, but you may find others.
Random bits: I'd also suggest enabling the dedicated search bar for quick DDG bang updates. I also give Mozilla some information so my preferences can be added to the collective as to not be removed at some point down the road. Yes to 'Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla', 'Allow Firefox to make personalized extension recommendations' and 'Allow Firefox to send backlogged crash reports on your behalf'. Can't say I suggest Firefox Studies though, that's one thing Mozilla rubbed me the wrong way with.
With all of that and your own further customization to make it yours, you should be a happy Firefox user. :)
To roll out the welcome mat for any new or returning users, I have some general suggestions.
Consider the following extensions: Containerise; Decentraleyes; HTTPS Everywhere; Livemarks; Privacy Badger; Redirect AMP to HTML; uBlock Origin.
For privacy settings: set custom privacy settings to block trackers 'in all windows', block cookies from all unvisited websites, block cryptominers and fingerprinters. Of course enable 'Do Not Track'. Then block all new permission requests for location, web cam etc. Lean towards whitelisting sites that you do want these settings, as stringent privacy settings like this can in rare instances, break sites. The only example I've ran into is during NCAA March Madness and the site used to watch the games, but you may find others.
Random bits: I'd also suggest enabling the dedicated search bar for quick DDG bang updates. I also give Mozilla some information so my preferences can be added to the collective as to not be removed at some point down the road. Yes to 'Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla', 'Allow Firefox to make personalized extension recommendations' and 'Allow Firefox to send backlogged crash reports on your behalf'. Can't say I suggest Firefox Studies though, that's one thing Mozilla rubbed me the wrong way with.
With all of that and your own further customization to make it yours, you should be a happy Firefox user. :)
I'd love to switch but the technique of having one browser import another's bookmarks, settings, and autofill just isn't good enough anymore. I have no fewer than 28 extensions installed on my Chrome installation and while not all of them are enabled all the time I do use them regularly. For me, the "cost" of switching to Firefox is, for each of these extensions, finding and vetting a firefox-compatible replacement.
Surprise! Chrome extensions work on Firefox! This was a big one for me as well, namely Tab Wrangler.
https://www.howtogeek.com/346981/how-to-install-any-chrome-e...
I can't recall if I used that Chrome Store Foxified but I do know that i'm using all of my chrome extensions and firefox and don't miss chrome at all.
https://www.howtogeek.com/346981/how-to-install-any-chrome-e...
I can't recall if I used that Chrome Store Foxified but I do know that i'm using all of my chrome extensions and firefox and don't miss chrome at all.
It would be awesome to create somekind of quide on how to switch from the Google ecosystem to something different. Mail, browser, agenda, drive, photos etc. I would seriously pay 50 bucks per month to have something different without bullshit companies like Google behind it.
Not the most active sub but useful:
https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/
https://old.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/
Just pay for office 365 or iCloud, either of them offer all the services you listed. And for much cheaper than $50/month.
I pay for G Suite personally, I have nothing against google except that I knew their free gmail account doesn’t have support and I wanted to be able to contact someone if I ever had a problem with my mail.
Edit: or if you really just want to avoid big companies, https://puri.sm/posts/purisms-librem-one-suite-of-privacy-pr...
I pay for G Suite personally, I have nothing against google except that I knew their free gmail account doesn’t have support and I wanted to be able to contact someone if I ever had a problem with my mail.
Edit: or if you really just want to avoid big companies, https://puri.sm/posts/purisms-librem-one-suite-of-privacy-pr...
50 bucks? yeah that's about doable.
run your own cloud with owncloud/seafile. (owncloud added bonus is calendar )
get email service in a privacy tight country (switzerland).
There exists and org like that, it's called Framasoft:
https://degooglisons-internet.org/en/
https://degooglisons-internet.org/en/
If you're willing to pay, that really helps. There are countless mail services that are way better than gmail while also not spying on you.
Already switched to Firefox and couldn't be happier.
Switched a long time ago from IE and no matter what other browser I try I always come back to Firefox after a while. It just behaves as I expect it to and the UI customization feature is awesome.
The only browser that I think could make me switch is qutebrowser, though the lack of an adblocker is an obstacle for me.
The only browser that I think could make me switch is qutebrowser, though the lack of an adblocker is an obstacle for me.
> The only browser that I think could make me switch is qutebrowser, though the lack of an adblocker is an obstacle for me.
qutebrowser has a built-in adblocker (based on a host blacklist) which works fine for most scenarios.
There's also https://gitlab.com/jgkamat/jblock though that's not really supported until extension support is finished.
qutebrowser has a built-in adblocker (based on a host blacklist) which works fine for most scenarios.
There's also https://gitlab.com/jgkamat/jblock though that's not really supported until extension support is finished.
I do already block ads via the /etc/hosts file and it largely works pretty well but it completely fails on YouTube and Reddit. I've read that YT is at best tricky with pihole as well, so for now I just use Firefox for these sites and qutebrowser for most other purposes.
But great to know there's some progress.
But great to know there's some progress.
FWIW I just use a keybinding to open mpv for Youtube. There's also https://github.com/ParticleCore/Iridium which can prevent ads (though I'm not sure if it still works, it was broken at some point).
Thanks for the suggestion, the keybinding for mpv works really well. Definitely better than getting these horrible popups in the middle of the videos.
Agree, I've been using FF forever. If I work on other peoples computers I install it and tell them to try it out. It's the best.
I go one step further and uninstall all their other browsers so that they have no choice.
Just kidding. I do not do this.
Just kidding. I do not do this.
Same! Had Developer edition installed for testing, but switched fully today (Uninstalled Developer, installed Nightly). The fonts look nice, it's got wayland support on my Linux partition (on Fedora), and it's just really pleasant!
> The fonts look nice
I noticed this too in FF on Linux, I inspect elemented and for some reason a huge number of websites were using Nimbus Sans as the font... Later when I eventually used someone's Windows install I realized that Nimbus was only being used on my computer... Wtf?
It's a font developed long ago by some famous font foundry, and a subset covering common characters was made free and included in Linux printer drivers. It is visually very similar to Helvetica/San Francisco. I installed GNU FreeFont (probably available in your distro's repos) which looks the exact same but covers many more characters than Nimbus. In Firefox I went to the font config settings, set FreeSans/FreeSerif as the default fonts, and unchecked the option to allow websites to specify custom fonts. Just don't disable the checkbox to download web fonts, or icon fonts with various icons/glyphs will show as boxes.
It's truly beautiful - every once in a while I see some text and just stop reading and stare at it for a few seconds. On the rare occasion when I go to a website about fonts I use another browser to be able to see their CSS-specified fonts.
I noticed this too in FF on Linux, I inspect elemented and for some reason a huge number of websites were using Nimbus Sans as the font... Later when I eventually used someone's Windows install I realized that Nimbus was only being used on my computer... Wtf?
It's a font developed long ago by some famous font foundry, and a subset covering common characters was made free and included in Linux printer drivers. It is visually very similar to Helvetica/San Francisco. I installed GNU FreeFont (probably available in your distro's repos) which looks the exact same but covers many more characters than Nimbus. In Firefox I went to the font config settings, set FreeSans/FreeSerif as the default fonts, and unchecked the option to allow websites to specify custom fonts. Just don't disable the checkbox to download web fonts, or icon fonts with various icons/glyphs will show as boxes.
It's truly beautiful - every once in a while I see some text and just stop reading and stare at it for a few seconds. On the rare occasion when I go to a website about fonts I use another browser to be able to see their CSS-specified fonts.
Got a new laptop and that in addition to Google's evergrowing awfulness prompted the switch. Was pleasantly surprised that my u2f tokens worked as expected.
If you’re switching to full time use or Firefox, I cannot recommend going with Nightly; developer edition is a good choice.
Ah how come? It's being great to me so far! Back before the Chrome days, '00s and early '10s, every geek like me used to use Nightly, so I went with that.
I've been using Nightly as my normal browser for two years with absolutely no issues.
I like to switch from Chrome to Firefox but only thing keeping me with Chrome is its superior web development tool. One my the dev here recommends us to use Chrome because of its better Javascript debugger - something to do with the output in the web console takes you to the corresponding Javascript line & instance where it is invoked on the web page. I am not entirely sure what it is.
Whatever it is, its not in Firefox.
Whatever it is, its not in Firefox.
The "magic" is Source Maps. Firefox supports Source Maps just fine, it's just pickier about their formats. It was supposed to be a standard and all the browsers supported it (Edge and Firefox have had support for as long as Chrome has). Chrome allowed some Source Map formats that didn't exactly follow the standards/specs, and a bunch of tools started using Chrome-only Source Maps by default accidentally because so many devs were using Chrome. If you use webpack or similar tools check the various format options for Source Maps until you find one that works in non-Chrome browsers.
How strange, this is the first I've heard of this. I've never had to touch source maps config in my webpack and it's always shown fine in Firefox. Is it just specific circumstances/specific code patterns that have source map problems in Firefox? Or is it when it's transpiling from TypeScript or JSX or something?
From what I've investigated so far, webpack likes to use the webpack:// pseudo-protocol for file references in most of its Source Map modes, including its defaults, and from what I've seen that seems to be the single biggest issue of cross-browser Source Map compatibility in the webpack ecosystem (other ecosystems have different problems). Chrome seems to be able to figure things out from the pseudo-protocol in just about all cases, but Edge and Firefox seem to be confused more often than not.
In some cases it looks like Chrome takes extra efforts to find physical files on disk from bad URLs, and in other cases Chrome does more with virtual file structures included in the same bundles (the webpack:// pseudo-URLs often point to other "sections" of the same JS bundle) creating a virtual file tree from them that looks close enough to the on-disk file tree as to seem effectively the same to many developers.
In some cases it looks like Chrome takes extra efforts to find physical files on disk from bad URLs, and in other cases Chrome does more with virtual file structures included in the same bundles (the webpack:// pseudo-URLs often point to other "sections" of the same JS bundle) creating a virtual file tree from them that looks close enough to the on-disk file tree as to seem effectively the same to many developers.
Do you know if there is a Mozilla bug for this?
Some of the Issues I've seen/sort-of-bookmarked on various webpack-related Source Map problems:
https://github.com/webpack/webpack/issues/3603 https://github.com/webpack/webpack/issues/1194
That last one does mention at least one already fixed Mozilla bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1177329
https://github.com/webpack/webpack/issues/3603 https://github.com/webpack/webpack/issues/1194
That last one does mention at least one already fixed Mozilla bug:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1177329
This feature (source maps) has been improving a lot over time. A year ago it was basically unusable, and today I rarely have problems jumping from console to debugger. We're even working on a way to show the original variable names in the scope inspector when paused in the debugger now.
On the other hand, Firefox's layout dev tools, like the grid and flex box inspector, are way better than doing the same task in Chrome, in my experience.
On the other hand, Firefox's layout dev tools, like the grid and flex box inspector, are way better than doing the same task in Chrome, in my experience.
The dev tools made me stick with Chrome longer than I'd have liked, but I made the switch a few months ago and Firefox's have improved so much I'd put them on par.
Firefox also has an amazing flexbox inspector and inline breakpoints.
Firefox also has an amazing flexbox inspector and inline breakpoints.
You could always use Chrome for dev and Firefox for the rest. The lack of ad-blocking is presumably not a problem for your sites in development, and you'll be supporting Firefox just the same!
DevTools PM here. I did write about improved source maps in Firefox a few weeks ago on hacks (https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/05/faster-smarter-javascript-...). Hope devs try it out again, as tools evolve and improve fast.
I'm using latest stable FF release as my main dev browser. Sourcemaps are supported just fine. For my usecases, I can hardly tell the difference between Chrome devtools and FF devtools. YMMV
I'm in the same boat - I much prefer Chrome web development toolkit - the feel and everything. The solution - I use Chrome _only_ for development.
You're talking about source mapping I believe. I've only used it in Chrome but I've heard only Chrome has it as good as it has it. Honestly, it's a lifesaver if you're doing frontend stuff (and you're not one of those people who poo-poo's debuggers).
lol why on earth would someone poo poo a debugger?
There was a post recently about some CS OG who stated at some point that print statements was all you needed and using a debugger was counter-productive to your understanding of the code.
I wish that person the best of luck and hope they stay as far away from my team as possible.
Our particular web dev workflows likely differ, but I really didn't notice much difference when I switched from Chrome to Firefox with their Quantum release.
I think link forgot to mention a step 4.
Step 4: Spend weeks getting used to new shortcuts, finding equivalent extensions/plugins and getting used to their dev tools.
Step 4: Spend weeks getting used to new shortcuts, finding equivalent extensions/plugins and getting used to their dev tools.
Does it really take you weeks to get used to a new environment? WEEKS? That kind of thing bugs me for a few hours, maybe a couple of days.
If you don't take more than a few hours to get used to a completely different browser, editor, desktop/mobile OS, etc., you probably just didn't use all its features. I know that I still had Firefox reflexes after I had been using Chrome for a few weeks (this was a few years ago when Mozilla made some poor decisions, I tried voting with my feet).
There's a long sliding scale from "knows how to use most features of the new software" to "uses every single feature maximally and never, ever presses the wrong hotkey because an old muscle memory happened to fire". I don't think the latter is a reasonable bar to set for "get used to the new software".
Then again maybe I'm being unfair here because if I'm really honest about it, the reason I didn't switch over to Chrome was that you couldn't start an in-page text search by hitting the / key like I was used to doing in Firefox. (I've since found many other reasons to keep using Firefox but at one stage that was the sticking point...)
Then again maybe I'm being unfair here because if I'm really honest about it, the reason I didn't switch over to Chrome was that you couldn't start an in-page text search by hitting the / key like I was used to doing in Firefox. (I've since found many other reasons to keep using Firefox but at one stage that was the sticking point...)
I'd say "weeks" is somewhat quick. You may have biased expectations of interface size and/or the ability of users to internalize it.
It took me a fortnight to move beyond other people's examples and get my first bit of nicely working verilog code written to my own spec and running on an FPGA, having never touched a hardware description language before. If it is taking you weeks to get up to speed with Firefox, what on earth are you attempting to do with it?
Same, the only thing stopping me from switching is the hassle of porting a custom chrome extension to firefox.
Custom extensions are the easiest: Firefox loads the exact same unpacked extensions Chrome does.
Both follow the WebExtensions-standard, so there’s not really much to “port”, if anything.
Both follow the WebExtensions-standard, so there’s not really much to “port”, if anything.
With newer versions of firefox you can only temporarily load unpacked extensions. You need to re-add them if you relaunch firefox.
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2018/02/22/removing-support-...
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2018/02/22/removing-support-...
Regarding shortcuts, this is where using Vim emulator extensions help a lot. I just install such an extension on any new browser, then the shorcuts are more or less the same (vim keybingdings).
I've been using Safari on Mac for months, I only open Google Chrome when React Native debugger launches it.
I'm not sure how hard it would be for the RN team to switch to another browser such as Firefox or the new Edge so I can uninstall Google Chrome from my computer.
I'm not sure how hard it would be for the RN team to switch to another browser such as Firefox or the new Edge so I can uninstall Google Chrome from my computer.
I want to use Firefox on my Mac but it just feels so out of place. Are you using any extensions to get a more true macOS feel? While Chrome isn't perfect it doesn't feel anywhere near as "multi-platform" as Firefox does.
I made my view compact as possible, removed bookmark toolbar, etc. Pretty native looking now aside from tabs on top.
