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

Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum

hacks.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 190 posts

Re: Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum

#141

Post by krzyk »

DerfNet wrote: post #69
saberworks wrote: post #46

Frustrated by the new "screenshots" tool. The "save" button automatically uploads your screenshot up to mozilla servers. The "download" button saves it to your computer. It seems completely backwards. The "save" button should save it to my computer (there's no reason call something a "download" when it's already local). The "download" button should be replaced with an "upload & share" button that sends it to mozilla'…

honest question, why would anyone use an in-browser screenshot tool when screenshot tools already come pre-installed in basically every operating system? can Firefox's screenshot tool be disabled? I'd like to switch back from Chrome due to Big Brother concerns but not if Firefox is making questionable choices like this.

This is one of the best features of new Firefox for me. Normally I had to start up gimp, select an option, set few seconds timeout, grap the screenshot, and then edit it to show only the part I wanted.

Screenshot in firefox is aware of the page, you can select the appropriate html tag visually.

Actually I thought they removed it in recent Nighlty and was looking for it, after few days I found it in the triple dot, (just next to the start and pocket icons).

Re: Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum

#142

Post by beezle »

51Cards wrote: post #35
pricechild wrote: post #3

I've been following https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/Firefox56AddonW... It's surprised me the amount some people rely on addons for their workflow and the amount of effort they will be going through to resist this change come 57. For my usage, I've found Firefox Klar/Focus (which I believe already include the speed improvements from 57+?) on Android and have been extremely impressed.

I'll be doing the same, staying on 56 for quite awhile. This transition has been very poorly managed by Mozilla. I understand the advantages to Quantum but they have left a very large percentage of their extension developers hanging. Web Extensions is not mature enough for many of the large extensions to be ported but despite that they are proceeding with this transition anyhow. If I was an affected extension develop…

I suspect I'll be on 56 for a very long time as well. I ran on nightlies for many, many years but that ended at 57. At a bare minimum, noScript must be shown to be fully and consistently functional. But I have quite a few other extensions that appear to have been dead ended - self-destructing cookies and session manager are just two.

I think mozilla failed to understand that extensions were the prime differentiator and that a faster Chrome is far down the list of requirements.

Re: Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum

#143

Post by teresonos »

saberworks wrote: post #134
ianbicking wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not convinced "user research" is the best way to go here. If the majority of your selected users think "save" should mean "upload to mozilla" does that mean they're right? More or less, yes, if more people understand one design than another, then the one that more people understand is the right one. We're generally shooting for more than a majority though, we'd want most people to understand the interface, and…

Haha I am completely dismayed. So that means if I use File -> "Save Page As..." I can look forward to that eventually sending my entire page to your servers ;) Again thanks for your replies and hopefully they can be more clear in the future (without being incorrect). And just in case I have sounded like a jerk, I really do love Firefox and I have been using it since it first came out as Phoenix. I appreciate the work…

This seems to be one of those "dark patterns" in design, where they try to persuade someone to perform a certain action.

At the very least, change it to "Save to Cloud" and "Save to Disk." But to be really clear, "Upload and Share" is definitely the way to go.

Re: Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum

#144

Post by milcron »

satysin wrote: post #32
wyldfire wrote: post #4

> Firefox Quantum’s new engine uses 30% less memory than Chrome This is a pretty appealing claim. I'm ashamed to admit that one thing that might keep me on Chrome is the trove of passwords in my sync'd up account. But I'll definitely give Quantum a test drive.

> I'm ashamed to admit that one thing that might keep me on Chrome is the trove of passwords in my sync'd up account. I was the same until a few days ago when I finally took the time to switch to a real password manager. A HN'er recommended Bitwarden[0] and I have to say it was pretty painless and I am much happier knowing my passwords are with a third party (not that I have any real issue with Google but I did worry…

BitWarden is new to me, thanks for recommending it! Always good to see new open-source password managers. There are already enough proprietary ones.

Re: Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum

#145

Post by milcron »

DarkCrusader2 wrote: post #29
Diederich wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: does Chrome share any data with Google, assuming you turn the right switches off?

> assuming you turn the right switches off That's the problem. I shouldn't have to find the switches in the first place. Plus they constantly keep shuffling the settings around(on other google apps and android too) and I can never find the ones I am looking for.

Take a look at https://iridiumbrowser.de/

> Before Iridium Browser, we had to decide if we wanted to have cutting edge technologies like sandboxed processes, WebRTC, WebUSB … , or if we wanted to use a browser that respects our privacy. So we decided to use the power of free software and build a browser that can do both. We analysed the code of Chromium and stripped out the functionality which exposes data to others in a way we don‘t like. See most important changes here: https://github.com/iridium-browser/tracker/wiki/Differences-...

