[HN Gopher] Firefox 85
___________________________________________________________________
Firefox 85
Author : amake
Score : 467 points
Date : 2021-01-26 14:10 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.mozilla.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.mozilla.org)
| silicon2401 wrote:
| My biggest gripe with firefox is how it tries to hold your
| session hostage to force you to update. This is absolutely a no-
| go in a professional context, in my opinion. One of the first
| things I do when setting up firefox on a personal machine is
| disable this forced update so I can actually control my computer
| and its applications, not have them control me.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Can you elaborate? I've never been forced to update mid-
| session.
| psychoslave wrote:
| When Firefox autoupdate, it won't let you open a new tab to
| browse elsewhere. You have to relaunch the application to
| find back a normal use case.
|
| Power users _can_ disable it. For the less advanced users,
| impose that as default behavior as its pros and cons.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| >When Firefox autoupdate, it won't let you open a new tab
| to browse elsewhere.
|
| There must be some additional context here. I've never
| observed this behavior on Windows or on Linux (although on
| Linux I'm using an LTS release, which could be a
| confounding factor).
| psychoslave wrote:
| I use both systems. I can't remember on which system I
| saw it happen. Personally I'm fine with relaunching
| immediately the browser. I just replied to give the
| information asked, but it seemed that somehow it made
| some people upset. I really don't understand how and why,
| tough.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| I find it irritating because one of the core principles
| of this kind of technology, to me, is that it should
| serve the user, not the other way around. I expect to be
| able to run the earliest version of windows 10 and go out
| to all sorts of virus-laden websites if I decide to. It's
| one thing to automatically download updates and let the
| user apply them when ready, but to actually disable the
| browser until the user complies is just unacceptable for
| me. Hence why I disable it.
|
| I do applaud firefox for supporting so much
| customization, as in this case. If I weren't able to
| disable this behavior I would have stopped using firefox
| immediately.
| franga2000 wrote:
| Yeah, this is the exact kind of behavior that made me
| finally nuke my Windows install for good (although Adobe
| crap eventually forced me to dual-boot again). The irony
| of Mozilla copying Microsofts anti-features does not
| escape me and I sure hope this doesn't continue...
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| I for one am not upset, just confused because your
| information doesn't match my information.
| richard_todd wrote:
| I have seen it happen also, but it's rare and I can't
| recall if it was on Linux or windows. I tried to open a
| new tab and it said "no more tabs until you restart
| Firefox".
| Liquid_Fire wrote:
| I always assumed this was related to the multiprocess
| architecture. If you've updated Firefox in the background
| (e.g. via your package manager), and the new version is
| not API-compatible, it will not be able to create a
| content process for the new tab, hence the message.
|
| Obviously this is only a problem on Linux, because on
| other platforms Firefox's own autoupdater will only apply
| the update when Firefox is restarting.
| thallian wrote:
| For what it's worth, that behaviour happens to me too (on
| a linux system), doesn't seem consistent though (but I
| never really took too much note).
| franga2000 wrote:
| Yeah, that's bound to happen on Linux if you run an
| update while Firefox is open. Being able to continue
| running while all your files get switched out from under
| you is a pretty big thing to ask from a program and I
| think they were having issues with crashes and risking
| corrupted profiles, so they made it do that just in case.
|
| In my experience, running software updates while using
| the system is a pretty bad idea in general. It works well
| most of the time, but there's a reason Linux* is the only
| system that allows that (every other OS defers applying
| updates to a reboot).
| zinekeller wrote:
| Are you on a Linux distro? The reason that this happens is
| because Firefox in Linux uses many internal libraries, some
| that are incompatible from one (even minor) version to the
| next due to the tight coupling of some of the libraries.
| Combine that with distro-managed updates, and the result is
| the restart dialog. Updates on Windows and macOS are
| different though, they are controlled by Firefox and you
| can delay updates even when the update is downloaded
| (Windows users might even see the loading bar associated
| with the update).
| inetknght wrote:
| > _Are you on a Linux distro? The reason that this
| happens is because Firefox in Linux uses many internal
| libraries_
|
| It happens because Firefox closes and re-opens libraries
| and permits an in-place update (and thus, breaking
| itself).
| kevingadd wrote:
| I've never had this problem over the course of like a decade
| using FF, I suspect it might be due to your configuration. What
| kind of message do you get when it happens?
| silicon2401 wrote:
| This thread has a screenshot and description of exactly what
| I mean. It's happened to me pretty regularly. This is default
| FF behavior. https://superuser.com/questions/1451210/how-can-
| i-make-firef...
| elcapitan wrote:
| What happens to my Firefox (on Mac) very often is that it does
| an auto update and then just becomes completely unstable
| (things just suddenly stop working, like audio in a Google Meet
| call). Then I restart, and get some happy "Hooray you have the
| new Firefox" window, which makes me angry, because I was in the
| middle of something important usually. I then procede by
| clicking away the tab with the "features" and restore my
| session.
| mccr8 wrote:
| This happens if another instance of Firefox or an external
| package manager updates Firefox while you are running Firefox.
| This can happen if you have installed Firefox via a Linux
| package manager, or if you are running Firefox with multiple
| profiles.
|
| While I understand that it is very annoying if you hit this
| issue, it is not done as some kind of trick to try to get you
| to update. The issue is that Firefox is trying to start a new
| content process to load your page, but the old executable no
| longer exists so it is impossible.
| franga2000 wrote:
| I was under the impression Firefox on Windows only updated
| before starting (and maybe after stopping) and on Linux, the
| updates are managed by the system.
|
| I don't use Windows much these days, but I'd love to know which
| setting it is that turns this off as I tend to hoard tabs and
| this sounds extremely annoying.
| zinekeller wrote:
| Are you on a Linux distro? The reason that this happens is
| because Firefox in Linux uses many internal libraries, some
| that are incompatible from one (even minor) version to the next
| due to the tight coupling of some of the libraries. Combine
| that with distro-managed updates, and the result is the restart
| dialog. Updates on Windows and macOS are different though, they
| are controlled by Firefox and you can delay updates even when
| the update is downloaded (Windows users might even see the
| loading bar associated with the update).
| silicon2401 wrote:
| This has happened to me on Linux, Windows, and MacOS. This
| thread has a screenshot and description of what I mean: This
| thread has a screenshot and description of exactly what I
| mean. It's happened to me pretty regularly. This is default
| FF behavior. https://superuser.com/questions/1451210/how-can-
| i-make-firef...
| kbrosnan wrote:
| On Windows and MacOS this happens to users who launch
| multiple profiles from the same version at the same time
| via --no-remote and -P/--profile-manager or in multi user
| systems where one user updates Firefox and the other person
| is logged in and running the older version of Firefox.
|
| As Jamie mentioned above Firefox is trying to launch a new
| process and is unable to find a matching binary. Before
| Mozilla detected the in-between update state there it was
| common to see spikes of crashes that were related to
| process spawning.
|
| The choice Mozilla has is to allow the user randomly crash
| with a chance of profile corruption or alerting the user
| about the state and asking the user to trigger an orderly
| shutdown.
| skrap wrote:
| I am having a really hard time holding onto Firefox as my mobile
| (Android) browser. The interface takes several taps all over the
| display to accomplish basic tasks.
|
| For example: Looking at a site and want to open your "hacker
| news" top site in a new tab?
|
| 1) Scroll up until you trigger the top bar reveal
|
| 2) Tap the boxed number button next to the address bar
|
| 3) Way at the bottom of the display, tap (+) to open a new tab
|
| 4) At this point the keyboard appears with the address bar
| focused. I don't want that, so tap in the tab home screen
| background where Top Sites can be seen
|
| 5) Tap on hacker news "top site"
|
| That's 5 gestures, each in a new area of the screen, just to open
| a web site. Palm Pilot famously put nearly every common feature
| in the entire OS within 3 taps of the home screen.
|
| I really hope Mozilla can do better than this!
| Abishek_Muthian wrote:
| I have HN open permanently in a tab but I do face occasional
| keyboard issues on FF android on HN i.e. it doesn't get
| triggered when tapping on comment input.
|
| But the feature I miss the most from chrome is scroll to
| refresh, which I was told would be available soon.
| SirYandi wrote:
| Love Firefox for Android but my how bad the history screen is.
| You can either delete one by one or delete everything at once.
| No option for multiple selection or time-based deletion (clear
| last hour's history).