But what about things like pinch zoom, elastic scrolling and such? I know there are some extensions but all that ones I have tried (the top 5 that come up in search) are all janky.
While not a deal breaker it would be nice to have a more native macOS feeling version of Firefox but I guess Mozilla have other things to work on.
While not a deal breaker it would be nice to have a more native macOS feeling version of Firefox but I guess Mozilla have other things to work on.
What some probably consider a privacy nightmare is a Chrome feature I like very much: It syncs all my history, bookmarks and passwords across devices via my Google account. That's especially convenient whenever I get a new device.
Is there something comparable for Firefox?
Is there something comparable for Firefox?
Yes
* https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/accounts/
* https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/sync
* https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/accounts/
* https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox/sync
Firefox sync needs a well-maintained Docker image.
And iOS support for a self-hosted sync server :(
Firefox's sync feature is comparable except that it's not a privacy nightmare because it's end to end encrypted and you can also run your own sync server if you want to.
It would have taken you less long to duck/google that than to type that comment, so I feel like I'm missing your point. Did you mean to emphasize that you don't mind sharing data with Google, or was it really just asking about if firefox sync exists?
Please don't discourage people from asking questions directly to other humans. Google results can be surprisingly obtuse, and no matter how much information has been written about something, there are always cases where the clearest and fullest answer for a given individual comes from a direct response - and even if that's not the case here, people certainly don't need more excuses to shy away from asking questions.
(Relevant username :) )
Fair enough, I'll consider that next time such a situation comes up.
Fair enough, I'll consider that next time such a situation comes up.
Firefox does have sync and it supposedly does all that. I use Firefox but don't use sync.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/accounts/
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/accounts/
[deleted]
Yes, Firefox Sync
Too bad it takes a lot more than "a few minutes" to get used to Firefox and all of its quirks. Like the fact that I can have like 20 tabs open at the same time before they start hiding themselves from me.
> Like the fact that I can have like 20 tabs open at the same time before they start hiding themselves from me.
I didn't like it either at first, but then I realized it was just because it was different than Chrome. In time, I liked how Firefox did it better. You're always guaranteed to see the favicon and 3 or 4 letters of the tab's title no matter how many tabs you have. In Chrome, you're eventually looking at triangles or lines with no way to differentiate them.
I didn't like it either at first, but then I realized it was just because it was different than Chrome. In time, I liked how Firefox did it better. You're always guaranteed to see the favicon and 3 or 4 letters of the tab's title no matter how many tabs you have. In Chrome, you're eventually looking at triangles or lines with no way to differentiate them.
>You're always guaranteed to see the favicon and 3 or 4 letters of the tab's title no matter how many tabs you have.
But I can't see the tab's favicon or letters because they're 100% hidden from me.
I currently have 49 tabs open in Chrome. If I set Firefox to be the same exact width as Chrome, I can open 27 tabs at the same time. If I open up the 28th, it starts hiding tabs.
I actually have no issue with how Chrome does it. Just seeing the favicon is enough when dealing with a large number of tabs.
EDIT: Just tested opening 49 tabs. None of the tabs show anything more than just the favicon and about 90% of the first letter. Not really sure how this is better than what Chrome does, which is show 49 favicons without scrolling.
But I can't see the tab's favicon or letters because they're 100% hidden from me.
I currently have 49 tabs open in Chrome. If I set Firefox to be the same exact width as Chrome, I can open 27 tabs at the same time. If I open up the 28th, it starts hiding tabs.
I actually have no issue with how Chrome does it. Just seeing the favicon is enough when dealing with a large number of tabs.
EDIT: Just tested opening 49 tabs. None of the tabs show anything more than just the favicon and about 90% of the first letter. Not really sure how this is better than what Chrome does, which is show 49 favicons without scrolling.
You also have a list of all open tabs available from the dropdown arrow at the far right, but the tab width can be changed in about:config with browser.tabs.tabMinWidth.
If you're looking for information on this preference, it went away between FF4 and FF57(?) but should be back and working now so you'll see a lot of old information about it being removed.
Edit: FF58, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404465
If you're looking for information on this preference, it went away between FF4 and FF57(?) but should be back and working now so you'll see a lot of old information about it being removed.
Edit: FF58, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404465
> But I can't see the tab's favicon or letters because they're 100% hidden from me.
You can scroll on the tab bar.
You can scroll on the tab bar.
What's wrong with a fixed tab bar? Like the one in Chrome?
There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but it doesn't work well once you get beyond a certain number of tabs (the number will vary depending on your screen size, etc., blah). At some point, all the tabs are scrunched down to being indistinguishable blobs. Firefox, at least, doesn't have that issue, thanks to the scrolling tab bar. And the drop-down that shows all your tabs is, to me, a sufficient answer to the "my tabs are hidden from me" concern.
I understand that some people will feel differently of course. And it's less of an issue in the first place if you don't keep ludicrous numbers of tabs open.
I understand that some people will feel differently of course. And it's less of an issue in the first place if you don't keep ludicrous numbers of tabs open.
>At some point, all the tabs are scrunched down to being indistinguishable blobs.
I don't know what you're on about. I opened the maximum number of tabs that my browser window can have visible (~90) and at no point were they indistinguishable blobs. Every single one still had a favicon.
I don't know what you're on about. I opened the maximum number of tabs that my browser window can have visible (~90) and at no point were they indistinguishable blobs. Every single one still had a favicon.
To me, nothing but a favicon is exactly "an indistinguishable blog" since it does nothing to help me distinguish between the 10 arxiv.org tabs, or 7 or 8 Youtube tabs that I have open. shrug
This is something that bothers me when pair programming or working with co-workers who use a lot of tabs. I have to watch them fiddle between 10 jira tabs until they find the ticket. God forbid they misclick a few times (every time!) and then you get to see them hit a few other websites while all in the search of that only holy jira ticket tab.
As stated above, "In Chrome, you're eventually looking at triangles or lines with no way to differentiate them."
There are favicons. And Firefox does nothing to alleviate the problem, since it too only shows favicons. It just makes switching tabs more painful.
Favicons alone aren't really enough though. I routinely have multiple tabs open for Wikipedia, Youtube, Arxiv.org, Jira, Reddit, and even HN.
With Firefox, you get the Favicon and at least the first few characters of the page title. And if you use the tab drop-down, you see all, or most, of the title (depending on how long it is).
With Firefox, you get the Favicon and at least the first few characters of the page title. And if you use the tab drop-down, you see all, or most, of the title (depending on how long it is).
>With Firefox, you get the Favicon and at least the first few characters of the page title.
I just tested that and it was absolutely false.
I just tested that and it was absolutely false.
I don't know what to tell you then. I'm typing this comment right now using Firefox, with a tab-bar full of tabs, and every visible tab has the favicon and a portion of the title visible. The rest can be found in the drop-down, with nearly the entire title displayed.
Maybe there's some setting that controls this behavior, but my Firefox is pretty much completely stock. shrug
Maybe there's some setting that controls this behavior, but my Firefox is pretty much completely stock. shrug
Well, this is what I'm seeing on a pretty much stock Firefox.
https://0x0.st/zB86.png
https://0x0.st/zB86.png
Interesting. Maybe we're running different versions, or maybe it's somehow dependent on screen resolution or something. Weird. For me, Firefox has always displayed at least the first few characters of the title.
https://pasteboard.co/Ih7GvRO.png
https://pasteboard.co/Ih7GvRO.png
This is what I see:
https://ibb.co/T4z2YfZ
https://ibb.co/T4z2YfZ
I was going to say that the favicons on Chrome probably disappear at some point too, but you're right. Chrome guarantees at least half a favicon on display, but to do so, new tabs are not put on the tab-bar. They're completely hidden with no way to access them via the tab-bar.
Yeah, that is not really optimal. However, that is luckily only a problem on a very high number of tabs. Firefox's tab UI starts having usability issues at a much higher number. At my tested width.
> In Chrome, you're eventually looking at triangles or lines with no way to differentiate them.
Chrome finally fixed that a couple months ago. The favicon-hiding behavior was awful though.
Chrome finally fixed that a couple months ago. The favicon-hiding behavior was awful though.
about:config > browser.tabs.tabMinWidth
Change to something smaller.
Change to something smaller.
Yeah, nothing like 60 tabs you can't tell apart all squeezed into view.
Tree Style Tabs is a common Firefox add-on people use to manage large number of tabs. Or you can click on the down caret on the right side of the tabs bar to get the full list of your tabs.
I tried it out, but honestly it didn't help. Dealing with 300+ tabs at a time, it just made hierarchical resolution a total mess.
I don't need to know the physical location of my tab. That's what the address bar and Ctrl+Tab are for.
I don't need to know the physical location of my tab. That's what the address bar and Ctrl+Tab are for.
Huh. Tree Style Tabs has millions of happy users. And if you type in the address bar FF will match against open tab names and urls, and let you switch to them.
Happy millions of users use Chrome.
> if you type in the address bar FF will match against open tab names and urls, and let you switch to them.
Hence my comment:
> That's what the address bar and Ctrl+Tab are for.
> if you type in the address bar FF will match against open tab names and urls, and let you switch to them.
Hence my comment:
> That's what the address bar and Ctrl+Tab are for.
>And if you type in the address bar FF will match against open tab names and urls, and let you switch to them.
Something that Chrome also has.
Something that Chrome also has.
Much like my physical desktop full of papers you can't see which is which just glancing from above, and my overall laptop desktop full of dozens of different windows... it's cluttered, but I know what's what enough to find it, usually!
Sure, I could put all those papers on my desk into a drawer, or even file them, but who's got time for that? (Answer: those who are succesfully less cluttered than the cluttered among us).
Sure, I could put all those papers on my desk into a drawer, or even file them, but who's got time for that? (Answer: those who are succesfully less cluttered than the cluttered among us).
It takes less than 3 seconds to find a lost tab even with 300+ in Firefox. Ctrl+L, type in a keyword.
Firefox has the Tree Style Tabs add-on, makes having many open tabs much more manageable.
What quirks? Sounds like you just need more monitors...
I don't want to get "more monitors" just to use another browser.
Looks like you are not making correct usage of tabs, your use-case calls for something like: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/instapaper-to...
I try to mostly use firefox, but there are some legit sites that do not work in firefox, youtube is probably the biggest offender with the seek very often not working properly.
I can't help but wonder if it is because firefox is actually behind or if google is sabotaging them.
I can't help but wonder if it is because firefox is actually behind or if google is sabotaging them.
FWIW this is configurable. Edit `browser.tabs.tabMinWidth` in about:config
They now have a dropdown menu with all your tabs. Pretty nifty.
Chrome tabs get absolutely useless when they get to that razor thin mode. You can hover your mouse and scroll through firefox tabs if you have more than what fits in your window size.
Firefox experience on Linux is lackluster. No hardware acceleration, neither on opensource video drivers, nor on proprietary(Nvidia and AMD). On the same hardware on Win10 Firefox experience is definitely better.
I've not found it to be an issue on Linux - seems to be about as performant as Chrome for me.
The only wrinkle was when I tried to watch Netflix the first time I had to click a button to let me watch DRM'd Netflix streams.
The only wrinkle was when I tried to watch Netflix the first time I had to click a button to let me watch DRM'd Netflix streams.
HW accelerated video do work in Chrome/Chromium on Linux, while does not in Firefox, thus visibly loading the CPU and CPU fan on laptop. There is a visible tearing while quickly scrolling in Firefox, while no such problem with Chrome.
I'll have to try to reproduce this. I've never noticed it. Is it only with Netflix or when viewing any video?
Works in Chromium, but not Firefox:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Hardware_video_accelera...
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Hardware_video_accelera...
Youtube, Coursera videos.
I haven't found the lack of GPU page rendering to be much of an issue, what problems do you experience because of it? Only difference I can see personally is marginally smoother scrolling.
I have however found the lack of hardware accelerated video decoding to be a HUGE bummer, watching youtube absolutely destroys my laptops battery life. That is also a problem in Chrome though as far as I know.
I have however found the lack of hardware accelerated video decoding to be a HUGE bummer, watching youtube absolutely destroys my laptops battery life. That is also a problem in Chrome though as far as I know.
I switched to Firefox about a month ago.
Initially I ran into problems because I took on too much at once, I tried enabling uMatrix at the same time as I switched over. Once I removed uMatrix I was doing much better, and I'm saving it for another month or two.
Several features of Firefox are real killer apps for me. Adding a taxonomy to my bookmarks has really helped as I've moved more heavily into org-mode. I've started adding a couple of tags to every bookmark I save, that really helps with organization and recall. Beyond tags, the container tabs feature has been pretty amazing. Being able to sign into multiple Office 365 accounts is great, plus the obvious use case of "keep those few times I use facebook in their own special sandbox".
I've donated a few bucks to Mozilla, and I recommend everyone do that. Google seems to rapidly be heading towards 1990s Microsoft territory, with the added "bonus" of discarding apps that they lose interest in.
Initially I ran into problems because I took on too much at once, I tried enabling uMatrix at the same time as I switched over. Once I removed uMatrix I was doing much better, and I'm saving it for another month or two.
Several features of Firefox are real killer apps for me. Adding a taxonomy to my bookmarks has really helped as I've moved more heavily into org-mode. I've started adding a couple of tags to every bookmark I save, that really helps with organization and recall. Beyond tags, the container tabs feature has been pretty amazing. Being able to sign into multiple Office 365 accounts is great, plus the obvious use case of "keep those few times I use facebook in their own special sandbox".
I've donated a few bucks to Mozilla, and I recommend everyone do that. Google seems to rapidly be heading towards 1990s Microsoft territory, with the added "bonus" of discarding apps that they lose interest in.
Thanks but no thanks.
There isn't enough functional parity for me - although I'm certainly an outlier - so I've attempted the switch and went back to chrome.
One of the issues is that I spend a lot time writing in English and then a lot in Portuguese. Chrome can spell check both and ff needs me to tell which language I'm using.
There isn't enough functional parity for me - although I'm certainly an outlier - so I've attempted the switch and went back to chrome.
One of the issues is that I spend a lot time writing in English and then a lot in Portuguese. Chrome can spell check both and ff needs me to tell which language I'm using.
I tried Firefox coming from chrome. Two things were dealbreakers for me
1) I’m a heavy window/tab user. 300+ tabs across 10+ windows is normal. I have not been able to recreate the same tab bar overflow behavior as in chrome, default ff will keep tabs at fixed width and scroll horizontally, making it impossible to see how many tabs there are in the window. Changing css helps but there are still enough problems with small width tabs not showing favicons, always showing (and overlapping) close tab button etc.
2) performance when switching videos e.g. on yt to full screen and back is terrible. Latest MacBook, external uwqhd screen, took upwards of 3 seconds every single time from pressing f to having the video show. Might not sound like a lot but it adds up. If everything else is fast this will just feel extra slow
1) I’m a heavy window/tab user. 300+ tabs across 10+ windows is normal. I have not been able to recreate the same tab bar overflow behavior as in chrome, default ff will keep tabs at fixed width and scroll horizontally, making it impossible to see how many tabs there are in the window. Changing css helps but there are still enough problems with small width tabs not showing favicons, always showing (and overlapping) close tab button etc.
