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

An Update on Firefox Containers

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 107 posts

Re: An Update on Firefox Containers

#71

Post by y4mi »

Sujan wrote: post #68
grandpoobah wrote: post #67

Here's what I've just done - * Cleared all cookies for Facebook and Google * Created a new container called "No tracking" * Set facebook, gmail, analytics, youtube and all google services other than Search to always open in "No tracking" Now in theory Facebook and Google can't track me across the web (at least not in a way that it's linked to my real identity), and I don't have to do anything to maintain this. Anybod…

Yes: IP address.

and so many more datapoints such as screen & window resolution/size, installed plugins…

even if you're splitting your browsing between sessions manually, they still only need to match them once.

Re: An Update on Firefox Containers

#72

Post by acqq »

grandpoobah wrote: post #67

Here's what I've just done - * Cleared all cookies for Facebook and Google * Created a new container called "No tracking" * Set facebook, gmail, analytics, youtube and all google services other than Search to always open in "No tracking" Now in theory Facebook and Google can't track me across the web (at least not in a way that it's linked to my real identity), and I don't have to do anything to maintain this. Anybod…

The cookies. If I understand correctly the discussion, people here observe that e.g. Facebook cookies from your example are saved also outside of "No tracking" "container."

Re: An Update on Firefox Containers

#73

Post by thaumasiotes »

clumsysmurf wrote: post #15

I love this feature, but it seems missing a critical thing. You can say 'always open websites A1, A2, A3 in container Y' but you can't say 'container Y only hosts websites A1, A2, A3'. After time the container gets polluted with cookies from links clicked on website Ax. Hopefully this gets fixed soon. Edit: replaces 1 website with multiple websites Edit 2 : Another useful feature, would be cookie policy per container…

I want different settings for different containers. Sure, isolating cookies is helpful, but let me send them through different proxies too.

Re: An Update on Firefox Containers

#74

Post by aembleton »

lucideer wrote: post #69

For me, the most significant part of this announcement is the breaking out of this feature into an extension. Some interesting questions - Does this represent a deprioritisation of the feature by Mozilla (it would seem not, since there's an explicit WebExtensions API just for this, but I'm curious to see how the level of maintenance of the extension UI keeps up with browser changes going forward) - This seems like th…

Personally I don't want this feature. Because it is an extension, I don't have to have it and my browser can be lighter. This is exactly what should happen, move as much as possible into extensions.

If WebExtensions doesn't allow for this, then yes, Firefox should extend it. That way, other extensions can make use of it. You might not be able to port it to Chrome because it is using specific Firefox APIs but the alternative is not to have this feature. I expect to see other extensions in the future like the ability to hide the tab bar.

Re: An Update on Firefox Containers

#75

Post by Vinnl »

clumsysmurf wrote: post #15

I love this feature, but it seems missing a critical thing. You can say 'always open websites A1, A2, A3 in container Y' but you can't say 'container Y only hosts websites A1, A2, A3'. After time the container gets polluted with cookies from links clicked on website Ax. Hopefully this gets fixed soon. Edit: replaces 1 website with multiple websites Edit 2 : Another useful feature, would be cookie policy per container…

Although I have no idea how an interface for something like this would look, it does sound like an excellent idea! Could you suggest it here if it has't been suggested yet? https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account-containers/issues

Re: An Update on Firefox Containers

#76

Post by Vinnl »

lucideer wrote: post #69

For me, the most significant part of this announcement is the breaking out of this feature into an extension. Some interesting questions - Does this represent a deprioritisation of the feature by Mozilla (it would seem not, since there's an explicit WebExtensions API just for this, but I'm curious to see how the level of maintenance of the extension UI keeps up with browser changes going forward) - This seems like th…

I know they were struggling with a way to make this available to the users without being confusing. Making it an extension probably comes down to "we had no idea how to do that/only power users considered it useful, so an extension is a good compromise". In other words: if an extension is a good way to serve a significant part of a certain group of niche users (i.e. power users), they will probably properly maintain it but keep distributing it in this way.

Oh, and about the API: they already had quite a few API's that weren't available in Chrome (e.g. the sidebar API). It will be interesting to see whether/how much they will be able to get standardised, and if they are willing to make breaking changes to the API if the W3C desires those to be made.

Re: An Update on Firefox Containers

#77

Post by Vinnl »

aembleton wrote: post #74
lucideer wrote: post #69

For me, the most significant part of this announcement is the breaking out of this feature into an extension. Some interesting questions - Does this represent a deprioritisation of the feature by Mozilla (it would seem not, since there's an explicit WebExtensions API just for this, but I'm curious to see how the level of maintenance of the extension UI keeps up with browser changes going forward) - This seems like th…

Personally I don't want this feature. Because it is an extension, I don't have to have it and my browser can be lighter. This is exactly what should happen, move as much as possible into extensions. If WebExtensions doesn't allow for this, then yes, Firefox should extend it. That way, other extensions can make use of it. You might not be able to port it to Chrome because it is using specific Firefox APIs but the alte…

That sounds rather arbitrary. In fact, most of the feature is implemented in browser code; what the extension does is expose a UI for it. "Lighter" isn't really properly defined, and it feels a bit like you're just principally opposed to code you don't personally use "being there", which I don't think is really productive if it doesn't really impact your use in another way.

Re: An Update on Firefox Containers

#78

Post by Vinnl »

47 wrote: post #60

I have being using Chrome Profile(People) feature since they were introduce. It has been a god send for me. I tried Firefox containers for a couple of days here a couple things that will really help: * Containers need to be per window. Keeping track of containers at Tab level is lot of mental work. * Set a different default container per device. For example I want to set different default for an office laptop, home c…

The equivalent feature you're probably looking for is Profiles, which have been in Firefox for ages already :) It's pretty similar to Chrome's. See about:profiles.

Containers already are not shared between devices.

Re: An Update on Firefox Containers

#79

Post by Vinnl »

digikata wrote: post #61
c0nducktr wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might like the "Containers On The Go" addon. It adds a second new tab button which will create a container for the new tab it creates, which then is deleted as soon as you close the tab. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/containers-on... Someone also made a theme which will color the temporary container windows a different color so you can easily differentiate them from the normal tabs/windows. https…

I wish they would create a "private" container that is equivalent to the private browsing window. This sounds pretty close...

I think for all intents and purposes it is the same, except perhaps for blocking trackers.

Re: An Update on Firefox Containers

#80

Post by Vinnl »

nicklaf wrote: post #21

Any reason why new tabs shouldn't create an entirely new, isolated container by default? And then allow the user to close tabs implicitly by performing a merge operation with some existing container (say, dragging with the mouse with a hotkey held down onto an existing tab group representing a single container)? And alternatively, "merging" with the empty container, which would retroactively implement incognito mode…

As a default action, that would be rather unintuitive: you'd be logged out every time you open a new tab.
Post reply on HN