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Weird. On iOS, it's:
|
| (1) scroll down a tiny bit to reveal bottom bar
|
| (2) tap the box with the tab count
|
| (3) tap "+"
|
| (4) tap HN
|
| Both (2) and (3) are at the bottom of the screen, and (1) can
| be done near the bottom. (4) is the only one with a reach up to
| the top.
|
| Which leaves the question: why are the UIs between the two
| platforms different?
| extra88 wrote:
| > why are the UIs between the two platforms different?
|
| I think there's been greater emphasis on conforming to the
| HID guidance and conventions on different platforms rather
| than consistency in the same app on different platforms.
| graton wrote:
| My Android version does the same, but I did change the
| location of the toolbar to bottom in the settings.
| ckosidows wrote:
| I really wish I could get off Chrome on mobile, but it just
| works so flawlessly. I hated Firefox. It always felt like a
| second-rate mobile browser. I tried Edge and it's better than
| FF, but Chrome still just feels like how mobile browsing is
| supposed to be.
|
| I wish Edge or FF could just look identical to Chrome sans
| being controlled by Google, which already knows far too much
| about me.
| Vrondi wrote:
| Check out Vivaldi on mobile.
| scns wrote:
| Check out kiwi browser
| graton wrote:
| Maybe change the location of the toolbar (URL bar) to the
| bottom. I changed mine to the bottom in the Settings.
| wejick wrote:
| My problem with the new interface is I can't edit the speed
| dials, and it seems changing every now and then randomly.
| hundchenkatze wrote:
| I think you're referring to the "Top Sites" feature. These
| will change based on how often you visit sites. You can pin
| sites so that they don't change.
|
| https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/customize-firefox-
| home-...
| wejick wrote:
| You're right, thanks.
|
| In this kind of interface usually the edit functionality is
| on the tiles itself. It confused me until just now.
| hundchenkatze wrote:
| Yeah, it doesn't make much sense. They already have the a
| context menu when you long press a tile. I don't know why
| they don't allow you to pin from there.
| maccam94 wrote:
| The placement of the address bar is configurable, but maybe the
| tab view should flip along with it...
| pmontra wrote:
| This is the new UI. The old one was much faster to operate. It
| was like this: you are in this page, tap the tabs button at the
| top, the screen with all the open tabs appears, tap + at the
| same place of the other button and get to the top sites /
| bookmarks screen. Or tap the URL and get directly there. The
| new UI takes more taps and I don't understand what that is
| supposed to improve.
|
| I updated my tablet and my old phone to check the UI. I'm
| staying on the old Firefox on my main phone, partly because of
| the UI and 90% because of the add-ons I'm using. Not all of
| them are available on the new Firefox.
|
| Mozilla self sabotages every few years, then fixes things.
| Unfortunately they lose users along the way.
| campl3r wrote:
| Agreed. I see no reason to upgrade to the new UI/versions on
| android.
| rst wrote:
| The old versions aren't getting security patches. Not sure
| there's a really good choice here.
| mgbmtl wrote:
| I agree this behaviour is weird. When I look at iOS users on
| Safari, or Chrome, I feel like I'm using Windows 3.1.
|
| Here's what I do on FF:
|
| - When visiting a site, on the hamburger menu, there is a "add
| to main sites" icon, which adds the site to the home screen of
| Firefox.
|
| - In the global prefs, I changed back to always displaying the
| location bar at the top, and always present (the scrolling was
| annoying me).
|
| - We can long-press the tab icon, to open a new tab.
|
| So if I'm on a site, and want to open HN:
|
| - Long press "New Tab"
|
| - Tap "HN" icon on the screen.
|
| It's still annoying that it opens the keyboard by default. It
| sometimes adds a few milliseconds of lag, but I guess then
| search-heavy users would complain about the extra tap.
| kbrosnan wrote:
| Long press on the tabs button will give you a new tab option
| which provides direct access to top sites.
| thunderbong wrote:
| Wow, didn't know about that. Now on, I'm doing a long press
| on every button just to discover hidden features!
| foepys wrote:
| I'm still missing the long tap on tabs to reorder them. It
| got removed with the switch to the new addon engine.
| hundchenkatze wrote:
| The way mine is configured allows me to get to top sites in 3
| taps if I'm already looking at a site.
|
| You can disable "Scroll to hide toolbar" in Customize to remove
| step 1. Steps 2 and 3 are still required but moving the address
| bar to the bottom keeps your taps closer together (The plus
| actually ends up right over the boxed number so you can double
| tap pretty quickly). You can also get rid of step 4 by
| disabling "Show search engines" in search settings. Now when
| you tap (+) the address/search bar will still be focused but
| the top sites are still accessible.
| goda90 wrote:
| I had been holding out on updating from the old version of
| Firefox for Android(yes I know, security issues), but some of
| my favorite add-ons weren't supported yet. The other day my
| add-ons stopped working right(I think they updated on their own
| within the browser), so I finally decided to make the jump, and
| so far its been horrible. So laggy and not intuitive.
| hedgehog wrote:
| Firefox performance has gotten quite good but scrolling still
| isn't right. On Mac subjectively it feels like it's delayed
| around 1-2 frames compared to Safari. I've read some of the
| tickets for APZ etc and it doesn't feel like anything obvious is
| getting neglected. Does anyone here know more about this?
| 1_player wrote:
| IIRC the Firefox mouse scrolling/acceleration factors are quite
| off on macOS. I remember tweaking them to make scrolling feel
| much better.
|
| Sorry I'm not on macOS any longer, I don't remember what I
| changed exactly.
| CivBase wrote:
| > Firefox no longer supports Adobe Flash. There is no setting
| available to re-enable Flash support.
|
| It took half a decade, but it's finally done.
| uep wrote:
| A ton of old web games and animations have suddenly just become
| inaccessible. I wonder if the flash player could be ported to
| webasm for legacy applications.
| CivBase wrote:
| They're still accessible, just not from modern browsers. You
| can still use an alternative player like Flashpoint. Anyone
| still relying on Flash to power a web interface is probably
| SOL though.
| acdha wrote:
| See https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle and how the Internet
| Archive is using it:
|
| https://blog.archive.org/2020/11/19/flash-animations-live-
| fo...
| Aisen8010 wrote:
| Firefox without tabs in mobile is a no-go, especially in a
| tablet. They did not put too much thought into this interface.
| shrew wrote:
| Have you possibly installed Firefox Focus mistakenly? I
| purposely use this version to force myself to stop hoarding
| tabs, at least on mobile devices. It sounds as though the main
| version of mobile Firefox has tabs.
| recursive wrote:
| It works well for me.
| wtetzner wrote:
| What do you mean "without tabs"?
| Darmody wrote:
| Firefox mobile has tabs. You can even have tabs in normal mode
| and other tabs in incognito mode.
| dralley wrote:
| Firefox mobile _has_ tabs, though?
| iggldiggl wrote:
| On tablets (and possibly large phones as well depending on
| your dpi settings), the pre-rewrite version had an _actual_
| tab interface similar to Desktop Firefox.
| axelfontaine wrote:
| <link rel="preload" (see https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Web/HTML/Preloading...) is the interesting one here!
| Great to see it finally landed in Firefox!
| tentacleuno wrote:
| Wait, what? Only now they've added this?
