[HN Gopher] Guide to Firefox Containers (2018)
___________________________________________________________________
Guide to Firefox Containers (2018)
Author : cassepipe
Score : 210 points
Date : 2021-08-30 09:01 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thechiefmeat.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thechiefmeat.com)
| thanksforfish wrote:
| One of the unexpected benefits for me has been that I can lock
| any OAuth enabled app to a container for the OAuth provider I
| use. To login, I check which container I'm in and click the
| associated button.
|
| Before this I'd always forget which OAuth provider I previously
| used. Did I Login with Google to DigitalOcean or did I use
| GitHub? Worse, I'd often click the wrong button and get logged
| into a new/empty account. I never came up with a good rule for
| which OAuth provider I should use, so it's a guessing game.
|
| Locking the app to the container means I don't really need to
| think.
| freediver wrote:
| Do any Safari users miss containers and why?
|
| It looks like tabs in private window (which are isolated in
| Safari) fulfill the role of temporary containers almost
| identically.
| lf-non wrote:
| Firefox containers are cool. I do wish though that they were
| better integrated with the rest of the browser eg. bookmarks ,
| history, downloads etc.
|
| I am aware that I can configure it to open certain sites in
| certain containers always, but that is not ideal in many cases
| eg. using github/gmail for both work & personal use.
|
| I currently use an extension [1] that enables support for opening
| links in specific containers using custom protocol handler. So
| now I can have a launch-gmail.sh script that invokes
|
| firefox 'ext+container:name=Google&url=https://mail.google.com'
|
| to open the site in a specific container.
|
| [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-url-
| in-c...
| super_mario wrote:
| Are containers still necessary? Does the Firefox built in privacy
| (Strict privacy protection policy) provide same or similar
| functionality?
| d3nj4l wrote:
| Those are for different things. I use containers to log in to
| the same website with different accounts without having to
| switch browsers or open a new window. E.g., since Discord still
| doesn't support switching accounts in the year of our lord
| 2021, I have a container set up for the discord account I use
| for IRL stuff, and my personal account logged into the
| "vanilla" container. I can keep both discord tabs open side by
| side and get notifications from both.
|
| Even for websites that allow switching accounts, I prefer to
| use containers especially if the accounts go across different
| "domains" of my life. If I _must_ log in to something personal
| at work or vice versa, I generally use a container for that to
| keep them separate.
| flatiron wrote:
| I wrote up a quick email to friends/family at the beginning of
| the pandemic about Firefox containers in regards to the vaccine
| signups that were occurring. Since there was site isolation you
| could get as many "slots" as you were willing to solve capchas.
| Most of my friends and family were vaccinated because of this
| feature. A bunch say they use it now a days for normal site
| isolation but I did at least convert some people off chrome
| that way.
| msdrigg wrote:
| Very clever use case
| msdrigg wrote:
| I use containers to only use some google services while signed
| in. For instance I use gmail signed in but I google search in a
| separate container to not log that data in my account.
|
| I may be fooling myself and google can identify it anyway
| through my IP or something but it feels like I get a little
| extra anonymity.
| abacadaba wrote:
| duckduckgo is a thing, just sayin
| kashug wrote:
| But the search is not as good. Or good might be subjective
| in this case. But I tried using DDG mutliple times, but
| every time I end up just doing the same search on google
| becouse it is much better at giving me the result I want.
|
| But this is just my personal experience.
| msdrigg wrote:
| I use ddg primarily, but I regularly need to use g! to
| reroute myself to Google when searching for anything that I
| don't already have domain-specific knowledge for.
|
| Like if I want to just check syntax for a new programming
| language, ddg can handle the search just fine, but if I am
| doing initial research for a problem I don't understand
| well, I need Google to get consistently relevant results.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| Containers are necessary to provide account segmentation.
