Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Save Firefox

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 266 posts

Re: Save Firefox

#211

Post by developer2 »

timlyo wrote: post #198
Endy wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand anyone's desire to support a Google-backed browser.

I used to make an effort to use FF, but it gradually got slower, froze up more often, had problems with content I was viewing. The final straw was when they had a big update. Instead of fixing any of these issues, they gave me the ability to call people with service I don't use by clicking a link :/

Similar boat here. I abandoned Firefox back in the day due to the memory and freezing problems, and general lack of responsiveness compared to Chrome. The difference in everyday use was massive here; we went from having a browser that could hardly handle having 3 tabs open while using a gigabyte of memory, to one that worked flawlessly and used a fraction of the resources. Firefox then put in a lot of effort fixing those issues. By this time though, Chrome's built-in DevTools was more robust for my tastes compared to Firebug or the horrific early versions of their built-in replacement. I had a good development setup, all the addons I needed, and a fast browser. I simply had little reason to switch back.

I did spend a brief period swapping back to Firefox for the sake of perceived privacy, but then they started bundling all sorts of third party bloatware and it was just too much. I'm not a superfan of the information I imagine Google collects from my using Chrome, but the browser itself is just too good to give up. Firefox now only gets opened to verify cross-browser functionality of frontend UIs I work on, and on rare occasions when I want to use a proxy in a browser without it being used system-wide.

Re: Save Firefox

#212

Post by sangnoir »

Endy wrote: post #151
jgon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. If Firefox had not put it in, nothing would have happened because programmers have (largely) decided to give chrome a majority market-share amongst them, and advocate it to their non-technical peers, increasing its market share amongst that group as well. If programmers actually used firefox and advocated it to the point where it had a majority market share then maybe their refusal would carry some weight.…

I don't understand anyone's desire to support a Google-backed browser.

When it was launched, Chrome/Chromium had 2 advantages over Firefox: Speed and superior developer tools.

Chrome was unbelievably quick: the moment you clicked on the launcher and browser 'chrome' (heh) appeared instantaneously, Firefox was comparatively sluggish, and notoriously memory hungry (though that might have been the fault of sloppily written plugins)

Re: Save Firefox

#213

Post by vetinari »

irq-1 wrote: post #175
sounds wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it's not that hard: 1. Go to https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/ 2. Click on the largest version number (46.0.1 right now) 3. Select "EME-free" under your OS 4. Select your language of choice For the lazy: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/46.0.1/mac-EME-... https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/46.0.1/win64-EM... https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/46.0.1/linux-x8... Thi…

You can turn it off in the options. From https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm Opt out of CDM playback, uninstall CDMs and stop all CDM downloads You have the choice to globally opt out of HTML5 DRM playback. Once you opt out, Firefox will delete any downloaded CDMs from your hard drive, cease all future CDM downloads and disable DRM playback. This affects only DRM-controlled HTML5 audio and video. To opt o…

For a normal user, the problem is that the Play DRM content checkbox is hidden by default.

In order to enable it, you must go to about:config and enable browser.eme.ui.enabled. While you are there, you can just disable media.eme.enabled and media.eme.apiVisible.

Re: Save Firefox

#215

Post by reacweb »

reacweb wrote: post #203

Currently, watching a DRM protected video requires flash and gives an inferior experience than watching a non DRM protected video. Most of the non protected video can be easily downloaded using youtube-dl. Recently, I wanted to watch a movie on M6 live (french TV). Firefox (on wine to have the latest upgrade of flash) crashed twice. As a result, I downloaded it from a torrent and removed it after watching it. I think…

To make my opinion clear: current situation is a mess, a future with EME would be a hell.

Re: Save Firefox

#216

Post by vetinari »

Endy wrote: post #151
jgon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. If Firefox had not put it in, nothing would have happened because programmers have (largely) decided to give chrome a majority market-share amongst them, and advocate it to their non-technical peers, increasing its market share amongst that group as well. If programmers actually used firefox and advocated it to the point where it had a majority market share then maybe their refusal would carry some weight.…

I don't understand anyone's desire to support a Google-backed browser.

I do.

Browser can be either better technically, or you might have valency for certain design decisions.

If there is a browser vendors that claims certain social values, but is constantly failing to execute them in the design, you might as well just use the technically better one that does not pretend to protect the values you consider worth protecting. You will be spared of the constant disappointment.

Re: Save Firefox

#217

Post by LoSboccacc »

firefox invested more time in the omnibar nobody wanted than in fixing compatibility issues.

we are actively discouraging people using firefox because whenever we try to use anything modern, firefox will fail it.

the wonky outline implementation has been borked for more than a luster, has multiple bug opened and ignored etc. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=687311

and I found people complaining as early as this http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2010/03/css-bugs-and-inconsi... and now I wonder how many of those are still there.

firefox cornered itself out of relevance, and this

"We need more Firefoxes.

We need more browsers that treat their users, rather than publishers, as their customers."

doesn't match with firefox priorities as observed so far at all. firefox needs to save firefox.

Re: Save Firefox

#218

Post by developer2 »

Are clickbait titles permitted on HN? The link has absolutely nothing to do with Firefox, let alone "saving it". It's an opinion piece / call to action regarding the W3C and the state of Encrypted Media Extensions. "Firefox" does not belong in the title, as it's irrelevant to the topic. Luring us with the name of a popular open source application, to then present a piece with a barely-related agenda behind it should not be acceptable.

As a side note, I'm sad to see that the EFF has adopted a PETA-like strategy to the way they tackle issues.

Re: Save Firefox

#219

Post by phn »

Well, the issue is that popups were a nuisance, while being able to watch all those publishers content is not.

I totally understand the concerns, but making users choose something out of ideology is much harder than simply providing a better experience.

Re: Save Firefox

#220

Post by vetinari »

mynameislegion wrote: post #117
wmf wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That shim exists because Chrome and Firefox have different CDM APIs. There isn't a common API.

The common API is called "EME". Chrome and Firefox's API's are different because they're unfinished.

That "EME" API is what is exposed to scripts (think DOM). Not how the browser and CDM communicates (think XPCOM).
Post reply on HN