2) performance when switching videos e.g. on yt to full screen and back is terrible. Latest MacBook, external uwqhd screen, took upwards of 3 seconds every single time from pressing f to having the video show. Might not sound like a lot but it adds up. If everything else is fast this will just feel extra slow
With 300 tabs why do you want your tab bar horizontal? Doesn't it make more sense to have your tabs in a vertical sidebar so you can easily see them and scroll through them, like you can do in Firefox?
Yeah, this is actually one of the main reasons I use Firefox instead of Chrome. I really dislike Chrome's tab minimizing behaviour, not every website has a clearly distinguishable favicon and even if it did, I often have multiple tabs from the same website open.
I’ve tried it but found it too aesthetically displeasing when using a MacBook to not have a page centered if it’s supposed to be centered. It’s like the entire system is made to be used in a symmetrical way and I break it because of tabs. Doesn’t feel right
Hiding the bar defeats its purpose and with small icons I can fit more tabs horizontally without scrolling than vertically with tree tabs. Another reason would be if dev tools are open and they already take away half the horizontal space
So usually I have tabs in one window related to a single project or topic until they overflow (chrome will never scroll the bar. If it doesn’t fit the tab icons are simply invisible) at which point I just split in two windows that stay in the same Mac space for that project/topic
Hiding the bar defeats its purpose and with small icons I can fit more tabs horizontally without scrolling than vertically with tree tabs. Another reason would be if dev tools are open and they already take away half the horizontal space
So usually I have tabs in one window related to a single project or topic until they overflow (chrome will never scroll the bar. If it doesn’t fit the tab icons are simply invisible) at which point I just split in two windows that stay in the same Mac space for that project/topic
I never Switched to Chrome in the first place. It felt like an uphill battle sometimes when Firefox deprecated the old add-on APIs, which made add-ons like CTR die.
However, in the past few years, Firefox has been improving left and right, with it's Rust components, containers in core, and it's new dialect in design. The recent improvements alone should convince someone to switch.
The reason why I stayed with Firefox is because Chrome is from, well, Google. It boggles my mind to see someone praising a browser that is from a an advertiser. They never put ads on the browser (I'm looking at you, Opera), but systematically did a lot to track it's users and make money out of it.
You can clearly see the difference in motivation when Firefox removing a whole API of add-ons vs Google removing one particular API feature.
However, in the past few years, Firefox has been improving left and right, with it's Rust components, containers in core, and it's new dialect in design. The recent improvements alone should convince someone to switch.
The reason why I stayed with Firefox is because Chrome is from, well, Google. It boggles my mind to see someone praising a browser that is from a an advertiser. They never put ads on the browser (I'm looking at you, Opera), but systematically did a lot to track it's users and make money out of it.
You can clearly see the difference in motivation when Firefox removing a whole API of add-ons vs Google removing one particular API feature.
I tried to switch two years ago, but back then Firefox was very resource hungry on my MBP so I stick to Safari. Chrome - with Google‘s approach to privacy - was no option at all, even if their browser was magnitudes better (which it was not; the differences are marginal in my perception). A few months ago I tried FF again. This time I was amazed. No CPU spikes. Super fast startup. - I cannot explicitly express my arguments and my sentiment, but my gut feeling says that Google‘s approach to privacy is totally wrong. So I don‘t want to touch any of their products. That‘s why I migrated my emails to fastmail.com, am using duckduckgo.com instead of Google.com, switched to Firefox from Chrome, to Dropbox from Google Docs. Abandoned Google Photos.
I don't really like Mozilla as an organization. I don't like Google either. Recently, I've started using the Brave browser (https://brave.com). So far, I like it quite well.
I like Brave's concept of Shields, which block ad-trackers. I also think one of the more interesting concepts in Brave is the Rewards ad-revenue-sharing program. I haven't turned it on yet, so I don't know how well it works (if at all) but I find the idea interesting and outside the box when considering the major browser players.
The developer tools in Brave are exactly what you would expect.
Brave has worked well for me so far, so I'll continue with it for the time being.
I like Brave's concept of Shields, which block ad-trackers. I also think one of the more interesting concepts in Brave is the Rewards ad-revenue-sharing program. I haven't turned it on yet, so I don't know how well it works (if at all) but I find the idea interesting and outside the box when considering the major browser players.
The developer tools in Brave are exactly what you would expect.
Brave has worked well for me so far, so I'll continue with it for the time being.
I see a lot of people here complaining about firefox performances and other things/bugs. But we are on hacker news. Many devs are here. Firefox needs us, we need a strong alternative. Instead of complaining, we need to participate to the open source effort.
Sure. Though as a firefox developer, I also appreciate those bugs and reports of performance problems!
A good bug report with solid reproduction steps can often be more useful than a mediocre patch.
A good bug report with solid reproduction steps can often be more useful than a mediocre patch.
Today in 90s reboots, Chrome is becoming the new IE6.
I seriously don't understand why people have been gravitating towards Chrome for years despite Google being synonymous with surveillance, even on Linux. Google chrome is the fifth most popular download on Arch User Repository[1].
Alternatives like ungoogled chromium exist, but aren't as powerful/stable as the real thing, so why not use Firefox. Call me overly optimistic, but augmenting the firefox/mozilla community with participating/privacy conscious users can only lead to good down the line.
1. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/
Alternatives like ungoogled chromium exist, but aren't as powerful/stable as the real thing, so why not use Firefox. Call me overly optimistic, but augmenting the firefox/mozilla community with participating/privacy conscious users can only lead to good down the line.
1. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/
Fwiw, I don't see it as surveillance, it is trusting your data with them, might seem similar but a little bit different. Google in general a very good steward of private data if not the best. They don't sell it and provide tools to manage it So far I find it an acceptable bargain.
As for Chrome, the latest announcement is a bit troublesome, but i still find it better than alternatives.
As for Chrome, the latest announcement is a bit troublesome, but i still find it better than alternatives.
I really want to switch to Firefox. I don't need it to be better-performing than Chrome on my work PC or Safari on my home machine - I want to support free software. But Firefox's text just looks bad, like really bad. On both a retina Mac screen and 24" 1080p monitors on Windows at work, the fonts look pixelated and blurry, like there's something around the edges of the characters. Contrast seems off too, much lower than Chrome or Safari presents text, which makes it hard to read. PDFs in the browser are especially awful to look at. Has anyone else had this experience and found a fix?
Can you share some screenshots? IMO, text looks somewhat better in Firefox than in other browsers.
Here's an example: https://imgur.com/a/fWRwTf7
Chrome is on the left, Firefox is on the right. In my opinion, Firefox's text looks terrible.
Chrome is on the left, Firefox is on the right. In my opinion, Firefox's text looks terrible.
Same thoughts! Firefox is MUCH better at font rendering in my experience. (Also MUCH faster with uBlock Origin and uMatrix)
Firefox still has the same issues as Chrome on my MBP, namely it uses a lot more battery than Safari. It seems as though Chrome has been keeping a small performance edge over FF as well, but they are so close now it makes sense to use FF to support the brand.
One HUGE issue over Chrome is that many websites break for me due to broken JS that was only tested on Chrome, including internal sites for work. Ugh.
The visuals of FF including their website are beautiful. Wish they would put that same design team on Rust, which has a website made by a clown now.
One HUGE issue over Chrome is that many websites break for me due to broken JS that was only tested on Chrome, including internal sites for work. Ugh.
The visuals of FF including their website are beautiful. Wish they would put that same design team on Rust, which has a website made by a clown now.
As of Firefox 67, it is actually very fast and performant for me on Linux. Every time I have tried Firefox Quantum it has been noticeably slower than Chrome. I really want to use Firefox because Google is basically evil and I'm trying to migrate from every service I have with them; slowly but surely; but I used Hangouts Meet the other day with work and it was very very unstable. Of course I don't blame Firefox for this, I blame Google, but this is literally the only thing that is stopping me from migrating.
I've noticed start up of a lot snappier than Firefox 66, particularly when there's a lot going on the system.
I think they now defer loading of some of the components until the application starts and that's helping a lot.
I think they now defer loading of some of the components until the application starts and that's helping a lot.
> As of Firefox 67, it is actually very fast
(You probably meant 57, when quantum was introduced (alongside breaking the entire add-on ecosystem).)
I noticed no speed difference whatsoever when I upgraded from Firefox 55 to 66 a few weeks ago. The difference between 55 and 66 is that a bunch of useful add-ons are gone, some of them are no longer possible due to missing APIs, and I had to find alternatives for most that were rewritten (and spend time reconfiguring everything). In the end, the design didn't really change after I removed the tab bar on top, and speed is also about the same. Which is fine for me, I never understood the slowness complaints, but I guess I typically work on relatively high end laptops (well, this particular one was only 700 euros and is now 1 year old, it's not terribly high end, but I think I got good value on this one and it's probably more than what most people spend... though maybe not HN people... yeah, I don't know where the slowness complaints come from).
(You probably meant 57, when quantum was introduced (alongside breaking the entire add-on ecosystem).)
I noticed no speed difference whatsoever when I upgraded from Firefox 55 to 66 a few weeks ago. The difference between 55 and 66 is that a bunch of useful add-ons are gone, some of them are no longer possible due to missing APIs, and I had to find alternatives for most that were rewritten (and spend time reconfiguring everything). In the end, the design didn't really change after I removed the tab bar on top, and speed is also about the same. Which is fine for me, I never understood the slowness complaints, but I guess I typically work on relatively high end laptops (well, this particular one was only 700 euros and is now 1 year old, it's not terribly high end, but I think I got good value on this one and it's probably more than what most people spend... though maybe not HN people... yeah, I don't know where the slowness complaints come from).
No I mean 67. I tried every version of Firefox from 57 to 67 and only 67, the latest release feels "as fast" as Chrome.
Oh, weird. I expected it to be faster after upgrading from 55 and tried to notice it, but didn't find any difference. Now that I'm post-quantum, I'm keeping up to date, so I'm also on 67 now (upgraded somewhere last week if I remember correctly), again didn't notice any difference when going from 66.0.4 (I skipped ..5) to 67.
Agreed. There was a noticeable performance improvement in FF67. FF does crash on me at times. Notably, most of those had been while I was on Gmail. Oh my, do I suspect something?
I tried to do this, and I had to switch back. My setup is that I have loads of tabs open, with a vertical tab manager on the side. And FF has a pretty nice extension for that, plus you can take back some screen space by removing the top tabs using some css.
Anyway, when I have the same tabs and extensions in FF as in Chrome, the FF CPU usage is huge. I tried several things from the web, but nothing helped. Now I'm back on Chrome, which is less nice looking and less convenient, but the CPU usage is barely anything.
Anyway, when I have the same tabs and extensions in FF as in Chrome, the FF CPU usage is huge. I tried several things from the web, but nothing helped. Now I'm back on Chrome, which is less nice looking and less convenient, but the CPU usage is barely anything.
I think this is mainly an issue on macOS if you use a vertical sidebar, having to do with supporting it's translucency.
I think there's away to turn this off too, but I don't remember how, sorry.
I think there's away to turn this off too, but I don't remember how, sorry.
Where did you hear about the translucency hint?
https://xkcd.com/979/
Not trying to turn HN into a bug hunting board, but I found this:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404042
Might be useful to someone.
https://xkcd.com/979/
Not trying to turn HN into a bug hunting board, but I found this:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404042
Might be useful to someone.
I use an MBP 15" 2017 with 16g ram, 300+ tabs open as I type, with tree style tabs on firefox. No issues. I would complain about ram usage, but there is certainly no high cpu usage from vertical tabs.
Are any of your tabs gmail? I think that's the main culprit, but I'm not sure it's the only one. Slack as well.
I love Firefox's features, but I've tried it for a week and I just have a too big loss of performance. My 2017 Macbook pro with 8gb of RAM just doesn't cut it. The browser is something I use +6 hours per week, I can't handle it being laggy.
When I try it a little bit it seems fine, but after using Firefox for a week going to Chrome seemed like a relief in terms of performance. I'm missing some cool features from Firefox like containers, but performance is more important.
When I try it a little bit it seems fine, but after using Firefox for a week going to Chrome seemed like a relief in terms of performance. I'm missing some cool features from Firefox like containers, but performance is more important.
Yes, I want to switch... but I have something like 25 plugins and many of them don't have corresponding plugins on Firefox.
For example, when I press Apple + Shift + C, I copy the URL and save it as markup. I want this functionality in Firefox -- it's not good if I can't keyboard shortcut.
Also... and this one is a bit more painful... we use Lighthouse for a lot of testing. Contractually, it's an easy thing to build in, "We'll meet scores of at least 85 on Lighthouse for accessibility..." and I can't run that out of Chrome. Any similar tool suggestions?
I found a lot, but I haven't found suitable replacements for:
* Lighthouse - Chrome Web Store || https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lighthouse/blipmdc...
* Create Link - Chrome Web Store || https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/create-link/gcmghd... (need to have keyboard shortcut and export link to MarkDown for easier pasting into GitHub issues).
Also... I'd love a good replacement for Xmarks. If Firefox wrote a plugin for Chrome that lets me keep my bookmarks from Firefox sync in sync with Chrome I would be happy. I have to have multiple browsers... and I miss how easy Xmarks made it to go between them.
For example, when I press Apple + Shift + C, I copy the URL and save it as markup. I want this functionality in Firefox -- it's not good if I can't keyboard shortcut.
Also... and this one is a bit more painful... we use Lighthouse for a lot of testing. Contractually, it's an easy thing to build in, "We'll meet scores of at least 85 on Lighthouse for accessibility..." and I can't run that out of Chrome. Any similar tool suggestions?
I found a lot, but I haven't found suitable replacements for:
* Lighthouse - Chrome Web Store || https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/lighthouse/blipmdc...
* Create Link - Chrome Web Store || https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/create-link/gcmghd... (need to have keyboard shortcut and export link to MarkDown for easier pasting into GitHub issues).
Also... I'd love a good replacement for Xmarks. If Firefox wrote a plugin for Chrome that lets me keep my bookmarks from Firefox sync in sync with Chrome I would be happy. I have to have multiple browsers... and I miss how easy Xmarks made it to go between them.
Google had said they wanted revise the way advertising and tracking is done on the web to address the many issues with the current train wreck. I would be more open to sticking with Chrome if they had done that first before breaking ad blockers.
Ad-driven content should be a viable business model, but the way it's currently done is simply unacceptable, and Google shouldn't crack down on people's conscientious objections via ad-blockers without providing a viable alternative.
Ad-driven content should be a viable business model, but the way it's currently done is simply unacceptable, and Google shouldn't crack down on people's conscientious objections via ad-blockers without providing a viable alternative.
I did it. I switched from Chrome to Firefox this week. Problem was that I broke my advice I give to all my friends/customers : "reinstall Windows at least every 6 months". And I had Windows for the past 2 years watching it becoming more and more bloated, with more and more quirks. At the same time I had Chrome. Sure, I had Firefox in the past too, but was slower then Chrome. For reasons unknown to me it seemed Firefox loved flash, and I was watching in Task Manager how Flash component of Firefox was growing more and more in memory until it ate all of it and required me to restart Firefox entirely. Which I hate it to do that. Hence why I used Chrome instead. With ad blockers and DuckDuckGo as default engine. But once I've reinstalled Windows I was like "OK, time to see Firefox again".
Let me tell you brothers and sisters, it was a blessing to see Firefox having the same speed as Chrome, and no bloating. Sure, for each tab opened it alos creates a firefox.exe in task manager, but so does Chrome. I can live with that. Now all I need is to move my entire productions from Windows to Linux and I'll be really free. But that's gonna be at least an order of magnitude harder then switching from one browser to another.