| criddell wrote:
| Earlier this year when PS5's were really hard to get, I used
| Firefox Containers to help get one. One of the tracking
| services would tweet that some retailer had them for sale. I
| would use containers to open a dozen connections to the server.
| A couple containers would get through and eventually I was able
| to complete the purchase transaction.
|
| It took about a week of trying and I was successful at Walmart
| and BestBuy.
| davidgerard wrote:
| Containers are a killer feature for Firefox, like having
| adblocking that works on mobile (unlike on Chrome).
|
| Just need containers on the mobile version.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| >having adblocking that works on mobile
|
| I thought you couldn't install adblock addons (uBlock Matrix)
| on mobile Firefox?
| commoner wrote:
| There's a petition on ideas@mozilla for implementing containers
| in the mobile version of Firefox, if you'd like to vote for it:
| https://mozilla.crowdicity.com/post/721603
| davidgerard wrote:
| Trouble is it apparently requires a lot of reimplementation
| deep in the guts of the mobile app; they do understand it's a
| highly-desired feature.
| UI_at_80x24 wrote:
| One downside that I had hoped containers would fix was multiple
| accounts on AWS.
|
| Because of the way AWS handles the URL's for logging in I get:
| company1.signin.aws.amazon.com
| company2.signin.aws.amazon.com
| company3.signin.aws.amazon.com
|
| BUT FF only seems to remember the login/password for 1 of these
| at a time. I had hoped that putting them all in different
| containers would fix this but it appears that FF only matches
| based on the base domain name, and not the full sub-domain. If
| AWS had the domains structured as:
| AWS.com/company1 AWS.com/company2 AWS.com/company3
|
| It might behave differently.
| warvair wrote:
| I have the same issue, but I don't see the same thing.
|
| I have bookmarks set up with URLs like your first set:
| company1.sigin.aws.amazon.com ...
|
| But as soon as I click one, it gets redirected to:
| signin.aws.amazon.com/oauth?<War and Peace>
|
| Which is interpreted as the same URL for all accounts.
|
| One solution would be to have FF containers tie into the
| bookmark editing code so we can set the container by bookmark.
| That is, when I click a bookmark with a container set, that
| container should be used to open the site regardless of the
| URL.
| mech422 wrote:
| I use different profiles for that... basically, I have multiple
| Firefox shortcuts, each using a different profile. You can also
| use containers with the profile to segregate things even more.
| anonymousab wrote:
| I wish Firefox had better (chrome-level) support for
| containers. There's various small QoL things that add up to
| make them a much more usable feature.
|
| At the very least, exposing them via webextension APIs would
| let developers take care of it themselves.
| commoner wrote:
| While Firefox doesn't have WebExtension APIs for browser
| profiles, the Profile Switcher for Firefox extension uses a
| separately installed connector binary to add a profile
| switcher (similar to Chrome's) in Firefox. See my other
| comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28356472
| Link512 wrote:
| Have you considered using a password manager? With 1Password
| I'm able to save all logins for my AWS accounts and then just
| select the appropriate one when logging in.
| UI_at_80x24 wrote:
| I use pass (password-store). I haven't added any firefox
| plugin to manage that for me. So I always go back to the
| terminal for copy/pasting the details.
| seqizz wrote:
| I could suggest browserpass. It should be clever enough, at
| least with search.
| sciurus wrote:
| Same for me using LastPass.
| stonewareslord wrote:
| Sounds like Containerise can do that
| detritus wrote:
| Containers are great! But since the recent v.91 update screwed
| the tabs up so much, there's no quick visual way to scan and see
| which container-type each tab is.
|
| Great stuff, well done Mozilla! What's the point in being able to
| customise a container's appearance, including colour, if they're
| not described on the tab itself?
| thunderbong wrote:
| I use 'Container Tabs Sidebar' [0] add-on which gives me a
| tree-style view of the different pages opened in their
| corresponding containers.
|
| [0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container-
| tab...
| syshum wrote:
| TreeStyleTabs...
