[HN Gopher] Firefox Is Finally (Re)Adding Support for Web Apps
___________________________________________________________________
Firefox Is Finally (Re)Adding Support for Web Apps
Author : pahbloo
Score : 89 points
Date : 2025-03-26 17:25 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.omgubuntu.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.omgubuntu.co.uk)
| uutangohotel wrote:
| Too little too late?
| agiacalone wrote:
| Curiously, what is the alternative? Chromium-based browsers?
|
| Sorry, but I don't trust Google's push to Manifest V3.
| dharmab wrote:
| I daily drive https://kagi.com/orion/ on mobile and will
| likely begin to switch on desktop as their cross platform
| support emerges.
| its-summertime wrote:
| for web apps I ended up going with Gnome Web, but Tangram and
| Ferdium are other options I'm considering
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Zen is Gecko-based.
| mentalgear wrote:
| Finally, I had installed Brave just for the web-app support.
| linsomniac wrote:
| Yesterday afternoon I transitioned from Brave to Firefox. Brave
| was struggling, admittedly after a system uptime of 69 days,
| even after killing it brave would regularly struggle and do a
| whole ton of disc I/O, bringing my system to its knees.
| Rebooting fixes it, FYI, but it seems weird that "pkill -f
| brave" doesn't seem to resolve it. Slack also has similar
| struggles, this is under Ubuntu 22.04.
|
| So far Firefox has been a bit rocky, I don't seem to be able to
| open Jira tickets. Some might consider that a feature, but my
| job isn't one of them. That's shaken my faith in Firefox more
| than a bit.
| Vinnl wrote:
| If you have site-specific issues, if you're up to it it would
| be great if you could report it via the menu (or Help, on
| MacOS) -> Report broken site, or via https://webcompat.com.
| linsomniac wrote:
| Thanks, I'll give it a try! I also see in "Help" there is a
| "Troubleshoot".
| quesera wrote:
| FWIW my default Firefox profile is chock full of content
| blockers, so I _expect_ demanding sites to fail on first
| load. I grant additional permissions manually, when I must.
|
| But I had no (extra) trouble opening Jira tickets a few
| months ago when working with a partner integration.
|
| So, Jira definitely should work on Firefox.
| blizdiddy wrote:
| Mozilla were ruined by big Google checks. How they could let this
| opportunity slip while electron became the ui for every major
| desktop app... such a shame.
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| Personally, I feel Mozilla did not market XUL[1] enough. Had
| they done that, it could have become what Electron is today,
| with a native look and feel, and with a much reduced footprint
| while still offering a JS-based runtime for applications.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XUL
| dralley wrote:
| 90% of what XUL accomplished was rendered moot and obsolete
| by HTML5. The remaining 10% isn't worth it.
| coffeeling wrote:
| I remember using Songbird. It was nice.
| 0x073 wrote:
| Or chatzilla.
| rchaud wrote:
| They had support for PWA in 2021, before they pulled it. Hard
| to see this is anything other than a concession to its biggest
| funder, Google. Chrome, Edge and Safari all support installing
| PWAs, while FF, the biggest beneficiary of such a change,
| intentionally gimped theirs.
|
| https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/bring-back-pwa-progress...
| breckinloggins wrote:
| I'm not sure what Mozilla has been doing the last ten years but
| I'm fairly certain it has little to do with what users want.
|
| I am thoroughly finished with them as an organization; hopefully
| they represent the end of an ugly era, which to my recollection
| began in about 2013. I will not mourn their inevitable slide into
| complete irrelevance and financial insolvency.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| I will mourn the lack of a non-Chrome browser engine with
| enough market share to prevent Chrome from unilaterally
| changing the web.
| jm4 wrote:
| Someone can fork chromium if need be. There are at least a
| couple organizations with chromium-based browsers that have
| maintained their own engines in the past. Chromium is
| objectively very good so it's not like it's the time when we
| were left with IE5. The biggest problem now is Google trying
| to protect their ad business and the other Chromium browsers
| have been working around that. I don't think we are nearly as
| bad off as we have at other times in the past.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| I dunno. Forcing ads on everybody seems bad to me. YMMV.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| A fork of Chromium is still a Chromium-based engine, and
| does nothing to combat the browser engine monoculture.
|
| I'm personally hoping for Servo/Verso, as well as hoping
| that Firefox turns around.
| nwienert wrote:
| Safari / WebKit.
|
| It's unironically better than Chrome in nearly every way,
| except dev tools.
| ctoth wrote:
| > Similarly, Rubino says web apps in Firefox will not use a
| minimal browser frame and will continue to show a main toolbar
| with address bar, extensions, bookmarks...