Let me tell you brothers and sisters, it was a blessing to see Firefox having the same speed as Chrome, and no bloating. Sure, for each tab opened it alos creates a firefox.exe in task manager, but so does Chrome. I can live with that. Now all I need is to move my entire productions from Windows to Linux and I'll be really free. But that's gonna be at least an order of magnitude harder then switching from one browser to another.
Still there's one thing that Firefox can beat, Chrome dev tools are just the best, period.
As someone who uses Firefox 98% of the time, every time I open the Chromium dev tools I'm just lost. Could it be personal?
Different people, different tastes :)
Does Firefox have an equivalent of Chrome's [...] > More tools > Create shortcut... these days? With an option like Chrome's 'Open as Window' checkbox? I would love to give up Chrome, but that's a really important piece of functionality for me. I hugely prefer webapps that mostly act like normal apps in my desktop environment. I want then to show up in the window list, have their own icon, be alt-tabbable, etc.
I have 6 profiles that I like to keep separate, and the only browser that supports seamless switching in the toolbar is Chrome. That's the only reason I continue to use it. If Firefox were to implement this, I'd immediately switch. I know there's addons that try to simluate what Chrome does, but they just aren't as easy to use and don't do exactly what I want.
Have you looked into Containers to see if this will work as you want profiles to? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers
I have. It simply sorts tabs by profile, rather than sorting whole windows. Think about it this way: I want to have 6 separate instances of Firefox running at the same time, where I can seamlessly switch between them. Each instance has its own theme, bookmarks, cookies, etc.
Firefox can do this, but it's not intuitive and it opens 6 different Firefox apps on my Mac, so it isn't easy to distinguish between each profile. On Chrome, I simply click the person switcher at the top right and I can switch between sessions very easily.
Firefox can do this, but it's not intuitive and it opens 6 different Firefox apps on my Mac, so it isn't easy to distinguish between each profile. On Chrome, I simply click the person switcher at the top right and I can switch between sessions very easily.
Um, Firefox does the same sorts of thing.
A) Want to use unsigned addons to play around, or tweak your existing ones[1]? Nope, even if you allow them in about:config, you can't; you have to use a special development version and update it separately.
B) Want to customize your keyboard shortcuts? Sorry, that's not safe, you have to use a crippled API that won't take effect until a given page loads.
C) Want to control your setup? Sorry, their "studies" feature is owned by the marketing team and can make arbitrary changes to the app on the fly, all the way up to its cryptographic infrastructure! (As we learned in the recent add-on mishap [2].)
I use Firefox, but they're not obviously better on these matters.
[1] Like, I don't know, if you made a big deal about underprivileged groups getting into coding, and actually wanted to take the concept seriously rather than just get some photogenic token to write hello-world for a photo op.
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19826827
A) Want to use unsigned addons to play around, or tweak your existing ones[1]? Nope, even if you allow them in about:config, you can't; you have to use a special development version and update it separately.
B) Want to customize your keyboard shortcuts? Sorry, that's not safe, you have to use a crippled API that won't take effect until a given page loads.
C) Want to control your setup? Sorry, their "studies" feature is owned by the marketing team and can make arbitrary changes to the app on the fly, all the way up to its cryptographic infrastructure! (As we learned in the recent add-on mishap [2].)
I use Firefox, but they're not obviously better on these matters.
[1] Like, I don't know, if you made a big deal about underprivileged groups getting into coding, and actually wanted to take the concept seriously rather than just get some photogenic token to write hello-world for a photo op.
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19826827
> A) Want to use unsigned addons to play around, or tweak your existing ones[1]? Nope, even if you allow them in about:config, you can't; you have to use a special development version and update it separately.
Signatures were mandated for add-ons because there was a plague of malware (or near-malware, such as third party anti-virus software) silently installing add-ons that broke Firefox in various ways. If the end-user could disable that requirement then the malware could do that too. The only way for Mozilla to address the issue was to hard-code the signature requirements. I don't think asking power-users to use Nightly/"unbranded" versions of Firefox to load unsigned extensions is something you should count against them.
Signatures were mandated for add-ons because there was a plague of malware (or near-malware, such as third party anti-virus software) silently installing add-ons that broke Firefox in various ways. If the end-user could disable that requirement then the malware could do that too. The only way for Mozilla to address the issue was to hard-code the signature requirements. I don't think asking power-users to use Nightly/"unbranded" versions of Firefox to load unsigned extensions is something you should count against them.
Yes, I think that was actually a good choice. It's a bit of an inconvenience for people who want to install at our own risk, and we have to get used to a different colored icon, but it's too easy to get a user to go into about:config and change a setting and for them to forget about it. With Firefox Developer Edition they at least have to do a big download, install it, and go into about:config, and there's a chance they'll one day notice it and think "I'm not a developer. Why do I have Firefox Developer Edition?"
No, there wasn't. No malware was being spread en masse this way. It was an entirely fictitious threat, as it would have required convincing the user to enter a confusing part of the app (about:config) and correctly change a setting.
I can accept that there might have been a malware problem when signatures weren't the default requirement, but that's not the change I'm talking about, where they ignore a user's explicit preference that they're okay with unsigned add-ons.
Remember, Chrome allows you to turn off this setting by just flipping a switch into dev mode. Where's the torrent of compromised Chrome browsers from this vector?
>I don't think asking power-users to use Nightly/"unbranded" versions of Firefox to load unsigned extensions is something you should count against them.
It is when that version doesn't get the same updates and has to be maintained separately.
I can accept that there might have been a malware problem when signatures weren't the default requirement, but that's not the change I'm talking about, where they ignore a user's explicit preference that they're okay with unsigned add-ons.
Remember, Chrome allows you to turn off this setting by just flipping a switch into dev mode. Where's the torrent of compromised Chrome browsers from this vector?
>I don't think asking power-users to use Nightly/"unbranded" versions of Firefox to load unsigned extensions is something you should count against them.
It is when that version doesn't get the same updates and has to be maintained separately.
Hi I work on a security team that hunts for malware. Malicious extensions are a huge threat - totally happens for Chrome in particular, and I've even seen malware package old versions of browsers to get around the modern defenses.
Someone distributing a different product to get around you current products vulnerabilities is outside this threat model.
No it isn't, there isn't any specified threat model anyway.
What we're talking about is whether malicious extensions are something attackers want to use. Having to package an entire browser is a win - it's super noisy and means there's a huge binary to lug around.
What we're talking about is whether malicious extensions are something attackers want to use. Having to package an entire browser is a win - it's super noisy and means there's a huge binary to lug around.
>No it isn't, there isn't any specified threat model anyway.
Well, yeah, in the sense that Mozilla people don't really think through what threat model they're protecting against here.
>What we're talking about is whether malicious extensions are something attackers want to use. Having to package an entire browser is a win - it's super noisy and means there's a huge binary to lug around.
The vast majority of that benefit comes from the default requirement for code to be signed, not from the barely measureable fraction of users that knowningly disable this protection and then get pwned.
Well, yeah, in the sense that Mozilla people don't really think through what threat model they're protecting against here.
>What we're talking about is whether malicious extensions are something attackers want to use. Having to package an entire browser is a win - it's super noisy and means there's a huge binary to lug around.
The vast majority of that benefit comes from the default requirement for code to be signed, not from the barely measureable fraction of users that knowningly disable this protection and then get pwned.
I think you're missing my point, so let's specify a bit more of a threat model.
Attacker has code execution on your system and wants to maintain persistence and exfiltrate sensitive browser data. Sounds reasonable for Mozilla - at least, it's not totally nuts of them to consider this in their threat model.
One avenue, and a popular one, is to then sideload a malicious extension. An attacker who can disable the extension check can do this easily. An attacker who can't has to resort to other means - packaging a separate payload to host the extension.
Does that sound reasonable? I don't want to argue, just to explain my perspective on this issue based on the attacks I have seen.
Attacker has code execution on your system and wants to maintain persistence and exfiltrate sensitive browser data. Sounds reasonable for Mozilla - at least, it's not totally nuts of them to consider this in their threat model.
One avenue, and a popular one, is to then sideload a malicious extension. An attacker who can disable the extension check can do this easily. An attacker who can't has to resort to other means - packaging a separate payload to host the extension.
Does that sound reasonable? I don't want to argue, just to explain my perspective on this issue based on the attacks I have seen.
I'm referring to native malware abusing admin privileges to install extensions without the user's consent, not users deliberately installing malware extensions themselves. This was particularly bad in the XP/Vista era (I know I had to remove some rogue extensions from my relative's computers during that time). If the signature check were a flag the malware would just disable it at the same time it installed the extension (remember, it has admin privileges so no user interaction would be required).
Additionally, keep in mind that when the signature requirement was added there were still XUL/XPCOM extensions which could hook the browser much deeper than Chrome-style extensions and wreak much more havok.
Additionally, keep in mind that when the signature requirement was added there were still XUL/XPCOM extensions which could hook the browser much deeper than Chrome-style extensions and wreak much more havok.
>I'm referring to native malware abusing admin privileges to install extensions without the user's consent, not users deliberately installing malware extensions themselves.
Ah, so a vector that required code signing doesn't protect against.
Ah, so a vector that required code signing doesn't protect against.
Signatures absolutely do protect the user in this scenario. With mandatory signatures you can't get (obvious) malware into the browser without having it first approved by Mozilla (who should reject it upon review).
Okay I misunderstood what you meant by native malware.
But if your threat model is that extensions can be added without the user's consent, then that is the vulnerability you should fix. And it still wouldn't justify blocking a user who is aware of the risk and chooses to disable that layer of default protection.
But if your threat model is that extensions can be added without the user's consent, then that is the vulnerability you should fix. And it still wouldn't justify blocking a user who is aware of the risk and chooses to disable that layer of default protection.
[deleted]
Firefox leaves a lot to be desired, but is still miles better than Chrome.
Those aren't your only two options.
might as well be.
everything else is based on Chrome/Chromium.
Nothing else, other than Firefox, lets me customize in the way Firefox does either. As a security conscious person, this matters.
everything else is based on Chrome/Chromium.
Nothing else, other than Firefox, lets me customize in the way Firefox does either. As a security conscious person, this matters.
Firefox forks.
Well, there's pretty much only Safari as the remaining option (does it even have a non-Mac version?)
At least when Firefox has a misstep, it's scope is a lot smaller.
Taking a swipe at adblocking, obscuring where you're "logged into the browser" are IMHO - much bigger deals.
Taking a swipe at adblocking, obscuring where you're "logged into the browser" are IMHO - much bigger deals.
You raise very good points. The shortcuts thing has made me miserable for years. Surely the coders of Mozilla appreciate a good set of shortcuts, like in whatever IDE they write their code in!
Didn't Mozilla promise to publish a post-mortem on the add-on thing two weeks ago? Did that ever happen?
Not the CTO post during the issue; the follow up that was supposed to be more technical.
Not the CTO post during the issue; the follow up that was supposed to be more technical.
Yes, they have posted a post-mortem: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/05/technical-details-on-the-r...
No, that's the post that _promised_ a post-mortem:
> We’ll be running a formal post-mortem next week and will publish the list of changes we intend to make
> We’ll be running a formal post-mortem next week and will publish the list of changes we intend to make
What is the actual performance story these days? Last time I tried Firefox (soon after they were making a fuss about Quantum) I was fairly disappointed. I'm including performance of the Android browser here (because they work in concert as far as I'm concerned).
Also, what pain am I going to hit with DRM and online video? I use the usual suspects - Amazon, Netflix, Youtube.
Also, what pain am I going to hit with DRM and online video? I use the usual suspects - Amazon, Netflix, Youtube.
Performance has gotten a lot better since the initial quantum release. All of your DRM'd streaming services will be fine although some of the more archaic ones may still require you to install flash, but Firefox uses the same DRM video decoder as Chrome.
Given the multiple conflicting anecdotal experiences you'll find in the comment section of any story about Firefox or Chrome, performance of either browser is all over the place and seems to depend on your hardware, OS, drivers, extensions, how you use the browser and probably the phase of the moon.
FF is fast on the desktop but still very slow on android. Im not sure what the difference is, but Ive switched to using a chrome fork on android and FFon my desktop and am pretty pleased.
Why do you say they work in concert?
Why do you say they work in concert?
I'd guess he wants to be able to sync bookmarks/passwords/etc across platforms. It's nice being able to find something on my phone and then pull it up later on my desktop using synced bookmarks or Firefox's "send tab to device" functionality.
I will say when I first started using Firefox on mobile it did seem slower, but the ability to use extensions like ublock has always made up for it. I think speed has gotten a bit better lately, but there's still room for improvement there.
I will say when I first started using Firefox on mobile it did seem slower, but the ability to use extensions like ublock has always made up for it. I think speed has gotten a bit better lately, but there's still room for improvement there.
The current build of Firefox for Android is being sunsetted soon, last noon security update is going to be in July. The version they are moving to, Firefox fenix is very fast. At the moment I don't think it has sync enabled (so no sign in) but the future looks good there.
Is Fenix the same as Firefox Focus?
Different, but focus is using the same engine that fenix does.
Nice maybe Ill go back for Android. I couldnt figure out why it was so slow, its seemed almost like a DNS issue because the first page load, even if it was local, took 10+ seconds. Im a huge FF fan and supporter, I'd like to go back.
> Why do you say they work in concert?
Because I want my saved passwords, bookmarks and recent tabs shared between the two.
Because I want my saved passwords, bookmarks and recent tabs shared between the two.
Agreed. I was utterly disappointed with performance on OSX after the big talk about Quantum. I had tons of situations with the whole browser freezing, videos not playing - mainly related to media.
I've been disappointed with Firefox on MacOS. I tried it for months, but it constantly crashed on me, especially when using multiple monitors, and was super laggy and jittery compared to what I was used to.
I gave up and went back to Chrome, which has been as performant as ever.
I gave up and went back to Chrome, which has been as performant as ever.
I think you mean you're disappointed with Firefox on macOS?
If so, my experience has been the same, though I have been sticking with it for now.
I often find I have to close out Firefox and restore my session to stop it from churning so hard my fans spin. This is particularly true after it has been running for a while or after resuming from suspend.
If so, my experience has been the same, though I have been sticking with it for now.
I often find I have to close out Firefox and restore my session to stop it from churning so hard my fans spin. This is particularly true after it has been running for a while or after resuming from suspend.
Sorry yes, corrected that typo.
I should have left Chrome when they started that force sign in to Chrome shit. This latest stuff is the final impetus I need to switch.
I want to, but the simple behavior issues of the LastPass extension force me to use Chrome just for it.
I don’t know if its LastPass or a limitation of Firefox that’s causing it, but it’s enough of a headache for how often I use LastPass that it prevents me from switching browsers.
Is there an alternative to LastPass that has a better user experience on Firefox? If so I’ll try it.
EDIT: I'll test out Bitwarden.
I don’t know if its LastPass or a limitation of Firefox that’s causing it, but it’s enough of a headache for how often I use LastPass that it prevents me from switching browsers.
Is there an alternative to LastPass that has a better user experience on Firefox? If so I’ll try it.
EDIT: I'll test out Bitwarden.
This actually happened to me. Maybe a year or so ago, I started to switch, but I wasn't having much luck with LastPass, especially on my Android phone. But then maybe 6 months ago I switched to BitWarden and found I was able to switch to Firefox on Windows and Android. There were still some early teething pains but by now it's almost always a good experience.