|
| next to Containers, it is the only reason I still use FF, if FF
| drops support for either TreeStyleTabs or Containers there will
| be zero reason for me to continue using it.
| generalizations wrote:
| Sideberry is TST with better perfomance, FYI.
|
| Also, right there with ya - treed tabs is the only reason I
| stick with FF.
| BlackLotus89 wrote:
| Better performance not necessarily, but you can set custom
| rules for containers. You can set the user agent and proxy
| settings on a container base which is nice
| generalizations wrote:
| Firefox used to freeze up periodically when I used TST,
| and that went away when I switched. That's all I meant.
| BlackLotus89 wrote:
| Yup went away from TST for the same reason.
|
| Made a performance comparison a few weeks ago to compare
| sidebery with TST (I got a few thousand open tabs, spread
| over ~50 windows) and didn't get the perfomance penalty I
| used to.
|
| Side note: some plugins "crashed" when testing TST,
| sidebery and tab stash at the same time. Sidebery seemed
| to be the most stable. (had at one time no adblock
| anymore so that's something)
|
| Side note 2: I really like some things about sidebery for
| instance the grouping of tabs and the possibility to see
| your bookmarks. TST needs to be extended through plugins
| for this, but some functionality is really only available
| in certain plugins.
|
| Side note 3: The tab handling of sidebery and TST feels
| quite different... If you are used to the normal tab
| handling you will be confused with sidebery... a lot (you
| can reconfigure it to be more vanilla, but I had multiple
| problems configuring the plugins). The tab switching
| isn't at all obvious at times.
|
| All in all I would recommend everyone to play around with
| containers and vertical tabs :) I know this little rant
| here went on a huge tangent from the article, but I
| wanted to clarify my experience with the named plugins.
| eitland wrote:
| For those interested in TST this bug might be worth
| watching:
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1332447
|
| There is also some activity on https://ideas.mozilla.org
| and I think you can even vote there.
|
| Edit, here is one idea already posted and approved for
| voting: https://mozilla.crowdicity.com/post/721353
| collinvandyck76 wrote:
| How do I get over the reluctance to grant an extension to
| "Access your data for all websites"? I would love to have
| some of these extensions but it feels like a huge security
| risk.
| kbenson wrote:
| If you _really_ want an extension that requires that, and
| if it has a repo, you could vet the code a bit (it 's
| JavaScript, so somewhat accessible), and load it as an
| extension from a file after packaging it up.
|
| Alternatively, you can install it, look in your profile
| dir until you find that extension, and look through all
| the code it's using, and turn off automatically update
| extensions in Firefox when you're happy you want to keep
| it.
|
| People can say what they will about the great extension
| convergence where Firefox switched to Chrome style
| extensions, but having everything just be JavaScript that
| you can easily review yourself is pretty nice.
| input_sh wrote:
| By reading the feature set and realising that some of
| them cannot work without that permission. For example,
| you can't have a password manager, a CSS style injector,
| or an ad-blocker without that access.
|
| After taking a quick look at the add-on from the comment
| above, I bet it's the snapshots feature that requires it.
| croutonwagon wrote:
| i think tweaking browser.proton in about:config will break
| this. Saw this on Reddit a while back when looking at why my
| containers were bugged (for a totally different reason.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| You might need to get your vision checked. Each tab in a
| container gets a colored top border. And it's sizeable.
| detritus wrote:
| Your decision to be a dismissive smartarse really annoyed me,
| because of course i'm not that much of an idiot.
|
| Turns out that like another respondent here, animesh, I had
| 'browser.proton.enabled' set to false too from an attempt to
| fix my tabs last time FF buggered around with things. Setting
| that to TRUE has got the colours on.
|
| So, only slightly an idiot...
| SquareWheel wrote:
| When I see anecdotes like this, I better understand why
| Mozilla is moving away from about:config. A thousand
| variables makes issues far more difficult to debug.