|
| Why is this so hard to understand? Why are they so against just
| making it work like it's supposed to? PWAs are actively useful
| and great and this is just frustrating.
| nashashmi wrote:
| It is frustrating to not know what url I have open. Some apps
| add info based on account .
| makeitdouble wrote:
| There is clearly a use case for keeping the whole UI. But it
| is the major use case and should the whole product philosophy
| be based on it ?
|
| I feel there will be more sites where the URL won't matter or
| where the user will prefer simplicity to control.
|
| I use Google Maps 99.99% in PWA mode and never mourned the
| lack of the URl bar, especially as I can open the site in
| normal browser mode anytime I ever want the full controls.
| nashashmi wrote:
| What if you want to copy and share the page?
| miramba wrote:
| Every PWA starts in a webpage, and you have to manually
| install it as PWA. If it's important for you to see the url,
| use it in the browser and don't install it? Installation only
| makes sense if the website/app is build for it.
| jampekka wrote:
| Then use it as a web page?
| postalrat wrote:
| Nobody is forcing you to use an installed PWA. Use it in a
| browser.
| wtallis wrote:
| PWAs that prevent you from getting at your browser extensions
| are an inherently user-hostile idea.
| echoangle wrote:
| Isn't there a middle where you don't show the whole browser
| chrome by default and still allow access to the extensions?
| Maybe add a tiny button to show the browser UI or add a
| shortcut?
| Vinnl wrote:
| From the Connect post I gather that a middle ground is
| basically the plan - you'll still have e.g. your extensions
| accessible, but there won't be a tab bar.
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| That is how it works in Chrome, right? Or am I going
| insane? When I open a web app I made with Chrome, there's a
| small icon in the top right of my window that opens the
| extensions dropdown.
| its-summertime wrote:
| Which is an issue I haven't had with Chrome or Gnome Web ('s
| version of extensions), even with things like VSCode which
| overrides the title bar as well
| rchaud wrote:
| Any person's first contact with a PWA is going to be in the
| full-chrome browser. The user has to voluntarily choose
| "install as web app" to actually lose the browser chrome. Not
| giving users this choice and opting them into a windowed mode
| forever makes PWA support largely useless -- just open the
| app from your bookmarks!
| bad_user wrote:
| The complaint here is that Firefox won't do what Chromium
| does, and Chromium's extensions are active and reachable in
| installed PWAs.
| mary-ext wrote:
| I don't really understand this viewpoint, Chrome does show
| your extensions
| e3bc54b2 wrote:
| My take is they just want the 'browser' to be visible, kinda
| like how banks insist on their logos being visible on co-
| branded credit cards. Considering Firefox is nearly entirely
| how Mozilla makes money, and that browser has been disappearing
| more and more starting with Chrome's launch way back in 2008,
| this just feels like pearl clutching.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > Considering Firefox is nearly entirely how Mozilla makes
| money,
|
| Is it? I thought they made money by taking it from theGoogs
| to be the "default" search when theGoogs probably thinks of
| it as ensuring there is "competition" so they are not tagged
| as monopoly. Same as the payment they make to Apple
| Vinnl wrote:
| As I understand it, two problems are:
|
| 1) There's no clear definition of what it's "supposed" to. Not
| everyone who uses the term PWA wants the same things.
|
| 2. Some things are just a lot harder to implement than others.
| owebmaster wrote:
| 1. if 90% of the people don't want a toolbar in a PWA (I'm
| being generous about 10% wanting it), it makes sense to not
| have it
|
| 2. It is not harder to implement a button to show the toolbar
| menu
|
| In all case, it should be (it already is by the spec!) a
| developer option, not something enforced by the browser.
| Vinnl wrote:
| I have learned a long time ago not to make claims about how
| hard it is to implement something in other people's
| projects - I get it wrong often enough about my own.
|
| (Also, I don't think there's a single "PWA spec".)
| bad_user wrote:
| Firefox's UI can be easily tweaked with CSS. It's
| trivial, for example, to get rid of all chrome. The real
| problem is their ideological stance against PWAs.
| inetknght wrote:
| > _Why are they so against just making it work like it 's
| supposed to?_
|
| Who are you to tell the user how their device is _supposed_ to
| work?
| bad_user wrote:
| A frustrated user probably.
| bergheim wrote:
| Every time Mozilla is on here people go crazy.
|
| And they wrote their comment using Chrome or some skin. Which
| they have used for a decade. Because the button on the left
| seemed off on Firefox compared to Chrome (always something). So
| fuck Firefox.
|
| On hacker news.
|
| Crazy.
| sho_hn wrote:
| > On hacker news.
|
| You have the wrong expectations toward HN :) It's a lot less
| frustrating if you correct them.