| hinkley wrote:
| According to MDN, Safari 14 is the first to support preload.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Preload was pretty broken in Chrome for quite a while (I'm
| still not sure whether they fixed the issues, actually) so
| it's possible there wasn't ever much pressure to implement it
| input_sh wrote:
| I'm hoping for <iframe loading="lazy"> in the next few
| releases!
| aclelland wrote:
| I always try Firefox every 6 months or so but end up going back
| to a Chromium based browser after a few days. It's never anything
| major but for example this issue with the address bar suggesting
| the root domain instead of the pages I actually visit drives me
| nuts -
| https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/a2wz6x/firefox_add...
|
| I'm glad they're continuing to improve the browser, maybe this
| update will be the one that convinces me to switch!
| abyssin wrote:
| I've had this issue when I switched back to Firefox one year
| ago, but now I have this sequence in my muscle memory: ctrl + l
| to focus the address bar, tab to highlight first result, enter
| to load it.
| xxpor wrote:
| Ack, no, I want the behavior described in the link! I hate that
| chrome goes deep into sites :D
| cortic wrote:
| Been stuck on waterfox since the password manager downgraded to
| 'Lockwise' (no field edits, no file imports). And since the great
| add-on reset i can't get a decent tree tabs that doesn't steal
| mouse focus from the main window..
|
| So, yes, great, another version i probably won't be using.
| nine_k wrote:
| Hmm, Tree Style Tabs worked quite well for me for years, never
| ever stealing focus.
| cortic wrote:
| Go to google, type something in, then try to select the text
| by click-dragging right to left, but keep dragging until the
| cursor is over the Tree Style Tabs, then release.. the page
| will not have registered the release and if you move the
| cursor over the page again it will deselect what you have
| just selected.
|
| Sounds like just a nuisance, and it is, but i use quick-keys
| with my mouse and it really messes with my workflow.
| icebraining wrote:
| In case it's helpful, file imports to Lockwise can be enabled:
| https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/import-login-data-file
|
| Not sure what do you mean by "field edits", I can edit the
| username/password just fine...?
| cortic wrote:
| Thanks, hopefully that will work for importing.
|
| A lot of websites confuse the field auto detect system, you
| go back to the page after saving password at login and FF
| can't find the fields, usually cause it didn't save the field
| names properly (you can see this in PasswordFox). The old
| password manager you could edit the field names as well as
| the U:P and URL fixing this problem. The new Lockwise
| basically turned 5 minutes of logging in to 25 minutes of
| copy and pasting for me..
| eznzt wrote:
| The new about:config editor is also rubbish. I don't know why
| they rewrote it since it's just... worse?
| kevingadd wrote:
| You don't have to love it (I have similar complaints) but the
| tree tabs thing is weird. I've been using Tree Style Tab for a
| while and it doesn't have any issue like that.
| majewsky wrote:
| Same here. I have no idea what bug GP is even refering to.
| rukshn wrote:
| I just checked Waterfox does it own by an ad company?
|
| https://www.askwoody.com/forums/topic/waterfox-has-been-sold...
| cortic wrote:
| First thing i did after installing was disable updates, i
| should be fine for a while. -Another thing that is becoming
| more difficult to do in FF.
| franga2000 wrote:
| > First thing i did after installing was disable updates, i
| should be fine for a while.
|
| That's a really dangerous thing to do for a piece of
| software that's made to run untrusted code on your system!
| rukshn wrote:
| Waterfox is owned by an ad network for more than an year
| daveFNbuck wrote:
| Every time I see one of these, I try to switch from the beta
| version to the stable version. I download the latest stable
| version, quit my browser, copy it to my applications folder,
| double-click, accept the warning that I'm running new software
| downloaded from the internet, and find myself in the next beta
| version.
|
| Is there a way to switch from beta to stable without losing my
| profile?
| fckthisguy wrote:
| You shouldn't need to jump through hoops of you're not already
| running the _next_ beta.
|
| I believe there's a beta switch in the general settings menu.
| daveFNbuck wrote:
| I'm not running the next beta. I've checked the general
| settings menu. I don't see the beta switch.
| newscracker wrote:
| If you want to go back and forth between release and beta on a
| single profile, that's not recommended. If you want to switch
| your current beta profile permanently to an installation of the
| stable release, you can do that from the terminal (command
| line) by running the Firefox executable with the -p parameter
| to select a profile. The documentation has instructions on
| where the profile is located and how to find which profile is
| used.
| daveFNbuck wrote:
| I just want to switch one time. I got on the beta like a year
| ago when the current version was unstable, and I've been
| trying to get back to release since that version was
| released. Where can I find this documentation? How do I
| install the stable release to port the profile to? Every
| attempt I've made results in me still having the beta
| version.
| bhaile wrote:
| You need to create a new profile with the stable release.
|
| How to create a new profile.
| https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-
| create-...
|
| Install the stable version but don't run it yet. Then
| follow the instructions to start the Profile Manager when
| Firefox is closed. If you need to recover data from your
| old profile, the link above has instructions too.
| cpeterso wrote:
| You could set up a Firefox Account and use Firefox Sync to
| synchronize your Beta and stable profiles (and then disable
| Sync or the account, if you like).
| daveFNbuck wrote:
| I'd do that, but sync misses things like container settings.
| Also, I'm unable to run stable at all. Whenever I install and
| run stable, I somehow end up with the beta version.
| franga2000 wrote:
| Do make a backup if you attempt this as I'm talking from memory
| here, but I believe I managed to do this once by not updating
| the beta browser for a while and then copying it over once the
| release channel caught up with the beta. It might've involved
| modifying a version string in a profile file or something to
| trick it into accepting it, but it worked perfectly.
| 51Cards wrote:
| Just a note for anyone who may see it. Something changed in the
| UI CSS such that some of my customizations around the bookmark
| bar no longer worked. There seems to be a new option called "Show
| Other Bookmarks" that was enabled causing the entire bookmark bar
| to become one large clickable item. Disabling that restored the
| bookmark bar functionality. I'll have to investigate my user CSS
| file to see if I can figure out what changed.
| sudhirkhanger wrote:
| >It's easier than ever to save and access your bookmarks. Firefox
| now remembers your preferred location for saved bookmarks,
| displays the bookmarks toolbar by default on new tabs, and gives
| you easy access to all of your bookmarks via a toolbar folder.
|
| I don't see a lot of use of Bookmarks toolbar, bookmarks menu,
| and other bookmarks when there can be simply bookmarks and other
| bookmarks like Chrome. Bookmark toolbar makes menu utterly
| useless. I would rather have toolbar and an extension that
| displays those bookmarks toolbar in a similar way as menu to
| avoid added cognitive load.
| tentacleuno wrote:
| "For that reason, we are continuously working to harden Firefox
| against online tracking of our users."
|
| https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/org.mozilla...
|
| Something like that.
| franga2000 wrote:
| Chrome/Edge/everything else: anybody and their dog can
| personally identifiy individuals on the Internet and then sell
| that information to advertisers who use it to psychologically
| manipulate you into buying things. There is no consent or opt-
| out.
|
| Mozilla: we've made sure people can't do any of that, but we
| collect anonymous statistics about how our own software is
| used. Oh, and we tell you about it and let you turn it off if
| you want.
|
| People: Mozilla is evil and doesn't actually respect privacy.
| icebraining wrote:
| Firefox lets you manually opt-in into their analytics, yes.
| tentacleuno wrote:
| It's opt-out. Feel free to check this yourself, instead of
| mindlessly defending Firefox. I'm tired of this exclusionary
| attitude on Hacker News, to be perfectly honest.
|
| There is absolutely no warning that this telemetry is active,
| which is a dark-pattern in itself.
|
| Looks like the Firefox mob have already got to this post. No
| wonder nothing is changing.
|
| -- tentacleuno
| icebraining wrote:
| You are right! My information was out of date. I just
| installed Firefox for Android (I generally use the Beta)
| and that crap was enabled by default. Sigh.