| chrisjc wrote:
| > And it's sizeable.
|
| Can you go into a little more detail about how to resize it?
| cassianoleal wrote:
| Sizeable means large. It's not the same as being able to
| resize it.
| animesh wrote:
| Not anymore. Please check again. I don't see the colored top
| border on container tabs. I'm on FF 91.0.2 on Win 10.
| mikro2nd wrote:
| Huh? I'm on 91.0.2 and the coloured border is still there.
| If there's a newer version (nightly?) where it's gone, I'd
| have to agree that's an egregious UI FU.
| animesh wrote:
| Just found that I had the `browser.proton.enabled` false.
| Toggling it brought back the border on container tabs.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| Works on both 91.0 and 93.0 (nightly) on my machine. Did
| you play with userChrome.css and broke it ?
| animesh wrote:
| Nope. I don't play with userChrome.css at all. I am just
| using the System theme.
|
| Just found that I had the `browser.proton.enabled` false.
| Toggling it brought back the border. Wow. I completely
| forgot about this setting I changed around FF 87 or so.
| scns wrote:
| Form over function? Have you considered opening an issue?
| If any Firefox devs read this please revert that change.
| animesh wrote:
| PEBKAC :)
|
| Just found that I had the browser.proton.enabled set to
| false. Toggling it brought back the border on container
| tabs.
|
| Still don't like the distinction between active tabs and
| container tabs though.
| animesh wrote:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/ny2199/the_face
| boo...
|
| As per the /r/firefox subreddit, Mozilla refuses to
| listen / prioritize this issue.
| Semaphor wrote:
| https://i.imgur.com/J7iDK21.png
|
| 91.0.2 on Win 10 as well
| animesh wrote:
| I am using the System theme and don't see it. Huh. I
| don't remember trying any about:config fixes as well
| recently. Wonder what is different between our versions.
| animesh wrote:
| Just found that I had the `browser.proton.enabled` false.
| Toggling it brought back the border on container tabs.
| asymmetric wrote:
| How do you resize the colored top border?
| wussboy wrote:
| Yes, I'd love to make the colours big and bold. No more
| mixing dev and production...
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| I don't believe this is exposed by default, but playing
| around with userChrome.css should be able to change it.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| When will Firefox have a better UI for their profiles?
|
| That's literally the only thing stopping me from switching to
| Firefox.
|
| Google has an entire menu devoted to it.
| imbnwa wrote:
| Yeah I can't believe they still have the same solution as 2005
| sfink wrote:
| about:profiles doesn't do what you need?
| commoner wrote:
| The free and open source Profile Switcher for Firefox
| extension, paired with the connector app, adds a browser
| profile menu to Firefox similar to the one on Chrome. See my
| other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28356472
| tusqasi wrote:
| This seems to be down
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| The only thing I would love to see for containers is some sort of
| VPN that lets you connect through a different server on a
| specific container, and potentially isolated web history between
| containers. Then if I'm live streaming my browser to online
| strangers, one of the suggestions should be for anything personal
| (or if streaming to relatives / co-workers you don't expose your
| online life, which can be problematic to some), and also due to
| the container going through a VPN, or maybe even some sort of
| paid proxy service idk, my IP isn't potentially exposed to
| internet strangers. Given such an expansion to containers, I
| would double down and if you open any link from another app,
| Firefox would ask you which container to open the link through,
| this way you don't open it under the wrong container.
|
| I know, I know, probably a bit more than containers were intended
| for, but the containers thus far have been great otherwise. No
| need to open multiple browsers to test software quickly under
| multiple accounts, I can just login through all accounts I need
| to test on multiple containers.
|
| Edit: The more I think about it, the more I feel as though
| Mozilla could find plenty of VPN (their own underlying provider
| included) providers to fund support for these changes to make
| them generic across VPN services and transparent.
