141–150 of 340 posts
I am considering going back to FF, but it seems FIDO U2F still isn't done completely and the U2F Extension for FF is not working anymore since the WebExtension switch. Please correct me if missed something, but i think i have to hold off for a little bit longer.
Just today someone posted that they're about to get U2F in the main browser: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1245527
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This actually made me try switching to Firefox again. There's some minor things missing, but for the most part all the features I want are there.
Same for me. I fired up Firefox for the first time in years and it works great. The hardest part to get used to is their super-weird hamburger menu layout.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always hit DDG first then if the results aren't great just append the Google bang (!g) in the DDG search field to get an unbubbled goog search. The DDG bang system is one of its best features in my mind. https://duckduckgo.com/bang
How often do you end up at Google though; a few years back I tried DDG for a couple of months but ended up basically always doing !g and so went back to Google. Might be time for another go?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you recommend a search engine? I'm trying DuckDuckGo, but it's just not as good.
> I'm trying DuckDuckGo, but it's just not as good. It took me a while of using DDG before I realized how much I had equated "good" with "looks like Google". What finally hit me, hard, was that I switched the DDG theme to a color scheme designed to look like Google search results, and all of a sudden the results "felt better". Markedly better. So, I started regularly comparing results, every time I found something th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty insane how much your browser knows about you: http://webkay.robinlinus.com/ There's another one I can't find, but it writes out things like "user moved mouse to x,y. User has been idle for 10 seconds, page lost focus, page gained focus" .. kinda creepy how much is available to the Javascript engine.
You must be talking about clickclickclick.click And thanks for the new novelty website bookmark :D
Clickable link
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing I learned several years ago when I decided to jump on the bandwagon and try Chrome was that Chrome was unable to safely block javascript the way NoScript does because the plugin framework doesn't allow a plugin to block Javascript before it's loaded. So all the noscript equivalent for Chrome could offer was to block Javascript after it had loaded. Which seemed unreal and pointless. So I stayed on Firefox. B…
I found uMatrix to be an adequate substitute once figured out ( http://adamantine.me/index.php/2015/11/18/umatrix-desperatel... )
For technical users, uMatrix' interface is an amazing achievement in, effectively, managing application firewall rules. It's breathtakingly efficient in both communicating active settings to the user and in configuring new rules. I wish my actual firewalls used that interface.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that was that clear cut, they would ship tracking protection enabled by default, not just in Private Browsing mode. The default configuration of Safari is actually protecting you better than Firefox's and most users don't have an ad blocker installed.
Just like in IE/Edge, the "Do not track" setting used to be enabled by default, then it became disabled by default, and for good reason. The argument is, if it is enabled by default, sites will not bothered to support it since it was not something that the user turned on explicitly and was aware of.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tracking-protection-pbm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be perfectly honest I'm not at all interested in "better permissions" for plugins when it comes with the removal of flexibility that you get for free. If I've got plugin-installing malware on my system, I've got worse problems than a rogue plugin. Give me more useful over more secure any day of the week.
As someone worried about security; I hope that is not the majority opinion.
Web/browser Extensions is a terrible standard is it EXTREMELY limiting for power users. While that my not impact a ad blocker, there are countless extensions that can not work with Web Extensions and will make Chrome err sorry Firefox far less appealing to people. For me, more than a few of the extensions I use regularly are not compatible with Web Extensions, and a few of them that are critical to my productivity ar…
Do you have one example of such extension that won't work with web extensions?
TileTabs Self-Destructing Cookies
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instart_Logic
That doesn't seem related to the topic unless I'm missing it. Also it has nothing to do with browsers or Chrome vs Firefox
"Web publishers make simple DNS changes to flow the network domains that carry their HTML through the Instart Logic system. This allows our system to inject a small piece of JavaScript that can detect the presence of ad blockers. When an ad blocker is detected, the JavaScript-based virtualization layer Nanovisor, together with our intelligent cloud-based, machine learning platform, encrypts and delivers all the elements of the page using the customer’s existing delivery services.
As a result, each resource on the page, and any signals and actions such as measurement beacons or user clicks, will have its URL encrypted and obscured. This renders ad blockers ineffective, as they can no longer search for patterns which would indicate a resource is related to advertising.
The result is simply the experience that the web publisher intended on delivering to the end user with no changes to the ad delivery or measurement systems; end users have no need to be aware the technology is even being used."