| tsujp wrote:
| I don't know about anyone else (perhaps this is more common than
| just me) but being able to prettify that minified single-line JS
| bundle in-browser now removes a solid 3-5 clicks and a few
| keystrokes; and all it cost me was 1 click to update Firefox!
|
| According to xkcd this is a productivity win-win!
|
| Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1205/
| whalesalad wrote:
| Every software vendor could learn a thing or two from the great
| presentation of FFX release notes.
| Y-bar wrote:
| Yes!
|
| This is also why I think Sparkle [https://sparkle-project.org/]
| is one of the best things about the Mac application ecosystem.
|
| Edit: Should mention why, because it presents a consistent, and
| clear, UI for users and it encourages developers to write
| release notes.
| koheripbal wrote:
| This is one of the reasons I love Factorio. The release notes
| are so interesting, they're actually part of the game's
| experience.
| Schlaefer wrote:
| Alas the amount of information is very small. These release
| notes usually only cover a fraction and somewhat arbitrary set
| of changes.
|
| In the past you could look up changes here [1], but updates
| there stopped a while ago.
|
| [1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Roadmap/Updates
| shrewdcomputer wrote:
| I know it's not the important part of this post but their
| presentation really is good.
|
| Particularly the security fixes. Easy to find case numbers,
| impact levels and clear descriptions. All with decent spacing
| that makes the page feel clear and legible.
| user3939382 wrote:
| Even with all reporting and telemetry disabled Firefox sends
| network requests to Mozilla's domains upon launch, providing
| Mozilla with usage tracking data. It would be nice if users who
| care about this could get Mozilla to honor its privacy claims and
| configuration settings.
| juloo wrote:
| These requests are used to detect WIFI portals.
| kaba0 wrote:
| Come on, you guys are in every thread nitpicking tiny tiny
| things like this, while the alternative is literally
| incomparably worse, and the only thing you achieve by this is
| making firefox's case harder for those who don't look up your
| ridiculous claims...
|
| First of all, all of these things can be turned off; second,
| checking if you are using an outdated, potentially insecure
| browser is essential - if there is a vulnerability, the least
| of your problem will be that one goddamn ping to a mozilla
| domain...
| user3939382 wrote:
| > First of all, all of these things can be turned off;
|
| They cannot. Reporting off, telemetry off, automatic updates
| off, every related setting in about:config off -- Firefox
| still transacts data with not one but several Mozilla domains
| upon launching.
|
| Mozilla can't ethically constantly talk about privacy out of
| one side of its mouth while collecting data that can be used
| to track users who have explicitly requested them not to do
| that out of the other side.
| kaba0 wrote:
| Then feel free to look it up in the source code, or even
| patch it.
| franga2000 wrote:
| > Mozilla can't ethically constantly talk about privacy out
| of one side of its mouth while collecting data that can be
| used to track users who have explicitly requested them not
| to do that out of the other side.
|
| 1. They can if they're an order of magnitude better than
| everyone else, just like electric car makers can talk about
| being environmentally friendly despite the fact lithium
| isn't renewable
|
| 2. Are you sure it's tracking? What data is actually sent?
| Crash reports, update checks, network tests, motd fetching,
| cache preloading... don't count as "tracking users". Hell,
| even reporting on statistics (version, OS, platform,
| region...) isn't actually tracking users, but FF lets you
| disable that regardless because they know some people don't
| like it.
| pornel wrote:
| It's a big leap from "makes a request" to "provides tracking
| data". One doesn't necessary mean the other. It's even bigger
| leap to say that it's done in violation of stated privacy
| policies.
|
| For example, requests for software update have to go to
| Mozilla, but don't have any personal information, and are
| legitimately necessary.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _It 's a big leap from "makes a request" to "provides
| tracking data"_
|
| No it isn't.
| franga2000 wrote:
| Care to elaborate?
| psychoslave wrote:
| Well, shouldn't the user decide what is legitimate to take
| out of its behavior?
|
| It might be done without bad intentions, but do Mozilla ask
| consent before asking their users data about when they are
| using Firefox, and so that they are (possibly) in front of
| their screen.
| labawi wrote:
| If firefox is installed from a system package, or installed
| by another user, it can't really update itself1, and updates
| are not _legitimately necessary_.
|
| 1 except of course any updates and binaries that firefox
| downloads and gobbles up behind the users back.
| pornel wrote:
| Linux distros don't handle all of the updates, such as add-
| ons or tracking protection blacklists.
|
| Having an option to disable them would be a footgun. Such
| "radio silence" serves no useful purpose to normal users,
| but can make the browser appear buggy, e.g. if tracking
| protection broke a site, and you wouldn't get a fixed
| blacklist in a timely manner.
|
| Someone has to host these dynamic components, and the
| browser has to get them somehow. IMHO it's way better if
| they're fetched straight from Mozilla that has strong
| privacy policy and a good reputation to uphold, rather than
| from some rando free distro mirror.
| easton wrote:
| If Firefox is installed by another user (or even by
| yourself) on Windows, the Mozilla Maintenance Service is
| installed to automatically update Firefox without requiring
| you to personally elevate the installer.
|
| I'd argue updates are legitimately necessary for 99% of
| users (automatic updates are a huge reason why 90% of home
| PCs aren't in a botnet, and were a big reason why Chrome
| more secure in the old days vs IE/Firefox), and if you want
| to disable them it's very easy to do (about:config ->
| app.update.auto = false). But I don't know why you would,
| if the browser is changing too much for you you can change
| to ESR which is security updates only to older versions of
| Firefox.
|
| https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows_Service_Silent_Update
| labawi wrote:
| I'm on linux.
|
| Yes, automatic updates are pretty much necessary for
| about 90-99+% of users, but many lot of them are using
| system packages (which again, should not be able to
| update isself), and it is still not a reason why there
| shouldn't be a way to disable random background
| connections.
|
| One could argue a silent browser is legitimately
| necessary for security research/operations, or just
| severely data-constrained networks, but I have yet to
| find a way to make firefox quiet.
|
| Will app.update.auto disable all updates (browser, search
| engines, safe-browsing, user-test, blacklists.. there was
| at least a dozen features)? Last time I tried disabling
| almost everything suspicious, yet firefox wouldn't
| respect half of the settings.
| eitland wrote:
| Always a good thing.
|
| That said, I downloaded Pale Moon yesterday and tested it
| briefly: installed TST and one or two other extensions, visited a
| few ordinary sites.
|
| Even after all those years it still feel _good_. It is snappy and
| the lack of a noisy tab bar on the top in addition to TST is
| actually a huge deal!
|
| So my question for anyone from Mozilla who steps in here:
|
| when will you start fixing the extension API? I get it the new
| API is more secure, but there is nothing that prevents making tab
| positions configurable in a safe way.
|
| Also, could someone please fix that nasty UX bug that some UX
| designer introduced a decade or so ago where - if you select the
| tiniest thing on the page - the navigation buttons disappear from
| the context menus. After a decade or more this inconsistency
| still annoys me.
| LandR wrote:
| You can get rid of the top tab and pretty much everything else
| by editing the chrome.css files. The problem is updates break
| it frequently.
|
| https://imgur.com/BPDN1uP
|
| The tabs expand on mouse-over:
|
| https://imgur.com/7iCYykg
| [deleted]
| eitland wrote:
| > The problem is updates break it frequently.
|
| And IIRC they have expressed intent to remove this
| possibility completely.
| kibwen wrote:
| Source?
| followthesmell wrote:
| Mozilla don't have the resources to scour comments for bug
| reports.
|
| Report it via https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/file-bug-
| report-or-feat...
| eitland wrote:
| There are long standing bugs for both of these.
| cycomanic wrote:
| Sorry do you want to remove the top tab bar because you use
| TST? I haven't had a tab bar for ever. I think it might need an
| edit in user.chrome but is very straight forward.