| fsflover wrote:
| If you care about security through compartmentalization that
| much, you should try Qubes OS. It allows to use different VPNs
| for different VMs with a pretty good UI.
| okanesen wrote:
| Probably not exactly what you want but for proxies you can use
| Container proxy[0] (not affiliated), which allows you to assign
| different proxies added by yourself to specific containers.
|
| [0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/container-
| pro...
| kbenson wrote:
| I've used containers with container proxy for well over a
| year and it works great for segregating work traffic on my
| home system. I use a container for work traffic that is
| assigned to an SSH session to my work system that exposes a
| SOCKS proxy that I make sure is running.
|
| Eventually I moved work browsing to a different browser that
| I set to run through that proxy explicitly, but I still have
| the Firefox config set up in case I don't want to launch
| that, or don't care to copy and paste to the work browser
| some times (I wish I could find a way to make links launched
| from Outlook/Teams to open in Chrome but other links to open
| in Firefox).
| rmkrmk wrote:
| If you are on a Mac, have a look at finicky to manage which
| URLs should open in a specific browser.
|
| https://github.com/johnste/finicky
| kbenson wrote:
| I'm not, but just yesterday or the day before I was
| thinking maybe I'd write a simple application to take the
| URL and make decisions what to do with it afterwards
| based on whatever data I decide is relevant (time of day,
| domain, etc). If I had access to what the source
| application was that would be ideal, but I doubt Windows
| 10 supplies that.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| > The only thing I would love to see for containers is some
| sort of VPN that lets you connect through a different server on
| a specific container
|
| Congrats, you just invented the Tor browser. Or at least a
| variant where you are happy to store history etc on your
| machine.
| Nbox9 wrote:
| Does Tor have enough bandwidth for streaming now?
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| On the rare occasion that you can get Youtube (because of
| google's rate limits) or similar to open on Tor, it can
| easily stream HD videos.
| lugged wrote:
| You can use profiles for von stuff. Containers only really
| works for site based state.
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| Use FoxyProxy in conjunction with containers.
| mozillamaxx wrote:
| Hey there! I'm one of the devs on this project. We made some
| progress last year on per-container proxy support. Follow this
| issue for (hopefully soon) progress here:
|
| https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account-containers/pull/190...
| amphitheatre wrote:
| One issue I have when using containers is that if I have a non-
| containerised tab and I click a link in it that leads to Twitter,
| which I have a container for, a new tab opens in the container,
| but the current tab also switches to a Twitter tab with the
| click, clobbering my session/history.
|
| Is this a bug or conflict with another setting or add-on?
| tsjq wrote:
| this doesn't happen for me. what's the other add-ons you have ?
| amphitheatre wrote:
| I have things like CanvasBlocker, uBlock Origin, Tree Style
| Tabs, etc, and disabled third-party cookies. But nothing that
| should actively interfere with it. wrt containers, I have
| Multi-Account Containers, Containerise, and Temporary
| Containers. It happens every time I go to a URL that has an
| associated container I've made (YouTube, Twitter, Facebook
| etc).
|
| I might try resetting my container plugins to see if I can
| clear it.
| amphitheatre wrote:
| Fixed it. Containerise has a separate "Keep old tabs" setting
| that is different to the Multi-Account Containers "Replace
| tab" functionality. It works as intended now. Horray!
| mech422 wrote:
| Don't forget, you can still use multiple profiles. I have
| multiple shortcuts setup, each starting FF with a different
| profile. Within a profile, I use containers to further partition
| things.
|
| edit: for instance, I have a 'banking' profile with containers
| for each bank, brokerage, etc. The profile is totally separate
| from my 'general browsing' profile, so nothing can be sniffed.
| And the containers allow me to partition off each service
| scns wrote:
| Good idea, i opened a private window with all extensions
| disabled for banking and closed the normal window. Like your
| solution even more.
| chrisjc wrote:
| Very interesting... The one nice thing about containers is
| being able to move sites from one profile to another if
| necessary.