BitWarden
Unfortunately - my company is standardized on LastPass, so it makes it extra difficult
Unfortunately - my company is standardized on LastPass, so it makes it extra difficult
I’m making the switch now and everything seems good so far.
Dashlane maybe?
Bitwarden?
A few things that still make me not love FF:
- Going full screen on Youtube takes longer than Chrome at least on OS X and there is a momentarily black screen.
- Moving the cursor to the top of a full screen video in Chrome brings down the OS X menu bar this is useful if you want to check the time/date/other menu bar activity, in FF nothing happens when moving the mouse to the top of the screen in full screen mode.
- When a page requests to send web notifications FF basically pretty much blocks the entire browser until you answer whether you want to allow the notification or not, this is very annoying if you visit many sites for the first time that ask for notification permission, which apparently a lot of them nowadays do, making it more apparent now that I switched to FF from Chrome.
There might be settings you can change to fix these, but even if that's the case not having them set as default makes me question whether I made the right choice making the switch.
- Going full screen on Youtube takes longer than Chrome at least on OS X and there is a momentarily black screen.
- Moving the cursor to the top of a full screen video in Chrome brings down the OS X menu bar this is useful if you want to check the time/date/other menu bar activity, in FF nothing happens when moving the mouse to the top of the screen in full screen mode.
- When a page requests to send web notifications FF basically pretty much blocks the entire browser until you answer whether you want to allow the notification or not, this is very annoying if you visit many sites for the first time that ask for notification permission, which apparently a lot of them nowadays do, making it more apparent now that I switched to FF from Chrome.
There might be settings you can change to fix these, but even if that's the case not having them set as default makes me question whether I made the right choice making the switch.
I actually just gave this another try. First thing I did was see if WebAuthn/U2F support finally works well with Google services, which it now does!
Second thing I did was try to open a private window using the universal macOS shortcut of Cmd+Shift+N. Nothing happened, because Firefox decided to use Cmd+Shift+P unlike all other browsers. No problem, this is a macOS app, I’ll just change the keyboard shortcut in system preferences and I’ll be good to go. Except after doing that, Firefox doesn’t actually respect the remapped shortcut (an issue which has existed for 11 years).
And the baked in color management is not correct for a macOS app, and the right click menus are not Mac-like and don’t respect dark mode.
I thought it was time to make the switch, but the reality is that Firefox is still an even poorer macOS app than Chrome. Fix that and I’ll switch tomorrow, as I really want to ditch Chrome!
Second thing I did was try to open a private window using the universal macOS shortcut of Cmd+Shift+N. Nothing happened, because Firefox decided to use Cmd+Shift+P unlike all other browsers. No problem, this is a macOS app, I’ll just change the keyboard shortcut in system preferences and I’ll be good to go. Except after doing that, Firefox doesn’t actually respect the remapped shortcut (an issue which has existed for 11 years).
And the baked in color management is not correct for a macOS app, and the right click menus are not Mac-like and don’t respect dark mode.
I thought it was time to make the switch, but the reality is that Firefox is still an even poorer macOS app than Chrome. Fix that and I’ll switch tomorrow, as I really want to ditch Chrome!
Why do you want to switch from Chrome? There are other alternatives that might fit the bill.
Cmd+Shift+N reopens the last closed window
Funny, that (also non-standard) keyboard shortcut is not shown in the menu anywhere and thus can't easily be remapped using the standard macOS keyboard preferences. I don't know if my Cmd+Shift+N private window remapping is failing due to the conflict, or if it's Firefox just not knowing about the remapping. But either way, it appears I can't easily remap Firefox's reopen last closed window to Cmd+Shift+T like other macOS browsers use.
I've been happily using Firefox for about 2-3 months now.
The main difference I've noticed is how easy it is to get the same experience and in some cases a better experience on Firefox just but taking 15-30 minutes to set it up.
Chrome was my browser for almost all of the 2010s and now I'm happy to say I'm not stuck with it.
The main difference I've noticed is how easy it is to get the same experience and in some cases a better experience on Firefox just but taking 15-30 minutes to set it up.
Chrome was my browser for almost all of the 2010s and now I'm happy to say I'm not stuck with it.
A few months ago I created an alfred workflow to help train quick `⌘ + space` users to use Firefox.
https://github.com/jasonraimondi/alfred-workflow-launch-fire...
https://github.com/jasonraimondi/alfred-workflow-launch-fire...
How much of Firefox success depends on donations?
I have seen successful crowd-funding projects where the budget is always transparent and communicated to the public. I am certain this motivates the masses to donate.
Wouldn't it be better for Mozilla to make their funding fully transparent, to attract the masses?
I have seen successful crowd-funding projects where the budget is always transparent and communicated to the public. I am certain this motivates the masses to donate.
Wouldn't it be better for Mozilla to make their funding fully transparent, to attract the masses?
From what I've seen of their recent revenue the overwhelming majority (95%) comes from royalties received from search engine companies (Google, etc), while only a fraction (~1%) comes from donations.
I did switch to Firefox and then they broke all extensions so I switched back. Chrome just works better.
Firefox is a great browser. However, the reason I end up back on Chrome is because neither iOS or Android have Firefox as the default browser.
Sadly, as a front-end focused dev life is easier to build stuff out for Chrome and to a lesser extent, Safari because you know that’s the rendering engine the vast majority of your users will see.
I’d happily opt for Safari, as I respect Safaris ethos (privacy, speed, battery perf etc) but their dev tools are lacking so many basic features. Bugs like this don’t help: https://mobile.twitter.com/benfrain/status/11311423923866419...
I've switched from Chrome to Brave.. It's fast, clean, "seems" more minimalist, it's got good default privacy features (blocks tracking and stuff), It's based on Chromium and you can use all your Chrome extensions etc. The only thing I had to do to make sure I stuck with it was delete Chrome so I don't accidentally out of habit or muscle memory start Chrome.. it's worked beautifully and it's the best browser I've ever used I think. (bonus: they also have a cool way that you can pay your favorite websites - it's not super now because it's mostly crypto currency but soon if you can subscribe via credit card that would be nice).
Just throwing it out there, this post is currently at 3239 and needs 151 votes to move to the seventh highest rank in HN history and 154 votes to move to the sixth highest rank.
As long as we're saying how we really feel, we should +1 to move it up the ladder.
As long as we're saying how we really feel, we should +1 to move it up the ladder.
Controversial question from someone not as informed on the state of current as most here:
Anyone thinking of switching to a browser that doesn't have any script-interpretation ability? (Text-only or html/css only?) What options are currently out there?
Anyone thinking of switching to a browser that doesn't have any script-interpretation ability? (Text-only or html/css only?) What options are currently out there?
Firefox works just open about:config and turn off javascript. Sadly you will quickly find most of the modern internet breaks under these circumstances.
I will tell my story.
I use Chrome for years, but recently a new update(I dunno the exact version) lags my laptop so much that it can not even used normally, everything delay several seconds, I spend several days and finally found out its the Chrome did this to my computer.Note: I am using an old laptop, but its still solid.
So I have to reinstall Chrome, I have no choice. Then I give firefox a try, to my surprise, with just a few of clicks, all my bookmarks and cookies are all ported to firefox seamlessly, very comfortable feature I'd say.
So yeah, if you are using old PC like me, u may feel lags when using new Chrome browser, and I suggest u to switch to Firefox, I DOES work!
I use Chrome for years, but recently a new update(I dunno the exact version) lags my laptop so much that it can not even used normally, everything delay several seconds, I spend several days and finally found out its the Chrome did this to my computer.Note: I am using an old laptop, but its still solid.
So I have to reinstall Chrome, I have no choice. Then I give firefox a try, to my surprise, with just a few of clicks, all my bookmarks and cookies are all ported to firefox seamlessly, very comfortable feature I'd say.
So yeah, if you are using old PC like me, u may feel lags when using new Chrome browser, and I suggest u to switch to Firefox, I DOES work!
I will say I love firefox containers, they are surprisingly simple to set and forget and have it "just work".
My least favorite parts of firefox (switched last weekend) are:
Dark mode. Dark Reader from Chrome is dead slow on Firefox, and none of the 5 others I've tried from Reddit/HN recommendations come close to its usability on Chrome.
Extension / config syncing. I want the same settings and extensions on my mobile device as my desktop, but it seems like only some configuration settings are able to sync, and add-ons/extensions don't sync between mobile and desktop. I know it's on purpose, but I'd like the option to choose.
My least favorite parts of firefox (switched last weekend) are:
Dark mode. Dark Reader from Chrome is dead slow on Firefox, and none of the 5 others I've tried from Reddit/HN recommendations come close to its usability on Chrome.
Extension / config syncing. I want the same settings and extensions on my mobile device as my desktop, but it seems like only some configuration settings are able to sync, and add-ons/extensions don't sync between mobile and desktop. I know it's on purpose, but I'd like the option to choose.
[deleted]
I'd like to add that Firefox on mobile supports plug-ins, and Chrome on mobile does not. This means that you can run an adblocker, or other UI tweaks of your liking, on mobile, where ads hurt (both the UI and UX) the most.
I've been back to FF since Quantum release and like the new experience so far. Occasionally, I have to use Chrome since some of the internal websites at work don't work with Firefox. I always get those errors related to cross-site scripting issue like this:
"Cross-Origin Request Blocked: The Same Origin Policy disallows reading the remote resource at https://internal-xxxxxxx. (Reason: CORS header ‘Access-Control-Allow-Origin’ missing)."
Does anybody know what kind of knob I have to turn on/off in FF to make this disappear?
"Cross-Origin Request Blocked: The Same Origin Policy disallows reading the remote resource at https://internal-xxxxxxx. (Reason: CORS header ‘Access-Control-Allow-Origin’ missing)."
Does anybody know what kind of knob I have to turn on/off in FF to make this disappear?
I use cloud profiles heavily. All bookmarks, history, plugins. However, if ads get re-enabled for Chrome, then I am definitely going to have to figure out how to port myself back to Firefox. Very, very, very, annoying.
I finally made the switch a few months ago. I have no regrets. I used to use Firefox back in the windows XP days before chrome even existed, but since Chrome came out I've been sort of stuck in it largely because the gsuite integration and the fact that I am part of 7 different google organizations that I have to juggle.
What killed chrome for me is the gradually failing linux support. Had a persistent bug on all my linux machines with chrome (and chromium) would only update the view if the mouse is moving. I actually put up with that for a few months before I switched to FF.
What killed chrome for me is the gradually failing linux support. Had a persistent bug on all my linux machines with chrome (and chromium) would only update the view if the mouse is moving. I actually put up with that for a few months before I switched to FF.
While Firefox is pretty great, be under no illusion that it’s a utopia of openness. It’s plugins are signed and quite tightly controlled. They banned the controversial ‘Dissenter’ plug-in seemingly for political reasons, and recently had the expired certificate ‘oops’ that rendered all plugins unusable for a day or so (without fiddly workarounds)
They too could well bend to corporate pressures to limit ad-blocking, they already have the tech that could be used to block widespread use of ad blockers?
They too could well bend to corporate pressures to limit ad-blocking, they already have the tech that could be used to block widespread use of ad blockers?
Did they block it, or just ban it from their store? I thought people could still install it themselves.
It's banned from their store, and as of April, at least, it can only be loaded as a temporary add-on and must be manually reactivated each time Firefox is started.
The expired cert weekend gave me the impression that using unsigned plugins, while possible for dev purposes, is quite a pain, and therefore being banned from the ‘store’ would pretty much mean banned from mainstream (non-dev, non-forked) releases of Firefox?
I may be wrong, though?
I may be wrong, though?
The situation follows the "mobile" (cellphone, tablet) situation where Chrome was just not providing an extension API that could be used to implement adblockers (or much else for that matter, e.g. Cookienukers).
This is no surprise at all. Competitive pressure for "desktop" (non-crippled computers incl. Laptops) required providing suitable extension APIs, but the writing was on the wall for a long time.
Some powerful people inside Google consider it theft to browse the web while blocking ads.
This is no surprise at all. Competitive pressure for "desktop" (non-crippled computers incl. Laptops) required providing suitable extension APIs, but the writing was on the wall for a long time.
Some powerful people inside Google consider it theft to browse the web while blocking ads.
[deleted]
I happily use Google services inside a separate Firefox container. I do have Chrome installed on one of my laptops but haven't used it for a long while.
Anyway, I am not a hater on Google, I appreciate their open contribution to deep learning tools and I happily pay for GCP, Play books and movies, and I use gmail as a backup email.
But for me, Firefox is just such a better experience than Chrome.
It is also a good idea to have a diverse ecology for Internet infrastructure, tools, and platforms. More choices are better.
Anyway, I am not a hater on Google, I appreciate their open contribution to deep learning tools and I happily pay for GCP, Play books and movies, and I use gmail as a backup email.
But for me, Firefox is just such a better experience than Chrome.
It is also a good idea to have a diverse ecology for Internet infrastructure, tools, and platforms. More choices are better.
Chrome is now my mail, calendar, and maps app. It took me a good month to psychologically pivot myself into thinking this way but it’s worked.
Everything else is on Firefox now.
Everything else is on Firefox now.
What I want is a "canned" installer for firefox that has all my preferences saved. Sync is ok, but I'd rather not even give that information to Mozilla. Instead, give me an installation package that will allow me to provide a config file next to it, and the ability to automatically create the config file from an existing install.
I want search engines, home pages, and plug-ins way more than I need my bookmarks.
I want search engines, home pages, and plug-ins way more than I need my bookmarks.
You're not giving anything to Mozilla. It's end to end encrypted.
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/11/firefox-sync-privacy/
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/11/firefox-sync-privacy/
The one hope we have is if enough savvy users not only switch but convince all their network of friends and family to switch as well. DO IT!
I have been using Firefox as my default browser for as long as I can remember and after the release of Quantum I have loved using Firefox even more. I still have Chrome for cross-browser testing and the occasional website that loads correctly on Chrome, but not Firefox (for whatever reason). However, this occurs very rarely.
A big thank you to Mozilla. Keep up the great work!
A big thank you to Mozilla. Keep up the great work!
What's up with Firefox's font rendering?
It seems pretty bad.
Here is this HN thread in both for comparison (On Win10)
https://i.imgur.com/ZDVoWXI.png
Notice how the Firefox sample seems bolder, but with uneven letter weight and generally a higher line height. It's not good for readability. Kerning is a bit iffy also.
It seems pretty bad.
Here is this HN thread in both for comparison (On Win10)
https://i.imgur.com/ZDVoWXI.png
Notice how the Firefox sample seems bolder, but with uneven letter weight and generally a higher line height. It's not good for readability. Kerning is a bit iffy also.
Try to move passwords from Chrome to Firefox on Mac.
The easiest solution is to install Windows in VirtualBox and do it there, with Firefox Sync on.
The easiest solution is to install Windows in VirtualBox and do it there, with Firefox Sync on.
Some of the current issues I face with Firefox. They are mostly UI/UX-choices that are personal to me.
* No global zoom by default which also remembers per-page zoom changes. * Bookmarking is overly cluttered with with other other, toolbar, menu, etc. * Skype Web doesn't work on Firefox. * User profiles which are as easily accessible as in Chrome.