| cycomanic wrote:
| Here is the description how to do it:
| https://medium.com/@Aenon/firefox-hide-native-tabs-and-
| title...
| bugmen0t wrote:
| Most notable change: new privacy protections!
| https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/01/26/supercookie-pro...
| Nicksil wrote:
| HN discussion on this topic:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25916513
| 2T1Qka0rEiPr wrote:
| I love all of the work that Mozilla do to make the web a better,
| more privacy focused place.
|
| A little time tinge of disappointment though, is that the new
| Firefox for Android doesn't work at all with Lastpass' autofill.
| I've tried to find bug reports (https://github.com/mozilla-
| mobile/fenix/issues/9773) but they don't give me a clear
| indication as to whether it's being worked on or not.
| Unfortunately degrades my experience to the point of using other
| browsers. It doesn't seem like the old Firefox is available via
| the Play store in the meantime either?
|
| It's probably inevitable when you release a completely new
| version of something, but the small, missing features immediately
| become obvious/upsetting!
| tester34 wrote:
| Why is it possible to detect whether you're using private mode or
| not?
|
| it's terrible, js shouldn't be aware of stuff like this.
| lucideer wrote:
| There is no dedicated feature in js to detect private mode:
| private mode detection is done using a collection of innovative
| hacks and misuses of features.
|
| Tracking/detecting/fingerprinting/etc. is an arms race. Every
| feature a browser has (or could have and lacks), can be used as
| a variable to compile a tracking profile that identifies you
| and/or your general browser configuration (including but not
| limited to private mode).
|
| The biggest one of these though is something private mode can't
| control: IP. For that you need something like Tor or a VPN.
| tester34 wrote:
| IP may be very unreliable, so for some people it'd work
| pretty fine
| jakub_g wrote:
| Like the parent said, typically it works like:
|
| - browser ships a feature X
|
| - they decide that X shouldn't be allowed in incognito (or
| that incognito mode returns fewer values, has lower quotas,
| uses different implementation that is slower/faster etc.)
|
| - inadvertently, this becomes incognito detection vector
|
| - people report the issue; the feature X is fixed
|
| - another thing is shipped which accidentally allows
| detecting incognito
|
| - ad infinitum
| IvanK_net wrote:
| I am a creator of a web-based image editor www.Photopea.com and
| here are things I miss in Firefox (and why my users prefer to use
| Chrome):
|
| - impossible to put an image into a clipboard (so that user can
| e.g. paste it outside a browser)
|
| - no PWA mode (impossible to put an icon of a website to your
| homescreen, which will open the website without a browser UI)
|
| - impossible to have keyboard shortcuts with Alt
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1568130
| loudmax wrote:
| How is performance on Firefox?
|
| I can do without the clipboard or PWA mode. Performance and
| responsiveness are what converted me and plenty others from
| Firefox when Chrome first appeared. If Firefox performance is
| at least close to Chrome/Chromium it'd make switching back much
| more appealing.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Firefox performance since about version 68 or so has been
| excellent.
| slizard wrote:
| In fact, _better_ than Chrome for most websites (exceptions
| perhaps google's). I used to struggle with Chrome/Chromium
| hang and chew on CPU cores, crawl to a halt, crash, or just
| simply run out of memory or a regular basis. Switched to
| Firefox ~67-69 and such issues are completely gone. I still
| have significant CPU usage from background tabs
| occasionally even in Firefox, but the rest of the issues
| are all nearly inexistent (even though I have on average
| 30+ tabs open).
| eCa wrote:
| My tabs have gotten out of control (they are in the
| hundreds (due to reasons)), but Firefox handles it quite
| nice. It only gets restarted after updates, so they are
| long-lived as well.
|
| Chrome seem to struggle when there are tens of tabs.
| foepys wrote:
| I personally know somebody who is currently running a
| Firefox with 3,000+ (yes, you read that right) tabs as
| part of their day to day workflow. Firefox just unloads
| tabs that weren't used for long and cause high memory
| pressure which is very neat feature for tab addicts.
| Kliment wrote:
| This describes me. I currently have 3467 tabs. Firefox is
| the only browser that can handle this.
| prox wrote:
| Firefox is really fast, it feels a lot more responsive on my
| system and boot time is almost instant.
| 3836293648 wrote:
| Scrolling smoothness is still nowhere near EdgeHTML (old, non
| chromium Edge), but is just behind or better than Chrome
| wejick wrote:
| Browser performance is not only about objective benchmark but
| also subjectivity on our feeling when using the browser. So
| trying it first hand and be open-minded would help confirming
| it on your very personalized usecase.
|
| I suggest to try Firefox as side browser for your light
| browsing need. Maybe like when reading news, social media
| browser, or anything make sense for you.
|
| This worked for me, in my case, now chrome is my side
| browser.
| fckthisguy wrote:
| It's been pretty amazing since the start of the Quantum
| project. At least since FF70.
|
| I also switched to Chrome rims ago when it came out due to
| how buttery smooth it was, but switched back after it starter
| to get slow.
|
| Chrome's a memory hog and it runs slow and clunky on older
| devices, in my experience.
| pmontra wrote:
| I don't know how it compares to Chrome but it's definitely
| fast enough to leave me with no complaints. I'm using it on
| Samsung A40 and Tab 5e, plus a Sony Xperia X Compact. Also as
| my primary browser on my laptop (Ubuntu 20.04).
| bityard wrote:
| > impossible to have keyboard shortcuts with Alt
|
| Wait, why should web pages be able to usurp keyboard shortcuts
| traditionally reserved for the browser itself?
| kaslai wrote:
| Because people want a desktop application experience inside
| of the browser.
|
| When I was playing a Counter Strike web app example posted
| here a few months ago, it was endlessly frustrating to have
| Control and W mapped to actions that you may want to perform
| simultaneously while also not being able to suppress default
| behavior. I kept accidentally closing the tab as a result...
|
| I personally think that the ability to override default
| shortcuts isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I definitely
| think it should be opt-in, like capturing the mouse cursor
| is. There should be strict separation between "app" features
| and what a default website should be able to do. Overriding
| shortcuts should be one of the "app-only" features imo.
| arendtio wrote:
| +1 for the missing PWA mode.
|
| As a user I create separate Firefox profiles for every site I
| want to use as a PWA, add a desktop short-cut and some custom
| userChrome.css, but while the result is okay, it sucks to set
| it up.
|
| The only positive seems to be, that I can disable the buggy
| Spotify service-workers while keeping them enabled for other
| pages.
|
| It would be awesome, if the PWA implementation would even
| support the system tray (similar to kdocker), but just the
| basic functionality would be better than the status quo.
| inetknght wrote:
| > - impossible to put an image into a clipboard (so that user
| can e.g. paste it outside a browser)
|
| That's a feature. Websites should not have access to my
| clipboard.
|
| > - no PWA mode (impossible to put an icon of a website to your
| homescreen, which will open the website without a browser UI)
|
| That's a feature. Icons on my home screen should only ever be
| native applications. Use bookmarks for websites instead.
|
| > - impossible to have keyboard shortcuts with Alt
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1568130
|
| Just build a native app. It's literally what you want.
| IvanK_net wrote:
| So let's say it is 2005, some phones have cameras, and some
| don't. The manufacturer of phones without cameras says:
| "Phones are for calling, just buy a camera, it is literally
| what you want".
|
| You can be right, but the market has a final word.
|
| Today, many people enjoy using advanced apps, that can be
| "installed" and "uninstalled" in one second (by opening and
| closing a website), without leaving any track (mess) in your
| computer.
| matsemann wrote:
| Not having a feature you don't like is not a feature....
| Putting yourself as the arbiter for what others would want is
| arrogant.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _Not having a feature you don 't like is not a feature_
|
| Having a feature that breaks user's security is not a
| feature.
| franga2000 wrote:
| What security? This is about write-only access and it
| already exists, just not for all media types.