|
| It's the community forum for a US-based, web-heavy startup
| accelerator, not a "hacker's corner" in terms of the original
| scene. The priorities and values and interests do differ.
| cube00 wrote:
| AI heavy now
| raytopia wrote:
| Are there any forums more focused on being a "hacker's
| corner"?
| dylan604 wrote:
| alt.hackers or something like that maybe? IYKYK
| owebmaster wrote:
| lobste.rs is way more hacker and technical.
| rchaud wrote:
| More than half of its front page is identical to HN's.
| owebmaster wrote:
| Only when the front page is full of technical content.
| There you don't see posts like:
|
| - Elon Musk's SpaceX Allows Investment from China
|
| - We're Still Not Done with Jesus
|
| - Angelina Jolie Was Right About Computers
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| Any chance you can provide an invite?
| owebmaster wrote:
| sure, just sent it to the email in your profile
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| Thanks, appreciate it.
| coffeeling wrote:
| They're also little shitfucks who ban my freaking
| browser.
| rchaud wrote:
| Stack Overflow. Not a 'forum' per se but is otherwise built
| around the discussion of browser hacks.
| bergheim wrote:
| Agreed. These who would rather use a browser from an
| Orwellian company are not hackers. They are tools.
| phatfish wrote:
| I think such types are frustrated because they have enough
| domain specific knowledge to know the basics of how to fix
| their pet hate. But realise they will never have the
| motivation, skill and dedication required to follow through.
| nashashmi wrote:
| At this point, Firefox might want to shift to the advanced web
| browser user market. And maybe unleash a simple firefox product
| called firefox tails.
| fracus wrote:
| Web apps seem more beneficial to the business than to the end
| user. Like who cares?
| brulard wrote:
| What do you mean? I can have an app that i use a lot in its
| separate window accessible by cmd+tab, without unnecessary
| toolbars on top, it's not hidden among tens of other browser
| tabs and windows i have open. Works offline. That seems quite
| useful to me.
| miramba wrote:
| For the first time ever, it is possible to build an app that
| runs on anything that can run webkit. I use the same app on
| iOS, Android, Windows, MacOS, Debian, even GrapheneOS. No
| AppStore, no account needed. I think it benefits or at least
| could benefit the end user a lot in the long term, but it hurts
| the walled/semiwalled gardens of MS, Apple and Google and their
| business. Which is why they seem so reluctant to support it
| better. How Firefox does not see this potential app freedom is
| beyond me.
| jampekka wrote:
| How so? Businesses and middlemen make a killing with non-web-
| apps.
| Vinnl wrote:
| Good to know: this is about desktop. Firefox for Android already
| supports installable web apps.
| thinkingemote wrote:
| I would like to see them re develop positron (firefox + electron)
| https://github.com/mozilla/positron
| account-5 wrote:
| Why would I want to use a pwa that hides the things that allow me
| to control what the browser does? I actively use websites over
| apps solely because I have more control over the interaction.
| throwawa14223 wrote:
| I used Firefox for the lack of these features. Time to look at an
| alternative.
| Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote:
| I have been installing some PWAs lately at work and... I love
| them. They have been replacing the need for electron and they
| also feel integrated with the OS.
|
| In chrome, there is always a button to "bring back" the app from
| pwa into a browser tab (really nice). There is the option to open
| links directly in the pwa, you can access your extension from a
| small icon. I read that on the specs there might be an option to
| keep tabs around, for things like notion where your might need
| tabs (that would be really cool).
|
| Overall, I'm impressed positively. Apple it's right to be scared
| about those, I would use PWAs for everything that's online for
| sure, for stuff that's offline probably too.
|
| Excalidraw is great as PWA :)
| HelloUsername wrote:
| > Chrome PWAs have been replacing the need for Electron
|
| Isn't Electron based on Chromium?
| Fire-Dragon-DoL wrote:
| Yes, it was suggesting it from a weird side: a user that
| thinks the need for releasing electron apps is way less now.
|
| It's a weird side because I have no control over an app using
| electron or not.
| nolist_policy wrote:
| First Certificate Transparency[1] now PWAs. Looks like Firefox is
| finally catching up.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43175793
| mary-ext wrote:
| I don't really understand what this is for then if it doesn't
| spawn in a minimal frame. This is somehow worse than just having
| a shortcut to open the app in a regular browser tab.
| mid-kid wrote:
| This whole article leaves me thinking that they just reinvented
| having a separate window for each page, and are just calling them
| "taskbar tabs" instead of "windows". After inventing tabs, we've
| now come full circle.
| cadamsdotcom wrote:
| It's never too late, glad to see feature work that gets
| attention.
|
| Hopefully they keep building from here & do full PWA and then
| from there to an answer to Electron!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-26 23:02 UTC)