* No global zoom by default which also remembers per-page zoom changes. * Bookmarking is overly cluttered with with other other, toolbar, menu, etc. * Skype Web doesn't work on Firefox. * User profiles which are as easily accessible as in Chrome.
At least for the last, try container tabs. They seem to be generally regarded as superior (in convenience) to Chrome's profiles.
I switched a few months ago after the forced login debacle. I thought it'd be long to get adjusted, but it was very fast.
> Firefox imports your bookmarks, autofills, passwords and preferences from Chrome.
I can't for the life of me figure out how to do this. I went to File > Import from another browser... and got a dialog that only allowed me to select "Cookies, Browsing History, or Bookmarks". No mention of autofills or passwords.
Am I missing something here?
I can't for the life of me figure out how to do this. I went to File > Import from another browser... and got a dialog that only allowed me to select "Cookies, Browsing History, or Bookmarks". No mention of autofills or passwords.
Am I missing something here?
I tend to use both and keep switching between home/work but it just feels like FF is still not as snappy in terms of performance (could just be my perception -- no actual data on this one).
I think the Manifest V3 change on ad-blocking is probably a big win for FF and will likely make many people switch over to FF permanently.
I think the Manifest V3 change on ad-blocking is probably a big win for FF and will likely make many people switch over to FF permanently.
Random, only slightly-related question: has any one used suckless' surf? I've seen it recommended by the hyper-minimalist nuts, but am more looking into it so I can tweak it easily. I figure it would be a lot easier than trying to slog through webkit, gecko, servo, blink, etc. as it is so much simpler.
Surf is good at what it does. You might also consider uzbl.
> slog through webkit
Isn't surf based on WebKit?
Isn't surf based on WebKit?
Does it mean that passwords are stored in clear? If not, how other browsers manage to import this data?
Sorry if the question is silly
Sorry if the question is silly
Passwords are generally stored in the system keyring, or in some system-provided secure storage. I am 95% sure Firefox just reads this.
(It's also possible to CSV export from Chrome's password manager. I used this to import everything into BitWarden.)
(It's also possible to CSV export from Chrome's password manager. I used this to import everything into BitWarden.)
Chrome MacOS used to store passwords in the MacOS keychain, but stopped. (Not sure if they are stored securely now, but they do not seem to be stored using OS functionality).
Are you positive (not just assuming, cause it would amke sense) FF MacOS still uses the MacOS keychain? Cause that's a plus if so.
Are you positive (not just assuming, cause it would amke sense) FF MacOS still uses the MacOS keychain? Cause that's a plus if so.
Thanks for the explanation!
So, any software running on my computer can access it without my permission?
I switched Firefox today, after so many years on Chrome. One of the reasons I found valid to use Chrome it was having the browsing history on my phone, but now i felt i really don't care that much. I value more to be controlling all privacy and not eating that many cookies, scripts.
Try Firefox for mobile. As a bonus you'll get add-ons as well so you can block ads.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/mobile/
https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/mobile/
I didn't see this mentioned, but for a bit more customization, check out Firefox Profilemaker, a tool to "help you to create a Firefox profile with the defaults you like": https://ffprofile.com
I saw a comment on a previous thread say that WebRender will fix the unacceptable performance on retina MBPs. FF 67 released webrender to stable, but only for Windows 10 per the release notes.
Will WebRender fix the CPU taxing problem, and will that be released for macOS in a subsequent release?
Will WebRender fix the CPU taxing problem, and will that be released for macOS in a subsequent release?
Fix for that is scheduled for june 2019 https://github.com/orgs/FirefoxGraphics/projects/1 (I'm just waiting for this too, I don't know anything more about it, I hope they will really ship this on time)
You can try it yourself:
about:config
gfx.webrender.all -> true
restart browser
about:config
gfx.webrender.all -> true
restart browser
The only reason I don't switch is that whenever Firefox has control of the webcam, I can't seem to be able to access the webcam with any other software, is this configurable? I work with webRTC a lot, so this is essential for me, I really want to switch
What do you think of the approach of using Firefox for your personal life and Chrome for your work life?
I'm always doing web development with webrtc, having two browsers open simultanously? Not an option
I would use FF more (and GC less) if FF supported multiple users the way GC does. I have a Chrome instance for each project/client. That has its own bookmarks, history, password manager, etc. Everything is silo'ed and therefore neatly organized.
There’s one annoyance I have with Firefox right now and it’s the search bar. When I type the start of a frequently visited site then instead of jumping to that site it googles my half-word. Very annoying and different to Safari or Chrome.
People have this idea that Chrome is the fastest browser... is this even true anymore?
I remember we used to have "IE Tab" for websites which were so bad that they needed IE and failed otherwise. I think Firefox needs a "Chrome Tab" which runs some website in chromium for the really bad offenders.
[deleted]
Firefox UI is absolute shit. Takes ages to figure out what the fucking buttons do because who needs labels?!
Chromes is no better, just speaks to the current situation and lack of UX professionals on the dev teams.
I tried switching to Firefox so many times but have to go back to Chrome for performance reasons.
There is still an open problem on Retina Macbooks with scaled resolution where the performance drops like 10x over non-scaled versions.
There is still an open problem on Retina Macbooks with scaled resolution where the performance drops like 10x over non-scaled versions.
I’ve been using Firefox (quantum) on my 2016 retina MBP for years and haven’t ever noticed any performance issues.
While you're at it, stop using Google products altogether.
This cycle will only repeat itself, Google is an advertising company.
If you work for this company, please quit and ply your talents somewhere less motivated to exploit people.
This cycle will only repeat itself, Google is an advertising company.
If you work for this company, please quit and ply your talents somewhere less motivated to exploit people.
[deleted]
Dunno if it's just me but one thing preventing me from switching is my preference for the chrome dev tools. To me they are just head and shoulders easier to use than the firefox or safari versions.
Ugh. Look, I used to use Chrome as my primary browser but I switched to Firefox like a year ago. I tried really, really hard to stay with Firefox. But it just doesn't work as well as Chrome. I get that it's not entirely Firefox's fault. Sometimes it is (for instance when things crash in Firefox it almost always crashes my entire browser, Chrome never crashes that way). But it's hard to tell a user to go use another browser when everyone is testing and using Chrome.
It's IE6 all over again just in different ways.
Perhaps I'll try a chronium fork. Sure it's not as good of a move but maybe I'll have better luck with issues. I'll likely try Firefox again to see if things are better (I usually use Firefox for some things at work anyway).
It's IE6 all over again just in different ways.
Perhaps I'll try a chronium fork. Sure it's not as good of a move but maybe I'll have better luck with issues. I'll likely try Firefox again to see if things are better (I usually use Firefox for some things at work anyway).
A lot of responses I see on any Firefox HN post talk about bugs/issues which have [mostly] been addressed by Mozilla. This includes separate processes per tab which came out just a few versions ago. The problem is that these issues have been resolved more recently vs a year or more ago. It seems many people tried switching to FF long time ago when those outstanding issues were still there so many didn't left up switching because the bugs put a bad taste in their mouth. At this point in 2019, from my perspective, FF and Chrome are functionally the same at this point so there's really no reason to continue using Chrome.
You seem to have not really read my comment, made some assumptions and created some straw-men. I'm not entirely sure why.
As I mentioned before I switched entirely to Firefox about a year ago. I only switched back fairly recently (Firefox shipped separate processes _years_ ago). I also continue to use Firefox daily at work. It still isn't as good, as much as I hate to say it. Some issues have gotten better but not all. They are still not equivalent (especially in web dev tooling) and many sites, like YouTube, still have weird issues in Firefox (full screen mode on my Surface Pro 4 still doesn't work right; it's like it switches to a weird software renderer).
Chrome just _always_ works. And I hate to say it, too.
As I mentioned before I switched entirely to Firefox about a year ago. I only switched back fairly recently (Firefox shipped separate processes _years_ ago). I also continue to use Firefox daily at work. It still isn't as good, as much as I hate to say it. Some issues have gotten better but not all. They are still not equivalent (especially in web dev tooling) and many sites, like YouTube, still have weird issues in Firefox (full screen mode on my Surface Pro 4 still doesn't work right; it's like it switches to a weird software renderer).
Chrome just _always_ works. And I hate to say it, too.
Let's talk again when https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1404042 is fixed.
In their roadmap it's scheduled for june 2019 https://github.com/orgs/FirefoxGraphics/projects/1
We will see. Thank you for the link.
Brave Browser seems to do everything I normally would use Chrome for, with none of the issues that caused me to leave Firefox in the first place.
FF performance is improved, but still lagging, especially on Mobile.
FF performance is improved, but still lagging, especially on Mobile.
I switched back to firefox little before the quantum release because I was around when we had Internet Explorer 6 (and the many years of fallout from it). What's your excuse for using chrome?
I suggest that we instead switch to Pale Moon. Whatever you might feel about Moonchild, the browser is solid and reliable. All it really could benefit from would be a wider add-on dev community.
What would be the benefit of doing this?
I'm on mobile, so it's not going to be as verbose as usual. In no particular order:
Moving away from large corps, breaking up the homogeny of the web, keeping XUL alive, having a browser focused on the end UX rather than the UI and the corp needs, and having add-ons that can actually affect the browser - not the little playground Google thinks will be profitable.
Moving away from large corps, breaking up the homogeny of the web, keeping XUL alive, having a browser focused on the end UX rather than the UI and the corp needs, and having add-ons that can actually affect the browser - not the little playground Google thinks will be profitable.
I understand perfectly the need to switch from Chrome, as I've only ever used Firefox. What I meant was to understand the difference between Firefox and this browser (other than the point of breaking up homogeneity, which I agree is a great thing overall)
Pale Moon uses XUL, not WebExtentions, and provides (subjective) a better browser UX. Only major concern for mass adoption is that it doesn't support DRM content.
I almost switched a few months ago but didn't because Chrome just felt smoother, but I'm sorry, this is the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Firefox supports every extension I care about.
I'm a convert.
Firefox supports every extension I care about.
I'm a convert.
Does anyone have a single thing that Chrome does that FF does not?
For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone uses Chrome. But if anyone has information on Chrome that I do not, please let me know.
For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone uses Chrome. But if anyone has information on Chrome that I do not, please let me know.
Here are ones I find useful myself:
- TRR (Trusted Recursive Resolver -- e.g. DNS Over HTTPS) - Add-On supports on Android - Multi-Account Container (although this is more of Add-on)
- TRR (Trusted Recursive Resolver -- e.g. DNS Over HTTPS) - Add-On supports on Android - Multi-Account Container (although this is more of Add-on)
He was asking for the reverse -- what does Chrome offer extra?
the 'tab to search' feature that lets you search websites directly from the searchbar. Apparently you can set up something similar in firefox but you have to do it for every site individually, which is too inconvenient for me.
Also VAAPI support on linux, which firefox ironically treats like a second class citizen. Can't watch HD videos on youtube without my cpu melting on Firefox.
Also VAAPI support on linux, which firefox ironically treats like a second class citizen. Can't watch HD videos on youtube without my cpu melting on Firefox.
I really like my Chromebook, but also would really prefer Firefox.
Even with Crostini, there doesn't seem to be a good way to get an official FF build onto the chromebook. Or am I missing something?
Even with Crostini, there doesn't seem to be a good way to get an official FF build onto the chromebook. Or am I missing something?
I use Firefox on mac. One feature that is missing in Firefox is that it cannot do a smooth pan zoom like Safari or Chrome. Hope Firefox developer fix this in future release.
Already made the switch. My workflow has hardly changed at all.
For me it was hard to train myself to stop using Chrome and start using Firefox. A few months ago I created an alfred workflow to help train quick `⌘ + space` users to use Firefox.
https://github.com/jasonraimondi/alfred-workflow-launch-fire...
https://github.com/jasonraimondi/alfred-workflow-launch-fire...
Is there a good, crossplatform, embedable browser as an alternative to cef? As far as i know there's gecko which is outdated and servo ain't there yet...
My issue is extensions. Firefox will never have all the extensions I use on Chrome. I want to switch. I use firefox on my mobile. But I cant do it on my desktops.
Firefox supports nearly the same web-extensions API as Chrome. Often porting to firefox means a couple of tweaks are necessary on the part of the author, but try https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-store-... and see if maybe the extension you want is already usable.
From a developer perspective, I'd say bit modern as well. For example, FF extension APIs use Promises, which are relatively pleasant to deal with than callbacks that Chrome uses.
How cool is this! Thanks for sharing
You can install Chrome extensions as-is and 99% of the time they just work. There was a helper addon for fetching from the chrome store: https://github.com/Noitidart/Chrome-Store-Foxified — temporarily needs an older firefox copy to work. But you can always repack manually.
That seems odd given that they use the same APIs. I switched about a month or two ago. That involved moving at least 10+ extensions with no issue, and all of them even have the same UI.
What extensions in particular are you missing?
What extensions in particular are you missing?
What they ALSO need to implement is differential sync... so if you continue to accidentally use Google Chrome then Firefox can just snarf in change for you.
Here's the secret: Make Firefox faster than Chrome. I'll switch. I'll push Firefox on all my customers, my family, my friends, everybody.
I've never switched to Chrome from Firefox. I don't really care that it's 10% faster, when Chrome is wielded as a weapon against freedom.
This page does not make clear how to switch back if the user get anything wrong by switching to Firefox. That is probably the biggest blocker right now.
Just open Chrome.
'Switching' doesn't stop Chrome from working, it just imports the Chrome data so you don't have to re-create bookmarks, etc.
'Switching' doesn't stop Chrome from working, it just imports the Chrome data so you don't have to re-create bookmarks, etc.
[deleted]
[deleted]
So.. i switched yesterday and the Firefox app downloaded 1.5gb by itself overnight.. no idea why it was using so much data.. had to uninstall it..
> "Switch from Chrome to Firefox"
Yes. Good advice.
Yes. Good advice.
I'm curious if anyone knows of a means of transferring over saved Session Buddy sessions from Chrome to something comparable in Firefox.
To note, firefox quantum is a game changer. Worth switching to on that alone.
Overall once firefox did process isolation, chrome had no more reason to exist.
Overall once firefox did process isolation, chrome had no more reason to exist.
Why? After trying Opera many times in the past, now that it's using Chromium and supports the plugins, I am now a die-hard fan.
Has anyone actually Wireshark'ed a machine with just Chrome running?
I ask because I keep reading about how Google is bad because of their business, but I haven't seen an actual pcap, or any reporting for that matter, on what Google actually sends back home.
If you have, or know of a place that has done that, I'd be interested to read about it.
Until then, Chrome, and Firefox are just more tools in my arsenal; and people trying to get me to ditch one, just because they dont like it, is just outright dumb.
I ask because I keep reading about how Google is bad because of their business, but I haven't seen an actual pcap, or any reporting for that matter, on what Google actually sends back home.
If you have, or know of a place that has done that, I'd be interested to read about it.
Until then, Chrome, and Firefox are just more tools in my arsenal; and people trying to get me to ditch one, just because they dont like it, is just outright dumb.
I like Chrome. I also like Firefox. I choose, now, to use Chrome. I respect the decision of others to use something else.
When will uBlock Origin stop working on Chrome? Is there an estimate date? I'd appreciate if someone could tell me.
Most people here already dislike Google and Chrome, and are just looking for an excuse to promote Firefox. Realistically, I honestly don't see a world where there is no way to block ads on Chrome. Right now, it's not clear what the final thing will look like, so if I was you I'd just wait. We probably won't know for sure for months or a year.