Re: Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum

#146

Post by satysin »

smnrchrds wrote: post #98
satysin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm ashamed to admit that one thing that might keep me on Chrome is the trove of passwords in my sync'd up account. I was the same until a few days ago when I finally took the time to switch to a real password manager. A HN'er recommended Bitwarden[0] and I have to say it was pretty painless and I am much happier knowing my passwords are with a third party (not that I have any real issue with Google but I did worry…

I would like to switch to Bitwarden, but I don't know how I can assure I can trust them with all my passwords. Are any of the founders well-known security experts? Has the service been recommended by respected security researchers? I am not a security expert, so I cannot assert their trustworthiness myself. I know that you can run your own server. But even then, without auditing the code, configuring a firewall, and…

I didn't pick Bitwarden right away. The comment that mentioned it prompted me to research password managers in general. I looked at primarily online (1Password, LastPass, Bitwarden, etc) and offline desktop client ones (Keepass).

I do prefer the idea of using something like Keepass and not relying on a service but I found it rather frustrating to manage between my multiple devices. I knew if I were to actually make use of a password manager it needed to be a smooth experience because otherwise I would just return to using Chrome's built in one out of laziness.

After researching the main online managers I decided to go with Bitwarden. It is open source so if it does do something dodgy I would hope it is found and reported. I do not have the time nor expertise to audit all of the code myself so I have to put some trust in others.

Plus while it would be a real pain in the ass if accounts were compromised due to the developer being an asshole/idiot it wouldn't destroy my life. I have a strong password on my primary email account (not stored in Bitwarden) along with 2FA. Most of the logins stored in Bitwarden are for things like Hacker News, Reddit, Slack (personal not work), etc. Randomly generated 18+ character strings that are a pain to enter manually, especially on a phone.

Re: Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum

#147

Post by satysin »

wj wrote: post #128
NikolaeVarius wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to lag on Firefox. Multiple times I've gotten notifications from Firefox Dev that Bitwarden is causing my page to not render (which was true). Can't change hotkey for auto-fill login form in Firefox. No Support for standard notes (yet I guess). UI renders very slowly on FF and has tons of strange inconsistencies. It definitely has the FEEL of a somewhat younger open source project while LastPass was much mor…

Thanks. Will probably wait for LastPass to release the firefox plugin for 57 then. Will check Bitwarden again in a few months.

Just to give a second opinion, I have not had any of the issues NikolaeVarius mentioned.

Well that is not quite true actually. In Firefox you can't change the hotkeys but that is more of a Firefox issue as you can't change the hotkeys for any extension. You can in Chrome though.

Re: Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum

#148

Post by C0DEHERO »

hadrien01 wrote: post #5
pricechild wrote: post #3

I've been following https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/Firefox56AddonW... It's surprised me the amount some people rely on addons for their workflow and the amount of effort they will be going through to resist this change come 57. For my usage, I've found Firefox Klar/Focus (which I believe already include the speed improvements from 57+?) on Android and have been extremely impressed.

Unfortunately that's also where I'll stop during at least a few months after Firefox 57 is released. Quantum is ultra fast, but my extensions are more important. Greasemonkey and Stylish, for example, have equivalent WebExtensions, but they're not as polished. Same with DownThemAll. I think WebExtensions should have matured a bit longer, with Quantum, electrolysis, and Photon being made available for all with the old…

The problem is that electrolysis alone already kept breaking hundreds of addons, so that wouldn't have worked. The only way to prevent breakage, from what I've gathered, would have been to just keep Firefox like it is and not go on with Quantum, which really wouldn't have been great either. And of course, with more users testing WebExtension addons, those new addons hsould mature a lot faster than before.

Re: Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum

#149

Post by kaishiro »

ianbicking wrote: post #117
saberworks wrote: post #46

Frustrated by the new "screenshots" tool. The "save" button automatically uploads your screenshot up to mozilla servers. The "download" button saves it to your computer. It seems completely backwards. The "save" button should save it to my computer (there's no reason call something a "download" when it's already local). The "download" button should be replaced with an "upload & share" button that sends it to mozilla'…

Hi, Screenshots developer here – We've gotten similar feedback about the Save and Download buttons, we added the cloud icon in part to make that clearer. I feel like there's a ticket about it as well, but I not able to find it. We're planning on adding a Copy button, and we'll probably do some user research on the buttons generally to make sure the choice is clear. We did have a full page screenshot feature, but it d…

I too found this dialog to have bizarre choices for function and iconography. My main gripe with it is that there are now two "Save" actions in Firefox that have completely different functionality (Save a page vs Save a screenshot). I found this to be a very odd choice.

Re: Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum

#150

Post by jamesgeck0 »

mozoldie wrote: post #59
atonse wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have developer edition. I don't see it. Is it just like Safari's where you can get extensions that provide content blocking lists?

IIRC there's an option to enable tracking protection in normal browsing on desktop. It's enabled by default in private browsing. (I can't check right now though - it's possible it's just an about:config option too.) Firefox iOS (on iOS 11+) definitively offers those options, on Android it's private browsing only by default and I don't think there's an option to enable it in normal browsing.

In Firefox Developer edition on macOS there's no obvious way to add new blocklist sources in the UI. You can switch between two provided by Disconnect.me, and that's it.
Post reply on HN