| inetknght wrote:
| So a website can inject crap into my clipboard? No
| thanks.
| franga2000 wrote:
| That is your opinion and your problem and there's an
| about:config option to disable it.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| > That's a feature. Icons on my home screen should only ever
| be native applications. Use bookmarks for websites instead.
|
| Why shouldn't I be allowed to put a bookmark as an icon?
| That's essentially what a PWA is anyways. A fancy bookmark
| that behaves like a native app. Why are _you_ the arbitrator
| of what _I_ can do?
| jjcon wrote:
| It's dismissals like this that have led Firefox to have the
| same market share as 'Samsung internet'
|
| What happened to giving users control?
| gnud wrote:
| > Websites should not have access to my clipboard.
|
| Being able to take an image from the web page and place it on
| the clipboard is not 'the website having access to my
| clipboard'. It's the _browser_ having access.
|
| Going in the reverse direction, placing data from the
| clipboard into the web page, is more tricky, but Firefox
| already does a good job of blocking clipboard accesses unless
| they're the direct result of user action (keyboard shortcut
| or button press).
| sudosysgen wrote:
| You know that you can just copy an image to the clipboard
| on Firefox yourself, right? Right click, copy image.
|
| The question is whether the website should be able to push
| images to the clipboard by itself, which it shouldn't.
| Firefox already supports doing what you're talking about.
| franga2000 wrote:
| The point is when the image is not an image. Maybe it's
| being drawn on a canvas, or composited with multiple
| layers, or you want only a part of it (all of these apply
| to Photopea, I believe).
|
| I don't like the way clipboard access is handled in
| browsers either, but the fact remains that if I'm using
| an in-browser image editor, select a part of the image
| and press CTRL+C, I want that portion of the image in my
| clipboard. How it gets there is an implementation detail
| that the average user doesn't and, if it doesn't affect
| security/privacy, shouldn't have to care about. And since
| it's write-only, there's no security/privacy concern.
| jakelazaroff wrote:
| _> Just build a native app. It 's literally what you want._
|
| What if "literally what I want" is to edit a photo without
| installing any software?
| shmerl wrote:
| _> impossible to put an image into a clipboard (so that user
| can e.g. paste it outside a browser)_
|
| No idea what you mean. I can use any image. Right click - "Copy
| Image". Then paste it anywhere like in image editor. Works
| without any problems.
|
| Firefox 86.0b1, Debian testing / KDE Plasma 5.20.5.
| moron4hire wrote:
| Lack of OffscreenCanvas (without setting a flag) and
| OffscreenCanvasRenderingContext2D in WebWorkers (no flag at
| all) makes my WebXR project almost unusable (I have to jump
| through some ugly hoops of fading the view to black during
| scene loading to keep the user from throwing up from the render
| thread frame drops). Having to polyfill WebXR out of the
| ancient WebVR API is a pain, too.
|
| Normally, the fact that practically nobody actually uses
| Firefox would mean it's not a huge problem. But the only
| standalone VR headsets with a Chromium-based browser are the
| Facebook headsets. If Firefox were better, I could be running
| twice as many of the not-Facebook-encumbered Pico Neo headsets
| for the same price. As it stands, Oculus for Business headsets
| are almost the same price as a Valve Index, once you add in the
| mandatory "support" yearly licensing fee.
| franga2000 wrote:
| Can you share anything about what it is that you're working
| on? I never understood why web VR/AR APIs even exist and why
| anyone would want to use them with the hardware we have
| today.
| moron4hire wrote:
| It's a foriegn language instruction environment for
| government employees. You meet with your language
| instructor in culturally-appropriate environment and role-
| play different language training scenarios.
|
| Why shouldn't the browser have VR APIs? WebXR allows us to
| iterate faster, across more devices, and more easily
| integrate with other services than building in a framework
| like Unity can do for us. I've spent the last 6 years doing
| nothing but WebXR and Unity work and WebXR is hands down
| far easier to develop the sort of application we're
| building.
|
| No, you're not going to build MS Flight Simulator in WebXR,
| but you probably weren't going to do that in Unity, either,
| and ain't nobody got the budget for AAA++ graphics anyway.
| The folks who do graphically intensive work in Unity have
| stripped large parts of Unity away to make it possible.
|
| I don't understand your last question.
| alserio wrote:
| > Normally, the fact that practically nobody actually uses
| Firefox would mean it's not a huge problem.
|
| I assume you mean "practically nobody without an adblocker".
| I dread the day we could have to live without Firefox. Don't
| dismiss it like that, please.
| moron4hire wrote:
| I'm sorry, but it's not my fault that Firefox only has 4%
| market share in the world. Mozilla dismissed themselves.
| damnyou wrote:
| I'm pretty sure the primary driver of that was Google
| turning Chrome into shovelware bundled with Adobe Flash
| and marketing it aggressively.
| moron4hire wrote:
| Cuz Firefox was in such a _strong_ position before Google
| came around, right.
|
| Mozilla has never been a competitive company. They've
| always leaned heavily on the illusion of being a non-
| profit. They've always sold the "eat your vegetables"
| version of web browsing, without actually offering
| anything compelling over the competition. We're just
| expected to use Firefox because "it's made by not-
| Google".
| damnyou wrote:
| Firefox was in fact in a stronger position before Google
| turned Chrome into shovelware, yes.
| daniel957 wrote:
| I came from another post to see your commenting style.
| You use "in fact" a lot without supporting your statement
| lmao.
|
| You were clearly the issue in the other thread.
| fckthisguy wrote:
| It's a real shame that FF isn't on feature parity with Chrome
| in some ways, but 7% is not "practically nobody".
|
| With Chrome, Edge, Opera, and Brave all running on Chrome,
| we're getting awfuly close to a browser monoculture - one
| controlled by Google.
|
| Supporting FF might be a pain in some cases, but failing to
| do so drives users away from FF in the long run, and drives
| away FF users from your site.
|
| I know web devs have limited resources, but look at it this
| way: supporting FF and Chrome is a lot less of a pain than it
| used to be supporting IE.
| moron4hire wrote:
| It's really more like 4%, and falling every year.
|
| My job is not to drive users to Firefox. My job is to
| create a product that people can use. And in my particular
| case, my job involves creating a product that doesn't
| physically harm people.
|
| I agree that browser monoculture is a problem. But there is
| another problem that Mozilla is not the company that is
| helping with the problem.
|
| EDIT: to go a little further on this, it's not physically
| possible to create a good WebXR experience in Firefox, at
| this time. Despite their announcements of focusing on Hubs
| as one of the few projects they kept around after the most
| recent purge, there are key technologies that are
| fundamentally missing from Firefox that have no
| replacement. And then they have the termerity to user-agent
| sniff Chromium browsers on desktop PCs and tell you that
| they supposedly don't support WebXR, that you need to
| download Firefox to use Hubs. So it seems even Mozilla
| doesn't really give a shit about the Open Web.
| karakanb wrote:
| I just want to say thank you for creating Photopea. It has been
| a lifesaver in many occasions, amazing work!
| jjcon wrote:
| I love photopea! Cool to see the dev on HN. Also yes, I'm a
| chromium user.
| jjordan wrote:
| The thing I miss most in Firefox is the Smart Bookmarks feature
| they removed a while ago. Smart Bookmarks were fantastic. Add
| your favorite sites' RSS feeds to your bookmark toolbar and
| you'd have all the recent headlines from all your favorite
| sites at one click. Fortunately I wasn't the only one that
| appreciated this long neglected feature so someone created
| Livemarks (https://github.com/nt1m/livemarks/) that mostly
| replicated its functionality, but it's not quite the same as
| having native support for them.
| 51Cards wrote:
| Yes! I loved this feature and had several feeds linked up.
| Was wonderful to summarize my morning reading quickly.