I've been using Firefox since 2005. When Chrome came out, I tried it, said "ok," and kept using Firefox.
Been using it since a few months, mainly because it can stop autoplaying all audio/video and no login nagging.
Think I'll stick to PaleMoon, at least until Mozilla rethinks their policy on requiring PulseAudio.
Are there anything that help with switching existing session? (I have like 400 tabs opened in 60+ windows.)
It's still going to be a hassle, but you should be able to do it fairly easily with the OneTab plugin and its import/export functionality. The plug-in exists for both browsers and I've moved sessions that way before.
Does anyone have a good impression about how Firefox's energy consumption compares to Safari's?
Safari’s is superior, definitely. No problem with using Safari if that’s your priority.
Safari is best (on macOS).
Edge is also best (but on Windows).
Usually the browser designed by the authors of the platform you run it on, will be best for power consumption, sometimes significantly so.
Edge is also best (but on Windows).
Usually the browser designed by the authors of the platform you run it on, will be best for power consumption, sometimes significantly so.
If I could just get it to start up as reliably as Chrome, I would. Instead, I have to hope I won't get the "black window" on startup, where I have to play a cat and mouse game of killing the process and restarting it until it works. I do use FF for some things, like HN, but unfortunately, I must use Chrome when I just need things to work right away on the first try.
Passwords didn't work for me in mac, but you should switch now while you have the choice.
[deleted]
Switch to Safari instead if you're on Mac, if you care about privacy and security: https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-att...
And if you want more broken websites, sure.
Safari is the new IE when it comes to bugs and standards compliance.
Here's an example that broke many many sites that use OAuth2 Auth Code Flow for login (including the main UI portal my company provides clients): https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194906
This was also an issue in iOS, and since Apple doesn't let any other browsers actually use their own rendering engine on that platform (they're just wrappers around Safari's guts) this was broken for all iPhone users no matter the browser.
I avoid using iDevices for this reason alone.
Safari is the new IE when it comes to bugs and standards compliance.
Here's an example that broke many many sites that use OAuth2 Auth Code Flow for login (including the main UI portal my company provides clients): https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194906
This was also an issue in iOS, and since Apple doesn't let any other browsers actually use their own rendering engine on that platform (they're just wrappers around Safari's guts) this was broken for all iPhone users no matter the browser.
I avoid using iDevices for this reason alone.
I like Safari, but its extension system is even more restrictive. Something like uBlock Origin cannot be implemented anymore.
It's an Apple tradition — if you like what's in the box, great, but you won't be able to customize it much later.
It's an Apple tradition — if you like what's in the box, great, but you won't be able to customize it much later.
I was surprised to see your comment, in Safari, directly below the uBlock Origin icon. It seems to be working fine for me. Do you have more details on what you mean?
Legacy Safari extensions will no longer be supported. Scroll down to "Safari Extensions".
https://webkit.org/blog/8825/release-notes-for-safari-techno...
https://webkit.org/blog/8825/release-notes-for-safari-techno...
Today I learned something new. Thank you.
Very impressed with FF 67, I've stopped using Chrome.
The sync between devices is very well done.
The sync between devices is very well done.
[deleted](1)
Waiting for Firefox on Android and macOS to become usable here :/
Firefox Beta is at 68 now and still not way to set the default zoom...
You can use adguard to go around google's changes in browser api
other ethical alternatives have been compiled here: https://ethical.net/resources/
Do you guys use Firefox's password manager? Or something else?
I personally use Firefox's sync to save passwords across devices, but most passwords I store in a normal lastpass/1password/etc service.
It comes in very handy to have a non-browser-based password store for when you are out and about and dont have access to on of your own laptops/desktops but do have your phone handly (where you can look up the passwords)
It comes in very handy to have a non-browser-based password store for when you are out and about and dont have access to on of your own laptops/desktops but do have your phone handly (where you can look up the passwords)
Look into Browserpass..
Or Enpass, or if you still want free then Bitwarden.
Or Enpass, or if you still want free then Bitwarden.
I WOULD SWITCH IF THEIR DEV TOOLS WERE AS GOOD AS CHROME'S
And if they supported hardware accelerated video on Linux like Chromium on many distros.
If Google kicks adblockers, Chrome will be dead within a year.
[deleted]
I switched only a few weeks ago and am not looking back!
Sure, as soon as its dev tools aren’t complete garbage.
Can also switch to https://brave.com/, based on Chromium, with native ad blocking at the lowest level, fast.
Shouldnt we instead promote the major competitor with sufficient funding so that people are more likely to stick with for longer term?
No, _we_ don't have to align on this and people can have more than one choice. Brave is open source and is trying to fix the web.
Support localhost subdomains (http://foo.localhost:8080) like Chrome does and I'll consider it!
Right-Click + "Customize..." FTW!
Firefox was lost to me when they removed the dissenter plugin from their plugins site. Using the dissenter browser now. It’s fast and it works great.
Qt: PLEASE go back to WebKit. QtWebEngine will never be safe. I will just never use it. It's Chrome, and Chrome is Google.
And Google is evil.
And Google is evil.
Firefox is the right choice.
This feels like the time GitHub was acquired by Microsoft and people started migrating to GitLab!
I switched to Brave browser last year and I never regretted my decision.
Brave is based on Chromium.
So what ? It gives me optimum performance Desktop and Mobile.
On my Mac its upto 2 times faster and in my android phone it's upto 4 times faster.
On my Mac its upto 2 times faster and in my android phone it's upto 4 times faster.
Using Brave will provide no benefit regarding the extension changes you are mentioning, unless Brave forks and stays on an older version of Chromium. Where are you seeing speed enhancements? When it comes to loading pages, or in task manager?
Yes. Page loading is faster in Brave
It's even more faster in case if site is full of ads and internet connection is slow.
It's even more faster in case if site is full of ads and internet connection is slow.
I WOULD SWITCH IF THEIR DEV TOOLS WERE AS GOOD AS CHOME'S
Good timing
add translation to firefox and then I'll switch
Firefox is back where it was back in like 2005, but instead of fighting IE/Microsoft, it's fighting Chrome/Google. Although now it has a bit more of a checkered record than it once did. Everything old is new again.
I really wish Microsoft would open source the Edge/Titan engine. There can't possibly be any NSCA code in there they don't own the rights too anymore.
I really wish Microsoft would open source the Edge/Titan engine. There can't possibly be any NSCA code in there they don't own the rights too anymore.
I really wish that if Microsoft was going to abandon having their own engine that they'd gone to Mozilla instead.
They really can't, though. There's a pile of corpses of people who tried to embed Gecko, because it turns out Netscape/Mozilla is really bad at keeping a stable ABI. I doubt anybody remembers K-meleon anymore, for example. As far as I know Servo was supposed to be the new, embeddable engine, but that's mostly cancelled now and the Rust bits are just being rolled into Gecko (via Project Quantum).
I believe that's why Webkit was based on KHTML… the Mozilla developers Apple hired realized that had a better chance of working.
Maybe Mozilla has changed since all that happened and they're more friendly to embedders now? I've been out of the loop for a few years at this point. I don't think I've heard anything though, and they've built up a reputation…
I believe that's why Webkit was based on KHTML… the Mozilla developers Apple hired realized that had a better chance of working.
Maybe Mozilla has changed since all that happened and they're more friendly to embedders now? I've been out of the loop for a few years at this point. I don't think I've heard anything though, and they've built up a reputation…
Well, they are not embedding Blink to build a new browser either - they just fork Chrome. They could have forked Firefox the same way and customize it to their liking.
But that would not have solve their web compatibility issue in such an easy way.
But that would not have solve their web compatibility issue in such an easy way.
For what it's worth, Mozilla now has GeckoView, which has a stable embedding API. But yeah, it took about 15 too many years to get there...
I thought GeckoView is Android-only? Which means Microsoft couldn't exactly use it for Edge…
What benefit does Microsoft have by using Mozilla instead? Earnest question.
Electron, the software framework VSCode uses, runs on Chromium. Github maintained and developed the framework and they are currently owned by Microsoft. If Microsoft contributes to Chromium and improves performance they benefit in a lot of places: their new browser is improved(Edge Chromium), their own framework(Electron), and their own product (VSCode).
Electron, the software framework VSCode uses, runs on Chromium. Github maintained and developed the framework and they are currently owned by Microsoft. If Microsoft contributes to Chromium and improves performance they benefit in a lot of places: their new browser is improved(Edge Chromium), their own framework(Electron), and their own product (VSCode).
One benefit would be to reduce dependency on Google. Huawei used Android that was owned by enemy country, it backfired.
They aren't really dependent on Google with Blink, though. They have developer resources that can maintain a fork of it. If Google does something Microsoft doesn't like they can just remove it form their tree or implement an alternative of their own design.
They can diverge from Chromium around the edges but they are dependent on Google for long-term Blink evolution. That includes not just the internals but also APIs. E.g. if/when Google removes powerful content-blocking APIs from Chromium, Microsoft is would struggle to maintain their own different API. Especially for APIs that have architectural implications ... converting something from sync to async or vice versa. Significant architectural divergence would get expensive pretty fast.
Then again, they would face the same issues had they adopted Gecko. Maybe less so because Mozilla could be more easily influenced than Google (in some ways). The main argument for adopting Gecko would have been that giving Google complete control over Web evolution is a threat to Microsoft and that adopting Gecko would reduce that threat. I'm a big Mozilla fan but I think it would have been a weak argument.
Then again, they would face the same issues had they adopted Gecko. Maybe less so because Mozilla could be more easily influenced than Google (in some ways). The main argument for adopting Gecko would have been that giving Google complete control over Web evolution is a threat to Microsoft and that adopting Gecko would reduce that threat. I'm a big Mozilla fan but I think it would have been a weak argument.
Huawei depended on the proprietary bits of Android ("Google Play Services"?). In contrast, Microsoft is knowledgeable enough to use only the permissively-licensed parts of Chrome as the point of departure for their fork.
Also, if Huawei were to fork Android they'd be responsible keeping their fork of a huge code base secure by push security updates, and Microsoft is much more likely to be able to do that competently than Huawei is.
Also, if Huawei were to fork Android they'd be responsible keeping their fork of a huge code base secure by push security updates, and Microsoft is much more likely to be able to do that competently than Huawei is.
Without giving it much thought, I do too.
Anyone know what MSs stance on Rust is?
Anyone know what MSs stance on Rust is?
There are experiments incorporating it into the OS and build system, but they've barely begun. Some teams use it for internal tooling. To make Rust work in Windows there would need to be a lot of work put into incorporating it into the build system, as well as writing libraries for RPC, COM, and other Windows specific technology.
No thanks. Keep Embrace, Extend, Extinguish away from my user agent.
I'm no MS fan but in this case it's Google that's doing the 3 Es. First they bundled their own adblocker in Chrome (embrace), then they're making their own standards to dictate what 3rd party ad blockers can do, under the guise of improving performance (extend) and now they're making it harder to make efficient 3rd party adblockers (extinguish).
It's pretty clear what the plan is here, Google naturally sees ad blocking as a threat and they know that they can't outright disable ad blockers so they take the long route to take it over. Make it functional enough that most users won't bother looking for an alternative but make sure that it can't threaten your business model.
It's pretty clear what the plan is here, Google naturally sees ad blocking as a threat and they know that they can't outright disable ad blockers so they take the long route to take it over. Make it functional enough that most users won't bother looking for an alternative but make sure that it can't threaten your business model.
I’m no Microsoft fan, but that isn’t really a thing anymore is it? Of the tech giants, MS seems the least noxious now.
Jeez not this trope(|tripe) again. It's boring and it's tedious. It's in the past. Under different management. Sure MS are no angels, but they seem to be doing far less harm these days than Google/Facebook et al.
BlueTemplar(1)
For Christ's sake, it's not like Microsoft-written code is just irreversibly cursed.
It's corporations in a monopolistic position that let EEE happen - you know, like what Google is doing with Chrome right now.
If Internet Explorer's engine released under GPL or MIT can break Google's monopoly without simply handing it over to Microsoft, then all the power to it.
It's corporations in a monopolistic position that let EEE happen - you know, like what Google is doing with Chrome right now.
If Internet Explorer's engine released under GPL or MIT can break Google's monopoly without simply handing it over to Microsoft, then all the power to it.
At least Microsoft managed to open source the guts of Chakra before they shutdown Edge. V8 hegemony might be worse for the internet given Node and Electron than Chrome alone.
Is there an Electron backing that doesn't use Chromium?
I don't think so.
There was a port of node that used Chakra instead of v8, but I don't think it's maintained. And this is only one piece of the puzzle.. Electron also relies Chromium itself for rendering so this would probably be a pretty sizable effort.
There was a port of node that used Chakra instead of v8, but I don't think it's maintained. And this is only one piece of the puzzle.. Electron also relies Chromium itself for rendering so this would probably be a pretty sizable effort.
Unfortunately, not one I've seen get past "bare prototype" stage.
Can someone remind me what will happen to all the chromium derivatives that support ad block? Will Google restrict their functionality? If Firefox and Safari are the last browsers to support ad block, then they totally stand a chance.
At least Brave and Vivaldi both use the Chrome Web Store, which presumably will no longer allow such extensions. So either they'll have to build their own alternative, or change the browser to allow out-of-store installation, and the extension author(s) will have to support that.
So it's possible, but not immediate.
So it's possible, but not immediate.
The changes which impede ad blocking are in Chromium, not in the commercial Chrome fork. And Google will continue to force anti-ad-blocking, pro-tracking changes into Chromium until they reach their ultimate Shrodinger's Privacy-Friendly Browser which exists in a superposition of "showing few ads" and "allowing all tracking."
It's in the "Enterprise" Chrome fork. I don't think they charge money for it.
Chrome didn't remove ad-block entirely, they deprecated an API that allows direct control; extensions now have to load filters into the browser itself, which will do the blocking.
Safari actually did the same recently[1], so it's not an alternative if you dislike this move by Chrome. The only difference seems to be the limit of rules (30k for Chrome vs 50k for Safari, whereas some lists used by uBO have over 75k).
[1] https://adguard.com/en/blog/legacy-safari-extensions.html
Safari actually did the same recently[1], so it's not an alternative if you dislike this move by Chrome. The only difference seems to be the limit of rules (30k for Chrome vs 50k for Safari, whereas some lists used by uBO have over 75k).
[1] https://adguard.com/en/blog/legacy-safari-extensions.html
Apparently there's a way around the macOS limit:
https://backstage.1blocker.com/say-hello-to-1blocker-x-8b55e...
https://backstage.1blocker.com/say-hello-to-1blocker-x-8b55e...
Would love to, but can't, for one simple reason: I like to keep my work and personal profiles completely separated and frequently need to switch between the two. Firefox has profiles, but does not have a low-friction profile switcher. This is why every time I try it I'm back to Chrome a few days later.
The one thing i really need before i switch to firefox is vivaldi style stackable tabs. Does anyone know if there is any way to get stackable tabs in firefox?
Ironically, this should be a great gateway for Microsoft to heavily invest in a completely open browser. It would ruin Google's decade long plan.
[Deleted]
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20052893 and marked it off-topic.
Firefox's sign-in uses client-side crypto to ensure that your data is only accessible to you, not Mozilla.
[deleted](1)
... or install Edge Dev in seconds and keep most of your Chrome extensions
https://www.microsoftedgeinsider.com/en-us/welcome?channel=d...
https://www.microsoftedgeinsider.com/en-us/welcome?channel=d...