|
| Can you do the same with profiles? If I come across a link in
| one profile, but one to open it in another, is there a way
| seamless way to do it?
| mech422 wrote:
| other the copy/paste the url? I'm not aware of one..though,
| that's not very 'seamless' :-) The whole idea is that
| profiles are totally separate - separate process, config,
| etc.
| commoner wrote:
| I use profiles and containers together in Firefox, which gives
| more flexibility than either of these features alone.
|
| Firefox lacks a built-in profile switcher menu like the one in
| Chrome, but the FOSS browser extension called Profile Switcher
| for Firefox is a similar replacement:
|
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/profile-switc...
|
| You'll need to install the connector for the extension to work:
|
| https://github.com/null-dev/firefox-profile-switcher-connect...
| cassepipe wrote:
| I always wondered why there was no easier way to change
| profiles in firefox than about:profiles. I am not sure what
| your solution is though, would you mind going into details ?
| Thanks in advance
| nsomaru wrote:
| You can create a shortcut which will launch with the profile
| of choice: https://support.mozilla.org/bm/questions/1171685
| imbnwa wrote:
| The problem is that this is the same solution as it was in
| 2005 and no average user is mucking about with specified
| shortcuts or command line flags. Chromium has demonstrated
| the most obvious GUI for this but for whatever reason the
| FF product team believes we should prefer about:profiles or
| this solution.
| commoner wrote:
| There is an easier way, if you are willing to install the
| Profile Switcher for Firefox extension and accompanying
| connector. See my other comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28356472
| mickhead23 wrote:
| I launch my FF profiles from the terminal using aliases. But
| I guess some people would find that difficult (though it's
| not) even if they do happen to be a Linux user.
| mech422 wrote:
| I just have a shortcut for launching with the -P (Profile)
| and -new-process options.
| extra88 wrote:
| What benefit do you get from starting another Firefox instance
| with a different profile compared to simply using a different
| container in the same instance?
| pavon wrote:
| The ability to configure browser and extension settings
| differently for different profiles, plus different
| history/cookie for each.
|
| This is nice for experimenting with changes to umatrix
| settings without having results "pollute" my long-lived
| container storage.
|
| Also nice as a relief valve for when I don't won't to deal
| with my locked-down default settings, and just want to open
| up a site with everything enabled in a temporary container
| that gets blown away when I'm done.
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| Different profiles can have different extensions, so if you
| don't fully trust some extension you can isolate it to a
| given profile.
| tzs wrote:
| Also different bookmarks and different histories.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| Alternative low-effort solution that might break some websites
| (only issue I've run into so far is U2F based 2FA with Duo):
|
| privacy.firstparty.isolate -> true (in about:config)
|
| Effectively acts as a separate 'container' for every website.
| syshum wrote:
| The problem here comes in when you have things like SSO where
| many sites auth to Google, or AzureAD, etc.
|
| With Continers I can login to the same site with mutiple
| accounts, for example one common use it where you have a Admin
| Account, and a Regular Account. You can use FireFox Containers
| to access the same site(s) using different accounts
|
| I also do this with Amazon, so I can have my Work Amazon, and
| my personal Amazon separated with out having to use the "Change
| Account" feature which I find to be annoying
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| Yeah, I agree there are definitely usecases containers
| address that FPI doesn't. However, if your use case is just
| "I don't want Facebook and friends to track me across
| websites", you should give FPI a try!
| thrwawy283 wrote:
| The real gem is this extension: Temporary Containers
|
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-con...
|
| Basically every new tab is a new temporary container. Isolation
| all the time, by default. It's an added exercise for the reader,
| but you have to go into the settings of the extension and modify
| some of the mouse behavior. Basically if I want a link I click to
| share the same container as the parent, I Ctrl + Click. Left-
| clicking or middle-clicking is always a new temporary container.
|
| Containers are so much more than cookie isolation.