| ginko wrote:
| > impossible to put an image into a clipboard (e.g. to paste it
| outside a browser)
|
| That's news to me. I do that almost on a daily basis with
| Firefox.
| muizelaar wrote:
| This is about doing it programmatically. As in
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1619947
| superbatfish wrote:
| Not sure, but I think he is referring to a programmatic API
| for doing it (e.g. so he can give users a "click here to copy
| image" button).
| immewnity wrote:
| Right click -> Copy image does exactly what you want, no?
| IvanK_net wrote:
| I mean putting an image into a clipboard when the user
| presses Ctrl+C, or some button in my program (without crating
| a <img> element on the screen and asking the user to right-
| click it).
| nine_k wrote:
| It's about programmatic access to clipboard, like selecting a
| part of image in a browser-based image editor (likely a
| canvas), and copy-pasting it into some other application.
| evilpie wrote:
| - impossible to put an image into a clipboard (e.g. to paste it
| outside a browser)
|
| I literally implemented support for the
| navigator.clipboard.write API, with image/png support included,
| in today's Firefox Nightly version:
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1619947
|
| Enabling it on release might take a bit longer though. The
| specification is currently not in a good shape. And there are
| some open questions around permissions etc.
| thayne wrote:
| image/png is only one of many types of images though.
| llarsson wrote:
| If the point is a copy-paste raster image that shall be
| understood by most other programs, then image/png is a fine
| choice, as it is lossless and well-known.
| thayne wrote:
| > If the point is a copy-paste raster image
|
| There are other use cases though that aren't supported by
| PNG, such as vector images and animated images. Or more
| niche use cases like RAW images.
| kaslai wrote:
| Vector images don't really need direct support though, do
| they? A lot of vector image interchange formats are just
| plaintext so normal text clipboard APIs should suffice.
|
| Animated images could definitely be somewhat useful
| though, albeit much more niche than static raster images.
| In most cases where I want an animated image on my
| clipboard, a link will suffice. What I want may not map
| to the majority of course, but at least PNG support is a
| start!
| llarsson wrote:
| My interpretation of the situation exactly. You have to
| start somewhere.
|
| Raster image support should also be able to support stuff
| drawn on a canvas element, so I think it is a great place
| to start.
| thayne wrote:
| > A lot of vector image interchange formats are just
| plaintext so normal text clipboard APIs should suffice.
|
| Yes, but I don't think you can set the MIME type. So
| whatever you paste in would have to be smart enough to
| look at a text/plain clipboard data and figure out if it
| looks like an SVG (or whatever).
| JohnBooty wrote:
| On behalf of millions of users, that's awesome and thank you,
| thank you, thank you for all that you do.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _I literally implemented support for the
| navigator.clipboard.write API_
|
| I beg you, do not let websites put things into my clipboard.
| mminer237 wrote:
| Yes, boo features. How dare other people be allowed to do
| things I don't want to do.
| IvanK_net wrote:
| It can be done only after the user confirms, that they want
| to allow the website to do it (similar to a webcam access,
| etc).
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| if this is important to some users (to me it is) why
| blindly trust an application's claim of what it does
| without verifying/restricting it[1]? The IMHO logical step
| for a user (again most don't care) would be to sandbox the
| application with a precise set of calls that are
| whitelisted and judge the application not based on trust
| but based on what they allowed in their security controls
| (firejail, apparmor, seccomp, SElinux, ...) and so
| immediately see if they did something different (that
| breaks the promise/trust)? (even then browsers have million
| lines of code so even with best intentions ymmv)
|
| Reading/writing clipboards is a problem for sandboxing
| since they act as a bridge to another layer that otherwise
| has no contract or understanding of the application. So are
| many other features not just on browsers but on any
| application that for some reason needs to handle a
| gazillion tings (on Linux subscribing to system/user dbus
| messages is a big issue and out of the box totally
| unmitigated).
|
| [1] If a monolith like chrome/firefox needs to
| understand/parse hundreds of protocols, technology-
| standards, etc, is a challenge to sandbox, maybe it isn't
| the sandboxing but the application that is the wrong tool
| for the users threat-model? Note, there is also
| Tor/Tails/QubesOS if isolation between user-space
| applications is a serious concern.
| maliker wrote:
| Great job with Photopea! Definitely the best image editor with
| Google Drive integration.
| alangibson wrote:
| I was just grousing about not being able to crop an image in
| Drive. Heading off to check out Photopea...
| [deleted]
| luastoned wrote:
| - impossible to have keyboard shortcuts with Alt
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1568130
|
| I tried the keyboard shortcut fiddle with FF86 and it works
| just fine after clicking in the white part once.
| rzzzt wrote:
| I encountered this problem in archive.org's DOS emulator, and
| at that time there was an about:config fix for it:
| https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1278533
| jansan wrote:
| Those about:config and chrome:flags fixes are only useful
| for us hackers. You cannot ask your user base to change the
| deep settings of your browser. For apps it either works out
| of the box or it does not.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| > no PWA mode (impossible to put an icon of a website to your
| homescreen, which will open the website without a browser UI)
|
| Firefox for Android has this. Are you referring to Firefox for
| desktop?
| tweetle_beetle wrote:
| The Firefox team has more or less said that the feature is
| not coming to desktop. I think a primitive version was hidden
| behind a flag, but even that is going to be dropped.
| addicted wrote:
| Do you know the reasoning behind this?
| kenniskrag wrote:
| > As Gijs says, we have limited resources and so have to
| spend those resources on work that appears to have the
| most impact on our mission. Based on the available data
| we have (both the research we performed as well as
| looking at how Chrome and Edge's implementations are
| being received) PWAs on desktop fall behind other work
| right now.
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1682593
| eznzt wrote:
| That's bad. I use it with Edgium for Spotify and it's neat,
| it behaves like a desktop application.
| moron4hire wrote:
| I use it for about half a dozen apps. Azure Portal,
| Youtube Music, SoundCloud, Google Cloud Platform,
| Twitter, Teamwork, and this chat app I maintain. And I
| keep them pinned to my taskbar. I love this feature.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| IvanK_net wrote:
| I think a PWA mode is useful in all cases on all devices. But
| most of users use my program on desktops.
| emayljames wrote:
| On my Firefox Desktop on Manjaro Linux, I was able to save
| a link and set it to no toolbars. No magic settings done.
| tsujp wrote:
| Hey thanks for the cool site -- I've used it numerous times for
| non-trivial image manipulation I've needed to complete where
| access to Photoshop was not possible.
| prower wrote:
| > - impossible to put an image into a clipboard (so that user
| can e.g. paste it outside a browser)
|
| Isn't it possible with the convenient "Capture screeenshot"
| feature in Firefox (the 3 dots next to the address bar)?
| franga2000 wrote:
| I think that feature uses some private or extension-only
| APIs, whereas Photopea can only use what's available to
| normal webpages.
| mig39 wrote:
| Hey, I just wanted to thank you for Photopea! We use it in our
| schools almost exclusively. Students love it.
| boogies wrote:
| Student here, I loathe it and the schools that it et al.
| convince ChromeOS is an acceptable substitute for real OSes.
| It seems more crashy than pre-1.0 Inkscape and slow as
| nitrogen-cooled molasses to boot.
| butz wrote:
| Sadly, "PWA mode" (it probably should be called "Install to
| desktop") was being worked on under "Site Specific Browser
| (SSB)" name, but due to lacking resources work will be
| scrapped. More info here:
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1407202
| jonny383 wrote:
| Slow release. Conscequence of firing engineering team and
| focusing on politics?
| tentacleuno wrote:
| I really wish they would stop focusing on politics too. Now
| their latest political stunt has got heads rolling, hopefully
| Mozilla will learn that their money is best invested into
| Firefox.
| war1025 wrote:
| > Now their latest political stunt has got heads rolling
|
| Care to elaborate?
|
| I assume the "political stunt" part was related to all the
| Trump deplatforming stuff a few weeks back.