One of the points brought up about the changes being made to content blocking in Chrome is that it was an engine change. So no, switching to Edge or Opera or whatever might not do anything to help. I'm guessing Brave is the one Blink-powered browser that is likely to become an exception.
The built-in ad-blocker in Opera will go away too? https://www.opera.com/computer/features/ad-blocker
Or Brave
Is this a coordinated ad campaign for Firefox?
I find it odd how there will be Google Hate, and unanimous Firefox support.
I guess I'm looking to hear from users who actually removed Google from their life and are happy. Chrome is only 1 of the Google products I've used.
I find it odd how there will be Google Hate, and unanimous Firefox support.
I guess I'm looking to hear from users who actually removed Google from their life and are happy. Chrome is only 1 of the Google products I've used.
I starting switching away from Google over the last year. The biggest step was moving off my Gmail account, and the trigger for that was the UI terribleness of Gmail. That took a few hours of updating every account I have with my new address. Password manager really helped with this.
I've never been much of a Chrome user. A few years ago, Chrome was unusable for me on my 2GB work machine, and was a battery-killer on my own laptop. So I stuck with Firefox at work, Safari at home.
DDG is a great search engine. I can't remember the last time I used the "!g" operator, and got any results better than the DDG ones.
The one product I still use Google for is maps, and only when I want to see a good street view or areal photo. For mobile, Apple Maps does just fine. For simple directions on the desktop, OSM works great.
I'm totally happy. 10 years ago, Google was putting things out there that weren't possible with other services. Their mapping was tremendously better than MapQuest, their email was so much nicer than Hotmail, etc.
But now they're bloated and slow. Everything seems to lag as you watch the UI components slowly appear on the screen. And the alternatives today for each product (search, maps, email, browser) are all very much competent.
I've never been much of a Chrome user. A few years ago, Chrome was unusable for me on my 2GB work machine, and was a battery-killer on my own laptop. So I stuck with Firefox at work, Safari at home.
DDG is a great search engine. I can't remember the last time I used the "!g" operator, and got any results better than the DDG ones.
The one product I still use Google for is maps, and only when I want to see a good street view or areal photo. For mobile, Apple Maps does just fine. For simple directions on the desktop, OSM works great.
I'm totally happy. 10 years ago, Google was putting things out there that weren't possible with other services. Their mapping was tremendously better than MapQuest, their email was so much nicer than Hotmail, etc.
But now they're bloated and slow. Everything seems to lag as you watch the UI components slowly appear on the screen. And the alternatives today for each product (search, maps, email, browser) are all very much competent.
Try !sp if you want to see Google results, no need to use !g directly even if you did prefer the results. Google Maps and Youtube are very difficult to replace, if you live in a big city using varied modes of transit (walking, bus/train, driving), Google Maps is really tough to beat. I reduced my Google-coverage, but I don't intend to eliminate it altogether.
What did you move to for email? Fastmail with a custom domain? I've long considered ProtonMail but unlikely to go that route.
I'm between paying for iCloud storage and using that, or Outlook.com The additional phone backup space with iCloud would be very nice anyway, so as a monthly payment, it's a one-stop shop. At this point it's extremely unlikely I'll ever go back to Android so that works for me. Or, just moving to Outlook.com. I'm leaning towards Outlook simply because of the better calendar system. Both Gmail and Outlook support email reminders for calendar items. I could get used to iOS-only notifications, but I really prefer notifications to come through email since I often include explicit instructions.
What did you move to for email? Fastmail with a custom domain? I've long considered ProtonMail but unlikely to go that route.
I'm between paying for iCloud storage and using that, or Outlook.com The additional phone backup space with iCloud would be very nice anyway, so as a monthly payment, it's a one-stop shop. At this point it's extremely unlikely I'll ever go back to Android so that works for me. Or, just moving to Outlook.com. I'm leaning towards Outlook simply because of the better calendar system. Both Gmail and Outlook support email reminders for calendar items. I could get used to iOS-only notifications, but I really prefer notifications to come through email since I often include explicit instructions.
I went with Fastmail, with their domain. If I were to do it again, I probably would use my own domain (and I may do that in the future). I can't say enough good things about Fastmail's UI. It's just as snappy as a native app, and is both consistent and intuitive. Outlook.com is also really nice. I use it for work email, and have no complaints at all.
Thanks for the StartPage tip! I'm going to start doing that whenever I want a second opinion on my search results.
Thanks for the StartPage tip! I'm going to start doing that whenever I want a second opinion on my search results.
Google is an ad company that profits off of users' personal information. Mozilla has demonstrated itself to be privacy oriented. HN users are generally privacy oriented. It's not surprising there is a big push to use Firefox, especially with the increasing Chromium usage.
This is probably a response to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20044430
> I find it odd how there will be Google Hate, and unanimous Firefox support.
You can choose to not pick a side on a two-candidate election. The most voted-for candidate will still be elected.
(Even when you factor in indirect systems like an electoral college, someone will be elected.)
You can choose to not pick a side on a two-candidate election. The most voted-for candidate will still be elected.
(Even when you factor in indirect systems like an electoral college, someone will be elected.)
guuhv(4)
Switch from Chrome to Brave
Why is this on here?
It just feels like an ad. No mention of that other article, and it's a REAL stretch to say that these are related. No more ad spam on Hacker News, it's one of the few good sites left.
These aren't related whatsoever, but the timing of this submission is.
I personally don't think it belongs on the front page just because of news regarding a competitor, the only discussion this link sparks is the same discussion that's already been had twice this week (20044430, 20050173).
I personally don't think it belongs on the front page just because of news regarding a competitor, the only discussion this link sparks is the same discussion that's already been had twice this week (20044430, 20050173).
I tried to switch just now, looks like uMatrix doesn't work in Firefox? That's a blocker for me... I've spent a lot of time creating a ruleset on uMatrix, not looking to try recreating that.
There is an add-on called uMatrix for FF. I haven't tried it so I cn't tell you if it works or not.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/umatrix/
Sorry I was unclear, uMatrix still exists, and I used to use it on Firefox, but now I get a message:
uMatrix could not be verified for use in Firefox and has been disabled.
uMatrix could not be verified for use in Firefox and has been disabled.
It's working for me, make sure you have the latest Firefox version, there was a bug a few days ago which broke addon-on signature verification.
That was it. Used to Firefox autoupdating, but didn't this time for some reason.
Works fine here. You're on current FFx?
That was it. Used to Firefox autoupdating, but didn't this time for some reason.
uMatrix works in Firefox stable as of last night
[deleted]
No thanks.
For Apple users (MacOS, iOS), I would suggest Safari over Firefox as FF is the most hacked browser and very unsafe. On the other hand, Safari syncs bookmarks, tabs on all your Apple devices very seamlessly.
I wouldn't call Firefox unsafe. But Safari's sync for bookmarks, passwords, tabs, handoff... is really the killer feature.
I use Firefox as my "virgin" broswser for testing or when I need to manually override proxy settings for my own MitM purposes. But that's about it.
I use Firefox as my "virgin" broswser for testing or when I need to manually override proxy settings for my own MitM purposes. But that's about it.
Firefox's sync is better, because it's not tied to the Apple ecosystem :P
Be warned though, ublock origin for safari is not official and hasn't been updated since april 2018.
> very unsafe
[citation needed].
Firefox has sync to all devices too.
[citation needed].
Firefox has sync to all devices too.
Why is leaving the only recourse? Chromium is free software. Forking always remains an option.
Here's a good explanation... https://boingboing.net/2019/05/29/hoarding-software-freedom....
Forking Chromium without Widevine is still entirely feasible. Not everyone cares about Netflix.
Also, a Chromium fork could use the Widevine binary blob the same way Chrome does today; I am not sure I understand this argument.
Also, a Chromium fork could use the Widevine binary blob the same way Chrome does today; I am not sure I understand this argument.
The problem with all these browser forks is that, while they are certainly well intentioned, they're a dime a dozen and eventually die hard.
Over the years, I've seen countless forks of browsers that make these big promises but don't have the developer resources and funding behind them that make the main browsers possible. I can't imagine it's easy to just backport every feature and bugfix from upstream while also making your own changes.
Unless one plans on building a business or a foundation around a browser, the best that an OSS browser fork can hope for is to be a valiant effort that will quickly be superseded by another fork that promises to be even more private and ub3r l33t than the others.
Firefox is in great shape right now, and if it's not working well for some people(I'm honestly not having issues with it at this point), then we need to find ways to make Firefox more viable, whether it's getting people to donate to the Mozilla Foundation or better promotion or what.
Over the years, I've seen countless forks of browsers that make these big promises but don't have the developer resources and funding behind them that make the main browsers possible. I can't imagine it's easy to just backport every feature and bugfix from upstream while also making your own changes.
Unless one plans on building a business or a foundation around a browser, the best that an OSS browser fork can hope for is to be a valiant effort that will quickly be superseded by another fork that promises to be even more private and ub3r l33t than the others.
Firefox is in great shape right now, and if it's not working well for some people(I'm honestly not having issues with it at this point), then we need to find ways to make Firefox more viable, whether it's getting people to donate to the Mozilla Foundation or better promotion or what.
That's true, but I personally don't have the time to create, or even work on, a Chromium fork. Is there one with any momentum?
My preference would be to use https://github.com/atlas-engineer/next, because I'm a huge Common Lisp fan, but without uMatrix and uBlock Origin (or something equivalent) it's not a viable alternative yet.
I've been trying to switch to Firefox lately. I still prefer Chromium's UI, but I won't tolerate Google's new anti-adblock stance.
My preference would be to use https://github.com/atlas-engineer/next, because I'm a huge Common Lisp fan, but without uMatrix and uBlock Origin (or something equivalent) it's not a viable alternative yet.
I've been trying to switch to Firefox lately. I still prefer Chromium's UI, but I won't tolerate Google's new anti-adblock stance.
The most popular Chrome forks are Edge (new), Opera and Brave... My hope is that they will keep the interfaces Google is phasing out.
There are forks such as ungoogled-chromium but why would you use them when you could just use Firefox?
Chrome’s security model is light-years beyond any other shipping browser.
It’s almost not even a competition anymore.
It’s almost not even a competition anymore.
Without denying or confirming that Chrome's security is better than any other browser, how often have you heard of someone with an up-to-date Firefox, Edge, Safari, Chrome, or some other major browser, being hacked this way? If you do an honest risk analysis, how big is the extra risk of using a less secure browser (assuming your statement is true)? And is a single 0day (which Chrome has just as well) enough to compromise your entire life, like, you would probably have defense in depth (running the browser in a VM, for example) if you're that worried in the first place?
For those who think I'm just jabbing and that a VM would be too unpactical: at work (we're a security firm) we have a fresh VM for each new project for compartmentalization. Our browser, tools, everything runs in there and nothing should ever reach the host --- unless, of course, you have a VM escape, but then you need two zero-days instead of one. For more sensitive projects, even more measures are taken, but that's rare: you have to draw the line somewhere.
Just saying "Chrome is the only secure option" is a little too short-sighted I think.
For those who think I'm just jabbing and that a VM would be too unpactical: at work (we're a security firm) we have a fresh VM for each new project for compartmentalization. Our browser, tools, everything runs in there and nothing should ever reach the host --- unless, of course, you have a VM escape, but then you need two zero-days instead of one. For more sensitive projects, even more measures are taken, but that's rare: you have to draw the line somewhere.
Just saying "Chrome is the only secure option" is a little too short-sighted I think.
When a browser removes your ability to block ads and trackers, it is creating a giant security hole. Even Google's own ads trick users into clicking on them while believing that they are going to legitimate sites.
https://www2.computerworld.com/article/2978984/who-can-stop-...
https://www2.computerworld.com/article/2978984/who-can-stop-...
Some other thread yesterday linked to ungoogled chromium [1] which sounded like a good idea to me but in practise I'd have to build it myself which Im not really comfortable with.
I'd probably get it to run but it would need more time than I'm willing to invest in this. Plus would I have to build it new everytime there's an update‽
It's just to much hassle for me.
[1] - https://github.com/ungoogled-software
I'd probably get it to run but it would need more time than I'm willing to invest in this. Plus would I have to build it new everytime there's an update‽
It's just to much hassle for me.
[1] - https://github.com/ungoogled-software
If you're using Archlinux, there's an AUR package. That means you can build it like any other package with makepkg or a helper program like pacaur. If hardware resources are an issue, it's probably not too hard to rent a powerful linode server for an hour or 2 to build the package and then transfer it to your local machine. I imagine it would only cost a couple of bucks max.
Browsers have become so complicated that it's essentially a miniature OS inside our OS, and even building it from source as an experienced developer is hard. On top of that, there is a sort of inherent monopoly with browsers, and all browser vendors have some agenda or another. This is a weird age for software developers and users.
Can the average end-user fork an OS?
Go is free software too
Chromium is not Chrome. Switching from Chrome to Chromium is still leaving Chrome.
Whether or not Chromium or Firefox are more to your liking is another matter, and whether or not switching to Chromium accomplishes what you want to accomplish by leaving Chrome is another matter.
Whether or not Chromium or Firefox are more to your liking is another matter, and whether or not switching to Chromium accomplishes what you want to accomplish by leaving Chrome is another matter.
Not really, think of Chromium as a developer version of chrome. It may be open source but it still maintained by Google. Only alternative shift to Firefox.
You can change Chromium but you cannot change Chrome. The majority of Chrome is Chromium, but there are parts of Chrome that are not Chromium. Particularly the branding. Furthermore if you're actually forking Chromium like suggested and taking it in another direction to assuage any grievances you might have with Chrome, then you have certainly "left Chrome".
I was not recommending that anybody switch from Chrome to Chromium. Personally I do not find that Chromium fixes what I consider broken about Chrome, which is what I was alluding to when I said "whether or not switching to Chromium accomplishes what you want to accomplish by leaving Chrome is another matter." The negative reaction I received for that post makes me think people believe I was recommending Chromium. I do not; I recommend Firefox.
I was not recommending that anybody switch from Chrome to Chromium. Personally I do not find that Chromium fixes what I consider broken about Chrome, which is what I was alluding to when I said "whether or not switching to Chromium accomplishes what you want to accomplish by leaving Chrome is another matter." The negative reaction I received for that post makes me think people believe I was recommending Chromium. I do not; I recommend Firefox.
Is it okay for Firefox to maintain a manually curated list of sites it deems to be trackers [1]? Why is reddit on this list and not, say, Gab?
This breaks a site I built called reVddit [2], and after discussing with Mozilla devs [3], I'm unable to come up with a solution that doesn't significantly alter user experience and maintenance costs.
I find it ironic because the intent of reVddit is to increase transparency, one of Firefox's key principles. I'd love to hear ideas if anyone has any insight into any of this.
[1] https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protecti...
[2] https://revddit.com
[3] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.privacy/XO84Ezrw...
This breaks a site I built called reVddit [2], and after discussing with Mozilla devs [3], I'm unable to come up with a solution that doesn't significantly alter user experience and maintenance costs.
I find it ironic because the intent of reVddit is to increase transparency, one of Firefox's key principles. I'd love to hear ideas if anyone has any insight into any of this.
[1] https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protecti...
[2] https://revddit.com
[3] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.privacy/XO84Ezrw...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20038872
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20050173
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20044430
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20037562