| KeyBoardG wrote:
| Agreed, I love this. Just use a different hot-key to open a new
| tab that is in its own container.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| How is that different from anonymous browsing tabs?
| pvitz wrote:
| Apart from the features in the sibling comment, your history
| will be kept.
| lucideer wrote:
| Anon browsing allows max 2 separate simultaneous contexts:
| the anon session and your tracked session. This allows many
| different anon sessions. It's also a nicer more consistent
| integration if you already use (permanent) containers.
| zamadatix wrote:
| It's per tab not per window and they can coexist with trusted
| containers. It also has a non-automatic mode where you select
| sites that open in temporary containers instead of selecting
| sites that don't.
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| I add Containerize to that:
|
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/containerise
|
| It lets you define rules for URLs to allow any URL matching a
| pattern to always open in a certain container.
| c1yd3i wrote:
| How is this different than managing the site list for a
| Firefox Container? Just that it's a CSV and patterns are
| supported?
|
| Do you just not define anything in the Firefox Container site
| list, and rely on this to manage it instead?
| lucideer wrote:
| The main Firefox Containers extension has a nicer UI but
| quite a lot of missing features. Mainly the ability to edit
| the site list directly, and the fact that the way it
| registers a site against a container means it can't support
| adding a redirect to a container, nor (related) having
| separate Google services in separate containers (e.g. a
| Youtube container and separate Gmail container).
| nsomaru wrote:
| For me a source of some frustration is redirects and
| subdomains, which I need to visit manually with network
| switched off in order to add to the right container. This
| will help a lot for that issue!
| [deleted]
| abryzak wrote:
| I use this as well and it's quite good.
|
| The only thing I sometimes have a problem with is when going
| through a payment flow using PayPal and forgetting to open the
| site in a persistent container. Many sites will fail to process
| the payment on the redirect back to the site as it ends up in
| another container.
|
| I haven't looked recently, but I didn't see an option to open a
| site in an existing temporary container based on domain if
| there is one already open which I believe would solve this.
| d4nyll wrote:
| I've been using Firefox Containers for over half a year now (I
| use it with the Temporary Containers[1] extension). For most
| parts, it's working great.
|
| However, whenever I encounter pop-up sign-in pages, such as for
| older websites and some Firefox extensions, the resulting user
| session cannot be accessed by the original page or extension.
| This is even if I open the pop-up with the same container, or
| with the 'No container' option.
|
| [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-
| con...
| konradkpl wrote:
| Firefox Containers is a great feature that deserves more credits.
| This feature allows us to avoid tracking, while at the same time
| ensuring the convenience of use and does not require the user to
| change their habits. Do you want to limit facebook? Create the
| container, set the default facebook.com opening in it, and use
| the browser as before. This should be a standard feature in any
| browser.
| freediver wrote:
| Not a container user so I hope you don't mind me asking, how is
| this different to opening facebook in new private tab/window?
| Is the convenience in the act of automatically opening it in
| container if you type in facebook.com or follow a link to it?
| charles-m-knox wrote:
| Love seeing mentions of Firefox containers on HN. The native
| multi-account containers UI isn't able to do things such as
| container filtering, bulk rename/delete/recollection/etc, so a
| bit less than a year ago I wrote a lightweight extension to help
| manage containers here:
|
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/containers-he...
| charles-m-knox wrote:
| I'm not sure how to edit my original comment, but
| "recollection" should be "re-color". This was due to
| autocorrect.
| wussboy wrote:
| Bookmarked. Will try immediately upon arrival at work.
| gnufied wrote:
| Personally I love containers and I can't imagine using a browser
| without them. Though one issue which has been long standing for
| me is - tab search ('%') only works for current container. This
| is a big problem if you have 10-15 tabs open in different
| containers. Switching to tab you want is not easy. I wish mozilla
| prioritized and fixed -
| https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1479858
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-30 23:02 UTC)