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

uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

discourse.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 340 posts

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#191

Post by Ntrails »

bad_user wrote: post #174

After being a Chrome user for several years, I've switched back to Firefox for the past two years or so and I'm really, really happy with it. Latest version does multi-processing, e10s is finally here (though it might still get disabled by usage of certain add-ons, I remember I had to force it to stay enabled). On performance, in the past it felt sluggish, but now Firefox is fast and for my usage patterns it uses les…

One thing I've been finding lately with firefox is that the Netflix website is abysmally slow. It lags on loading, goes unresponsive a lot etc etc.

I've always watched twitch in Chrome (second browser, other screen, works fine) because firefox used to be bad. It's likely that I will start doing the same with Netflix.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#192

Post by baby »

weaksauce wrote: post #81
syshum wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are making to where a version of TreeTabs are possible, this new API will enable functionality like in Chrome (see my other comment) but it will not be the same. if I wanted Chrome style Vertical tabs I would have moved to chrome years ago

Seeing as how there is an api in place to have a built in sidebar in firefox, plenty of tab and window API methods available, a way to hide the horizontal tabs at the top of the screen and the developer of treeStyleTabs saying that they will be able to move to webextensions fine... I fail to see how this will be inferior to an XUL extension. Can you elaborate on how the old tree style tabs is different other than usi…

He uses eval in safe ways, according to the developer. So I think your argument is mout unless you can point the unsafe uses.

Now, the real question is: "why isn't Firefox developing a default Tree Style Tab?"

I think at this point enough people are using it, and it has proven to be a better way to browse.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#193

Post by baby »

bad_user wrote: post #174

After being a Chrome user for several years, I've switched back to Firefox for the past two years or so and I'm really, really happy with it. Latest version does multi-processing, e10s is finally here (though it might still get disabled by usage of certain add-ons, I remember I had to force it to stay enabled). On performance, in the past it felt sluggish, but now Firefox is fast and for my usage patterns it uses les…

Tree Style Tab is the biggest difference for me, if you haven't used it before you are probably slow to browse the web :)

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#194

Post by Certhas »

Ntrails wrote: post #191
bad_user wrote: post #174

After being a Chrome user for several years, I've switched back to Firefox for the past two years or so and I'm really, really happy with it. Latest version does multi-processing, e10s is finally here (though it might still get disabled by usage of certain add-ons, I remember I had to force it to stay enabled). On performance, in the past it felt sluggish, but now Firefox is fast and for my usage patterns it uses les…

One thing I've been finding lately with firefox is that the Netflix website is abysmally slow. It lags on loading, goes unresponsive a lot etc etc. I've always watched twitch in Chrome (second browser, other screen, works fine) because firefox used to be bad. It's likely that I will start doing the same with Netflix.

Make some noise to Netflix then to make sure their Website works with Firefox.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#195

Post by a_imho »

wyc wrote: post #94

Keep in mind that it's not within Google's incentives to facilitate ad-blocking and prevention of tracking. After all, that's where the lion's share of their revenue comes from. However, Mozilla is free to actively support such efforts.

Opt out adblocking should be the number 1 differentiator as it has the biggest impact on browsing including performance, security and eye sore. It is borderline negligence that moz://a is not pushing it while Google and co are lubing up users with their Acceptable Ads nonsense.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#196

Post by pmlnr »

bad_user wrote: post #174

After being a Chrome user for several years, I've switched back to Firefox for the past two years or so and I'm really, really happy with it. Latest version does multi-processing, e10s is finally here (though it might still get disabled by usage of certain add-ons, I remember I had to force it to stay enabled). On performance, in the past it felt sluggish, but now Firefox is fast and for my usage patterns it uses les…

> On performance, in the past it felt sluggish, but now Firefox is fast and for my usage patterns it uses less memory than Chrome.

/me remembers how fast FF was compared to IE 'back in the days'.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#197

Post by newscracker »

weaksauce wrote: post #74
JoshTriplett wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

!sp will give you the google results without the google tracking as it's a proxy of google results.

I use "!s" in DDG to get to Startpage [1] search results. One letter shorter to access the same - no need to type "!sp" when one can just type "!s" instead. :)

This does not work for replacing "!spi" (image search on Startpage) though. Using "!si" does a search on a non-existent subdomain sportsillustrated.cnn.com.

[1]: https://www.startpage.com

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#198

Post by sammoth »

fabrice_d wrote: post #98
wyc wrote: post #94

Keep in mind that it's not within Google's incentives to facilitate ad-blocking and prevention of tracking. After all, that's where the lion's share of their revenue comes from. However, Mozilla is free to actively support such efforts.

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.

In my experience tracking protection breaks a lot of websites so I am not surprised it's not enabled by default

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#199

Post by newscracker »

retox wrote: post #69
timlyo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you recommend a search engine? I'm trying DuckDuckGo, but it's just not as good.

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

I follow a three step model: 1. DDG 2. If that doesn't help, then use !s to search Startpage. 3. If that doesn't help, then use !g to search Google.

Other than the relevance and quality of search results, there are differences in features across these sites, like date range search, for example. Image search also seems to have more flexibility on Google. I haven't checked recently if reverse image search even exists on DDG or Startpage.

Re: uBlock Origin Maintainer on Chrome vs. Firefox WebExtensions

#200

Post by efreak »

nothis wrote: post #180
djsumdog wrote: post #41

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.

>Browser Plugins >No plugins detected. Interesting. I have 6 installed on Firefox.

Firefox no longer reports installed plugins to websites. It causes some interesting behavior on websites that check to see if you have flash before letting you play games (sorry, you need to have flash installed). I had a user script for a while that 'fixed' the navigator.$whatever to show having flash installed so I could play some game; now I just use Shumway and it seems to work.
Post reply on HN