|
| Hadn't heard anything related to anyone actually getting any
| pushback for it though.
| tentacleuno wrote:
| Sorry about the late reply. The Firefox apologist mob
| managed to get me shadow banned with the unjust down-votes,
| lol.
|
| A lot of people uninstalled Firefox because of Mozilla's
| politically-fueled 'disinformation' post on their blog. I
| don't blame them. I worry that Pocket will have these
| mysterious AI's enabled to defeat 'disinformation', which
| is why I actively avoid it.
|
| -- Tentacles
| franga2000 wrote:
| > "the Firefox apologist mob"
|
| You can't possibly be serious....
| LukeShu wrote:
| Releases happen monthly, often this late in the month:
| 80 was on the 25th 79 was on the 28th 78 was on
| the 30th
| xxpor wrote:
| I want to use firefox but I have a very stupid problem that makes
| it extremely annoying:
|
| I have to use federation to login to slack. When Slack opens a
| page in the browser, that works fine, but then once I'm signed in
| it takes me to the web interface rather than opening the native
| client back up.
|
| This isn't a tech support forum obviously but if someone had a
| hint of where to look, that'd be really helpful. I'm on ubuntu
| running i3.
| jamestenglish wrote:
| Not on ubuntu but looked up in my settings how it is handled:
|
| Preferences -> General -> Applications
|
| Content Type: slack
|
| Action: Use Slack
|
| Do you have that setting?
| wejick wrote:
| Maybe not helpful for you
|
| I use slack as pinned tab on Firefox, and it runs OK. It's
| easier for me when doing context switching since most of my
| works are on the browser.
| 1986 wrote:
| Maybe need to modify your xdg-open settings for the slack://
| scheme?
| [deleted]
| computronus wrote:
| The linked piece about the use of network partitioning to hamper
| supercookies is worth a read.
|
| https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/01/26/supercookie-pro...
|
| It's too bad that we'll have to trade off browser efficiency for
| privacy.
| Nicksil wrote:
| HN discussion, as well
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25916513
| tupac_speedrap wrote:
| RIP in peace Flash
| Speednet wrote:
| Rest In Peace in peace Flash
| smcl wrote:
| GP is likely aware of the correct form, "RIP in peace" is a
| light hearted online thing
| johnnycerberus wrote:
| It's a meme
| 6equj5 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome
| taftster wrote:
| Supercookie protection! Thank you Mozilla team, the changes and
| focus you've made to protect user privacy in recent years has
| really been appreciated!
|
| https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/01/26/supercookie-pro...
| fsflover wrote:
| Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25916513.
| WC3w6pXxgGd wrote:
| There is 0 chance I will be using Firefox after this insane blog
| post. I've sent this to many people, who are now using Brave.
|
| https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...
| 1996 wrote:
| Edge on linux has a Samsung-like dark mode (invert colors, but
| respect pictures) that does not require any extension, just
| commandline flags.
|
| Anything like that on Firefox?
|
| If not, I'm not sure Firefox is currently the best option for any
| usecase - even on Linux.
| franga2000 wrote:
| The Dark Reader extension does that very well and even works on
| mobile (Firefox for Android).
|
| If you really want to do this without extensions, you could try
| applying a global CSS filter using one of the CSS files in the
| profile folder (I don't remember which, but I think it's
| userStyles or globalStyle.css - should be easy to look up). The
| filter to apply is first an invert(1), then a hueRotate(180deg)
| on top of it.
|
| It's not perfect, and it will have the opposite effect on pages
| that are already dark, but it's the best you can do without an
| extension.
| tester34 wrote:
| >Edge on linux has a Samsung-like dark mode (invert colors, but
| respect pictures) that does not require any extension, just
| commandline flags.
|
| >Anything like that on Firefox?
|
| Themes? I use the dark one
| kevingadd wrote:
| Firefox dev edition defaults to dark mode still as far as I
| know, though I've personally been using Owl for this for years.
| 1996 wrote:
| Extension are a security risks. It's not rocket science to
| invert colors - the browser can easily do that with no CSS
| involved.
|
| No browser support for dark mode= no dark mode for me.
| franga2000 wrote:
| Are you saying you'd rather run Microsoft's proprietary
| browser than a simple open-source browser extension?
|
| If you insist, go download Dark Reader from GitHub, look at
| the code (it's not particularly complex) and install it
| into Firefox locally.
| fckthisguy wrote:
| Dark mode is actually a CSS property and can be implemented
| by webpages directly.
|
| I use FF daily and it uses darkmode in sites that respect
| my system settings, because I have my system set to
| darkmode.
|
| I use a Mac. Darkmode is a native feature.
| 1996 wrote:
| > Dark mode is actually a CSS property and can be
| implemented by webpages directly.
|
| I know, but I don't want to rely on their goodwill.
|
| I want the browser to provide a dark mode that work in
| all cases, therefore:
|
| - if webpages advertise a support of dark mode, oblige
| them
|
| - if they don't, invert colors and use any other tricks
| as required
|
| On Linux, Edge is the safest and the simplest way to
| always have a dark mode everywhere.
| shrew wrote:
| Do you consider the developer edition an extension, or is
| your point about extensions relating to GP's reference of
| Owl?
|
| Firefox Developer Edition is a first party version of the
| software from Mozilla. It runs slightly ahead of the
| standard Firefox version I think.
|
| FWIW, Waterfox also uses dark browser chrome by default,
| although if you're worried about security risks in
| installing extensions, a third-party fork of Firefox may
| not sit well with you either.
|
| Regardless, I've used both pieces of software and had very
| positive experiences.
| nine_k wrote:
| See Stylish extension and the "Universal dark mode" theme.
| 1996 wrote:
| As I said, without an extension (can't trust them), so I
| guess the answer for firefox is no, it doesn't support that.
|
| Of course, it may display dark mode in sites that respect the
| system theme - it's the easy part.
|
| I don't mean that, because I don't want darkmode to be
| restricted to the few websites that respect my system
| settings: I want my browser to be "always dark", regardless
| of how cooperative or well (or badly) done the website is.
|
| Dark mode on Edge is forced on the website: if it doesn't
| support it, the colors are inverted - with no theme or CSS
| tweaking required.
|
| That's not rocket science, but still far better than anything
| I've seen on Firefox
| frenchy wrote:
| I haven't used the new Edge, but simply inverting the
| colors is going to give you a bad time, all your photos
| will look rather strange. Realistically, it would want to
| do something quite a bit more complicated than that. On
| simple websites, this sort of thing works well, but on
| compicated websites, it's a nightmare.
| 1996 wrote:
| > I haven't used the new Edge, but simply inverting the
| colors is going to give you a bad time, all your photos
| will look rather strange
|
| Try it: the invert is intelligent enough to work in most
| cases. I think it substracts the background, which is
| often white/whitish, so you get the normal image but on a
| black background.
|
| Also, there's an option to not invert pictures if you
| prefer.
| scns wrote:
| Kiwi browser on android has that
| SloopJon wrote:
| I haven't noticed Firefox for Enterprise before. At first I
| thought it was a new name for extended support release, but
| Enterprise is available in both ESR and the regular releases. I
| can't tell from the landing page what the difference is. Is this
| just about streamlining enterprise-wide deployment?
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| It's not a separate version, it's separate notes about how the
| new version (and new ESR) are likely to affect enterprise IT.
| It's explicitly where they put notes about changes to the Group
| Policy templates, for example.
| extra88 wrote:
| Yes and Active Directory Group Policies are just one of the
| ways to distribute and enforce policies on Firefox, there's
| also macOS profiles and policies.json files for all versions.
| In my old job I used a policies.json file. Annoyingly, there
| wasn't a way to write path values in a platform-agnostic way
| (e.g. to specify download file location) so it was necessary
| to maintain two versions for macOS and Windows.
|
| https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/firefox-
| enterpris...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-26 23:01 UTC)